Does God Exist?

Evan Wiggs

Atheists are fond of asking the difficult questions to christians. Many don't want the christian to really answer they just want them to cringe before their great intellect. But they are not as smart as they think. Actually each question is weak in points and with this paper I intend to look at the atheist's questions and answer each one so that you as reader can be adequately armed when you come to your meeting with the evangelical atheists. Atheism is loosing out today in the postmodern world. They are making a lot of noise lately but that is mostly a death rattle. I am working on a paper refuting Hitchens "God is not Great", Dawkins "The God Delusion" who are part of the fearsome foursome of modern atheism.

Now to the questions that atheists like to ask. I will answer in bold font.

The Questions:

I can’t see him, I can’t hear him, I can’t feel him. My senses don’t register him. It is amazing that this argument is still tried. I know the Jesus Seminar looked for Jesus, but my grandmother Lillian sure found Him. This is a classic argument from silence. It only shows the paucity of thought.
I believe God is merely a creation of our own wish from something bigger than us. It is a reflection of our own insecurities. This irrational in that the atheist can really only describe his own motives. He believes God is thus. This is a strawman argument, God is being redefined as a wish fulfillment and thus can be argued away. This argument has another serious error. How can men know that God is “nothing but” a projection, unless they have “more than” knowledge? To be sure that man’s consciousness is the limit of reality and that there is nothing beyond it, one must go beyond the limits of man’s consciousness. But if one can go beyond, then there are no limits. This objection says that nothing exists outside our minds, but a person must go outside the boundaries of his own mind to say that. This is a self defeating argument.
A belief in God is irrational. Logic doesn’t apply to a belief in God. We cannot empirically prove him so he doesn’t exist. This belief in God is only irrational if the logic is only based on the material world. By saying that we cannot empiracally prove Him is basing all on material science. The atheists cannot empiracally prove his own mind which is making this false deduction. I will answer the following questions below.
(Cosmological Disproof) God is a self-causing being. But it is impossible to cause one’s own being, for a cause is prior to its effect, and one can’t be prior to oneself. Therefore God doesn’t exist.
(Teleological Disproof) The universe was either designed or it happened by chance. Chance is an adequate cause of the universe. Therefore the universe was not designed and God doesn’t exist.
(Ontological Disproof) God is by definition a necessary existence. But necessity cannot apply to existence. Therefore, God does not exist.
(Moral Disproof) An all-good God would destroy all evil. An all-powerful God could destroy evil. But evil is not destroyed. Therefore such a God does not exist.
(Existential Disproof) If God exists then all is determined. But if all is determined then I am not free. But I am free. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

The Answers:

1. Cosmological (from creation) Argument.

Prime Cause Argument.

There is a universe and it is finite and of limited duration.

The universe had a beginning.

Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something.

Therefore the universe has a creator.

How do we know the universe is finite, of limited duration and had a beginning?

1. Second law of thermodynamics. This is the law of entropy or the fact that all energy and order lead to states of less energy or less order. This is very simple. I have a more rigorous definition in my paper 10 Reasons Evolution is Wrong. What entropy tells us is that the universe is like a top that has been spun and it is winding down.

2. Evidence of a “Big Bang” Beginning. We can look all around us in the universe and see we had some kind of energetic beginning. There is a heat signiture in the 2 meter band in space that tells us there was some heat at sometime in the past. So it appears that with that heat there was also a beginning.

3. Time cannot be infinite. This argument goes as this:

An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed. If an infinite number of moments had to elapse before today, then today would have never come. But today has come. Therefore an infinite number of moments have not elapsed before today. (i.e. the universe had a beginning). But whatever is has a beginning is caused by something. Hence, there must be a Cause (Creator) of the universe.

Dependency Argument. This is a sub-cosmological argument.

Why is there something right now rather than nothing? What is keeping us in existence? The argument is:

Every part of the universe is dependent. If every part of the universe is dependent, then the whole universe must also be dependent. Therefore the whole universe is dependent for existence right now on some independent Being.

2. Teleological (end or purpose) Argument.

Design and Information Argument.

All designs imply a designer. There is great design in the universe. Therefore there must be a Great Designer of the universe.

How do we know the universe is designed and not just a random event?

1. Complex design such as watches, buildings and paintings require a creator.

2. The greater the design requires a greater designer. Beavers make log dams but they could never make a Grand Coulee dam. A million monkeys sitting at typewriters for a million years could never type Hamlet, but Shakespeare did it on the first try.

3. “Complex design” means specified complexity. Crystals have specificity but not complexity. A crystal's information put into letters would be abababab Random polymers have complexity but no specificity. A random polymer's information put into letters would be: jfgakreutiohtpaiohr.

Living cells have both complexity and specificity. This kind of specified complexity is never produced by natural laws. The living cell information put into letters would be this sentence: DNA is the most specific complex code known to man.

3. The Ontological (being, reality) Argument.

The Perfect Being Argument.

If God did not exist, then He would be lacking one perfection, namely existence. But if God lacked any perfection, then He would not be absolutely perfect. But God is by definition an absolutely perfect being. Therefore, an absolutely perfect being (God) must exist.

The Necessary Being Argument.

If God exists we must conceive of Him as a Necessary Being. But by definition, a Necessary Being cannot not exist. Therefore, if a Necessary Being can, then it must exist

Now we will look at somemore arguments we can look to for help in talking with our atheists friends

This moral law argument is a great argument for the person who believes in nothing but the material. I all that exists is material then there is not reason to believe in absolute morality. These people are fond is saying this statement in many varying ways. "Everything is relative" They misunderstand that, that statement is itself self defeating and is an absolute statement destroying their whole argument. every atheist will agree that there appears to be a moral law. I remember on my younger days I worked with an evangelical atheists. We worked in a book store and one day we all were working sorting books on a big table. The atheist, looking to score some points against the lowly christian said: "I don't believe there is any such thing as sin." I let the silence go on for a bit to make my statement more dramatic. I said to him:
Have you ever done anything to anyone, a friend or loved one that you are so ashamed of and would not want to share with everyone right now?" He looked at me speechless as thoughts flooded his mind and I said: "That is sin!" So we come to the moral law argument.

4. Moral Law Argument.

From Romans 2: 12-15 “a law written on their hearts.”

Moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver. There is an objective moral law. Therefore there is a Moral Law Giver.

Moral Laws describe what ought to be. Natural laws describe what is.

Is there an objective moral law?

1. Humans do prescribe to proper behavior for other humans. Atheists are so very fond of getting very worked up over all the bad things people who claim to be christians do. I always want to ask them why they think those things are so bad seeing as they don't really believe in an objective moral law. Or do they?

2. How can we say “the world is getting better or worse” without an outside moral standard?

3. If Hitler was objectively morally wrong and it is not just an opinion, then there must be an objective moral law to which we are all bound.

4. Moral relativists like to talk moral relativity but live by objective morality.

As to the argument that God being all good is allowing evil in the world and if He can do something about is an isn't that is proof there is no God all we have to do is say God is all Good and powerful and capable and IS doing something even as we watch. Is that not the work of Jesus on the cross in redeeming and drawing all men to Him?

5. Religious Need Argument.

How the argument goes: Human beings really need God. What humans really need, probably really exists. Therefore God exists.

It is irrational for real needs to exist and there be no way to fulfill those needs in the universe. One may have a need for water and look in the wrong place for water and die, but water exists to fulfill the basic need of man for water.

Does man need God?

Even the atheists need God.

Julian Huxley: “On Easter Sunday, early in the morning, I got up at daybreak, before anyone else was about, let myself out, ran across to a favorite copse (small bit of woods ed. ), penetrated to where I knew the wild cherry grew, and there, in the spring dew, picked a great armful of the lovely stuff, which I brought back, with a sense of its being an acceptable offering, to the house. Three or four Easters running I remember doing this. I was fond of solitude and of nature, and had a passion for wild flowers: but this was only a general basis . . . But when sanctity is in the air, as at Easter, then it can have free play.”
Friedrich Schleiermacher defined religion as “a feeling of absolute dependence on the All”
The Humanist Manifesto II says “commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable”
John Dewey defined religion as “any ideal pursued with great conviction because of its general and enduring value.”
Paul Tillich even used the word “God” of the feeling of ultimate commitment.
August Comte set up a humanist cult with himself as the high priest.
The United States Supreme even defined secular humanism as a religion in the 1965 case United States v. Seeger.
William James even admitted “that those who set this world afire are themselves set aflame from another world. They are saints not the secularists. They believe in a supernatural world, which secular humanism denies.”
Charles Templeton was a protégée of Billy Graham and some said would be greater than Billy. However a crisis of faith caused Charles Templeton to loose his. Charles Templeton published his atheist manifesto Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith and tried to eviscerate the Christian faith by attacking it as “outdated, demonstrably untrue, and often, in their various manifestations, deleterious to individuals and to society.” In an interview with Lee Strobel in his book The Case for Faith this exchange took place.

“’And so how do you assess this Jesus?’ It seemed like the next logical question – but I wasn’t ready for the response it would evoke.

Templeton’s body language softened. It was as if he suddenly felt relaxed and comfortable in talking about an old and dear friend. His voice, which at times had displayed such a sharp and insistent edge, now took on a melancholy and reflective tone. His guard seemingly down, he spoke in an unhurried pace, almost nostalgically, carefully choosing his words as he talked about Jesus.

‘He was,’ Templeton began, ‘the greatest human being who has ever lived. He was a moral genius. His ethical sense was unique. He was the intrinsically wisest person that I’ve ever encountered in my life or in my readings. His commitment was total and led to his own death, much to the detriment of the world. What could one say about him except that this was a form of greatness.’

I was taken aback. ‘You sound like you really care about him,’ I said.

‘Well, yes, he’s the most important thing in my life,’ came his reply. ‘I…I…I,’ he stuttered, searching for the right word, ‘I know it may sound strange, but I have to say…I adore him.’

I wasn’t sure how to respond. ‘You say that with some emotion,’ I said.

‘Well, yes. Everything good I know, everything decent I know, everything pure I know, I learned from Jesus. Yes … yes. And tough! Just look at Jesus. He castigated people. He was angry. People don’t think of him that way, but they don’t read the Bible. He had a righteous anger. He cared for the oppressed and exploited. There’s no question that he had the highest moral standard, the least duplicity, the greatest compassion, of any human being in history. There have been many other wonderful people, but Jesus is Jesus.’

‘And so the world would do good to emulate him?’

‘Oh my goodness, yes! I have tried – and try is as far as I can go – to act as I have believed he would act. That doesn’t mean I could read his mind, because one of the most fascinating things about him was that he often did the opposite thing you’d expect’

Abruptly, Templeton cut short his thoughts. There was a brief pause, almost as if he was uncertain whether he should continue.

‘Uh … but … no,’ he said slowly, ‘he’s the most …’ He stopped, then started again. ‘In my view,’ he declared ‘he is the most important human being who has ever existed.’

That’s when Templeton uttered the words I never expected to hear from him. ‘And if I may put it this way,’ he said as his voice began to crack, ‘I … miss … him!’

With that tears flooded his eyes. He turned his head and looked downward, raising his left hand to shield his face from me. His shoulders bobbed as he wept.”

6. The Existential argument.
This is really a funny argument for an atheist to come up with as most atheists are materialists and materialists admit that is everything is material that implies there is not free will. They like to beat up christians with this to try and say our concept of free will is stupid. But that is not true if that argument passes on beyond the material which opens up thought in areas and directions the atheist is uncomfortable. But about free will. Let us look at the three possible worlds, and there are only three, that God could create.

1. There is the world of amorality. This is a world where there are only rocks, trees and animals but no humans that could make a moral choice.
2. There is a world of immorality. This is a world where there are humans, but those humans are robots who are forced to love God. Forced love is nothing but rape and is immoral.
3. Finally there is a moral world. This world is where there are humans, but those humans have been given free choice to love God or not. Thus the dynamic tension is brought up that man can choose to not love God or to love God. It is obviously that this world is the one God choose to create because He is moral in character.

Knowing what men will do with their freedom in not the same as ordaining what they must do against their free choice. God is responsible for the fact of free will and man is responsible for the acts of freedom. There is no illogic in a God who creates free will so man can love Him freely.

I hope this paper helps you in your decisions you make for the Lord.

Evan Wiggs

Back

Home