Views: 0<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong> page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Only two possible positions exist relative to the existence of God: Either He does, or He does not exist. In referring to God, I refer not to some sort of demigod or \u201ca god\u201d among many other \u201cgods.\u201d Rather, I refer to Deity Who is the Almighty, eternal, and flawless in His nature, and Who is the Creator of all things.<\/span><\/p>\n The absolutely fundamental issue to Christians is belief in God. Christians know that He has revealed Himself in His created universe (general revelation, Psa. 19:1\u20134; Rom. 1:19\u201320) and in His Word (special revelation, John 20:30\u201331).<\/span><\/p>\n In the very nature of the case, Christians must <\/strong>believe in God: \u201cAnd without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him\u201d (Heb. 11:6). A few years ago, someone with a straight face called himself a \u201cChristian Agnostic.\u201d That is as close as he came to being one, for no such creature exists. One may as well speak of a \u201cNazi Communist\u201d or a \u201cbelieving infidel.\u201d Christians believe in God. If one does not believe in God, he is not a Christian, regardless of what he calls himself (even if he teaches in a theological seminary or is the Archbishop of Canterbury).<\/span><\/p>\n Millions of otherwise enlightened folk deny the existence of God all of their lives, but only <\/strong>as long as they live in time. Atheists claim that His existence cannot be \u201cproved.\u201d If by proved <\/em>they mean as one would run tests in a laboratory or measure the square footage of a building, they are correct. In other words, we cannot empirically<\/strong>\u201cprove\u201d He exists by means of our physical senses. Without question, empirical evidence is helpful when establishing any thesis or proposition. However, there are other ways of demonstrating proof of a matter. We will examine only two: The cosmological <\/strong>and teleological <\/strong>arguments. Of the several arguments Christians have at their disposal, these are adequate to prove the existence of God to those who will consider them without irrational bias.<\/span><\/p>\n The Bible begins with the majestic words, \u201cIn the beginning, God…\u201d (Gen. 1:1).1<\/sup> Our first impulse as Christians is simply to turn for proof to the Bible and its innumerable declarations of\u00a0<\/span>the existence of God. Even the atheist cannot deny that the Bible does everywhere declare God. But as plausible as it is for us to believe in God because of the Bible, this is not sufficient for millions of people who do not believe, because they do not believe the Bible to be God\u2019s Word. Indeed, they cannot <\/strong>accept a book as the product of God while denying the existence of God. The believer engages in circular reasoning (which is no reasoning at all) to say that he believes in God because he believes what the Bible says about Him, and then argue that the Bible is the Word of God because God says it is. Of course, this is not to deny that powerful arguments can <\/strong>be made based on the transcendent contents and characteristics of the Bible (e.g., its harmony, prophetic fulfillment, miracles, ethics, foreknowledge, et al.), none of which mere men could have produced.<\/span><\/p>\n When we discuss the existence of God with an atheist, we must therefore appeal to some sort of evidence and proof besides the Bible itself. The arguments I will review below are some of the avenues of appeal that we may use.<\/span><\/p>\n The Cosmological Argument<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Definitions<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The Greek noun cosmos <\/em>refers to order, and then, by extension to the universe or the world as an orderly whole. Cosmology <\/em>is \u201c…the branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and general structure of the universe, with its parts, elements, and laws, and esp. with such of its characteristics as space, time, causality, and freedom.\u201d2<\/sup> Of special relevance to the \u201ccosmological argument\u201d in this definition is the word, causality. <\/em>The cosmological argument is often called \u201cthe first cause argument,\u201d for it seeks the answer to the question concerning who or what caused <\/strong>the cosmos\u2014the universe.<\/span><\/p>\n Historical Background <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Before considering the cosmological argument, we need to give attention to a precedent argument that lies beneath it. The cosmological argument is based upon a broader argument philosophers and scientists have pondered and recognized for centuries. The most famous and significant of these was the inspired New Testament \u201cphilosopher\u201d (whom I believe to be the apostle Paul) who wrote the Hebrews letter. He set forth the simple, sweeping cause-effect argument upon which the cosmological argument rests: \u201cFor every house is builded by some one…\u201d (Heb. 3:4a).<\/span><\/p>\n The Cause-Effect Argument <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The simplest form of the cause-effect argument (also known as \u201cthe law of causality\u201d) is found in the preceding Scriptural declaration. It is evident that the writer is stating an axiomatic principle that stands on its own without need of proof; what he says is true about every <\/strong>house. This principle reaches far beyond house building, however; so Paul uses a \u201chouse\u201d in his statement as a figure representing all other created things. Just as every house (the effect) has\u00a0<\/span>a builder (the cause), so does every other effect (both animate and inanimate) have a cause behind it\u2014including the entire cosmos.3<\/sup> This broad principle innately implies at least the following corollaries, all of which are as self-evident and axiomatic as the principle itself:<\/span><\/p>\n It is meaningless to say that something is a cause <\/strong>if it yields no effect<\/strong>. It is likewise meaningless to say that something is an effect <\/strong>if it has no cause<\/strong>. A cause, by definition, must have an effect, or it is not a cause [and vice versa, DM].6<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n As I indicated earlier, the cosmological argument flows from the law of causality. The ultimate <\/strong>cause-effect <\/em>question relates to the origin of the universe itself. One would have to be a \u201cmad scientist\u201d and \u201clive in another world\u201d to deny that this world\/universe exists. As surely as it exists (a fact which atheists readily admit), its existence must have some explanation. Only two possibilities can be postulated for the way it came to be:<\/span><\/p>\n Amazingly, some atheists have tried to avoid the inevitable unpleasant implications they must deal with concerning both the origin and end of the universe by arguing that it had no beginning and will have no end\u2014it is eternal. Essentially, this is another way of saying that the universe is a cause <\/strong>rather than an effect<\/strong>. It is also an implicit denial that the universe is material, for, by definition, all material things are ultimately effects that have been caused<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n Further, this theory implies that the universe is spiritual in nature. There are only two possible natures of which all things known to man consist\u2014material (matter) and spiritual (mind). To be eternal, therefore, the universe must <\/strong>be spiritual in the nature of the case. If it is not spiritual, it cannot <\/strong>be eternal, for only spiritual entities can partake of eternality and\/or immortality. All material things are temporary\u2014that is, they are bound\/limited by time. Thus the eternal-universe concept denies the essential respective definitions of material <\/em>and spiritual<\/em>. One may as well confer an innately \u201cspiritual\u201d nature on a Chevrolet Corvette as to do so on the universe. Such claims demonstrate idiocy gone to seed, but desperate men are driven to these depths in their denials of God.<\/span><\/p>\n The suggestion that anything material\u2014whether an automobile or the universe\u2014has always been and will always be, contradicts one of the bedrock axioms of science\u2014variously called the \u201csecond law of thermodynamics\u201d or the \u201claw of energy decay.\u201d As thermodynamics <\/em>implies, this law concerns the relationship between heat and energy and the conversion of one into another. The law of energy decay <\/em>is self-defining, namely, that with the employment of energy there is a corresponding depletion of available usable energy\u2014a process scientists call \u201centropy.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Simply put, our universe is wearing out or running down. This could not be so if the universe were eternal\/spiritual in its nature. Can one live a day and not see the evidence of such entropy on every hand? All things we employ in our daily lives wear out, and death and decay are visible on every hand. This empirically evident fact is utterly incompatible with a spiritual entity or an eternal universe.<\/span><\/p>\n No scientist would ever have even thought of such a thing as an \u201ceternal universe,\u201d much less pretended to advocate it seriously, had he\/she not begun with blind bias that rejects the concept of creation and the existence of God\u2014the ultimate Cause. When men begin with an a priori assumption that dismisses creation of the cosmos by a transcendent Cause (i.e., God), we should not be surprised at their flights of fancy and speculation (e.g., various evolutionary hypotheses). Where else can they go? What else can they do? The apostle Paul describes just such men who, we suppose, have been present in every age:<\/span><\/p>\n For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:18\u201322).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The famous astrophysicist, Robert Jastrow (certainly no \u201ccreationist\u201d), was driven by the evidence (as apparently other scientists have also been) to give up on the \u201ceternal universe\u201d postulation, as the following statements indicate:<\/span><\/p>\n Only as a result of the most recent discoveries can we say with a fair degree of confidence that the world has not existed forever; that it began abruptly, without apparent cause, in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation…. Modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future.7<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n He would have learned all of this much earlier had he simply read the first chapter of Genesis. The fact that the universe is \u201crunning down\u201d carries an inescapable implication concerning its origin\u2014that it had a beginning. Dr. Don England, in the context of discussing the first and second laws of thermodynamics, thus stated this implication: \u201cIn other words, the total universe exhibits the appearance of a clock running down, thus implying that it was once \u201cwound up<\/strong>\u201d or set in motion.\u201d8<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Not only does the second law of thermodynamics deny the possibility of an eternal universe, but this law also clashes head-on with a fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory. The \u201cgospel\u201d of evolution alleges that the universe is constantly improving, moving from disorder to order, and increasing in complexity. Dr. Morris well summarized this point:<\/span><\/p>\n The entropy principle involves a continual decrease <\/strong>of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both [i.e., evolution and entropy, DM] cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true (emph., DM)!9<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Morris correctly observed that sensational theories, adopted by zealots in an effort to justify their evolutionary and anti-God prejudice, \u201c…are philosophical speculations, not science, secondary assumptions to avoid the contradictions implicit in the evolutionary model.\u201d10<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n The Cosmological Argument Stated <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Both evidence and reason demonstrate the truth of the premise that the universe is material rather than eternal and that it therefore had a point of origin or beginning. The ground is now prepared for us to narrow the broader cause-effect <\/em>argument to the cosmological or first-cause <\/em>argument. I have found no better statement of it in formal logical terms than that of William Lane Craig:<\/span> As seen from Jastrow\u2019s statement, even atheistic and agnostic scientists have generally conceded the first and second premises of the foregoing syllogism, demanding the conclusion of causality (which, of course, believers in God and the Bible have known all along\u2014Gen. 1:1; John 1:1\u20134; et al.).<\/span><\/p>\n Since the universe is not an eternal cause<\/strong>, but a material effect <\/strong>of a cause, what or who caused it? Only three possibilities present themselves:<\/span> The accident-or-chance <\/em>claim: <\/strong>Could the universe have originated from some accident or chance occurrence? To ask is to answer. Not even a lowly paperclip \u201cjust happens\u201d or results from some sort of \u201caccident.\u201d The universe is an effect that demands an adequate <\/strong>cause, as do all effects. If \u201caccident\u201d and \u201cchance\u201d do not qualify as adequate causes for even a paper clip, how much less for the universe? Yet agnostics, atheists, humanists, and evolutionists have little better to offer in their denial of God and creation. How can rational men gullibly believe, much less advocate, such irrational ideas?<\/span><\/p>\n The self-created <\/em>claim: <\/strong>Could the universe have created itself? Julie Andrews, playing Maria in the musical, \u201cThe Sound of Music,\u201d sang one song in which the following words occurred: \u201cNothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could.\u201d Her songwriter was apparently not an evolutionist, or he could not have thus written. Incredibly, those who advocate the self-creation of the universe implicitly attribute the creative power of Godhood to mindless matter (albeit God is eternal and did not <\/strong>create Himself). Granting that somehow the universe had the ability (power and mind) to create itself, then it had to exist before it existed, create before it was created, and act before it was capable of acting\u2014all of which are as impossible as they are irrational.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Just as the second law of thermodynamics falsifies the idea of an eternal <\/strong>universe, the first law of thermodynamics falsifies the theory of a self-created <\/strong>universe. The latter law has to do with the conservation of energy and matter and states that neither can be created or destroyed. While their forms may change, their levels remain constant. Dr. Jastrow (not a creationist, remember) has explained why self-creation and this axiomatic and universally- accepted law are incompatible:<\/span><\/p>\n But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science\u2014the principle of the conservation of matter and energy\u2014which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact.12<\/sup><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I agree with Bert Thompson\u2019s evaluation of the self-created posit: \u201cThe Universe did not create itself. Such an idea is absurd.\u201d13<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n The creation <\/em>claim: <\/strong>Was the universe created by an objective, transcendent Cause? This explanation is the last of the three possibilities\u2014and the only one left standing, both scientifically and logically. We have seen that the universe is not eternal, thus it had a beginning. We have further seen that it could not have begun by some incredible astrophysical \u201caccident\u201d or by self-creation. Thus the only remaining possibility to explain the origin of the universe is that some cause created it.<\/span><\/p>\n What are the implications of this conclusion concerning the attributes of this creator\/cause?<\/span><\/p>\n The Bible reveals to us Jehovah God Who is possessed of all of these attributes:<\/span><\/p>\n The Bible makes known to us the only Being capable of satisfying the demands of the\u00a0<\/span>First Cause for our universe.<\/span><\/p>\n The Teleological Argument<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Definitions <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The Greek noun, teleios, <\/em>has to do with bringing something to completion\u2014that which is complete as opposed to partial. Our English word, teleology, <\/em>is \u201cthe study of the evidences of design or purpose in nature.\u201d14<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n Historical Notes <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n As with the cosmological argument, inspired writers employ this argument. A millennium before the Jesus was born, David argued the existence of God on the basis of the order of His creation: \u201cThe heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech nor language; their voice is not heard\u201d (Psa. 19:1\u20133). Paul also makes this argument: \u201cFor the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse\u201d (Rom. 1:20). In more modern times, perhaps the most famous advocate of this argument was the nineteenth-century English philosopher and theologian, William Paley.<\/span><\/p>\n The Teleological Argument Stated <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n In his book, Natural Theology<\/em>, Paley begins by telling a hypothetical story of finding a watch on the ground.15<\/sup> He proceeds to state the implication that, upon examining its various parts and the way they were all fashioned so as to work as one to tell time, these features all point to a designer, even though the finder was not present when the watch was fashioned and he had never met the designer. After eleven pages of stating the argument from design, Paley then spends the balance of his sizeable book applying it to various demonstrations of design in the natural world that argue the existence of the Master Designer\u2014God.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u201cteleological argument\u201d is therefore \u201cthe argument for the existence of God based on the assumption that order in the universe implies an orderer and cannot be a natural feature of the universe.\u201d16<\/sup> It argues that purposeful design implies a designer. Perhaps the more common name for this argument is \u201cthe argument from design.\u201d It argues not only design, but also purposeful <\/strong>design<\/span><\/p>\n Wayne Jackson states the argument in syllogistic form as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.<\/span>
\n2. The universe began to exist.<\/span>
\n3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.11<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n
\n1. The universe is the result of accident or chance<\/span>
\n2. The universe created itself<\/span>
\n3. The universe has a creator transcendent to and apart from itself<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n