It is greater to exist in the real order than in understanding alone. Hence if God exists solely in the understanding, He is that being which 'no greater can be thought' AND the being which'something greater can be thought'. To avoid contradiction, we must admit that God truly exists in reality and not merely in our mind.... Anselm
Nice thread. I believe there's a God. I personally understand God as Love. Love as the ultimate expression of Humanism.
When you come to think about what Jesus (please don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about religions... you might believe in God and not in Jesus, that's not the point. The point is what is it really that Jesus came to teach...), the man basically said "Love God above all", "love yourself" and "love others as much as you love yourself".
Seems very simple to me. However, religions, which have all been created by men, hence imperfect; have done atracious things in the name of God. But that's all bullshit. If we all were to rule our lives by those three simple rules posted above, we could perfectly understand that all wars and hatred campaigns started by men in the name of God are just ways they have come up with, in order to manipulate the masses.
Something else that startles me is when people ask why God allows catastrophes such as the Holocaust. But I firmly believe the human race has priceless virtue: FREE fvcking WILL. We do as we want. Our lives are ours to create, so if we choose to live in love or use our strength to commit evil, is solely our choice. I would have never expecte God to come down and shoot Hitler in the face. I guess the real question is: Why did authorities like the Vatican do nothing against it, when they had the opportunity to stop from the beginning? The answer remains the same throughout time: MONEY.
We have nobody to blame but ourselves. The human race is the only race of mammals on this planet, that seems to focused in a consumism process. It's not God's responsibility to stop us, it's ours.
In closing, there is a GOD. He is LOVE. And it definitley takes FAITH to believe in him , for there are a thousend questions about that will still be unanswered, not because He's conceling it, but simply because we don't care to know.
[This message was edited by Walk of Life on May 15, 2003 at 02:07 PM.]
When you come to think about what Jesus (please don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about religions... you might believe in God and not in Jesus, that's not the point. The point is what is it really that Jesus came to teach...), the man basically said "Love God above all", "love yourself" and "love others as much as you love yourself".
Seems very simple to me. However, religions, which have all been created by men, hence imperfect; have done atracious things in the name of God. But that's all bullshit. If we all were to rule our lives by those three simple rules posted above, we could perfectly understand that all wars and hatred campaigns started by men in the name of God are just ways they have come up with, in order to manipulate the masses.
Something else that startles me is when people ask why God allows catastrophes such as the Holocaust. But I firmly believe the human race has priceless virtue: FREE fvcking WILL. We do as we want. Our lives are ours to create, so if we choose to live in love or use our strength to commit evil, is solely our choice. I would have never expecte God to come down and shoot Hitler in the face. I guess the real question is: Why did authorities like the Vatican do nothing against it, when they had the opportunity to stop from the beginning? The answer remains the same throughout time: MONEY.
We have nobody to blame but ourselves. The human race is the only race of mammals on this planet, that seems to focused in a consumism process. It's not God's responsibility to stop us, it's ours.
In closing, there is a GOD. He is LOVE. And it definitley takes FAITH to believe in him , for there are a thousend questions about that will still be unanswered, not because He's conceling it, but simply because we don't care to know.
[This message was edited by Walk of Life on May 15, 2003 at 02:07 PM.]
Here's how I found it. I thought, either there is or there isn't. If there isn't, what do I win by betting on that? Well, I get to lead a pretty good life, go for everything I can get my hands on, be the best, be the king of the mountain, die with a bunch of toys and have nowhere to take it. Then I thought, what would I win if there is? I decided that I needed to define God first. And so I did, for myself. I defined God a perfect, immortal and eternal. Then I defined God as my creator. And then I realized I was a child of God, so then I asked myself if I were a child of God what would be my limitations? I concluded - none. Then I realized that the only thing that made sense to bet on was that I was perfect, immortal and eternal, just like God.
OK, so I saw a proposition bet... is there or isn't there. And then I thought, what do I win if I bet on that there IS? ((I already realized what would be my biggest take if there isn't). I would win living in truth instead of illusion... a truth that was eternal, was forever. OK, so I bet on God. But that was just the beginning. I now had to find a way to communicate with God and I did. I realized that there must be a link between the Unseen and the seen. I decided that the intelligence capability of God was infinite then determined that each thing in life could conceivably have a system of communication between them and God that was unique to them. So I made a code and asked God to speak to me through the code. I did this almost 30 years ago. The code statred out through numbers but has since expanded to include all things. That is when I realized that I had made the right bet and I had won the bet.
I recommend this approach to anyone as it doesn't involve religion (man's most popular mind control device) nor science (man's block on moving quickly). It only involves you and God and a decision to make a bet that there is God.
What do I know now? Well, I know that within me is God and I am part of God. That all others are as well. That all life for that matter is God, that whether it can be expalined or not scientifically does not mean that it all isn't connected. And that physical reality is one of possibly many realities. And that the only thing I have to work on is... being constructive for myself and others. And guess what? It works. You can eliminate your Karma. Your physical body does not have to die for you to ascend. And all I can say is, if someone had said this to me 30 years ago I would have thought they were a nut. You have to live it to truly grasp it. All it takes is that first step of making the right bet and then creating your communication device. One word of caution... awakening brings you to truths and understandings that most of this world has yet to acknowledge nor want to deal with. If you aren't ready for a brave journey, take it slowly. No one gave me that advice before and I almost didn't make it through... Be in joy
OK, so I saw a proposition bet... is there or isn't there. And then I thought, what do I win if I bet on that there IS? ((I already realized what would be my biggest take if there isn't). I would win living in truth instead of illusion... a truth that was eternal, was forever. OK, so I bet on God. But that was just the beginning. I now had to find a way to communicate with God and I did. I realized that there must be a link between the Unseen and the seen. I decided that the intelligence capability of God was infinite then determined that each thing in life could conceivably have a system of communication between them and God that was unique to them. So I made a code and asked God to speak to me through the code. I did this almost 30 years ago. The code statred out through numbers but has since expanded to include all things. That is when I realized that I had made the right bet and I had won the bet.
I recommend this approach to anyone as it doesn't involve religion (man's most popular mind control device) nor science (man's block on moving quickly). It only involves you and God and a decision to make a bet that there is God.
What do I know now? Well, I know that within me is God and I am part of God. That all others are as well. That all life for that matter is God, that whether it can be expalined or not scientifically does not mean that it all isn't connected. And that physical reality is one of possibly many realities. And that the only thing I have to work on is... being constructive for myself and others. And guess what? It works. You can eliminate your Karma. Your physical body does not have to die for you to ascend. And all I can say is, if someone had said this to me 30 years ago I would have thought they were a nut. You have to live it to truly grasp it. All it takes is that first step of making the right bet and then creating your communication device. One word of caution... awakening brings you to truths and understandings that most of this world has yet to acknowledge nor want to deal with. If you aren't ready for a brave journey, take it slowly. No one gave me that advice before and I almost didn't make it through... Be in joy
There is a God and he is alive in each and every one of us. Unfourtunately, so is the Devil (God and the Devil, Good and Evil,Yin and Yang, Whatever you wanna call it). Therefore we must be conscious of each and every decision we make. We all have the power to make ourselves and the world a better place. Thats where the free will comes in. In todays world, the powers that be have tried there best to distract everyones attention away from God. Might I say they are doing a great job. Television, media , Entertainment, advertising...They throw all this shit at you to take your mind away from what should be the main focus. Look how hypocritical our country is. On every piece of currency we have it says "In God We Trust" Yet, we cant say the Pledge of Allegiance anymore in our schools because it starts out... "One nation, under God.." Pretty soon kids are gonna have zero idea who or what God is because we have no family stucture which a;llows them to be raised by the Tel"LIE"vision and no one will be able to talk about in in the classroom...in a country that claims it trusts God.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lander:
Sorry to break up the Alter-boy convention ...
... but I don't actually believe.
I just don't see anything to believe in.
BUT I hope I'm wrong (unless, of course, that God sends all the aethists to a buring enternity of hell)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll bring the chips.
Sorry to break up the Alter-boy convention ...
... but I don't actually believe.
I just don't see anything to believe in.
BUT I hope I'm wrong (unless, of course, that God sends all the aethists to a buring enternity of hell)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll bring the chips.
Merlyn - That was a really good post man. As you can see from my post we have the same idea about God being alive in all of us.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> awakening brings you to truths and understandings that most of this world has yet to acknowledge nor want to deal with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is ssssooooo true!! People dont want to acknowledge God because it is just too damn easy to stay on the road everyone else is on. I know because I do it EVERY SINGLE DAY! For that split second before every decision I make, I know what is wrong and what is right, yet still, 90% of the time I do what I know I should not. I am the furthest thing from perfect.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> awakening brings you to truths and understandings that most of this world has yet to acknowledge nor want to deal with. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is ssssooooo true!! People dont want to acknowledge God because it is just too damn easy to stay on the road everyone else is on. I know because I do it EVERY SINGLE DAY! For that split second before every decision I make, I know what is wrong and what is right, yet still, 90% of the time I do what I know I should not. I am the furthest thing from perfect.
Hmmm.
The belief of "GOD" (superior creator) has been humanity’s attempt to answer questions currently unable to be answered (e.g. what is death like, how was everything created or evolved?)...this confirms that humanity has not achieved complete understanding…and never will.
However, as humanity intellectually developed (through science) it obtained a more complete understanding (growth)...finding answers to questions previously incapable of being answered.
Think about this...
Could the intellectual level of humanity at the time the Bible (Book of Fables) was written design and build a craft, which could safely take someone to the moon and back? Absolutely not! However, has not humanity’s intellectual level (growth) developed from the time of the Bible achieved such a feat? YES!
Is evolution such an incomprehensible theory when KNOWING that humanity has "evolved" an intellectual level, (over millions of years) starting out as nothing more than instinctive nakedness, which developed into space travel? One should be in “shock and awe” over such an intellectual accomplishments achieved by humanity as well as the intellectual growth yet to be discovered, understood and developed.
The belief of “GOD” historically (Dark ages) has been a suppressant to the intellectual growth of humanity as it was not until humanity began to question the believers of God and their associated teachings before an enlightenment of intellectual growth ignited scientific discoveries which provided evidence to contradicted such rhetorical teachings which offered no prove, logic or understanding.
Think about it, where would humanity be today if it did not question such rhetorical religious teachings?
God and Religion is, and always has been, nothing more than humanity’s attempt to “psychology” establish a comfort (acceptance) of the unknown.
The belief of "GOD" (superior creator) has been humanity’s attempt to answer questions currently unable to be answered (e.g. what is death like, how was everything created or evolved?)...this confirms that humanity has not achieved complete understanding…and never will.
However, as humanity intellectually developed (through science) it obtained a more complete understanding (growth)...finding answers to questions previously incapable of being answered.
Think about this...
Could the intellectual level of humanity at the time the Bible (Book of Fables) was written design and build a craft, which could safely take someone to the moon and back? Absolutely not! However, has not humanity’s intellectual level (growth) developed from the time of the Bible achieved such a feat? YES!
Is evolution such an incomprehensible theory when KNOWING that humanity has "evolved" an intellectual level, (over millions of years) starting out as nothing more than instinctive nakedness, which developed into space travel? One should be in “shock and awe” over such an intellectual accomplishments achieved by humanity as well as the intellectual growth yet to be discovered, understood and developed.
The belief of “GOD” historically (Dark ages) has been a suppressant to the intellectual growth of humanity as it was not until humanity began to question the believers of God and their associated teachings before an enlightenment of intellectual growth ignited scientific discoveries which provided evidence to contradicted such rhetorical teachings which offered no prove, logic or understanding.
Think about it, where would humanity be today if it did not question such rhetorical religious teachings?
God and Religion is, and always has been, nothing more than humanity’s attempt to “psychology” establish a comfort (acceptance) of the unknown.
8isenough, here is how I discovered I was perfect and so are you, etc...
Think about this, "I am peferct... perfectly imperfect."
Basically it means we're ok to make mistakes. There is no need to forgive yourself because if you have to forgive yourself, then you have judged yourself. There is no right or wrong in the big picture, just opportunities to learn lessons. God taps on the door... if we hear the tap and open the door we avoid God knocking on the door. If we don't hear the knock then it becomes banging. If we don't hear the banging it becomes pounding. Still, one day, we hear and we (each in our own time) open the door. It was this understanding that allowed me to stop judging myself. Then I realized I had also stopped judging others.
Now let's go one step further... They say, "Love your enemies." And I say, "you can't." Simply because when you love anything it cannot be perceived as an enemy only as an experience or an opportunity to learn. Once it is realized that for something to be an enemy it first has to be judged so, then the choice is to judge and classify or to see that this thing you don't like is part of you and that there is a leson in its presence in your life, you have made the enemy your friend. I have used this approach for quite some time now (certainly wasn't easy at first because it went against all my old thinking), but since I have applied it, I found that I love just about everyone. Its all a matter of viewpoint and changing the perspective. The key was realizing that everything in my life was a mirror of myself. If I didn't like something I had to change something inside myself to stop seeing it. Try this, it really works and the change in yourself can be quick and profound. Merlyn
Think about this, "I am peferct... perfectly imperfect."
Basically it means we're ok to make mistakes. There is no need to forgive yourself because if you have to forgive yourself, then you have judged yourself. There is no right or wrong in the big picture, just opportunities to learn lessons. God taps on the door... if we hear the tap and open the door we avoid God knocking on the door. If we don't hear the knock then it becomes banging. If we don't hear the banging it becomes pounding. Still, one day, we hear and we (each in our own time) open the door. It was this understanding that allowed me to stop judging myself. Then I realized I had also stopped judging others.
Now let's go one step further... They say, "Love your enemies." And I say, "you can't." Simply because when you love anything it cannot be perceived as an enemy only as an experience or an opportunity to learn. Once it is realized that for something to be an enemy it first has to be judged so, then the choice is to judge and classify or to see that this thing you don't like is part of you and that there is a leson in its presence in your life, you have made the enemy your friend. I have used this approach for quite some time now (certainly wasn't easy at first because it went against all my old thinking), but since I have applied it, I found that I love just about everyone. Its all a matter of viewpoint and changing the perspective. The key was realizing that everything in my life was a mirror of myself. If I didn't like something I had to change something inside myself to stop seeing it. Try this, it really works and the change in yourself can be quick and profound. Merlyn
Spive, I used to say the exact same thing. I used to say that man made up God to deal with death. But that was only what I could handle at the time in knowing (ego still needing to be dissolved). But what I discovered is that the body was just a genetic spacesuit and that what was truly inside and unseen and unquantifiable was something alive inside myself... something way, way beyond a body, a timespan or any other limiting parameter. When I openned my mind to this possibility, the #$it hit the fan and all my myths were quickly destroyed.
How about this quote:
"Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration….
We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.
There is no such thing as death. Life is just a dream. And we are the imagination of ourselves." Bill Hicks
and
"Regarding earth, the core of what is going on and has been going on for thousands of years is the manipulation of humanity’s imagination of itself." David Icke
Open minds have a chance to learn (or is it remember?) more and more. Closed minds on the other hand...
By the way, are you saying that humanity didn't know how to fly thousands and thousands of years ago? Who told you that, the history you were taught in the American indoctination, ooops, I mean the American education system? The history I was taught revealed to me much different truths... And I have found a great deal of evidence to support otherwise such as the Summerian Tablets...
Consider that what you may have been taught or mind controlled to beleive might be the results of a plan by a few to control the masses. Then start to see how if we all share our experience and choose the paths that offer the best prospects and the most personal freedom, then as a group, humanity cannot be stopped by the few. This world is like a soda bottle that has been shaken and shaken. Unfortunately for those who are trying to keep their thumb on the bottle cap, you can't stop the inevitable result. Consciuosness evolves and it is my opnion that it evolves back to the understanding of oneness... Try seeing how we are all One. Its an amazing perspective change and brings you to the understanding of true, unconditional love... Merlyn
How about this quote:
"Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration….
We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.
There is no such thing as death. Life is just a dream. And we are the imagination of ourselves." Bill Hicks
and
"Regarding earth, the core of what is going on and has been going on for thousands of years is the manipulation of humanity’s imagination of itself." David Icke
Open minds have a chance to learn (or is it remember?) more and more. Closed minds on the other hand...
By the way, are you saying that humanity didn't know how to fly thousands and thousands of years ago? Who told you that, the history you were taught in the American indoctination, ooops, I mean the American education system? The history I was taught revealed to me much different truths... And I have found a great deal of evidence to support otherwise such as the Summerian Tablets...
Consider that what you may have been taught or mind controlled to beleive might be the results of a plan by a few to control the masses. Then start to see how if we all share our experience and choose the paths that offer the best prospects and the most personal freedom, then as a group, humanity cannot be stopped by the few. This world is like a soda bottle that has been shaken and shaken. Unfortunately for those who are trying to keep their thumb on the bottle cap, you can't stop the inevitable result. Consciuosness evolves and it is my opnion that it evolves back to the understanding of oneness... Try seeing how we are all One. Its an amazing perspective change and brings you to the understanding of true, unconditional love... Merlyn
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> are you saying that humanity didn't know how to fly thousands and thousands of years ago? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope...
Historical FACT, indicates that humanity did not possess the knowledge nor ability to travel through space.
Are you suggesting that humanity flew thousands and thousands of years ago, while at the same time posing the belief that the world was flat?
I am humored.
Nope...
Historical FACT, indicates that humanity did not possess the knowledge nor ability to travel through space.
Are you suggesting that humanity flew thousands and thousands of years ago, while at the same time posing the belief that the world was flat?
I am humored.
One of the most basic, and most fundamental, issues that can be considered by the human mind is the question, “Does God exist?” In the field of logic, there are principles—or as they are called more often, laws—that govern human thought processes and that are accepted as analytically true. One of these is the law of the excluded middle. When applied to objects, this law states that an object cannot both possess and not possess a certain trait or characteristic at the same time and in the same fashion. When applied to propositions, this law states that all precisely stated propositions are either true or false; they cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same fashion.
The statement, “God exists,” is a precisely stated proposition. Thus, it is either true or false. The simple fact is, either God exists or He does not. There is no middle ground. One cannot affirm logically both the existence and nonexistence of God. The atheist boldly states that God does not exist; the theist affirms just as boldly that God does exist; the agnostic laments that there is not enough evidence to make a decision on the matter; and the skeptic doubts that God’s existence can be proven with certainty. Who is correct? Does God exist or not?
The only way to answer this question, of course, is to seek out and examine the evidence. It certainly is reasonable to suggest that if there is a God, He would make available to us evidence adequate to the task of proving His existence. But does such evidence exist? And if it does, what is the nature of that evidence?
The theist advocates the view that evidence is available to prove conclusively that God does exist, and that this evidence is adequate to establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of God. However, when we employ the word “prove,” we do not mean that God’s existence can be demonstrated scientifically in the same fashion that one might prove that a sack of potatoes weighs ten pounds, or that a human heart has four distinct chambers within it. Such matters as the weight of a sack of vegetables, or the divisions within a muscle, are matters that may be verified empirically using the five senses. And while empirical evidence often is quite useful in establishing the validity of a case, it is not the sole means of arriving at proof. For example, legal authorities recognize the validity of a prima facie case, which is acknowledged to exist when adequate evidence is available to establish the presumption of a fact that, unless such fact can be refuted, legally stands proven (see Jackson, 1974, p. 13). It is the contention of the theist that there is a vast body of evidence that makes an impregnable prima facie case for the existence of God—a case that simply cannot be refuted. I would like to present here the prima facie case for the existence of God, and a portion of the evidence upon which that case is based.
CAUSE AND EFFECT—THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Throughout human history, one of the most effective arguments for the existence of God has been the cosmological argument, which addresses the fact that the Universe (Cosmos) is here and therefore must be explained in some fashion. In his book, Not A Chance, R.C. Sproul observed:
Traditional philosophy argued for the existence of God on the foundation of the law of causality. The cosmological argument went from the presence of a cosmos back to a creator of the cosmos. It sought a rational answer to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” It sought a sufficient reason for a real world (1994, p. 169, emp. in orig.).
The Universe exists and is real. Atheists and agnostics not only acknowledge its existence, but admit that it is a grand effect (e.g., see Jastrow, 1977, pp. 19-21). If an entity cannot account for its own being (i.e., it is not sufficient to have caused itself), then it is said to be “contingent” because it is dependent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence. The Universe is a contingent entity, since it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. Sproul has noted: “Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a cause. That is merely to say, if it is an effect it must have an antecedent cause” (1994, p. 172). Thus, since the Universe is a contingent effect, the obvious question becomes, “What caused the Universe?”
It is here that the law of cause and effect (also known as the law of causality) is strongly tied to the cosmological argument. Simply put, the law of causality states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. Just as the law of the excluded middle is analytically true, so the law of cause and effect is analytically true as well. Sproul addressed this when he wrote:
The statement “Every effect has an antecedent cause” is analytically true. To say that it is analytically or formally true is to say that it is true by definition or analysis. There is nothing in the predicate that is not already contained by resistless logic in the subject. It is like the statement, “A bachelor is an unmarried man” or “A triangle has three sides” or “Two plus two are four....” Cause and effect, though distinct ideas, are inseparably bound together in rational discourse. It is meaningless to say that something is a cause if it yields no effect. It is likewise meaningless to say that something is an effect if it has no cause. A cause, by definition, must have an effect, or it is not a cause. An effect, by definition, must have a cause, or it is not an effect (1994, pp. 172,171 emp. in orig.).
Effects without adequate causes are unknown. Further, causes never occur subsequent to the effect. It is meaningless to speak of a cause following an effect, or an effect preceding a cause. In addition, the effect is never qualitatively superior to, or quantitatively greater than, the cause. This knowledge is responsible for our formulation of the law of causality in these words: Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall from the table because the fly lighted on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we observe, we must postulate adequate antecedent causes—which brings us back to the original question: What caused the Universe?
There are but three possible answers to this question: (1) the Universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist; (2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3) the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing; rather, it was created by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior, to itself. These three options merit serious consideration.
Is the Universe Eternal?
The most comfortable position for the person who does not believe in God is the idea that the Universe is eternal, because it avoids the problem of a beginning or ending, and thus the need for any “first cause” such as God. In fact, it was to avoid just such a problem that evolutionists Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, and Fred Hoyle developed the Steady State Theory. Information had come to light that indicated the Universe was expanding. These scientists suggested that at points in space called “irtrons” hydrogen was coming into existence from nothing. As hydrogen atoms arrived, they had to “go” somewhere, and as they did, they displaced matter already in existence, causing the Universe to expand. Dr. Hoyle suggested that the atoms of gaseous hydrogen gradually condensed into clouds of virgin matter, that within these clouds new stars and galaxies formed, etc.
However, the Steady State Theory was doomed to failure, in part, because it violated one of the most fundamental laws of science—the first law of thermodynamics (also referred to as the law of the conservation of matter and/or energy), which states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed in nature. Astronomer Robert Jastrow observed:
But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which 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 (1977, p. 32).
The Steady State Theory eventually was relegated to the relic heaps of history. Yet problems for those who advocated an eternal Universe continued to multiply because such a concept violated the second law of thermodynamics as well. Simply stated, the second law of thermodynamics dictates that as energy is employed to perform work, it is transformed from a usable to a nonusable form. The Universe is “running down” because energy is becoming less available for use. As Jastrow has remarked:
And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates that the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up. Arthur Eddington, the most distinguished astronomer of his day, wrote: “If our views are right, somewhere between the beginning of time and the present day we must place the winding up of the universe.” When that occurred, and Who or what wound up the Universe, were questions that bemused theologians, physicists and astronomers, particularly in the 1920’s and 1930’s (1978, pp. 48-49).
A year before making that admission, Dr. Jastrow made another important concession when he wrote:
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;... The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth, but the impact is the same; modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future (1977, pp. 19,30, emp. added).
The scientific evidence states clearly that the Universe had a beginning—something eternal things do not have. Nor do eternal things “run down,” yet clearly the Universe is doing just that, as Dr. Jastrow has noted. As Henry Morris has commented, “The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning” (1974, p. 26). Indeed, it does. The Universe is now known not to be eternal.
Did the Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?
In the past, it would have been practically impossible to find any reputable scientist who would be willing to advocate a self-created Universe. George Davis, a prominent physicist of the past generation, explained why when he wrote: “No material thing can create itself.” Further, Dr. Davis affirmed that this statement “cannot be logically attacked on the basis of any knowledge available to us” (1958, p. 71). The Universe is the created, not the creator.
However, as surprising as it may seem, some in the scientific and philosophical communities have stepped forward to defend the option that the Universe simply created itself out of nothing. Edward P. Tryon, professor of physics at the City University of New York, wrote for example: “In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing, as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous, enchanting, or both” (1984, p. 14). But the real push for the acceptance of a self-created Universe came as a result of an article published in the May 1984 issue of Scientific American. Under the title of “The Inflationary Universe,” evolutionists Alan Guth and Paul Steinhardt wrote:
From a historical point of view, probably the most revolutionary aspect of the inflationary model is the notion that all the matter and energy in the observable universe may have emerged from almost nothing.... The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observed universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire Universe evolved from literally nothing (1984, p. 128, emp. added).
Such ideas as those set forth by Tryon, Guth, Steinhardt, and others have set off a wave of controversy within the scientific community, as is evident from heated discussions at annual scientific meetings, articles published in refereed scientific journals, books written on a scholarly level, and even items appearing in popular science magazines. For example, in the summer 1994 edition of the Skeptical Inquirer, Ralph Estling of Great Britain wrote a stinging rebuke of the idea that the Universe created itself out of nothing. Estling suggested:
The problem emerges in science when scientists leave the realm of science and enter that of philosophy and metaphysics, too often grandiose names for mere personal opinion, untrammeled by empirical evidence or logical analysis, and wearing the mask of deep wisdom. And so they conjure us an entire Cosmos, or myriads of cosmoses, suddenly, inexplicably, causelessly leaping into being out of—out of Nothing Whatsoever, for no reason at all, and thereafter expanding faster than light into more Nothing Whatsoever.... They then intone equations and other ritual mathematical formulae and look upon it and pronounce it good. I do not think that what these cosmologists, these quantum theorists, these universe-makers, are doing is science. I can’t help feeling that universes are notoriously disinclined to spring into being, ready-made, out of nothing (1994, 18[4]:430).
Estling’s article provoked numerous letters to the editor of the Skeptical Inquirer, which were printed, with Estling’s response, in the January/February 1995 issue. Estling wrote, in part: “All things begin with speculation, science not excluded. But if no empirical evidence is eventually forthcoming, or can be forthcoming, all speculation is barren.... There is no evidence, so far, that the entire universe, observable and unobservable, emerged from a state of absolute Nothingness” (1995, 19[1]:69-70).
Estling is correct, of course. There is no evidence that would allow matter or energy simply to “pop into existence” of its own accord. This suggestion is in clear violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, to suggest that the Universe created itself is to posit a self-contradictory position. Sproul addressed this when he wrote that what an atheist or agnostic
...deems possible for the world to do—come into being without a cause—is something no judicious philosopher would grant that even God could do. It is as formally and rationally impossible for God to come into being without a cause as it is for the world to do so.... For something to bring itself into being it must have the power of being within itself. It must at least have enough causal power to cause its own being. If it derives its being from some other source, then it clearly would not be either self-existent or self-created. It would be, plainly and simply, an effect. Of course, the problem is complicated by the other necessity we’ve labored so painstakingly to establish: It would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power (1994, pp. 179,180).
Science is based on observation and reproducibility. But when pressed for the reproducible, empirical data that document their claim of a self-created Universe, scientists and philosophers are at a loss to produce those data. Perhaps this is why Alan Guth lamented: “In the end, I must admit that questions of plausibility are not logically determinable and depend somewhat on intuition” (1988, 11[2]:76)—which is little more than a fancy way of saying, “I certainly wish this were true, but I could not prove it to you if my life depended on it.”
The eminent British astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking, put the matter in perspective when he wrote: “The new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory, although a lot of people do not seem to have heard of its demise and are still writing papers on it as if it were viable” (1988, p. 132, emp. added). The Universe did not create itself. Such an idea is absurd, philosophically and scientifically.
Was the Universe Created?
Either the Universe had a beginning, or it did not. But all available evidence indicates that the Universe did have a beginning. If the Universe had a beginning, it either had a cause or it did not. One thing we know assuredly, however: it is correct—logically and scientifically—to acknowledge that the Universe had a cause, because the Universe is an effect, and requires an adequate antecedent cause. Nothing causeless happens.
Since it is apparent that the Universe it not eternal, and since likewise it is apparent that the Universe could not have created itself, the only remaining alternative is that the Universe was created by something, or Someone, that: (a) existed before it, i.e., some eternal, uncaused First Cause; (b) is superior to it—since the created cannot be superior to the creator; and (c) is of a different nature, since the finite, contingent Universe of matter is unable to explain itself (see Jackson and Carroll, n.d., 2:98-154).
In connection with this, another important fact should be considered. If there ever had been a time when nothing existed, then there would be nothing now. It is a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing. In view of this, since something exists now, it must follow logically that something has existed forever. As Sproul has remarked:
Indeed, reason demands that if something exists, either the world or God (or anything else), then something must be self-existent.... There must be a self-existent being of some sort somewhere, or nothing would or could exist (1994, pp. 179,185 emp. in orig.).
Everything that exists can be classified as either matter (which includes energy), or mind. There is no third alternative. The theist’s argument, then, is this:
Everything that exists is either matter or mind.
Something exists now, so something eternal must exist.
Therefore, either matter or mind is eternal.
Either matter or mind is eternal.
Matter is not eternal, per the evidence cited above.
Thus, it is mind that is eternal.
In the past, atheists suggested that the mind is nothing more than a function of the brain, which is matter; thus the mind and the brain are the same, and matter is all that exists. However, that viewpoint is no longer intellectually credible, as a result of the scientific experiments of British neurologist, Sir John Eccles. Dr. Eccles won the Nobel Prize for distinguishing that the mind is more than merely physical. He showed that the supplementary motor area of the brain may be fired by mere intention to do something, without the motor cortex of the brain (which controls muscle movements) operating. In effect, the mind is to the brain what a librarian is to a library. The former is not reducible to the latter. Eccles explained his methodology in The Self and Its Brain, co-authored with the renowned philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper (see Popper and Eccles, 1977). In a discussion centering on Dr. Eccles’ work, Norman Geisler discussed the concept of an eternal, all-knowing Mind.
Further, this infinite cause of all that is must be all-knowing. It must be knowing because knowing beings exist. I am a knowing being, and I know it.... But a cause can communicate to its effect only what it has to communicate. If the effect actually possesses some characteristic, then this characteristic is properly attributed to its cause. The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. If my mind or ability to know is received, then there must be Mind or Knower who gave it to me. The intellectual does not arise from the nonintellectual; something cannot arise from nothing (1976, p. 247).
From evidence such as that presented here, Robert Jastrow (an agnostic, by his own admission) was forced to conclude: “That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact” (1982, p. 18). The evidence speaks clearly regarding the existence of a non-contingent, eternal, self-existent Mind that created this Universe and everything within it.
CONCLUSION
The law of cause and effect, and the cosmological argument based upon that law, have serious implications in every field of human endeavor. The Universe is here, and must have an adequate antecedent cause. In addressing this problem, R.L. Wysong commented:
Everyone concludes naturally and comfortably that highly ordered and designed items (machines, houses, etc.) owe existence to a designer. It is unnatural to conclude otherwise. But evolution asks us to break stride from what is natural to believe and then believe in that which is unnatural, unreasonable, and...unbelievable.... The basis for this departure from what is natural and reasonable to believe is not fact, observation, or experience but rather unreasonable extrapolations from abstract probabilities, mathematics, and philosophy (1976, p. 412, first ellipsis in orig.).
Dr. Wysong then presented an interesting historical case to illustrate his point. Some years ago, scientists were called to Great Britain to study orderly patterns of concentric rocks and holes—a find designated as Stonehenge. As studies progressed, it became apparent that these patterns had been designed specifically to allow certain astronomical predictions. Many questions (e.g., how ancient peoples were able to construct an astronomical observatory, how the data derived from their studies were used, etc.) remain unsolved. But one thing is known—the cause of Stonehenge was intelligent design.
Now, suggested Dr. Wysong, compare Stonehenge to the situation paralleling the origin of the Universe, and of life itself. We study life, observe its functions, contemplate its complexity (which defies duplication even by intelligent men with the most advanced methodology and technology), and what are we to conclude? Stonehenge might have been produced by the erosion of a mountain, or by catastrophic natural forces working in conjunction with meteorites to produce rock formations and concentric holes. But what scientist or philosopher ever would suggest such an idea?
No one ever could be convinced that Stonehenge “just happened” by accident, yet atheists and agnostics expect us to believe that this highly ordered, well-designed Universe, and the complicated life it contains, “just happened.” To accept such an idea is, to use Dr. Wysong’s words, “to break stride from what is natural to believe” because the conclusion is unreasonable, unwarranted, and unsupported by the facts at hand. The cause simply is not adequate to produce the effect.
The central message of the Cosmological Argument, and the law of cause and effect upon which it is based, is this: Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The Universe is here; intelligent life is here; morality is here; love is here. What is their adequate antecedent cause? Since the effect never can precede, or be greater than the cause, it stands to reason that the Cause of life must be a living Intelligence that Itself is both moral and loving. When the Bible records, “In the beginning, God...,” it makes known to us just such a First Cause.
One of the laws of thought employed in the field of logic is the law of rationality, which states that one should accept as true only those conclusions for which there is adequate evidence. This is sensible, for accepting as true a conclusion for which there is no evidence, or inadequate evidence, would be irrational. In establishing the prima facie case for the existence of God, theists present—through logic, clear reasoning, and factual data—arguments adequate to justify the acceptance of the conclusion that God exists. The approach is intended to be positive in nature, and to establish a proposition for which adequate evidence is available.
The evidence used to substantiate the theist’s proposition concerning God’s existence may take many forms. This should not be surprising since, if He does exist, God would be the greatest of all realities. His existence, therefore, could be extrapolated not from just a single line of reasoning, but from numerous avenues. As one writer of the past suggested:
The reality of such a Being can be firmly established only by concurrent reasons coming from various realms of existence, and approved by various powers of the human spirit. It is a conclusion that cannot be reached without the aid of arguments inadequate by themselves to so great a result, yet valid in their place, proving each some part of the great truth; proofs cumulative and complementary, each requiring others for its completion (Clarke, 1912, p. 104).
The various arguments presented by theists, all combined, make an ironclad case for God’s existence. Where one particular argument fails to impress or convince an inquirer, another will avail. Considered cumulatively, the evidence is adequate to justify the intended conclusion. It is my purpose here to present and discuss additional evidence substantiating the proposition: God exists.
DESIGN IN NATURE—THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
In contending for the existence of God, theists often employ the Teleological Argument. “Teleology” has reference to purpose or design. Thus, this approach suggests that where there is purposeful design, there must be a designer. The deduction being made, of course, is that order, planning, and design in a system are indicative of intelligence, purpose, and specific intent on the part of the originating cause. In logical form, the theist’s argument may be presented as follows:
If the Universe evinces purposeful design, there must have been a designer.
The Universe does evince purposeful design.
Thus, the Universe must have had a designer.
This correct form of logical reasoning, and the implications that flow from it, have not escaped the attention of those who do not believe in God. Paul Ricci, an atheistic philosopher and professor, has written that “...it’s true that everything designed has a designer...” (1986, p. 190). In fact, Mr. Ricci even conceded that the statement, “ ‘Everything designed has a designer,’ is an analytically true statement” and thus requires no formal proof (p. 190). Apparently Mr. Ricci understands that one does not get a poem without a poet, a law without a lawgiver, a painting without a painter, or design without a designer.
He is in good company among his disbelieving counterparts. For example, atheistic evolutionist Richard Lewontin made the following admission in an article he authored for Scientific American:
Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life. It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer (1978, 239[3]:213, emp. added).
To be fair to both of these authors, and others like them, let me quickly point out that while they agree with the thrust of the theist’s argument (i.e., that design leads inevitably to a designer), they do not believe that there is evidence warranting the conclusion that a Supreme Designer exists, and they therefore have rejected any belief in God. Their disagreement with the theist would center on statement number two (the minor premise) in the above syllogism. While admitting that design demands a designer, they would deny that there is design in nature providing proof of the existence of a Great Designer.
A good example of such a denial can be found in a book written by British evolutionist, Richard Dawkins. During the 1800s, William Paley employed his now-famous “watch argument.” Paley argued that if one were to discover a watch lying upon the ground, and were to examine it closely, the design inherent in the watch would be enough to force the conclusion that there must have been a watchmaker. Paley continued his line of argumentation to suggest that the design inherent in the Universe should be enough to force the conclusion that there must have been a Great Designer. In 1986, Dawkins published The Blind Watchmaker, which was intended to put to rest once and for all Paley’s argument. The dust jacket of Dawkins’ book made that point clear:
There may be good reasons for belief in God, but the argument from design is not one of them.... [D]espite all appearances to the contrary, there is no watchmaker in nature beyond the blind forces of physics.... Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially nonrandom process that Darwin discovered, and that we now understand to be the explanation for the existence and form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker (1986, emp. in orig.).
The disagreement between the theist and atheist is not whether design demands a designer. Rather, the point of contention is whether or not there is design in nature adequate to substantiate the conclusion that a Designer does, in fact, exist. This is where the Teleological Argument is of benefit.
Design of the Universe
Our Universe operates in accordance with exact scientific laws. The precision of the Universe, and the exactness of these laws, allow scientists to launch rockets to the Moon, with the full knowledge that, upon their arrival, they can land within a few feet of their intended target. Such precision and exactness also allow astronomers to predict solar/lunar eclipses years in advance, or to determine when Halley’s Comet can be seen once again from the Earth. Science writer Lincoln Barnett once observed:
This functional harmony of nature Berkeley, Descartes, and Spinoza attributed to God. Modern physicists who prefer to solve their problems without recourse to God (although this seems to be more difficult all the time) emphasize that nature mysteriously operates on mathematical principles. It is the mathematical orthodoxy of the Universe that enables theorists like Einstein to predict and discover natural laws, simply by the solution of equations (1959, p. 22).
The precision, complexity, and orderliness within the Universe are not in dispute; writers such as Ricci, Dawkins, and Lewontin acknowledge as much. But while atheists willingly concede complexity, and even order, they are not prepared to concede design because the implication of such a concession would demand a Designer. Is there evidence of design? The atheist claims no such evidence exists. The theist, however, affirms that it does, and offers the following information in support of that affirmation.
We live in a tremendously large Universe. While its outer limits have not been measured, it is estimated to be as much as 20 billion light years in diameter (i.e., the distance it would take light to travel across the Universe at a speed of over 186,000 miles per second; see Lawton, 1981, 89[1]:105). There are an estimated one billion galaxies in the Universe (Lawton, 1981, 89[1]:98), and an estimated 25 sextillion stars. The Milky Way galaxy in which we live contains over 100 billion stars, and is so large that even traveling at the speed of light would require 100,000 years to cross its diameter. Light travels in one year approximately 5.87 x 1012 miles; in 100,000 years, that would be 5.87 x 1017 miles, or 587 quadrillion miles just to cross the diameter of a single galaxy. If we drew a map of the Milky Way galaxy, and represented the Earth and Sun as two dots one inch apart (thus a scale of one inch equals 93 million miles—the distance between the Earth and the Sun), we would need a map at least four miles wide to locate the next nearest star, and a map 25,000 miles wide to reach the center of our galaxy. Without doubt, this is a rather impressive Universe.
Yet while the size itself is impressive, the inherent design is even more so. The Sun’s interior temperature is estimated to be over 20 million degrees Celsius (Lawton, 1981, 89[1]:102). The Earth, however, is located at exactly the correct distance from the Sun to receive the proper amount of heat and radiation to sustain life as we know it. If the Earth were moved just 10% closer to the Sun (about 10 million miles), far too much heat and radiation would be absorbed. If the Earth were moved just 10% further from the Sun, too little heat would be absorbed. Either scenario would spell doom for life on the Earth.
The Earth is rotating on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, and moving around the Sun at 70,000 miles per hour (approximately 19 miles per second), while the Sun and its solar system are moving through space at 600,000 miles per hour in an orbit so large it would take over 220 million years just to complete a single orbit. Interestingly, however, as the Earth moves in its orbit around the Sun, it departs from a straight line by only one-ninth of an inch every eighteen miles. If it departed by one-eighth of an inch, we would come so close to the Sun that we would be incinerated; if it departed by one-tenth of an inch, we would find ourselves so far from the Sun that we would all freeze to death (Science Digest, 1981, 89[1]:124). The Earth is poised some 240,000 miles from the Moon, whose gravitational pull produces ocean tides. If the Moon were moved closer to the Earth by just a fifth, the tides would be so enormous that twice a day they would reach 35-50 feet high over most of the Earth’s surface.
What would happen if the rotation rate of the Earth were halved, or doubled? If it were halved, the seasons would be doubled in their length, which would cause such harsh heat and cold over much of the Earth that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to grow enough food to feed the Earth’s population. If the rotation rate were doubled, the length of each season would be halved, and it would be difficult or impossible to grow enough food to feed the Earth’s population. The Earth is tilted on its axis at exactly 23.5 degrees. Were that tilt to be reduced to zero, much of the Earth’s water would accumulate around the two poles, leaving vast deserts in its place. If the atmosphere surrounding the Earth were much thinner, meteorites could strike our planet with greater force and frequency, causing worldwide devastation.
The oceans provide a huge reservoir of moisture that constantly is evaporating and condensing, thus falling upon the land as refreshing rain. It is a well-known fact that water heats and cools at a much slower rate than a solid land mass, which explains why desert regions can be blistering hot in the daytime and freezing cold at night. Water, however, holds its temperature longer, and provides a sort of natural heating/air-conditioning system for the land areas of the Earth. Temperature extremes would be much more erratic than they are, were it not for the fact that approximately four-fifths of the Earth is covered with water. In addition, humans and animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. On the other hand, plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. We depend upon the world of botany for our oxygen supply, but often fail to realize that approximately 90% of our oxygen comes from microscopic plants in the seas (see Asimov, 1975, 2:116). If our oceans were appreciably smaller, we soon would be out of air to breathe.
Can a person reasonably be expected to believe that these exacting requirements for life as we know it have been met “just by accident”? The Earth is exactly the right distance from the Sun; it is exactly the right distance from the Moon; it has exactly the right diameter; it has exactly the right atmospheric pressure; it has exactly the right tilt; it has exactly the right amount of oceanic water; it has exactly the right weight and mass; and so on. Were this many requirements to be met in any other essential area of life, the idea that they had been provided “just by accident” would be dismissed immediately as ludicrous. Yet atheists and agnostics suggest that the Universe, the Earth, and life on the Earth are all here as a result of fortuitous accidents. Physicist John Gribbin (1983), writing on the numerous specific requirements necessary for life on our planet, emphasized in great detail both the nature and essentiality of those requirements, yet curiously chose to title his article, “Earth’s Lucky Break”—as if all of the precision, orderliness, and intricate design in the Universe could be explained by postulating that the Earth simply received, in a roll of the cosmic dice, a “lucky break.”
For more than a decade and a half, British evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle has stressed the insurmountable problems with such thinking, and has addressed specifically the many problems faced by those who defend the idea of a naturalistic origin of life on Earth. In fact, Dr. Hoyle described the atheistic concept that disorder gives rise to order in a rather picturesque manner when he observed that “the chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein” (1981b, p. 105). Dr. Hoyle, even went so far as to draw the following conclusion:
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate.... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences...even to the extreme idealized limit of God (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, pp. 141,144, emp. in orig.).
Atheist Richard Dawkins was forced to admit: “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer” (1982, p. 130, emp. added). That is the very conclusion theists have drawn from the available evidence—in keeping with the law of rationality. The statistical improbability of the Universe “just happening by blind chance” is staggering. The only alternative is an Intelligent Designer—God.
Design of the Human Body
Many years ago, the ancient scholar Augustine observed: “Men go abroad to wonder at the height of mountains, at the huge waves of the sea, at the long course of the rivers, at the vast compass of the ocean, at the circular motion of the stars; and they pass by themselves without wondering.” Indeed, while we stand in amazement at so many stunning scenes from our unique Universe, we often fail to stand equally amazed at the marvelous creation of man. According to those who do not believe in God, the human body is little more than the result of a set of fortuitous circumstances credited to that mythical lady, “Mother Nature.” Yet such a suggestion does not fit the actual facts of the case, as even evolutionists have been forced to recognize from time to time. The late George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard once suggested that in man one finds “the most highly endowed organization of matter that has yet appeared on the earth...” (1949, p. 293). Another evolutionist observed:
When you come right down to it, the most incredible creation in the universe is you—with your fantastic senses and strengths, your ingenious defense systems, and mental capabilities so great you can never use them to the fullest. Your body is a structural masterpiece more amazing than science fiction (Guinness, 1987, p. 5).
Can one reasonably be expected to conclude that the “structural masterpiece” of the human body—with its “ingenious” systems and “highly endowed organization”—is the result of blind chance operating over eons of time in nature as atheism suggests? Or would it be more in keeping with the facts of the matter to suggest that the human body is the result of purposeful design by a Master Designer?
For organizational purposes, the human body may be considered at four different levels (see Jackson, 1993, pp. 5-6). First, there are cells, representing the smallest unit of life. Second, there are tissues (muscle tissue, nerve tissue, etc.), which are groups of the same kind of cells carrying on the same kind of activity. Third, there are organs (heart, liver, etc.), which are groups of tissues working together in unison. Fourth, there are systems (reproductive system, circulatory system, etc.), which are composed of groups of organs carrying out specific bodily functions. While we will not have the space in this article to examine each of them, an investigation of these various levels of organization, and of the human body as a whole, leads inescapably to the conclusion that there is intelligent design at work. As Wayne Jackson noted: “It is therefore quite clear...that the physical body has been marvelously designed and intricately organized, for the purpose of facilitating human existence upon the planet Earth” (1993, p. 6). In light of the following facts, such a statement is certainly justified.
A human body is composed of over 30 different kinds of cells (red blood cells, white blood cells, nerve cells, etc.), totalling approximately 100 trillion cells in an average adult (Beck, 1971, p. 189). These cells come in a variety of sizes and shapes, with different functions and life expectancies. For example, some cells (e.g., male spermatazoa) are so small that 20,000 would fit inside a capital “O” from a standard typewriter, each being only 0.05 mm long. Some cells, placed end-to-end, would make only one inch if 6,000 were assembled together. Yet all the cells of the human body, if set end-to-end, would encircle the Earth over 200 times. Even the largest cell of the human body, the female ovum, is unbelievably small, being only 0.01 of an inch in diameter. Cells have three major components. First, each cell is composed of a cell membrane that encloses the organism. Second, inside the cell is a three-dimensional cytoplasm—a watery matrix containing specialized organelles. Third, within the cytoplasm is the nucleus, which contains most of the genetic material and serves as the control center of the cell.
The lipoprotein cell membrane (lipids/proteins/lipids) is approximately 0.06-0.08 of a micrometer thick, yet allows selective transport into, and out of, the cell. Evolutionist Ernest Borek has observed: “The membrane recognizes with its uncanny molecular memory the hundreds of compounds swimming around it and permits or denies passage according to the cell’s requirements” (1973, p. 5).
Inside the cytoplasm, there are over 20 different chemical reactions occurring at any one time, with each cell containing five major components for: (1) communication; (2) waste disposal; (3) nutrition; (4) repair; and (5) reproduction. Within this watery matrix there are such organelles as the mitochondria (over 1,000 per cell in many instances) that provide the cell with its energy. The endoplasmic reticulum is “believed to be a transport system designed to carry materials from one part of the cell to the other” (Pfeiffer, 1964, p. 13). Ribosomes are miniature protein-producing factories. Golgi bodies store the proteins manufactured by the ribosomes. Lysozomes within the cytoplasm function as garbage disposal units.
The nucleus is the control center of the cell, and is separated from the cytoplasm by a nuclear membrane. Within the nucleus is the genetic machinery of the cell (chromosomes and genes containing deoxyribonucleic acid—DNA). The DNA is a supermolecule that carries the coded information for the replication of the cell. If the DNA from a single human cell were removed from the nucleus and unraveled (it is found in the cell in a spiral configuration), it would be approximately six feet long, and would contain over a billion biochemical steps. It has been estimated that if all the DNA in an adult human were placed end-to-end, it would reach to the Sun and back (186 million miles) 400 times.
It should also be noted that the DNA molecule does something that we as humans have yet to accomplish: it stores coded information in a chemical format, and then uses a biologic agent (RNA) to decode and activate it. As Darrel Kautz has stated: “Human technology has not yet advanced to the point of storing information chemically as it is in the DNA molecule” (1988, p. 45, emp. in orig.; see also Jackson, 1993, pp. 11-12). If transcribed into English, the DNA in a single human cell would fill a 1,000 volume set of encyclopedias approximately 600 pages each (Gore, 1976, p. 357). Yet just as amazing is the fact that all the genetic information needed to reproduce the entire human population (about five billion people) could be placed into a space of about one-eighth of a square inch. In comparing the amount of information contained in the DNA molecule with a much larger computer microchip, evolutionist Irvin Block remarked: “We marvel at the feats of memory and transcription accomplished by computer microchips, but these are gargantuan compared to the protein granules of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA” (1980, p. 52). In an article he authored for Encyclopaedia Britannica, Carl Sagan observed that “The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 1012 bits [i.e., one trillion—BT]...” (1974, 10:894). To emphasize to the reader the enormity of this figure, Dr. Sagan then noted that if one were to count every letter in every word of every book in the world’s largest library (over ten million volumes), the final tally would be approximately a trillion letters. Thus, a single cell contains the equivalent information content of every book in the world’s largest library of more than ten million volumes! Every rational person recognizes that not one of the books in such a library “just happened.” Rather, each and every one is the result of intelligence and painstaking design.
What, then, may we say about the infinitely more complex genetic code found within the DNA in each cell? Sir Fred Hoyle concluded that the notion that the code’s complexity could be arrived at by chance is “nonsense of a high order” (1981a, p. 527). In their classic text on the origin of life, Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen addressed the implications of the genetic code found within the DNA molecule.
We know that in numerous cases certain effects always have intelligent causes, such as dictionaries, sculptures, machines and paintings. We reason by analogy that similar effects have intelligent causes. For example, after looking up to see “BUY FORD” spelled out in smoke across the sky we infer the presence of a skywriter even if heard or saw no airplane. We would similarly conclude the presence of intelligent activity were we to come upon an elephant-shaped topiary in a cedar forest.
In like manner an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence....
We believe that if this question is considered, it will be seen that most often it is answered in the negative simply because it is thought to be inappropriate to bring a Creator into science (1984, pp. 211-212, emp. in orig.).
The complexity and intricacy of the DNA molecule—combined with the staggering amount of chemically-coded information it contains—speak unerringly to the fact that this “supermolecule” simply could not have happened by blind chance. As Andrews has observed:
It is not possible for a code, of any kind, to arise by chance or accident.... A code is the work of an intelligent mind. Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code of any kind. It is obvious then that chance cannot do it.... This could no more have been the work of chance or accident than could the “Moonlight Sonata” be played by mice running up and down the keyboard of my piano! Codes do not arise from chaos (1978, pp. 28-29).
Indeed, codes do not arise from chaos. As Dawkins correctly remarked: “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer” (1982, p. 130, emp. added). That is the exact point the theist is making: an intelligent Designer is demanded by the evidence.
CONCLUSION
Atheistic philosopher, Paul Ricci, has suggested that “Although many have difficulty understanding the tremendous order and complexity of functions of the human body (the eye, for example), there is no obvious designer” (1986, p. 191, emp. added). The only people who “have difficulty understanding the tremendous order and complexity” found in the Universe are those who have “refused to have God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28). Such people can parrot the phrase that “there is no obvious designer,” but their arguments are not convincing. One does not get a poem without a poet, or a law without a lawgiver. One does not get a painting without a painter, or a musical score without a composer. And just as surely, one does not get purposeful design without a designer. The design inherent in the Universe is evident—from the macrocosm to the microcosm—and is sufficient to draw the conclusion demanded by the evidence, in keeping with the law of rationality. God does exist.
The statement, “God exists,” is a precisely stated proposition. Thus, it is either true or false. The simple fact is, either God exists or He does not. There is no middle ground. One cannot affirm logically both the existence and nonexistence of God. The atheist boldly states that God does not exist; the theist affirms just as boldly that God does exist; the agnostic laments that there is not enough evidence to make a decision on the matter; and the skeptic doubts that God’s existence can be proven with certainty. Who is correct? Does God exist or not?
The only way to answer this question, of course, is to seek out and examine the evidence. It certainly is reasonable to suggest that if there is a God, He would make available to us evidence adequate to the task of proving His existence. But does such evidence exist? And if it does, what is the nature of that evidence?
The theist advocates the view that evidence is available to prove conclusively that God does exist, and that this evidence is adequate to establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of God. However, when we employ the word “prove,” we do not mean that God’s existence can be demonstrated scientifically in the same fashion that one might prove that a sack of potatoes weighs ten pounds, or that a human heart has four distinct chambers within it. Such matters as the weight of a sack of vegetables, or the divisions within a muscle, are matters that may be verified empirically using the five senses. And while empirical evidence often is quite useful in establishing the validity of a case, it is not the sole means of arriving at proof. For example, legal authorities recognize the validity of a prima facie case, which is acknowledged to exist when adequate evidence is available to establish the presumption of a fact that, unless such fact can be refuted, legally stands proven (see Jackson, 1974, p. 13). It is the contention of the theist that there is a vast body of evidence that makes an impregnable prima facie case for the existence of God—a case that simply cannot be refuted. I would like to present here the prima facie case for the existence of God, and a portion of the evidence upon which that case is based.
CAUSE AND EFFECT—THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Throughout human history, one of the most effective arguments for the existence of God has been the cosmological argument, which addresses the fact that the Universe (Cosmos) is here and therefore must be explained in some fashion. In his book, Not A Chance, R.C. Sproul observed:
Traditional philosophy argued for the existence of God on the foundation of the law of causality. The cosmological argument went from the presence of a cosmos back to a creator of the cosmos. It sought a rational answer to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” It sought a sufficient reason for a real world (1994, p. 169, emp. in orig.).
The Universe exists and is real. Atheists and agnostics not only acknowledge its existence, but admit that it is a grand effect (e.g., see Jastrow, 1977, pp. 19-21). If an entity cannot account for its own being (i.e., it is not sufficient to have caused itself), then it is said to be “contingent” because it is dependent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence. The Universe is a contingent entity, since it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. Sproul has noted: “Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a cause. That is merely to say, if it is an effect it must have an antecedent cause” (1994, p. 172). Thus, since the Universe is a contingent effect, the obvious question becomes, “What caused the Universe?”
It is here that the law of cause and effect (also known as the law of causality) is strongly tied to the cosmological argument. Simply put, the law of causality states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. Just as the law of the excluded middle is analytically true, so the law of cause and effect is analytically true as well. Sproul addressed this when he wrote:
The statement “Every effect has an antecedent cause” is analytically true. To say that it is analytically or formally true is to say that it is true by definition or analysis. There is nothing in the predicate that is not already contained by resistless logic in the subject. It is like the statement, “A bachelor is an unmarried man” or “A triangle has three sides” or “Two plus two are four....” Cause and effect, though distinct ideas, are inseparably bound together in rational discourse. It is meaningless to say that something is a cause if it yields no effect. It is likewise meaningless to say that something is an effect if it has no cause. A cause, by definition, must have an effect, or it is not a cause. An effect, by definition, must have a cause, or it is not an effect (1994, pp. 172,171 emp. in orig.).
Effects without adequate causes are unknown. Further, causes never occur subsequent to the effect. It is meaningless to speak of a cause following an effect, or an effect preceding a cause. In addition, the effect is never qualitatively superior to, or quantitatively greater than, the cause. This knowledge is responsible for our formulation of the law of causality in these words: Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall from the table because the fly lighted on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we observe, we must postulate adequate antecedent causes—which brings us back to the original question: What caused the Universe?
There are but three possible answers to this question: (1) the Universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist; (2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3) the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing; rather, it was created by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior, to itself. These three options merit serious consideration.
Is the Universe Eternal?
The most comfortable position for the person who does not believe in God is the idea that the Universe is eternal, because it avoids the problem of a beginning or ending, and thus the need for any “first cause” such as God. In fact, it was to avoid just such a problem that evolutionists Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, and Fred Hoyle developed the Steady State Theory. Information had come to light that indicated the Universe was expanding. These scientists suggested that at points in space called “irtrons” hydrogen was coming into existence from nothing. As hydrogen atoms arrived, they had to “go” somewhere, and as they did, they displaced matter already in existence, causing the Universe to expand. Dr. Hoyle suggested that the atoms of gaseous hydrogen gradually condensed into clouds of virgin matter, that within these clouds new stars and galaxies formed, etc.
However, the Steady State Theory was doomed to failure, in part, because it violated one of the most fundamental laws of science—the first law of thermodynamics (also referred to as the law of the conservation of matter and/or energy), which states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed in nature. Astronomer Robert Jastrow observed:
But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which 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 (1977, p. 32).
The Steady State Theory eventually was relegated to the relic heaps of history. Yet problems for those who advocated an eternal Universe continued to multiply because such a concept violated the second law of thermodynamics as well. Simply stated, the second law of thermodynamics dictates that as energy is employed to perform work, it is transformed from a usable to a nonusable form. The Universe is “running down” because energy is becoming less available for use. As Jastrow has remarked:
And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates that the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up. Arthur Eddington, the most distinguished astronomer of his day, wrote: “If our views are right, somewhere between the beginning of time and the present day we must place the winding up of the universe.” When that occurred, and Who or what wound up the Universe, were questions that bemused theologians, physicists and astronomers, particularly in the 1920’s and 1930’s (1978, pp. 48-49).
A year before making that admission, Dr. Jastrow made another important concession when he wrote:
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;... The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth, but the impact is the same; modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future (1977, pp. 19,30, emp. added).
The scientific evidence states clearly that the Universe had a beginning—something eternal things do not have. Nor do eternal things “run down,” yet clearly the Universe is doing just that, as Dr. Jastrow has noted. As Henry Morris has commented, “The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning” (1974, p. 26). Indeed, it does. The Universe is now known not to be eternal.
Did the Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?
In the past, it would have been practically impossible to find any reputable scientist who would be willing to advocate a self-created Universe. George Davis, a prominent physicist of the past generation, explained why when he wrote: “No material thing can create itself.” Further, Dr. Davis affirmed that this statement “cannot be logically attacked on the basis of any knowledge available to us” (1958, p. 71). The Universe is the created, not the creator.
However, as surprising as it may seem, some in the scientific and philosophical communities have stepped forward to defend the option that the Universe simply created itself out of nothing. Edward P. Tryon, professor of physics at the City University of New York, wrote for example: “In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing, as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous, enchanting, or both” (1984, p. 14). But the real push for the acceptance of a self-created Universe came as a result of an article published in the May 1984 issue of Scientific American. Under the title of “The Inflationary Universe,” evolutionists Alan Guth and Paul Steinhardt wrote:
From a historical point of view, probably the most revolutionary aspect of the inflationary model is the notion that all the matter and energy in the observable universe may have emerged from almost nothing.... The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observed universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire Universe evolved from literally nothing (1984, p. 128, emp. added).
Such ideas as those set forth by Tryon, Guth, Steinhardt, and others have set off a wave of controversy within the scientific community, as is evident from heated discussions at annual scientific meetings, articles published in refereed scientific journals, books written on a scholarly level, and even items appearing in popular science magazines. For example, in the summer 1994 edition of the Skeptical Inquirer, Ralph Estling of Great Britain wrote a stinging rebuke of the idea that the Universe created itself out of nothing. Estling suggested:
The problem emerges in science when scientists leave the realm of science and enter that of philosophy and metaphysics, too often grandiose names for mere personal opinion, untrammeled by empirical evidence or logical analysis, and wearing the mask of deep wisdom. And so they conjure us an entire Cosmos, or myriads of cosmoses, suddenly, inexplicably, causelessly leaping into being out of—out of Nothing Whatsoever, for no reason at all, and thereafter expanding faster than light into more Nothing Whatsoever.... They then intone equations and other ritual mathematical formulae and look upon it and pronounce it good. I do not think that what these cosmologists, these quantum theorists, these universe-makers, are doing is science. I can’t help feeling that universes are notoriously disinclined to spring into being, ready-made, out of nothing (1994, 18[4]:430).
Estling’s article provoked numerous letters to the editor of the Skeptical Inquirer, which were printed, with Estling’s response, in the January/February 1995 issue. Estling wrote, in part: “All things begin with speculation, science not excluded. But if no empirical evidence is eventually forthcoming, or can be forthcoming, all speculation is barren.... There is no evidence, so far, that the entire universe, observable and unobservable, emerged from a state of absolute Nothingness” (1995, 19[1]:69-70).
Estling is correct, of course. There is no evidence that would allow matter or energy simply to “pop into existence” of its own accord. This suggestion is in clear violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, to suggest that the Universe created itself is to posit a self-contradictory position. Sproul addressed this when he wrote that what an atheist or agnostic
...deems possible for the world to do—come into being without a cause—is something no judicious philosopher would grant that even God could do. It is as formally and rationally impossible for God to come into being without a cause as it is for the world to do so.... For something to bring itself into being it must have the power of being within itself. It must at least have enough causal power to cause its own being. If it derives its being from some other source, then it clearly would not be either self-existent or self-created. It would be, plainly and simply, an effect. Of course, the problem is complicated by the other necessity we’ve labored so painstakingly to establish: It would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power (1994, pp. 179,180).
Science is based on observation and reproducibility. But when pressed for the reproducible, empirical data that document their claim of a self-created Universe, scientists and philosophers are at a loss to produce those data. Perhaps this is why Alan Guth lamented: “In the end, I must admit that questions of plausibility are not logically determinable and depend somewhat on intuition” (1988, 11[2]:76)—which is little more than a fancy way of saying, “I certainly wish this were true, but I could not prove it to you if my life depended on it.”
The eminent British astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking, put the matter in perspective when he wrote: “The new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory, although a lot of people do not seem to have heard of its demise and are still writing papers on it as if it were viable” (1988, p. 132, emp. added). The Universe did not create itself. Such an idea is absurd, philosophically and scientifically.
Was the Universe Created?
Either the Universe had a beginning, or it did not. But all available evidence indicates that the Universe did have a beginning. If the Universe had a beginning, it either had a cause or it did not. One thing we know assuredly, however: it is correct—logically and scientifically—to acknowledge that the Universe had a cause, because the Universe is an effect, and requires an adequate antecedent cause. Nothing causeless happens.
Since it is apparent that the Universe it not eternal, and since likewise it is apparent that the Universe could not have created itself, the only remaining alternative is that the Universe was created by something, or Someone, that: (a) existed before it, i.e., some eternal, uncaused First Cause; (b) is superior to it—since the created cannot be superior to the creator; and (c) is of a different nature, since the finite, contingent Universe of matter is unable to explain itself (see Jackson and Carroll, n.d., 2:98-154).
In connection with this, another important fact should be considered. If there ever had been a time when nothing existed, then there would be nothing now. It is a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing. In view of this, since something exists now, it must follow logically that something has existed forever. As Sproul has remarked:
Indeed, reason demands that if something exists, either the world or God (or anything else), then something must be self-existent.... There must be a self-existent being of some sort somewhere, or nothing would or could exist (1994, pp. 179,185 emp. in orig.).
Everything that exists can be classified as either matter (which includes energy), or mind. There is no third alternative. The theist’s argument, then, is this:
Everything that exists is either matter or mind.
Something exists now, so something eternal must exist.
Therefore, either matter or mind is eternal.
Either matter or mind is eternal.
Matter is not eternal, per the evidence cited above.
Thus, it is mind that is eternal.
In the past, atheists suggested that the mind is nothing more than a function of the brain, which is matter; thus the mind and the brain are the same, and matter is all that exists. However, that viewpoint is no longer intellectually credible, as a result of the scientific experiments of British neurologist, Sir John Eccles. Dr. Eccles won the Nobel Prize for distinguishing that the mind is more than merely physical. He showed that the supplementary motor area of the brain may be fired by mere intention to do something, without the motor cortex of the brain (which controls muscle movements) operating. In effect, the mind is to the brain what a librarian is to a library. The former is not reducible to the latter. Eccles explained his methodology in The Self and Its Brain, co-authored with the renowned philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper (see Popper and Eccles, 1977). In a discussion centering on Dr. Eccles’ work, Norman Geisler discussed the concept of an eternal, all-knowing Mind.
Further, this infinite cause of all that is must be all-knowing. It must be knowing because knowing beings exist. I am a knowing being, and I know it.... But a cause can communicate to its effect only what it has to communicate. If the effect actually possesses some characteristic, then this characteristic is properly attributed to its cause. The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. If my mind or ability to know is received, then there must be Mind or Knower who gave it to me. The intellectual does not arise from the nonintellectual; something cannot arise from nothing (1976, p. 247).
From evidence such as that presented here, Robert Jastrow (an agnostic, by his own admission) was forced to conclude: “That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact” (1982, p. 18). The evidence speaks clearly regarding the existence of a non-contingent, eternal, self-existent Mind that created this Universe and everything within it.
CONCLUSION
The law of cause and effect, and the cosmological argument based upon that law, have serious implications in every field of human endeavor. The Universe is here, and must have an adequate antecedent cause. In addressing this problem, R.L. Wysong commented:
Everyone concludes naturally and comfortably that highly ordered and designed items (machines, houses, etc.) owe existence to a designer. It is unnatural to conclude otherwise. But evolution asks us to break stride from what is natural to believe and then believe in that which is unnatural, unreasonable, and...unbelievable.... The basis for this departure from what is natural and reasonable to believe is not fact, observation, or experience but rather unreasonable extrapolations from abstract probabilities, mathematics, and philosophy (1976, p. 412, first ellipsis in orig.).
Dr. Wysong then presented an interesting historical case to illustrate his point. Some years ago, scientists were called to Great Britain to study orderly patterns of concentric rocks and holes—a find designated as Stonehenge. As studies progressed, it became apparent that these patterns had been designed specifically to allow certain astronomical predictions. Many questions (e.g., how ancient peoples were able to construct an astronomical observatory, how the data derived from their studies were used, etc.) remain unsolved. But one thing is known—the cause of Stonehenge was intelligent design.
Now, suggested Dr. Wysong, compare Stonehenge to the situation paralleling the origin of the Universe, and of life itself. We study life, observe its functions, contemplate its complexity (which defies duplication even by intelligent men with the most advanced methodology and technology), and what are we to conclude? Stonehenge might have been produced by the erosion of a mountain, or by catastrophic natural forces working in conjunction with meteorites to produce rock formations and concentric holes. But what scientist or philosopher ever would suggest such an idea?
No one ever could be convinced that Stonehenge “just happened” by accident, yet atheists and agnostics expect us to believe that this highly ordered, well-designed Universe, and the complicated life it contains, “just happened.” To accept such an idea is, to use Dr. Wysong’s words, “to break stride from what is natural to believe” because the conclusion is unreasonable, unwarranted, and unsupported by the facts at hand. The cause simply is not adequate to produce the effect.
The central message of the Cosmological Argument, and the law of cause and effect upon which it is based, is this: Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The Universe is here; intelligent life is here; morality is here; love is here. What is their adequate antecedent cause? Since the effect never can precede, or be greater than the cause, it stands to reason that the Cause of life must be a living Intelligence that Itself is both moral and loving. When the Bible records, “In the beginning, God...,” it makes known to us just such a First Cause.
One of the laws of thought employed in the field of logic is the law of rationality, which states that one should accept as true only those conclusions for which there is adequate evidence. This is sensible, for accepting as true a conclusion for which there is no evidence, or inadequate evidence, would be irrational. In establishing the prima facie case for the existence of God, theists present—through logic, clear reasoning, and factual data—arguments adequate to justify the acceptance of the conclusion that God exists. The approach is intended to be positive in nature, and to establish a proposition for which adequate evidence is available.
The evidence used to substantiate the theist’s proposition concerning God’s existence may take many forms. This should not be surprising since, if He does exist, God would be the greatest of all realities. His existence, therefore, could be extrapolated not from just a single line of reasoning, but from numerous avenues. As one writer of the past suggested:
The reality of such a Being can be firmly established only by concurrent reasons coming from various realms of existence, and approved by various powers of the human spirit. It is a conclusion that cannot be reached without the aid of arguments inadequate by themselves to so great a result, yet valid in their place, proving each some part of the great truth; proofs cumulative and complementary, each requiring others for its completion (Clarke, 1912, p. 104).
The various arguments presented by theists, all combined, make an ironclad case for God’s existence. Where one particular argument fails to impress or convince an inquirer, another will avail. Considered cumulatively, the evidence is adequate to justify the intended conclusion. It is my purpose here to present and discuss additional evidence substantiating the proposition: God exists.
DESIGN IN NATURE—THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
In contending for the existence of God, theists often employ the Teleological Argument. “Teleology” has reference to purpose or design. Thus, this approach suggests that where there is purposeful design, there must be a designer. The deduction being made, of course, is that order, planning, and design in a system are indicative of intelligence, purpose, and specific intent on the part of the originating cause. In logical form, the theist’s argument may be presented as follows:
If the Universe evinces purposeful design, there must have been a designer.
The Universe does evince purposeful design.
Thus, the Universe must have had a designer.
This correct form of logical reasoning, and the implications that flow from it, have not escaped the attention of those who do not believe in God. Paul Ricci, an atheistic philosopher and professor, has written that “...it’s true that everything designed has a designer...” (1986, p. 190). In fact, Mr. Ricci even conceded that the statement, “ ‘Everything designed has a designer,’ is an analytically true statement” and thus requires no formal proof (p. 190). Apparently Mr. Ricci understands that one does not get a poem without a poet, a law without a lawgiver, a painting without a painter, or design without a designer.
He is in good company among his disbelieving counterparts. For example, atheistic evolutionist Richard Lewontin made the following admission in an article he authored for Scientific American:
Life forms are more than simply multiple and diverse, however. Organisms fit remarkably well into the external world in which they live. They have morphologies, physiologies and behaviors that appear to have been carefully and artfully designed to enable each organism to appropriate the world around it for its own life. It was the marvelous fit of organisms to the environment, much more than the great diversity of forms, that was the chief evidence of a Supreme Designer (1978, 239[3]:213, emp. added).
To be fair to both of these authors, and others like them, let me quickly point out that while they agree with the thrust of the theist’s argument (i.e., that design leads inevitably to a designer), they do not believe that there is evidence warranting the conclusion that a Supreme Designer exists, and they therefore have rejected any belief in God. Their disagreement with the theist would center on statement number two (the minor premise) in the above syllogism. While admitting that design demands a designer, they would deny that there is design in nature providing proof of the existence of a Great Designer.
A good example of such a denial can be found in a book written by British evolutionist, Richard Dawkins. During the 1800s, William Paley employed his now-famous “watch argument.” Paley argued that if one were to discover a watch lying upon the ground, and were to examine it closely, the design inherent in the watch would be enough to force the conclusion that there must have been a watchmaker. Paley continued his line of argumentation to suggest that the design inherent in the Universe should be enough to force the conclusion that there must have been a Great Designer. In 1986, Dawkins published The Blind Watchmaker, which was intended to put to rest once and for all Paley’s argument. The dust jacket of Dawkins’ book made that point clear:
There may be good reasons for belief in God, but the argument from design is not one of them.... [D]espite all appearances to the contrary, there is no watchmaker in nature beyond the blind forces of physics.... Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially nonrandom process that Darwin discovered, and that we now understand to be the explanation for the existence and form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker (1986, emp. in orig.).
The disagreement between the theist and atheist is not whether design demands a designer. Rather, the point of contention is whether or not there is design in nature adequate to substantiate the conclusion that a Designer does, in fact, exist. This is where the Teleological Argument is of benefit.
Design of the Universe
Our Universe operates in accordance with exact scientific laws. The precision of the Universe, and the exactness of these laws, allow scientists to launch rockets to the Moon, with the full knowledge that, upon their arrival, they can land within a few feet of their intended target. Such precision and exactness also allow astronomers to predict solar/lunar eclipses years in advance, or to determine when Halley’s Comet can be seen once again from the Earth. Science writer Lincoln Barnett once observed:
This functional harmony of nature Berkeley, Descartes, and Spinoza attributed to God. Modern physicists who prefer to solve their problems without recourse to God (although this seems to be more difficult all the time) emphasize that nature mysteriously operates on mathematical principles. It is the mathematical orthodoxy of the Universe that enables theorists like Einstein to predict and discover natural laws, simply by the solution of equations (1959, p. 22).
The precision, complexity, and orderliness within the Universe are not in dispute; writers such as Ricci, Dawkins, and Lewontin acknowledge as much. But while atheists willingly concede complexity, and even order, they are not prepared to concede design because the implication of such a concession would demand a Designer. Is there evidence of design? The atheist claims no such evidence exists. The theist, however, affirms that it does, and offers the following information in support of that affirmation.
We live in a tremendously large Universe. While its outer limits have not been measured, it is estimated to be as much as 20 billion light years in diameter (i.e., the distance it would take light to travel across the Universe at a speed of over 186,000 miles per second; see Lawton, 1981, 89[1]:105). There are an estimated one billion galaxies in the Universe (Lawton, 1981, 89[1]:98), and an estimated 25 sextillion stars. The Milky Way galaxy in which we live contains over 100 billion stars, and is so large that even traveling at the speed of light would require 100,000 years to cross its diameter. Light travels in one year approximately 5.87 x 1012 miles; in 100,000 years, that would be 5.87 x 1017 miles, or 587 quadrillion miles just to cross the diameter of a single galaxy. If we drew a map of the Milky Way galaxy, and represented the Earth and Sun as two dots one inch apart (thus a scale of one inch equals 93 million miles—the distance between the Earth and the Sun), we would need a map at least four miles wide to locate the next nearest star, and a map 25,000 miles wide to reach the center of our galaxy. Without doubt, this is a rather impressive Universe.
Yet while the size itself is impressive, the inherent design is even more so. The Sun’s interior temperature is estimated to be over 20 million degrees Celsius (Lawton, 1981, 89[1]:102). The Earth, however, is located at exactly the correct distance from the Sun to receive the proper amount of heat and radiation to sustain life as we know it. If the Earth were moved just 10% closer to the Sun (about 10 million miles), far too much heat and radiation would be absorbed. If the Earth were moved just 10% further from the Sun, too little heat would be absorbed. Either scenario would spell doom for life on the Earth.
The Earth is rotating on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, and moving around the Sun at 70,000 miles per hour (approximately 19 miles per second), while the Sun and its solar system are moving through space at 600,000 miles per hour in an orbit so large it would take over 220 million years just to complete a single orbit. Interestingly, however, as the Earth moves in its orbit around the Sun, it departs from a straight line by only one-ninth of an inch every eighteen miles. If it departed by one-eighth of an inch, we would come so close to the Sun that we would be incinerated; if it departed by one-tenth of an inch, we would find ourselves so far from the Sun that we would all freeze to death (Science Digest, 1981, 89[1]:124). The Earth is poised some 240,000 miles from the Moon, whose gravitational pull produces ocean tides. If the Moon were moved closer to the Earth by just a fifth, the tides would be so enormous that twice a day they would reach 35-50 feet high over most of the Earth’s surface.
What would happen if the rotation rate of the Earth were halved, or doubled? If it were halved, the seasons would be doubled in their length, which would cause such harsh heat and cold over much of the Earth that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to grow enough food to feed the Earth’s population. If the rotation rate were doubled, the length of each season would be halved, and it would be difficult or impossible to grow enough food to feed the Earth’s population. The Earth is tilted on its axis at exactly 23.5 degrees. Were that tilt to be reduced to zero, much of the Earth’s water would accumulate around the two poles, leaving vast deserts in its place. If the atmosphere surrounding the Earth were much thinner, meteorites could strike our planet with greater force and frequency, causing worldwide devastation.
The oceans provide a huge reservoir of moisture that constantly is evaporating and condensing, thus falling upon the land as refreshing rain. It is a well-known fact that water heats and cools at a much slower rate than a solid land mass, which explains why desert regions can be blistering hot in the daytime and freezing cold at night. Water, however, holds its temperature longer, and provides a sort of natural heating/air-conditioning system for the land areas of the Earth. Temperature extremes would be much more erratic than they are, were it not for the fact that approximately four-fifths of the Earth is covered with water. In addition, humans and animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. On the other hand, plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. We depend upon the world of botany for our oxygen supply, but often fail to realize that approximately 90% of our oxygen comes from microscopic plants in the seas (see Asimov, 1975, 2:116). If our oceans were appreciably smaller, we soon would be out of air to breathe.
Can a person reasonably be expected to believe that these exacting requirements for life as we know it have been met “just by accident”? The Earth is exactly the right distance from the Sun; it is exactly the right distance from the Moon; it has exactly the right diameter; it has exactly the right atmospheric pressure; it has exactly the right tilt; it has exactly the right amount of oceanic water; it has exactly the right weight and mass; and so on. Were this many requirements to be met in any other essential area of life, the idea that they had been provided “just by accident” would be dismissed immediately as ludicrous. Yet atheists and agnostics suggest that the Universe, the Earth, and life on the Earth are all here as a result of fortuitous accidents. Physicist John Gribbin (1983), writing on the numerous specific requirements necessary for life on our planet, emphasized in great detail both the nature and essentiality of those requirements, yet curiously chose to title his article, “Earth’s Lucky Break”—as if all of the precision, orderliness, and intricate design in the Universe could be explained by postulating that the Earth simply received, in a roll of the cosmic dice, a “lucky break.”
For more than a decade and a half, British evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle has stressed the insurmountable problems with such thinking, and has addressed specifically the many problems faced by those who defend the idea of a naturalistic origin of life on Earth. In fact, Dr. Hoyle described the atheistic concept that disorder gives rise to order in a rather picturesque manner when he observed that “the chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein” (1981b, p. 105). Dr. Hoyle, even went so far as to draw the following conclusion:
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate.... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences...even to the extreme idealized limit of God (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, pp. 141,144, emp. in orig.).
Atheist Richard Dawkins was forced to admit: “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer” (1982, p. 130, emp. added). That is the very conclusion theists have drawn from the available evidence—in keeping with the law of rationality. The statistical improbability of the Universe “just happening by blind chance” is staggering. The only alternative is an Intelligent Designer—God.
Design of the Human Body
Many years ago, the ancient scholar Augustine observed: “Men go abroad to wonder at the height of mountains, at the huge waves of the sea, at the long course of the rivers, at the vast compass of the ocean, at the circular motion of the stars; and they pass by themselves without wondering.” Indeed, while we stand in amazement at so many stunning scenes from our unique Universe, we often fail to stand equally amazed at the marvelous creation of man. According to those who do not believe in God, the human body is little more than the result of a set of fortuitous circumstances credited to that mythical lady, “Mother Nature.” Yet such a suggestion does not fit the actual facts of the case, as even evolutionists have been forced to recognize from time to time. The late George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard once suggested that in man one finds “the most highly endowed organization of matter that has yet appeared on the earth...” (1949, p. 293). Another evolutionist observed:
When you come right down to it, the most incredible creation in the universe is you—with your fantastic senses and strengths, your ingenious defense systems, and mental capabilities so great you can never use them to the fullest. Your body is a structural masterpiece more amazing than science fiction (Guinness, 1987, p. 5).
Can one reasonably be expected to conclude that the “structural masterpiece” of the human body—with its “ingenious” systems and “highly endowed organization”—is the result of blind chance operating over eons of time in nature as atheism suggests? Or would it be more in keeping with the facts of the matter to suggest that the human body is the result of purposeful design by a Master Designer?
For organizational purposes, the human body may be considered at four different levels (see Jackson, 1993, pp. 5-6). First, there are cells, representing the smallest unit of life. Second, there are tissues (muscle tissue, nerve tissue, etc.), which are groups of the same kind of cells carrying on the same kind of activity. Third, there are organs (heart, liver, etc.), which are groups of tissues working together in unison. Fourth, there are systems (reproductive system, circulatory system, etc.), which are composed of groups of organs carrying out specific bodily functions. While we will not have the space in this article to examine each of them, an investigation of these various levels of organization, and of the human body as a whole, leads inescapably to the conclusion that there is intelligent design at work. As Wayne Jackson noted: “It is therefore quite clear...that the physical body has been marvelously designed and intricately organized, for the purpose of facilitating human existence upon the planet Earth” (1993, p. 6). In light of the following facts, such a statement is certainly justified.
A human body is composed of over 30 different kinds of cells (red blood cells, white blood cells, nerve cells, etc.), totalling approximately 100 trillion cells in an average adult (Beck, 1971, p. 189). These cells come in a variety of sizes and shapes, with different functions and life expectancies. For example, some cells (e.g., male spermatazoa) are so small that 20,000 would fit inside a capital “O” from a standard typewriter, each being only 0.05 mm long. Some cells, placed end-to-end, would make only one inch if 6,000 were assembled together. Yet all the cells of the human body, if set end-to-end, would encircle the Earth over 200 times. Even the largest cell of the human body, the female ovum, is unbelievably small, being only 0.01 of an inch in diameter. Cells have three major components. First, each cell is composed of a cell membrane that encloses the organism. Second, inside the cell is a three-dimensional cytoplasm—a watery matrix containing specialized organelles. Third, within the cytoplasm is the nucleus, which contains most of the genetic material and serves as the control center of the cell.
The lipoprotein cell membrane (lipids/proteins/lipids) is approximately 0.06-0.08 of a micrometer thick, yet allows selective transport into, and out of, the cell. Evolutionist Ernest Borek has observed: “The membrane recognizes with its uncanny molecular memory the hundreds of compounds swimming around it and permits or denies passage according to the cell’s requirements” (1973, p. 5).
Inside the cytoplasm, there are over 20 different chemical reactions occurring at any one time, with each cell containing five major components for: (1) communication; (2) waste disposal; (3) nutrition; (4) repair; and (5) reproduction. Within this watery matrix there are such organelles as the mitochondria (over 1,000 per cell in many instances) that provide the cell with its energy. The endoplasmic reticulum is “believed to be a transport system designed to carry materials from one part of the cell to the other” (Pfeiffer, 1964, p. 13). Ribosomes are miniature protein-producing factories. Golgi bodies store the proteins manufactured by the ribosomes. Lysozomes within the cytoplasm function as garbage disposal units.
The nucleus is the control center of the cell, and is separated from the cytoplasm by a nuclear membrane. Within the nucleus is the genetic machinery of the cell (chromosomes and genes containing deoxyribonucleic acid—DNA). The DNA is a supermolecule that carries the coded information for the replication of the cell. If the DNA from a single human cell were removed from the nucleus and unraveled (it is found in the cell in a spiral configuration), it would be approximately six feet long, and would contain over a billion biochemical steps. It has been estimated that if all the DNA in an adult human were placed end-to-end, it would reach to the Sun and back (186 million miles) 400 times.
It should also be noted that the DNA molecule does something that we as humans have yet to accomplish: it stores coded information in a chemical format, and then uses a biologic agent (RNA) to decode and activate it. As Darrel Kautz has stated: “Human technology has not yet advanced to the point of storing information chemically as it is in the DNA molecule” (1988, p. 45, emp. in orig.; see also Jackson, 1993, pp. 11-12). If transcribed into English, the DNA in a single human cell would fill a 1,000 volume set of encyclopedias approximately 600 pages each (Gore, 1976, p. 357). Yet just as amazing is the fact that all the genetic information needed to reproduce the entire human population (about five billion people) could be placed into a space of about one-eighth of a square inch. In comparing the amount of information contained in the DNA molecule with a much larger computer microchip, evolutionist Irvin Block remarked: “We marvel at the feats of memory and transcription accomplished by computer microchips, but these are gargantuan compared to the protein granules of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA” (1980, p. 52). In an article he authored for Encyclopaedia Britannica, Carl Sagan observed that “The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 1012 bits [i.e., one trillion—BT]...” (1974, 10:894). To emphasize to the reader the enormity of this figure, Dr. Sagan then noted that if one were to count every letter in every word of every book in the world’s largest library (over ten million volumes), the final tally would be approximately a trillion letters. Thus, a single cell contains the equivalent information content of every book in the world’s largest library of more than ten million volumes! Every rational person recognizes that not one of the books in such a library “just happened.” Rather, each and every one is the result of intelligence and painstaking design.
What, then, may we say about the infinitely more complex genetic code found within the DNA in each cell? Sir Fred Hoyle concluded that the notion that the code’s complexity could be arrived at by chance is “nonsense of a high order” (1981a, p. 527). In their classic text on the origin of life, Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen addressed the implications of the genetic code found within the DNA molecule.
We know that in numerous cases certain effects always have intelligent causes, such as dictionaries, sculptures, machines and paintings. We reason by analogy that similar effects have intelligent causes. For example, after looking up to see “BUY FORD” spelled out in smoke across the sky we infer the presence of a skywriter even if heard or saw no airplane. We would similarly conclude the presence of intelligent activity were we to come upon an elephant-shaped topiary in a cedar forest.
In like manner an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence....
We believe that if this question is considered, it will be seen that most often it is answered in the negative simply because it is thought to be inappropriate to bring a Creator into science (1984, pp. 211-212, emp. in orig.).
The complexity and intricacy of the DNA molecule—combined with the staggering amount of chemically-coded information it contains—speak unerringly to the fact that this “supermolecule” simply could not have happened by blind chance. As Andrews has observed:
It is not possible for a code, of any kind, to arise by chance or accident.... A code is the work of an intelligent mind. Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code of any kind. It is obvious then that chance cannot do it.... This could no more have been the work of chance or accident than could the “Moonlight Sonata” be played by mice running up and down the keyboard of my piano! Codes do not arise from chaos (1978, pp. 28-29).
Indeed, codes do not arise from chaos. As Dawkins correctly remarked: “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer” (1982, p. 130, emp. added). That is the exact point the theist is making: an intelligent Designer is demanded by the evidence.
CONCLUSION
Atheistic philosopher, Paul Ricci, has suggested that “Although many have difficulty understanding the tremendous order and complexity of functions of the human body (the eye, for example), there is no obvious designer” (1986, p. 191, emp. added). The only people who “have difficulty understanding the tremendous order and complexity” found in the Universe are those who have “refused to have God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28). Such people can parrot the phrase that “there is no obvious designer,” but their arguments are not convincing. One does not get a poem without a poet, or a law without a lawgiver. One does not get a painting without a painter, or a musical score without a composer. And just as surely, one does not get purposeful design without a designer. The design inherent in the Universe is evident—from the macrocosm to the microcosm—and is sufficient to draw the conclusion demanded by the evidence, in keeping with the law of rationality. God does exist.
Origionally posted by Merlyn - <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Consider that what you may have been taught or mind controlled to beleive might be the results of a plan by a few to control the masses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right on Merlyn! This "plan by a few", I believe was put in motion a long time ago, to slowly but surely get rid of all evidence of God. Why someone would want to do this I dont know. Maybe they are serving the Great Architect rather than the creator. Our government would rather have the masses rely on them and what they provide then to seek spiritual help. Its like how the media obtains its strength by immitating Gods power of omnipotence (spell?). Interesting thread.
Right on Merlyn! This "plan by a few", I believe was put in motion a long time ago, to slowly but surely get rid of all evidence of God. Why someone would want to do this I dont know. Maybe they are serving the Great Architect rather than the creator. Our government would rather have the masses rely on them and what they provide then to seek spiritual help. Its like how the media obtains its strength by immitating Gods power of omnipotence (spell?). Interesting thread.
