Do I Believe in Adam and Eve?

Do I believe in Adam and Eve?  In today’s educated, enlightened, modern era, that seems hard to imagine.  So let’s talk about what I do believe in…

I believe that Jesus, the Christ, was (and is) God in human flesh, who was born of a virgin, who died on a Roman cross, and who rose from the dead three days later.  I believe that His work makes possible my salvation from the punishment that I deserve for the wicked deeds I commit and thoughts I entertain in my mind and heart.  This is possible because God is willing to forgive my wickedness through His grace, imparted to me through faith, because Jesus paid the wages for my sin.

Where do I get this information?  From a book called the Bible.  How strange is it to believe that God became a man, allowed Himself to be physically killed through crucifixion, and then physically return from death?  These concepts are very weird to our educated, enlightened, modern sensibilities.  But if any part of this story is not true, then my religion is worthless.  If Jesus was not God, then His work could not save me.  If he did not die, then I must pay for my own sins.  If He did not rise from death, then His victory would not be accomplished and I could not obtain salvation.

Perhaps none of this happened.  Perhaps I am a fool for believing it.  Perhaps I do not need to be saved.  If so, then all of my beliefs are futile and I am to be pitied among my fellow men because I have been deceived and am living a lie.

But, I believe these things are true.  I choose to believe.  Some philosophers (secular and religious) would disagree.  First, the secularist argument could be made that I don’t choose to believe anything, but I believe what I have been taught because I have not encountered enough information to the contrary.  That assertion assumes that if I were to encounter such information (presumably the same information as they have encountered) then I would be convinced of the truth of their position and reject my childish mythology.  To say that everyone would believe as they do if provided the same information is an assumption that I regard as erroneous.  And beyond that, I am a graduate student in a liberal arts program at a public university, surrounded by professors and students who think the tenants of the Christian faith are fictional, foolish, and mythological.  I have lived in a secular society and been exposed to humanism and evolution for over three decades.  I work and interact with people of different beliefs, or no beliefs, on a daily basis.  I am immersed in a culture and media that is pluralistic in nature.  I have been exposed to the alternative… yet I choose to believe.

Some theologically trained religionists would argue that I do not choose, but rather God has chosen me.  That argument is absolutely correct; God did choose me.  The Bible clearly teaches that, and I firmly believe it.  But I do exercise faith.  They might argue that this faith is not mine, but rather it is a gift given to me by God.  And again, they would be absolutely correct.  Again, this is clearly taught in the Bible.  But when they say I have no choice in the matter, they are absolutely wrong.  My choice does not save me, because I cannot contribute to my salvation in any capacity; no work of my own, even the work of exerting faith, can save me.  I am saved by God’s grace through the finished work of Christ.  I am elected to salvation by His sovereignty.  The faith that I have is given to me by the Holy Spirit.  My ability to perceive and comprehend His mystery of salvation is only the result of His enabling me to perceive and comprehend.  But it is folly to say that I have no choice.  I could choose to reject Him and His plan.  And many do.

So, as I mentioned before, my religious beliefs (regarding salvation, which is really what Christianity is all about) come from the Bible.  I have already explored the possibility that the Bible could be wrong about Jesus and salvation, and I have rejected that possibility.  But what about the other things the Bible says?  Each of the Biblical doctrines related to salvation and Christ are necessary in order for my religion, my faith, to work.  What reason would I have to believe the Bible is trustworthy and reliable when it speaks of Jesus and salvation, but not when it speaks of Adam and Eve?  Both portions of the written Word are written in a narrative style.  They are not poetic or hymnal.  They are not written as simile or metaphor.  The Bible has all these writing styles in it elsewhere, and they are very clearly understood as such.

Now, I believe the Bible was written by human hands, over a period of time encompassing more than a thousand years.  But I believe the text is divinely inspired and written by human hands as the humans themselves were guided by God through the Holy Spirit.  Whether God spoke directly to them in an audible voice or through visions varies by person and time.  But the Bible is one complete work of God.  Yes, there are debates as to the canonicity of books and how the Bible I believe in was formed over the years.  I am well aware of these debates and I will not address them here.  But I believe in the traditional Bible consisting of 66 books contained within the Old and New Testaments.

Do I believe in Adam and Eve?  Absolutely.  I believe in the reliability of Genesis as much as I do Matthew.  I believe in Exodus as much as Luke.  I believe in Job as much as John, and Daniel as much as Revelation.  I recognize that poetry, and song, and metaphor exists.  I recognize anthropomorphisms, christophanies, and theophanies.  I recognize the Law and the Prophets, the Psalms and the Historical Narratives.  But I also recognize clear narrative and prose.  Why would God preserve the integrity of the Gospel message (which I fully believe in, and which cannot be detracted from and still retain its power) but not the integrity of the other stuff?  Perhaps it isn’t a matter of preserving the integrity, but rather a matter of truth.  Then I ask, why would God tell the truth in some parts and lie (or mislead) in others?

I know some people are offended by this type of all-or-nothing attitude.  Why can’t I just compromise?  Because it doesn’t make sense for the reasons I have stated.  Why would God mix lies amongst truth?  Why would he preserve the integrity of some parts but not others?  How am I to know the difference?  Why believe in the Resurrection but not the Creation, or the Fall, or the Judgment?  If the Resurrection is not true, then I am a fool!  But it is no more a leap of faith to believe in that than it is to believe anything else in the Bible.  I have more respect for the honesty of the atheist who rejects the entire Bible then I do the religionist who picks and chooses what parts to believe based upon his own sense of reality and perception of truth.

I believe in Adam and Eve.  I believe in the Creation and Fall.  I believe in the Flood of Noah.  I believe in the Tower of Babel.  I believe in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.  I believe in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses.  I believe in the plagues in Egypt and the Exodus of the Israelites.  I believe in the 40 years of Israel wandering in the wilderness for their disobedience to God after He delivered them from bondage.  I believe in David and Goliath.  I believe in the visions of the prophets like Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel in Babylon.  I believe in the Jesus of the New Testament Gospels.  I believe in the virgin birth, the miracles, the crucifixion, and the resurrection of Jesus.  I believe in the writings of Peter and Paul.  I believe in the second coming of Christ, the Millennial Kingdom, the Final Judgment, and the New Heavens and New Earth.  I believe in God, the devil, heaven, and hell.

I am not the smartest person, but I am not ignorant.  I am not the most educated, but I am not uneducated.  I am going to take a moment and address some of the issues people have with the believability of the creation account in Genesis, and specifically with Adam and Eve.

There are lots of different positions regarding the creation account in Genesis chapters 1 and 2.  Firstly, there is the belief that it didn’t happen.  Well, I already stated my belief that it did.  Now, assuming that God did create the universe, the world, and life, there are different theological theories regarding how it was accomplished.  Is each day a literal day?  Is each day representative of an era of time?  Were there gaps of time between the days?  Was there a gap between the creation of everything else and the creation of man?  Does the text imply in Genesis chapter 1, verse 1, that the universe was created, existed for a time, and then the world was reformed by God for humanity?  I will be honest and say that I do not know.  But I am convinced of the reliability of one position above the others.

I believe in a literal six-day creation as the clearest and most straightforward reading of the text would imply.  I don’t know when God created the angels, or when Lucifer fell from glory.  The Bible isn’t specific about that.  But I believe from the moment that God created matter and the time-space continuum (as we perceive and measure it) to the point when He was finished with the pinnacle of His creation (mankind) was a literal six-day period as we know it today, say Sunday through Friday for example.  Then He rested (not because He needed to, but to set a model for us) on the seventh day, concluding one-week of time.  Why do I believe this?  I will provide three reasons.

First, this is the clearest reading of the text.  I see no reason for God to hide the truth from us or shroud it in mystery.  Now, let me be clear.  That does not make me correct.  Just because I don’t see a reason for God to be other than clear does not mean that He wasn’t or might not have had His reasons for doing so.  But I don’t see a need for Him to do so, and I don’t think He did so.  Let me state one more thing very clearly, I do not believe that a person has to believe in a literal six-day creation, as I assert, in order to be saved.  This is not a salvation doctrine.  Having a clear understanding of the Creation and the Fall certainly helps facilitate understanding the need for salvation (in my mind) but in no way does that translate into a necessary belief.

Second, had it been God’s intention to reveal to us that each day was representative of a passage of time, there are words in the Hebrew language that could have better communicated that meaning.  The words used in the Hebrew text are clearly intended to represent literal days, rather than some other unit of time measurement.  Now, I am not intending here to get into a dissection of the original text, but I have pursued such studies in the past.  You can take my word for it, or you can take the time to look into it for yourself.  A day here in this passage is a day.

Finally, the text makes very clear to emphasize over and over with each day that there was an evening and there was a morning for a single day.  Why would the text go to such great lengths to specify the passage of one day if it was intended for us to believe that these days were anything other than literal days?  By the way, the ancient Hebrew culture measured their days from sundown to sundown, rather than midnight to midnight as we do.  That is why the Sabbath starts Friday evening.  This explains why the text says evening and morning rather than morning and evening.  God gave His Law (of which Genesis is a part) to the ancient Hebrew people group, so it would make sense to communicate a day in terms that they would understand.

Adam was created clearly on day six.  Eve was created at some point in time after Adam.  Genesis chapter 1 states both were created on day six.  Genesis chapter 2 gives a more detailed description of their creation and indicates a passage of time between the two, but does not specify how much time.  I will assume the passage of time in Genesis chapter 2 was within the same day specified in chapter 1; I see no reason not to.  The Bible indicates that all humans descended from Adam and Eve (from Noah too, but that is not relevant to this discussion).

Now, I am not blind or oblivious to the implications.  I am not in denial.  In fact, I will be quite direct here.  Our modern understanding of genetics demonstrates that inbreeding leads to genetic disorders and non-viability of species perpetuation.  Besides that, God states in His Law, given to Moses and the ancient Israelites that a brother and sister were not to get married and have children.  How could all humans be descended from Adam and Eve?  That would mean that their children, who were brothers and sisters, would have had to have had sex and produced children.  Yes, it does.  I do not deny it.  But this does not present a biological or theological problem for me.  I will explain, if you have an interest in hearing an explanation.

Adam and Eve’s children (more than just Cain, Abel, and Seth per the Biblical record, by the way) did intermarry and produce offspring.  There is no other explanation that would be consistent with a literal understanding of Genesis.  They also lived to be 900 years old and beyond, per a literal understanding of the text.  This indicates to me that their genes (biology) and the environment that they lived in were superior (or at least different) to the genes and environment that we have today.  I cannot provide a breakdown of their genetic code, but I have no problem believing that the offspring they produced had superior enough genetic quality to allow for the survival and reproduction of the human race.  After all, Adam and Eve were created in perfection and it is only because of the Fall that we have disease, infirmity, and death.  It doesn’t seem inconceivable to me that those offspring that were closer to the purest genetic source would have superior quality genetic codes than we have today, so far removed by the passage of time and polluted by mutation.

Now we come to the theological problem of incest.  Let’s address it head on.  What is sin?  It is a violation of God’s Law.  God’s Law can be divided into three distinct parts: moral, ceremonial, and sacrificial.  As a side issue, why don’t Christians keep the entire Law as found in the Old Testament?  Isn’t that hypocritical?  The answer is no, it is not hypocritical because we were informed by God through the New Testament that we are not required to keep the entirety of the Old Testament Law.  We are specifically released from any obligation to keep the ceremonial and sacrificial portions of the Law.  The sacrificial portions were designed to show that sin has consequences and to point towards the expectation of the Messiah.  For the Christian, animal sacrifice is not necessary because Jesus is our great Sacrifice, allowing us to have a relationship with a holy God despite our own sin.  The moral Law is still expected of us, but not to obtain salvation.  We require a savior because we cannot keep even the moral Law.  But we are still instructed in the New Testament to follow it.  But that is a side issue.

I am going to get brutally honest here.  Much of the Law that God gave to the ancient Israelites was for their own health and well-being.  For example, eating pork is more dangerous than eating beef.  Pork has to be cooked to an extent that beef does not in order to avoid certain health risks.  Eating pork was especially dangerous in ancient times when sanitary conditions and cooking standards didn’t exist the way they do in modern America.  The Jews were told not to eat pork because it was in their best interest not to do so (for the risk it presented to their health).  This is part of the ceremonial Law.  Disobeying it was a sin, because it was part of God’s Law.  But it was put in place by God for their health.  The Bible doesn’t say that, and God hasn’t given me any personal revelation, but it is a truth that is obvious and apparent to me.  God told Noah and his family after the flood that they could eat animals.  He didn’t tell them not to eat pork.  It isn’t a moral issue.  It was a commandment given to the Hebrews for their own well-being and to visibly set them apart from the nations around them so that they would be a people separated to God.  Christians are released in the book of Acts and elsewhere from following the dietary restrictions (part of the ceremonial portion) of the Law.  Likewise, God did not tell Adam and Eve to tell their children, nor is it recorded that He told their children directly, not to intermarry and have children.  This command was given to the Hebrews.  Again, there are health reasons both for ancient Israel and for modern society to avoid brothers and sisters getting married and having children, but these issues were apparently non-existent during Adam and Eve’s era.  This may seem unnatural to hear, but there is nothing intrinsically morally wrong with marrying someone who is related to you.  In fact, Biblically speaking, we are all related because we all have the same ancestors (Adam and Eve, and then again with Noah and his wife).  It was a violation of God’s Law to the Hebrews, and it is good for health purposes today (not to mention for lots of other reasons) for siblings and close cousins not to marry and have children.  But the fact that Adam and Eve’s children intermarried and had children, from which we are all descended, does not present a moral or theological problem to me.

I mentioned mutation earlier, which leads me to another topic I want to address here very briefly—evolution.  I do believe in evolution.  I believe in natural selection within a species for the survival of the fittest genes within a given environment.  There is clear evidence for this.  All of the genes were present in the original ancestor.  Depending upon migration and environment, certain genes were better suited for survival and over time we have the results of apparent diversity.  But I say again, all of the genes, for example, for the Siberian Husky and the Pug could have been contained within two original male and female canines.  Due to environment, and human intervention, we have different breeds of canine.  But that is genetic specialization or natural selection at work (what some people call micro-evolution).  What I reject is the concept of macro-mutation (some call it macro-evolution, but that is really a misnomer).  This is the concept that man evolved from ape, which evolved from an earlier mammal, which evolved from a bird, which evolved from a reptile, which evolved from an amphibian, which evolved from a fish, which evolved from a single-cell organism millions of years ago.  I do not believe in cross-species evolution, and I do not see evidence to support such a concept.  However, this does not lead me to reason that Creationism should be taught in public schools.  I do not subscribe to that view.  I recognize the value in the separation of church and state.  But I do not believe that the origin theories currently taught as assumed fact in public schools should be taught either.  Science taught in public schools should consist of observable, testable facts.

In conclusion, if the God I believe in can raise Jesus from death (essential to my religion) then He can create the universe as described in Genesis 1 and 2.  The Bible says that the unbelieving world will think my belief is foolishness.  Perhaps it is.  But I don’t think so.  The Bible also says that a fool says in his heart that there is no God.  People might say that my religion is a crutch, and that it is a failure on my part to have the mental or emotional strength to accept reality and let go of my childish beliefs.  They might be correct.  I don’t think so.  I think that people who reject God and His Word are in denial of their own sin and do not want to face the consequences of accountability to their Creator.

Do I believe in Adam and Eve?  Yes, I do.

The Great Deception

“The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”¹

-Carl Sagan

Contrast that statement with the following:

God is all that is or ever was or ever will be.

This statement could be viewed as a summation of the various “ontological arguments.”  Ontological arguments are arguments that articulate or argue for God as the necessary being.  We have here two diametrically opposed worldviews.  One view proposes that God is the necessary, and the universe is His creation.  The other view proposes that the universe exists independent of a creator, and God is a myth.  Both views cannot be true.  Either one is true and the other is false, or both are false.  Anyway you look at it, there is a great deception being perpetrated upon humanity.

“All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago.  This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.”²

-Stephen Hawking

Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking are both well-known and well-respected scientists and naturalists.  Both men are highly intelligent.  Sagan claimed the natural universe is all that ever existed.  Hawking claims that the natural universe had a beginning.  I don’t know if these two claims are contradictory or not, but if not, then what existed before the universe and what caused the universe to come into existence?  It would seem that Sagan’s assertion is that nothing existed before the universe.  Does that mean that nothing caused it to come into being?  Does that mean it has always existed?  Hawking clearly asserts that it had a beginning.  This leaves unanswered questions, any answers to which would clearly seem to be irreconcilable.

“Evolution is a religion.  This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”³

-Michael Ruse

Michael Ruse is a self-proclaimed “ardent evolutionist” and “ex-Christian”³ and he is also a well-known and highly respected philosopher of science.  To be fair, he states that this quote of his is often taken out of context.  Nevertheless, he still stands behind his words.  Feel free to read his own explanation of his statement.  By the way, this same philosopher has made the claim that morality is an illusion, a claim I have also proposed in other writings (insofar as morality is considered without the existence of God).

“Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program—a possible framework for testable scientific theories.”⁴

-Karl Popper

Karl Popper was another well-known and well-respected philosopher of science.  One area of his academic focus was on demarcating science from non-science.

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”⁵

-Richard Dawkins

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”⁶

-Francis Crick

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and atheist.  He is the author of The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion, as well as many other books.  Francis Crick was a molecular biologist, biophysicist, and neuroscientist.  He is famous for co-discovering the structure of the DNA molecule.  According to these two quotes, not only does life in the natural universe have the appearance of design, but that appearance can be so convincing that dedicated biologists must ignore that overwhelming appearance and remind themselves that evolution is the truth.

In the documentary film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” Richard Dawkins was asked about the apparent design of life on earth.  His answer was as follows: “…it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet.”⁷  He went on to say: “…that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.  But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process.  It couldn’t have just jumped into existence spontaneously.”⁷  When asked about the origin of life, he stated: “It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.”⁷  When asked where that molecule originated, he stated: “I’ve told you, we don’t know.”⁷  Well, a designer couldn’t have spontaneously jumped into existence, because things don’t just spontaneously jump into existence.  Therefore, a self-replicating molecule couldn’t just spontaneously jump into existence either, right?  Or could it?  Is it less of a stretch, less of a leap of faith, less of a disregard of observation and logic to believe that life spontaneously came into being then to believe that an eternal and self-existent God created it?  Well, life might not have spontaneously come into being either, since it could have been seeded by extra-terrestrials.  But where did they come from?  They evolved too.  From spontaneous life or from other aliens?  Where did the process start, since according to Stephen Hawking, it had to have a beginning?

In the short video “Creationism Is Not Appropriate for Children” Bill Nye (“The Science Guy”) asserts that believing in creationism is detrimental to the advancement of science.⁸

“Biology and evolutionary theory over the last two centuries have simultaneously produced modern organisms as objects of knowledge and reduced the line between humans and animals to a faint trace re-etched in ideological struggle or professional disputes between life and social science.  Within this framework, teaching modern Christian creationism should be fought as a form of child abuse.”⁹

-Donna Haraway

Creationism is viewed as an obstacle for science by some and as dangerous (a form of child abuse) by others.

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

-Romans 1:20, New International Version

“They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.”

-Romans 2:15, New International Version

So what evidence is there for the origin of the universe being a creator God?  Paul the Apostle states in the preceding passages that there are two primary evidences, nature and morality, or creation and conscience.  Put in another way, the fact that the universe exists testifies to its creation by a creator.  The fact that we discern good and evil testifies to a law written in our being by a law-giver.  The fact that we think rationally and have intelligence testifies to the existence of the intelligence that made us.

“They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.  Amen.”

-Romans 1:25, New International Version

“…They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.  For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”

-2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, New International Version

There is a lie.  There is a deception.  It is either that God created the universe, or that the universe came into existence apart from a supernatural creator.  One is true, the other is not.  One is a lie (or both are lies).  They cannot both be true.  Which is the lie?  What is the lie?  Could it be the origin of life and the universe apart from God?  It seems to me that both claims require faith like a religion.

Carl Sagan said, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”

The God of the Bible said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega… who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation 1:8, New International Version)

Sources:

1-      Sagan, Carl.  Cosmos.  New York: Random House, Inc., 1980.  (Page 4)

2-      Hawking, Stephen.  “The Beginning of Time.”  http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html , 01/26/2014

3-      Ruse, Michael.  “Is Darwinism a Religion?”  Huff Post Religion, 07/21/2011.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/is-darwinism-a-religion_b_904828.html , 01/26/2014.

4-      Popper, Karl.  Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography.  Fontana/Collins, 1976.

5-      Dawkins, Richard.  The Blind Watchmaker.  Norton & Company, Inc., 1986.

6-      Crick, Francis.  What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery.  Basic Books, 1990.

7-      “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.”  Premise Media Corporation, 2008.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/quotes , 01/27/2014.

8-      “Creationism Is Not Appropriate for Children.”  Big Think, You Tube, 2012.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/28/bill-nye-science-guy-creationism-evolution_n_1835208.html , 01/27/2014

9-      Haraway, Donna.  “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century.”  Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature.  New York: Routledge, 1991.

Two Logical Proofs for God’s Existence

I have heard the claim that Christians rely upon faith to prove God’s existence; that there is no basis for believing, or evidence for accepting, the existence of God beyond the exercise of faith.  Perhaps you have encountered this claim or even made this claim yourself.  I will admit the apparent circularity of reasoning which is operative when trying to prove God’s existence from God’s word.  Therefore, I will purpose in this writing to present two proofs for the existence of God without relying upon the Bible, or religious tradition, teaching, or dogma.  The two proofs I will present will be logical arguments based upon philosophy and science.  I will present arguments for the existence of God from morality and reality.

Morality is the commonly shared and commonly understood system of acceptable behavior within human society.  Reality is the natural, physical universe that we dwell in.  You may not agree with the conclusions I will present, but I will present these conclusions using logic, rationality, and reason, and not using the Bible.  If you disagree, then argue against my facts or my logic.  But don’t let it be said that you have never heard a Christian present a logical, rational, or reasonable argument for the existence of God without appealing to faith.

First I will present the case for God’s existence from morality.

“You know, the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche believed that morality is just a fiction used by the herd of inferior human beings to hold back the few superior men.”

–Sheldon Cooper, The Big Bang Theory, season 5, episode 7, “The Good Guy Fluctuation” (air date: October 27, 2011)

Of course, the above quote comes from a fictional character on a fictional television show, but I think it perfectly illustrates the conclusion modern secular philosophy has reached regarding the subject of morality.  I could not find any direct quote of Nietzsche that states the above conclusion, but that definitely seems to be an accurate summation of his views on morality after reading through the materials on Nietzsche and morality found in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  As an academic in the disciplines of history and philosophy at a major secular university (Arizona State), I would venture to claim that modern secular philosophy makes the following assertions regarding morality:

• morality is constructed of sentiments and feelings
• sentiments and feelings about morality are adaptive (changing/relative)
• claims of fact and claims of morality are different and cannot be logically connected
• any scientific basis for morality is an illusion developed by natural selection to improve social behavior

And from a humanistic, secular, non-theistic perspective, I would have to agree entirely with the above assertions.  Human morality is completely relative and completely subjective.  Morality based upon human authority is an illusion.  The human concept of morality is a mental construct.  Let me provide an example:

Say I steal from you a loaf of bread.  You might consider this act of theft to be an immoral act.  If I am starving, and by stealing the bread I can maintain my life without harming yours, then I might say it is not an immoral act.  I might even claim that if you have extra bread and choose not to share it with me when I am starving then you are committing an immoral act.  Which one of us is right and which one of us is wrong?  By human standards the answer is necessarily a relative one.

Taking this argument farther, one could appeal to the authority of society, or the state.  It could be claimed that if the state defines theft as wrong, then, no matter the circumstances, the act of stealing is immoral.  But the counter argument to this is that different societies/states have different standards of morality.  So, ultimately, two societies or two people could be in disagreement regarding standards of morality.  Yet, every human being has within their individual distinctiveness a standard of morality.  Where did this morality come from?

Some might say it was placed there as a method of cooperative survival through the natural processes of evolution.  But science and the processes of natural selection are morally neutral.  It is not evil for a carnivore to kill its prey, it is merely survival.  Likewise, it would not be evil by the laws of nature for me to steal your bread, or even kill you for your possessions/food/shelter as it might simply be necessary for me to survive when competing for scarce resources.  So any scientific claim for a basis of morality is an illusion.

Perhaps morality was imbedded in human nature by extraterrestrial “seeders” that seeded human DNA on Earth millions of years ago.  If one assumes that possibility then one must explain the origins of these extraterrestrials.  Are they natural beings like us, themselves the product of evolution on a different planet?  If so, then they are faced with the same dilemma of a relativistic morality that we are.  If not, then they are supernatural, but that leads to a conclusion that is not acceptable to the naturalist.

In the end, I am forced to logically conclude that the existence of morality necessitates the existence of a supernatural authority.  The existence of morality proves the existence of God.  Without God there is no good and there is no evil.  If you believe that good and evil exist, then you must believe that God exists.  If you believe that God does not exist, then you must admit that good and evil do not exist.  Even if you appeal to the existence of morality as an intrinsic universal constant, then where did that constant come from?  Where did it originate?  Why does it exist?  Either admit that there is a God or admit that morality is an illusion and good and evil do not exist. One of the notable philosophers of our time states it perfectly,

“God is dead. Morality has no foundation. Long live morality. Thank goodness!”

-Michael Ruse, “God is dead. Long live morality”

At this point, one could either easily or with great difficulty still reject the existence of God by asserting that morality is indeed a relativistic, subjective, mental construct.  Morality alone is insufficient to prove God’s existence because the existence of morality, although part of human nature, can be mentally denied or rejected.  This leads me to the second proof for God’s existence: reality.  If one (morality) doesn’t work, the other (reality) will.

            “The cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.”

            -Carl Sagan, Cosmos

The physical universe, the natural world, is tangible, measureable, and can be perceived by the five senses of the human body.  The natural universe is measured by three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time.  That is why the universe we live in is sometimes referred to as the space-time continuum.  But where did the universe come from?

I’m not talking about big bang theories, or bubble theories, or anything like that.  I’m getting to the core issue.  Where did the mass of the universe come from?  Where did the atoms come from?  There are only two choices: they either originated from somewhere at a specific moment, or they have always existed.

Have they always existed?  Science has debated the issue of the cosmological constant since Einstein first proposed it in his theory of general relativity to the time when he abandoned it as his “greatest blunder” around 1929 and beyond.  Are there only four dimensions?  String theory proposes otherwise.  The scientific community does not agree on how many dimensions actually exist within the reality of the natural universe, nor do they agree on whether or not time and space have always existed or if they had a beginning.

“All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago.  This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.”

-Stephen Hawking, “The Beginning of Time”

The most recent developments of science propose that the universe consists of more dimensions than are currently measureable, and the universe had a beginning.  In other words, the space-time continuum (which we can only measure in part) had a beginning.  Time has not always existed, but had a beginning.  Matter has not always existed, but had a beginning.

What had a beginning can also have an ending.  Time had a beginning and will have an ending.  The universe had a beginning and will have an ending.  It is not eternal, it does not go on forever, and it is not infinite.  It is expanding, yes, but it has limits; it has borders.  The universe has finite mass.  The mass of the universe is not increased or depleted.    If you disagree with these assertions, then check them out.  Fact check them with the actual science, not just cultural mythos.

So if the universe had a beginning, then what started it?  What caused the beginning of time?  What caused the finite mass of the universe to exist?  If the universe is expanding, what is beyond its borders?  There had to be a cause.  If it hasn’t always been, then it had to have a beginning.  What caused that beginning?  God.  What is beyond it?  God.  What pre-existed it?  God.

What other logical solution is there?  Don’t just brush this off.  I have presented a logical, rational, reasonable case for the existence of God.  This is not based upon “holy writings” or faith.  It is not enough to just say that you don’t know the answer, but you know it isn’t God.  Present a logical alternative.