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.
