Rediscovering The Truth About Creation

Numerous arguments can be used to suggest that God probably exists. Based on lectures and class notes, each of the above four are briefly summarized below.

The first proof for God's existence is the cosmological proof from existential causality. This argument assumes a finite universe and then argues that that universe had to have been created by an infinite creator. The idea is that everything which exists had to have been caused by something else which existed before it, or by a so-called "prior cause." The only exception to that rule would be the very first cause, which of course could not be both first and still have had a prior cause.

Using these simple stipulations and this same rationale, if one begins with the present universe and starts working backwards in time, then at each point along the way, a prior cause can always be identified, meaning that everything which exists at that time was caused by something else which existed before it! By continuing this backward process ad infinitum, an individual can back up in time and eventually arrive at the very first uncaused thing, or to that thing that was not caused by something else! This first uncaused cause, which would be the first cause, would also be infinite since it was not created, and since it was not created, it would have to be God the Creator because all things will have come from Him, or It. If we adopt a logical syntax, the cosmological proof can be rewritten to say the following. If one traces all things back to the beginning of time, then he or she will come to that person or thing which was not created.

The second proof for God's existence is the scientific-teleological proof from the complexity of life, an argument which justifies the existence of God from the standpoint that He was the grand Designer of the universe. Recall that this argument, though not identified by name, was presented in Chapter Four as a rebuttal to the Theory of Evolution! Two researchers, named Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted that life is too complex or complicated to have begun in the lagoon-like environment of the Theory of Evolution. The amino acids, proteins, and enzymes, which are necessary for the creation of life, would have to have been formed in a very specific order, but according to these two researchers, the probability of that happening in a totally natural, random environment is one chance in ten raised to the forty-thousandth power.

Recall from the earlier discussion that this number is the number one followed by forty thousand zeroes, which as was stated at that time is an incredibly large number. Nothing about our current environment suggests that the atmosphere that would have been needed for evolution ever existed! Furthermore, nothing in our current environment is capable of doing anything close to spontaneously initiating life from inorganic matter. As a result, an infinite Designer must have done these things, and He is God! By using a logical syntax, one can restate this argument, in the same manner as above, to say that if life is so complex, and it is, then God had to have initiated it.

The third proof for God's existence is the ontological argument, which suggests that God exists because it is possible for Him to exist. This proof is given life by the fact that regardless of each person's persuasion, most people have some idea or concept of a Supreme Being. It is as though we have all been born questioning whether or not God really exists, plus at the same time, no one has ever proven that He cannot exist.

The Big Bang theorists, for example, have never been able to conclusively show that God did not create the universe. They believe that the universe once existed in a single mass, but they cannot even prove that hypothesis, much less show that God did not make it all happen in the first place. In like manner, the Evolutionists have never been able to produce any meaningful evidence to show that life really could have been formed in a lagoon-like environment, even if such an environment might have once existed. Hence, they have not been able to show that God did not make all of life from their perspective happen, either!

Because of their respective shortcomings, neither branch of science can prove its own position, much less show that God did not have anything to do with it! The ontological argument simply says that God must be true, until He can be shown to be false. Or to put this statement another way, until God can be proven not to exist, then rational minds, to be rational, must assume that He does. When putting this third argument into a logical syntax, the result is that if God cannot be proven to not exist, then He does exist.

The fourth and last proof for God's existence is the moral law argument. This proof approaches His existence from the standpoint that the existence of a moral law implies the existence of an infinite lawgiver. That lawgiver, of course, is God!

The argument says that without a moral law, individuals would live by a basic "herd instinct" and only seek their own best good. When someone passes a burning house, for example, the herd instinct mentality would tell that individual to keep moving, rather than to be concerned about the potential of danger to others. Moral law, which teaches people to not live by this herd instinct but instead to help the person who might be in need, does not come from natural law. It is derived from an absolute law, in the form of an absolute standard, and it is this absolute standard which is said to have been originated by the infinite Lawgiver. In this last instance, the logical syntax is that if a higher moral law exists, then a Lawgiver who created that law also exists.

If one reviews all of the material which has been presented over these last two chapters, the immediate impression should be that many groups have believed many different things about God. The worst part, though, is that nothing much about any of these things can really be proved or disproved - at least not from what has already been shared!

The Big Bang theory, which itself is unproven, does not deny the existence of God. The Theory of Evolution, which also is unproven, does not deny Him, either. At the same time, though, neither theory teaches that God does or even might exist. Both theories have chosen natural phenomenon to explain critical happenstance, and both theories, if anything, support a pantheistic viewpoint, which implies that God is in nature or that God is nature!

In similar fashion, Plato identified a god whom he called the creator, but his idea of such a being was someone like Zeus, who according to Greek Mythology was the leader of all the gods. While Plato used the term "god" over and over, he was never referring to the God of the Bible! He was a polytheist, believing in the existence of many gods, and his writings must be interpreted accordingly! He spoke of the gods, but he did not acknowledge the one and only true God, the One God Who is the Creator of the universe and of mankind.

Thus, as one can readily see, this review of various secular and theological responses has not resolved the conflict about God. It has only shown that many scholars, scientists, and theologians have argued the matter of God's existence for centuries without ever really coming to a satisfactory solution. The four proofs just presented suggest the need and probable existence of a God, yet in many ways, even these arguments fall short. If the plasma cosmology theory is correct, for instance, then the cosmological proof does not prove God. Recall that the founders of that theory believed the universe to be infinite! If they are correct, then when the cosmological argument backs up to the first uncaused cause, the plasmologist would simply say that that first uncaused cause is the universe, not God! At that point, who can tell which is correct?

The other proofs come closer to showing that God actually created the universe and started life, but they, too, are lacking. The scientific-teleological argument, for example, states that living organisms are too complex to have begun in the lagoon-like environment of evolution theory. The ontological argument assumes that God exists until someone can show otherwise. And the last proof, by identifying a higher moral law, also suggests that humans were somehow created by an absolute, infinite Lawgiver. Yet, these three proofs do not link this possibly very distant God to the God of the Bible. They also do not show that He is still anywhere to be found. These two shortcomings, which clearly show the contrast between deism and theism, are in my mind very significant! They suggest that something very important is still missing about this whole thing and that the above four proofs for God's existence are either not complete or not enough.

In my opinion, the problem is that all the proofs just presented are still basically trying to predict or explain an event or events which happened during a period when none of us were around. By not being able to pinpoint that precise moment of creation, the theologian's position with the above proofs is much like that of the Big Bang theorist's or the evolutionist's. Everyone is trying to overcome time and distance by logic, but this manner of analysis does not work - not really! There are still too many "what ifs"! What if the plasmologists are correct? Does that mean that the one chance in ten raised to the forty-thousandth power chances also might have occurred and that we, as a result, really could have gotten here from a mysterious, lagoon-like environment? What if evolution really is true? Could that mean, as Darwin suggested, that we really have talked ourselves into believing in God and that there really is nothing natural within man to cause him to seek the Lord?

My feeling is that there are still far too many questions and far too much doubt! If knowing the truth about God really is so important and if knowing the truth about Him is essential for overcoming the plot against us, then any solution to be acceptable must get around all of these lingering loose ends. In a way, it is as though we need to touch the very God Whom we desire to prove, or better yet, that He touches us. Even though the answer may be hard to find, the problem is simple. We need to KNOW in a very clear, very definitive way that God really is real! Otherwise, we never will gain the upper hand in this spiritual battle against the system around us. In the next chapter, we shall identify four criteria that can be used for knowing that God is real. In the four chapters after that, each of those criterion shall be examined.