In_Search_of_God's_Existence

In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) Preface My readings on Descartes and the Origin of Modernity lead me to the so-called controversial element of the Cartesian philosophy, the ontological argument. This in turn led me to read and research on philosophical and scientific arguments of the many different kinds for the existence of God. The result is my own layman’s or an untutored reader (of philosophy and science)’s narrative justifying theism in general while discussing the evidence that God exists, setting out and examining these arguments. This is by no means an intellectual discourse. The narrative (or more appropriately, A Theist’s Narrative) is an assemblage of the classic versions to arguments for God’s existence that I share with those who believe in God and those who do not, those who are of the Christian faith and those who are not. I am not a Christian apologist; indeed to call myself a “Christian” would be a misnomer. However, given my earlier Christian-schooled background, my narrative relies on the aid of contingent assumptions or premises of core Christian religion, the beliefs common to all denominations but that, which is impartial to specific doctrinal inclination. My approach is to take on the philosophical issues on the arguments to God’s existence and not to shape the view of any person. While the narrative explores the arguments posited by philosophers/mathematicians in Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Blaise Pascal and theologians in Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, C S Lewis, William Craig, I have purposely not attempted to essay arguments nor rebut rhetoric against God’s existence from philosophers/secularists including David Hume, Bertrand Russell or Immanuel Kant, the latter who interestingly, rejected the cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments but was the foremost philosopher to use the moral argument. There are as many proponents to the arguments to God’s existence as there are critics and objectors to the arguments. I do, however include where appropriate, these critics’ presuppositions and areas of inconsistency. I have not included polemics from Islam, Buddhism or other theistic epistemologies, and as such, I am not defending the exclusive veracity of the arguments over and above any rival theory of these other epistemologies. If I were to do so, the subject would be too large and lengthy. For reasons that are highlighted in my statements at the end of this narrative; In Closing, despite my Christian-schooled background and my knowledge of the Bible, I have refrained in not inserting quotes and/or references from the Bible, which could and would have further articulated the arguments for God’s existence from a Christian perspective. On the premise that you find this narrative too lengthy, I suggest you read the Introduction, peruse and assess briefly the highlighted classic arguments for God’s Existence, thereafter, examine my personal perception and application at the end of the narrative, In Closing. 1 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) Introduction “Few philosophers today would view a single argument for God’s existence as a proof. This is partly because of recognition that even good philosophical arguments rarely amount to a proof, and partly because of recognition of the complexity of belief in God. “Theism” does not refer to a single proposition but a complex web of assertions about God’s reality, character, and relations with the universe. It is unreasonable to think that a single argument could establish such a complicated theoretical network. Rather, particular theistic arguments should be seen as providing a lesser or greater degree of support for the web as a whole only indirectly.” - C. Stephen Evans 1 A student of theology or a believer in the Christian faith takes God's existence as absolutely necessary on the basis of authority, faith, or revelation. However, many philosophers, scientists and even some theologians have thought it possible to demonstrate by reason that there must be a God. They have excogitated a considerable number of arguments which have a feature in common by “professing to prove the existence of God'” There are many arguments for God’s existence but most of them have the same logical posture, which is the basic posture of any analytical argument. Philosophers recognize many arguments for the existence of God with varying degrees of seriousness. The traditional classic arguments for God’s existence include the cosmological (first cause), teleological (design), ontological (pure reason) and moral law (axiological) arguments. And there is also the argument from Pascal’s Wager or practical reason argument. These are the arguments that are discussed in this narrative. These are not the simplest of the arguments, and are therefore not the most convincing to many people. The first argument, the cosmological argument, in particular, is quite abstract and difficult. Pascal's Wager, on the other hand is not an argument for God at all, but an argument for faith in Christian God as a "wager." Another, the ontological argument is fundamentally flawed; yet is included not only because it is famous and influential but to highlight the various poses of the classic arguments in this narrative to God’s existence. In each case the conclusion is that God exists, but the premises of the different arguments are dissimilar. It has been suggested that current science refutes the traditional arguments, and medieval science fatally damages the premises. Primarily the cosmological and teleological arguments have to contend with issues in contemporary science, especially because of the possible implications for the Big Bang singularity in the former and the evolution theory in the latter. However, there are scientific arguments in support of what was concluded by philosophy alone 1 C. Stephen Evans, “Moral Arguments” p.345 in A Companion to Philosophy of Religion (1997) 2 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) In Search for God’s Existence The Cosmological Argument (or First Cause Argument) The cosmological argument (First Cause Argument) is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. 2 Cosmological argument begins with succinct definition that there are contingently existing things and end with conclusions concerning the existence of a maker with the power to account for the existence of those contingent things. The argument from the first cause maintains that since in the universe or the world, every effect has its cause behind it, the first effect must have had its cause, which was in itself both cause and effect. Or that the world, the universe, and everything in them are dependent on something other than themselves for their existence. In other word’s, despite the fact that the universe, the world or the galaxy seems to be self-perpetuating, one needs to consider where all these began. Let’s assume that the whole universe is a huge mass of causes and effects, from “The Big Bang" down to the interactions of subatomic particles. Therefore, if one were to wind all these chains of causes and effects back, they must originate in one almighty cause. The Big Bang theory is said to have a naturalistic explanation, an explanation that is only possible because there are fundamental or necessary mathematical laws in the universe, hence naturalistic. Without these laws nothing could have developed, nor could they be subsequently explained. In terms of cosmological arguments it is said that God has to have necessary existence, because everything else being contingent is dependent on something that necessarily exists. Therefore, nothing else would exist unless God first existed! Why must there be a first cause' Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716, a German philosopher, mathematician, and logician who is probably most well known for having invented the differential and integral calculus) presents it seems, the simplest form of the argument. Cosmological argument simply asks: "Why is there something instead of nothing'" If nothing existed, then it would require no explanation. After all, if there is nothing, that nothing does not need anything else for that nothing to exist. Nothingness requires no explanation. However, if something does exist, then some account of it ought to be given. Since it is possible that nothing could exist, we can ask why something, rather than nothing, does exist. Leibniz offers the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) as an acceptable principle for motivating this argument. The (PSR) states that all things that exist have an explanation or cause for their existence. Since the universe exists, there must be an explanation or cause for its existence. Since self-causation is incoherent, the cause for the universe must be something else than the universe itself. When one considers plausible candidates for this cause of the universe, it seems that what we call God is the best candidate since God is capable of creating a universe without being apart of the universe. Without God, the universe seems to exist unexplained. 2 Philosophy of Religion 3 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) The logical argument for the first cause is assumed to begin with Greek philosopher Plato but is particularly associated with the metaphysics of Aristotle. Both Plato and Aristotle argue that the fact of motion i.e. things move requires a mover and that the series must start with something, for nothing can come from nothing. However, if we keep looking for the cause of moving things then we will only arrive at something else moved by something else, and something that has moved this etc. Therefore, in order to find the first cause of all movement everywhere, we must look to something that has not been moved by something else. The arguments that are of interest are from Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274, Italian philosopher and theologian in the scholastic tradition, known as Doctor Angelicus, Doctor Universalis) 3 who gives three types of cosmological arguments - the first three of the "five ways or proofs" – Motion: Things are seen to move in the world, because they are moved by something else. The existence of motion in the universe requires us to consider where (and how) motion began. Causes: Things happen in the world (effects) because they have been caused to happen by something else (causes). The fact that we are here in the world (an effect) requires us to consider the cause of everything. Contingency: Things in the world (including the world itself) could either be here, or not. The fact that things could potentially not be here requires consideration what had to exist in order for everything else to do so. All three arguments follow a common line of reasoning, the important feature of which, the relationship between contingent and necessary beings. A contingent being is dependent on something else for its existence. A contingent being may or may not exist. On the contrary, a necessary being must exist. Necessary beings depend on nothing for their existence. The Kalam Cosmological Argument on the other hand, is an argument designed to show that the universe cannot be logically infinite, and therefore if so it must have a starting point, which then requires someone or something to start it off. The Kalam cosmological argument was originally postulated by the Medieval Arabic philosophers and remained largely as a relic of history until its revival in recent years. The Kalam argument has a simple form, which follows from a series of either/or argument. The structure of the argument goes like this: 1. Either the universe exists or the universe does not. 2. Either the universe had a beginning or it did not. 3. Either the beginning was caused or the beginning was not caused. 3 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 4 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) The first alternation obviously rules in favor of the universe existing. If the universe does not exist, you will not be here reading this essay. So, it is safe to conclude that the universe exists. The next disjunction (either the universe had a beginning or it did not) seems more difficult to reach a conclusion. The Kalam argument questions the possibility of the universe being infinite. If an actually infinite amount of time cannot be created by successive additions of temporal moments, then the universe must have a finite beginning. It is not possible that the universe is potentially infinite as this means moments are being added, this implies that there was a starting point in the past (you add to something). If this is the case then the universe is not infinite but is finite and has a beginning. Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig 4 notes the implications of this logical confusion in the following way: “The idea of a beginningless series ending in the present seems to be absurd. To give just one illustration: suppose we meet a man who claims to have been counting from eternity and is now finishing: ... -3, -2, -1, 0. We could ask, why did he not finish counting yesterday or the day before or the year before' By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he should have finished by then. Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should have already be done! In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at any point we reach he will have already finished. But if at no point in the past do we find him counting this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. This illustrates the fact that the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition is equally impossible whether one proceeds to or from infinity.” In order for the man in the example to have been counting Craig argues that he must have begun somewhere otherwise it makes no sense to argue that if an infinite amount of time has elapsed he is still counting. Infinity implies completeness whereas counting implies successive additions and the notion of incompleteness. That the universe has successive moments being added to it offers one the assumption that it is not complete (i.e. infinite), now. The third dichotomy (either the beginning was caused or the beginning was not caused) seems to follow common sense. Do things begin to exist without reason or cause' Is it really possible to suggest the universe arbitrarily began to exist without cause or reason' The move in the Kalam argument only requires that things that have a beginning require a cause, so God who has no beginning does not need a cause for His existence. Cosmological argument seems to be a logical development of trying to find answers for the origins of life in the world and universe. For if we accept that everything depends on something else for its 4 The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe 5 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) existence, then surely by continually regressing back we will arrive at the first cause of all things that exist today' This fact is assumed both by Christians, philosophers and scientists who want to argue that the world and everything in it exists because of a first cause. Scientists might argue that the first cause was the The Big Bang (leading to theories of evolution), whereas Christians (and other theistic religions) would want to suggest that Divine is the first cause of all there is, viz. the Creation. David Hume (1711–1776, Scottish philosopher, economist, and historian, as well as an important figure of Western philosophy and of the Scottish Enlightenment) criticises the cosmological argument extensively. Hume contends that the material universe could itself be assigned the status of a necessary being, when “why,” he queries, “may not the material universe be the necessary existent being, according to this pretended explanation of necessity'” 5 Hume’s argument above is that there is a need for causes to explain the effects seen in the universe, but the universe taken as a whole does not need a cause to explain it - it always has existed. After all, he claims, if one can state that God has always existed, why is it unreasonable to suggest that the universe has always existed' Likewise, if the universe must have a cause, then logically God must also have a cause. Stopping the regress of causes at God is an arbitrary decision. Hume's argument here flawed somewhat from the conclusion that it is possible for there to be an infinite regress of causes. If we take a simple demonstration using a train as an example, one carriage pulls the carriage next to it and so on. No matter how long the train is, there must be an engine at the front, or the train cannot move. Even if the train is of infinite length, it must have an engine at the front. Clearly, an infinitely long train of carriages will still not move without an engine. Likewise, a train that is circular, with the last carriage connected to the back of the first, will not move without an engine - a first mover. Therefore, though some things may always have existed, nothing would be moving now if something had not first moved it. Since we observe very large movements in so many things, especially on a galactic scale, it is reasonable to postulate that the First Mover is indeed very powerful. It is also reasonable to hold this First Mover to be God. It is not easy to understand all the abstract details of the first cause argument, but anyone can understand its basic point: as C. S. Lewis put it, “I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself.” 5 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion 6 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) The Teleological Argument (or Argument from Design) The word “teleological” is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning end or purpose. Teleological argument suggests not so much that there is evidence of design in the world, but that the world has been set up (or designed) for a specific purpose. Most people who believe there is evidence of purposeful design in the world do so because they believe the purpose of the world was to bring forth human (intelligent) life. Look around you and see all the things that man has made. The cup on the table carefully designed and manufactured for a particular purpose. Everything in its place, crafted by the mind of man. The cup, the table, and the watch - none of these things “just happened” or accidentally materialised. There is purpose and design behind the creation and placement of each and every article. The argument sets out a major premise that where there is design, there must be a designer. The minor premise is the existence of design throughout the universe. The conclusion is that there must be a universal designer. The teleological argument is simple and straightforward. Even great philosophers who strongly opposed religion such as Immanuel Kant, regards the argument from design as generally acceptable, even if not logically compulsive. Isaac Newton’s science, describing the regular and predictable motions of matter through space, allows more than ever before the viewing of the world as a kind of machine. Voltaire (1694-1778, pen name for Francois Marie Arouet was a follower of Locke and Newton and known for his intelligence, wit and style that made him one of France’s greatest writers and philosophers), summarized the design argument when he says, “If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool.” A favorite analogy in the century following Newton and Locke is that of a watch – the universe is seen as being like a piece of clockwork, whirling predictably with immense precision. This well-known design argument for the existence of God also known as the watch analogy is set out by William Paley (1743-1805, English Anglican priest, Utilitarian philosopher, and author of influential works on Christianity, ethics, and science, among them the standard exposition in English theology of the teleological argument for the existence of God). 6 “In crossing a field [heath], suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever... But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground... I should hardly think of the answer, which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone'... For this reason... that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e. g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce 6 Natural Theology (1802), 3-4, 8-9 7 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day [etc.]... This mechanism being observed... the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker...” The watch analogy suggests that complex, and ordered things, cannot have come together by chance, but must be the product of a “maker”. The watch exhibits complexity, order, and purpose (to tell the time). Paley considers the world to exhibit complexity, order and purpose (the way all aspects of life fit together). The watch has a watchmaker; therefore, the world must have a “world-maker” and so on this basis makes the assumption that there must be a designer of the world who is God. The skeleton of the argument is as follows: 1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design; they have a purpose. 2. The universe resembles these human artifacts, Therefore 3. It is probable that the universe is a product of intelligent design, and has a purpose. 4. However, the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a human artifact is, Therefore 5. There is probably a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe. In his work Summa Theologica Thomas Aquinas offers five “proofs” for the existence of God (we have seen three of Aquinas’s proofs in the First Cause). An argument for the existence of God based on the appearance of design in the universe is a feature of the fifth of the five “proof”. In his argument for the existence of God in the form of teleological argument, he writes: 7 “We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it is directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the archer directs the arrow. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.” Aquinas’s argues that: 1. 2. There are beings without knowledge that act for ends. If a being without knowledge acts for an end, this must be because it is directed by a being with knowledge. Therefore 3. There is a being with knowledge that directs the beings without knowledge that act for ends. Aquinas is saying some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God’ and that the universe shows regularity through its activity – the laws of nature being just one example. Because we are used to all regular and purposeful actions having a 7 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article III 8 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) person acting with a will to carry out that aim, we must assume nature and the universe has an aim. The only person powerful enough to pursue this aim is God. Aquinas’s approach focuses on design qua (from) regularity in contrast to Paley’s argument, which focuses on design qua purpose. David Hume, having seriously wounded the first argument by introducing the notion of chance as a likely cause of the universe, dealt further blows to the teleological argument in his "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion". His interlocutor, from “Dialogues”, the empiricist skeptic, Philo, offers a stream of criticisms against the design argument. For Philo, the design argument is based on a faulty analogy; we do not know whether the order in nature was the result of design, since, unlike our experience with the creation of machines, we did not witness the formation of the world. The vastness of the universe also weakens any comparison with human artefacts. Although we perceive the universe is orderly here, it may be chaotic elsewhere. Similarly, if intelligent design is exhibited only in a small fraction of the universe, then we cannot say that it is the productive force of the whole universe. Philo also contends that natural design may be accounted for by nature alone, insofar as matter may contain within itself a principle of order. And even if the design of the universe is of divine origin, we are not justified in concluding that this divine cause is a single, all powerful, or all good being. Hume’s argument involves questioning the weakness and remoteness of the analogy between the results of design and the works or order of nature, and the resulting vagueness of any conclusions that can be drawn from that analogy. Though the analogy has some value, it is invalid to relate an example of a watch with that of a rock and thereby deduce that since man designed the watch, so must God have designed the rock. The argument is taking the analogy beyond reason. Additionally, while we can see the watch and its maker, we cannot see the rock and its maker. Another of his argument states that it is logically invalid to argue the case for a single, all-powerful being from experiences and observations of this world. There is no way to logically link something unknown that lies beyond the world with something known in the world. Paley's argument is thought to have been refuted by David Hume, but this does not appear to be the case. Paley wrote his argument thirty years after Hume's supposed refutation was published. The watchmaker argument is not vulnerable to the majority of Hume's criticisms. Kant states the best the teleological argument can do is merely suggest the possibility of a Grand Architect. It cannot provide evidence that the matter of the universe was created. Perhaps it always existed. God may merely have been an architect playing with a universe that already existed. After all, this is the most that the analogy of human manufacture could indicate. He would then not be omnipotent. Charles Darwin probably takes the wind out of the design argument when he claims (in his discourse on theory of evolution by natural selection in the Origin of Species) that the process of random 9 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) mutation and natural selection was responsible for the complexities we observe in the animal kingdom rather than the purposeful design previously supposed. Consider structures such as those discovered by molecular biology, or the study of DNA. Biomolecular structures exhibit ‘irreducible complexity’ defined by Michael Behe in his Darwin’s Black Box as “A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” Each part of the machine is necessary for the useful functioning of the whole and where each part is useless, or worse than useless, without the others. Behe argues such systems cannot have evolved in a step-by-step Darwinian manner. The odds against the coordinated simultaneous appearance of several mutually beneficial mutations are long, so long that one wonders if there is not someone inputting information into the system. Teleological argument suggests an Intelligent Designer. In the article, The Crusade against Evolution, we read on intelligent design theory (the theory holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. It does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected): Biological life contains elements so complex - the mammalian blood-clotting mechanism, the bacterial flagellum - that they cannot be explained by natural selection. And so, the theory goes, we must be products of an intelligent designer. Creationists call that creator God. Intelligent design is a revival of an argument made by British philosopher William Paley in 1802. In Natural Theology, the Anglican archdeacon suggested that the complexity of biological structures defied any explanation but a designer: God. Paley imagined finding a stone and a watch in a field. The watch, unlike the stone, appears to have been purposely assembled and wouldn't function without its precise combination of parts. "The inference," he wrote, "is inevitable, that the watch must have a maker." The same logic, he concluded, applied to biological structures like the vertebrate eye. Its complexity implied design. Paley re-emerged in the mid-1990s, however, when a pair of scientists reconstituted his ideas in an area beyond Darwin's ken: molecular biology. In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box; Michael Behe contended that natural selection can't explain the "irreducible complexity" of molecular mechanisms like the bacterial flagellum, because its integrated parts offer no selective advantages on their own. Two years later, in The Design Inference, William Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician at Baylor University, proposed that any biological system exhibiting “information” that is both “complex” (highly improbable) and “specified” (serving a particular function) cannot be a product of chance or natural law. The only remaining option is an intelligent designer - whether God or an alien life force. These ideas - 10 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) became the cornerstones of intelligent design, and Behe proclaimed the evidence for design to be "one of the greatest achievements in the history of science.” We recognize that the limits and parameters of the universe can now be calculated, and some even directly measured. Astronomers and physicists have begun to recognize a connection between these limits and parameters and the existence of life. It is impossible to imagine a universe containing life in which any one of the fundamental constants of physics or any one of the fundamental parameters of the universe is different, even slightly so, in one way or another. From this recognition arises the Anthropic Principle, which is central to the teleological argument — everything about the universe tends toward man, toward making life possible and sustaining it. Of this principle, William L. Craig states - 8 “The discovery during our generation of the so-called anthropic coincidences in the initial conditions of the universe has breathed new life into the teleological argument. Use of the Anthropic Principle to nullify our wonder at these coincidences is logically fallacious unless conjoined with the metaphysical hypothesis of a World Ensemble. There are no reasons to believe that such an Ensemble exists nor that, if it does, it has the properties necessary for the Anthropic Principle to function.” The Anthropic Principle is an attempt to explain the observed fact that the fundamental constants of physics and chemistry are just right or fine-tuned to allow the universe and lives at we know it to exist. It says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common; these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life. The fact that these constants seem to finely tune to permit life provides a strong indication that there was design behind them; they did not just fall into place out of chance. The universe gives the appearance that it was designed to support life on earth, a further example of Paley’s watch. The Anthropic Principle refutes the Darwinian's claim that we are the product of mere chance. The universe is not as random as we thought. We see a universe with a beginning and designed for man. The idea that the universe was created for mankind has been a central point of philosophy in many cultures up until the recent past. The notion that the natural world, including the universe, was created for man is the very bedrock of many world religions and worldviews. The teleological argument is the study of the evidence for overall design and purpose in nature. It proposes the universe was created for a purpose and did not randomly leap into existence. Teleological argument has attracted the attention of many prominent philosophers and theologians such as Aquinas, Newton, and Paley, all of whom devoted much of their life to this philosophical notion. 8 "The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle." In The Logic of Rational Theism: Exploratory Essays, 11 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) The Moral Argument (or Axiological Argument) The teleological and cosmological arguments are based on observations of this world and cannot logically be extended to a “personal God” outside this world. Is there any argument that is conceptually valid, manifests itself in the real world, and necessitates the existence of God' The defenders of moral argument believe there is. The moral argument for the existence of God examines the link between objective moral values, and God himself. Objective moral values are valid, and binding, independent of whether someone believes in them or not. For example, labelling the Nanjing (Nanking) Massacre as objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Japanese Army thought it was right. And it would still have been wrong even if the Japanese had won World War II and succeeded at brainwashing everyone. William Craig uses the Holocaust (Nazism) as an example. Similarly, we can argue the rights & wrongs from the point of the Islamic “jihadist” within the present context. Moral argument takes either the existence of morality or some specific feature of morality to imply the existence of God. The moral may be summarized as follow: 1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. 2. Objective moral values exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. Moral argument, by reason of its extreme relevance to the human situation, has a certain advantage over the other arguments. Although like them it supplies grounds for believing in a transcendent God, the moral argument goes further. It addresses itself to a most fundamental question, which concerns humanists and Christians alike, both groups eager to sustain an ethic or moral obligation to our fellow man. But on what basis does such a noble commitment securely rest' How is it to be sustained, or even explained' Happiness is the desire of all human beings. Virtue (morality) is the duty of all human beings. Often, doing what is right (morality) is good but does not make one happy. Likewise, making one happy, which is good, may require acts of immorality. If both can be completely achieved without acts of immorality, then this is the greatest good. The moral necessity of doing something implies the possibility of doing it. The only way of achieving the unity of both is with God's help (because only He has the power to achieve it), and with immortality - life after death (because this will give us the time to achieve it). Therefore, God must exist. Immanuel Kant does not claim that the moral argument constitutes a proof for God's existence. He holds that the idea of God, like the idea of freedom, is an inevitable idea of practical reason. Thus, properly speaking, there is no knowledge of God (such an unconditioned reality is not a possible object of experience), but in Kant's view, this is why God is an object of faith. Kant feels that the 12 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) traditional proofs were defective. Kant holds that the existence of God and the immortality of the soul are matters of faith, not ordinary speculative reason, which, he claims is limited to sensation. Kant reasons that the moral law commands us to seek summum bonum (the greatest or supreme good) – “The summum bonum, then, practically is only possible on the supposition of the immortality of the soul; consequently this immortality, being inseparably connected with the moral law, is a postulate of pure practical reason (by which I mean a theoretical proposition, not demonstrable as such, but which is an inseparable result of an unconditional a priori practical law).” 9 C. S. Lewis advances the moral argument for God's existence in his work Mere Christianity. Lewis argues that man's idea of right and wrong is a clue to the meaning of the universe. Lewis reasons that there must be an existence of a universal moral law for several reasons. First, all moral disagreements between persons imply an appeal to a standard of behavior to which all persons are subject. People accused of doing wrong usually claim that their action did not violate the universal standard, or that they somehow had a special excuse for not submitting to the standard in that particular case. They do not usually deny the standard itself. Second, quarreling often occurs when one person tries to prove that the action of another person is wrong. However, the fact that two people quarrel about whether or not an action was moral implies that they agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong. One person claims the action was right; the other person claims the action was wrong. What they agree upon is the concept of right and wrong (the moral law). Lewis, who at various times calls moral law the “Law of Nature”, “Law of Right and Wrong”, and the “Law of Decent Behavior” argues that morality is as much a part of the universe as the law of gravity and thermodynamics. 10 People all over the world “have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and can't get rid of it.” There is tremendous consistency across all nations and throughout all time. Lewis’s critics claim that this “moral law” is simply herd instinct. Lewis defends his argument by saying that if a person has two instincts in opposition to each other, the stronger will prevail. Often, man suppresses his stronger instinct in order to do what he thinks is right. For instance, when confronted with imminent danger, a man may desire to run for safety but instead chooses to disregard his own well being to rescue another. Therefore, the moral law is not man's basic instincts. Instead, it judges between these instincts to determine which instinct is to be applied in the specific situation. The Quaker theologian David Elton Trueblood (1900-1994, author, educator, philosopher, and theologian who is a lifelong member of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)) presents a most interesting variation of the argument: 1. There must be an objective moral law; otherwise: 9 Critique of Practical Reason (Chapter 2, Part IV) C S Lewis, Mere Christianity Book 1, Part 1. 10 13 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) (a) There would not be such great agreement on its meaning. (b) No real moral disagreements would ever have occurred, each person being right from his own moral perspective. (c) No moral judgment would ever have been wrong, each being subjectively right. (d) No ethical question could ever be discussed, there being no objective meaning to any ethical terms. (e) Contradictory views would both be right, since opposites could be equally correct. 2. This moral law is beyond individual persons and beyond humanity as a whole: (a) It is beyond individual persons, since they often sense a conflict with it. (b) It is beyond humanity as a whole, for they collectively fall short of it and even measure the progress of the whole race by it. 3. This moral law must come from a moral Legislator because: (a) A law has no meaning unless it comes from a mind; only minds emit meaning. (b) Disloyalty makes no sense unless it is to a person, yet people die in loyalty to what is morally right. (c) Truth is meaningless unless it is a meeting of mind with mind, yet people die for the truth. (D) Hence, discovery of and duty to the moral law make sense only if there is a Mind or Person behind it. 4. Therefore, there must be a moral, personal Mind behind this moral law. The validity of Trueblood’s argument is based in terms of its rationality. It argues that to reject the moral law is irrational or meaningless and unless we assume the universe is irrational, we must accept that there is an objective moral law and, thereby, an objective Moral Law Giver. Bertrand Russell objects to the moral argument when he delivers in his lecture “Why I am not a Christian” – 11 “Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not' If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say 11 Bertrand Russell’s lecture on March 6, 1927 to the National Secular Society, South London Branch, at Battersea Town Hall 14 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) that right and wrong have some meaning, which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the Gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it.” Russell’s objection is one that others have made: if the difference between right and wrong is merely a result of God’s arbitrary fiat, then it is meaningless to say that God is good. Indeed, it is meaningless to say that there really is a difference. Nobody’s decrees could make something morally right or wrong. In any case, if it makes sense to say that God is good, there must be a different basis for the rightness and wrongness of things than God’s will. Appeal to God’s will, cannot explain why there is a difference between right and wrong. And if God has reasons for God’s commandments, then those reasons provide the basis for the difference between good and evil; it is not a matter of God's will. Bertrand Russell’s dilemma is if God willed the moral law arbitrarily, then He is not essentially good. And if He willed it according to an ultimate standard beyond Himself, then He is not God (because there is some ultimate being beyond Him). But God willed the moral law either arbitrarily or according to an ultimate standard. Therefore, either He is not good or He is not God. This is a very well formed dilemma, but Russell overlooked one possibility in the minor premise. If God is essentially good, then He could have willed moral law from His own nature. We look back into Thomas Aquinas’ argument, if there were no God, how would you know the difference between right and wrong' We all feel that there are some things that are good and some things that are evil. Where does this intuitive knowledge of good and evil come from' It comes from natural law or conscience. And conscience comes from God. So, God must be the source of morality. Man is both an intellectual as well as a moral being. Despite various definitions of morality, it is evident that man is in a moral arena. Moral law is seen in the world. Mere matter cannot account for the existence of this moral law, or the moral nature of man. Hence there has to be a Moral Being higher and greater than man himself. The dominance of moral law necessitates a Moral Lawgiver. The need for a moral ideal, for a ‘good’, necessitates the existence of a Highest Good. 15 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) The Ontological Argument (or Argument for Pure Reason) The ontological argument (or Argument for Pure Reason) attempts to prove God’s existence through abstract reasoning alone. The argument is entirely a priori, i.e. it involves no empirical evidence at all. Rather, the argument begins with an explication of the concept of God, and seeks to demonstrate that God exists on the basis of that concept alone. 12 Ontological argument is an argument for the conclusion that God exists, from premise, which is supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world — e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological argument is an argument from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists. Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109, the outstanding Christian philosopher and theologian of the 11th century and who later become Archbishop of Canterbury), is the first to develop a comprehensive ontological argument for the existence of God. His thesis begins with a primary formula, or name, for God “aliquid quod maius nihil cogitari potest”: the “that” beyond which nothing of any greater quality (power, intelligence, love, truth) can be conceived. 13 Anselm then goes on to use this formula as the following basis for his argument: 1) God is a being than which no greater can be conceived; 2) Something than which no greater can be conceived must exist; 3) Therefore, God exists. Anselm’s is ostensibly, an argument based on reason, i.e. a priori. Thomas Aquinas rejects the argument, saying that the human mind cannot possibly conceive of the idea of God by reason alone (a priori), as Anselm might. The argument does not make sense by itself, and must first provide an idea of the existence of God with an analysis of God's effects (a posteriori), to which Aquinas turns to. Bertrand Russell argues in History of Western Philosophy – “St Anselm is chiefly known to fame as the inventor of the ‘ontological argument’ for the existence of God. As he put it, the argument is as follows: We define ‘God’ as the greatest possible object of thought. Now if an object of thought does not exist, another, exactly like it, which does exist, is greater. Therefore the greatest of all objects of thought must exist, since, otherwise, another, still greater, would be possible. Therefore God exists. This argument has never been accepted, by theologians. It was adversely criticized at the time; it was forgotten till the latter half of the thirteenth century. Thomas Aquinas rejected it, and among theologians his authority has prevailed ever since. But among philosophers it had had a better fate. Descartes revived it in a somewhat amended form; Leibniz 12 13 Philosophy of Religion Anselm, Proslogion, Chapter 2 16 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) thought that it could be made valid by the addition of a supplement to prove that God is possible. Kant considered that he had demolished it once and for all.” There are important differences between Rene Descartes’ (1596 -1650, a noted French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist; dubbed the "Founder of Modern Philosophy" and the “Father of Modern mathematics”), argument and that of Anselm. Rene Descartes takes this argument a little further. Descartes states in his argument, which include defining what sort of knowledge is around that is grounded in certainty: “Existence is a part of the concept of a perfect being; anyone who denied that a perfect being had the property existence would be like someone who denied that a triangle had the property threesidedness...the mind cannot conceive of triangularity without also conceiving of three-sidedness...the mind cannot conceive of perfection without also conceiving of existence.” (Fifth Meditation) He declares that to say that God does not exist is a logical contradiction. Existence, according to Descartes, is as much a characteristic of God as 180 degrees is a characteristic of a triangle. Just as it is logically impossible to say, ‘that triangle does not have 180 degrees’, it is also logically impossible to say, ‘God does not exist’. Saying that God does not exist is, according to Descartes, is saying, “that creature with existence does not exist.” This is, by definition, an untrue statement, therefore God must, by definition, exist. To this Descartes states – “I saw quite clearly that, assuming a triangle, its three angles must be equal to two right angles; but for all that I saw nothing that assured me that there was any triangle in the real world. On the other hand, going back to an examination of my idea of a perfect being. I found that this included the existence of a being, in the same way as the idea of a triangle includes the equality of its three angles to two right angles... Consequently it is at least as certain that God, the perfect being in question, is or exists, as any proof in geometry can be." (From Le Discours de la Méthode or The Discourse on Method). In his Discourse on the Method, Descartes discusses the existence of God and the nature of the human soul. In the “Preface” to the Meditations, he explains that the earlier discussion in the Discourse was intentionally brief. The Discourse was published in French, as opposed to Latin, and thus available to common readers. Meditation becomes an extension or expansion of Discourse. Therefore we see that Descartes begins Fifth Meditation by noting that he imagines an array of two and three-dimensional shapes. Some of these, like triangles, portray clear and distinct attributes that necessarily belong to them, and do so irrespective of whether we have sensory knowledge of the objects of these ideas, or even whether these ideas have existent objects at all. In short, the classic run on Descartes’ argument is as follow: 1) I have an idea of a supremely perfect being 17 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) 2) The idea of this being necessarily entails every perfection Existence is perfection, Therefore 3) The idea of a supremely perfect being entails existence (that is, a supremely perfect being exists). The important point here is that it is supposed to be self-contradictory to deny premise 1), and premise 2) is supposed to be uncontroversial. God would not be God unless He has all perfections, that is, unless He is a perfect being (or the most perfect being). And existence is indeed a perfection. Aside from Aquinas’ and Russell’s, there are at least three arguments against Descartes’ and Anselm’s versions of ontological argument that are worth looking at: (a) Gaunilo's Original Objection - One of the initial objections to the argument comes from Gaunilo, a monk of Marmoutier, a contemporary of Anselm. His objection is based in a theological concern that Anselm is defining God in order to prove his existence. He introduces a simple analogy to prove the point: If one defines a perfect island as one which none greater could be conceived, then by Anselm’s proof, it too will exist. According to Gaunilo, proving the existence of an island in this manner is absurd, as would be proving the existence of God in the same manner. Let “Bikini” be the name of a perfect coral island. (It is where the atom bomb was tested.) 1) Bikini is a coral island that has all perfections. 2) Existence is a perfection, Therefore 3) Bikini exists. But, of course, Bikini does no longer exist. The trouble with this objection is that it tells us that there is a problem with the argument, but it does not tell us what the problem is. One reply to this objection is to say that premise 1) is nonsensical. God can have all perfections, but a coral island, which is a limited thing, cannot have all perfections. At best, it could have all perfections that are possible for a coral island. But it does not follow that existence is one of those. Furthermore, it may not even make sense to talk about “all perfections that are possible for a coral island”. (b) Kant’s Objection: Existence is not a perfection. This is simply to say that the argument is unsound because one of the premises is false. One does not “add” to something by making it exist. One does not improve upon it or increase its power or even provide more information about it and that the argument is simply based on words rather than reality. Playing with words will not influence the real world one bit and the existence or otherwise of a perfect 18 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) existent Being. Kant agrees that it is true that a being that is “necessarily existent” must exist by definition. However, a "necessarily existent being", taken as a whole, need not exist at all. A black hole is not “added to” when it is found out that it exists. Or, consider the following. Is anything added to a triangle if we discover that one exists' Do we learn more about a triangle if we find one buried under a rock in the garden' Is our knowledge expanded in any way' Is an existing triangle more perfect than one that does not exist, granted that both are plane three-sided figures the sum of whose angles is 180 degrees' The trouble with this objection is that it might be false, and the premise might be true. Maybe existence does indeed “add” to something. Maybe the triangle we find is more perfect because it exists. (c) Caterus's objection: Johan De Kater “Caterus”, a Dutch theologian and a contemporary of Descartes argues that, though it may very well be that a supremely perfect being, by definition, holds the quality of existence, this does not necessitate that He really exists. It could be that the concept of existence in inseparable from the concept of God, but nothing more than that; it does not imply that God exists in the actual world. It does not prove the existence of God it just proves something about the meaning of “God”. The ontological argument while seemingly flawed, is very attractive because it relies on pure reason and concepts (a priori) rather than empirical observations (a posteriori). However, it is clear that the argument is deceptive in that the definition of the being in question has the concepts of “perfect”, “necessary” and “existent” built into it. A being existing in a person's mind can never cause that being to exist in reality. 19 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) Pascal’s Wager (or Argument for Practical Reason) Pascal's (Blaise Pascal 1623 –1662, French mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher) Wager is an attempt to justify belief in God not with an appeal to evidence for his existence but rather with an appeal to self-interest. It is in our interests to believe in the Christian God, the argument suggests, and it is therefore rational for us to do so. 14 Pascal’s wager is a decision theoretic argument for believing in God. Either God exists or God does not exist and either you believe in God (bet on his existing) or you do not believe in God. The argument or wager is based on four possibilities: 1) 2) 3) 4) If I believe and God exists: I'll be happy for eternity = infinite gain. If I believe and God does not exist: I've lost nothing and gained nothing. If I do not believe and God exists: I'll be punished for eternity = infinite loss. If I do not believe and God does not exist: I've lost nothing and gained nothing. Therefore by believing I cannot lose anything, but I can win a lot. But by not believing I can lose a lot, but cannot win anything. So I better believe. Pascal starts with the claim that we do not know either the existence or the nature of God, because he has neither extension nor limits. We humans are both finite and extended in space, so we cannot know the nature of God because he is infinite and we cannot know the existence of God because he is not extended in space. God is indivisible and without limits, he bears no relation to us, so we have no way of knowing what God is like or even whether he exists at all. After establishing that the existence and nature of God cannot be known through reason alone, Pascal proceeds to develop the betting metaphor. He likens the existence of God to a coin, spinning at the far end of “infinite chaos,” which will come down heads or tails. In other words, he says that even though we cannot know which is the case, in reality God must either exist or not exist. How will you wager' Reason cannot make you choose either, reason cannot prove either wrong. Pascal implies that not believing God exists is essentially the same as believing that God does not exist. Therefore, each of us must either believe in God or not believe in God. There is no third alternative. Reason alone does not give more weight to either choice, so we must look at more than the (completely lack of) evidence at hand when deciding whether or not to believe in God. Pascal suggests that because neither choice affects our reason, we should look at the likely payoff in terms of happiness. If we believe in God, and there is a God, we get infinite bliss. If we believe in God, and there is no God, we get nothing. If we doubt God’s existence and there is a God, we get infinite torment. If we doubt God’s existence and there is no God, we get nothing. 14 Philosophy of Religion 20 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) Is this a reasonable argument to believe in God' Is it flawless' Should we take the safe bet' One can argue that it is better to gain something than nothing. However, a problem with this argument is that it makes the big, unfounded assumption that to reject God will cause a person to have a happy life in this world. It may very well be that to reject God will cause greater unhappiness than to believe in Him. The argument also assumes that God is the Christian God. However, one could equally hold that there is a probability that God is the Chinese Kitchen God, Yahweh, Allah, the Greek God, Zeus or the Nordic God, Odin. One should then believe in these and all other gods in order to be absolutely sure. However, one cannot believe in all these gods simultaneously due to mutually exclusive doctrines. Possibly the greatest problem with this argument is the question of whether a person can choose to believe something is true based on such a proposition. To have a genuine belief in the truth of something, a person must be convinced of its validity. It can be argued that one cannot truly believe that God exists on the basis that by doing so, one may possibly gain future prosperity. The uncertainty of God's existence will remain in the person's mind. Summary There are many other arguments for God’s existence and most of which have one thing in common, and that is the use of logic as a determinant of their validity. The proponents of these theories began with a premise and then built a logical construct from which a conclusion could be formulated. Many things exist that cannot be verified by logical argument. This in turn raises serious doubts as to the adequacy of rationality's scope for answering the question of God's existence. Empirical observation and other data gained through the senses are prone to error both by the receptors and by the intellect. Kant is correct in claiming that we cannot know what anything really is, but can only obtain a hint through our observations. If we do not see things as they really are and probably do not have an intellect able to fully comprehend them anyway, then empirical observation is of little use in determining comprehensive questions, such as the question of God’s existence. 21 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) In Closing I have stated in Preface, I attempt not to insert quotes and/or references from the Bible for which we could have discourse on the pros & cons of the arguments from a Biblical perspective. My reason is simple in that I cannot legitimately call myself a Christian. However, to justify the statement, I make an exception here by inserting references to substantiate the Bible in defending the Christian doctrine. To be a true Christian, I am reminded that there are necessary doctrinal truths, truths that define the very essence or being, of the Christian faith to which I must subscribe. There at least seven doctrinal issues that Christians throughout the ages have considered essential, primary of which, “the Divinity and Humanity of Christ” as defined by the Council of Chalcedon. The Chalcedon Definition puts it as: Jesus is “truly God and truly man.” (Philippians 2:6 –who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,; Colssians 2:9 - For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;) Relative to this are the doctrinal issues relating to “Original Sin” and “the Substitutionary Atonement.” The former holds the view that we are born sinners and Jesus is our Savior and He died for our sins (Luke 24:26 – Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory'; Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 1 Timothy 1:15 –This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief). And the latter issue subscribes that we cannot save ourselves and Christ is the propitiation of our sins (1 John 2:2 - And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.; Romans 3:25 - whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,). What of the other four doctrines' They are the Trinity, the Resurrection of Christ, the Second Advent of Christ and Justification by Faith Alone. Of these, the last issue seems to be a separation in dogmatic perception. “Genuine” Christianity teaches that justification is by faith alone. Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, and other pseudo-Christian religions deny that justification is by faith alone. Rather, they teach that justification is by faith plus works. Roman Catholic Church is clear that God’s grace is necessary to put a person on the road to justification, and to give him strength to pursue holiness, it also declares that justification comes at the end of a process in which the sinner, through moral effort and good works, achieves true, inward righteousness. In other words, for the Catholic (and others) justification follows sanctification. The Biblical view is that justification precedes sanctification. See (Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.; Romans 4:5 - But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness) but I digress! 22 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) However, implicit within those premises of doctrinal issues is the notion that a person who understands the doctrines and their significance for the Christian worldview, yet conscientiously denies any one of them—that person is not a Christian. Given the foregoing, I simply cannot pass muster. While accepting Christ is human, I have not accepted Christ’s divinity. I am immersed in unholy chrism! I am a Sinner (with a big “S”) beyond salvation, wallowing in that freemasonry of a Tridentine love, the love for my wine (the Cabernet Sauvignons, the Jack Daniels, the Johnnie Walker Black Labels), my women (ladies that challenge my somewhat infantile but functioning cerebellum) and my songs (could pass off as an occasional Elvis, Tom Jones, Lobo). My whole existence has been auroled in a demential haze of chimerical dreams, latticed in a palisade of ephemeral indulgence and self-gratification, concussed by an avalanche of perennial guilt and shame, condemned to a perpetual feeling of emptiness. I am like a devil in possession of a mortal frame. Not that the devil has any sense of guilt or shame! Fully aware therefore of these spectral (demonic) cravings, these transgressions, the pall of guilt and shame, the pinions of pain, my soul is in fractal expanding agony, seeking piteousness and forgiveness from those loved and those abandoned. Are these the subliminal cues that are flirtingly peering into an impending closure to my existence' The loud lamentations pregnant with metaphors, the double entendres and perhaps the non-sequiturs, how Dickensian as my beloved one from Harvard once opined, or how Faustian' I digress, manifestly digressed; I am schizophrenic with digression! As I have earlier suggested, this narrative is to justify the Existence of God from theistic and philosophic points of view, regardless of religious epistemologies. I cannot propagate nor influence the words according to the Christian Bible lest I am denounced as a hypocrite, pretender or purveyor of false doctrine; keeping in mind what the Christian Bible says in Colossians 2:8 - Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. However, again I digress! We know there is a Supreme Being for whom we call God. The arguments for God can be served by being clear that there are the existence of real connections between God and Creation, so that one is put in the position of having to choose between acknowledging the conclusion or rejecting, either the validity of those arguments or the truth of one of those relevant arguments. The cosmological argument does not provide much if any evidence for the existence of a necessary being, whereas the design argument does not provide much if any evidence for an intelligent designer; but put the two arguments together and they compliment each other to show that the universe has a necessarily existent intelligent cause. 23 In Search for God’s Existence (A Theist’s Narrative) A good way to describe the premise is the court analogy. Isolated pieces of evidence may be insufficient on their own to warrant convicting someone ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, but taken together the evidence does warrant conviction. Likewise with the case or argument for God. The cosmological argument does not prove the existence of God. Nor does the design argument. But put all these arguments together, and the court may have to decide that God exists. I suppose certainty of God’s existence can be attained by way of direct revelation from God to an individual’s essence (spirit). For this to happen, one must procure a relationship with God. Can this be achieved only within the context of Christianity or other theistic beliefs' John Teo (JT) Chong Lin We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations - Albert Einstein 24