case for the existence of God - Apologetics Press

211 Pages·2004·0.64 MB·English

APOLOGETICSPRESS
Apologetics Press, Inc.
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117-2752
© Copyright 2003
ISBN: 0-932859-59-3
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproduced
inanyformwithoutpermissionfromthepublisher,exceptin
thecaseofbriefquotationsembodiedinarticlesorcriticalre-
views.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
CHAPTER 2 Cause and Effect—
The Cosmological Argument. . . . . . . .3
IstheUniverseEternal?. . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Steady State and Oscil-
lating Universe Theories . . . . . . . . . . . .11
DidtheUniverseCreate
ItselfOutofNothing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
WastheUniverseCreated? . . . . . . . . . .41
Our Fine-Tuned,
Tailor-Made Universe. . . . . . . . . . . . .47
CHAPTER 3 Design in Nature—
The Teleological Argument . . . . . . . .67
DesignoftheUniverse. . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
DesignoftheHumanBody. . . . . . . . . .77
The Body’s Cells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
The Reproductive Methods of Cells. .82
The Genetic Code—
Its Design and Function . . . . . . . . . . .86
Origin of the Genetic Code. . . . . . . . .91
DNA, Genes, and Chromosomes . . . .94
The Body’s Tissues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
The Body’s Organs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
The Skin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
The Eye. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
The Ear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
The Body’s Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
The Skeletal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
The Circulatory System. . . . . . . . . . .119
The Nervous System. . . . . . . . . . . . .129
TheUnbeliever’sResponseto
theArgumentfromDesign . . . . . . . . .143
-i-
CHAPTER 4 Morality and Ethics—the
Anthropological Argument. . . . . . . .155
MoralityandEthics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158
ThePracticalImpactofMorals
andEthicsWithoutGod. . . . . . . . . . . .174
Morals,Ethics,and
theExistenceofGod. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177
CHAPTER 5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191
-ii-
1
INTRODUCTION
Oneofthemostbasic,andmostfundamental,issuesthat
canbeconsideredbythehumanmindisthequestion,“Does
Godexist?”Inthefieldoflogic,thereareprinciples—oras
theyarecalledmoreoften,laws—thatgovernhumanthought
processesandthatareacceptedasanalyticallytrue.Oneof
theseistheLawoftheExcludedMiddle.Whenappliedtoob-
jects,thislawstatesthatanobjectcannotbothpossessandnot
possessacertaintraitorcharacteristicatthesametimeandin
thesamefashion.Whenappliedtopropositions,thislawstates
thatallpreciselystatedpropositionsareeithertrueorfalse;
theycannotbebothtrueandfalseatthesametimeandinthe
same fashion.
Thestatement,“Godexists,”isapreciselystatedproposi-
tion.Thus,itiseithertrueorfalse.Thesimplefactis,either
GodexistsorHedoesnot.Thereisnomiddleground.One
cannotaffirmlogicallyboththeexistenceandnonexistence
ofGod.TheatheistboldlystatesthatGoddoesnotexist;the
theistaffirmsjustasboldlythatGoddoesexist;theagnostic
lamentsthatthereisnotenoughevidencetomakeadecision
onthematter;andtheskepticdoubtsthatGod’sexistencecan
beprovenwithcertainty.Whoiscorrect?DoesGodexistor
not?
Theonlywaytoanswerthisquestion,ofcourse,istoseek
outandexaminetheevidence.Itcertainlyisreasonableto
suggestthatifthereisaGod,Hewouldmakeavailabletous
-1-
evidenceadequatetothetaskofprovingHisexistence.But
doessuchevidenceexist?Andifitdoes,whatisthenatureof
that evidence?
Thetheistadvocatestheviewthatevidenceisavailableto
proveconclusivelythatGoddoesexistandthatthisevidence
isadequatetoestablishbeyondreasonabledoubttheexis-
tenceofGod.However,whenIemploytheword“prove,”I
donotmeanthatGod’sexistencecanbedemonstratedscien-
tificallyinthesamefashionthatonemightprovethatasackof
potatoesweighstenpoundsorthatahumanhearthasfourdis-
tinctchamberswithinit.Suchmattersastheweightofasack
ofvegetables,orthedivisionswithinamuscle,aremattersthat
maybeverifiedempiricallyusingthefivesenses.Andwhile
empiricalevidenceoftenisquiteusefulinestablishingtheva-
lidityofacase,itisnotthesolemeansofarrivingatproof.For
example,legalauthoritiesrecognizethevalidityofaprimafa-
ciecase,whichisacknowledgedtoexistwhenadequateevi-
denceisavailabletoestablishthepresumptionofafactthat,
unlesssuchfactcanberefuted,legallystandsproven(seeJack-
son,1974,p.13).Itisthecontentionofthetheistthatthereisa
vastbodyofevidencethatmakesanimpregnableprimafacie
casefortheexistenceofGod—acasethatsimplycannotbere-
futed.Iwouldliketopresentheretheprimafaciecaseforthe
existenceofGod,alongwithasamplingoftheevidenceupon
which that case is based.
-2-
2
CAUSE AND EFFECT—
THE COSMOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT
Throughouthumanhistory,oneofthemosteffectivear-
gumentsfortheexistenceofGodhasbeenthecosmological
argument,whichaddressesthefactthattheUniverse(Cos-
mos)ishereandthereforemustbeexplainedinsomefashion.
In his book,Not A Chance,R.C. Sproul observed:
Traditionalphilosophyarguedfortheexistenceof
Godonthefoundationofthelawofcausality.The
cosmologicalargumentwentfromthepresenceofa
cosmosbacktoacreatorofthecosmos.Itsoughtara-
tionalanswertothequestion,“Whyistheresome-
thingratherthannothing?”Itsoughtasufficientrea-
son for a real world (1994, p. 169, emp. in orig.).
TheUniverseexistsandisreal.Atheistsandagnosticsnot
onlyacknowledgeitsexistence,butadmitthatitisagrandef-
fect(e.g.,seeJastrow,1977,pp.19-21).Ifanentitycannotac-
countforitsownbeing(i.e.,itisnotsufficienttohavecaused
itself),thenitissaidtobe“contingent”becauseitisdepend-
entuponsomethingoutsideofitselftoexplainitsexistence.
TheUniverseisacontingententitysinceitisinadequateto
cause,orexplain,itsownexistence.Sproulhasnoted:“Logic
requiresthatifsomethingexistscontingently,itmusthavea
cause.Thatismerelytosay,ifitisaneffectitmusthaveanan-
-3-
tecedentcause”(1994,p.172).Thus,sincetheUniverseisad-
mittedlyacontingenteffect,theobviousquestionbecomes,
“Whatcausedthe Universe?”
ItisherethattheLawofCauseandEffect(alsoknownas
theLawofCausality)istiedfirmlytothecosmologicalargu-
ment.Scientists,andphilosophersofscience,recognizelaws
as“reflectingactualregularitiesinnature”(Hull,1974,p.3).
Sofarasscientificknowledgecanattest,lawsknownoexcep-
tions.ThiscertainlyistrueoftheLawofCauseandEffect.It
is,indisputably,themostuniversal,andmostcertain,ofall
scientific laws.
Thislawhasbeenstatedinavarietyofways,eachofwhich
adequatelyexpressesitsultimatemeaning.Kant,inthefirst
editionofCritiqueofPureReason,statedthat“everythingthat
happens(beginstobe)presupposessomethingwhichitfollows
accordingtoarule.”Inthesecondedition,hestrengthened
thatstatementbynotingthat“allchangestakeplaceaccording
tothelawofconnectionofcauseandeffect”(seeMeiklejohn,
1878,p.141).Schopenhauerstatedthepropositionas:“Noth-
inghappenswithoutareasonwhyitshouldhappenratherthan
nothappen”(asquotedinvonMises,1968,p.159).Thenum-
berofvariousformulationscouldbeexpandedalmostindef-
initely.Butsimplyput,theLawofCausalitystatesthatevery
materialeffectmusthaveanadequateantecedentcause.
Thephilosophical/theologicalimplicationsofthisconcept—
proandcon—havebeenarguedthroughtheyears.Butafter
thedustsettles,theLawofCausalityalwaysremainsintact.
Thereisnoquestionofitsacceptanceintheworldofexperi-
mentalscienceorintheordinaryworldofpersonalexperi-
ence.Manyyearsago,professorW.T.Stace,inhisclassicwork,
A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, commented:
Everystudentoflogicknowsthatthisistheultimate
canonofthesciences,thefoundationofthemall.If
wedidnotbelievethetruthofcausation,namely,ev-
erythingwhichhasabeginninghasacause,andthat
-4-
inthesamecircumstancesthesamethingsinvariably
happen,allthescienceswouldatoncecrumbleto
dust.Ineveryscientificinvestigationthistruthisas-
sumed (1934, p. 6).
TheLawofCausalityisnotofimportancejusttoscience.
RichardvonMisesobserved:“Wemayonlyaddthatalmost
allphilosophersregardthelawofcausalityasthemostim-
portant,themostfar-reaching,andthemostfirmlyfounded
of all principles of epistemology.” He then added:
Thelawofcausalityclaimsthatforeveryobserv-
ablephenomenon(letuscallitB)thereexistsasec-
ondphenomenonA,suchthatthesentence“Bfol-
lowsfromA”istrue....Therecanbenodoubtthatthe
lawofcausalityintheformulationjuststatedisin
agreementwithallourownexperiencesandwith
thosewhichcometoourknowledgeinonewayor
another....[We]canalsostatethatinpracticallifethere
ishardlyamoreusefulandmorereliableruleofbe-
haviorthantoassumeofanyoccurrencethatwecome
toknowthatsomeotheroneprecededitasitscause
(1968, p. 160, emp. in orig.).
RichardTaylor,addressingtheimportanceofthisbasiclaw
of science inThe Encyclopedia of Philosophy, wrote:
Nevertheless,itishardlydisputablethattheideaof
causationisnotonlyindispensableinthecommon
affairsoflifebutinallappliedscienceaswell.Juris-
prudenceandlawwouldbecomequitemeaningless
ifmenwerenotentitledtoseekthecausesofvarious
unwantedeventssuchasviolentdeaths,fires,andac-
cidents.Thesameistrueinsuchareasaspublichealth,
medicine,militaryplanning,and,indeed,everyarea
of life (1967, p. 57).
JustastheLawoftheExcludedMiddle(discussedinchap-
ter1)istrueanalytically,sotheLawofCauseandEffectis
trueanalyticallyaswell.Sprouladdressedthiswhenhewrote:
-5-