Three Cases for the Existence of God

Whether one is religious or a non-believer, theist or atheist, there are certain things in nature that even scientists can’t seem to definitively explain. In Dr. Bert Thompson’s study, he gives three very arguable cases of proof for the existence of God. The author delves into the three main arguments for the existence of God, which scientists have not been able to completely explain away with logic or reasoning, being able to present the views of both sides without necessarily becoming hostile towards the one or the other. The three cases that are presented for argument are the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, and the Anthropological Argument. In this paper, I will examine the cases and explain the benefits each gives towards the belief of a Supreme Being.

The first case presented was the Cosmological Argument. It is explained that the Cosmological Argument addresses the fact that the Universe is here and therefore must be explained. In the book, Dr. Thompson explains that the Universe is a contingent entity, one that is dependent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence. For scientists, and atheists alike, there is the belief of cause and effect, or rather the Law of Casualty. This law states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. For scientists, and philosophers alike, this is the foundation of their core beliefs. There can be no effects without an adequate cause, this is simply unknown. Therefore a cause cannot follow an effect, or an effect precedes its cause. Since therefore for whatever effects we observe, we must postulate an adequate antecedent cause, we must answer what actually caused the universe? There are three possible answers, first, the Universe is eternal, always has and always will exist, second, the Universe is not eternal, and created itself out of nothing, or third, the Universe is not eternal, and was not self created; rather it was created by something or someone anterior and superior to itself. As Robert Jastrow, an eminent evolutionary astronomer explained:

“Every effect has a cause that can be discovered by rational arguments. And this has been a very successful program, if you will, for unraveling the history of the universe. But it just fails at the beginning.... So time, really, going backward, comes to a halt at that point. Beyond that, that curtain can never be lifted.... And that is really a blow at the very fundamental premise that motivates all scientists…The Universe, and everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand effect without a known cause. An effect without a cause? That is not the world of science; it is a world of witchcraft, of wild events and the whims of demons, a medieval world that science has tried to banish. As scientists, what are we to make of this picture? I do not know.”

As Jastrow and others have pondered over this quandary of the Universe, many scientists have chosen to simply believe in the Universe as eternal, without a beginning or an end. But isn’t this contradictory to the belief in cause and effect? Therefore the Universe is not eternal, nor did it create itself out of nothing as scientists are now trying to defend. The core belief in physics could not allow one to believe that matter would simply come together and accidentally create the Universe. In the end, both scientists and philosophers have to acknowledge that the Universe had an adequate cause, because the Universe is the effect, and as such requires an adequate antecedent cause. Since no effect can be qualitative superior, or quantitative greater than its cause, a Superior Being must be the cause of the creation of the Universe.

The second case presented was the Teleological Argument. Teleology has reference to purpose or design; thus this approach suggests that where there is purposeful design, there must be a designer. This case looks at the perfect design of the Universe and the human body. The deduction is being made that order, planning, and designs in a system are indicative of intelligence, purpose, and specific intent on the part of the originating cause. Atheists would have to admit that design demands a designer, but they deny that there is design in nature, which of course would not lead to the belief of a Great Designer. The point of contention between theist and atheist is whether or not there is design in nature adequate enough to substantiate the conclusion that a Designer exists. But all one has to look for proof is in the design of the Universe and of Mankind. For example, the Earth is located at the exact distance from the Sun to receive the proper amount of heat and radiation to sustain life. The Earth’s rotation is also a significant factor in sustaining life. This rotation provides periods of light and darkness—a phenomenon necessary for sustaining life as we know it. If the Earth rotated much faster, fierce cyclones would stir over the Earth, and if the Earth turned significantly slower, the days and nights would be impossibly hot or cold. What about the human body? Can one be expected to conclude that the “structural masterpiece of the human body is the result of blind chance operating over eons of time in nature as atheism suggests?” Chance is not so purposeful, so therefore the obvious alternative to chance would be an intelligent Designer.

The third and final case would be the Anthropological Argument. This argument deals with the presence and development of morals and ethics. Morals and ethics are important and play a critical role in man’s everyday life. It is also truly a uniquely human trait. As most evolutionists want us to believe, we evolved from the lowest of all creatures, yet man is the only creature to live by a code of ethics and morality. Therefore, if we all must live by moral or ethical standards, by what moral or ethical system shall we live, and therefore justify our actions. There are two options, first, moral and ethics are theocentric, or they originate from the mind of God as an external source of infinite goodness, or second they’re anthropocentric, meaning they originated from man himself. How are atheists and infidels to explain the origin of morality? Since the unbeliever doesn’t believe in an intrinsically moral being, somehow raw, eternal, inorganic matter was able by means of extended evolutionary process, to concoct, promote, and maintain morality. This reasoning is self defeating for two reasons: first, they wrongly assume that man somehow is capable of discovering “moral truth”, and second, matter by itself is completely impotent to “evolve” any sense of moral consciousness. In the end, “since duty is proper meaning, and since meaning is a property of either mind or of law, we can expect to locate our rule of duty either in mind or in law. Either the law that rules the mind is supreme, or the mind which makes the law is paramount.”

In conclusion, these three cases that were presented should give one enough reason to better ponder the proof that surrounds them for the existence of God. If scientists and philosophers cannot come to a definite conclusion, why are theists arguments not taken more seriously.