While I will be arguing the 'pro' side of this debate over the existence
of God, I would like to concede from the beginning that God's existence,
by its very nature, cannot be absolutely proven except on an individual level.
In other words, God can prove His existence to an individual, but because
of His nature and will, would not allow His existence to be proven to the
world at large, or to anyone who refuses to consider the possibility of His
existence.
To understand what I mean, let's look at love. For example, if a man tells
a woman that he loves her, it would be impossible to absolutely prove that
this is true if she refused to believe it. No matter what he does to prove
his love, no matter what evidence of his love he provides, if she refuses
to believe he loves her, she will never believe it. Only if she is willing
to believe that he loves her, could he prove his love to her. The same is
true of God. Only if someone is willing to believe, will God reveal Himself
to that person.
However, I do believe that the existence of God is the most logical conclusion
given the evidence at hand, that God's existence is far more logical than
His nonexistence. If someone is willing to believe, the evidence alone would
almost certainly sway that person.
Defining God isn't always easy, and I would even say is beyond human ability,
but whatever we consider to be 'God' must have the following characteristics:
It must be supernatural, since it has power over nature; It must be an
intelligent force, since there is order within the universe and logic to
the natural laws; And it must also be a timeless force, since the Law of
Relativity proves that time cannot exist without matter, so if God exists
outside of nature, God exists outside of time as well.
As for our universe, there are really one two major possible explanations
for how it came to exist.
1) It never came to exist, but has existed always in one sense or another.
2) It came to exist at a certain point.
While I (and most of science) believe the second of these explanations to
be the truth, I will consider both of them.
If the universe always existed, then it does not require any sort of creator.
While this would certainly allow us to reject God as the universe's creator,
this possibility would still require there to be some force in the universe
greater than nature. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, in a closed
system, everything in the system will eventually move away from order towards
chaos (a 'closed system' is a system in which nothing, neither matter nor
energy, can enter or leave). For example, if you were to pour a cup of boiling
hot water into a jar, add a cup of freezing cold water, and seal the jar
so that nothing, not energy or matter, could enter the jar, the water in
the jar would eventually reach a steady temperature somewhere between hot
and cold, and would then stay that temperature forever.
While there certainly can be isolated increases in order, for a temporary
amount of time, given enough time the entire system would turn into complete
entropy. For example, the amount of order on Planet Earth can, and does,
increase by natural means, but only due to a decrease in order in another
part of the solar system, namely the sun. The energy coming from our sun
is moving our sun towards a state of entropy (though very gradually), while
increasing the order on our planet. But given enough time, the sun will burn
itself out and then the order on Planet Earth will also decrease, causing
our solar system to eventually move towards complete entropy.
If, as Carl Sagan would say, the universe is 'all that is, was, or ever will
be' (in his book 'Cosmos'), then our universe would be a closed system. Given
enough time, then, our universe will move towards complete disorder (what
some scientists call 'heat death'). This would certainly take a long time,
of course, but if our universe has been around for an INFINITE amount of
time already, then the amount of time necessary to bring our universe towards
complete disorder would have already passed, and we would be in a state of
complete entropy, or heat death, right now.
The only way our universe could have always existed, but not be in a state
of entropy, is if our universe is NOT a closed system after all. This would
require some force outside of nature to be providing the means of keeping
some degree of order in our universe. Therefore, such a force would have
to be supernatural, aware of our universe (therefore intelligent), and since
time has been proven only to exist within nature, the force would be timeless.
A supernatural, intelligent, timeless force. In other words, God.
If our universe did not always exist, however, but came to exist suddenly,
there would have to be some sort of cause for this. While it is certainly
possible for something to exist without a cause, nothing can BEGIN TO EXIST
without a cause. Without some sort of cause, the beginning of the universe
would never have happened and it would not currently exist. Some force would
have to be behind the creation of the universe. It would have to be a
supernatural force, since nature could not have existed prior to the creation
of nature. It would have to be intelligent for it to have created all of
the natural laws. It would also have to be timeless, since it created time
while creating the universe. A supernatural, intelligent, timeless force.
In other words, God.
Most scientists will agree that the 'Big Bang' has been essentially proven
to have happened, though they frequently disagree as to whether it created
matter and energy out of nothing, or merely transformed previously existing
matter and energy. But think about this: Did the Big Bang create a relatively
orderly universe like we have now? Or did it create a chaotic universe that
gradually became orderly over time? Either one is in direct violation to
natural laws. I'm not saying that natural laws cannot be violated, but they
can only be violated by a higher power than nature. According to 'naturalist'
theory, there is no power higher than nature. 'Naturalist' theory is obviously
wrong, then. For nature to have begun to exist, or for nature to have always
existed yet not fallen into entropy, requires some force more powerful than
nature, a force that is able to control nature. In other words, God.
Of course, whether the 'God' as I've described is the God mentioned in the
Judeo-Christian Bible is an argument that I've asked not to get into at this
point. If one rejects the existence of God altogether, arguing the point
would be moot. Only if one accepts (at least hypothetically) the existence
of God could we really delve into that question. Let me just say that I believed
in God for many years before I even started looking at the Bible, and most
of those who reject the Bible do not reject God. I would even say the reason
most people believe in God is not because they've contemplated the scientific
evidence at hand, but because God created us to know Him. It was His purpose
for putting us here in the first place, so it comes naturally to us.
Our primary obligation is to the truth. If God exists, it is wrong for someone
to pretend that He does not. The only way to prove the existence of God to
yourself is to be willing to believe, to open your heart to God, and 'let
there be light' in your life.
| Continue |