Ahya

Does God exist?

Does God exist?

 Advertisements on the sides of buses in Calgary, Toronto, and elsewhere read as follows: THERE’S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE. Although I respect my atheist neighbours and friends, and although I will defend their right freely to express their worldview positions without fear of persecution—as I hope they would do for me—I nevertheless disagree with their position (their position about God, that is; not the bits about worry and enjoyment).



I think the evidence favours God’s existence. In defence of my position, here is a sketch of a cumulative case argument from science, ethics, and history (to be further defended in subsequent Apologia columns).



First, a clarification is in order. A cumulative case argument consists of a collection of sub-arguments that, individually, may not provide strong or decisive support for a conclusion, but jointly do—just as one strand of string may not be strong enough to lift a heavy load but several interwoven strands are.



Okay, here are the sub-arguments (also sketches thereof).



1. Various findings from science point to God.



The big bang posits a beginning of the universe. This, together with the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause, strongly suggests that the universe has a cause. Moreover, this cause, because it is the cause of all matter/energy, space, and time, would be physically transcendent (i.e., immaterial), temporally transcendent (i.e., eternal), and very powerful (perhaps all powerful).



In addition, the exquisite fine-tuning of the universe’s conditions for life suggests that the aforementioned cause is highly intelligent. Also, life’s blueprint—DNA’s code/language—smacks of an intelligent cause.



Furthermore, the fact that the universe operates according to mathematical/rational principles and the fact that our minds can understand many of these deep principles (a feat immensely beyond what is needed for mere survival)—these facts make good sense on the view that a rational Mind created both the universe and us.



2. Our experience of morality points toward God.



That all people have real worth (and so shouldn’t be murdered, tortured, or otherwise abused) is well explained by the doctrine that people are made in God’s image.



Also, the fact that we have free will to make moral (or immoral) choices makes sense on the hypothesis that God gave us the mental capacity/freedom to choose (or reject) the good.



3. Several historical facts point to God.



Shortly after Jesus’ death, various individuals and groups of individuals claim to have seen, touched, and conversed with the resurrected Jesus in various locations over several weeks. Also, the lives of these individuals were transformed into an irrepressible witness to Jesus’ bodily resurrection.



Because of what we know about dead bodies, a resurrection, if it happened, would be best explained as supernaturally caused. This means (especially in view of the previous evidence suggesting God’s existence) that Jesus’ actual resurrection shouldn’t be ruled out prior to historical investigation. The result: Jesus’ miraculous—i.e. God-caused—resurrection is strongly suggested by, plus makes good sense of, the historical evidence.



Therefore, bus ads or no bus ads, it’s reasonable to think that God—the God revealed by Jesus Christ—exists.



For further reading on God’s existence (for believers and non-believers), I recommend Chad Meister’s Building Belief (Baker 2006) and William Lane Craig’s Reasonable Faith (Crossway 2008).



(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba.)

Posted by Dr. V at 9:21 PM

Labels: Atheist bus ads, Cumulative case argument, God's existence

20 comments:

Pvblivs said...

A couple thoughts. Creation and causation are temporal actions. No being can create time. The being needs some sort of time frame in which to create. (There could still be something outside the world we see.) Conspicuously absent are the claims that Jesus rising from the dead showed that he was in league with evil spirits. It's something I would expect to see if such a rising were generally believed. The "irrepressable witnesses" didn't come along until decades after the time he supposedly lived and died. (It's also why I don't put much stock in people saying that if the resurrection were false, they needed only produce a body. His body likely could no longer be identified and the "followers" likely never saw him in life.



March 13, 2009 2:04 AM

Christopher said...

Dr. V,



Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the bus-ad campaign, and the question it naturally brings up: does God exist?



I have dealt with the social aspect of the bus-ad campaign at my site, and have suspicions that it is not simply a political exercise in equal rights. I personally think it is an attempt at transvaluating faith to doubt, and piety to scorn.



Still, I see a lot of good coming from the ad campaign, also. For example, wider public discourse.



Take care,

Christopher



March 14, 2009 9:49 AM

Dr. V said...

Hello Pvblivs,



It’s good to hear from you again. I hope that all is well with you and yours. I will respond to your comments in piecemeal fashion.



Pvblivs wrote:



Creation and causation are temporal actions. No being can create time. The being needs some sort of time frame in which to create. (There could still be something outside the world we see.)



Hendrik’s reply:



I disagree. Causation, it seems to me, is not an essentially temporal concept. There is a distinction between the notions of temporally prior and ontologically prior which often gets missed. Significantly, the sensibility of the latter is all that is needed to make sense of the causation/creation of time.



I responded to a version of your objection a few years ago in my article, “There’s an intelligent defence for intelligent design,” a link to which is located somewhere on the right of this blog under my links of a terribly self-centered sort. (For the record, Pvblivs, you are in good company in setting out your objection. I’m pretty sure that the British physicist Stephen Hawking sets out a similar one in A Brief History of Time; I am unable to double check this at the moment, since my copy of Hawking’s book is in my office at the college.) Here is the relevant text from the aforementioned article:



Objection 3: Talk of "a cause of the universe's beginning" lacks meaning; it's nonsensical. To ask what caused the big bang assumes that the universe's cause came "before" time, but time itself came into being at the big bang, so asking what caused the big bang is like asking, "What is north of the North Pole?" It's absurd. So intelligent design is absurd.



Reply: This objection assumes that all causes precede their effects in time. But some causes are simultaneous with their effects—and this latter sense is all that is needed for intelligent design to remain within the realm of reason.



Think of a bicycle chain that moves the rear wheel sprocket. Or just consider the rear wheel sprocket moving the axle that moves the rear wheel. In these everyday cases there is simultaneous cause and effect. (In philosophical parlance, the cause is ontologically prior to the effect, but not temporally prior.) It's not unreasonable, then, to think that time's creation could occur simultaneously with its cause.



In other words, we are not asking something like "What is north of the North Pole?" Rather, we are asking something like, "What is above the North Pole?" Because such talk is not nonsensical, neither is intelligent design.



Yes, of course, we experience simultaneity and ontological priority within time, because we are temporal beings; nevertheless, it very much seems to me that the distinction between temporal priority and ontological priority is a sound one and allows the thesis that time can be created to make sense.



For more detailed argument, where I address some similar or related objections from Adolf Grunbaum, Paul Draper, Robin LePoidevin, and Jan Narveson, see pages 194-199 of my Ph.D. dissertation, “Miracle Reports, Moral Philosophy, and Contemporary Science,” a link to which is located on the right of this blog, under my links of a self-centered sort. (I would put the link right here in the text but I’m having some ongoing difficulty doing so; probably due to my lack of blog know-how.)



Pvblivs wrote:



Conspicuously absent are the claims that Jesus rising from the dead showed that he was in league with evil spirits. It's something I would expect to see if such a rising were generally believed. The "irrepressable witnesses" didn't come along until decades after the time he supposedly lived and died. (It's also why I don't put much stock in people saying that if the resurrection were false, they needed only produce a body. His body likely could no longer be identified and the "followers" likely never saw him in life.



Hendrik’s reply:



I think that I will not address your thoughts on Jesus’ resurrection at this point in time. I am hoping to write something on Jesus’ resurrection in a future installment of Apologia (nearer to Easter), so I will postpone the discussion of this topic until then.



Again, Pvblivs, it’s good to hear from you. I seem to recall something about you owing me a cup of expensive coffee….



With best regards,

Hendrik



March 15, 2009 8:01 PM

Dr. V said...

Dear Christopher,



It’s very good to hear from you! I have fond memories of your many philosophical insights when we first met in Kitchener so many years ago.



Thanks for the link to your blog at St. Cynic. I have been perusing your blog and I am delighted to see your ongoing thoughtfulness, couched in respect for others plus a willingness to be corrected and go in the direction of the best reasons.



I especially like your recent entry “Dawkins, Memes, and Bus-Ads.” I think that your skepticism about the benign intentions of the atheist ad campaign is a healthy skepticism. I would add that in a society (ours) whose general population has difficulty thinking beyond the level of slogans when it comes to deep philosophical and moral questions, the atheist slogan-laden ad campaign will probably have considerable effect. Considerable effect or not, certainly this more general problem having to do with the lack of deep philosophical-moral thinking is grounds for working towards and striving for a higher level of critical thinking at all levels (as I hope thoughtful atheists would agree). I think that your blog is an encouraging step in this direction.



One last point (of which you’re probably aware already): Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath have a nice discussion of Dawkins’ concept of memes in chapter 3 of their book The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (InterVarsity Press, 2007), see especially pages 68-74.



All the best to you and yours,

Hendrik

Konular

Islam

Anasayfa
Konular
Tüm Konular

Konular

Ibn Seerin’s Dictionary of Dreams and Imam Jafar al-Sadiq Dictionary of Dreams – Islamic Dream
Adad Calculator
Islam
Surah Al-Baqarah(2)
Should Muslims read the Tawrat, Zabur and Injeel?
A List Of Events During the Lifetime of Prophet (s.a.w) from the Time of his Call to Prophethood till his Death
Jahannam
Assalaamu Álaikum
SURAH YUSUF (12)
Naskh

Anahtar Kelimeler

Top