Does God Exist? short answer

We must be clear from the outset that it is not possible to put God in a test tube or prove Him by the usual scientific methodology. It is equally true that it is not possible to prove scientifically the historical existence of George Washington, Napoleon, Columbus, Jesus of Nazareth or for that matter the beginning of the universe. Somehow, here in the twentieth century we still have people who believe that if you can't prove something scientifically then it must not be true. In order for something to be proved scientifically, it must be a phenomena that is able to be measured and repeated in an controlled environment. There is no historical event that is able to be proved using the scientific method. No one in their right mind however, would deny the fact that certain events of history have taken place. Therefore, we must make a distinction between the scientific method of identifying truth and what many are calling the legal-historical method of identifying truth. Both methods are valid and both need to be applied when appropriate.

What exactly is the historical-legal method of proving something to be true? In a court of law we say that we prove someone to be guilty of murder based on the facts. The evidence becomes fact in the mind of the jury when the information is found to be true "beyond a reasonable doubt". In other words, a verdict is reached on the basis of the weight of the evidence. Eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence combine to lead a jury to decide the facts believing that there is no reasonable basis to doubt it. The key question that any jury asks is what are the facts? Or what evidence do we have that is beyond reasonable doubt? These same questions must be applied to the issue of the existence of God.

What evidence is there for God? Before we address this question it is helpful to identify the three options that are available in answer to the question, "Does God exist?" Ken Boa and Larry Moody in their book entitled "I'm Glad You Asked", say "The options are simple; one must believe that God does not exist (atheism), God may exist (agnosticism), or God does exist (theism and other options). But even if the third option is believed to be true, there is still the problem of what kind of God a person has in mind. Is it impersonal, or is He personal?" We will limit ourselves to addressing the first two options and leave the question of whether God is personal or not to a future article.

If a person answers the question of God's existence with a resounding "No", then it will be necessary to begin by drawing a large circle to represent all the knowledge that is knowable. Then ask your friend if he could symbolize his knowledge in comparison to all knowledge. Most people will mark only a very small dot or perhaps if they are extremely arrogant they may draw a small circle. Similarly, a person may deny the existence of God but in order for him to be sure that a God does not exist he must be all-knowing himself. As Ken Boa and Larry Moody said, "Ironically, one would have to be God to be sure that God does not exist." This moves us very smoothly from the atheist's position, "God doesn't exist", to an agnostic's position of, "God may exist".

In dealing with a person who is unsure of whether a God exists we must return to the issue of evidence. Each person must decide for themselves based upon sufficient evidence not exhaustive evidence. But what constitutes sufficient evidence for the existence of God? Because God, by very definition is above th natural world we are limited in finding objective data. One approach is to rely upon the laws of physics. The law of cause and effect says that no effect can be produced without a cause. We as human beings, and the universe itself, are effects which must have had a cause.

This brings us to the If Proposition: "If anything now exists, something must be eternal, or else something not eternal must have emerged from nothing". When we reflect upon the existence of the universe in light of this If statement, we are forced to deal with the following four alternatives:
1. the universe is an illusion,
2. the universe is eternal,
3. the universe emerged from nothing, or
4. the universe was created by an eternal being.

Is The Universe An Illusion?
To espouse such an option is to entertain a belief that rejects every shred of evidence that a person receives through his five senses. To do so is a self defeating position because we have no other means of gaining input and coming to conclusions.

Is The Universe Eternal?
Until recently, the theory that the universe had no beginning and that matter is eternal was quite popular among scientist. When new discoveries began to threaten this theory, many scientist tried to salvage it. One attempt was the "steady-state theory", which holds that the universe has always existed in a state of relative equilibrium. Astronomer Fred Hoyle even postulated that this equilibrium is maintained by "continuous creation" of background hydrogen atoms. The key question, of course, is where does this created material come from? Hoyle answered, "It does not come from anywhere. Material appears---it is created." Hoyle later abandoned his theory.

A second view of the beginning of the universe became known as the "Big Bang" theory. Dr. Edwin Hubble plotted the speeds of the galaxies and confirmed that all the galaxies are moving apart from us and one another at enormous speeds. The law bearing his name states: the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves. George Gamow then traced this process back into the past and came up with the "Big Bang"theory. The additional discovery in 1965 of an omnidirectional background radiation in the universe forced the vast majority of astronomers to accept the big-bang theory because it supports the conclusion that the universe was once dense and hot. All this is extremely significant, because this widely held model says that the whole universe had a definite beginning a finite time ago. And if, as this theory implies, the universe emerged from a point that was infinitely dense, this would really mean that space, time, matter and energy appeared out of nothing.

Some astronomers have attempted to avoid the theological implication of the big-bang theory by suggesting that we are in a pulsating universe. This says that the universe is like a spring, expanding and contracting, repeating the cycle indefinitely. For the universe to pulsate in this way, it would have to be a closed system. That is, there must be enough gravitational force to stop the expansion and pull all matter back together. But the evidence points to an "open" universe that will never stop expanding. To be closed, current theory would suggest that the universe would have to be about 10 times more dense than it presently is. Also, even if the gravitational forces were strong enough to suck all matter together most scientist believe that the first contraction would implode forming a giant black hole from which no matter or light would escape.

So first of all we see that the "Big-Bang" theory itself points to a first cause. Dr. Robert Jastrow, who is a self proclaimed agnostic, declares this to be true when he said, "Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

A second scientific reason why the universe is not eternal is the present abundance of hydrogen in the cosmos. Throughout the universe, hydrogen is being converted into helium through the process of nuclear fusion in the core of the stars. The process is irreversible, and new hydrogen is not being formed in any significant amounts by the breakdown of heavier atoms. Thus, an infinitely old universe would mean that there should be almost no hydrogen left. Yet most of the universe is made up of hydrogen.

The third scientific reason that points to the universe having a beginning is the second law of thermodynamics or entropy. Entropy refers to the amount of useless or random energy in any closed system. As entropy increases, the amount of useful energy decreases. For example, when a chair is pushed across a floor, the work energy turns into heat energy and heats up the floor molecules slightly due to friction. This energy in the floor cannot be reorganized to perform work so it is practically lost.

Entropy can also be seen as a measure of disorder, because anything left to itself moves towards a state of equilibrium and randomness. Given enough time this law of physics teaches us that our universe will ultimately approach a state of equilibrium often called the "heat death" of the universe. The stars will have burned out and there will not be enough gas in the steadily expanding galaxies to form new stars. In effect, the universe will have run down like a clock with no one to wind it back up. All will be coldness, darkness and disorder. I believe the process is irreversible apart from the intervention of a supernatural agent---namely God.

As stated earlier, these arguments are not absolute proof. And so there will be those who argue that new discoveries will be made that will somehow invalidate these conclusions. But this is a completely hollow argument, because it is contrary to the evidence we now have.

Did The Universe Emerge From Nothing?

No one would seriously maintain that a house, planet, star, or galaxy simply popped into existence without a cause. All reason and observation tells us that nothing produces nothing. To believe in this view requires a decision to consciously run from all reason.

Did An Eternal Being Create The Universe?

So far we have used cause and effect reasoning to conclude that the natural universe points beyond itself to an eternal Being for the cause of its existence. But when we step up and take a closer look at the details of the universe many thinking people conclude that the order of nature points to a designer. Even Darwin himself in a chapter entitled "Difficulties With The Theory" from his Origin of Species states, "To suppose that the [human] eye, with so many parts all working together ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Harvard's Richard Lewontin, an evolutionist, states that organisms "appear to have carefully and artfully designed and calls the perfection of organisms the chief evidence of a Supreme Being." Order implies design and design implies purpose and purpose implies personalness.

The Good News is that God has taken the initiative, He has not simply created the universe and left, but has chosen to personally interact with mankind as revealed in the Bible. Hebrews 1:1-2 clearly states that fact, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe "