The basic question which has plagued the minds of thinking people down through the ages is, "Does God exist?" Very often a parent has been faced with this very important query by the child: If God made everything, who made God?
I want to look at this question from two angles. One can be called a scientific approach and the other a philosophical approach. The answer from the scientific point of view has two divisions - the cosmological and the teleological. The philosophical approach can similarly be divided into the rational and the moral arguments in favor of the existence of God.
Grasping the Infinite with the Finite
Before I go into the detailed answer to these questions, I want to make one important qualification: In God, we are dealing with the One Who is infinite and eternal. We are using methods which are necessarily finite and which come within the compass of the human mind. We should therefore be prepared to admit that no final proof for God as such can exist through either of these two approaches. This is understandable because we are dealing with an infinite God and we are using finite means. Some one can say, "If you can precipitate God in a test tube and establish that He exists, then I will believe in Him". I will have to say "Sorry" to that kind of an approach because God is not 'matter' which can be precipitated in a scientific manner as a result of a chemical experiment in the laboratory.
Similarly, using the 'logic' branch of philosophy, a person may require us to produce God as the conclusion of a deductive logical argument.
Logic falls into two categories - the deductive and the inductive. In deductive logic, we start with universals and proceed to particulars. For instance, a librarian can introduce a particular section as containing science books. If I take one book from any one of those shelves I know that, it would be a science book. My argument will go something like this:
First premise - All books in this section are science books.
Second premise - This book is from this section.
Conclusion - This book is a science book.
You will notice that the conclusion is a certain one in this deductive argument because it started with the universal of all books in the section being science books as a given premise. On the other hand, if I went into a library and nobody told me what was in a particular section and I took one particular book and I found that to be a science book and if I conclude that all the books in that section are science books, my argument would be an inductive argument:
First premise - This book is from this section.
Second premise - This book is a science book.
Conclusion - All books in this section are science books.
Now you will definitely agree with me that the conclusion of this inductive argument is not a certain conclusion. It a probable conclusion because the more books I sample and find them to be science books, the more probable my conclusion would be. We should remember that when we deal with God, we are starting with particulars and we are moving towards universals because God is the ultimate Universal and the particular that we are examining is nature (Romans 1:19,20). We work backwards to the universal who is God Himself. So we notice that this is a situation where we use inductive logic. God can never be the conclusion of a deductive argument. Whether we use the scientific or the philosophical approach to the existence of god, we reach conclusions which are of high probability. That which bridges the gap between high probability and certainty is what we call "Faith."
Let us take up the first of the two scientific divisions which is the cosmological. Cosmology requires that every event has a cause behind it. This is sometimes called the law of causality. When I look at an event, A, I know that it has been caused by an event B behind it, and the event B itself has been caused by another event, C. We keep going backwards to find out what was that event which caused all subsequent events. Some people think that this would lead to an infinite regress of causes. Such a regress is a philosophical impossibility for a very simple reason: If the past were infinite, we would not be living in an actual present which is an existential reality. Scientifically, it has now been established with certainty that the universe actually came into being at a particular point of time when both space and time began their existence together. An infinite regress of causes is, therefore, an impossibility both from the philosophical and scientific points of view. We are compelled to draw the conclusion that there has to be an uncaused event behind all events which we see. We have to admit that the First Cause is uncaused. When we talk about God, we refer to the One Who stands behind all events.
In teleology, we come to a new set of facts. "Teleos" is the Greek word for "purpose" or "design". When we look at nature, we cannot but be amazed at the precise design of nature. You can look at the macro-world through a telescope, at the greatness and vastness of space. We live in an average sized planet, orbiting an average sized star called "Sun" in the suburbs of an ordinary galaxy called the "Milky Way". The milky way itself consists of millions and millions of stars, so that if you were to count these stars at the rate of one a second, it will take 2500 years. Our universe consists of millions and millions of galaxies which contain millions and millions of stars each. But that is not all. In this vastness of space we find that the constants and the electrical and physical forces which cause the universe to operate are extremely fine tuned. They do not have a wide range of existence within which life here on planet earth can be supported. I'll give you just one example. If the rate of expansion of the universe was altered or tampered with at the 55th decimal place, planet earth would not be in existence. Now that is a decimal point followed by 54 zeros and then you alter the number in the 55th place - an extremely small quantity. The rate of expansion of the universe is fine tuned to that extent for life to become possible on this planet. I can quote many such instances.
Two secular science reporters, John Gribbin and Martin Rees have recently published a book "Cosmic Coincidence" (Black Swan, London, 1992, 2nd reprint) listing the many factors which stand behind life on earth. The four basic forces - the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force - are so fine tuned and operate within such a narrow range in order for us to have life on this earth. If they had been slightly altered, our atmosphere would have become too thick or too thin, the earth would have been too hot or too cold, too close to the sun or too far away from the sun for our existence. Even the inorganic chemistry which played a part in all these planets coming into being would not have existed at all. The creation of carbon and oxygen which are so necessary for organic life are dependent on these extremely fine-tuned factors for their own basic physical chemistry.
Science has now established beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an important teleos, purpose or design in the existence of the universe. In fact this argument has become so powerful these days that even an astronomer like Mr. Tipler from Britain (who is a Pantheist) has come to the conclusion that man is at the centre of the universe. This is called the "Anthropic Principle". Some centuries ago people thought that the earth was at the centre of the universe and believed in what may be called a geo-centric universe. Our generation is being driven to the conclusion, albeit reluctantly, that man is the at the centre of the universe. One is compelled to conclude that this universe including mankind (which is intelligent enough to appreciate it) has been made by a designer. When you walk along the seashore and observe the patterns on the sand caused by the waves, you know that it has been caused by nature. If, however, you were to come upon a sand castle made by children playing there sometime earlier, you would not say that the waves caused the sand castle to come into existence. You would know that there has been some kind of anintelligence in operation. Similarly, when you look at the macro-universe, you are forced to the conclusion that there is an intelligence that designed and executed this marvelous piece of work.
If the macro-universe provides convincing proof that we live in a well-designed world, the micro-universe that exists in all living beings (including ourselves) adds overwhelmingly to the evidence for teleos. When we look at the cell of any living being, we would find it to be extremely complex. "...to grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is 20 km. in diameter and it resembles a giant ship, large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell, we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast spaceship, opening and closing to allow a stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings, we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity..." (Dr. Michael Denton: Evolution - a Theory in Crisis). Dr. Denton is a medical doctor-turned molecular biologist and a self-confessed agnostic. The evolutionist, Richard Dawkins testifies that, "Each nucleus...contains a digitally coded database of larger information content than all 30 volumes of Encyclopaedia Britannica put together...the total number of cells in the body (of a human) is about 10 trillion". (Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 17, 18).
The atheist astronomer Carl Sagan, who is very famous for his popular approach to science, has said that he is looking for intelligence in outer space. All the scientifically advanced countries in the world are sending messages into outer space. Sagan says that if they would receive even a garbled message (information content) from outer space, they would come to the conclusion that there is intelligence somewhere out there. But when we look into micro-nature, we find a tremendous mass of information packed into the small space of a gene or a cell. This merits serious consideration in favor of an intelligence behind the universe.
We see both from the macro-universe and the micro-universe that we are truly designed by a wise and intelligent Creator. Thus we conclude both from cosmological and teleological considerations that there is an Ultimate Personal Cause Who is both wise and intelligent.
Now we come to the philosophical approach to the question of the existence of God. I said that there would be two sub-divisions to the philosophical approach, namely, the rational and the moral. Let us take up the rational approach.
The word 'rational' is actually derived from the basic root word 'reason'. When one seriously contemplates the operation of one's own reason, one would recognize that for reason to be dependable, it must have a rational basis. Or, in other words, one's reason must have come from another Reason. During a recent discussion, a senior medical student in Pondicherry put forth several arguments against the existence of god. I told him, "You have depended totally upon your reason to establish that there is no God. How do you know that your reason is dependable? If your reason came by a purely accidental juxtaposition of atoms and molecules and by various bio-chemical processes in the brain, in other words, by purely non-rational means, why should I take your conclusion to be reasonable and dependable?" Of course he had no answer to my question. When you look at scientific enterprise in general, you know that we have reached where we have in our intellectual pursuits only because we have started with the basic assumption that our reason is dependable. In order for your reason to be dependable within our own framework, we need a frame of reference outside of ourselves. For example, the 'intelligence' of a computer, in order to be dependable, has to come from an intelligent computer designer and manufacturer. The evolutionist tells us that, in the final analysis, intelligence came out of non-intelligence and reason came out of non-reason. That is not really acceptable because if reason ultimately comes from non-reason there is no basis to depend upon reason.
Starting with the basic argument of rationality, one has to come to the conclusion that there is a giant REASON Who exists on His own and Who is the source of all other reason in the universe. Such an original Reason can be none other than God.
We are driven to a similar conclusion when we consider the moral approach to the question of the existence of God. Very often atheists explain away morality as purely instinctive behavior. But does this explanation hold water? Let us examine it briefly.
What is an instinct? Animals move by instincts. Whatever they feel like, they do. We human beings have a different dimension. Let me give you an illustration. If I hear a person crying out for help from a distance, I would find two voices operating within me. One voice would suggest that I run away, so that I am also not overtaken by danger. Now that can be called the instinct of self-preservation by which the whole animal kingdom continues to exist and preserve its various species. As a human being, I do not hesitate to admit that I share this instinct with the animals. But I must also admit to hearing another voice within me which says that I must go and help this person in trouble. Now I am not sure whether I would call that an instinct because that is a desire to do the unlikely. One could even explain it away comparing it to a mother's instinct to save the life of her child by sacrificing her own life. But that is not all. I hear a third voice within me which seems to instruct me as to which instinct I should suppress and which one I should strengthen. Now what is this third voice? Can a voice which arbitrates between two instincts be also an instinct itself, or would it belong to another (and higher) category?
As in the case of reason, we find ourselves reflecting the moral values of a Higher Source. We often speak in moral categories whether we believe in God or not. An atheist, for instance, applies the moral argument even to God Himself. He says, "If there is a God, there out not to be this evil". Whenever I use 'ought' language, I am dealing with moral questions which deal with prescriptive laws - how one ought to behave? (When I deal with natural laws like gravity, I am dealing with descriptive laws - things as they are). When I look at this dimension of morality within me, I have no other alternative except to admit that I am referring back to a prescription given by a Prescriber - a moral Lawgiver. Although its standards differ from person to person, moral consciousness does speak of an ultimate moral Lawgiver.
We can think of another everyday occurrence to illustrate the fact that we assume a moral standard outside of our own. We often hear people saying, "A is a (morally) better person than B". On what basis can one make a comparison of this kind? When our son was very young, I used to put him on a high table and tell him, "You are taller than Daddy". He was greatly amused. We adults know better! Real comparison is possible only with reference to a standard outside the two entities being compared. We can say that P is taller than Q, only if both of them stand on the same level ground. We can talk about moral progress only if we are getting closer to an Ideal which is outside of our previous and present states. If there is no such external standard, then we can only say, "A is different from B" and not "A is better than B". By each one of the above considerations, we have to reach the conclusion that there is an ultimate moral Lawgiver with reference to Whose standards our consciences (and even our various religions) derive their own relative standards.
Let us conclude our discussion of the existence of God by reference to certain passages from the Bible. (This study should also incidentally help us to see why we claim that the absolute standards of God have been spoken into our world of relativity only in the words of Judeo-Christian Scripture). Paul's argument in Romans 1:19,20 provides the framework for the methodology we have adopted to work towards the existence of God. "...what may be known about God is plain to them, for God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen being understood from what has been made so that men are without excuse".
When we look at the macro-world, which is one part of "what has been made", we discover our own insignificance - "When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars which You have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him and the son of man that you care for him?" (Psalm 8:3,4). David goes on to say in Psalm 19:1, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands". The Psalmist comes to a very similar conclusion with reference to the micro-universe. He says, "I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well". (Psalm 139:14).
When we observe the state of our moral behaviour, you cannot but agree with prophet Jeremiah when he says, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? I, the LORD, search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve". (Jer. 17:9,10). In this passage we hear the voice of the Eternal, Infinite, Ultimate Prescriber of all perspective laws. We are also accountable to Him for all our moral actions.
So whether we take a telescopic view into the distances of the Universe, make microscopic scrutiny of the infinitesimal world of the living cell or observe 'stethoscopically' our own moral motions, we come to the inescapable conclusion that there is a Personal God who is the uncaused Cause of all that we can and we cannot see and His character becomes the standard by which we human beings stand judged.
Leave a Comment: