Classical Apologetics: Traditional Arguments for the Existence of God

Despite serious efforts by scientists to devise a theory compatible with an eternal, self-existent universe, the evidence simply will not allow it. Specifically, the laws of thermodynamics predict continuously increasing net entropy in a system over time, which suggests that the universe cannot sustain itself indefinitely. Thus the universe could not be temporally infinite because at any given point in time, it would have already died a heat death and reached absolute zero at some point prior to that point (i.e., in some time in the infinite past).[3] Besides that, the expansion of the universe and much related evidence points to the birth of the universe – of the entire space-time continuum itself – at a point of immense heat and density in a spectacular cosmological event known as the big bang.

For these reasons, scientists in recent years have devoted themselves to theories promoting the evolution of the universe from… well, from nothing. The most popular of these theories appears to be one in which the universe comes into being out of a “random quantum fluctuation” in a physical vacuum, which is the closest approximation to nothingness that can be meaningfully posited for a physical state. If Einstein was correct that the negative energy of gravitation exactly cancels out the energy of mass (to equal zero energy), then there is no thermodynamic problem and the hypothesis is almost plausible: "The Universe may be nothing more – and nothing less – than the ultimate quantum fluctuation."[4] Of course, any physical state – even one in which pairs of virtual particles emerge spontaneously from a quantum vacuum – necessarily involves subatomic dimensions of space and time, and therefore consists of more than "nothing.” Needless to say, little scientific evidence has been (or could be!) put forward to directly support the hypothesis that the universe emerged from nothing. Indeed, science itself can only proceed on the working assumption of causality underlying all observable phenomena; otherwise science explains nothing. But if science explains nothing, it provides no rational basis for advancing naturalism or rejecting theism.

One alternative to the "universe from nothing" is that of the multiverse, which escapes the absurdity of positing nothing as the generator of the universe by means of what is arguably more absurdity – an eternal "multiverse." The multiverse would be an unmanageably large, or even infinite, number of universes, again borne of quantum fluctuations, but here in a false vacuum featuring countless tiny "bubble regions" in the curvature of space-time. On the strength of vacuum energy, these bubble universes inflate chaotically at tremendous rates, creating innumerable mature universes with their own particular features and physical laws. This theory nicely circumvents the problem of initial causality for the universe, proposing an endlessly evolving series of universes in its place. What it leaves unexplained is why, or on what possible form of evidence, the characteristics of the multiverse should be expected to have nothing in common with the characteristics of our own universe. Again the whole scenario implies that either science cannot in fact provide an answer to the cosmological problem or that science is fundamentally incoherent (its "laws" are arbitrary and unpredictable).

That leaves the only sensible answer – that the universe itself must obey the natural principle of causality and so must have been created by an agent external to itself. If ever nothing existed, then nothing would exist now. This principle is basically a restatement of the wisdom of the ancients, who maintained: “Ex nihilo, nihil fit” (“From nothing, nothing comes”). It is also known as the principle of efficient causality. The upshot of this is that the currently observable reality demands an eternally, uniquely self-existent metaphysical entity – or more simply, God. Any argument to the contrary is just so much special pleading against the facts of nature.

Design in Nature: The Teleological Argument

Arguments for the existence of God take many forms. Most of these are useful, but none is clearly and consistently more effective than the others. The best argument, then, is a “cumulative case” which combines numerous lines of evidence and reasoning.[5] Besides the cosmological or cause-and-effect argument, the teleological or design argument is probably most common. It is also a very old argument, with a scientific-technological version offered by William Paley in the 18th century. Like the cosmological argument, the design argument begins with an uncontroversial premise – in this case the reality of specifiable complexity in nature. The concept today combines two measures of improbability: complexity and specification.[6] Together these inherently improbable features create a specific function, such as propulsion or vision, which could not reasonably be expected to arise without the help of an intelligent agent. Scarcely anyone flatly denies that the universe contains astonishing examples of specifiable complexity. Instead, atheists and critics (like Richard Dawkins) devise theories, mainly variants of Darwin’s theory of evolution, to explain away such complexity as “apparent” design.

Design of the Universe. As advocates of the “fine tuning” argument have pointed out, the universe and our solar system has evidently been designed in just such a fashion so that life on earth could exist. According to Robin Collins, a host of variables contribute to the fine-tuning argument, including the four fundamental forces in nature – gravity, the weak force, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force. Each of these must fall within a very narrow range, relative to the total range of their strengths (for the gravitational constant the maximum life permitting variation from the actual would come to one part in 10³¹), for life to exist.[7] A large number of other very specific, measurable factors – e.g., the length of our orbit, the distance of the earth from the sun, the ratio of water to land on earth, the rate of expansion of the universe, etc. – add up to strongly suggest deliberate creation.

Design of the Human Body. Long recognized as a marvel of engineering even among non-theists, the human body has been systematically arranged into an integrated network of complex structures and subsystems. These include chiefly the cells, the tissues, organs, and systems. While microscopically tiny, the cells nonetheless house a system of machine-like complexity. Individual cellular structures such as the bacterial flagellum exhibit what microbiologist Michael Behe calls “irreducible complexity” – an arrangement which defies explanation by gradual accumulation of its parts because without all those parts in place at once the structure could not function.[8] The heart of the cell is its nucleus, containing genetic material and perhaps the most astounding structure in the natural world, the DNA molecule. The amount of information packed into a DNA molecule is beyond the storage capacity of an average library, and indeed features the code to reproduction – one of the main characteristics of biological systems that engineers simply can’t match.

The tissues are collections of cells that together fulfill a bodily function. These include “voluntary” muscles, such as arm and leg tendons, that can be consciously controlled, and involuntary muscles, like the heart and intestines. These complex tissues furthermore work in perfect conjunction with the nervous and skeletal systems to function. Organs, of which the largest is the skin, are yet more specifically organized than tissues. Human skin has been designed to regulate absorption of light and body temperature, with its own cooling system (sweat glands) and lubrication (oil). Skin also forms into the nails and the hair, each with functional properties all its own. The organs are some of the most celebrated examples of biological complexity, the eye and the ear being the most widely discussed. Even Darwin could scarcely imagine the human eye, with all its “inimitable contrivances,” to have been the product of “natural” rather than intelligent and unusually powerful creative forces.

Although it could be said that the entire body is one large system, it includes specific subsystems that help regulate its structure, its health and nourishment, its responses to stimuli (including highly cerebral responses such as thoughts). Probably the most complex of the systemic complexity in the human body would be the brain. Artificial intelligence researchers have continually been humbled by the realization that even in an age of virtually limitless computer processing power, no computer can be designed to duplicate the complexity, subtlety, and self-awareness of human intelligence.

Various critics have tried to argue that some particular organ or feature of human anatomy is “suboptimal,” and therefore evidence against design. This is supposing too much. Firstly, “optimality” is a subjective notion, whereas complexity can be measured mathematically and functionality proven with observation. Second, those who would offer the argument from suboptimality presumably have a vision of optimality in mind that makes for a better design. Yet the very best examples of robotics and related technology have failed miserably to even approximate the astounding functional complexity and efficiency of the human body.

Morality and Ethics: The Anthropological Argument

Awareness of morality, or a moral code, even for a professing atheist, is an indisputable reality of human existence. As C.S. Lewis argued famously in Mere Christianity, all human beings embrace belief in certain moral principles – which become especially clear when others violate them. Even die-hard moral relativists cry foul when their own goods are stolen. The question is from where these moral, ethical principles arise. Either they are theocentric (from God) or anthropocentric (from man). Unfortunately, atheism, and its corollary of evolution by natural selection, offers no hint whatsoever of an objective moral ground. If, as Darwin and countless naturalists since have argued, man is but another animal struggling for survival, there remains no basis for expecting men to live like anything other than animals. Similarly, there is no reason to expect that a naturally selected mass of atoms and molecules could devise a reliable system of morality – even the validity of human reason would have to be considered suspect.

Nonetheless, unbelievers have gone to great lengths to account for morality within a humanistic, material world view. Hedonism is the belief that goodness is expressed in pleasure, so that the greatest pleasure is the highest good (and by extension, the highest moral principle is selfishness). Utilitarianism builds on hedonism, to say that the most ethical behavior is that which gives the greatest pleasure to the greatest number of people. These views are self-defeating, for the simple fact that my pursuit of pleasure may cause considerable pain for others. Even utilitarianism cannot explain why anyone should be willing to sacrifice his pleasure for the sake of a happier majority.

Related theories include nihilism, which basically denies objective morality and leaves it to the individual to decide what is best. Sartre’s existentialism, for example, asserts that ethics is merely the act of making decisions. Relativism rejects universal moral values, instead viewing morals as culture-bound. From these two notions came the idea of situationism, wherein people presumably do the right thing based on the current situation and information available. It still leaves unexplained, of course, why anyone should ever be able to recognize, let alone do, the right thing in the first place. Determinism suggests that behavior is dictated by the random motions of material forces such as the physical environment and genetics. Clearly, however, there is no means for ordering, encouraging, or punishing human behavior if in fact behavior is simply dictated by the material universe anyway.

As it turns out, naturalism and its variants cannot even begin to account for the moral impulse in man. “Since the unbeliever does not believe that there is an eternal Mind with which goodness is coexistent, i.e., an intrinsically moral Being, obviously he must contend that somehow raw, eternal, inorganic matter was able…to concoct, promote, and maintain morality.”[9] But according to naturalists themselves, nature is not moral. There remains no reason to expect nature or her children to produce objective and reliable moral principles. Human moral responsibility, then, can only have its origin in God our creator, and in the law of God “written in our hearts.” God is unchanging, as is His law. At the same time, we believers and apologists must ever recall that the purpose of the law was not to make us righteous, but to demonstrate rather our unrighteousness, that we might call upon the name of the Lord. “Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24).

References

[1] It should be noted that each of the various schools of apologetics mentioned here is, or at least can be, useful in dealing with certain arguments and audiences. I promote the classical position above the others mainly because I believe it best expresses the purpose of apologetics as referenced in 1 Peter 3:15 – providing an answer to everyone who asks a reason for the hope that is within us as believers. A relevant answer to a question implies a reason sufficient to answer it; whereas an unexplained appeal to "evidence" or "the Scripture" may leave the question largely unaddressed. Additionally, it is my contention that in the postmodern age reason tends to get squeezed out between the extremes of scientism and subjectivism.

[2] William Lane Craig, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument,” from Raymond Martin and Christopher Bernard, eds., God Matters: Readings in the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Longman, 2002), p. 82.

[3] Craig, p. 90.

[4] John Gribbon, Almost Everyone's Guide to Science (New Haven: Yale University Press), p. 212.

[5] Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity, 1994), pp. 48-88. In the referenced pages Kreeft and Tacelli outline twenty general arguments for the existence of God.

[6] William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity, 1999), pp. 127-139.

[7] Robin Collins, “God, Design, and Fine-Tuning,” from Martin and Bernard, p. 121.

[8] Michael J. Behe, “Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference,” Access Research Network, 1997. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm. Despite facing scores of critics in the scientific community, many of whom understandably object that intelligent design theory is not itself a testable scientific hypothesis, the concept of irreducible complexity still holds tremendous appeal as a quite valid form of the teleological argument.

[9] Bert Thompson and Wayne Jackson, The Case for the Existence of God (Montgomery, Alabama: Apologetics Press, 1996), p. 29. (Though its specific contents have since been altered significantly, this essay was originally drafted as a summary of Thompson and Jackson’s arguments.)

Transcending Proof - Home