IF YOUR GOD DOES NOT EXIST, MINE DOES!

IN passing, the idea about God is as old as creation itself. Those in the know about revelations in the three Abrahamic faiths--Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, have all repeatedly manifested that God has always revealed Himself to humanity in different forms and fashions.

Of late, however, there has been some talk of great religious interest; the idea that God does not exist as championed by atheism, agnosticism--God neither exists nor does not exist, and, locally prominently, Secular Humanism. There is need to point out here that, though it is tempting to ignore these and other similar '-isms' in terms of its adherents, their idea that God does not exist is too religiously suicidal to ignore, hence my writing this article.

It is worth mentioning here that these God-does-not-exist associations mostly arise out of a growing disenchantment with religion. For the most part, the associations accuse established religions of “grand contradictions and inconsistencies”. Among others, creation, design, and morality are the areas they often times point. Using arguments from creation, design, and morality, I intend to show that God exists and, by implication, to show that those to the contrary opinion are most certainly probably wrong.

Before I get into the crux of the matter, I would like to inform my wiser readership that I excuse myself from appealing to any scripture of the three Abrahamic faiths, and instead use science and reason. This is the case because it is only more proper that I use science and reason as the God-does-not-exist associations believe them than use scriptures whose inspirer they say does not exist let alone believe His revealed scriptures.

To begin with, the assertion that God exists only requires, and not commits, its asserters to provide evidence. It is those who oppose the assertion that are committed to provide evidence; that is, the opposers have the burden of proof. Furthermore, to oppose that God exists presupposes knowledge of God which, by extension, presupposes His existence.

For example, if I non-metaphorically assert that I have a real Boeing 747 in my shirt pocket and someone screams, “you don't have!” presupposes that person's knowledge of a Boeing 747. To this person, the knowledge of a Boeing 747 convinces him that my assertion is false. It might be because a Boeing 747 is big and therefore cannot fit into a shirt pocket, and hence the scream, “you don't have!” Similarly, those who argue that God does not exist only confirm that God exists because arguing against something one does not have knowledge of is unreasonable if not utterly preposterous. It is said elsewhere that he that knows nothing doubts nothing.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION

Creation as we see it would need an All-time Cause, Infinite for that matter. I start: that which is in the universe has a cause where by 'universe' I mean 'a world of caused beings'. Proceeding; that which has a cause is finite--limited by time. It follows thus that everything in the universe is caused and limited by time. However, that which is outside the universe causes. That which causes cannot be caused and is infinite. God is outside the universe. Therefore, God causes and is infinite.

The circularity and the classic everything-has-a-cause arguments are hardly tenable. The argument as advanced above means God is the starting and stopping point, and no circularity either meant or implied. Everything-has-a-cause argument is all indefensible as it assumes that 'every' is everywhere 'every'. One good example is at a presidential rally. When the president says, “everyone has to be seated” you would always see soldiers still standing. This means that 'every' there did not mean 'every' but rather meant 'non-soldiers'.

The issue here should be to establish the finiteness of the universe. Logically, to be in the present presupposes to have been in the past and a possibility of being in the future which is possible only through a countable series of time. And the fact that this is 2012 presupposes a past, 1 BC, and a possibility of a future, say the year 2013, 2014 or 3000. Expectedly, this confirms the fact that the universe is limited by time and is therefore caused.

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN

There is no denying that the universe is stunningly intelligently and purposefully designed. You would agree that such design requires an intelligent and purposeful designer. And God is an intelligent and purposeful designer. For this reason, God must have, and of course he designed the universe. Recent scientific studies have all revealed that the separate laws governing the universe are related and interlock the universe thus confirming harmony and order in the universe as intelligently and purposefully designed by an omnipresent God.

It be made clear that Darwin's evolution theory is no obstacle here. Darwin postulated that species did not evolve through orderly mutation, by a random mutation and natural selection--the much-talked 'survival of the fittest'.  Darwin miserably failed to explain how random mutation and natural selection came about and how the matter in his so-called “pre-biotic soup” came to exist. More importantly, Darwin's theory is about EVOLUTION OF LIFE AND NOT ORIGIN OF LIFE. So, even Darwin could not explain the origin of life. Cut loose, a creative and intelligent God created the universe with a goal for His creation.

ARGUMENT FROM MORALITY

Contrary to what extreme moral relativists say, there is telling evidence in the world of objective morality. Existence of objective morality is evidence enough of a single supreme moral giver outside of us. If, as argued by moral relativists, what appears like objective morals is nothing but social conventions and natural instincts, then how would we explain the existence of absolute right and wrongs in the world?

Then why is it the case that the world is all unanimous in blaming Adolf Hitler that what he did was, and still is, absolutely wrong? Then why is it the case that all societies in the world, perhaps in the animal world too, it is generally agreed that to torture children, to murder, and to lie is wrong. I ask further: “why all societies commonly agree that it is good to love, to show care, to show compassion, and to be selfless?”.

There must therefore be some higher-order entity, a supreme being who wires something in humans that should teach us that it is objectively wrong to murder and objectively right to love. And that Supreme Being is God. Thus, argument from morality also is one way of establishing the existence of God.

From the foregoing, it is not only reasonable but also spiritual to believe in the existence of God, and Infinite, Personal, Intelligent, Artistic, and Purposeful God. And now, that God exists is perhaps beyond question to the God-does-not-exist diehard supporters. However, it is good to point out that humanity's knowledge of God is limited due to either humanity's finiteness, God's infiniteness, or both. Consequently, humanity cannot absolutely ultimately know God. Therefore, humanity's failure to furnish concrete evidence to prove God's existence should not be construed as vindicating that God does not exist. This is the case because absence of 'seeable' evidence of God's existence is not evidence of God's absence. Yes! ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE!.