Academic Mind : Unpublished Papers : Liberal Arts : English & Composition : Does God Exist?
|AcademicMind is made with your paper submissions for the purpose of the open sharing of information. If you find this academic paper useful, please submit your own academic/research papers to share with others. Thank you.|
Written by Coy G. Stoker
Western International University
Does God Exist?The doorknob turns and the door swings open. There in the middle of the mostly empty room is a singe computer, just the box. You quickly traverse the room and kneel to take in the full majesty of this marvelous machine. As you stand in awe of this masterpiece one resounding question echoes through your mind, "How did this machine appear out of nothing and evolve over millions of years from a single circuit into this wondrous contraption that I am looking at now?"
Of course what I have just described does not make sense in our world. Everybody knows that something as complicated and intricate as a computer must have been designed by an intelligent being (Strobel, 2004). Yet our universe is just as complex, if not more so, than a computer and some still maintain that "the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing" (Smith & Strobel, 1993, p. 135). However, in the all-revealing light of modern science the existence of a creator is not only incontestable, but irrevocable.
Some of the most convincing evidence for a creator is found inside our own bodies. Deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA) are comprised of the four nucleotides adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine in varying combinations; held together in a double-helix by sugar and phosphate (Wikipedia, 2003a). The miracle is that these seemingly random combinations in the human genome hold so much information that it took hundreds of scientist more than a decade just to map it all out (NHGRI, 2005). Information always implies intelligence. We would not look at an article in the newspaper and assume that the letters were randomly printed in just the right order so that we are able to extract the information from the text. A computer programmer would not look at the Windows XP® binary code and assume that the program assembled itself by chance. Why then would we look at such a complex set of information and assume that it assembled itself from nothing?
The law of cause and effect is well known and well received in the scientific community. It basically states that everything that happens has a cause that made it happen. Yet as we look at our universe we have to ask ourselves: What are the causes of the laws of nature? Take gravity, for example. You could attribute such characteristics as infinite, immortal, immaterial, or abstract to the law of gravity. Gravity is just strong enough to hold solar systems together but weak enough to let the moon orbit the earth. It would be naive for us to conclude that matter determines gravity's strength, because gravity is a constant throughout the universe. Gravity is just there and no one can explain the cause.
The existence of the strong force is even more compelling. The strong force is the law of nature that holds atoms together at a sub-atomic level. If this force were any stronger, there would never have been a universe as we know it. If it were weaker, then sub-atomic particles would not be able to clump together to make matter as we know it. In short, the laws of nature are fine tuned to the resulting universe we see, and there is no explanation for this fact.
Now let us see what logic can tell us. The Kalaam theory has three basic premises. If we can prove that the first two are correct, then the third will inevitably follow. The first premise goes like this: "Everything that exists has a cause(s) or a reason(s)" (Yaroslay, 2003, p. 23). I believe William Craig said it best:
This is a principle that is constantly confirmed and never falsified. We never see things coming into being uncaused out of nothing. Nobody worries that while he is away at work, say, a horse might pop into being, uncaused, out of nothing, in his living room, and be there defiling the carpet. We do not worry about those kinds of things, because they never happen (Strobel, 2004, p. 99).Additionally, once someone understands absolute nothingness, the idea of the universe as a "Free Lunch" (as cited in Strobel, 2004, p.100) does not even make sense. Theories such as Lemley's (as cited in Strobel, 2004) hold that vacuums are subject to quantum fluctuations2 that could bring anything into existence, even a universe. The problem with Lemley's theory is that it cannot explain the existence of the vacuum or the fluctuations; and, if you remember, according to the theory of cause and effect everything that happens has to have a cause.
Next we need to take a good look at premise number two: The universe began to exist (Purcell, 1996). This premise can be proven sufficiently by properly understanding the big bang theory. The big bang theory basically states that a singularity the size of a dime exploded some ten to twenty billion years ago and gave rise to the universe as we see it today. The big bang theory can be adequately demonstrated by considering two proven pieces of scientific evidence. 1) Red Shift: If we were to pass the light from a distant star through a prism, the prism would reveal to us what color light the star is emitting. If the star is moving away, then it would emit red light. In 1929 as Edwin Hubble looked at the sky he realized that the entire universe had a red shift. Upon further investigation it was concluded that all of the other galaxies are moving away from us and that we are moving away from them as well (Strobel, 2004). From this information we could logically conclude that if we were to put the universe in rewind, then eventually the universe would reside at a single point. 2) Background Temperature: This goes back to our understanding of absolute nothingness. Most people think that space is absolute nothingness, but George Gamow in the 1940's discovered that space is three degrees above absolute zero (Strobel, 2004). To change the temperature of all known space three degrees it would take nothing short of a big bang.
With all of this in mind, the only honest conclusion we can make is that the universe has a first cause. The fact that the universe has a cause contradicts the atheistic conclusion that the universe is uncaused and casts serious doubt on the theory of evolution as a whole. If the universe has a cause, then we must as well.
The existence of irreducibly complex systems flies in the face of Darwinian Evolution. Let us use the example of a mouse trap (Strobel, 2004). The traditional mouse trap has four basic pieces: a block of wood for the base, a metal bar to hold the spring, the spring, and the catch. If you were to remove any one component it would no longer be a mouse trap. Kenneth Miller (Strobel, 2004, p. 200) has argued that if you "[took] away two parts (the catch and the metal bar),. you may not have a mousetrap, but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip." Darwinian Evolution claims to operate, "by means of numerous, successive, slight modifications" (Strobel, 2004, p. 199). For the mouse trap analogy to line up with evolution we should be able to remove a piece of the mouse trap and have a less complicated mouse trap. Of course this is not the case; besides the fact that evolution is supposed to operate purely by natural means. Do not forget that Miller used his intelligence to modify the mouse trap. The challenge would be to devise a naturalistic way for the paper clip to evolve into a mouse trap. It simply can't be done.
In light of scientific evidence and sound logic the only realistic conclusion is that there is a creator and that he created the universe. There is evidence everywhere that is in support of a designer. All we have to do is fulfill our implied mandate and seek it out. I believe Plato's Socrates said it best: "Follow the evidence, wherever it leads (Burke, 1981, p. 22)."
Burke, R. (1981). Does god exist? (book review). Theological Studies, 42, 301-302.
Retrieved September 15, 2005, from Academic Search Premier.
NHGRI, National Human Genome Research Institute (2005). About the institute: A brief history and timeline. Bethesda, MD
Purcell, E.S. (1996) Thinking through the Kalaam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. The IBD Journal, 10, 3-4.
September 16, 2005.
Smith Q., Craig W.L. (1993). Theism, atheism and big bang cosmology (135). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
As cited in: "The Case for a Creator" (pg. 99).
Strobel, L. (2004). The case for a creator. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.
Wikipedia. (2004a). DNA: Overview of molecular structure. Boston, M.A.: Author.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA Retrieved October 5, 2005.
Wikipedia (2004b). Quantum fluctuation. Boston, M.A.: Aurthor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation Retrieved October 17, 2005.
Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus (1998a). Vacuum: Definition 1. New York, N.Y.: Macmillan
Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus (1998b). Singularity: Physics. New York, N.Y.: Macmillan.
Yaroslay, A. (2003). Is the universe a causal, and does God exist?. Skeptic, 10, 23.
Retrieved September 15, 2005, from Academic Search Premier.
1 - Vacuum - a space with nothing at all in it; completely empty space (Webster, 1998a)
2 - Quantum Fluctuations - the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space (Wikipedia, 2004b)
3 - Singularity - a point or region at the center of a black hole, where, it is theorized, the force of gravity compresses an object such that it has infinite density and almost no volume (Webster, 1998b)