Do Morality And The Cosmos Point To God’s Existence?

Apologetics: Make a Defense for the Faith

We have been exploring Apologetics over the course of the last couple of articles. We’ve seen the importance of making a defense for our Faith and have seen a biblical precedent for doing so. The last article that was posted is a catalogue of New Testament passages where the Greek word “Apologia” shows up. One should note that just because those are the passages where “Apologia” is seen, this doesn’t mean that those are the only moments where we see Apologetics in action.

Here are a couple more examples of Apologetic interactions in the Bible:

Jesus Defends his teaching to the Pharisees and Sadducees
Jesus Defends his identity by performing miracles
Jesus asks questions of his challengers to make them think
Peter, Paul, and the rest of the Apostles defend the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles alike on multiple occasions.
Paul argues with Greek philosophers in Acts 17 and uses their poets and theology in his argumentation.
Paul, James, Peter, and Jude make defenses for their theology by turning to the Old Testament as their source in their writing.

In other words, Apologetics is a main-stay in the Christian faith.

2 Common Arguments for God’s Existence

Books have been written on arguments for God’s existence. We will seek to give a survey of a few of the known ones that have been commonly used.

2 that we’ll briefly discuss here are as follows:

Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Moral Argument

Let’s Dive In.

The Cosmological Argument

Something Can Only Come from Nothing. From Nothing, Nothing Comes.

Why is there something rather than nothing? This question is at the core of this argument.

We know that from nothing, nothing comes.

While some would raise an objection and say that Quantum Physics opposes this, this counter-argument simply misses the point in 2 ways:

First, Quantum Physics only happens in a closed system. Without the universe existing, Quantum Physics would cease to exist.
Second, a Quantum Vacuum is, itself a closed system which is filled with particles that appear and disappear. The disappearance of an object does not necessitate the non-existence of that object. Thus, when it pops back into appearance, this does not mean it is coming back into existence from nothing.

Again: Something Can Only Come from Nothing. From Nothing, Nothing Comes.

Computers have a designer.

Cars go through an assembly line.

Creatures are born from creatures of the same kind.

Light bulbs, Phones, Dr. Pepper Cans. All Manufactured.

The Trees, Grass, and Flowers all have their origin.

Everything that begins to exist, in fact, has a cause.

Here Is How the Argument is Formulated

P1: Everything that beings to exist has a cause

P2: The Universe began to exist

C: The Universe has a cause

The conclusion may seem wanting. After all, it doesn’t tell us what the cause is.

The follow-up question to the argument would be: What kind of cause would be necessary to beget the universe?

Einstein’s Theory of relativity is helpful when navigating this question.

It states that Time, Space, and Matter exist relative to each other. Which means that not only do they exist in a close system, as is our universe, but, when paired with the other data that point to the beginning of the universe, that there was a time when they did not exist at all.

The logical conclusion is that the one who began the universe would have to be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. In order for the Universe to be created the being would have to be immensely powerful. And in order to think and then to act on those thoughts in the creating process, this being would need to have (or be) a mind.

And so, from this argument and a follow-up question we get a being that is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful and who is personal in that it has a mind that processes thoughts and acts upon them.

The Moral Argument

What is the standard for Good? How do we understand Evil?

There are many folks who have made the claim that evil is simply an illusion and that goodness is just as so. Some state that morality is based on what a culture has agreed upon is right and that we cannot truly make an objective claim to moral goodness or moral evil.

Yet, the problem here is that everyone, regardless of culture, still has an understanding of what “good” is and what “evil” is. Even though cultures disagree on these things, this does not mean that they do not exist. Cultures are simply seeking to live up to a standard outside of themselves when fleshing out good and evil.

Anger, Sadness, and Frustration Point to Something…

People that claim that evil doesn’t exist become angry at the apparent evil in the world. But why?

If evil is just an illusion at worse or decided upon by culture at best, then we should be able to do whatever we want. We can change the culture, shift the rules, and live out our desires to the Nth degree:

Why not steal a car?
Why should we not kill someone?
Is there a reason we should not abuse puppies?
Why shouldn’t we punch random people in the street?
Why were the Nazi’s of Hitler’s Germany wrong for committing mass genocide? They were just following the cultural norm after all.
With what reason do we look at intense poverty, hunger, and natural disasters with disdain, anger, and sadness?
Why does evil seem to grip us by the throat and sucker punch us anytime we see it?

The answer is that there really IS evil and there really IS good.

It’s not just an illusion.

The Moral Argument Reflects this Idea:

P1: If God does not exist, then Objective Moral Values and Duties do not exist.

P2: Objective Moral Values and Duties do exist.

C: God exists.

Inherently, we recognize that there truly is a right way to live. We know that it is better to care for others than to hurt others. It is better to feed others than to watch them suffer and go hungry. We know that it is wrong to kill innocent people and it better to seek out the flourishing of mankind.

Simple biological and evolutionary processes cannot account for moral oughts and ought nots. It is not simply a matter of evolving to prefer life over death; Helping over Hurting; Care over Quitting. Moral oughts and duties cannot be accounted for by Materialistic processes. Materialism only leads to deterministic instinct and illusory moral rule.

Moral Values and Duties can only be accounted for by a Theistic Worldview.

Without a perfect circle, we cannot tell what an oval is.

Without a crisp dollar bill, we cannot tell a counterfeit apart.

If we don’t have a straight line, we cannot tell what a crooked one is, as C.S. Lewis has famously put it.

Without a perfect God who is the standard of Good and that exists outside of ourselves, we cannot tell what Evil is.

Objective Values and Duties exist, because God exists.