There's plenty of Evidence for the existence of God

OPINION Dec 19, 2017 by Jeff Morris Hamilton Spectator

It might be true that that which is asserted without proof can be rejected without proof, as Peter Schneider states at the end of his opinion article, but I'd like to contend that there's plenty of evidence that God does exist, and not a shred to prove that He doesn't. Any prominent/honest atheist, skeptic, scientist, would agree that there's no credible evidence to disprove Gods existence.

Certainly less sophisticated skeptics will say thing like, "Religion is a myth" or, "God is a way for people to find comfort from fear," but don't let the words of a bully fool you, because these statements are the assertions, with no evidence to back them up. We can use science to prove that there's no such thing as a flying unicorn, or that gravity is what holds us to the ground, but no one has ever used evidence to prove that God is a myth. And though, it might be true that belief in God provides comfort from fear, this doesn't make the belief false.

I'll mention something about science and then introduce three pieces of evidence for God's existence. Science is wonderful, most amazing, and is unparalleled at describing how things are, but not how they ought to be. Science explains that if I hit my neighbour, blood from the ruptured capillaries near the skins surface escapes by leaking out, and with no place to go the blood gets trapped, forming a red purplish mark called a bruise. But science has nothing to say about whether or not I ought to hit my neighbour.

I turn to the work of Dr. William Lane Craig, professor at BU, who makes a cumulative case that the existence of God is more plausible than not. Craig did not grow up an atheist, but after following the evidence became a Christian. He uses five arguments to build his case, for lack of space, I'll introduce three of them.

The Kalam Argument - 'Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe must have a cause.'

It's simple but sophisticated, because it leaves no escape. If premise one is true, that anything which begins to exist has a cause, than it follows necessarily that the universe has a cause. Isn't it obvious that premise one is true? Craig uses the example that none of us are worried that after going out for an evening we might find a horse in our living room when we return. From nothing, comes nothing.

The Moral Argument - 'If God does not exist than objective moral values do not exist. Object moral values do exist. Therefore, God exists.'

As we saw earlier, science has nothing to say about how things ought to be. Science can say that murder, and theft, are socially unacceptable because they disrupt the herd, but science cannot say these acts are objectively wrong because science has no objective anchor. If you use science to follow humans back to their origin, we're just random atoms bouncing through space, no more objectively valuable than a piece of wood. And if this is the case, how can the mind which invented science even be trusted? If you affirm that things like murder are objectively wrong, you have to affirm an objective anchor.

The fine tuning of the universe - 'The universe is fine-tuned for life. Fine tuning can potentially be explained by chance, necessity, or design. Not by chance or necessity. Therefore the fine tuning of the universe is the result of design.'

Why not chance? The odds of the properties of the universe aligning to allow for life are calculated at 1010123. That number is so astronomically high that if you wrote a '0' on every proton and neutron in the universe, you would not be able to write it down. The evidence suggests that it's unreasonable to believe that the constants which allow for life came by chance. Not by necessity? The constants which allow life are independent of the laws of nature, and independent of one another. This only leaves one possibility for the fine tuning of the universe, and it makes perfect sense, design.

I'm glad Peter wrote his response, because it's important for our country to have an open dialogue on these matters. Our society and government have become so consumed by the wonders of science that we've made a discipline into a god, and this has to be one of the greatest blunders of our time. Questions of purpose and moral objectivity are not easy, and unfortunately religion can play a destructive role in the world. But that these questions are difficult, and that humans can deform religion, has no bearing on the cumulative proof for a God who created all things. I'm convinced that if we follow the evidence with an open mind, and an open heart, all roads lead to one truth. A creator God.

Jeff Morris was born and raised in Hamilton and works in the software business. He spends his spare time engaging the Hamilton community through volunteer activities. His hobbies include reading, wood working, and rock climbing.

Original article -