4 Good Reasons God Probably Exists

4 Good Reasons That God Is Real

This is a blog about miracles. "Miracles" apologetics are normally viewed as separate from "existence of God" apologetics. However, they are actually one and the same category. In both cases, you need to prove that an agent did something that 1) vastly exceeds human capabilities and 2) didn't happen by natural causes. These are the same criteria we use for miracles. 

Here is a list of the existence of God arguments that I consider to be relatively strong. 

#1 - Genetic Information

Biologists of all philosophical persuasions concede that DNA is "information." In fact, they use language-type terms to describe the process of copying DNA (transcription, translation, etc.). DNA actually has an enormous amount of information encased within it (about 3 Gigabytes) (1). This is not a small amount of information. Even 1 page of information we automatically conclude an "agent cause." Given this standard, we should definitely expect an agent to be the source of 3 gigabytes of data.

In fact, it might be circular for me to say that "all information is the product of an agent cause." It's hard for us to think of how the word "information" would even be meaningful if it didn't imply a mental origin. Therefore, the fact that biologists concede that DNA is a very large amount of information is very telling. 

#2 - First Cause  

With regard to the existence of the universe without God, we have two options. It either 1) burst into existence out of nothing or 2) the universe has always existed. Option 1 is very problematic. After all, if the universe can come into existence, for no reason, out of nothing, anything should be able to do this. In this case, we couldn't place preconditions on what "nothing" is allowed to produce in any given circumstance. For example, it would be no surprise for me to wake up and discover 400 machine guns sitting in my house, with no explanation. It seems option 1 is very far fetched.

Option 2 entails an infinite series of past events that lead up to the present circumstances. There are problems with this. First, an infinite succession of past events implies an eternal past. If past is eternal, it would have taken forever to arrive at the present moment. Furthermore, if we were to count all of the past events, we would find that all of the odd numbered events in the sequence would be the same amount as all of the events (because they are both infinite). In short, the entire set of past events would be equal to something that is clearly not the entire set of past events, which is a contradiction.

It seems to avoid these problems we need a First Event which was caused by something that has always been in existence.

#3 - Uniformity of Laws of Nature 

We consider the "laws" of the universe to be uniform throughout the universe. Even on the quantum level, the propensities of particles to behave in certain ways is considered uniform throughout the universe. This would be incredibly unusual if there was no rational force ordering the universe (i.e. God). If the universe was truly unguided by no intelligence whatsoever, we would expect it to be truly random. There would be no reason to expect matter and energy to behave based on uniform principles. Nor would we expect matter and energy to behave the same at different times and places. Matter would be have one way in one place, and another way in a different place.

#4 - Novelty in the Universe 

This is a bit more technical, but bear with me. Consider this simple illustration: When we combine blue paint and yellow paint, it yields a completely novel color called "green." "Green" is not merely the sum of its parts. Green is an entirely new experience (that we have a new name for) that comes, out of nothing, from the combination of blue and yellow. Furthermore, people have completely brand new emotions when encountering a new experience or combination of experiences.

To summarize, there must be a source for  everything that is new in the universe. If something hasn't existed before, then it simply cannot come to be out of nothing. There must be something that allows totally new things to come into existence, given certain conditions or combinations. God is the "reservoir" of ideas, concepts and experiences. (2) Given certain combinations of materials and feelings, he allows new experiences to come into being.*

A Very Good Supplement to the Resurrection

I think these are good reasons to believe in God. However, I left out my favorite evidence of God's existence. My favorite evidence of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus. By proving the resurrection of Jesus you prove the Christian God (Jesus), not just any God. You can demonstrate the truth of the resurrection independently of any extra evidence for the existence of God. I attempt to do this here and here. 

However, in the words of Antony Flew:

"Certainly, given some beliefs about God, the resurrection becomes enormously more likely."

It is not necessary to know whether or not God exists in order to determine if Jesus rose from the dead. We can answer that question while being completely agnostic about His existence. However, if we do happen upon some evidence for the existence of God (such as what I have shown above), all that evidence for the resurrection becomes much stronger indeed. 

Citation

1. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/faqs1.shtml
2. My philosophy professor, Dr. Richard W. Field, used the word "reservoir" when describing the theory that God is the source of all novelty in the world.

*If you are not Platonist or conceptualist, you may not be sympathetic towards this last point. For example, Aristotelians may not be as sympathetic to this argument. 

The Resurrection of Jesus, Radioactive Boxes, and Ancient Aliens

Many critics of the resurrection of Jesus admit the shortcomings of alternative explanations. They believe he did not rise from the dead, but they still think that all the other theories are bad (i.e. the disciples lied, the disciples hallucinated, someone stole the body, etc.)

Now, this theory is more sophisticated than it looks on the surface. It's based on a philosophical objection to miracles, or at least our ability to know if they ever happen. I have addressed these objections in more detail here.

But I don't think they realize what they are really admitting when they say this. Let me use an illustration.

Ancient Aliens and Radioactive Boxes

The History Channel has an infamous show called "Ancient Aliens." There are some pretty wild things in that show. There is one episode that talks about how the Ark of the Covenant was radioactive, and that is the reason people died when they touched it. They also proposed that the radioactive material somehow acted as a food or energy source (i.e. manna).

Obviously, no one takes this silly idea very seriously. Hence, it doesn't feature very prominently in Christian-atheist debate.

But humor me for a second.....

Imagine THIS..

What if the ark of the covenant (with all the properties that the Bible ascribes to it) was a widely regarded fact of history? What if most scholarly people (Christian and atheist alike) agreed that the Ark of the Covenant was energized by something and killed everyone who touched it?

Suddenly, the "God-is-killing-people-who-touch-the-box theory" wouldn't look so bad by comparison (to the atheists). It wouldn't prove it. But it wouldn't look as bad.

Now, imagine one of the most significant arguments against the "God theory" is that it really was a radioactive  box they carried around that they used to get energy from. Now imagine, some Christian and non-Christian are in a debate. The Christian confronts the atheist, saying that their best alternative to the "God theory" is the "Ancient Aliens" theory. The Christian proceeds to go on a tirade about how bad the Ancient Aliens theory is.

Imagine that the atheist responds by saying: "It doesn't matter how bad the alternative theory is. Any of those theories are better than a miracle." The atheist then goes on a tirade about how silly it is to believe in God or miracles.

But think of what he is admitting here....

He would be tacitly admitting that the ridiculous "Ancient Aliens" theory is really the best the atheists can come up with...

Now, don't get me wrong. That would not make the Christian view the correct one.

....But its a horrible position to be in from a debate standpoint...

It's an especially bad position if your part of an ideological group (atheists) that has recently been known for mocking Christians for being unlogical and unrational.

It amounts to an admission that your own ideas would be considered very bad theories if applied to almost anything else.

Back to The Resurrection...

Here's the problem.  Sophisticated atheist debaters argue that any theory is more likely than the resurrection theory, because the resurrection is an extraordinarily unlikely violation of the laws of nature (they say).

Any theory is better than resurrection, they say... Then, they move to the prevailing theory as the best alternative.

But let's now look at the prevailing theory against the resurrection. It's the vision/hallucination theory.

Skeptics propose that, after Jesus died, the disciples had grief hallucinations of him. These hallucinations led them to believe he was really alive once again.

This sounds sophisticated, but it's really a pretty bad theory just on the face of it.

Imagine invoking multiple hallucination theory for anything else in history...or in life, for that matter.

Police Officers Have A "Group Hallucination" Of Your Meth Lab

Imagine the little child suggesting that Mommy and Daddy had a "group hallucination" of him reaching for the cookie jar. Or perhaps Julius Caesar wasn't really assassinated. The "witnesses" merely hallucinated the event.....because they had such a strong religious-type devotion to Caesar. Or perhaps lawyers should start using the "Hallucination defense" when 11 witnesses claim that their client committed murder.... Or perhaps you should suggest to the police officers who discover your meth lab that they are merely having "group hallucination".....

This theory has the audacity to say that Jesus' 12 best friends did not have the competence to distinguish their real living Jesus from a figment of their imagination...on multiple occasions....

...Which raises scary questions. If you meet someone for lunch just one time.....did you really meet them???? After all, you're only one witness. Do I really have a girlfriend right now??? Or is she the figment of my wishful thinking, constructed to ease my loneliness????? After all, I'm not 11 people.

Keep in mind.....this is the prevailing alternative theory to the resurrection currently on the market.......even among scholars

Is This Really The Best  Available Theory?

I understand that people have a higher tolerance for alternative theories...simply because it's a resurrection were talking about. Resurrections are less likely than most things. But atheists talk like God and miracles are so easy to debunk.

If miracles are so easy to debunk....SURELY non-believers can come up with a theory better than multiple hallucination!??!?! If the atheist movement of the last ten years is so keen on how rational they are...surely a better theory is in order?!?!?!?!?!?!?

It doesn't make Christians correct....it just doesn't make atheists look any better.

Many miracles ARE easy to debunk. The resurrection is not. Not even sort of easy. Therein lies the issue. The best alternative theory leads to absurd conclusions when applied to almost anything else in life or history.

And hallucination theory...is very similar to saying that the Ark of the Covenant is actually a radioactive box energized by radioactive materials. You're kind of forced to accept the theory if it's the best option you have. But it certainly doesn't make your position look good.

You Should Be Happy Though...

Think of this. Should we be happy or sad if Jesus really did rise from the dead? Happy of course, because there is a God who loves us and became a man and died for us and offers us eternal bliss. 

Imagine the alternative to this theory sounds like "Ancient Aliens." 

Should that make a person happy or sad? 

In my opinion, it should make them very happy......

Finally, we can accept God's offer of eternal friendship without fear of being swept away by wishful thinking.

A Guide To Winning Arguments: (Advice for Atheists and Christians)

We're All Bad At It.....But We Really Should Be Nice....

Some may call me a hypocrite  when they read this blog, but I really don't like it when people use forceful and harsh words to explain their position. I think its bad taste, unnecessary, and potentially alienating. (Feel free to apply these criticisms to me if I have ever done so. I'm pretty sure I have). For example, certain political videos I watch sometimes absolutely berate the author of a certain opinion piece, or even their own friend in a debate! I haven't been a fan of people who just beat each other up when arguing. It's like your taking a fun and interesting thing (mutual discussion), into a personal thing with hard feelings. It just seems like a bad idea to me. Obviously this is different than clearly stating your position. Here, what I am referring to is harshly stating your position.

How To Add Rhetorical Force to An Argument...The Easy Way

However, stating your position in a way that your opponent feels the rhetorical force of what you are saying is necessary at times. This is to make other people "feel" the weight of the argument, so that its not too abstract. I think atheists employ this technique a lot (not successfully in my opinion, but they still use it). It's a wise technique to use. Here, I am not advocating referring to "empty rhetoric" (i.e. yelling at someone and telling them they are a racist). I am advocating the translation of your argument into everyday terms that make people "feel" how untrue or absurd something is.

For Example....

For example, some people say that the disciples had visions/hallucinations of Jesus after he died. This in turn caused them to believe he had actually come back from the dead.

Now, I can point out all sorts of flaws of this theory based on psychological research on hallucinations, historical data that discounts the hallucination theory (i.e. the empty tomb). I can also tell you that group hallucinations are, in theory, unfalsifiable.

I should do those things, and I should do due diligence with the arguments.

....But those things will not ultimately be the most persuasive argument...

Translating A Scholarly Argument Into An Everyday Argument

The most persuasive thing I can say is to translate the idea into another situation so that the listeners can "feel" the weight of the objection I am making. Instead of listing all sorts of things about the psychology of hallucinations, I should just propose a "group hallucination defense." Imagine proposing to police officers that they merely hallucinated you breaking into someone's house. Or someone proposes a historical theory that the Roman senators merely hallucinated the assassination of Julius Caesar, but it didn't really happen.

Examples like this readily illustrate to the listener how absurd the argument is. It doesn't change the substance of the argument very much, it just translates it into a more rhetorically useful statement. For example, in this case, the "hallucination defense" example, it shows to the listener that in any other circumstance, they would consider group hallucination to be a ludricrous suggestion. It helps them "feel the weight" of the objection.

Now, in debate, good arguments with a good scholarly basis must be used. You cannot lie, or just make up a totally irrelevant analogy, just to slam an idea. However, good arguments must be translated into terms that help people feel the weight of the objection.

I recommend that every person who has a viewpoint on anything use this technique.

But we really should be nice when we do it.....