Can God’s existence be
proved or disproved?
Technically and philosophically the existence of God can be neither proved nor
disproved. Ultimately it remains a matter of faith for both the theist and the
atheist. The atheist must have faith that God does not exist. There are no totally
logical arguments for God not existing. Equally, there are no totally logical
arguments for God existing. The approach that I take is that there can be put
arguments for and against God‟s existence. The following paper includes some
of the arguments used for demonstrating that God‟s existence has a high degree
of logical and scientific possibility.
Main arguments:
1. Cosmological (beginning of the universe):
A basic premise of science is that every effect has a cause, and it is the role of
the scientist to establish this line of cause and effect. The argument made here is
that the universe, even if it was created by the „big bang‟, must have had
something or someone who created the big bang, or whatever led up to its
occurrence. This first cause is sometimes referred to as „the prime mover‟, the
original cause. It does not make logical sense that there is an infinite series of
causes that never have an initial starting point, because we will always be
asking: „but what caused that?‟. This was for Ockham the main reason for the
existence of God.
Another version of this is a Muslim argument called the Kalam cosmological
argument which has been recently revised by William Craig who writes:
“Whatever begins to exist has a cause—the universe began to exist—therefore
the universe has a cause.” This is based on the logical premise that „out of
nothing comes nothing‟. The alternative is that we believe that things can just pop
into existence, which even the arch-sceptic Hume denied. William Craig goes on
to explain the difference between an actual infinite (the infinite number of causes
which leads up to the present) and a theoretical infinite (the infinite number of
causes leading into the future, which have not yet happened). An actual infinite is
complete and self-contained as no new members can be added to it. But some
major logical absurdities arise if this is the case. For example, adding and
dividing this „infinite, self-contained group still leaves an infinite answer which
defies some of these mathematical laws. Hence Craig argues that there must be
a finite number of causes which originated with the Big Bang, which originated
with God.
1
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy) states that theoretically
the world should be running down hill, going from order to disorder. This is
derived from evidence to show that all life tends to lose its initial power and order
and finds the path of least resistance, eg a river running downhill rather than
uphill, or the sun gradually burning up its energy which it is doing constantly, but
gradually diminishingly, giving out and losing its initial store of energy. This
implies that originally something/ someone must have given the amount of
energy and order to the world in order for it to begin and function, before it
proceeded to diminish.
2. Design of the universe:
All things as we know them have a creator, especially complicated items such as
those made by human beings, eg electronic machinery, large buildings, books,
symphonies, etc. They do not just happen, even if given random chances over a
very long period of time. But there are much more complicated parts of our world
than what humans make, and these, as science continues to show, are the
amazing building blocks and genetic designs of nature and especially human
beings. Their complexity and breadth is almost beyond our comprehension. And
we may still be only just scratching the surface of our understanding. After all,
science has been through various levels of understanding already, and each one
seems to reveal an added depth and complexity to our world, which even on the
surface is incredibly diverse, beautiful and amazing.
Albert Einstein wrote: “I am not an atheist, and I don‟t think I can call myself a
pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with
books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those
books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they
are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of
the books but doesn‟t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even
the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvellously
arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our
limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” (Quoted
in Flew (99) from Jammer „Einstein and Religion’ ,48.)
The following quotes are also from Einstein:
“Certain it is that a conviction, akin to a religious feeling, of the rationality or
intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order…This firm
belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself to
the world of experience, represents my conception of God.” (Einstein, Ideas and
Opinions, 255 quoted in Flew, 102)
“Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced
that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of
men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”
(Jammer, Einstein and Religion, 93, quoted in Flew 102.)
2
“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who
reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and
feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior
reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my
idea of God.” Einstein The Quotable Einstein, 195-196, quoted in Flew, 102-103.)
Equally, other quantum physics scientists such as Max Planck, Werner
Heisenberg, Erwin Schroedinger, and Paul Dirac saw direct links between the
laws of nature and the Mind of God. Schroedinger wrote: “The scientific picture of
the world around me is very deficient. It gives me a lot of factual information, puts
all our experiences in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about
all that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell a word
about the sensation of red and blue, bitter and sweet, feelings of delight and
sorrow. If knows nothing of beauty and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity.
Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the
answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.”
My View of the World, 93, quoted in Flew, 104-105)
Equally Max Planck wrote: There can never be any real opposition between
religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.” He also said,
“Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never
relaxing crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against unbelief and
superstition…[and therefore] „On to God!‟” Quoted in Flew, 105.
3. The Designer seems to be personal.
Just as human designers are intelligent and purposeful and expressive in their
designs (whether they be a dress designer, a rocket engineer or a composer of
music, or whatever) so likewise if there is a creator of the universe. They must
have an incredible ability to oversee in a logical and creative way the universe
and all its complexity and beauty. Additionally, if there is a Creator who created
conscious human beings, they must also be conscious and aware of other
„beings‟ whom they have created. How could a mechanical, impersonal, robotic
„first cause‟, create humane and self-aware beings such as humans?
4. Moral law within every culture and tribe or people:
There seems to be an inherent and conscious awareness of what is morally right
or good (and equally what is wrong or evil). Why is this the case? “Everyone
knows certain principles. There is no land where murder is virtue and gratitude
vice.” (J. Budziszewski, educator and author).
5. Widespread and ever-present belief in a God
(or gods/ supraterrestrial beings).
Human beings have in the past and continue today to overwhelmingly believe in
a divine being. Why is this? They are even finding parts of the brain that seem to
be hardwired with this concept. And there is an increasing number of people who
3
find satisfaction and meaning in life from this believed reality, as evidenced by
the growth in a wide variety of faith communities around the world, despite the
enlightenment and the scientific worldview that are sometimes used wrongly to
challenge the concept of a God.
Many atheists in the 1950s and 1960s anticipated that by the end of the 20 th
century religion would not exist. By contrast the opposite is the case. The many
communist regimes and countries (which had strong atheist agendas) have all
but disappeared. A number of commentators have suggested that the recent
public resurgence of hardline atheism (Dawkins and others) is symptomatic of
the anxiety of atheists who recognise that their atheist framework has not been
taken up, possibly due to its lack of credibility and application to a positive view of
life.
Pascal’s wager or challenge (as presented by the following matrix)
Pascal believed that on logical grounds we could not know whether God exists or
not. And so, using his probability method he constructed the following matrix to
demonstrate the possibilities that we have. He did not present it as a means of
forcing people into faith, but in order to encourage them to consider the options,
one of which includes the better option that God might exist. If you gain, you gain
all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that God is.
Agnostocism in Pascal‟s view is not possible, for we are already embarked in life,
living out our choice.
God exists
Living as if God exists
truthfully, lovingly
humbly and dependently.
(B)
(The universe is not only
a material reality)
Living as if God does
not exist
(-B)
Life with God
in this world and
and after death
There is no God
Only a more positive
life in this world, but
nothing after death.
+∞
-N
(+ ∞)
( f 1)
separation from God
both in this life and after
death.
Nil
(Purely material existence)
-∞
(f2)
+N
(f3)
4
According to decision theory, the only value that matters in the matrix is the + ∞.
Any matrix where f 1, f 2 and f 3 are all finite positive or negative numbers,
results in (B) as being the only rational decision.
Arguments against the existence of God:
I can only consider one serious argument against God‟s existence and that is the
first one listed below. If you would like a more detailed paper addressing this
issue, please contact me and I will forward it to you. The second argument has
some modern arguments against it and so the argument holds less weight. I
would welcome other specific arguments that you might able to present against
God‟s existence.
1.The problem of evil
i.e. „if God is good and all powerful‟, why does he allow evil to exist and happen?‟
This, however, depends upon assuming that God, who is all powerful, cannot in
his power, decide to relinquish part of his power and allow his creation to share in
that power and so have the possibility of freewill and therefore be responsible for
good and evil decisions and actions, which might include things that God does
not accept, yet permits. The next question from this is why does God permit evil.
This is more comprehensibly explored in my paper on „If God is good, why is
there evil?‟
2. Another argument is Ockham’s razor
Ockham‟s razor argues that the fewer presuppositions and arguments needed to
explain a phenomenon, the better. Some argue that the scientific atheistic
worldview has a more simple way of understanding the world. But in more recent
years this has been called into doubt by a number of scientists and philosophers,
including Antony Flew. Because the scientific world is increasingly discovering
the phenomenal complexity of the world and universe, the chances of it occurring
randomly are becoming more and more remote. Therefore, the scientists have
come up with the idea that there must be multiple universes. Amongst these
millions of universes there is a chance that one of them could produce the
complex universe in which we live. But to work with the theory that there are
millions of other universes in an attempt to explain the chance of there being one
very complex universe (ours), requires a complicated explanation for the origin of
our universe. A more simple explanation, it would seem, is not the belief in
millions of other universes (for which there is not one scrap of actual evidence),
but rather simply the belief in a „prime mover‟ or creator God who is outside of
the universe as we experience it.
5
Conclusion
I would like to conclude with a quote from Strobel which I think very clearly
throws the question back at the person who is an atheist and challenges them to
rethink their position.
„…atheism requires omniscience (complete knowledge of
everything)… atheists say that nothing exists outside the material
world, placing them in a God-like position…In reality, this intellectual
position is the height of arrogance…Atheism is an attempt to make
humans into gods. That, in a way, is the ultimate irony: Atheists, in
their denial of God, cannot but replace the truly omniscient God
with…themselves!‟ Strobel, 37-39.
Appendix: God versus Science
'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of
philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to
stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely.'
'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'' Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes'
'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment.
'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure
him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good...!'
'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most
of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he?
My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus
to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'
6
The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He
takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
'Er.. yes,' the student says.
'Is Satan good?'
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'
'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'
'Yes, sir..'
'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'
'Yes'
'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then
God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works
define who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred?
Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'
'So who created them?'
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who
created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to
pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues
onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to
identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'
'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
7
'No, sir, I have not..'
'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you
ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science
says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God.
There is no evidence, only faith.'
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own.
'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '
' Yes.
'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly
becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat,
even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat
or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down to 458
degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that.
There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the
lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or
transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit
energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is
only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.
Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the
opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding
like a hammer.
8
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation.. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if
you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it?
That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were,
you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good
semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with,
and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain
how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that
there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing
the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science
can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never
seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life
is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death
is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor.. Do you
teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of
course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the
argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot
even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your
opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has
subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let
me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is
there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class
breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the
9
professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's
brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of
empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,
with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust
your lectures, sir?'
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face
unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess
you'll have to take them on faith.'
'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student
continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor
responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Every day. It is in the daily example of
man's inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and violence everywhere
in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist
unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a
word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create
evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love
present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the
darkness that comes when there is no light.'
The professor sat down.
PS: some say the student was Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein wrote a book titled God vs. Science in 1921...
Mike Pietsch March, 2011
[email protected] 0409 725 573
10