• Home
• Truth
• God
• Bible
• Resurrection
• Links
• Blog
• Store
• Contact

I phrased that question very carefully. I will not be answering the question, "Is there a god?" I don't think that question is specific enough, because it leaves us open to multiple different views on who or what that god is. I will be focusing on a Theistic God who created the universe, rather than one or more pantheistic gods who are part of the universe. That is where I believe the evidence points.

There are three powerful arguments that point to the existence of the Theistic God. While there are other arguments, I believe these three to be the most powerful.

1. The Cosmological Argument
2. The Teleological Argument
3. The Moral Argument

Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument is, in my opinion, the strongest and most convincing argument for the existence of God. The argument relies on well known, universally accepted scientific evidence. The argument goes as follows:

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The first premise of this argument seems pretty straight forward, and we would be hard pressed to find a person who disagrees with it. It is referred to as the law of causality, and it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists, philosophers, and laypeople. In fact, one might argue that the entire concept of science is based on this law. There are some who have tried to use the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (Quantum Physics) to refute it, but this is due to a confusion between causality and predictability. Heisenberg's theory only says that we cannot predict the location and speed of a subatomic particle at any given time. Author, R.C. Metcalf, believes that quantum physics actually point toward the existence of God, and specifically, the Christian God. Since I am not an expert in quantum physics, I will rely on his books and website to explain this further.

The second premise of the argument (The universe had a beginning.) only recently gained acceptance by mainstream science. Up until the 20th century, the dominant theory for the existence of the universe (the Steady State Theory) said that the universe had existed eternally. The view is summarized quite well in Carl Sagan's PBS series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage when he says, "The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."

In the 20th century, something remarkable happened. New evidence began refuting what most scientists believed. The evidence was so strong, it had some scientists changing their mind about God, and others scurrying to find a way to fit science to their world view.

The universe began with a great SURGE ¹

• Second law of thermodynamics
• Universe is expanding
• Radiation afterglow
• Great galaxy seeds
• Einstein's theory of general relativity

Second law of thermodynamics

While not new (It's been around since 1824.), scientists often seem to miss the implications of this law. The law basically says that, in a closed system (such as our universe), there is a finite amount of usable energy. In other words, the total amount of usable energy in our universe will eventually be consumed, and would have been already if the universe had existed eternally. This is possibly the most powerful evidence supporting a finite universe.

Universe is expanding

In 1915, Albert Einstien introduced his theory of general relativity (see below). Then, in 1917, Willem de Sitter predicted (based on general relativity) that the universe was expanding. Observational evidence for this prediction came a decade later, in 1927, when Edwin Hubble observed a "red shift" demonstrating that every observable galaxy was moving away from a central point. This, when viewed in reverse, could only go back a finite amount of time before all matter disappeared.

Radiation afterglow

As early as 1948, it was predicted that, if the universe exploded into being out of nothing, there would be an afterglow of radiation, that would still be detectable today. It wasn't until 1965, though, that it was discovered (by accident) by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. This discovery, which earned Penzias and Wilson a Nobel Prize, was enough to convince most scientists that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning.

Great galaxy seeds

Once the Cosmic Background Radiation was discovered, scientists began predicting that it would have slight temperature variations that, in conjunction with gravity, would have aided in forming the galaxies. In 1992, George Smoot announced that they had found it using the COBE (COsmic Background Explorer) space satellite. What's more, the "ripples" were extremely precise, and even a slight variation would have caused the universe to collapse back onto itself or expand infinitely without forming any galaxies. In other words, we wouldn't be here.

Einstein's theory of general relativity

As mentioned earlier, Albert Einstein introduced his theory of general relativity in 1915. At the time, he considered it an "irritating" theory, because of its implications. See, he believed in the Steady State Theory, and general relativity implied that time, space, and matter all came into existence at once. To get around this, the great mathematician divided by zero in what is now referred to as the Cosmological Constant. Later, when Hubble discovered the red shift, Einstien went down to see for himself. He then admitted that the Cosmological Constant was the greatest mistake of his professional carreer.

These five pieces of evidence form a very strong case for a beginning. Now, remarkably, more people try to refute the first premise of the argument (the law of causality) rather than the second. The evidence for a beginning is so powerful that it has led agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow to say in his book, God and the Astronomers, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Teleological Argument

The teleological argument says that "the fundamental laws and constants that govern the universe are just right to allow for the existence of complex, intelligent life."²

Moral Argument

This argument is only powerful if the person presenting it knows it really well, and can communicate it to others as well. Sadly, many people who don't fully understand it themselves try to present it to atheists. This usually leads to an embarrassing defeat when the atheist responds with some of the common (and flawed) objections.

1. Objective Moral Law requires an Objective Moral Law Giver
2. There is an Objective Moral Law
3. Therefore, there is an Objective Moral Law Giver