Existence Deserves

An Explanation

Cynthia K. Ray
Introduction
In writing an argumentative essay there are a multitude of topics that a
person could choose to argue. I have chosen what may be the most challenging
topic of all. The existence of God is possibly the longest standing controversial
subject. Since God is not an empirically visible object which permits us to dissect
Him under a microscope, some of the arguments for His existence are based on the
observations of His effects, while others are based on logical or philosophical
grounds. My intent is to persuasively demonstrate the existence of God and its
impact on the meaning of life.

Part 1: Addressing the Opposing Theories of Origins

Since the dawn of time people have sought to answer the big questions:
Where did I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going? Can any of these
questions really be answered? A classic example of these questions is expressed in
Gauguins painting entitled, Whence, What, and Whither? No honest person can
ignore these questions and still consider himself thoughtful.
In the area of life and existence, and how life came into being, there are only
three known explanations of origins. 1. Everything sprang out of nothing. 2.
Existence and life originated from an impersonal source. 3. Existence originated
from a personal source. These are the only known possible answers to life and the
universe. Every theory so far, when boiled down, fits into one of these three
categories. Frances Shaeffer, a theologian and philosopher, once wrote, Although
there are many possible details, the possible answersin their basic conceptsare
exceedingly few.
The first possibility, that everything sprang out of nothing, cannot be
sustained or proven because it is scientifically impossible that anything could come
into existence out of utter nothing. One of the most basic laws of physics is that,
Out of nothing, nothing comes. For example, zero times zero still equals zero. As
far as we can search back into history, and as played out in our daily experience,
we have always seen the physical law of cause and effect. Everything that we have,
and have been able to discover, is a product or result of something else. There is a
source for everything. If nothing was, then nothing it would remain. It is a
scientific fact that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. Therefore, nothing
could not cause something. A beginning from nothing cannot be an adequate
answer. Nothing explains nothing.
So this leads us to the conclusion that something must have been forever.
Something must be eternal. Therefore, if the universe was born from something
that is eternal, then the cause for the universe must have existed outside of it
because the universe is not known to be eternal. This eternal something could
either be a variety of impersonal matter or a personal being. If nothing is eternal,
then at one point something must have sprung out of nothing, but we have already
established this theory to be unfeasible. Therefore, something must be eternal.
Something has existed forever.
Somebody might ask, Cant we just believe that the universe always
existed? We dont have to explain its origin. It has always been here. Carl Sagan
held this position in his best-selling book entitled Cosmos. He wrote, The cosmos
is all that is or ever was or ever will be.
While God may not be available for empirical investigation, the universe is.
The vast majority of astrophysicists accept the theory that the universe began at a
particular moment in space and time. As Robert Jastrow, founder of NASAs
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, summarizes the overwhelming scientific
consensus, Now the three lines of evidencethe motions of the galaxies, the laws
of thermodynamics, and the life story of the starspointed to one conclusion; all
indicated that the universe had a distinct beginning.
Thus far we have reasoned that something must be eternal, such as
impersonal matter or a personal being. Also, current scientific discoveries have
concluded that the universe had a distinct beginning, therefore, the cause for the
universe must have been outside of itself.
The second possibility, that everything had an impersonal beginning, implies
that: Time + Chance and Matter + Energy = Existence as we know it.
Holding to this belief, everything would be a product of chance and impersonal
forces.
The immediate dilemma with an impersonal beginning is twofold: first, it
does not give an adequate explanation for an orderly universe, nor does it explain
the human being with all the riches of personality, aspirations, and love. With the
view of an impersonal beginning you must accept that you are a product of chance.
To be a product of chance one would have no meaning or purpose; you just happen
to be here. If man has just been kicked up out of the primordial soup, that which
is only impersonal chance, then those things which make him a manhope of
purpose and significance, love, notions of morality and rationality, beauty and
verbal communicationare ultimately unfulfillable, and are thus meaningless. In
such a situation, is man actually higher or lower as compared to impersonal nature?
He would then be the lowest creature on the scale. The green moss on the rock is
higher than he is, for it can be fulfilled in the universe which exists because moss is
also impersonal. The purpose of moss can be found scientifically, while the
purpose and meaning of man cannot. If the universe is a product of chance and
impersonal matter, then man, being unfulfillable, is meaningless. In this situation
man should not walk on the grass, but should respect it, for it is higher than he.
Accepting the theory of an impersonal beginning sounds very chancy. The
three big questionswhere did I come from, why am I here, and where am I
going?are still not adequately answered. It must take an awful lot of faith to
believe in this origin.
The third possibility, a personal beginning, is very different from the
previous two. The theory of a personal beginning is based on the existence of an
eternal, Personal Being. (Remember, weve already concluded that something must
be eternal.) This Personal Being would have created the universe and mankind by
an act of sheer will. This position is most clearly stated in the Apocalypse where it
reads, For you created all things, and by your will they were created and have
their being.(Revelations 4:11b) Starting from a personal beginning, all the big
questions can be adequately answered. To be created implies a reason or purpose
for that creation. Meaning for our life would then be a real possibility. This theory
would also explain our complex personalities and aspirations. A personal beginning
provides a philosophical position that a person can live out consistently.

Part 2: Six Arguments for the existence of God

Now that we have looked into the different theories of how the universe
began, this next section will be devoted to six arguments supporting the
explanation of a personal beginning.
The argument from desire:
There are distinctions between different kinds of desires. Most human
desires fit into one of two categories: innate or externally conditioned, in other
words, natural desires or artificial desires. For example, we naturally desire things
like food, drink, sleep, sex, and knowledge. We can also desire things like sports
cars, flying through the air like superman, or a Red Wings world championship,
however, these are not usually natural desires. The main difference between the
two types of desires is that a natural desire comes from within ourselves; an
artificial desire comes from without, such as society, advertising or fiction. Natural
desires are found in all human beings, but the artificial desires vary from person to
person.
As human beings, we find it difficult to be perfectly content or satisfied with
most things because we always desire more. There is always more that we can
search for and aspire to attain. There are those everlasting questions that naturally
echo in our minds. Can we ever satisfy these desires?
C. S. Lewis, an Oxford University professor and author, wrote, Creatures
are not born with natural desires unless satisfaction for these desires exist. A baby
feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well,
there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as
sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the
most probable answer is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly
pleasures satisfy my desires, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud.
Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to
suggest the real thing.
If all desires have the potential to be fulfilled, then the questions that we
desire answers for could be answered. As Peter Kreeft, a professor of philosophy at
Boston College, has written, No one has ever found even one case of an innate
desire for a nonexistent object. If this statement is true, and if you desire
significance and meaning for your whole existence, then there must be a reality
that corresponds to that desire.

The Ontological Argument:

This argument was devised by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), who
wanted to produce a simple argument for the existence of God.(69) The first time
you read this argument it will probably sound more like a riddle than anything else,
however, it is a very unique argument. It is as follows:
1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind
alone.
2. God means that of which a greater cannot be thought.
3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
4. Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that all the
qualities that our thought of God has plus real existence).
5. But this is impossible, for God is that of which a greater cannot be
thought.
6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

The Argument from Truth:

Our limited and finite minds can discover eternal truths about being and
existence. Truth properly resides in a mind because only a mind, or something like
a mind, could comprehend and discern both truth and knowledge. But the human
mind is not known to be eternal. Therefore, there is likely to exist an eternal mind
in which these eternal truths reside.

The Moral Argument:

 Even the pagans show that what the moral law requires is written on their
hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts
accuse or perhaps excuse them.(Romans 2:15) If we take a look at human nature
we will find two truths: that we know what we ought to do and be, and that we
know when we fail to do or be that. Real moral obligation is a fact. As human
beings we are truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil. For example,
not many people doubt that we should help the elderly across the street instead of
running them over. Atheism is completely incompatible with the fact that there is a
moral code that we follow. Following Atheist beliefs, there could be no right or
wrong because we would be a product of chance and everything would be equal.
Unfortunately, no person could live consistently with this view point. There is a
difference between right and wrong, and though it can be distorted sometimes,
everyone seems to know it. For example, people all over the world help homeless
and hungry people. If the effect of chance is a good thing, and there is no right or
wrong, then why do people help the unfortunate? The answer is that we dont
always help unfortunate people because we want to, but because we feel that we
ought to. Even people who live in primitive tribes away from the rest of the world
seem to know these moral obligations.
I thought it was interesting that one of the requirements for this persuasive
essay was to appeal to a persons ethical sense. All of us writing this essay are
supposed to know what ethical sense means. Where did this ethical sense
come from? Certainly not from molecular complexity and chance, that doesnt
explain a moral code that is ingrained into the mind of every living human being.
Only a creator with ethical sense could explain a consistent creation with ethical
sense.

God as compared to a concept:

 One of the main problems that people have when it comes to believing in
God is that He doesnt seem very real. We cannot touch God. We cannot see God.
We cannot hear God. Therefore, there must not be such a thing as a God.
Now compare God to a concept, such as love. We cannot touch love. We
cannot see love. We cannot hear love. Therefore, there must not be such a thing as
love. What an interesting concept, but hardly sustainable.
The fact is, we would be hard pressed to find someone who denied the
existence of love. Our need and desire for love is too obvious to deny. We know,
without being told, that love helps to bring fulfillment and happiness. On the other
hand, we deny God. Our need and desire for complete fulfillment is very obvious
to most people. The main things that can bring us complete fulfillment are a
reason, a meaning, and a purpose for our existence. A personal God seems like the
best way to fulfill what we desire most. Although God may not seem real to our
physical senses, that hardly means that He doesnt exist.

The Dilemma of Parenting:

Another common problem people have when it comes to believing in God is
that there is so much evil and pain in the world. If there really is a God, then why
does He let so many terrible things happen? Also, why is there so many conflicting
beliefs? If there really is one eternal God, then wouldnt we all believe the same
way? If there really is a God, then He must not care very much.
My proposal is that God does care, but theres not a whole lot that He will
change for us without our cooperation. For example, imagine that you are a parent
with a child. You would raise that child to the best of your ability. You would try to
put good influences in that childs life. You would nourish that child with all that
you had to give. Now lets say that child made all the right decisions in life, grew
up successful and happy, and loved and respected you more than anything. By
doing all these things that child would bring honor, pride, and joy to you, as the
parent.
Now lets say that your child grew up and denounced you and all that you
had taught. You would be devastated, but there would be no way to force what you
know to be true on your child. Your child would have, as all human beings have, a
will of their own.
Now compare yourself to this hypothetical child. If you choose to do what is
right and live according to God, you bring honor and joy to God. If you decide to
exercise your personal freedom and deny God, then He will be devastated, but
there is no way to force anything upon you without violating your free will which
He honors. If God wanted machines that constantly obeyed Him, then He would
have created machines. But what glory would come from a machine that had to
obey its Creator. The glory that God receives is in the glory of choice and freedom.
If we choose wrong, that is where evil, pain, and uncertainty come from. If we
choose of our own free will to believe in God and follow Him, that would be the
fulfillment of Gods personal creation.

Part 3: Predicting the Consequences After Death

Pascals Wager:
Supposing that my previous arguments have done nothing to convince you
that there is a God, then consider this last argument. This argument is a little
different. This is a diagram of the prospects that you have after death, depending
on what you believe. This diagram is called Pascals wager:

God exists or God does not exist

I believe in God or I dont believe in God

 I live for God or I live only for myself

Let us assess the four possibilities of this wager:

1. If God does exist, and you do believe in Him, you win everything.
2. If God doesnt exist, and you do believe in Him, you lose nothing.
3. If God doesnt exist, and you dont believe in Him, you win nothing.
4. If God does exist, and you dont believe in Him, you lose everything.

Even if the arguments for God havent convinced you, look at the chances
above. Considering that you only get one life, and you only get one chance, it
would be better to be safe than sorry.

Conclusion
I hope that I have convinced you that there must be a God. Our very being
cries out for more of an explanation than mere chance. We know instinctively that
we are significant. As I have to tried to show, a personal Creator is the only
adequate explanation for our existence.

Now there is just one more thing to say before this essay is complete. The
fact that God exists gives us existence, a purpose, and a meaning. To deny Gods
existence and purpose to go after our own desires makes our life, as the
existentialists say, ultimately meaningless. The only eternal meaning we have is
Gods meaning for us. To live our lives for ourselves will get us nowhere fast
because our lives are short and time goes by quickly. We need to strive for eternal
things. Who knows the purpose, meaning, and fulfillment of a creation better than
its Creator?