The Church of Rationality

The Case for the Existence of God

The following is a reprint of an article appearing in Apologetics Press. I have posted it as is, in its entirety. I have added rebuttal notes of my own in blue. ~Brother Mark

The Case for the Existence of God [Part I]
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

One of the most basic, and most fundamental, issues that can be considered by the human mind is the question, “Does God exist?” In the field of logic, there are principles—or as they are called more often, laws—that govern human thought processes and that are accepted as analytically true. One of these is the law of the excluded middle. When applied to objects, this law states that an object cannot both possess and not possess a certain trait or characteristic at the same time and in the same fashion. When applied to propositions, this law states that all precisely stated propositions are either true or false; they cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same fashion. Asking if God exists is tantamount to asking could mythology be true? The very concept of God is myth, imagination -- but that in itself does not make it de facto false. Myth could be considered as a type of speculation and it's not inconceivable that a mythological idea could be true, but unlikely.

The statement, “God exists,” is a precisely stated proposition. Thus, it is either true or false. The simple fact is, either God exists or He does not. There is no middle ground. One cannot affirm logically both the existence and nonexistence of God. The atheist boldly states that God does not exist; the theist affirms just as boldly that God does exist; the agnostic laments that there is not enough evidence to make a decision on the matter; and the skeptic doubts that God’s existence can be proven with certainty. Who is correct? Does God exist or not?

Making it a black or white issue limits one's options as to how God may be perceived. If it is a yes or no proposition then we are left with assuming that God spoken of here is the God of the Bible, or at least a very similar concept -- an actual creative Being.

The only way to answer this question, of course, is to seek out and examine the evidence. It certainly is reasonable to suggest that if there is a God, He would make available to us evidence adequate to the task of proving His existence. But does such evidence exist? And if it does, what is the nature of that evidence?

The above seems to imply that that God would provide additional evidence apart from what can be attained from analysis of nature: "He would make available to us evidence adequate to the task of proving His existence." Well where is it? The evidence contained herein is only circumstantial -- there is no evidence that expressly points to God. There also is an admission that evidence of God's existence is not obvious. One must wonder why, if God really exists, would he not just let us know in an unmistakable manner.

The theist advocates the view that evidence is available to prove conclusively that God does exist, and that this evidence is adequate to establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of God. So, it's clearly established here that Mr. Thompson was already a theist before the so-called proof presented here was derived. Do you think for a minute that a confirmed theist is going to allow the conclusion of his investigations be anything other than there's a God? However, when we employ the word “prove,” we do not mean that God’s existence can be demonstrated scientifically in the same fashion that one might prove that a sack of potatoes weighs ten pounds, or that a human heart has four distinct chambers within it. Such matters as the weight of a sack of vegetables, or the divisions within a muscle, are matters that may be verified empirically using the five senses. And while empirical evidence often is quite useful in establishing the validity of a case, it is not the sole means of arriving at proof. For example, legal authorities recognize the validity of a prima facie case, which is acknowledged to exist when adequate evidence is available to establish the presumption of a fact that, unless such fact can be refuted, legally stands proven (see Jackson, 1974, p. 13). It is the contention of the theist that there is a vast body of evidence that makes an impregnable prima facie case for the existence of God—a case that simply cannot be refuted. I would like to present here the prima facie case for the existence of God, and a portion of the evidence upon which that case is based. A prima facie case is used in case law. It presents evidence that would be sufficient to win the case, in the event the opposing side does not appear in the case. In civil law, it would be very unlikely to present evidence to prove the existence of someone. Naturally, what one presents in a typical prima facie case would be evidence to support that a known person did or did not do something that caused harm to the complainant. How one could prove some hypothetical person to exist beyond any reasonable doubt would be highly problematic, and probably nearly impossible to do. Since the person is only hypothetical in the first place we must assume there has been no direct evidence, but only circumstantial. It would have to be shown that the circumstances being submitted as evidence could only be accounted for by this hypothetical person to the exclusion of all other possibilities. Since we have no independent knowledge of this hypothetical person apart from the circumstantial evidence, it would only be that evidence that would describe him. Since any number of hypothetical possibilities could be imagined to be the cause of anything, we could never be more precise than saying "Something did it that has the characteristics required to have done it." -- any other attributes would be totally imaginary. Thus, it would be just as fair to say that aliens did it or any other imaginary being did it. You could only prove the God of the Bible, if all or at least a substantial amount of the happenings in the Bible that are attributed to God actually occurred and that only a God could have been responsible. A prima facie case would be doomed from the outset to prove the God of the Bible because it could never point to that particular being, but only in same vague sense to a supernatural being as being required.

CAUSE AND EFFECT—THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Throughout human history, one of the most effective arguments for the existence of God has been the cosmological argument, which addresses the fact that the Universe (Cosmos) is here and therefore must be explained in some fashion. In his book, Not A Chance, R.C. Sproul observed:

Traditional philosophy argued for the existence of God on the foundation of the law of causality. The cosmological argument went from the presence of a cosmos back to a creator of the cosmos. It sought a rational answer to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” It sought a sufficient reason for a real world (1994, p. 169, emp. in orig.). One really should be wondering why there should be nothing instead of something. Nothingness is actually a much more bizarre concept to envision.

The Universe exists and is real. Atheists and agnostics not only acknowledge its existence, but admit that it is a grand effect (e.g., see Jastrow, 1977, pp. 19-21). If an entity cannot account for its own being (i.e., it is not sufficient to have caused itself), then it is said to be “contingent” because it is dependent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence. The Universe is a contingent entity, since it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. Sproul has noted: “Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a cause. That is merely to say, if it is an effect it must have an antecedent cause” (1994, p. 172). Thus, since the Universe is a contingent effect, the obvious question becomes, “What caused the Universe?” Actually "contingent" means that something is possible, but won't actually occur unless something else happens first. What happens first is however not the cause, it is a prerequisite: "The party is contingent upon my graduating." In these discussions "contingent" means that the universe does not necessarily have to exist in any particular fashion. The idea here is that the universe is contingent upon laws of nature (not God), and that those laws could have taken any of a multitude of different forms. The opposite of contingent in these discussions is "necessity" meaning the universe must exist and can only exist one way. "Contingent" vs. "necessity" just has to do with whether or not the universe could have been different, not whether is was created or not, or whether it had a cause or not. Whether the universe is contingent or exists out of necessity is a matter of scientific philosophy. Regardless of the term "grand effect" and the claim that atheists accept that the universe is contingent, it is certainly not the universal view of atheists that the universe is an effect and must have had a cause.

It is here that the law of cause and effect (also known as the law of causality) is strongly tied to the cosmological argument. Simply put, the law of causality states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. But, of course not God -- how convenient. Just as the law of the excluded middle is analytically true, so the law of cause and effect is analytically true as well. Sproul addressed this when he wrote:

The statement “Every effect has an antecedent cause” is analytically true. To say that it is analytically or formally true is to say that it is true by definition or analysis. There is nothing in the predicate that is not already contained by resistless logic in the subject. It is like the statement, “A bachelor is an unmarried man” or “A triangle has three sides” or “Two plus two are four....” Cause and effect, though distinct ideas, are inseparably bound together in rational discourse. It is meaningless to say that something is a cause if it yields no effect. It is likewise meaningless to say that something is an effect if it has no cause. A cause, by definition, must have an effect, or it is not a cause. An effect, by definition, must have a cause, or it is not an effect (1994, pp. 172,171 emp. in orig.). Ok, I think we get the idea. The universe must have had a cause, right? But, at what point does the cause of the universe come into play? The "prime mover" concept can only benefit theistic evolutionists. It means that only when we run out of natural cause-effect relationships do we need an unmoved mover. Though many Christians advance the argument of a prime mover, they just don't realize they are unwittingly supporting evolution. The God of the Bible is not a prime mover, he is the mover (or at least the intermediate mover). He created everything as is. Any argument that uses the ultimate cause of the universe as evidence of God is refuting the Bible as God being the only cause of most everything. That brings us to another interesting dilemma -- obviously there are in fact many things in nature that do have a cause and effect relationship. God doesn't directly cause lightening, storms, wind, etc.; so, we must assume the God of the Bible to be an intermediate mover, where cause and effect exists since the time of creation. From a rational viewpoint, God can only be at most the prime mover, which excludes the God of the Bible.

Effects without adequate causes are unknown. Further, causes never occur subsequent to the effect. It is meaningless to speak of a cause following an effect, or an effect preceding a cause. In addition, the effect is never qualitatively superior to, or quantitatively greater than, the cause. This knowledge is responsible for our formulation of the law of causality in these words: Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The river did not turn muddy because the frog jumped in; the book did not fall from the table because the fly lighted on it. These are not adequate causes. For whatever effects we observe, we must postulate adequate antecedent causes—which brings us back to the original question: What caused the Universe? A theoretical God is only adequate to the degree that we envision him. He is as powerful as our imagination wants him to be.

There are but three possible answers to this question: (1) the Universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist; (2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3) the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing; rather, it was created by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior, to itself. These three options merit serious consideration.

Is the Universe Eternal?

The most comfortable position for the person who does not believe in God is the idea that the Universe is eternal, because it avoids the problem of a beginning or ending, and thus the need for any “first cause” such as God. In fact, it was to avoid just such a problem that evolutionists Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, and Fred Hoyle developed the Steady State Theory. Information had come to light that indicated the Universe was expanding. These scientists suggested that at points in space called “irtrons” hydrogen was coming into existence from nothing. As hydrogen atoms arrived, they had to “go” somewhere, and as they did, they displaced matter already in existence, causing the Universe to expand. Dr. Hoyle suggested that the atoms of gaseous hydrogen gradually condensed into clouds of virgin matter, that within these clouds new stars and galaxies formed, etc.

The universe cannot be eternal because that would mean time going backwards would have had to have been realized. Eternity is boundless, so it cannot be realized by anything, not the universe, not God, not by even time itself. However, it could be perpetually perennial. It exists for a time, evolves, goes back out of the dimension of time, and then starts all over. Both the view of Dr. Thompson and the Steady State Theory are wrong.

However, the Steady State Theory was doomed to failure, in part, because it violated one of the most fundamental laws of science—the first law of thermodynamics (also referred to as the law of the conservation of matter and/or energy), which states that neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed in nature. Astronomer Robert Jastrow observed:

But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact (1977, p. 32).

The Steady State Theory eventually was relegated to the relic heaps of history. Yet problems for those who advocated an eternal Universe continued to multiply because such a concept violated the second law of thermodynamics as well. Simply stated, the second law of thermodynamics dictates that as energy is employed to perform work, it is transformed from a usable to a nonusable form. The Universe is “running down” because energy is becoming less available for use. As Jastrow has remarked:

And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates that the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up. Arthur Eddington, the most distinguished astronomer of his day, wrote: “If our views are right, somewhere between the beginning of time and the present day we must place the winding up of the universe.” When that occurred, and Who or what wound up the Universe, were questions that bemused theologians, physicists and astronomers, particularly in the 1920’s and 1930’s (1978, pp. 48-49).

Other such articles argue that the running down of the universe is contrary to evolution because "how could there be a running down universe and there be evolution causing things to get more complex at the same time? That would be like arguing that a power supply in a machine is opposed to the machine doing any real complex work and doing complex things. Naturally, in reality as the power source is used, the energy is used to do productive work. It is the very running down of the energy that is used to make complex structures through evolution. Doesn't the battery in your watch run your watch before it runs down? Of course. Likewise, as the universe runs down great things would be expected to happen and do happen.

A year before making that admission, Dr. Jastrow made another important concession when he wrote:

Only as a result of the most recent discoveries can we say with a fair degree of confidence that the world has not existed forever;... The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth, but the impact is the same; modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe, either in the past or in the future (1977, pp. 19,30, emp. added).

This is nonsense, apparently the Big Bang theory is being alluded to. The Big Bang states that all the matter in the universe was at one time at one mathematical point. It does not state that was the absolute beginning to the universe. Astrophysicists are still debating on whether this is a reoccurring phenomenon, or what? They just aren't sure yet. Philosophically speaking, the universe is almost certainly perennial. One needs to keep in mind that the only reason that a perpetual motion machine can't exist is because all machines lose energy to their outside environment. However, the universe is different. There is no outside environment for it to lose energy to. Since all energy is retained, it very well could operate perpetually. Note that perpetually is not the same as infinitely.

The scientific evidence states clearly that the Universe had a beginning—something eternal things do not have. Nor do eternal things “run down,” yet clearly the Universe is doing just that, as Dr. Jastrow has noted. As Henry Morris has commented, “The Second Law requires the universe to have had a beginning” (1974, p. 26). Indeed, it does. The Universe is now known not to be eternal.

Did the Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?

In the past, it would have been practically impossible to find any reputable scientist who would be willing to advocate a self-created Universe. George Davis, a prominent physicist of the past generation, explained why when he wrote: “No material thing can create itself.” Further, Dr. Davis affirmed that this statement “cannot be logically attacked on the basis of any knowledge available to us” (1958, p. 71). The Universe is the created, not the creator.

However, as surprising as it may seem, some in the scientific and philosophical communities have stepped forward to defend the option that the Universe simply created itself out of nothing. Edward P. Tryon, professor of physics at the City University of New York, wrote for example: “In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing, as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous, enchanting, or both” (1984, p. 14). But the real push for the acceptance of a self-created Universe came as a result of an article published in the May 1984 issue of Scientific American. Under the title of “The Inflationary Universe,” evolutionists Alan Guth and Paul Steinhardt wrote:

From a historical point of view, probably the most revolutionary aspect of the inflationary model is the notion that all the matter and energy in the observable universe may have emerged from almost nothing.... The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observed universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire Universe evolved from literally nothing (1984, p. 128, emp. added).

Such ideas as those set forth by Tryon, Guth, Steinhardt, and others have set off a wave of controversy within the scientific community, as is evident from heated discussions at annual scientific meetings, articles published in refereed scientific journals, books written on a scholarly level, and even items appearing in popular science magazines. For example, in the summer 1994 edition of the Skeptical Inquirer, Ralph Estling of Great Britain wrote a stinging rebuke of the idea that the Universe created itself out of nothing. Estling suggested:

The problem emerges in science when scientists leave the realm of science and enter that of philosophy and metaphysics, too often grandiose names for mere personal opinion, untrammeled by empirical evidence or logical analysis, and wearing the mask of deep wisdom. And so they conjure us an entire Cosmos, or myriads of cosmoses, suddenly, inexplicably, causelessly leaping into being out of—out of Nothing Whatsoever, for no reason at all, and thereafter expanding faster than light into more Nothing Whatsoever.... They then intone equations and other ritual mathematical formulae and look upon it and pronounce it good. I do not think that what these cosmologists, these quantum theorists, these universe-makers, are doing is science. I can’t help feeling that universes are notoriously disinclined to spring into being, ready-made, out of nothing (1994, 18[4]:430).

Finally, we see some real thinking and wisdom going on in the mind of Dr. Thompson. He is right here. There is too much fantasizing that gets into the headlines and too little real thinking of real substance concerning this issue. But, when he posits that God created the universe out of nothing, then what is the difference? We must realize, however, that nothing, true nothingness may have little rational meaning. How can there be just nothing: no matter, no energy, no time, not even space itself. Even the Big Bang resolves down to a "singularity," not nothing. Absolute nothingness is probably irrational and impossible. Consequently, when matter being spoken of as springing from nothing, it is not really impossible when one realizes that true nothingness is probably not really even possible. Something is just springing from something that seems like nothing to us.

Estling’s article provoked numerous letters to the editor of the Skeptical Inquirer, which were printed, with Estling’s response, in the January/February 1995 issue. Estling wrote, in part: “All things begin with speculation, science not excluded. But if no empirical evidence is eventually forthcoming, or can be forthcoming, all speculation is barren.... There is no evidence, so far, that the entire universe, observable and unobservable, emerged from a state of absolute Nothingness” (1995, 19[1]:69-70).

Estling is correct, of course. There is no evidence that would allow matter or energy simply to “pop into existence” of its own accord. This suggestion is in clear violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, to suggest that the Universe created itself is to posit a self-contradictory position. Sproul addressed this when he wrote that what an atheist or agnostic

...deems possible for the world to do—come into being without a cause—is something no judicious philosopher would grant that even God could do. It is as formally and rationally impossible for God to come into being without a cause as it is for the world to do so.... For something to bring itself into being it must have the power of being within itself. It must at least have enough causal power to cause its own being. If it derives its being from some other source, then it clearly would not be either self-existent or self-created. It would be, plainly and simply, an effect. Of course, the problem is complicated by the other necessity we’ve labored so painstakingly to establish: It would have to have the causal power of being before it was. It would have to have the power of being before it had any being with which to exercise that power (1994, pp. 179,180). That's exactly right and that's where a perpetually perennial universe comes into play. The description above describes what I suggest perfectly.

Science is based on observation and reproducibility. But when pressed for the reproducible, empirical data that document their claim of a self-created Universe, scientists and philosophers are at a loss to produce those data. Perhaps this is why Alan Guth lamented: “In the end, I must admit that questions of plausibility are not logically determinable and depend somewhat on intuition” (1988, 11[2]:76)—which is little more than a fancy way of saying, “I certainly wish this were true, but I could not prove it to you if my life depended on it.” Dr. Thompson shouldn't be using quotation marks here. Obviously, Alan Guth did not say what is in the quotes.

The eminent British astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking, put the matter in perspective when he wrote: “The new inflationary model is now dead as a scientific theory, although a lot of people do not seem to have heard of its demise and are still writing papers on it as if it were viable” (1988, p. 132, emp. added). The Universe did not create itself. Such an idea is absurd, philosophically and scientifically. No, it certainly did not; it is a product of logic. It is necessary. It's natural. Nothing can un-create it.

Was the Universe Created?

Either the Universe had a beginning, or it did not. But all available evidence indicates that the Universe did have a beginning. If the Universe had a beginning, it either had a cause or it did not. One thing we know assuredly, however: it is correct—logically and scientifically—to acknowledge that the Universe had a cause, because the Universe is an effect, and requires an adequate antecedent cause. Nothing causeless happens. Then how can Dr. Thompson justify a belief in God?

Since it is apparent that the Universe it not eternal, and since likewise it is apparent that the Universe could not have created itself, the only remaining alternative is that the Universe was created by something, or Someone, that: (a) existed before it, i.e., some eternal, uncaused First Cause; (b) is superior to it—since the created cannot be superior to the creator; and (c) is of a different nature, since the finite, contingent Universe of matter is unable to explain itself (see Jackson and Carroll, n.d., 2:98-154).

In connection with this, another important fact should be considered. If there ever had been a time when nothing existed, then there would be nothing now. It is a self-evident truth that nothing produces nothing. In view of this, since something exists now, it must follow logically that something has existed forever. As Sproul has remarked:

Indeed, reason demands that if something exists, either the world or God (or anything else), then something must be self-existent.... There must be a self-existent being of some sort somewhere, or nothing would or could exist (1994, pp. 179,185 emp. in orig.).

Everything that exists can be classified as either matter (which includes energy), or mind. There is no third alternative. The theist’s argument, then, is this:

1. Everything that exists is either matter or mind.

2. Something exists now, so something eternal must exist.

3. Therefore, either matter or mind is eternal.

A. Either matter or mind is eternal.

B. Matter is not eternal, per the evidence cited above.

C. Thus, it is mind that is eternal.

In the past, atheists suggested that the mind is nothing more than a function of the brain, which is matter; thus the mind and the brain are the same, and matter is all that exists. However, that viewpoint is no longer intellectually credible, as a result of the scientific experiments of British neurologist, Sir John Eccles. Dr. Eccles won the Nobel Prize for distinguishing that the mind is more than merely physical. He showed that the supplementary motor area of the brain may be fired by mere intention to do something, without the motor cortex of the brain (which controls muscle movements) operating. In effect, the mind is to the brain what a librarian is to a library. The former is not reducible to the latter. Eccles explained his methodology in The Self and Its Brain, co-authored with the renowned philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper (see Popper and Eccles, 1977). In a discussion centering on Dr. Eccles’ work, Norman Geisler discussed the concept of an eternal, all-knowing Mind.

Further, this infinite cause of all that is must be all-knowing. It must be knowing because knowing beings exist. I am a knowing being, and I know it.... But a cause can communicate to its effect only what it has to communicate. If the effect actually possesses some characteristic, then this characteristic is properly attributed to its cause. The cause cannot give what it does not have to give. If my mind or ability to know is received, then there must be Mind or Knower who gave it to me. The intellectual does not arise from the nonintellectual; something cannot arise from nothing (1976, p. 247).

From evidence such as that presented here, Robert Jastrow (an agnostic, by his own admission) was forced to conclude: “That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact” (1982, p. 18). The evidence speaks clearly regarding the existence of a non-contingent, eternal, self-existent Mind that created this Universe and everything within it.

While this conclusion is understandable, it is not actually logically tenable. It is the same conclusion that I came to myself, using the same logical steps before I realized that that the principle of parsimony would remove something as hypothetical as God as being a possible cause, that a thinking mind would need to have its own conditioning and antecedent influences, and that such a mind would require time to think in and God must exist outside of time. If what we deduce must exist, can't exist, then there must be a mistake in our logic.

As with all such God supporting arguments, the plausibility of God itself is never taken into consideration here, in that how unlikely it would be that any "Being" could just bring matter into existence by the power of its mind. The argument also does not take into consideration other types of minds, such as that of alien beings or any of a myriad of mythological concepts of creative beings, could have been responsible. It also does not address the issue of circularity to the universe, or that in some sense it can be perennial -- not eternal, but reoccurring.

CONCLUSION

The law of cause and effect, and the cosmological argument based upon that law, have serious implications in every field of human endeavor. The Universe is here, and must have an adequate antecedent cause. In addressing this problem, R.L. Wysong commented:

Everyone concludes naturally and comfortably that highly ordered and designed items (machines, houses, etc.) owe existence to a designer. It is unnatural to conclude otherwise. But evolution asks us to break stride from what is natural to believe and then believe in that which is unnatural, unreasonable, and...unbelievable.... The basis for this departure from what is natural and reasonable to believe is not fact, observation, or experience but rather unreasonable extrapolations from abstract probabilities, mathematics, and philosophy (1976, p. 412, first ellipsis in orig.).

The fallacy here is in assuming that things in the universe are designs. Not all complex structures are in fact designs. Many complex structures are patterns and patterns do not need to be designed. The structures that nature produces are complex patterns of repetition with subtle variation. There are striking similarities in the way living things are made, but no such similarities exist among designed manufactured products.

Dr. Wysong then presented an interesting historical case to illustrate his point. Some years ago, scientists were called to Great Britain to study orderly patterns of concentric rocks and holes—a find designated as Stonehenge. As studies progressed, it became apparent that these patterns had been designed specifically to allow certain astronomical predictions. Many questions (e.g., how ancient peoples were able to construct an astronomical observatory, how the data derived from their studies were used, etc.) remain unsolved. But one thing is known—the cause of Stonehenge was intelligent design. Yes, of course.

Now, suggested Dr. Wysong, compare Stonehenge to the situation paralleling the origin of the Universe, and of life itself. We study life, observe its functions, contemplate its complexity (which defies duplication even by intelligent men with the most advanced methodology and technology), and what are we to conclude? We should conclude that things in nature aren't designs. If things in nature are designs in the same sense as what humans make, then how could we even distinguish between them? It is actually very easy to distinguish between what nature makes and intelligently designed objects that humans make. Things in nature are patterns. Stonehenge might have been produced by the erosion of a mountain, or by catastrophic natural forces working in conjunction with meteorites to produce rock formations and concentric holes. But what scientist or philosopher ever would suggest such an idea?

No one ever could be convinced that Stonehenge “just happened” by accident, yet atheists and agnostics expect us to believe that this highly ordered, well-designed Universe, and the complicated life it contains, “just happened.” To accept such an idea is, to use Dr. Wysong’s words, “to break stride from what is natural to believe” because the conclusion is unreasonable, unwarranted, and unsupported by the facts at hand. The cause simply is not adequate to produce the effect.

The central message of the Cosmological Argument, and the law of cause and effect upon which it is based, is this: Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. The Universe is here; intelligent life is here; morality is here; love is here. What is their adequate antecedent cause? Since the effect never can precede, or be greater than the cause, it stands to reason that the Cause of life must be a living Intelligence that Itself is both moral and loving. When the Bible records, “In the beginning, God...,” it makes known to us just such a First Cause.

REFERENCES

Davis, George (1958), “Scientific Revelations Point to a God,” The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, ed. John C. Monsma (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).

Estling, Ralph (1994), “The Scalp-Tinglin’, Mind-Blowin’, Eye-Poppin’, Heart-Wrenchin’, Stomach-Churnin’, Foot-Stumpin’, Great Big Doodley Science Show!!!,” Skeptical Inquirer, 18[4]:428-430, Summer.

Estling, Ralph (1995), “Letter to the Editor,” Skeptical Inquirer, 19[1]:69-70, January/February.

Geisler, Norman L. (1976), Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Guth, Alan (1988), Interview in Omni, 11[2]:75-76,78-79,94,96-99, November.

Guth, Alan and Paul Steinhardt (1984), “The Inflationary Universe,” Scientific American, 250:116-128, May.

Hawking, Stephen W. (1988), A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam).

Hull, David (1974), Philosophy of