First of all, I would like to thank Gray for agreeing to do this debate with me. I hope that we will both be able to learn from each other and gain a greater understanding of the truth.

In this debate, I will be presenting several arguments for the existence of God. While each does not prove every one of His attributes, together they form a strong cumulative case for God's existence.

I. Cosmological Arguments

A. Kalam Cosmological Argument

The kalam argument is based on the impossibility of the past having been infinite. It's basic structure is this:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Since the first statement is incredibly self-evident and the third flows logically from the first two, I will only defend the second statement. The universe must have had a beginning because if it didn't, the past would have been infinite, which is impossible. We can demonstrate this though two arguments: the impossibility of the existence of an actual infinite and the impossibility of crossing an infinite.

If an actual infinite were to exist in physical reality, several absurdities would occur. The definition of an infinite set is one in which a proper subset can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the set itself, which we can see right away is absurd. If we call one subset of an infinite set A and the rest of the set B, the conclusion A = A+B (where neither A nor B is equal to 0) would follow, but that's impossible. Now let's consider a more concrete example. Let's say I have an infinite number of books numbered 1, 2, 3, etc. Now let's say that each odd-numbered book is red, and each even-numbered book is black. According to the definition of an infinite set, the number of red books would equal the number of red books plus black books, but can we really believe that? Now let's try taking one book away. We know from common sense that the set must have one less book, but it doesn't. The set still contains the same number (an infinite amount) of books, which is absurd. Now let's say that each book has an infinite number of pages, making them all infinitely long. In this case, the lengths of all the books combined would be no greater than the length of one single book, but that's absolutely ridiculous! Now let's try removing an infinite number of books, say, all the black books, so all that's left is the odd-numbered books, the red ones, so we're left with 1, 3, 5, etc. Now let's take away every other red book, so we're left with 1, 5, 9, etc. If we do it again, we're left with 1, 9, 17, etc. We can do this ad infinitum, yet we would always have the same number of books. That's absolutely ridiculous. Because of these (and other) absurdities, I hold that an actual infinite cannot exist in physical reality. If the universe had no beginning, then the set of past events constitutes an actual infinite, so the universe cannot be eternal.

For this second argument, I can grant that an actual infinite can exist. However, an actual infinite can never be created by successive addition, but the set of past events has been formed by successive addition, so it cannot be infinite. If the set of past events is infinite, then the current event, the last member of that set, is the infinitieth event, but there is no such number. Consider a more concrete example in which a lamp is turned on and off successively for an infinite amount of time. At every odd-numbered event it is turned on, and at every even-numbered event it is turned off. At the end of this infinite period of time, is the lamp on or off? Is infinity odd or even? Since infinity is neither (being odd or even implies being finite), the lamp can be neither on nor off, but this is absurd. Therefore, an infinitieth number cannot be reached. Furthermore, since infinity cannot be reached by successive addition, any infinite set is always just given as a whole without each member coming to be successively. However, the past was formed by successive addition, and a given base of an infinity of events from which to start counting is not time. Thus, we see another reason why the present "infinitieth" moment could not have been reached. A fourth and final problem with crossing an infinite is that at any given moment, an infinite amount of events have already been completed, so why did the present event not happen yesterday? Or the day before yesterday? Or the day before that? We can continue forever into the past, but there will never be any reason why the infinity that was completed yesterday was not enough to cause the present event to happen, but the infinity that has just been completed is. Actually, given that an infinite number of events had already been completed yesterday, the day before that, the day before that, etc., the present event should have already happened. In fact, it should have happened an infinite time ago, but it didn't. The present event is happening now, so an infinite amount of time could not have elapsed.

From the two arguments given above, we can reasonably conclude that the universe had a beginning in time and was therefore created. We call this creator God.

B. Argument from Change

We see the universe around us changing all the time. As I write this, a whole series of changes is constantly going on in my computer as I type each letter, and all these changes go back to a single cause: me. However, I am not the ultimate cause, for I myself was caused by my parents, who were caused by their parents, who were caused by their parents, etc. This is the way all change is in the universe. It's cause is caused by something else, that's caused by something else, that's caused by something else, etc. Since each change in the universe requires a cause, there must be something outside the universe that brought change into the system in the first place. An infinite regress of causes and effects fails, first and foremost, because of the problems we ran into with the kalam argument. Secondly, as I said before, there must be something that brought change into the system in the first place. Otherwise, the ability to change anything at all would not be in the universe, and everything would stay the same. Thus, there must be a prime mover that caused change to occur in the universe, and we call this prime mover God.

C. Argument from Sufficient Reason

Everything needs a reason for its existence, even if it contains its reason within itself (AKA even if it's self-existent). Since things in the physical world pass into and out of being, they cannot be self-existent. They are contingent, and a universe of contingent beings cannot exist on its own. Thus, there must be something outside of it to cause the universe to exist in the first place before anything can cause anything else to exist, and this something is God.

The problem, though, is that whatever begins to exist in the universe comes from pre-existent matter, which we've never seen begin to exist. Therefore, why can't we say that matter is self-existent? Well, let's think about what a self-existent being is like. Its nature is to exist; you cannot separate that it is from what it is. In other words, its very essence must be existence. Thus, it cannot be limited. A limitation is a deficiency of existence, but a being that is existence can have no deficiencies. Thus, a self-existent being must have every perfection, including infinite intelligence and power, which matter definitely doesn't have. No material being can be self-existent (because matter is by its very nature limited), so there must be some supernatural, self-existent being that created the world.

Indeed, there is absolutely nothing about the physical universe that leads us to believe that it could possibly be self-existent by its very nature. To the contrary, the very contingency of the universe and everything that is in it would lead us to believe the exact opposite, namely, that the entire universe is a contingent collection of objects.¹

Thus, there must be a self-existent being outside of the universe, and this being is God.

D. Scientific Arguments

First and foremost, modern big bang cosmology holds that the universe (including space and time) came into being a finite amount of time ago at the big bang.² Thus, we have empirical evidence for a creator. Things don't just pop into existence for no reason.

Secondly, we have the second law of thermodynamics, which states that energy moves from high concentrations to low concentrations and that the universe will eventually reach a state of maximum entropy.³ However, we have not yet reached that state, so the universe cannot be infinitely old. Thus, we have more evidence for a beginning, and therefore a creator, of the universe.

II. Teleological Arguments

A. The Anthropic Principle

According to the anthropic principle, the existing universe has very narrowly defined physical constants that make human life possible. In his book The Creator and the Cosmos, Hugh Ross lists 35 of these parameters that must fall within extremely small ranges for life to exist. Instead of boring you by listing all 35, I'll list a few of them.

� Had the strong nuclear force been 2% weaker or .3% stronger, life would have been impossible.
� If neutrons were .1% more massive, so few would remain from the cooling off of the big bang that there wouldn't be enough to make the nuclei of heavy elements essential for life.
� The number of electrons must be equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of one part in 10³⁷ or better, or the electromagnetic forces in the universe would have overcome the gravitational forces, making the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets impossible.
� If the electromagnetic force relative to gravity were increased by one part in 10⁴⁰, only large stars would form. If it were decreased by the same amount, only small stars would form. However, for life to be possible, both large and small stars must exist.

The evidence is so overwhelming that even Frederick Hoyle, longtime opponent of scientific theories that support theism, eventually concluded that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology."⁴

This is a breathtaking realization that surely smacks of some form of Intelligent Design, because the scope and degree of this fine-tuning extends to all of nature's fundamental constants simultaneously since they all interact with one another, either directly or indirectly, in a wide variety of different ways. In order to reach this mind-boggling degree of fine-tuning with so many different parameters, the Creator's "aim" had to have been very accurate indeed. According to Penrose, it had to have been accurate to within one part in 10 to the 10¹²³, and this is a number so vast that it can't be written on a piece of paper the size of the entire visible universe!⁵

In the face of all this evidence, what are we to conclude? That it happened by mere chance? No. The statistical threshold for nonpossibility is one part in 10⁴⁰, which is far, far lower than the precision of the universe's physical constants. In addition, our common sense tells us that something as complex and finely-tuned as the universe absolutely cannot come about by random chance. Thus, the only option left is to acknowledge that the universe was created by an intelligent being who made the universe specifically to support life.

B. The Origin of Life

The origin of life is a big problem for naturalistic scientists. Life came about within an amazingly short period of 10 million years or less (it took the earth a long time to even begin to be favorable to the creation of life), which, in geological time, is an instant.⁶ Plus, the chances of a cell assembling by chance under ideal conditions is one in 10^{100,000,000,000}, but the young earth's atmosphere was far from ideal.⁷

Essentially, you start with amino acids. They come in eighty different types, but only twenty of them are found in different organisms. The trick, then, is to isolate only the correct amino acids. Then the right amino acids have to be linked together in the right sequence in order to produce protein molecules. Picture those plastic stick-together chains that kids play with - you have to put together the right amino acids in the right way to ultimately get biological function�

Other molecules tend to react more readily with amino acids than amino acids react with each other. Now you have the problem of how to eliminate these extraneous molecules�

Then there's another complication: there are an equal number of amino acids that are right- and left-handed, and only the left-handed ones work in living matter. Now you've got only these select ones to link together in the right sequence. And you also need the correct kind of chemical bonds-namely, peptide bonds-in the correct places in order for the protein to be able to fold in a specific three-dimensional way. Otherwise, it won't function�.

The making of DNA and RNA would be an even greater problem than creating protein�These are much more complex, and there are a host of practical problems. For instance, the synthesis of key building blocks for DNA and RNA has never been successfully done except under highly implausible conditions without any resemblance to those of the early earth.⁸

That is just a sample of the problems surrounding the origin of life. Considering that the chances of life arising by chance are so incredibly slim and that there was not enough time for it to happen by chance, the only plausible conclusion is that a divine being messed around with the chemistry of the earth to purposely produce life.

C. Argument from Intelligence and Information

We humans are intelligent beings, but matter is not inherently intelligent. If you ask an electron what day it is, you won't get a response. Therefore, our intellectual capabilities must have come from somewhere other than just the particles that make us up. If we say that they came by random chance (considering that matter is not intelligent, I don't know how this could have happened, but let's say it did for the sake of argument), then you have just invalidated all reasoning. Think about it. If I program a computer by typing 1's and 0's randomly, it's not going to function properly. Similarly, if human intelligence came about by random processes, then the fact that it's accurate is probably the greatest miracle to ever occur. Thus, if one is going to deny God's existence, he must also deny the validity of our reasoning, but by the very fact that we are having this debate, I know that Gray believes that we can know truth through reason.

In addition, certain parts of our body display some sort of intelligence or design. For example, DNA contains all the genetic information that makes us who we are. It contains actual information written in an actual language (consisting of the letters A, T, C, and G). If we were to pick up anything with information on it, whether it be a computer disk, a piece of paper, or a carved piece of rock, nobody would even think to suggest that it came about by random chance. Not only does the body contain information, but it also uses that information to form the person as he develops and ages. This is absolutely unbelievable if the human body came about by random chance, but perfectly logical if it was designed.

III. Morality and the Meaning of Life

A. Moral Argument

We all know that we shouldn't do evil. If someone takes your popcorn in a movie theater, most people would rebuke the person, appealing to the moral law. If he doesn't give you your popcorn back, he may laugh at you, but he wouldn't say, "Well, it's just your opinion that stealing is wrong. I, however, don't believe that, so it's not wrong for me." No, everybody knows that it's wrong to steal, and those who disobey that prohibition do so knowingly. Thus, there must be some standard of morality that we are all bound to follow. There are five possible sources of this morality: nature, ourselves, some authority figure(s), society as a whole, or God. Let's examine each one and see if it can account for our sense of morality.

Nature: Nature has no will or consciousness, so how can it bind us to a moral law?

Ourselves: If each person binds himself to the moral law, then he would be able to change it whenever he wishes. However, the moral law is unchangeable, so we cannot be its source.

Some Authority Figure(s): No human being has any moral authority over any other human, so morality cannot come from an authority figure. Plus, there is no reason why one person or group of people would have moral authority while other don't. In addition, this authority figure (or figures) would be able to change the moral law, but we know that's impossible.

Society: Quantity doesn't equal quality, so if one person doesn't have binding moral authority over others, then neither does a big group of people.

God: Only the being that created me can bind me to a moral code, and this being is God.

The one objection left is the belief that there are no moral absolutes. Maybe society just agrees to act a certain way so it can function properly. There are, however, problems with this view. First, all societies, modern and ancient, have followed basically the same moral code. No culture has ever condoned cowardliness, theft, murder, or compulsive lying. It seems suspicious that all these different, unconnected societies would come up with the same behavioral agreements by pure chance. Secondly, this fails to account for our moral sensitivity. Can anyone look at the 9/11 attacks and say that there is absolutely nothing objectively wrong with them? Of course not! We are appalled by the heartless murders; we know that there is something inherently wrong with them no matter what anybody says. Thirdly, why do we care for the weak, the sick, and the elderly? Wouldn't it benefit society more if we forgot about them and improved the lives of the strong, the healthy, and the young? What about slavery? Why is that wrong? Southern society ran smoothly with slavery, so, according to the relativist view, there was no moral reason to abolish it. However, we know this is wrong. We know that we should care for the weak, the sick, and the elderly and that slavery was rightly abolished. The relativist view, however, cannot account for this. Thus, there must be an objective morality, which implies a lawgiver that we call God.

B. Argument from Desire

We all have innate desires, such as the desire for food, drink, sex, friendship, etc., and they can all be fulfilled in this life. It makes sense that nature would not give us these deep desires without providing us with a way to fulfill them. However, there is one desire, in fact the deepest desire, that cannot be fulfilled in this life: the desire for total happiness. This is, in reality, the root of all other desires; they all serve to make us happy. The problem, then, is why would nature instill in us this desire for complete happiness that cannot be fulfilled in this life? If all other desires are, then why not this one? Why have we not yet found a way to fulfill our deepest desire? Since we can't achieve total happiness in this life, it's reasonable to conclude that we will find it in the afterlife. Granted, this is the weakest of all my arguments here, but it actually makes a lot of sense. And yes, I know, God doesn't necessarily have to be the source of this happiness, but it shows that there's most likely something more than this life, something more than the material world, that exists for us, and we for it.

In addition, as Viktor Frankl has shown, the prime motivating factor in our lives is finding meaning. However, without God, life is objectively meaningless. Sure, we can make up subjective meanings in our lives, but at the end of the day, all we are is just a cosmic accident, an evolutionary coincidence. Individual lives have no meaning, and it makes no difference whether we're Hitler, Mother Teresa, or the guy that lives by himself and pushes rocks around all day. Can this be the ultimate end of the thing that motivates our every move? Can we be striving towards an eternal nothing, searching for meaning but finding only a (literally) dead end? To end, I would like to quote from William Lane Craig's book The Son Rises.

Only man considers and anticipates the future. Animals live only in the present, but man in his expectations, his fantasies, his dreams looks to the future. He hopes that even if he is not happy now-well, tomorrow may bring better things. But this consciousness of the future brings with it a terrible drawback. He alone, among all living creatures, anticipates his death. This results in an odd paradox: man hopes for the future, yet at the same time he knows that the future only brings death one step closer. This paradox suggests that just as it belongs to man's nature to know of his own coming death, so it belongs to his nature to hope for life beyond death. The hope for immortality thus seems to be�peculiarly characteristic of man�

But if there is no God or immortality, then not only is man a Cosmic Orphan, thrown into existence without purpose; he is also the victim of a colossal and cruel joke. His thirst for those realities that he so desperately needs to give significance and value to his life, but which he tragically lacks, is built into his very nature as man. God and immortality-the very realities toward which man is oriented-are precisely the realities that do not exist. The predicament of�man is not simply that he is an orphan, but that he is an orphan oriented by nature toward the very things he needs but cannot have.

Endnotes

1) Michael Corey, The God Hypothesis
2) William Lane Craig, The Kalam Cosmological Argument
3) J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City
4) Frederick Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflection," Engineering and Science
5) Michael Corey, ibid.
6) Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos
7) Hugh Ross, ibid.
8) Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith

Back