Does God exist? The implications of this far-reaching and often thorny question are immense. Should we relate to our world as if there is a purpose imbedded into it by a Grand Designer or are we alone? Are we merely byproducts of an indifferent universe who cling to the idea of a Higher Power out of wishful thinking and a fear of the unknown? Surely a rare person would rather that the world is not governed by a loving Creator but instead is left to the reign of random natural laws. But what basis is there for the existence of a personal Creator? I contend that the beginning of the universe, the scientific discovery of the anthropic principle, and the existence of moral norms reveal that this is a theistic universe (i.e. our universe is governed by a supremely intelligent, powerful Creator.)

The discovery that the universe began to exist over 15 billion years ago has refurbished the cosmological argument, which attempts to demonstrate that a Necessary Being exists from the undeniable existence of contingent things. Although the argument takes many forms, it can be generalized as follows: A contingent thing can only exist if another thing causes it to exist. Since contingent things exist, and an infinite regress of causes is impossible, a thing whose existence is self sufficient, and therefore eternal, exists. This Necessary Thing then would be the first uncaused cause of all that exists. But philosophers in the line of Immanuel Kant find it less than obvious that an infinite series of contingent, dependent things can�t exist without requiring a necessary, independent thing, which the series depends on. Thus, an eternal universe may eliminate the need for a necessary being external to it. Although various philosophers such as Norman Geisler and William Craig have made noble attempts to prove that an infinite series of caused beings is philosophically impossible, ¹ the recent advance of science eliminates all doubt by demonstrating from reliable evidence that the universe did indeed begin to exist. The contingent series is not infinite. Therefore, the need for a necessary being to initiate the contingent series is inescapable.

As a result, nontheists have been extremely resistant to Big Bang cosmology. Albert Einstein actually invoked an extra constant into his relativity equations but later gave grudging acceptance to "the necessity for a beginning," ² and to the "the presence of a superior reasoning power." ³ Atheistic Philosopher, Quentin Smith, in reference to the Big Bang, admits: "an uncomfortable silence seems to be the rule when the issue arises among nonbelievers." ⁴ Since Einstein�s day, new particle accelerators and bright physicists, such as Penrose and Hawking, provide evidence for a first event, which is undeniable even to atheists.

Scientists then who remain atheistic are forced by logic to concede that the first uncaused thing is not really special at all. But surely this is unreasonable! If the uncaused thing is not a thing whose existence is self sufficient, then its existence must have been acquired externally. But if a thing acquires its existence and that thing is uncaused, then that means it acquires its existence from absolutely nothing at all. But this is absurd! Clearly the uncaused thing must be a self-sufficient, Necessary Thing. ¹ This Necessary Thing must be eternal since a beginning or end to its existence suggests that its nature is not self-sufficient. It must also be extremely powerful in order to cause the entire universe to exist, and it is probably highly intelligent since it actualized a world suitable for intelligent creatures. The answer then to philosopher Leibniz�s question, "why does anything at all exists" ⁵ is that the "stuff" that might not exist originates from the Thing that must exist whose nature is eternal, powerful, and probably highly intelligent. Therefore, the beginning of the universe provides a strong basis for the existence of God.

Explosive advances in science have given us the ability to measure the universe for the first time in human history, and a startling discovery known as the anthropic principle reveals that the universe is uniquely suited for the existence of intelligent creatures. Life-permitting conditions required for biological evolution can only exist if the various constants and measurements of the universe are within extremely narrow parameters. For example, if the expansion rate was slightly more or less, then either no galaxies would form or all galaxies would collapse before any stars could form. Currently there are 27 known parameters (the cosmological constant, the ratio of electrons to protons, the electromagnetic force, to name a few) for the universe as a whole and 35 for our galaxy, which must be met for any kind of life to survive. Astrophysicist Hue Ross reminds us that even a suitable universe for life does not guarantee life will arise. According to non-theists and theists who are in a variety of disciplines, the universe is at least ten billion orders of magnitude (a factor of 10^{10,000,000,000} times) too small or too young for the random assembly of life to result with real probability. ^6-9 So why has intelligent life arose? The question is not why do observers observe the conditions necessary for their existence, but rather why do any observers exist at all when it is so unlikely? Many nontheistic scientists who become familiar with the anthropic principle are actually persuaded to answer that question by conceding that God exists (P. C. W. Davies is a notable example). ¹³ Therefore, the anthropic principle reveals that we were intended to exist by a Grand Designer.

The experience of moral values also suggests a theistic worldview. Moral awareness in humans seems undeniable. For example, taking pleasure in mutilating a young child is clearly wrong. But what makes anything at all wrong? If our sense of right and wrong is merely a naturally selected instinct, then surely nothing can really be wrong in itself. Only a standard of what "ought" to be can allow something to be really "wrong." But how could such an ultimate standard exist without the existence of an Ultimate Being whose nature provides the ultimate basis for that standard? As a result, J.L. Mackie of Oxford, an influential atheists of our time, admits, "If...there are...objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them."¹⁰ Therefore, unless we commit to the illusion that no real evil exists, our moral awareness is a good basis for the existence of a Designer whose law is on our hearts.

In light of the strong basis for a theistic universe, are there any intellectual reasons to think God does not exist? The major nontheistic arguments contend that the world is somehow inconsistent with an infinitely powerful, infinitely good Being. The most powerful of these arguments claim that certain kinds of pain and suffering would not exist if God were real or that God would somehow make his existence more obvious if He existed.

Although most nontheists agree that suffering is not necessarily inconsistent with theism since certain types of suffering might result from our free choices or might be agents for character development, nontheists complain that the degree of unexplainable suffering seems far greater than it should be if God exists. Specifically, why are animals designed such that they must inflict pain on each other in order to survive? Theist, C. S. Lewis, reminds us in The Pains of Animals that we can assume that animal pain is only "an appearance of Divine cruelty" since we do not know "what animals are or why they are." ¹¹ For all we know, suffering in amoral creatures may not really be "known" the way it is in moral creatures. Pain in animals then might be more comparable to a surge of electrons in a computer than real agony in a person. Or perhaps the pain in temporary amoral creatures makes the world more conducive for the development of us moral creatures, whose lives have eternal worth. Obviously the argument from evil has a long way to go before it can successfully demonstrate that theism is false.

But, what about God�s hiddeness? If God exists, would he not want to reveal His existence clearly so everyone can experience the security of His love and forgiveness. But many "good" people do not seem to be aware of the basis for belief in God at no fault of their own. Surely it is inconsistent with theism for God to condemn people to hell for making an intellectual mistake! But why must we think unbelief is only an intellectual matter? Many theistic philosophers contend that God, according to his "middle knowledge" (knowledge logically subsequent to his decision to create the universe) of all counterfactuals of human freedom, ¹² created the world so that those with the kind of character sufficient for God�s forgiveness would be given sufficient reasons to believe in God. This does not mean that everyone who believes in God has this character, only that no one who does not believe in God has this character. This character could be a true sorrow for ones immoral choices and a willingness to repent if God exists. But even if there are no character qualities that are exclusive to theists, many theists, C. S. Lewis for one, allow the possibility that nontheists who love others and generally do what is right are sufficient for God�s grace and salvation. Also, there is the possibility that everyone goes to heaven, and present unbelief is apportioned to those whose moral characters actually have the greatest potential for maturity as nontheists. At any rate, the problem of unbelief at best forces us to revise our view of God�s justice, though I doubt it even accomplishes that.

Therefore, the major objections to theism are inconclusive at best, and recent advances in science combined with the undeniable experience of ethical norms give the existence of God a secure basis. As a result, we can enjoy our natural inclination to believe in the Higher Power and experience the security and joy of His love, knowing that this world is merely the means to the real world in heaven.

�

�

�

1. Geisler, Norman, Philosophy of Religion, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974), pp. 190-196.
2. Douglas, A. Vihert, "Forty Minutes With Einstein," in Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 50. (1956), p.100.�
3. Barnett, Lincoln. The Universe and Dr. Einstein. (New York: William Sloane Associates, 1948), p.106.
4. FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY in April 1992 (Volume 9, No. 2, pp. 217-237).

5. Spinoza, Benedict. Epistola. 50 (opera), IV.
6. Hoyle, Fred and Wickramasinghe. Evolution From Space: A Theory of Cosmic

Creationism. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp.14-97.

7. Thaxton, Charles B., Bradley, Walter L., and Olsen, Roger. The Mystery of

Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. (New York: Philosophical

Library, 1984).�

8. Shapiro, Robert. Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth.

(New York: Summit Books, 1986), pp. 117-131.

9. Ross, Hugh. Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective. (Pasadena, Calif.: Reasons

10. "The Indispensability of Theological Meta-ethical Foundations for Morality."

Foundations 5 (1997): 9-12.

11. C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock, (1970), p. 161.

�

�