Does Proof for the Existence of God Have to be Complicated?

God, at sundry times and in diverse manners, was in time past defended by apologetical writings of theologians of the Christian religion. These theologians delivered arguments that ranged from the absurd to the complex, but each was aiming at a sophistication that could be appreciated and respected by the philosophically astute. But does the proof for the existence of God have to be sophisticated and complex? Does it have to rise to the level of satisfying the philosophically astute? Alvin Plantinga, no mean philosopher, gives this reply in an interview when he is asked why he believes in God:

In my case it's like asking, why do you believe there are other people? Why do you believe there's a past? I can't give a proof that there's been a past, or a proof that there are other people, just as I don't think the traditional arguments for God's existence. . .I don't think that they are all that powerful, although. . .although they do have some force. But it just seems to me right. It seems to me that there really is such a person. When I contemplate, when I think about, or, say, when I look at the mountains, when I look at tree tops in my backyard, when I go to church, when I read the Bible, on many other occasions I just found myself convinced that there is such a person as God.

Keep in mind that this statement is from one of the leading Christian philosophers in the nation, who has delivered one of the most compelling and complex arguments for the rationality for belief in the existence of God and has successfully shown that there is no logical inconsistency between the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving God and the existence of evil. Yet his rationale for belief in God boils down to this simple statement of faith. It's not surprising, though, that such a brilliant mind can find rationale for belief in God by contemplating the things around him. He is a creature created by God in the midst of the entire universe that was created by God. Belief in God is really as simple as opening your eyes, or, more correctly, having your eyes opened.

From Here to Eternity

 

Ryan Reyes asks a very good question on the Facebook page, "Brothers, how can I argue for 'eternity' against a secularist who believe [sic] that there's none?" If I am to give a helpful answer, it is necessary to determine what is meant by "eternity," which is a notoriously difficult concept. I will begin by saying what it is not.

First, "eternity" is not referring to the eternity of the world. Classical Roman and Greek authors generally agreed that the universe existed from all eternity. Aristotle, for example, argued for the eternity of the world based upon the ideas that time had no beginning and that change comes from other change and so on to infinity past. This of course was a cause for disputation throughout the medieval period, as theologians from Boethius to Thomas Aquinas to William of Occam wrestled with whether this idea could be reconciled with Christian teaching that the heavens and the earth had a beginning and were created ex nihilo. Thomas Aquinas's solution was that neither creation ex nihilo nor eternity of the world were demonstrable. Creation is an article of faith. Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides argued along similar lines saying that a proposition that cannot be demonstrated, such as creation ex nihilo, is better accepted on authority. 

Second, "eternity" is not referring to either mathematical eternity or infinity. Mathematical eternity or infinity is most famously represented by Zeno's paradoxes, which have been preserved for us in Aristotle's and Diogenes Laertius's writings. The three most relevant ones are the Achilles and the Tortoise, the Dichotomy, and the Arrow Paradoxes. The first two relate to space showing that in order for one to get from point A to point B one must first get through an infinite amount of points along the way. How can one ever reach his or her destination, or, in the case of Achilles, if he gives the tortoise a head start, how can he ever overrun the tortoise? The third deals with time. An arrow that is shot from a bow to a target is at every point occupying a space. At every instant in time the arrow is neither moving to where it is nor to where it is not. Each instant is a point on a line. And each instant the arrow is at rest because it is occupying a space, and it cannot move because at each instance no time is elapsing. Like those trying to go from point A to point B, an arrow has to travel through an infinite amount of points or instances of time to reach it's target, and at each point it is at rest occupying space. Now, as fascinating as these paradoxes are to think about, they do not establish any irrefutable metaphysical conclusions. 

Now is probably a good place to make the point that infinity and eternity are not synonymous terms. Infinity refers to limitless extension of being, whereas eternity refers to limitless duration of existence. 

 Now to a more positive explanation of eternity. "Eternity" could be referring either to the duration of God's existence throughout endless ages, or the duration of our existence throughout the age to come. The existence of God is without any limitation. He not only exists as Psalm 90:2 says, "from everlasting to everlasting," but, since he is the creator of time, he exists beyond the bounds of time. 

We who are creatures were born in time, and are bound by time. When we, by the grace of Christ, enter the age to come after the glorious return of Christ and the resurrection of the body, we have an endless existence to look forward to, but we will still be limited creatures. We had a beginning, and we will still occupy space and time. God is both infinite and eternal. That is, his being has no limits and his existence has no beginning and no end. 

Getting to your question, Ryan, how can we prove eternity to one who doesn't believe in eternity? You call this person a "secularist." I assume you mean by that a person who affirms the material universe and nothing more. If he is such a one, then even he has to acknowledge the possibility of eternity based upon the notions of the eternity of the universe or of mathematical eternity or infinity. As a materialist he may affirm with modern cosmology the origin of the universe in the big bang and the end of the universe in the big crunch. He may also affirm with some scientists that the big bang and the big crunch are part of an endless cycle of beginnings and endings. Whether one big bang and one big crunch or an endless cycle of big bangs and crunches, he will have to come to the conclusion that matter always existed, and if he affirms this, you need to press him to irrefutably prove the logical possibility of the endless existence of matter, which he will not be able to. In fact, he will not be able to irrefutably demonstrate that the big bang is, in fact, the origin of the universe or that the big crunch is its end. It is a theorem based upon mathematical observations. Sure, the theorem makes sense, but it is based upon limited observations. To say that the big bang or the big crunch is irrefutable is saying too much. We're back to what both Thomas Aquinas and Moses Maimonides argued, vis., that creation by God is not demonstrable--neither is the big bang or the big crunch! 

"But," he might say, "the mathematical proofs!!!!" Yes, they make sense as far as they go, but can they be said to have irrefutably proven how the universe began, or that they even make sense outside of the system of our universe? The dirty little secret of the big bang theory is that it is based upon certain assumptions. Assumptions, which I'm sure your materialist friend takes for granted. Assumptions such as that this universe is a closed system, that the universe is expanding at a uniform rate, and that the universe doesn't need a divine being to uphold it. Don't forget, too, that I haven't even dealt with the question of where the notion of logic and mathematics comes from, let alone the very idea that the universe operates by laws. How do laws exist apart from a lawgiver? It's a sticky question for the materialists. The fact that the universe is orderly not chaotic remains a problem for the strict materialists. No one has yet given any conclusive proof that laws, mathematical or otherwise, can exist apart from a lawgiver. 

Never forget that eternity, whether you are talking about the eternality of God or our endless existence in the age to come, is a matter of faith. True, it cannot be demonstrated that God is eternal or that we will live forever in the age to come, but the assumptions of the materialists cannot be demonstrated either. What's more logical, to believe in God or to believe in a materialistic universe? We accept the authority of Scripture, and we confess what Scripture teaches: the eternity of God and the saecula saeculorum.

    

     

Bill Maher slanders God because He wants to be God

Bill Maher has now joined the 'slandering-God-and-publicly-exhibiting-your-Biblical-ignorance', club. Not that any of us thought he had high thoughts of Yahweh, or that he had anything particularly profound to say about Holy Writ. He probably still thinks that the Gospel narratives were borrowed from Osiris, Mithras, and Beowulf. But 'Dr. Maher' has yet outdone himself again, by making more "religulous" claims about the God of Scripture.

"But the thing that’s really disturbing about Noah isn’t the silly, it’s that it’s immoral. It’s about a psychotic mass murderer who gets away with it, and his name is God,” Mr. Maher said, adding, “What kind of tyrant punishes everyone just to get back at the few he’s mad at? I mean, besides Chris Christie."(1)

The problem is, that if you open up Scripture, you find that the Old Testament narratives take great care to argue against such an interpretation. According to Scripture, why did God drown everyone in the flood? Did God really punish everyone, for the crimes of just a few?

"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" Gen. 6:5

"The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth." Gen. 6:11-12

If that wasn't enough, the next example of fire and brimstone in the Bible, argues precisely against Maher's caricature (literally). In the narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah, we find that God goes at lengths to demonstrate that He will not judge the righteous with the wicked. (Note: the claim is not that "bad things" won't happen to the righteous, but that they will not face his wrath). Moses writes:

"Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord. And Abraham came near and said, “Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” So the Lord said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.” Then Abraham answered and said, “Indeed now, I who am but dust and ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: 28 Suppose there were five less than the fifty righteous; would You destroy all of the city for lack of five?” So He said, “If I find there forty-five, I will not destroy it.” And he spoke to Him yet again and said, “Suppose there should be forty found there?” So He said, “I will not do it for the sake of forty.” Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Suppose thirty should be found there?” So He said, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” And he said, “Indeed now, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: Suppose twenty should be found there?” So He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty.” Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but once more: Suppose ten should be found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.” So the Lord went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place." Gen. 18:22-32

There are countless other examples in Scripture that testify to the fact that God never punishes "innocent" people. Furthermore, severe manifestations of his judgment, in history, are always the result of high-handed, unrepentant sin. And when he does punish those we perceive to be innocent, the problem is with our perceptions, not with God's internal consistency or with His Holy character. In fact, the person who lacks internal consistency in this case is Bill Maher. Bill Maher knows that there is a moral law and he knows right from wrong. That is, because like all people, deep down, he knows God (Rom. 1:18ff). Indeed, he is made in God's image. The problem is, that Bill suppresses this revelation in unrighteousness, as St. Paul says. He knows that the God of Scripture is the same God that has impressed His law upon his heart. So the only thing left to do is to lie about God, and slander God's word, claiming that it contradicts some moral law that he cannot account for as an atheist.

And guess what.

In making this claim Mr. Maher is a big, fat hypocrite.

As this video demonstrates, Bill Maher has confessed that he is pro-death and wants to play God. He confesses that he wants to kill as many people as possible, basically because he hates being stuck in traffic. (for real)

(1) Bill Maher: God 'a Psychotic Mass Murderer' who 'Drowns Babies'