ARGUMENT FOR GOD FROM THE CONSCIENCE

For many, the moral argument for the existence of God doesn’t work. They are willing to say that there is nothing objectively wrong about rape, even genocide, and are willing to live with the consequences of moral relativism. However, many of these same people will, nevertheless, claim that we have to live according to the dictates of our conscience. The “Argument for God from the Conscience” might, therefore, speak to them.

In “Handbook of Christian Apologetics,” Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli (K/T) observe:

·       Isn’t it remarkable that no one, even the most consistent subjectivist, believes that it is ever good for anyone to deliberately and knowingly disobey his or her own conscience? Even if different people’s consciences tell them to do or avoid totally different things, there remains one moral absolute for everyone: never disobey your own conscience.

Remarkably, they deem the conscience to have absolute authority, but what would instill within it this authority? K/T list four possibilities and then show the problems with the first three:

1.    From something less than me (nature)

2.    From me (individual)

3.    From others equal to me (society)

4.    From something above me (God)

They show that the first three fail to provide a basis to absolutize our conscience:

1.    From something less than me (nature) K/T write:

·       How can I be absolutely obligated by something less than me..?

Certainly, a TV show or the song that my neighbor is singing cannot obligate me.

2.    From me (individual) K/T again write:

·       How can I obligate myself absolutely? Am I absolute? Do I have the right to demand absolute obedience from anyone, even myself? And if I am the one who locked myself in this prison of obligation, I can also let myself out.

Clearly, there is no reason for my words or decisions to be absolute. If I make them, I can also break them. And why not?

3.    From others equal to me (society) K/T write:

·       How can society obligate me? What right do my equals have to impose their values on me? Does quantity make quality?

I might decide to follow a given law but not because it possesses absolute authority. Instead, we recognize that our laws are evolving and can be challenged. If they were absolute, they could not be challenged or amended. If we could challenge them, this would suggest that we are doing so from a more authoritative, superior, or absolute basis.

If these first three possibilities for a rational foundation for our belief that our conscience absolute is absolute and should never be violated fail, there remains only one other rationale – that our immutable and all-wise God provides that foundation. Only He can provide the rationale to regard our conscience absolute.

It is ironic that the very Being we seek to avoid pops up despite all of our efforts to hide from Him. Of course, when we see that we, once again, are looking into the face of God, we will de-absolutize our conscience and think that we have escaped Him. However, this is His world, His values, and His workmanship. To escape Him is to escape life itself.

Besides, when we reject Him, we also reject ourselves – the ones created in His likeness. How? When we reduce ourselves to mere animals, albeit sophisticated ones, and then reject the fact that we are morally responsible – many deny freewill and objective morality for this reason – and finally reject the sanctity of our conscience, we narrow our lives.

The negative repercussions are numerous. Psychologist James Hillman has written about one:

·       We dull our lives by the way we conceive then…By accepting the idea that I am the effect of…hereditary and social forces, I reduce myself to a result. The more my life is accounted for by what already occurred in my chromosomes, by what my parents did or didn’t do, and by my early years now long past, the more my biography is the story of a victim. I am living a plot written by my genetic code, ancestral heredity, traumatic occasions, parental unconsciousness, societal accidents.

Instead, when we fail to embrace God, the One who has given us food, drink, family, identity, and life, we fail to embrace ourselves, dooming ourselves to a life of endless wandering, looking for our place, which we have already rejected.

4.    From something above me (God)

A PROOF OF GOD FROM THE LAWS OF PHYSICS

There are many weighty proofs for the existence and character of God. This is just one of the many:

1. The laws of physics are immutable, universal, and elegant.

2. ID (supernaturalism) is a better explanation for these observations than is naturalism.

3. An Intelligent Designer must exist.

PREMISE #1  The laws of physics are immutable, universal, and elegant.

THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE IMMUTABLE. This should be obvious. If they were in flux, any scientific conclusion or description would be impossible, along with replication of findings. Textbooks would have to be changed every so often. Predictions could not be made. Any form of science would be impossible.

THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE UNIVERSAL. This too should be obvious. It is only because they are universal can we say anything about other galaxies, planets, stars, light, or anything else within the domain of science. Universality also ensures that the findings in China would match those in California.

THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE ELEGANT. This is equally obvious. Just observe their elegance and simplicity:

• Einstein field equation: The cornerstone of Einstein's general theory of relativity, relating the gravitational tensor G to the stress-energy tensor T by the simple equation- G = 8 pi T.

Many such formula’s exist. Perhaps the most famous is E=MC². Notice how the speed of light must be precisely squared. Without such elegance and simplicity, science laws would have been undiscoverable and incomprehensible.

PREMISE #2  ID (supernaturalism) is a better explanation for these observations than is naturalism.

IMMUTABILITY. In a universe of molecules-in-motion, it is hard or impossible to account for the unchanging-ness and origin of these laws. Explosions (the Big Bang) do not create laws, let alone immutability. It is therefore more likely that these laws have a Transcendent origin in the Mind of God. This immutable Mind can account for immutable laws and their stability in the midst of change. They affect everything, but nothing affects them.

UNIVERSALITY. Causation within our universe is all localized. The further that we travel away from a radio station, the weaker the signal and reception. The further away from a bonfire, the less the warmth. However, the laws of physics operate uniformly (universally) throughout the universe. It is easier to account for this phenomenon supernaturally and naturally.

ELEGANCE. There is absolutely no natural mechanism that can account for the elegant design of the laws of physics. Explosions do not create immutable elegance.

Of course, it can be argued that presently we are simply unaware of natural forces that might account for these laws. While this is true, such pleading faces major obstacles:

1. There is absolutely no evidence that anything happens because of natural, undesigned laws.

2. Postulating a collection of natural laws is less parsimonious that postulating one God.

3. Even if a natural mechanism could be identified that creates and maintains natural laws, it too would require its own explanation or causes. However, this leads to the problem of an infinite regress.

4. Causes are always greater than their effects. If a cause is less than its effects, then it means that some aspects of the effect are uncaused – a science stopper. An intelligent and eternal Designer/Creator is greater than any series of mindless causes. Therefore, ID can better account for phenomena like the laws of physics, the fine-tuning of the universe, life, intelligence, and consciousness.

CONCLUSION: An intelligent Designer most probably exists.

Proof of God from the Requirement for a First Uncaused Cause

This is only one of many of the theistic proofs. It goes like this:

1.         An infinite regress of causes (a never ending series of causes or explanations) is illogical and therefore impossible.

2.         This problem of infinite regress of causes can only be resolved if a first uncaused cause exists.

3.         THEREFORE, an uncaused Causer must exist.

Premise #1:  An infinite regress of causes is illogical and therefore impossible.

Any phenomenon requires a sufficient cause(s). However, if there is a causal infinite regress, there cannot be a sufficient cause(s).  Cause (or explanation) X is never adequate to explain any phenomena because cause X requires the prior cause V, which requires its own cause V, ad infinitum (to infinity), implying that there is never an adequate explanation or any ultimate answer.

Also, since a causal series usually posits multiple causes for any one effect, the number if infinite series would be multiplied at each causal stage.

Besides, science has never identified a temporal (in this universe) uncaused cause, suggesting that there is no temporal cause that can resolve the problem of an infinite regress.

Also, actual infinities are logically impossible. An infinite number of causes requires an infinite amount of time or years. However, if this universe existed eternally, it would be impossible to ever arrive in the present. Why? Because accomplishing an infinite number of years would be required to ever arrive in present time from infinity in the past! However, it is impossible to count or fulfill an infinite number.

This suggests that both time and causation are finite, and that a first uncaused cause must exist. If science has concluded that the universe is only 14 billion years old, then temporal causation must also be limited by these years.

This means that an infinite causal series is not possible.

PREMISE #2:  This problem of infinite regress of causes can only be resolved if a first uncaused cause exists.

This uncaused Cause can answer the problem of infinite regress. How? Because the buck stops there, with Him! He is the beginning of all causation and doesn’t Himself require a cause.

This Causer must be eternal. Otherwise, He too would require a cause. He must also exist beyond time, space, and matter. If this uncaused Causer is trapped within time, then He couldn’t be eternal. This is because time could not have existed eternally. Therefore, He must transcend time, space, and matter.

CONCLUSION: There does not seem to be any other way to resolve the problem of infinite regress, and this is a problem that requires resolution. Therefore, an uncaused Causer must exist.

This proof, of course, is not perfect. Our knowledge is limited, and there might exist another possible explanation. However, based upon our limited common-sense understanding, our Lord seems to be the only way to resolve the problem of an infinite regress.

Antony Flew: An Atheist who Looked at the Evidence

Antony Flew has been called the “foremost atheist thinker of the 20th century.” However, after 40 years of debating Christians, he surprised the world.

At a 2004 debate at New York University, Flew declared that he “now accepted the existence of a God” (p. 74). In that debate, he said that he believed that the origin of life points to a creative Intelligence,

·       Almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.” (Antony Flew with Roy Varghese, There is a God: How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, 75).

Reviewer Lita Cosner points out that:

·       Flew was particularly impressed with a physicist’s refutation of the idea that monkeys at typewriters would eventually produce a Shakespearean sonnet. The likelihood of getting one Shakespearean sonnet by chance is one in 10690; to put this number in perspective, there are only 1080 particles in the universe. Flew concludes:

o   “If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance.” (78)

Why was Flew influenced by this evidence and not the majority of atheists? Did he have a religious experience? He explained:

·       “I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what has traditionally been called natural theology. It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith.” (93).

Flew’s embrace of theism was driven by the evidence! Well, why doesn’t it drive others to the same conclusion? Here’s how the Apostle Paul explains it:

·       For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

Flew might have agreed!