Rational Theism: Why Logic Compels Belief in God

Spread the love

Something cannot come from nothing, and yet, it did.  This is, by definition, supernatural.  And since it cannot have happened randomly, and cannot have happened accidentally, the creation of this universe must have been done intentionally, by something outside of this universe that also possessed the power and knowledge to bring this one into existence.

Few subjects seem to inspire as
much irrational thought as the debate over whether there exists a God.  Too often, the subject shifts to questions —
really, mockeries — about religious claims of miracles and phenomenon that
defy generally accepted scientific principles. 
Worse, if only because it is even more off point, the discussion frequently
lurches towards criticisms of the wrongs sanctioned by religions, and perpetrated
by religious people, as though any of that speaks to the original topic.  On the other side, people of faith argue the
consequences of a godless existence, which, though undoubtedly grim, nevertheless
does not speak to whether He exists.  All
of this emotionally fueled non sequitur cannot help but skew what should be a
dispassionate analysis, as any analysis should be.

To be clear, while religion is an
emotional topic — perhaps more so than any other — whether or not God exists
is not a religious question, and it should not be conflated with one.  Religion concerns itself with the
relationship between God and man.  But whether
God actually exists is simply a question of fact, no different than asking whether
the Earth is round, regardless of the theological framework we create in order
to make sense of Him.

Understand,
then, that the following essay is not a Christian apologetic.  It is not a defense of “new Earth,” seven-day
creationism.  It does not take issue with
evolutionary theory.  And it is certainly
not meant to refute the “Big Bang.”  We
can posit, for the sake of argument, that the universe is unimaginably old, and
began with all the material that would comprise it condensed into a ball that
exploded outward in a “big bang,” forming the universe as we now know it. 

What follows instead
argues that a logical application of our generally accepted scientific principles
not only provides for the possibility that God exists, it shows that it is precisely
those scientific principles that necessitate the existence of God.  To summarize briefly, this essay argues:

  • Because science tells us that something cannot
    come from nothing, the existence of this universe is, by definition,
    “supernatural.”
  • Because we cannot escape the paradox of
    self-creation (i.e., that for something to come from nothing, something had to
    have created itself), we must accept self-creation as necessary to the existence
    of this universe, and indeed, to existence itself. 
  • Because self-creation cannot have occurred
    randomly, or accidentally, it must have been intentional. 
  • Because intention is not enough to cause
    self-creation, whatever caused the universe to come into existence must also
    have had power and knowledge.
  • The only way to account for all of the above,
    therefore, is if this universe is the product of something with will, power, and
    knowledge, that exists in a separate universe, that is subject to its own scientific
    principles, different from our own.

These assertions are expanded on below.

1. Science is not in conflict with the supernatural. Rather, science necessitates the supernatural.

One of the great myths that seems
to underly the debate between theism and antitheism is that science and the
supernatural are in conflict.  While
there are certainly religious claims that conflict with science, the existence
of God is not one of them.  If anything, science
and its limitations necessitate the supernatural.

To begin with, there is a broad
consensus shared by science and religion (and common sense), that our universe
had a beginning.  So, let’s posit that
much.  At one point there was nothing,
and then there was something.

But then we have a problem, because
we also know that something cannot come from nothing, meaning we have two
things that we know to be true, but which cannot both be true.  We know that something cannot come from
nothing, and yet, we know that it did because here we are.  Even the Big Bang doesn’t bother to explain
this, positing only that at some point in this universe’s history, all the
material that would make up the universe was tightly condensed into a ball
before exploding outward.  OK, but where
did that ball come from?  Where did the
material come from?  How did this
something come from nothing?

It can’t.  At least, not according to the science of
this universe.  So the only way to
account for this paradox is to accept that something happened that did not
conform to our scientific principles.  And
that, by definition, means that the process was “supernatural.”

To be sure, to say “supernatural”
at this point is not necessarily to imply the existence of a deity or a spirit
realm.  It simply means that something
occurred that is “unexplainable by natural law or phenomenon.” But it is
nevertheless important to use the word if for no other reason than to acclimate
the reader to concepts that may be hard to accept: belief in the supernatural,
and more than that, the necessity of the supernatural to explain the existence
of this universe.  In other words, the
necessity that something happened beyond the laws of nature.

Now consider our analysis to this point, and take comfort in the realization that one does not have to choose between science and the supernatural.  In fact, it is science, by its own contradictory laws, that makes the existence of the supernatural necessary!  Our universe, with all its scientific principles, simply cannot have come into existence without some sort of occurrence that was literally “supernatural.”

2. The Paradox of Self-Creation

But what exactly was that
occurrence?  How did the material that makes
up our universe come into existence? 
There are only two explanations: either the material created itself, or
it was created by some outside force.  There
are simply no other possibilities.  And
notice that either way, one has to accept the necessity of self-creation.  Because even if you reject the possibility
that this material was self-created, you are logically forced to accept that
the outside force that created the material was either a) self-created or b)
created by some second outside force, which, in turn, forces you to accept that
that second outside force was either a) self-created or b) created by some
third outside force, and so on and so forth, until you finally come to an
outside force that was self-created, thereby setting the rest of the time
continuum in motion.

It’s really not as confusing as it
sounds.  What confuses the matter is that
we tend to look at time retroactively; that is, when we consider the origins of
the universe, we look backwards from the present, and what we see appears to be
infinite.  But pretend you are a spectator
at the beginning of time.  There is no
universe, only a blank slate.  At some
point, something comes on to that slate out of nowhere.  Since there was nothing else to create it, either
it created itself, or was created by something outside of this universe that
was itself either self-created, or part of some lineage of creators that began
with a self-created entity.  It’s that
simple.

So, in addition to the two natural principles that we posited earlier — that the universe has a beginning, and something cannot come from nothing — we can now posit two supernatural principles: 1) that self-creation is possible, and 2) that self-creation is necessary.

3. Self-creation cannot be achieved randomly. It must be intended.

So how can self-creation be
achieved?  Again, only two answers are
possible: either it occurred by accident, or intentionally.  There is no middle ground.  Stated another way, it was either an act of
randomness, or of intelligence.

Permitting a slight diversion, it
should be noted that there is significant scientific debate over whether
randomness is even at all possible in the universe, or whether what we perceive
to be random, such as the rate at which an atom will decay, is merely our
failure to perceive and account for all the variables at play.  Other people can argue about that.

But one need not be a scientist to
understand why randomness, assuming it does even exist in this universe, cannot
account for self-creation.  To accept the
possibility of randomness is also to accept its limits, and its greatest limit
is that it requires something to which to attach itself.  Randomness works by affecting something.  It cannot affect nothing.  It needs a canvas upon which to paint.

 
Here’s what we mean: accept for the moment that randomness causes an
atom to decay at an unpredictable rate; that it causes dice to turn up numbers
in an unpredictable order; that it causes freckles to form on the skin in
unpredictable locations; whatever.  And
notice the obvious, that each time randomness works, it does so by affecting
something.  Randomness affects a decaying
atom, it affects the dice, it affects the skin. 
That’s all fine and well, but remember that here we are concerned with
the beginning of time and the concept of creating something out of
nothing.  And if there’s nothing, then
there’s literally nothing for randomness to affect.  Randomness simply cannot explain
self-creation, because randomness cannot act unless something else exists upon
which it can act.

So if randomness cannot account for
self-creation, then what?  Design is the
only remaining option.  If it wasn’t
random, then it must have been intentional. 
And design, by definition, requires some sort of intelligence.  Note that by “intelligence,” of course, we
mean simply whatever knowledge is necessary to achieve the desired end.  It does not necessarily mean omniscience.

Now, one might argue that a lot of
things happen in this universe that are neither the product of intelligence nor
accident.  To give a few examples, plants
perpetuate botanical life by producing seeds that produce other plants; the
weather changes from sun to rain and back again; and species evolve over
time.  There is no intelligence involved
in any of that, and none of it is accidental. 
True enough, but those are all examples of systems functioning according
to pre-determined rules.  A plant is
programmed to produce seeds to produce other plants, the weather reacts to
changes in the atmosphere, species evolve based on genetic mutations and
survival of the fittest.  It’s all
automated in accordance with the laws of nature and the universe. 

But remember, self-creation breaks the law; and more than that, it writes its own.  Instead of doing what the laws of nature and the universe demand, self-creation acts independently and against the system to create something out of nothing.  And because it cannot be random, and because it is not functioning according to pre-determined rules but rather against them, the only alternative is that self-creation is an intentional act.

4. In addition to intention, self-creation requires knowledge and power.

But intent is not enough to achieve
self-creation.  In order to produce an
intended result, there must be two other elements present: knowledge to achieve
the desired result, and the power to effectuate it.  And if any one of those properties is absent,
self-creation is impossible.  If there
exists only the intention and power for self-creation but not the intelligence
to achieve it, self-creation will fail because for not knowing of how to put
the power to use.  If there exists only
the intelligence and the power to achieve self-creation, but not the will to do
it, no self-creation will be achieved for lack of motivation  And of course, if it has the will and the
intelligence, but not the power to achieve self-creation, the self-creation
effort will fail for lack of means.  It
is therefore necessary for all three elements to be present, combined somehow
in an entity of some sort.

And now, that self-created entity
begins to resemble something we might recognize.  It has a self-made intelligence, a self-made
will, and self-made supernatural power. 
Lifeless matter does not possess these characteristics.  Matter is simply material; it has neither
will nor intelligence nor power; and all three being necessary, it cannot
create itself any more than a sculpture can sculpt itself, or a painting can
paint itself.  No, these are the characteristics
— intelligence, will, and power — of a living being.  And because of that, we’re now ready to
answer a question posed earlier: How did the material that comprises our material
universe come into existence?  The answer
is that it must have been created by this living being in a separate universe,
that is subject to different scientific principles than our own.  And a living being, existing in His own
universe, who brought this universe into existence through His power and
knowledge is, by definition, God.

True, from our analysis heretofore,
we do not know if this God possesses all of the qualities that we humans
traditionally associate with Him.  Though
we know He is intelligent, we do not know if He is all-knowing.  Though we know He is powerful, we do not know
if He is all-powerful.  Though He
pre-existed our universe, we do not even know if He is eternal.  And we certainly do not know if He is benevolent.  That is where faith comes in.  Faith is used to determine the relationship
between this Creator and ourselves.  But
logic is all that is necessary to know that our universe was created supernaturally
by some living entity, acting deliberately, that was able to combine intelligence
and willpower.  And if that’s not God,
what else is it?

Leave a Reply