Indirect Proof of God's Existence:
Suppose that God doesn’t exist. I believe that he does, but I am putting my faith to a test and considering the possibility that God doesn’t exist. This will be difficult, considering I was brought up in the ways of Christianity and have always believed that God exist. What if I was wrong? What if my entire life I had wasted on the idea that God exist and cares for me? To prove to those who read this and to myself that God exist, I will suppose that God does not exist and prove that he does.
Everything has a beginning of existence and another force causes the existence. Nothing can cause its own existence. Throughout time scientist and people themselves cannot deny this fact of existence. How are babies brought into this world? The only way is by intercourse between a man and woman. A baby does not just happen into existence. Flowers do not just happen either. Seeds are planted and they grow. Think about time. When you look at your watch, do you think the watch just happened to be in the store and you bought it? No, a craftsman, an intricate designer, made the watch. How was the world made? We know that the world got here somehow. Everything has a beginning and a cause of existence.
There are many possibilities to consider in the subsistence of the world. Since, right now I don’t believe in God existence I will look into other factors. Georges Lemaître proposed in the idea of the world exploding into existence. According to fellow colleagues, he described his idea as, “a cosmic explosion causing creation.” His theory though inventive has many flaws. Albert Einstein denied the possibilities of his theory. He even spoke out at a lecture of Lemaître, sarcastically saying, “Very beautiful; very beautiful indeed.” He saw this theory could only be an innovation of Lemaître mind. The Big Bang Theory even challenges Einstein’s theory of Relativity, which has yet to be proven inaccurate. Another assumption could be the Theory of Evolution. Charles Darwin created the Theory of Evolution when he traveled to the Galapagos Islands and saw many strange animals. He then developed a theory that the animals evolved and that over time animals could change their entire chemical composition. His theory of Evolution says, “Everything is related.” Bananas are related to and can evolve into dolphins, or penguins could evolve into lions. If things really changed back then, they would still be changing today. There are many other flaws in Evolution. It has been said that even Darwin, on his deathbed, said that he was wrong, and he deceived many people. Though other theories have suggestions. The only theory that can’t be disproved is Creation. Historians can’t deny historically this isn’t true. So much proof is in the Bible.
What if the Bible isn’t true? The Bible has prophecies from the Old Testament fulfilled in the New Testament. Jesus fulfilled 300 of these prophecies. The Bible is the only historical document with actual fulfilled prophecies. Others have tried to copy these or make their own prophecies, but none have been fulfilled like the Bible. Another proof the Bible is true is the unique historical accuracy. Archeological evidence of the Bible’s accuracy has been proven to show the Bible isn’t making stories up. Dr. Nelson Glueck said, “No archeological discovery has ever contradicted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” The Bible is also has incredible scientific accuracy. In Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah speaks of the roundness of the Earth. We didn’t know the Earth was round until explorers sailed around the world, which wouldn’t happen for another 7,000 years. Only someone of greater knowledge beyond human comprehension could have told Isaiah this. The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy is shown in 2 Peter 3:7. Atmospheric circulation is mentioned in Ecclesiastes 1:6, and the Hydraulic cycle is mentioned in Ecclesiastes 1:7. Even the Gravitational Field was introduced in Job 26:7. With all this information it leads me to believe the Bible is a credible source.
In the Bible it says, God created the world. Did he just create the world and everyone in it to putrefy? What purpose do we have in the world? The Bible says we are to worship Him. Also, If God wasn’t real, why would so many people devote their lives to Him and ultimately die for Him? There must be something greater.
In conclusion, we know that nothing just comes into existence. Everything has a beginning and has to be caused into existence. We learned that Creation is the only inevitable way the world and ourselves could come into existence. Also, we learned that the Bible is an accurate source of history and is a reliable document. The Bible enlightens of a high deity who wants us to believe in him and follow him. It says His name is God, and He loves us. In all my deciphering, I have found there must be a higher deity or force; therefore God must exist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Not bad at all Sam. Read through this very long post and hear what I have to say on the topic -- more my own thoughts and additions than anything against the paper itself.
Parts of your paper, especially those on beginnings of existence echo strains of Aristotle and "Unmoved Movers" and "First Causes". This is a very strong line of reasoning, though seemingly very abstract -- but you do a good job of simplyfing it Sam. Interesting notion too of the "watch", again, echoes of a philosopher Leibnitz (I'm just name dropping at this point). You also ask some impressive questions at the end: Like why would so many people die to serve God? Those are difficult and very important questions!
I suppose my only points of trouble are these: creation, darwins deathbed confession and, overall, it doesn't quite feel like you've quite devoided yourself of your belief in God in arguing against belief in God (also, not easy to do)
1. Creation: you're assuming here that the first couple of chapters of Genesis is historically accurate. There's much evidence to the contrary that it's not meant to be taken literally (I won't get into this any further for fear I may tip my hand and get myself into trouble with your folks and their beliefs! :) ). And historians, while not necessarily able to prove it isn't true, can't prove that it is either. Your acceptance of it though is an Ockham's razor test and you're not wrong at all then in assuming it.
2. Darwin's purported deathbed confession. I'm not entirely sure this should count against evolution. There are stronger arguments: Micro vs. Macro, who created the original elements that then evolved into humans, et al. Other purported death bed confessions that supposedly recanted a lifetime of work and beliefs: Thomas Aquinas "All I have written is straw" (more the result of a vision of God he had than an actual disavowal of God) and perhaps, even C.S. Lewis himself -- though I've not seen ANY evidence to back this up. My only point is that deathbed confessions aren't the soundest ways to argue.
3. Putting on the cloak of atheism for this paper, I think your strongest argument would have been evil in the world. As a claimed atheist in the paper, I think you really need to address this topic for it is the strongest evidence against God that the atheists seems to have (Note: I said seems, because I don't think they have it!). But, then again, it's very difficult to argue through it to a belief in God (although ideas of God in control and all-things-working-together-for-good are acceptable!)
Overall, for me, it just doesn't feel like you separated yourself enough for the task of the paper, though. You're extremely intelligent Sam and wildly creative and i feel like you took the easy way out -- arguing along expected lines (of course I'm 26 and this topic is something i'm well versed in, but I suppose at 16 the topic is something completely new to you and this line of reasoning is also very new). I was hoping for Lemaitre type innovation from you! You're definitely capable and most often do think "out of the box"!
Still - it's a very good paper that shows you put a lot of thought into it (you can't be expected to have read Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and others at 16! And i don't expect you have). You also use good examples to back up your point. The importance of any good argument. So if I were grading you, I give you a B, maybe a B+ on overall thought and approach to the paper.
It's not an easy topic for sure and you did a very good job with it. Honestly, there's no way I could've done something like that at 16. No way at all.
Post a Comment