Kline !1

Daniel Kline

ENG 101

Professor Bolton

10 March 2014

The Creator's Case

There is an underlying question that must be faced by every individual sometime in their

lives. This small and seemingly insignificant question defines hope for individuals, unity among

families, and even division among nations; it is a question that holds enough weight to change

the way the universe is seen forever. It is the question as to the existence of an Almighty God. It

is clear that today there are hundreds—perhaps thousands—of beliefs and views on God's

existence or the lack thereof, but only a handful of them have withstood the test of time. Not only

is it important to identify the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments to logically and

systematically prove God's existence, it is also equally essential to narrow the many views of the

Creator to find His true identity.

The first and strongest of the three primary arguments for God's existence is the moral

argument. C.S. Lewis writes about it in Mere Christianity:

Some people say that though decent conduct does not mean what pays each particular

person at a particular moment, still, it means what pays the human race as a whole...But

as an explanation of why we feel as we do about Right and Wrong it just misses the point.

If we ask: "Why ought I to be unselfish?" and you reply, "Because it is good for the

society," we may then ask, "Why should I care what's good for society except when it

Kline !2

happens to pay me personally?" and then we have to say, "Because you ought to be

unselfish" - which simply brings us back to where we started (Lewis 19).

This stance takes into consideration the source of what mankind calls good and evil. It is easy to

simply say that rape and murder are bad, but such actions are "bad" compared to what? What our

culture sees as moral and immoral is both comparison to a social standard and a domestic

standard; however, moral standpoints may not match up. After all, even terrorists believe they are

doing the right thing. What happens then? Are we all only subject to our own moral codes?

Moral law must be absolute; otherwise, it is a merely relative opinion. Where did the universal

code of conduct come from? The answer cannot be instinct because instinct is based on survival.

The best example of this is the scenario of a room full of unsupervised children. They may act

well for the first few minutes of being left alone, but chaos eventually breaks out. Assuming the

children knew absolutely nothing about rules (basically panning out the situation of a primitive

culture), order will not come to place until an intervention from an outside source. Even taking

into consideration a good-natured child who eventually develops their own principles, his

personal code has no authority to set out laws. Much like the law of gravity and the laws of

physics are above the universe and affect all that are under them, the moral law is above mankind

and has been set by a power higher than ourselves (Lewis 16-19).

The second case presented on God's existence is the teleological argument. This position

says, "Just as a watch evidences signs of a designer, the universe, which is much more complex

than a watch, also shows evidence of a designer—namely God” (Vlach). The word “teleological”

is derived from the Greek word Telos which means “purpose” or “design”. In essence, this

argument points toward the logic behind a creation having a creator and a structure having a

Kline !3

builder. A more scientific examination of the argument on the molecular level can help solidify

the argument in today’s terms. Molecules make up the structure of every living and non-living

thing in existence. Once examined, it is seen that they are made up of atoms, and atoms are made

up of sub-atomic particles. Every known molecule has a unique design that differentiates its

purpose and use. Logically, some mere chance or statistic cannot reproduce the universe as we

know it. An example of this would be the watchmaker theory which states that a bag containing

the parts of a watch cannot be shaken for a time to receive the desired outcome of a whole and

functioning watch (Vlach). Allan Sandage- an award-winning cosmologist- claims, “We can’t

understand the universe in any clear way without the supernatural” (qtd. in Pearson A12). The

teleological argument deduces the probability of a greater power than humankind by observing

the intricacy of the pieces involved with the construction of the universe. If this idea were

correct, a higher power would undoubtedly exist.

The most common, not to mention the most substantial, counter argument of the

teleological perspective is the theory of evolution. Charles Darwin's theory cuts out any

possibility of the existence of a creator by stating that what we see as intelligent design is

actually the product of macroevolution—a "survival of the fittest" type circumstance—until all

that is left is the superior human species. Lucio Vinicius, who has an MSc in Biology and a BSc

in Molecular Science, summarizes the evolutionary theory:

Biological complexity increased through the process of ‘modularity transfer’: modular

phenotypes (proteins, somatic cells, learned behaviors) evolved into new modular

information carriers (regulatory proteins, neural cells, words), giving rise to new

information systems and higher levels of biological organization (Vinicius i).

Kline !4

Many accept the idea of Evolution as a plausible theory (which it technically is) even though it

has little to no concrete evidence; however, observation under the microscope may say

otherwise. If we look at the human body and identify a single feature we cannot nor could we

ever live without: blood clotting. When a person bumps into a table, stubs their toe, or scratches

their finger, the body bleeds internally as well as externally; as a result, the white blood cells

position themselves around the wound to clot the blood flow so the person does not bleed out

and die. Evolution would say that this feature developed over a span of so many years, but it is

difficult to imagine flawless cavemen (or whatever organism they were before) running about for

generations without shin kicking a rock and causing mass extinction. Nothing would be alive

long enough to evolve. Intelligent design states that a Creative Being fabricated every living

organism down to the subatomic level. As hard as it is to imagine a creator, it is becoming more

evident.

The final argument for God’s existence is the cosmological argument which bases itself

on the law of causality. The argument states this: “The world could not exist on its own, so there

must have been a first cause that brought it into being. This first cause is God” (Vlach). An

example of this theory would be a ball rolling down a hill. To figure out the reason why the ball

is rolling, one must look as to see the initial cause of the ball’s movement at the top of the hill. To

think that after years of remaining stationary the ball would gain enough momentum to start

moving on its own is irrational. Of course, the causer of the universe would need to be outside of

the universe and all of its laws; otherwise, the naysayer would be creating a circular argument to

state that the ball’s current rolling momentum is what gave the ball the momentum to begin

rolling in the first place.

Kline !5

To think that this essay is pointed already at the Christian God is untrue. In fact, the only

thing proven so far is that there is a mere force outside of the system. There are many views of

said causer, and they can be classified into the following categories: pantheism, agnosticism

polytheism, and monotheism.

Pantheism is the belief that God is all things, and He is in all things. Followers of

pantheism typically worship the sun, earth, trees, and plants. The hole with this belief system is

that there is no origin of morals as stated earlier. Since God would be part of the system in this

instance, it would be impossible for Him to have created the system in the very beginning

because he would be the result of the creation. He would be the momentum of that hypothetical

ball rolling down the hill instead of the causer of the movement. Pantheism is ruled out because

it does not explain origin.

Agnosticism is the belief that God is simply unknowable. This standpoint observes the

vastness of the universe compared to the insignificance of the rock mankind lives on. If God

created a vastly infinite universe, then the idea that He is unknowable would be plausible. This

standpoint is typically ruled out by default when the monotheistic standpoint is presented.

The next belief category is polytheism, which states that there are many gods. From the

Olympian gods and goddesses to the Egyptian gods of old, humans have always in some way

attributed the creator as plural. To think that many gods can create a working system and

hierarchy without the struggle of arrogance and shortcomings is a bit far-fetched. In fact,

according to Greek mythology, the gods and goddesses did as they pleased and were also evil in

some instances. If this were true, a strict moral code could not originate from them. The only

source of a moral code would need to be a figure that is distinctly above the standard and is

Kline !6

perfect in every way. Absolute perfection by definition points to a single god because there can

be no match to their power or perfection.

The final category of belief is monotheism, which states that there is only one God. Most

religions adopt this, and as a result there is much confusion as to who is God Himself: Buddha,

Jesus, Allah, Brahma- the list goes on and on, but how do we identify which one is true? The best

way is to dissect each view to find the most viable and logical belief. Buddha was human. Even

though his followers believe he discovered/reached enlightenment, he was a human nonetheless

and cannot be classified as the creator Himself. Buddhism is discounted by the teleological and

cosmological arguments because it does not explain the origin of the universe. The Muslim god

Allah is a parallel to the Christian God in that he created and maintains the universe, but

according to the Quran, sin is okay in some instances. "He who makes peace between the people

by inventing good information or saying good things is not a liar” (Bukhari 49:857). If this were

true, moral law would be relative and subjective to the circumstance. Imagine if a rapist was

deemed innocent because he was desperate or a thief because he was hungry. As moral structure

falls apart, Allah appears to be more like an irresponsible parent than an Almighty God.

Digressing from the subject, though, comes the question of forgiveness. Allah is said to forgive

all sins according to the following passage. “‘Say, ‘O My servants who have transgressed against

themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah, verily Allah

forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful’ (al-Zumar 39:53). This is human

nature, and this is the solution to the problem of sin” (Saed and Rahman 318-319). What gives

Allah the authority and power to forgive, though? As part of being perfect, by definition, Allah

cannot go back on his word; that would be lying. If there were the necessity of forgiveness of

Kline !7

sins, Allah would be going back on his word to pass out pardon of sins Oprah-style. If he were

truly perfect, he would be powerless to forgive and physically unable to stop any retribution he

had previously promised. The idea of Allah—a rule breaking god—creating an absolute moral

law is illogical, and thus, we can conclude Islam as false.

Finally, the last two primary monotheistic religions that claim an all-powerful and moral

God are Christianity and Judaism. The only difference between the two is the most talked-about

person in all of history: Jesus. Judaism denies the Trinity and visualizes God as a singular being

Who exists alone as creator of the universe. They believe Jesus was real, but he was also a liar

because he boldly claimed the deity of God Himself. This leaves one final argument: was Jesus a

liar, a crazy person, a good moral teacher, or God incarnate exactly as he said? There have been

many lunatics throughout history with various psychological disorders, and I have personally

met a few who claimed to be God. Jesus breaks this category when he speaks wisdom to massive

crowds, proving that he has a fully functional and very capable brain. Jesus could not be merely

a moral teacher simply because he claims many times that he is God Himself; this would make

him either God (disqualified from the moral teacher category) or a liar (which equally

disqualifies him). Without doubt, Jesus chose the path of forgiveness and died on the cross, but

the only way to prove that he is who he says he is is to observe the resurrection. There were

dozens of witnesses who saw Jesus after his resurrection, and his twelve closest friends were

among them. Historical documents have observed the death of all twelve of them on accounts

that every one of them died believing wholeheartedly in what they had witnessed. If they were

behind a scandal to fake Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, one out of the twelve would have

likely squealed during their torturous deaths. Beyond this point, the idea of faith takes flight to

Kline !8

choose to believe in what cannot be seen. Regardless, Jesus acts as God’s ability to forgive

because he takes on the promise of punishment in the sinner’s place. This fact alone is what

makes the Christian God stand out among the others. He is the only one who provides a mean for

redemption. Believing in the Christian God and that Jesus is God Himself is still a choice, and

though logic may point in a particular direction, salvation according to Jesus comes by faith

alone.

All of this being said, humankind is both blessed and curse with the choice of faith. Logic

and reasoning may point to a god-like figure, but ultimately, what people believe is a choice.

Some choose to ignore the obvious; some try not to think about God because of the

accountability involved. Everyone at some point has the freedom to decide what they believe: is

God real?

!!!!!!!!!!!

Kline !9

Works Cited

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1952. Print.

Pearson, Brian. The Press. 24 Mar. (2014): A12. C.Q. Researcher. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.

The Qur’an. Trans. Bob Smith. New York: Doubleday, 2010. Print.

Saed, Muhammad, and Abdul-Rahman. Islam : Questions and Answers. London, UK: MSA

Publication Ltd. 2003. web.a.ebscohost.com.storm.hgtc.edu/. Web. 9 April. 2014.

Vinicius, Lucio. Modular Evolution : How Natural Selection Produces Biological Complexity.

New York: Cambridge University Press. 2010. web.a.ebscohost.com.storm.hgtc.edu/.

Web. 9 April. 2014.

Vlach, Michael J. The 4 Primary Arguments for God's Existence. Theological Studies. n.d. Web.

9 Apr. 2014.