Mustard Seed Recording
To Atheists and Agnostics
(Non Believers)
Does God Exist? (Click to download PDF of Chart)
The most sincere message I can give to someone who does not believe in God is to sit quietly by yourself and Pray to God to let you know He exists! As strange as that may sound to you, (since you don’t believe in Him at this point in your life), your personal revelation on this topics will far outweigh any logical approach to the subject. If you prefer a logical path please read on, but in the end it is only your faith that will allow you to see and hear the truth.
What kind of evidence is there that would help a non believer? What kind of proof is there that did not involve the Bible or miracles?
95% Confidence Standard
Let’s examine what we mean by the word “proof’ first.
To establish what is meant by ‘proof’ is crucial because, although evidence is objective, proof is subjective. If you do not know what definition of proof you are aiming at, your chances of proving it are quite slim. For many people proof is what you can see, but electricity, love, and hate as examples of things we believe in that wee can not see. If you accept that love, hate and electricity are real then it would be reasonable to say that we would not have two standards for proof one for love and one for God, correct?
Epistemology, the study of knowing, asks questions like, “How do we know that what we think we know is real?” But for most people, it all boils down to simple cause-and-effect. If there is a house (an effect), then we can “know” there was someone who built it (a cause). Furthermore, we know that wind, rain, dirt, trees, and stones around it are not a sufficiently complex cause to explain the house as an effect In other words, someone could prove to us how the house got there only if his reasoning was consistent with cause-and-effect. So we can generally establish cause-and-effect as the basic way people determine proof.
In reality, the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved absolutely. In fact, I cannot prove that you exist. Since God’s existence cannot be proven, how do we determine if God’s existence is probable? I propose using the same standard that we use in science -the 95% confidence interval. If you set no standard for evidence, the tendency is to raise the standard for proof as the amount of evidence increases. The standard I propose is a 95% certainty that God exists (and a 5% certainty that he doesn’t exist). There are many things that we do everyday for which we do not have absolute certainty of the outcome. Even without absolute certainty, we believe that we will be successful. This is the kind of faith that I am advocating. Jump to Top
Cause and Effect
“Just that no chance happening has ever produced anything comparable to a snowflake, a flower, or a living cell, We might as well ask, ‘How long would you have to shake a box of radio parts before it assembled itself into a radio?’ It never would, of course. All you’d get is a bunch of broken radio parts. In the natural universe, things always go from order to disorder, not the other way around. Does your office tend to get more or less orderly if you leave it alone?
If you went down the street and saw a quarter on the sidewalk, you would think, naturally, Someone dropped a quarter.’ If you went down the Street and saw a handful of quarters on the sidewalk, you would think, Someone had a big hole in their pockets, or dropped a roll of quarters.” But if you went down the Street and saw one hundred quarters on the sidewalk, and they were all carefully balanced precariously on their edges, you would have to think ‘somebody did this deliberately. Jump to Top
There are many examples of an “intelligent designer” at work around us. Put your thinking cap on and let’s take a look at a some evidence.
THE EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE, Let’s look first at a biological example.
Life would not be possible apart from the famed 
double-helix called DNA. DNA contains the “master blueprint’ that is continually being replicated in every living cell. A typical strand of DNA includes three billion rungs of a digital code that is self-reproducing and error-correcting. Without an intelligent master-designer of extremely complex DNA codes, not even the simplest form of life could exist. All DNA consists of combinations of only four nucleic acids: Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine. These four nucleic acids compose the 20 amino acids that form over 100,000 functional proteins (chains that are 100 to 500 amino acids long).
Let’s look at the essential protein in our blood: Hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is responsible both for the red color of our blood and for the oxygen transfer chemistry system that is required for our breathing. Without it, you couldn’t breath.
Given the length of the amino acid chain in hemoglobin, there are over 10 651 permutations of amino acids possible, but only one of these possible combinations is hemoglobin.
Statistically speaking, if it were left to chance alone, there are 7.4 x 10654 ways to arrange these twenty amino acids that form hemoglobin. To put it in terms we can “see”, there are this many combinations:
7,4000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000’000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000
Say with me: “That’s a lot of zeroes.”
Here’s the question: Given those odds of one chance in that number, could this miracle protein called hemoglobin have ever developed by time and chance alone? No. It would be utterly impossible for such a combination to develop without intelligent design in light of the following two facts:
a)There are only 1066 atoms =
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
atoms in the entire universe, so you can’t waste material on false tries.
There have been no more than 10 16 seconds 100,000,000,000,000,000, seconds in the generally accepted age of the universe ~ 11 billion years), so you would have had to work rather quickly. (Since the Hubble Telescope deep space scan, the general accepted age is = 15 billion, but the math still falls short)
Compare that to the chances of hemoglobin forming on its own.
It is obvious that the chance of this specific sequence occurring by chance is utterly absurd. In fact, in physics, the mathematical definition of “absurd” is any probability less than 1 in 1050so this puts us far beyond absurd. It is absolutely impossible that hemoglobin could have ever accidentally come together even once in the history of the universe. Jump to Top
[Data from Chuck Missler, ‘The Code of Blood”, Personal Update, June 1998,
www.khouse.org/articles/biblestudy/19980601-163.html
The bottom line is, the physical, scientific evidence of an extremely intelligent designer. That is why, among top scientists, there is a growing trend to accept the obvious fact that life is a product of intelligent design.
[An example: Darwin’s Black Box by Michael J. Behe, “The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.”]
www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwinbx.html
The Theory of Evolution:
What’s wrong with this Picture?
I fond it interesting in my research that the Catholic Church has accepted the theory of evolution, but that does not mean that there is not an intelligent designer involved. In October of 1996, Pope John Paul II issued a message to the Pontifical Academy of Science reaffirming the Roman Catholic Church’s long-standing position on evolution: that it does necessarily conflicted with Christianity.
Does evolution deny the existence of God? No.
There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God.
This is what people are talking about when the say that Evolution does not explain the whole picture.
Since Charles Darwin first published his book, The Origin of the Species, on November 24, 1859, more than a century has passed accounting for the existing body of data and testing the evidence against the theory of evolution. However there are gaps and there are problems with the completeness of this record. The trail has been cold for some time and all of the evidence cannot be found. There are unsolved puzzles.
There are major parts of the theory of evolution that I really have no problem accepting. What I do have a problem with, is the explanation for the force that is driving this change.
Missing Links in Fossils
The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does not, support it, a fact that famous Prof Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as “the trade secret of paleontology.” Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn’t. Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time. It is almost entirely devoid of forms that can plausibly be identified as intermediates between older and newer ones. This is popularly known as the “missing link’ problem, and it is massively systematic across different species and time periods. Worse, this problem is getting worse, not better, as more fossils are discovered, as the new fossils just resemble those already found and don’t fill in the gaps. In Darwin’s day, it was easy to claim that the fossils were there but had not been discovered. Problem is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well-catalogued fossils, from all continents and geologic eras, and we still haven’t found these intermediate forms.
No evidence that life emerged from dead matter
Another problem with evolution that has only gotten worse with increasing biological knowledge is the question of how life initially emerged from dead matter. As recently as the early 50’s, it was still possible to hypothesize that discoveries would reveal the existence of entities intermediate between single-celled organisms and complex lifeless molecules. The existence of these intermediates (certain kinds of viruses were candidates for the role) would imply the possibility of an evolutionary transition from dead chemicals to intermediates to life. Unfortunately, the discovery of DNA in 1953 killed this hypothesis in its simplest form, and subsequent discoveries have only made the matter worse, Vast numbers of microorganisms are now known, as are vast numbers of complex molecules, but nothing in between. Furthermore, even the simplest possible cell imaginable within the limits of biology, let alone the simplest actually existing cell, is far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. So even if evolution has an explanation of how species evolve from one to another, it has no way to “get the ball rolling” by producing the first species from something that is not a species.
Jump to Top
The lack of “evolution” for humans
These results are contrary to what would be expected for the gradual evolutionary transformation of archaic Homo sapiens species into modem humans. If an evolutionary mechanism was responsible for modem man’s appearance, then evidence of gradual transformations should be observed in the archeological record. We simply do not see this. In the words of paleoanthropologist Christopher Stringer, “It is an extraordinary catalogue of achievements that seem to have come from virtually nowhere.”
As biologists studied humans and species of apes in the 1970’s and 1980’s, some rather surprising information was being discovered that distinguished modem man from apes and other primates. Surprisingly, scientists discovered that human genetic diversity is far less than what one would predict from Darwinian theory. The genetic variation among the different human races has been found to be much less than that for isolated populations of chimps, orangutans, and other primate species. In addition, an analysis of the genetics of populations of apes reveals that different population groups possess fixed novel mutations that characterize each population. In contrast, there are no novel mutations or genetic alleles that specifically characterize any one human race from another. Dr. Maryellen Ruvolo (Harvard University) has noted, Its a mystery none of us can explain.” Moreover, examination of the genetic sequences of diverse modern human populations reveals minor differences, All of this evidence suggested a recent origin for modem humans.
To add even more weight to the finding, scientists have also analyzed DNA from an ancient modem human skeleton. A British team analyzed a portion of DNA in a 10,000-year-old human skeleton found near Cheddar, England.116 The DNA from this skeleton differed from that of modem Europeans by only one nucleotide base pair essentially identical to that of modern humans, The lack of “evolution’ for humans over the last 10,000 years stands in sharp contrast to the differences seen between modem humans and Neanderthals.
Now let’s look at the Universe
The Big Bang - a BIG problem
The Big Bang presents a big problem for the atheist (at least for those who have really thought about it). The Big Bang has a beginning about 15 billion years ago and will most likely end as the “Big Crunch” some time in the future. For atheism to work, the universe must be eternal.
Atheists’ problem - Fine tuning of the universe
For example, recent supernova evidence has shown that the universe probably possesses a cosmological constant - a universal “repelling” force that accelerates the stretching of space as objects become further apart from each other. In order for the universe to contain stars and planets, this constant must be fine tuned to a level of a part in 10120 Such an extreme level of design is almost incomprehensible. In my discussion with atheists, several have told me that they are comfortable with the idea that such levels of fine-tuning could have occurred by chance in our single universe. Such a proposal is completely illogical, and, in fact, requires more blind faith than to believe that God designed the universe. In fact, in order to be an atheist, you must believe in the multi-universe theory, Not only that, but you must believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe. Don’t believe me? Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical “multiverse” spinning off an “infinity of other universes:
Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger “multiverse,” each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves.
Atheists’ solution - untestable “science”
What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Therefore this belief is, and always will be, based solely upon blind faith (sounds like a new religion to me)! Why are some cosmologists “uncomfortable” with the idea that the cosmological constant (lambda) is so finely tuned? Simply because such fine tuning suggests design. A hypothetical, untestable, complicated model of a super universe is the only alternative to belief in God. Such belief is not based upon science, since science requires that hypotheses be testable, but on the “hope” (i.e., belief) that there is no God.
Theistic solution - measurable design
On the other hand, the deist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics. Note that neither hypothesis is testable, but that the God hypothesis is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? If we use Occam’s razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model. Jump to Top
EVIDENCE, THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE: SCIENTIFIC PROOF THERE IS A CREATOR
The Anthropic Principle points out that there are over one hundred variables to this universe, that would have made life as we know it impossible, if they were even slightly different. This Universe had to be finely tuned to the conditions that make the evolution of life possible. Could this have happened by chance? Consider the following analogy.
Like the Quarters story told earlier, the Universe as we know it, is that carefully balanced. This theory is known as the Strong Antropic Principle.
“Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 10 33 times weaker than electromagnetism, stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster.”
“The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example).”
“A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons-- yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.”
“The charges of the electron and proton have been measured in the laboratory and have been found to be precisely equal and opposite. Were it not for this fact, the resulting charge imbalance would force every object in the universe--our bodies, trees, planets, suns--to explode violently. The cosmos would consist solely of a uniform and tenuous mixture not so very different from air.
“If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron-- then all neutrons would have become protons are vice versa. Say goodbye, to chemistry as we know it, and to life.”
“The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery. Unique among the molecules, water is lighter in its solid form than its liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice.
“The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules-- on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the center of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4,, beryllium-8 and carbon- 12-- allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long.”
“A remarkable feature of the universe is its emptiness. Stars are extraordinarily distant from one another. However, were it not for these vast reaches of empty space, violent collisions between stars would be too frequent as to render the universe uninhabitable? The yet more frequent near-misses would detach planets from orbit about their suns, flinging them off into interstellar space where they would quickly cool to hundreds of degrees below zero.
THE GAlA AND HYPER-GAIA HYPOTHESES
The Gaia Hypothesis states that all the life forms on the planet Earth work together to keep the planet life-bearing. There is much evidence for this. The heat output of the Sun has changed much down through the ages, and yet the temperature of our planet has maintained the narrow range necessary to maintain Life.
The level of atmospheric gasses has also remained, for the most part, a steady constant despite changing conditions. This is extremely important. If there were not enough oxygen in the atmosphere, fauna would die. If there were too much oxygen and not enough carbon dioxide and methane, plants would die and the atmosphere would be so flammable, fires would overrun the Earth,
Too much of both oxygen and carbon dioxide would also be fatal. But a third gas. methane, (produced by termites and digestion), is just abundant enough to keep the oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in check.
Some kind of biological feedback system must be working, to keep all this balanced.
Now let’s look at look at some proofs using inductive reasoning.
Before we do though you have to agree with these Philosophical Pre-suppositions Jump to Top
St Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) Provides us with five basic proofs for the existence of God. Each proof proceeds from an effect to a cause or inductive reasoning. It is important to note that these arc not five ways of stating the same argument (as they might appear to be at first glance) but rather each argument is complete in itself
In each proof for the existence of God the starting point is different; therefore, they highlight different predicates or qualities of the Being whose existence they prove. From these different starting points we can conclude that there exists a Being Who is the Prime; 1) Mover 2) the First Efficient Cause, 3) the Necessarily Existent, 4) the Source of all Perfection and 5) the Supreme Intelligence. This Being is appropriately called God.
These arguments presuppose a number of philosophical truths.
1) EVIDENCE, Proof from Motion
The first proof for the existence of God is the proof from motion. We can 
observe in the world that there are things that move, from this it can be concluded that there must be a First Mover.
There are hundreds of examples of objects moving around us — a plane in flight, a yacht sailing, the planets moving through space — no one can reasonably dispute the fact that there are things in motion. In philosophy; however, motion does not just apply to an object’s movement from one place to another. In philosophy, and in particular metaphysics, a thing is said to be in motion when it is gaining or acquiring something which it does not have. When a person acquires knowledge, a plant grows or a piece of wood becomes alight they are said to be in motion. Another example of this is the growth of an acorn to an oak tree — it does not move to another place but its growth in height and size is an example of motion. In all of these instances the object was in the process of acquiring a perfection which it did not have and therefore it was said to be in motion.
A thing cannot be in motion and at the same time be at rest, this breaks the law of non-contradiction and is therefore impossible. When an object begins to move it is no longer at rest; when it comes to rest it is no longer in motion (rest is an absence of motion). Now if an object is at rest, how does it acquire motion? It cannot give itself motion because it does not have motion and you cannot give what you do not have. Therefore, it can only receive motion from an object that is already in motion. A is an object at rest. If A is to move it must receive motion from B. If B, which now gives motion to A, was also at rest at one time, then it received its motion from C; C received it from D, and so on until the beginning of the series.
There must be a beginning to the series (a First Mover) because if there was no first mover, there would be no second mover or third mover and so on. In laypersons terms “something must have started the ball rolling!” St Thomas Aquinas concludes that “it is necessary to arrive at a first mover which is set in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”
It is at this point you may object and ask the question, “If everything is put into motion by something else, then who put God into motion?” The philosopher would respond that God is not a being who has being - God is being. God alone must exist. There are two concepts we need to consider- the concepts of essence and existence. People have essence (in essence I am a person) but they do not necessarily exist,To exist is God’s essence. God is being itself We have being, but God is being! Imagine watching a train pass by. We see carriage after carriage pass, each one linked to the previous one and therefore being pulled along, Now we would all presume that there must be something at the front of the train that is responsible for its movement, perhaps an engine. You may ask the following question, “what is giving the engine motion?” to which one would respond, “nothing, it is the engine which is responsible for the motion.” If the engine did not move the first carriage would not move, nor the second and so on. So too with the argument from motion, nothing put God into motion as God is like the engine and therefore is responsible for the motion. Jump to Top
2) EVIDENCE, Proof from Causality
THERE MUST BE A FIRST CAUSE
There are two analogies that can be used to illustrate the point that there must have been a First Cause or a beginning. The first is the age old question, ‘Which came first, the chicken or the egg?’ People know that there must have been a beginning, either a chicken came first or an egg did. If a chicken came first then it must have hatched from an egg in which case there must have been a chicken to lay that egg. If an egg came first then there must have been a chicken to lay that egg, but that chicken must also have come from an egg! In other words you cannot have an infinite regress ofcause and effect.
The second analogy is that of the hammer which must pass through an infinite number of points before it strikes the nail. Will the hammer ever reach the nail? The answer is of course ‘no”. So too if we have an infinite series of causes there would be no "now" because we would never have reached this point in time.
Since logic tells us that the series of causes must have had a beginning it also tells us that this series must have been started by a Being Who owes His power to bring about such an effect to no one. He always possessed this power and He is the First Efficient Cause. This everyone calls God,
You might ask, “Who caused God?” The analogy of the infinitely long train is a sufficient answer.
3) EVIDENCE, Proof from Contingency
The third proof for the existence of God begins with the observation that there are things in the world that exist but do not have to exist, that is they are generated and will corrupt. They are called contingent beings because they are contingent on other things for their existence. People are examples of contingent beings. (The opposite of contingent existence is necessary existence. When something exists “necessarily” it has to exist and it would be impossible for it to be otherwise).
A contingent being, at some time does not exist, and whilst it might exist now, eventually there will come a time when it will no longer exist. A contingent being cannot attribute its present existence to itself or in order to do so it would need to be prior to itselfand this is logically impossible. Now if the universe consists of beings and objects (planets, stars etc. that at one time did not exist then clearly at some point in time there was nothing. “Something” cannot come out of “nothing” and therefore, there must be a Being that exists necessarily that has always existed and to whom all contingent beings in the universe are dependent upon.
4) EVIDENCE, Degrees of Perfection
In the observable world we see things that possess perfection. We see things that are beautiful, good, true, living and so on. These objects possess varying degrees of perfection, for example an animal has a higher degree of life than a plant; a human being has a higher degree of life than an animal. The fact that we have an understanding of goodness, truth, justice, nobility proves that we at least subconsciously must have a measure by which we judge these objects. We say that something is beautiful in as much as it resembles beauty, we say that something is truthful in as much as it resembles truth moreover, we find ourselves drawn to that which is beautiful, true, noble. Is this mere chance or is it part ofhow we are designed?
Now things which are dissimilar in nature but share something which is similar will have a common origin for that which is similar, furthermore the cause of the similarity must be distinct from the objects in question. (This is the principle on which the evolutionary argument from homology is based - the argument that the similarity in structure of the forelimb of mammals is to be accounted for by their descent from a common ancestor. We may not accept evolutionary conclusion but the principle is sound).
We can conclude that we all have a common understanding that there exists things that are good and that have varying degrees of perfection. Therefore, something exists that we unconsciously judge these things as being good, perfect and true against. The fact that there exists varying degrees of perfection that are to be found in objects which are dissimilar, namely plants, animals, humans and so on points towards a common origin of that perfection. In addition this origin of perfection must be absolute in its goodness because one cannot measure goodness unless it is against an absolute standard. This being, which is absolute in its perfection and the source of all that is good, is appropriately called God.
5) EVIDENCE, Proof from Design
The fifth and final way begins with the premise that order exists within the universe and that there appears to be an element ofdesign in all things. We also see that there are many things in the world which exist for a definite reason; we have eyes to see and ears to hear; fish have gills to breathe and birds have wings to fly. In each of these objects the parts have been fitted together in order to achieve the desired result, if these parts were arranged in any other way they would not work. Furthermore, these parts are themselves devoid ofintelligence but as design implies intelligence they cannot be the cause ofthis intelligence; therefore, the cause must be separate.
If this intelligent cause is ordained to an end distinct from itself the ordering will have to be done by another intelligent cause and as we cannot go on indefinitely in a series of causes there must be an intelligent cause which is an end unto itself This being we call God.
An analogy which is often useful in illustrating the fifth way is to be found in William Paley’s The Analogy of/he Watch or the teleological argument: A man is walking along the beach and comes across a stone. He could quite naturally believe that it had always been there ifhe was asked of its origin. Suppose this same man, whilst walking along the beach, discovered a watch, it wouldindeed seem unlikely that he could say that it had always been there. But why? How is it that one answer that seems sufficient for one object should be insufficient for another? The answer is that when one inspects the watch they discover things that are not evident with regards to the stone - several parts, namely wheels and cogs, are moving inside the watch so as to point to the time at any hour of the day. When we have observed the complex mechanisms that are to be found in a watch we arrive at the conclusion that this watch must have been designed and design implies intelligence. We see in the universe this same element of design and order, in fact with regards to the cosmos there requires a greater need for a designer as the universe is much more complex than a watch.
Pascal’s Wager:
The wager is not truly an argument for the existence of god, but more a reason for believing in god. Blaise Pascal, who first wrote it down, was a French philosopher, mathematician and physicist.
Pascal came to the conclusion that the existence of a god could not be established, that he could never know whether a god did or did not exist. But instead of accepting the position of atheistic agnosticism he made his famous, or maybe infamous, wager.
The wager states that if we do not know if a god exists or not, we had better believe in him, for we can lose nothing by believing and being wrong, but we can lose a lot by not believing and being wrong. Consider the four possibilities:
If 1 believe and God exists: I’ll be happy for eternity = infinite gain.
If believe and God does not exist: I’ve lost nothing and gained nothing.
If I do not believe and God exists: I’ll be punished for eternity infinite loss.
If I do not believe and God does not exist: I’ve lost nothing and gained nothing.
Therefore by believing I cannot lose anything, but I can win a lot. But by not believing I can lose a lot, but cannot win anything.