Life. Faith. Jesus.

Read this, then give your answer to the question, or comment on this one.

Order in the Court! (I mean cosmos)
For me, it is difficult to isolate one argument as the most compelling in the presence of other qualifying arguments. However, I must select the teleological argument as the most compelling argument for the existence of God. I conclude this, because while all other arguments present great reasoning and compelling thought and evidence, they don’t necessarily explain the meaning and purpose behind it all. While the cosmological argument (the universe had a beginning) gives sufficient reason to believe that God is the creator of the universe, one is still left with an element of why they even had a desire to pursue this endeavor in the first place.

Theological Agenda
The teleological design argument says that God exists as the cause of the universe’s order, which

“appears to have a purpose” (Taylor 128).

Now, this purpose was not only initiated, but is continually being sustained to ultimately serve an apparent grander purpose; that is, to draw all men unto Himself (The Bible: Ecc. 3:10-11, Rom. 3, 2 Pet. 3:9). For what is purpose without some desired result?

The Universe as a Vehicle
As one behind a steering mechanism guides a motor vehicle, so is the universe in the hands of God. Now, with this being such a broad range of purpose, one could simply question whether or not this has anything to do with them. The response to this question, of course, would be of course! For starters, whatever or whoever is in the vehicle is subject to the will of its operator. That is, no matter what the person in the vehicle wishes, the will of the operator determines its destiny. Interestingly enough, the operator of this vehicle is the only one who knows how to drive it. If this great thing called the universe not only exists, but remains in existence by the direct relation of something other than itself or anything in it, then the universe itself and everything in it is directly affected by the interaction of this [other].

Not only are we subject to the will of God (the ‘driver’ of the universe), but we are placed within His vehicle. Since, then, we are placed where we are, there must be a purpose and reason as to why we are positioned here (hence, we were placed). Since God has purpose for who we are and where we go, we must decide what this means to us.

Here, I believe, is where it gets interesting. We can decide to enquire God – the driver – of what purpose it is we are doing here, or we can chose some other alternative, such as existing in this vehicle of a universe with sole emphasis on matters concerned with self while neglecting the obvious grander scheme.

Pursuit Without Purpose?
Now, before we go any further, we must pause and ask the question ‘how can I personally have the ability to pursue anything?’, that is, finding purpose to either question God or to remain concerned with self-order. An individual cannot deny, even if all evidences pointing to God have been present, even if all rationale lead logically to God, even when doubting everything that can be doubted has been done, that this very same individual finds some sense of purpose within their very own person to do that which was just mentioned.

The challenge may rise here that “there is no such thing of purpose; we are all just existing in a meaningless, purposeless universe.” In return, I would ask, “If there is no meaning or purpose to anything, then by what means are you speaking? Is there some purpose you say such a thing?”

Matter vs. Meaning
If we are merely hunks of meaningless, purposeless matter, then why have passion, why have interests, why have emotion? For dead matter can intrinsically do nothing. What, then, is the skeptic really saying? If their response would default to their philosophy of meaninglessness and purposelessness, then there is no apparent reason to be involved in such a dead conversation. After all, what is reason without purpose? How can one posses the ability to reason in the absence of purpose?; and by defaulting to answer the question of purpose by referring to the philosophy of meaninglessness and purposelessness, then the skeptic has defined purpose: his philosophy.

Matter vs. Man
In contrast to other matter, it is obvious that the human is far above the rest in its ability to be; to operate in such a way as if there were a point to what we do. It is then reasonable to think that – finding these qualities within ourselves – they may very well have been placed there (again, in contrast to other matter) by someone other than us. For who can bestow the ability to have desire? Is it possible for humans to create something such as this; something existing apart from matter, yet seen through emotion? And virtue… if humans exist in a meaningless and purposeless universe, where has virtue arose? For virtue cannot come from non-virtue. Indeed, it is more than non-virtue, it would be more properly said, void-ness of virtue. Nothing begets nothing. If the skeptic says there is a such thing as virtue, desire, emotion, etc., they must agree with meaning. For all these qualities possess meaning. And if meaning exists, so does purpose; there is a reason for meaning, hence, purpose. Also, it would have to originate apart from and beyond the human.

My Opinion:
Maybe God gave people the ability to have purpose because he wants us to experience what it is like to have meaning. Thus, acknowledging of meaning would enable us to be sympathetic to God’s ultimate purpose for placing us where we are and taking us where he has taken us. Quite possibly, one would entertain and even accept that meaning and purpose from him.

Now, since we are inherently byproducts of God’s will, and if that will immediately affects our position, then the greatest pursuit of man would be to seek out God’s will and discover the purpose He has for their life. I must echo the words of Gordon R. Lewis in The Portable Seminary,

“Beyond all the apparent meaninglessness and purposelessness of human existence, God personally gives significance to the most insignificant life” (Lewis, Portable).

Works Cited
Multiple. The Bible. NASB. Nashvill: World Publishing, 1985.
Taylor, James E. Introducing Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, Baker Publishing Group, 2006.

Among all the challenges the Christian faces today in regards to skepticism, it seems as though the problem of evil and suffering is among the greatest, if not the greatest. When it comes to arguing the existence of God, I’ve heard the debates shift from one thing to another without really working out an entire argument. The interesting thing about this, though, is that the skeptic seems to never leave out the presence of evil and suffering in the world. This can be a stumper for the Christian if they are ill prepared to give reason for such a contrast; that a perfectly loving and all-powerful God can coexist with evil. The argument typically follows the order below.

1. If God exists, then there is no evil.
2. But there is evil.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
(Taylor 144)

We must ask, though, why would someone think that just because God exists there would be no evil? This would come from the presupposition that if God exists, then he must be perfect. And his perfectness would encompass all attributes, even love. Therefore, the argument would be as follows (Taylor, 145):

1. If God exists, then God is perfect.
2. If God is perfect, the God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
3. If God is omni x 3, then there is no evil

We see here that from the conclusion of an all-powerful, perfect-loving God, the skeptic would have a hard time believing in such a being in the presence of evil. After all, why would a perfect God create such a thing? Wouldn’t a perfect loving God provide the best for his creation, so as to keep them from even being able to sin? I would consider the following logic before any further investigation (Geisler, Portable 360):

1. God created every substance.
2. Evil is not a substance (but a privation in a substance).
3. Therefore, God did not create evil.

We see here the argument highlighting the fact that evil was not a direct cause upon God’s creative process. While God created everything that exists, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he created evil. One may say that since God created everything and evil is something, then God created evil. We must be careful here, because even though evil is something, it may not be something intrinsically. For one to assume evil, they must have already assumed a good prior to the evil. This must be true because evil cannot be judged without an understanding of good, just as wrong cannot be understood without knowledge of what is right. Therefore, only if one has an idea of what good is can they know what evil is, thus, good being the standard by which evil is judged. Since what God created was good (Gen. 1:31), then he did not directly create evil. Where, then, did evil come from? This would bring us into the area of the human choice.

You see, when God created man, he did so in his own image (Gen. 1:27). Part of being created in the image of God is that you have the ability to will, not to the extent of God, but nonetheless, the human has the ability to exercise choice over that which he has the ability to choose. Now, how does this relate to good and evil? After all, since everything God created was good, then there was no evil for man to choose, right? Let’s look a little further.

In Genesis, chapter 2, we read that God gave man instruction. God instructed the man that

“From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat…” (v. 16-17).

This instruction to man was actually a two-fold message; 1) God gave man the ability to choose and 2) since God did this, he gave man the ability to either obey or disobey, thus having the knowledge of what right and wrong is. Later, we know that the man, Adam, did choose to disobey God and thus, evil had since been visible. If God didn’t allow man to freely choose between him and that which he did not want man to do, then there would be no way of expressing authentic love toward God. For one cannot truly love another if that is the only thing possible to do; there must be an alternative choice that one must have the opportunity to either choose or decline in order to offer true, authentic love. Also, it would take a perfect-loving God to provide this opportunity. What kind of perfect-loving God makes people love him? Therefore, since man chose to disobey God, he experienced for the first time what an absence of good is. Remember, evil cannot be judged without first knowing what good is. When man chose to do that which he knew he shouldn’t, he rejected what the perfect-loving God had warned him against, thus initiating the absence of good, which is evil.

It is obvious that this is a difficult area for people to cope with, that God would justify evil. One might conclude with William Rowe:

“… probably, if there were a reason that would justify God in allowing so much evil, we would know what it is, and there are no reasons we know of, so probably, there are no such reasons” (Taylor 157).

I believe a good response to this question would be, “Suppose there are certain evils that God is preventing. Are there any reasons to believe that this world could be in a worse condition of evil?” If so, then probably, we can think of some way that the world could be worse off than it is, so probably, there are good reasons to believe that God is preventing that what could be.

In the midst of all this, God does not leave us abandoned in the presence of our self-initiated evil. He comes to us and provides a way out. Faith in the Christian God is not merely a means to get over evil, pain, suffering, and even death, but to conquer through it; to be more than merely copers of evil, but overcomers of it, otherwise known as victors! If I may, and if it is sufficient to say, it is reasonable, upon these conclusions, to not dismiss the existence of an entirely good God for the simple fact that evil exists.

Works Cited

Multiple. The Bible. NASB. Nashvill: World Publishing, 1985.

—. The Portable Seminary. Ed. David Horton and Ryan Horton. Bloomington: Bethany House Publishers, 2006.

Taylor, James E. Introducing Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, Baker Publishing Group, 2006.