From: rcheek@access.digex.com (Richard Cheek)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Existence of God
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:09:50 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

I hope to give a persuasive argument for the existence of God that is
not at all philosophical in a strict sense, though speculation of this
nature many consider in itself philosophical, I suppose. I do not wish
the facade of presenting some type of philosophical proof or argument
because all the proofs have been given in one fashion or another, I suspect,
and I don't wish to be presumptuous in attempting to wrestle with minute
distinctions of various sorts. Besides, what has the discipline of Metaphysics
produced of any use in the last 30 years? It seems to be moving at a galacial
clip, if at all. :) I apologise for the many mispellings and typo's that
probably inhabit this post, likely due to the efforts of some mideaval
demon long forgotten but, none the less, still active.@_ \
                                                      @  /

1) The Nature and Criteria of "Proof" in This Approach

	Typically when people today speak of proving Gods existence, a
criteria is used for judging what constitutes "proof" that is peculiar to
this subject and similar apologetic claims such as the Deity of Christ. This
criteria calls for the evidence and arguments presented by believers to be
"air-tight" or of a quality similar to geometric arguments. But it is unfair
to make such demands in a subject that is neither a matter of engineering
nor enjoys the advantage of having the acceptance of basic apparent truths
as with geometric postulates. The nature of evidence for God's existence
is of a practical nature because there is a risk consideration involved.
We have many possible destinies, in theory at least, one of which is that after
death we will face judgement by God for our deeds. Fear of this Judgement is
not to be persuasive in and of itself, but should at least motivate us in our
search for answers to this question of whether such a Judge exists at all in
the first place.

1)a)The Criteria for Apologetic Proof:

	For those who deem the cost of accepting such a premise as
being too high, the criteria becomes ratchetted upwards to impractical levels
in order, perhaps, to avoid the appearance of willful ignorance. Such cases
seem similar to prooving to a mother her sons guilt on some heinous charge,
and can there be to her such proof? Do we find ourselves attempting to
prove the unprovable to those who have no interest in proof? I can offer no
such proof, either, to those unable to entertain the possible consequences of
such a thing as belief in a Divine Judge, but it seems to me that the nature
of the choices involved make such a high threshold of proof to be irrelevant.
Our situation calls for a decision based on available evidence as to what is
the more probable or reasonable, not what is irrefutable and necessary in
some geometric fashion. To those who have a genuinely open mind on the subject,
I address this argument as a proof of the existence of an intellegent, spir-
itual being, who is rightly considered the Creator of the Universe.

1)b)The Nature of Our Choice:

	Since I have said what I do not mean by proof, I now wish to define
what I do mean by the term. I mean something similar to what is considered by
a boat captain who has no radar or communications and must rely on his gather-
ing facts and use of instinct and logic to determine if indeed he is heading
into a hurricane. He weighs the evidence carefully and considers any prior
experience that may have a bearing on his decision because the consequences
are great, as are our own. For if the Biblical God exists, there is a day of
reckoning to plan for at which our soul's resting place for all eternity will
be decided. We have to decide, based on existing evidence, whether a Judeo-
Christian God is probable or not. For if, in my example, that ship captain
determines it is probable that he is in fact heading into a tropical storm,
it may become necessary to head to the nearest port and abort the route he
had chosen prior to his awareness of the storm. Such a captain will not risk
his ship because there is not irrefutable evidence that he is in fact in danger.
No, he would weigh the importance of continuing with his cargo, vs the likeli-
hood of loosing all he has in a storm. Thus I will attempt merely to provide
good reason for believing that we are heading toward a final judgement (the
importance of which outweighs other considerations such as the risk I may
have to give up smoking). I will attempt to provide arguements that are comp-
elling, not geometrically neccessary, that should lead one to a reasonable
belief in the likelihood of Jehovah's existence.

2)What Has Always Existed?

	I start with the consideration that the Universe apparently has had
a point in time before which it did not exist as we know it. I say this for
essentially two reasons: 1) the 'Big Bang' theory is not held in much doubt
any more by professional astronomers, and 2) to postulate the opposite means
that the Universe would have had to exist, as it now is, for an infinite
amount of time. But such a steady state concept of the Universe is not
reasonable, based on what we know of the Universe, because this necessitates
the impossibility of anything that might cause the Universe as we know it to
cease. Given an infinite amount of time, even the most improbable event will
occur, if at all possible. The Law of Entropy, the expansion of the Universe,
the existence of black holes at the center of many, if not all, galaxies, and
so on, would suggest that the Universe existed, as we know it, for an
infinite duration of time is unlikly in the extreme, if not impossible. Those
who postulate some oscillating theory of the Universe have the challenge of
finding evidence to support such a theory in the face of what we have exper-
ienced, which is that all observed oscillations are a degrading pattern and
eventually come to a state of rest, and thus such an answer merely places the
necessity of accepting an origin point in time for the Universe one more
logical step away and merely begs the question. Thus it seems probable to me,
based on the evidence cited, to say that there is a Creator of great power, but
not much else at this point.

3)What is "Truth"?

	Now when we observe the operation of the Universe, we see that, accord-
ing to our experience up to now, the Universe is apparently ordered. By that
I mean that the behavior of the Universe seems to correspond to a logical
and essentially mathematical cognitive system. Thus to say that something is
"true" implies more than that a single postulate or principle is "true", but
also that that "truth" fits into a more broad system of other "truths" in a
logical system of such thoughts. To assert that this system does not exist, or
that it is some how merely a projection of order upon the man's perception of
the Universe is to suggest that any particular "truth" is capable of being
or possessing the quality of being "true" independent of any other "truth".
Thus it isn't necessarily "true" that if 'A' precludes 'B' and 'A' is "true"
that therefore 'B' is not "true", it just wouldn't be "true" for you. Thus
the search for objective "Truth" would become irrelevant, and all observations
of "truth" merely subjective observances of questionable value other than to
the individual who holds to them. I think it safe to assert that the large body
of 'hard' science demonstrates the objective nature of "Truth" and that we do
not have to investigate every 'B' when we know 'A' is "true" and precludes 'B'.
Thus we say that the Universe is reasonably "ordered". This is an important
observation, because there is nothing we have ever experienced that can impose
such an order except a rational sentient being of *some* kind. So we now pro-
gress to the observation that, in all probability, the Creator is a rational
intelligent being of *some* kind.

4)Is The Creator Spirit?

	Proceeding from the observation that this Creator is an intelligent
rational being, in all probability, we come to the question of what likely
nature is such a being? Is he spirit, if there is such a thing, or some
unexperienced form of complex system of, say, electrons in motion? The first
question, really, is what are the options, as we know them?

4)a)What is Spirit?

	Theologians have generally held that there are two realms one of
"spirit" and the other of the material. I do not intend to go into all the
varied arguments that been knocked about for centuries and which call for years
of reading just to learn the definitions of the terms used, I don't know
them that well anyway, but I wish to point out two things that suggest that
there is some quality to intelligence that goes beyond the mere material.

4)a)i: The Transendence of the Mind

	First, our minds are capable of choosing among various stimuli. We
can choose to eat or not, even if we are very hungry. We can choose to ignore
the most imposing sensations from noise to oder to pain. We can select from
various stimuli and concentrate on those we wish, when for instance we use
peripheral vision to change the focus of our sight without moving our eyes
or changing any physical feature of our body at all. What accounts for this?
Some suggest that the brain operates similar to the computer and can sort
the incoming data and choose between them and that this has no suggestion
of anything more than complex electrical patterns. But I point out that the
computer is a design by the mind of man and the computer's operation reflects
the operation of his mind. This would suggest a designer of our own mind and
ultimately begs the question of accounting for the origin of intelligence 
(or surrenders to the concept of a Creator similar to us who designed
our minds on His). To the extent to which the operation of our mind's awarenes
goes beyond the merely physical status of our bodies, we, to that same extent,
transcend the merely physical and enter a different realm of some nature.

4)a)ii: After Death Experiences and Universal Belief

	Secondly, the after death experiences of various people seem to
suggest a dimension of mental awareness beyond the mere function of our brain.
The experience of these people is that, while without any brain activity at all,
they experienced awareness, and various perceptions of light, sound, and touch.
Now there isn't a computer I've seen yet that can operate while it is off, so
what is the most reasonable belief to account for their experiences? That they
are involved in some great conspiracy to delude people into believing... what?
Could it be they experienced something similar to what various people in many
different cultures, almost without exception, have experienced, throughout
history? That being that there is something beyond man's simple physical
existence that is referred to as the spiritual? I believe it is more than
reasonable to accept such a belief as apparently true, at least the burden of
proof would be placed on those who would suggest it is not the case. For if
99.9% of mankind believes that 'A' is true, we must place any contrary belief
into a position of needing strong evidence, or presume that man is essentially
irrational and therefore man's predominate belief holds no bearing at all.
I find myself far more comfortable in the company of the vast majority of
men absent strong relevant proof to the contrary, and most of those I've known
with such conceit as to assert the irrelevance of mankind's near unanimous
beliefs only brings my comfort level to unreachable heights.

4)b)Is Man Of Higher Nature Than Creator?

	Now, if man is to some degree a spiritual being as well as a physical
being, is it unreasonable to assume that the only other sentient being we
have any realistic concept of would also be a spiritual being? Until someone
can show me a type of intelligent being without any experience or facet of the
spiritual, it seems probable that any intelligent being would have a similar
spiritual dimension as well. Doesn't the existence of a system of cognaitve
truths, "Truth" proper, imply the existence of a *cognator*? Is there any
experience to suggest that anything other than a spiritual being, as man
is, has the ability to have such systems of thought?

4)c)Is a Non-Spiritual Creator Reasonable?

	But there is also compelling reason when we look at the question of
which brought about the other, the spiritual realm or the physical realm.
When considering the nature of a probable Creator, is it more reasonable to
believe that the Creator is only physical and to no degree possesses spiritual
qualities? If so, then from where did man's spiritual dimension originate?
Also, if we consider that, in our own world, order would degenerate without the
imposition of man's will and intellect, why would there be any basis to
believe that, without a similar spiritual quality, the entirely material
Creator would not himself be subject to the same considerations that led to
the probability that the Universe cannot be eternal and has an origin? Does
this not beg the question, then, of the origin of the material? In qualitative
terms, where would be the difference between an entirely physical Creator
and an entirely physical Universe? Only in the existence of an intelligent,
spiritual being does the normal decay of order not pedominate, for any system
eventually breaks down absent the maintenance of a spiritual being with a will
toward such maintenance. Again the continuation of existence of the physical
seems dependent on some non-degrading quality of the spiritual. This seems
reasonable too, at least untill some on can show processes similar to Entropy
to indicate some type of degradation in the spiritual realm.

5)Summation

	In summation, certain qualities of the Universe, as we know it, are
best explained by the supposition that a rational spiritual being of *some*
kind created it, and it is therfore more probable and reasonable to believe
that such a Creator exists. God willing, we can discuss "why the christian
creator?" in another post.