Table Of ContentAPOLOGETICS PRESS
Apologetics Press, Inc.
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117-2752
© Copyright 2003
ISBN: 0-932859-59-3
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced
in any form without permission from the publisher, except in
the case of brief quotations embodied in articles or critical re
views.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CHAPTER 2 Cause and Effect—
The Cosmological Argument . . . . . . . . 3
Is the Universe Eternal?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Steady State and Oscil
lating Universe Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Did the Universe Create
Itself Out of Nothing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Was the Universe Created? . . . . . . . . . . 41
Our Fine-Tuned,
Tailor-Made Universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
CHAPTER 3 Design in Nature—
The Teleological Argument . . . . . . . . 67
Design of the Universe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Design of the Human Body . . . . . . . . . . 77
The Body’s Cells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
The Reproductive Methods of Cells. .82
The Genetic Code—
Its Design and Function . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Origin of the Genetic Code. . . . . . . . . 91
DNA, Genes, and Chromosomes . . . . 94
The Body’s Tissues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
The Body’s Organs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
The Skin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
The Eye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
The Ear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
The Body’s Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
The Skeletal System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
The Circulatory System. . . . . . . . . . . 119
The Nervous System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
The Unbeliever’s Response to
the Argument from Design . . . . . . . . . 143
-i
CHAPTER 4 Morality and Ethics—the
Anthropological Argument. . . . . . . . 155
Morality and Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
The Practical Impact of Morals
and Ethics Without God . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Morals, Ethics, and
the Existence of God. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
CHAPTER 5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
-ii
1
INTRODUCTION
One of the most basic, and most fundamental, issues that
can be considered by the human mind is the question, “Does
God exist?” In the field of logic, there are principles—or as
they are called more often, laws—that govern human thought
processes and that are accepted as analytically true. One of
these is the Law of the Excluded Middle. When applied to ob
jects, this law states that an object cannot both possess and not
possess a certain trait or characteristic at the same time and in
the same fashion. When applied to propositions, this law states
that all precisely stated propositions are either true or false;
they cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the
same fashion.
The statement, “God exists,” is a precisely stated proposi
tion. Thus, it is either true or false. The simple fact is, either
God exists or He does not. There is no middle ground. One
cannot affirm logically both the existence and nonexistence
of God. The atheist boldly states that God does not exist; the
theist affirms just as boldly that God does exist; the agnostic
laments that there is not enough evidence to make a decision
on the matter; and the skeptic doubts that God’s existence can
be proven with certainty. Who is correct? Does God exist or
not?
The only way to answer this question, of course, is to seek
out and examine the evidence. It certainly is reasonable to
suggest that if there is a God, He would make available to us
-1
evidence adequate to the task of proving His existence. But
does such evidence exist? And if it does, what is the nature of
that evidence?
The theist advocates the view that evidence is available to
prove conclusively that God does exist and that this evidence
is adequate to establish beyond reasonable doubt the exis
tence of God. However, when I employ the word “prove,” I
do not mean that God’s existence can be demonstrated scien
tifically in the same fashion that one might prove that a sack of
potatoes weighs ten pounds or that a human heart has four dis
tinct chambers within it. Such matters as the weight of a sack
of vegetables, or the divisions within a muscle, are matters that
may be verified empirically using the five senses. And while
empirical evidence often is quite useful in establishing the va
lidity of a case, it is not the sole means of arriving at proof. For
example, legal authorities recognize the validity of a prima fa
cie case, which is acknowledged to exist when adequate evi
dence is available to establish the presumption of a fact that,
unless such fact can be refuted, legally stands proven (see Jack
son, 1974, p. 13). It is the contention of the theist that there is a
vast body of evidence that makes an impregnable prima facie
case for the existence of God—a case that simply cannot be re
futed. I would like to present here the prima facie case for the
existence of God, along with a sampling of the evidence upon
which that case is based.
-2
2
CAUSE AND EFFECT—
THE COSMOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT
Throughout human history, one of the most effective ar
guments for the existence of God has been the cosmological
argument, which addresses the fact that the Universe (Cos
mos) is here and therefore must be explained in some fashion.
In his book, Not A Chance, R.C. Sproul observed:
Traditional philosophy argued for the existence of
God on the foundation of the law of causality. The
cosmological argument went from the presence of a
cosmos back to a creator of the cosmos. It sought a ra
tional answer to the question, “Why is there some
thing rather than nothing?” It sought a sufficient rea
son for a real world (1994, p. 169, emp. in orig.).
The Universe exists and is real. Atheists and agnostics not
only acknowledge its existence, but admit that it is a grand ef
fect (e.g., see Jastrow, 1977, pp. 19-21). If an entity cannot ac
count for its own being (i.e., it is not sufficient to have caused
itself ), then it is said to be “contingent” because it is depend
ent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence.
The Universe is a contingent entity since it is inadequate to
cause, or explain, its own existence. Sproul has noted: “Logic
requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a
cause. That is merely to say, if it is an effect it must have an an-
-3
tecedent cause” (1994, p. 172). Thus, since the Universe is ad
mittedly a contingent effect, the obvious question becomes,
“What caused the Universe?”
It is here that the Law of Cause and Effect (also known as
the Law of Causality) is tied firmly to the cosmological argu
ment. Scientists, and philosophers of science, recognize laws
as “reflecting actual regularities in nature” (Hull, 1974, p. 3).
So far as scientific knowledge can attest, laws know no excep
tions. This certainly is true of the Law of Cause and Effect. It
is, indisputably, the most universal, and most certain, of all
scientific laws.
This law has been stated in a variety of ways, each of which
adequately expresses its ultimate meaning. Kant, in the first
edition of Critique of Pure Reason, stated that “everything that
happens (begins to be) presupposes something which it follows
according to a rule.” In the second edition, he strengthened
that statement by noting that “all changes take place according
to the law of connection of cause and effect” (see Meiklejohn,
1878, p. 141). Schopenhauer stated the proposition as: “Noth
ing happens without a reason why it should happen rather than
not happen” (as quoted in von Mises, 1951, p. 159). The num
ber of various formulations could be expanded almost indef
initely. But simply put, the Law of Causality states that every
material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause.
The philosophical/theological implications of this concept—
pro and con—have been argued through the years. But after
the dust settles, the Law of Causality always remains intact.
There is no question of its acceptance in the world of experi
mental science or in the ordinary world of personal experi
ence. Many years ago, professor W.T. Stace, in his classic work,
A Critical History of Greek Philosophy, commented:
Every student of logic knows that this is the ultimate
canon of the sciences, the foundation of them all. If
we did not believe the truth of causation, namely, ev
erything which has a beginning has a cause, and that
-4
in the same circumstances the same things invariably
happen, all the sciences would at once crumble to
dust. In every scientific investigation this truth is as
sumed (1934, p. 6).
The Law of Causality is not of importance just to science.
Richard von Mises observed: “We may only add that almost
all philosophers regard the law of causality as the most im
portant, the most far-reaching, and the most firmly founded
of all principles of epistemology.” He then added:
The law of causality claims that for every observ
able phenomenon (let us call it B )there exists a sec
ond phenomenon A, such that the sentence “B fol
lows from A” is true.... There can be no doubt that the
law of causality in the formulation just stated is in
agreement with all our own experiences and with
those which come to our knowledge in one way or
another....[We]can also state that in practical life there
is hardly a more useful and more reliable rule of be
havior than to assume of any occurrence that we come
to know that some other one preceded it as its cause
(1951, p. 160, emp. in orig.).
Richard Taylor, addressing the importance of this basic law
of science in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, wrote:
Nevertheless, it is hardly disputable that the idea of
causation is not only indispensable in the common
affairs of life but in all applied science as well. Juris
prudence and law would become quite meaningless
if men were not entitled to seek the causes of various
unwanted events such as violent deaths, fires, and ac
cidents. The same is true in such areas as public health,
medicine, military planning, and, indeed, every area
of life (1967, p. 57).
Just as the Law of the Excluded Middle (discussed in chap
ter 1) is true analytically, so the Law of Cause and Effect is
true analytically as well. Sproul addressed this when he wrote:
-5
Description:theist affirms just as boldly that God does exist; the agnostic laments that there existence of God, along with a sampling of the evidence upon which that case is
