God Exists

What could be more controversial, what could involve a greater issue, than the argument concerning the existence of God? Let it be made clear that we all have our own viewpoints, and that the beliefs behind those viewpoints are to by all means be respected. By what system, however, and by what means, do we gather together and study these viewpoints? What I find to be an invaluable tool in approaching and analyzing viewpoints of all types, take note, is the power of logic and reason. Logic and reason tell us what is, and what is not. They provide a straight, smooth path whose final destination is truth. Presented here is a worked-out, eye-opening theist-atheist debate concerning the existence of God, produced for the betterment of our knowledge and well-being.

theist: It is clear, then, that the order we observe in the universe is none other than the divine intervention of God.

atheist: Ah but no, it is the laws of the universe that govern the universe's processes.

theist: But where did those laws come from?

atheist: They were determined at the moment of the Big Bang.

theist: But what influence adjusted and fine-tuned those laws at the moment of the Big Bang?

atheist: Science tells us that our universe is but one of a vast multitude of universes popping in and out of complete nothingness. The laws of our universe came into being in the way that they did as the result of random chance, as all assortments of laws mentally tangible are possible amongst an infinite amount of universes popping in and out of existence.

theist: Is the process of universes popping in and out of complete nothingness, therefore, itself governed by laws?

atheist: Perceivably so.

theist: Where did those laws come from?

atheist: They must have always existed.

theist: Are you saying that they had no beginning?

atheist: Apparently so - they are laws quite unlike the created laws of our universe which, as stated, had a definite beginning - at the moment of the Big Bang.

theist: How can something real - real as we understand the definition of real to be - have no beginning?

atheist: These laws would have to exist outside of time - a mode of being that no material, measurable entity or created law can claim to possess.

theist: So these laws would exist outside the boundaries of everything material and measurable, as you stated, and beyond all created laws.

atheist: In a manner of speaking. Allow me to clarify what you just stated by making clear that there is an aspect to the situation that does involve the material and the measurable: the physical act of universes popping in and out of existence. This lies within the realm of the material and the measurable. However, as you said, and as I agree, the laws governing the popping in and out of universes exist indeed outside of time, beyond a state of being material and measurable, and beyond any created law.

theist: How do we categorize, then, how to we classify these uncreated, timeless laws?

atheist: As an entity in accordance with what we've just discussed: something neither material nor measurable. This is so, quite simply, because these uncreated laws exist outside of time, as stated, unlike any created law.

theist: Just how does something, namely these timeless, uncreated laws, exist outside of time?

atheist: It would have to exist in a way unlike the way in which we define existence.

theist: Would it be proper to say that these uncreated, timeless laws, responsible for the formation of all universes, transcend existence as we define it?

atheist: Conceivably so.

theist: And would it be proper to say that any kind of universe, whether a universe of a short-lived duration or of a rather long life, or whether a universe mundanely simple in nature or one quite high in complexity, is ultimately dependent upon these uncreated laws?

atheist: Quite clearly.

theist: Therefore, is it agreeable to say that we can classify and categorize these uncreated, timeless laws as a force that transcends all possible universes, and as the force upon which all universes are dependent upon for their very existence?

atheist: So it would seem.

theist: What, then, would we call this force?

atheist: Law would be the obvious title.

theist: Law is indeed a satisfactory label for the force behind these uncreated, timeless laws. But what we must realize is that the laws that we experience in our universe were created, and therefore had a beginning. These uncreated, timeless laws, on the other hand, are, so to speak, infinite and eternal. They are unlike anything we have experienced within this universe - something that lies at the very foundation of all that exists - something that is dependent upon nothing else to be what it is. These laws exist outside of time. The way in which these uncreated laws act as the modeler, sustainer, and caretaker of all universes gives them a responsibility greater than any responsibility ever to have been taken on. This gives these laws a character and uniqueness more dynamic than anything that ever was and ever will be: they represent a system of operation for which "Law" is simply not a sufficient choice of words. Given these insights, what would be a better term for the animating, enabling force behind these uncreated laws?

atheist: I don't know. You're asking me to describe a concept for which no word exists. Mind, perhaps? Will?

theist: Indeed it would seem a difficult task to come up with a word that successfully describes the force lying behind these uncreated, timeless laws. It would appear, furthermore, as you stated, that we are attempting to describe a concept for which no word exists. "Mind" and "Will" are good approximations, and I commend you for coming up with them. Yet I believe, as I believe you do, that "Mind" and "Will" are better descriptions of the animating, enabling force behind the uncreated, timeless laws, than the word "Law" is. Consider the possibility, however, that an even better word exists - a word that seems the most fitting word possible given the limited amount of words that language gives us. We must, therefore, sincerely consider an even better means of addressing this force: God.

atheist: I don't agree. A "God" is a made-up human-like imaginary creation of the human mind. I can't accept "God" as a valid choice of words here. "God", quite simply, is a shortcut to those who don't have the motivation to discover how the universe truly works.

theist: I understand your doubts. Consider, however, if you will, my definition of God: God, firstly, is not associated with any kind of myth or unreality. God, rather, is the force that "breathes life" into all law - this breath being a breath without which all law would shrivel up and plunge into oblivion. God, you see, is responsible for assembling all law, and in turn for maintaining those laws. God is the cause of order itself. God is the element behind all manifestation. God is the great Cosmic Intelligence, the Energy that fuels all interactions, and the means through which all existence and reality is made possible. Dwell upon this. What I have just described, for all practical purposes, has gone by names such as the "God of Spinoza", "Brahman", and the "God of Einstein". How can you question the intuition and insight, do you suppose, of the smartest man who ever lived? God, in conclusion, is the supreme Force responsible for the elegant balance and beautiful symmetry of the laws in universes such as our own.

atheist: To answer honestly, I never thought of God as a "Cosmic Intelligence", as you have just described, but always saw God as a fable created for the sole purpose of fulfilling my need to have some object to criticize and ridicule. But, thanks to your keen reasoning, my eyes have been opened. I see God for what God truly is - the timeless Thinker of the thoughts that we experience as the laws of the universe. God is the omnipresent Gardener, the Planter of universes in the garden of all-that-is. I can't thank you enough for what you've revealed to me.

theist: Everything I presented was completely self-evident - a condition that had, quite eloquently, been staring us in the face the whole time. The reason it is not seen for its reality is because we are distracted by the feeble, fleeting concepts that plague the world, that mislead us into clouded ways of thinking. For without God there is nothing - no hope, no dream, no future, no life: all of us, therefore, are called upon to turn from our cycle of death toward something greater. We must make this decision promptly, for manifestations of chances like this are few and far between. Why now, why not earlier? Where has the great knowledge expressed here been all of this time? It has always been here, both in times past and in this present moment.