One of One

Recently, in “Lost Relatives," we discussed how we can be certain of God’s existence without even alluding to divine revelation. However, since the question of God’s existence is the question of all questions, it’s only right to continue the dialogue.

On an individual level, the answer to this question not only has a direct impact on the eternal state of your soul once passing from this life to the next, but it also impacts the quality of life you live while on Earth.

On a societal level, convincing others of God’s existence can be the difference between a fruitful, harmonious society comprised of individuals pursuing virtue and a degenerate, decadent society comprised of individuals pursuing pleasure.

Thus, as members of the body of Christ, it becomes our responsibility to be armed with persuasive arguments to convince atheists, agnostics, and other non-believing members of society of God’s existence. The subsequent question of whether or not God manifested Himself through the person of Jesus Christ is the next step, but there is, of course, a sequential pattern to the method.

So what is the best argument for the existence of God? The brightest minds for thousands of years have been contemplating the answer to this query, and naturally we have many different options.

First is the fine-tuning argument, which many atheists / agnostics concede is the most convincing argument for God’s existence.

When analyzing the universe and the requirements necessary for life to be possible, it turns out that the statistical odds that it turned out the way it did are so small that they approach zero.

Because concepts like gravitational strength, electromagnetic force, and the expansion rate—just to arbitrarily name a few—are fixed and could in theory be different, once any of these constants or conditions are altered by the smallest of margins, the possibility of life immediately vanishes, despite the range of these constants being so wide. Thus, to say that all of these figures just so happen to be in the exact perfect spot within a minutely small range due to pure chance is not convincing; rather, this reality points to the existence of a Creator that has “fine-tuned” these realities.

The example of the cosmological constant can make the idea more concrete. This concept refers to the energy density of empty space that drives the universe’s expansion, in which the actual value is 10^-122 . For all of my dear brothers and sisters in Christ who weren’t exactly math whizzes growing up, this is 1 divided by 10¹²² –in other words, a very small number. The range that life can exist in is plus or minus 10^-120 , which again is a very small range. If it were larger than 10^-120 , galaxies would never form because space would expand too fast, preventing matter from clumping, whereas if it were smaller than -10^-120 , the universe would collapse before stars could even form. Yet, somehow, it lands within this tiny range.

And this is just one example, thus the probabilities would be multiplied with each example.

Another option is to utilize Pascal’s Wager, not even necessarily as a proof of God’s existence being certain—or even likely for that matter—but rather as an argument that belief in God is rational. We’ve discussed Pascal’s Wager in the context of why it is rational to be Catholic given a person’s belief in the full humanity and divinity of Christ in Prodigal Brother II, but a quick review will be provided. Put concisely, if God exists, and you believe in Him and are faithful, you gain everything, whereas if He doesn’t exist and you believe in Him, you lose / gain nothing. Contrarily, if God doesn’t exist, and you don’t believe in Him, then you lose / gain nothing, but if He does exist and you don’t believe in Him, then you lose everything forever. Hence, it’s fair to conclude that these payoffs aren’t exactly symmetrical, and whether God exists or not, it is more rational to believe than to not believe.

When analyzing these payoffs, we use the lens of eternal outcomes, not incorporating the payoff received during this mortal life. Thus, one could argue that those who don’t believe in God are free to do as they will without the “burdensome rules of religion” and thus live a freer, more enjoyable life, resulting in a higher payoff than those who do believe in the hypothetical that God does not exist. Even if this was granted, the “happiness” they enjoyed during this life is still finite and thus when calculating payoffs would still be smaller than the infinite positive and negative payoffs resulting in the existence of God.

There are many others.

The beauty / order / harmony of creation.

The transcendental argument.

Anselm’s ontological argument.

Just to name a few.

But one argument that is highly convincing never seems to see the light of day within the online debating world.

That argument is humanity itself.

Ponder for a second just how unique we are.

There is something so brutally and intentionally dishonest about the idea that we are simply smarter, more advanced apes. In fact, I’m nearly certain that the elementary school and middle school teachers that profess this don’t believe it themselves. While some may say we don’t evolve directly from apes but rather share a common ancestor, the jump from apes to humans is simply impossible.

Imagine observing a collection of zebras creating complex housing structures with plumbing, air conditioning, and garages with gas and electric powered cars inside of them.

Imagine observing a collection of sparrows splitting themselves into two different camps based on ideologies, electing one from each group to face off against each other, and holding an election to see which ideology will reign supreme.

Imagine observing a collection of lions create an economic system in which certain lions in charge of storing money only kept a fraction of it, lending most of it out until the other lions realized their money wasn’t safe and all wanted to pull it out at the same time, causing some lions to attack the lions in charge of storing the money.

Imagine observing a collection of mice building a temple in which all of the mice came to bow down and pray to their mouse god and read the literature that was directly inspired by this mouse god.

Imagine observing a collection of pigs recording themselves singing and then bringing their fellow pigs to tears because the lyrics were so touching and relevant to their lives.

Imagine observing a collection of fish reading about all of the different fishes that came before them because a few fishes were smart enough to keep record of the notable fish during their time and the events surrounding the fish, thus providing examples of which fishes to aspire to be like and which fishes provided a less than optimal example.

Imagine observing a collection of kangaroos paint pictures of other kangaroos before selling them to a different set of kangaroos, in which these kangaroos donated it to the kangaroo art museum so they could reduce their taxable income.

This list can of course continue infinitely but the message is clear.

If we observed any of these animals exhibiting just one of these behaviors, we would immediately realize that this animal is clearly unlike the others. Furthermore, if we observed a singular animal exhibiting all of these behaviors, we would immediately be dumbfounded and likely identify them as aliens that can’t possibly be from the same planet as all of the other animals.

But due to divine revelation, we understand that we are not aliens but rather specially created by God in His image, in that unlike all Earthly creations, God shares His characteristics of having a will and intellect with us out of pure love.

While most online apologists don’t use this method very often, there was a notable 19th century British author that did in his famous work The Everlasting Man: G.K. Chesterton.

Chesterton argues that the easiest way to conclude that man is no mere animal is by first regarding him as just merely an animal and comparing him to his counterparts. In his eyes, not only will deeply pondering about how “queer” humans are lead to the conclusion that he is more than just another animal, but it will inevitably lead you to God because “when we see how queer the biped is, we praise the providence that made him.”

In fact, the reason we are bipeds is of course not happenstance; we were made bipeds for a specific reason.

Other animals typically walk on all fours and are oriented in a way that makes searching for sustenance to ensure their survival easier. We, on the other hand, are made for more than just sustaining ourselves physically. Because sustaining ourselves spiritually is more important, we stand upright with our minds pointed to the heavens because that is who we were made for. Our internal disposition to believe in a Creator is matched with our external disposition to be pointed to the sky and contemplate who / what God is rather than having the search through the bushes for berries be our ends. Not only do we stand erect facing the heavens, but our hands are free to engage in creation that cannot be paralleled by any other animal since they were not made in the image of the Creator of all things.

Not only are humans the most intelligent visible creatures on Earth, but our intelligence is so extraordinary that the only entity that can plausibly surpass us is one of our own creations: artificial intelligence. Thus, we clearly see that the creative genius baked into the DNA of humans naturally points to the infinite creative ability of the Creator Himself.

Hence, we have given a satisfactory answer to the question of God’s existence, leading us naturally to the Jesus dilemma: what are we to do with the son of a carpenter that walked on water? More specifically, could it be possible that Jesus Christ truly was Immanuel, God with us?

We have already concluded that the easiest way to conclude that the human is more than just another animal is to label him as another animal and compare him to his peers.

In a similar way, when attempting to place Jesus Christ in the “just another man” category, it becomes quite clear quite quickly that He is more than “just another man.”

However, historians seeking to understand who the “historical Jesus” was aren’t so quick to conclude that He was God incarnate, and more specifically, that He said He was God incarnate. The most popular argument is that, while the Gospel of John includes many explicit and implicit divine claims, it cannot be used for historical research simply because it’s a “product of the Early Church.” In other words, because John was written at a later date and notably had early Christians in mind as his target audience, only the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke can be used to determine whether or not Jesus of Nazareth made divine claims.

What is comical is that even if this was granted and only the Synoptics were used, Jesus Christ of course claimed to be more than just a man several times in each account, oftentimes in ways that evade the average reader.

Let’s dive in.

But not right now.

The hour has not yet come.

If you enjoyed this article, feel free to share with your family, co-workers, and friends and tell them to subscribe.

Thanks for reading and until next time.