Is there truly a God? Stephen Hawking concluded his essay on Is Everything Determined?

By answering his own question, arguing In summary, the title of this essay was a question: Is everything determined? The answer is yes, it is. But it might as well not be, because we can never know what is determined. (546) One will ponder this answer perhaps in such a way, asking himself Is he answering yes or no?, Everything is really determined?, But what determined it?, and finally Maybe not what, but who determined it? Who determined it? Then, those age old question arises once again. Is there a God, and if so what is the evidence? and If there is a God, who exactly is he? Because of the law of excluded middle, a logical law that dictates that either a claim is true or its negation is true, the line is drawn. There exists either a God or gods, or there is no God at all. Its either theism or atheism. The evidence is tossed about from both sides, as both sides possess logical arguments for their cause. In the end the theist, particularly the Christian theist, wins the day. Why? The atheist position cant explain the transcendent and universal laws of logic and morality. Atheism is unable to account for these things, but Christianity offers a position that is logically sound and has an answer for the things we see in this universe. As a worldview, atheism is unable to come up with an adequate explanation for the transcendent laws of logic. Because Atheism must presuppose naturalism and naturalistic causes to the universe, it must explain how the immaterial can exist in the material universe that we see. Atheists have made many attempts to explain how the transcendent, immaterial, and absolute laws of logic can exist, but they all fall short of a logically sound argument.

The Atheist can argue that the laws of logic are merely conventions of man, dependent of stipulation justified by pragmatic purposes. This is arbitrary. What would compel a person to accept what a group of other men decided were useful tools? What is preventing a majority of people in the future from rewriting the laws of logic completely based upon what they consider to be practical? If this argument was the case, then according to the atheist logic is subjective and can be changed on a whim. This would destroy rational discourse, rendering debate purposeless and wasting the time of those who decided to read this essay. There would be no basis for truth but what the man in charge decides. In fact, Ill gather around my Christian buddies who comprise a vast majority of the world population, and well settle on a new set of logical laws that prove atheism is wrong and that God exists so I can conclude this essay right now. But this is nonsense! Neither you nor I would find this changing of the goalposts acceptable in any argumentative essay. Atheists have other arguments as well, but they too fall well short of an appropriate accounting of the existence of transcendent and immaterial laws in a natural universe brought about by natural causes. One argument states that the laws of logic are merely the function of language and semantics. This argument runs into the same fatal flaw as the previous stated argument, however. Matt Slick, the president and founder of the Christian Apolgetics and Research Ministry, dismantles this notion by responding Some atheists say that logic is a product of human language, but that doesn't work because languages are subjective and culturally variable where logic is not. Another atheist argument states that the laws of logic come from the chemical processes of the brain. This also runs into the same problem as the first two arguments. If the laws of logic were derived from brain chemistry, we must conclude that logic can be altered by different brain

chemistry or simply different humans for that matter, and once again we have multiple laws of logic. The Atheist can also argue that we observe the laws of logic as we would observe any other law of science, and that they are simply properties of the universe. First of all, merely asserting that we observe them does not explain anything. Concluding that they exist because it is what we observe would be begging the question. Even if the atheist tries to argue that logic is a physical property of the universe, he must still face this daunting question: If this is the case, then how do we observe the law of excluded middle or the law of non-contradiction? Of course, we can observe an object being an object, but, as Matt Slick puts it We discover laws of physics by observing and analyzing the behavior of things around us. The laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions. For example, in nature we do not see something that is both itself and not itself at the same time. Why? Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot. Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought.

The Atheist can finally concede after all of this that the laws of logic are indeed transcendent and absolute, but this does not explain where they came from. We can conclude by this that when the Atheist attempt to use logic to argue against the existence of a God, he must borrow from the worldview of a theist who can claim that the laws of logic are conceptual, transcendent, and absolute. This is the case because he cant account for the existence of logic to be able to use them to argue with. Only a theistic worldview can account for the laws of logic,

because the theist can assume the laws of logic are the reflection of the unchanging nature of a creator. But who is this creator? Another problem the atheist runs into is the problem of morality. Is there good? Is there evil? What is good? What is evil? What if I struck you in the head right here and now? You would say it was wrong. Is it? How? Can atheism even argue that there is good or evil? The answer is no. All the atheist can do is account morality as a convention of man based upon stipulation. It can be imagined when you read this you will have a dj vu moment, as we have already addressed this under the atheists failure to account for the laws of logic. If there is no higher authority to provide a law then by what standard are we held to? The atheist can argue that it is what brings about happiness to people, but that is an arbitrary standard. Different people have different definitions of happiness. Then it must be what makes the most people happy! If this is the case then at one point the degrading, inhumane, and racially fueled chattel slavery of the 19th century was morally acceptable. It may have been outlawed, but what is preventing a majority of people in the future to bring this slavery back as morally acceptable? Who is to say that in the future the most people decide it is ok to shoot any old person on the street that made you angry. It would be right because the most people decided it made them happy to do so! Who gets to define most people anyways? What if the most people of a certain nation decided it was morally to wipe out a certain race of people in order to keep their own race pure. Thats what the Nazis did. Most of Germany agreed with the Nazis and they were their own sovereign nation. By this definition it must have been ok for them to set out to exterminate the Jews. The atheist can bring up the theory of utilitarianism or other theories of the same ilk, but what justifies following them? Why would an individual be bound to

follow these principles? Because the majority of people decided this was right and subscribed this as a law that must be followed? Again, what is stopping a majority group of sovereign people from deciding on their own different set of principles and laws that they feel works for them? Why cant the individual be sovereign anyways? As a worldview, atheism can only offer us a subjective morality based upon the whims of the individual or individuals who compiled their power together to popularize a certain morality. Under atheism, there is no higher authority than man! Man has no one to answer to other than himself. Greg Bahnsen, a highly regarded Christian philosopher, in his debate against Gordon Stein, who once held many high rankings in atheist organizations, explained atheisms hopeless moral situation perfectly: I'd just take out a gun right now and say, "OK, Dr. Stein, make my day: is there a God or not". You see, if he says, "Oh no, you can't murder me because there are laws of morality," of course he has made my day, because I've won the debate. That shows that the atheist's universe is not correct. But if he says "Oh no, there are no absolute standards; it's all by convention and stipulation," then I just pull the trigger and I win the debate anyway. Except you wouldn't expect me to win the debate in that fashion. Absolutely not. You came here expecting rational interchange. It cant be reiterated enough. If morality is essentially conventions of men, then why should an individual be compelled to follow it? Now, atheists will counter by asking the question of why an all-powerful transcendent God is allowing evil to exist in the first place. Barbara Ehrenreich, raises a valid point when she explains

Leaving out man-made genocide, war, and even those "natural" disasters, like drought and famine, to which "man" invariably contributes through his inept social arrangements, God has a lot to account for in the way of earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and plagues.(Ehrenreic) When the atheist argues against the existence of evil, he presupposes that good must also exist. Ravi Zacharias, a highly respected philosopher in the Christian community, author of many Christian apologetic books such as Jesus Among Other gods, and founder of Ravi Zacharias International, renders this point as absurd when he brings up an argument he had with a student from the University of Nottingham on the very subject: When you say there is evil, then you are assuming there is such a thing as good, and he said that is correct. And I said if you are assuming there is such a thing as good, then you are assuming there is such a thing as a moral law on the basis you differentiate between good and evil And we went into a bit of an interaction on that and I stood my point and he said Ill grant you that. I said so if you assume there is such a thing as moral law then you must posit a moral law giver, but thats who youre trying to disprove. If theres no moral law giver, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law then there is no good. If there is no good, then there is no evil. What is your question? The atheist cant argue the question of evil against God under the pretense his worldview is the correct one! This isnt a question the atheist can even ask! Morality is subjective under atheism and there is no good and evil. There is only what one feels is right or not and it may be held by multiple persons. Now, do not be mistaken. This is not an argument to show that atheists live in a moral gutter of all kinds of vice, satisfying their own pleasures at the expense of someone else. On the

contrary, there are some atheists that put some Christians to shame by their acts of kindness. This arguments purpose, rather, shows that the concept of evil and good cant even exist in the atheist universe. The theist, however, understands good and evil. He can account that morality is an objective law provided by a law giver that one is held accountable to. That moral law giver transcends space and time and created the universe. We expect that this God would govern the universe by transcendent laws that reflect his nature. This worldview is consistent and can account for good and evil. Yet, the question still remains: who is this God? Up until now, I have argued to render the atheist worldview one that is bankrupt of logic and devoid of resonating with our reality. By providing substantial evidence against atheism, I have validated theism and that there is a God. What I havent done is argue who this God really is. That God is the God of Christianity. What Christianity offers is in tap with realty and unique among every religion: we are a sinful people dead in our trespasses and sin by the actions of our forefather. According to justice, God must punish this sin. God is unchangeable, the I AM, the alpha and the omega. He cant deny himself (This ought to remind you of the law of noncontradiction). His moral law reflects his attributes and we broke that moral law. But God is also merciful and loves his people. Therefore he sent his only begotten son into the world to become sin for us and bear the full wrath of God in our place on the cross. Justice was satisfied and salvation, in no way earned by the individual, was secured for man. Atheism is a hopeless worldview filled with logical problems and moralistic issues that cant be explained. But Christianity understands our reality. King David wrote that The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. (Psalms 14:1 NKJV) and Paul writes in Romans that

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1: 20-22 NKJV) Paul also wrote: As it is written: There is none righteous, no, not one. (Romans 3:10) and also opines

But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank Godthrough Jesus Christ our Lord! (Romans 7: 23-25 NKJV) But Paul gives us hope when he exclaims: This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. (I Timothy 1:15 NKJV) as well as emphasizing that, God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:7). What wondrous love! Instead of punishing us in full for what we have done, God, satisfied his demand for justice by sacrificing his perfect son on the cross and afflicting him with his full wrath against sin! Praise the LORD! Oh give thanks to the LORD, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever! (Psalm 106:1 ESV)

References The Great Debate: Is There a God?. Bahnsen, Greg, Gordon Stein. Puritan Reformed Seminary. 1977. MP3. Ehrenreich, Barbara. "Atheists Question God's Existence." Atheism. Ed. Beth Rosenthal. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "God Owes Us an Apology." The Progressive 69 (Mar. 2005): 16. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 22 Nov. 2012. English Standard Version. Downers Grove, Il: Crossway. 2001. Hawking, Stephen. Is everything Determined? The Norton Reader. Linda H. Peterson. New York: WW Norton & Company. 2012. 539-546. Print. New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc. 1982. Slick, Matt. The Christian Worldview, The Atheist Worldview, and Logic. Christian Apologetic & Research Ministry. Matt Slick. 2012. 22 Nov. 2012. ---. The Failure of atheism to account for rationality. Christian Apologetic & Research Ministry. Matt Slick. 2012. 22 Nov. 2012. Zacharias, Ravi. Dr. Ravi Zacharias Question and Answer- Moral Law and Giver. n.p. Youtube. Web. 11/21/2012.