Reasons Why I Believe in God (Perspectives Part 2)

Aside from being my personal favourite comic, Calvin and Hobbes is one of the most popular comic strips of all time, both because of its enrapturing storytelling and its brilliant philosophical influences. It follows the childhood adventures of six-year-old Calvin, who is just as precocious as he is rambunctious, and his stuffed tiger Hobbes. And while these quirky and lovable title characters can be taken as nothing more than such, it's certainly no coincidence that their namesakes are 16th-century theologian John Calvin and 17th-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. There are countless examples of strips that have underlying academic themes, and the following is one of my (many) favourites. 

 

Leave it to Calvin to perfectly outline a 400-year-old metaphysical concept. 

Pascal's Wager is an argument presented by French theologian Balise Pascal, which suggest that one's belief in God is a bet on their own life. Essentially, the theory states that everyone should live as though God does exist because if they're wrong, they'll only have a finite loss but if they're right, they'll be rewarded infinite gains and avoid suffering from infinite punishment.

	God exists	God does not exist
Belief in God	Eternal Joy	Nothing
Atheism	Eternal Suffering	Nothing

That being said, believing in God for the sake of believing in God is like being "good for goodness' sake." If your intentions behind "being good" are selfish in nature, such as being a means of waking up to presents on Christmas morning, then are you really "being good" at all? Even if it's logically sound and ultimately rewarding to believe in God, Pascal's reasoning is void of substance, and in order for someone to truly believe in anything, let alone a Supreme Being, I think there must be reason beyond personal gain. In the comic strip, Calvin doesn't necessarily believe in Santa per say; he merely believes in his own wants. 

For thousands of years, religious faith has been vehemently supported by some and dismissed with just as much vehemence by others. There are a few key arguments in support of God's existence, but as is the case with any philosophical debate, each argument opens up for a world of challenges and critiques. 

The Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument, which was supported by Plato and Aristotle, is most often presented in terms of four "truth" clauses, the last of which stating the existence of God. Without excessive detail, the entire argument can be boiled down to the laws and standards of cause and effect. The clauses are as follows:

1.  Every finite and dependent being has a cause.
2. Nothing finite and dependent can cause itself.
3. A casual chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, there must be a "first cause."

The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument is a little different. It was presented by Saint Anslem, and in simplest terms, is the idea that God exists because you can imagine God exists. Like the cosmological argument, it can be presented in terms of a number of clauses, the last of which stating the existence of God. Where the ontological argument differs however, is that it relies on the acknowledgement of four principle qualities that God must exhibit in order to be God. God must be omnipotent, God must be omniscient, God must be all-good, and God must exist. If those four qualities can be generally agreed on as conditional, then the clauses of the ontological argument can follow.

1. God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2. God exists as an idea of the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God, for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.
6. Therefore, God exists.

The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument was suggested and supported by Saint Thomas Aquinas. It supposes that the universe is so complex that it requires a maker in order to make sense of its existence, and that there is no way it could have been created by chance rather than by design. The teleological argument can be argued in terms of the anthropic principle, which is the philosophical premise that any data humans collect about the universe and its creation must be filtered by the fact that in order for it to be observable in the first place, it must be compatible with the existence of conscious human life. In simpler terms, theories of the universe must allow for human existence, and the presence of a Supreme Being is one of the few explanations that account for this necessity. 

Take the Big Bang theory for example. In order for the Big Bang to have resulted in the creation of anything, let alone in the creation of sentient life, its explosive force had to be within 1 part in 10^60th of what it actually was. The percentage difference in the force of the Big Bang that could have still accommodated the possibility of life was literally 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%. If it had been any weaker, the universe would have instantly collapsed in on itself due to gravity, and if it had been any stronger, its particles would have dispersed into thin air. Humanity's existence is like a house of cards: it's so improbable that if one single piece were removed or changed, the entire structure would fall apart. To me, God is the only explanation.

The Argument For Morality

In my opinion, the argument of morality is one of the most convincing. It suggests that because humanity has at least some innate morality, God must exist. It's summarized by C.S. Lewis in his Mere Christianity: "conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver." Oftentimes an individual's sense of morality opposes their personal interests and desires, and even if one doesn't follow their morality, there's almost always an inherent sense of guilt that accompanies that decision. Without a "supernatural Lawgiver," a human being's only inclination would be towards their own personal fulfillment.

* * * * * 

Of course, all of these arguments can and have been refuted in many ways by many people. I'm sure you've heard, or maybe even used the age-old "if God is so powerful, can he create a mountain so heavy he couldn't move it?" rebuttal. Besides, if God exists, why is there so much hurt in the world? What about free will? Or hate crimes committed in God's name? Some of these questions will be answered from my perspective in the weeks to come, and some of them won't. But ultimately, I feel that at the core of my being, there's inviolable love, life, morality, and purpose that surpasses own judgement, and even though there are still questions left unanswered and mysteries left unknown, that's why I believe in God.