God, Death, and the Meaning of Life (part 1)

In this and the next few posts, I'm going to put up excerpts from my final paper for my Philosophy class in which I establish and defend my views on the existence of God, the possibility of an afterlife, and the meaning of life. I do not expect anyone to read it all or even to fully understand them; they are more as reminders to me of what I believe in so that five years from now I can look back and see how my views have changed. Nonetheless, any questions or points of dispute are extremely welcome. Here goes...

I. Introduction

Is there a God? Is it possible for us to continue to exist after we die? What is the meaning of life? These three questions are, in my opinion, some of the most important questions that one should ask his or her self. Why? Because these three questions are integral to determining how we live. Answering these three questions allows us to have a specific “world view” that can guide us through life. That being the case, I personally believe that God does exist, that an afterlife is possible, and that the meaning of life is found in developing one’s character as much as he or she is able in accordance with objective moral laws. I will thus proceed to explain as best as I can the basis for my beliefs, and defend it from what I believe are the most serious objections to my arguments.

II. Does God exist?

There are three main arguments for the existence of God: the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. The ontological argument argues that we can prove God’s existence based on reason alone. The cosmological argument, on the other hand, attempts to justify God’s existence by attempting to prove that the universe has a first cause. Finally, the teleological argument argues that the universe exhibits design by an intelligent being. Of the three arguments, it is my opinion that the strongest argument is the cosmological argument. Of the other two, the teleological argument is possibly viable, although not as convincing, whereas the ontological argument (in my opinion) fails because it confuses metaphysical necessity with logical necessity. Nonetheless, I believe that the cosmological argument alone provides sufficient reason to believe in the existence of God.

I will begin first of all with the premise that the universe had a beginning. In my opinion, Big Bang cosmology has provided sufficient evidence to believe that the universe has a finite age (specifically around 14 billion years old). Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that if the universe had always existed, it would have already suffered “heat death” (which is a state of cosmic equilibrium in which matter no longer has enough thermodynamic free energy to sustain motion or life). The universe thus has not always existed, and had a beginning. This tells us two things. Firstly, it suggests that the universe was caused by something that preceded the universe, for it is not possible that something should come from absolutely nothing. Secondly, because the universe did not always exist, we can coherently entertain the notion of metaphysical worlds in which the universe does not exist. This means that the universe is contingent (it might not have existed) as opposed to necessary (something which, if it exists, it could not have failed to exist). The moderate Principal of Sufficient Reason (PSR) states that for every contingently existing object, there is a causally sufficient explanation as to why that object exists rather than not. This means that there must be a causally sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe. This explanation must involve a necessary being because contingent beings alone cannot be causally sufficient for the existence of the universe (for there is no contingent object that is not either part of the universe or the universe itself, and contingent objects cannot logically be generated or sustained by itself or a part of itself). The universe is therefore ontologically (metaphysically) dependent upon a necessary being. In other words, the existence of the universe is wholly dependent upon a necessary being that preceded the universe. Since the universe exists, it can be concluded that that necessary being must also exist.

How then does this “necessary being” relate to God? Well, the necessary being which is causally responsible for the existence of the universe must provide either a personal or natural explanation for the existence of the cosmos. A personal explanation is an explanation derived from the intentional action of a person, and thus requires no other explanation, whereas a natural explanation is an explanation based on naturally existing laws, precepts, processes, and conditions. Since prior to the existence of the universe there was no space, no time, no beings related in space and time, and no principles describing their regular patterns of behavior (in other words, there were no antecedent physical conditions), the necessary being causally responsible for the existence of the universe can only provide a personal explanation. It follows from that that this necessary being must also be a personal being (that is, a being who knows and acts), and not some mindless “force” or “power”. This personal being is God.

This argument for the existence of God is, of course, not infallible. The chief problem is that it makes an assumption that the atheist is free to reject. This assumption is that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is always true, which may or may not be the case. The PSR is not true a priori, which means that it is not a conceptual or deductible truth (in other words, it is not automatically true). The PSR is merely derived from our experiences in the world, and thus may not be always true. In applying the PSR to the argument, one must assume that what is true of some events is true of all events, thus possibly committing the Fallacy of Composition (which is to incorrectly assume that the whole has the same properties as its parts). Moreover, physics has suggested the some things, such as virtual particles that begin to exist in a quantum mechanical vacuum, begin to exist without a sufficient reason.¹⁰ This is known as quantum indeterminacy, and if true, would refute the assumption that the PSR is always true. It is thus still possible that there is simply no reason why the world exists.

I nonetheless believe that the cosmological argument still succeeds despite the objections raised against it. In particular, I believe that it is still reasonable to believe that the PSR is always true because the principle that everything contingent requires a sufficient explanation is constantly confirmed by our experiences, and indeed is used to make sense of those experiences. Just as it is possible for something that may be true to not be true, it is also possible for something that may not be true to actually be true, and in my opinion the fact that the PSR is constantly confirmed by our senses is sufficient reason to believe that the PSR is always true. As for the theory of quantum indeterminacy, it is as such an argument from ignorance, and there may very well be underlying reasons for the existence of virtual particles in a quantum mechanical vacuum that we do not know of, although I must concede that if it is ever conclusively proven that quantum indeterminacy is true, my argument would fail in its entirety. Nonetheless, as the matter stands, I believe that the PSR is most probably true (or at least, more likely than not), and so the cosmological argument remains viable.

In conclusion, I believe that the cosmological argument provides sufficient reason for believing in the existence of God. It must be conceded, however, that the cosmological argument is not conclusive; it merely demonstrates that it is possible (in my opinion probable) that God exists.