Andrews 1

Hannah Andrews
Dr. Meredith
PHIL 1030-401
20 July 2016
Argumentative Essay: The Question of God
Does God exist? Some argue that the earth and life on it was an outcome of random
chance, and not created by any intelligent deity. On the other hand, others claim that it could not
have taken place by random chance, but it must have been created by an intelligent Creator. I
comply with the second statement, and my purpose is to express favorable arguments for theism.
In our contemporary era, atheism is often depicted as being more logical than believing God
created the universe, but I believe that theism as just as logical, if not more logical than atheism.
I will be presenting three arguments supporting belief in God: the Scientific Argument, the Moral
Argument, and the Practical Argument.
To begin, my scientific arguments are based solely on my knowledge of the sciences that
I have learned through my middle school and high school educations. A strong argument in
favor of theism is the development of life on earth. In my secular, public school education,
where creationism is not taught, I was taught that all living things on earth descended from a
single cell, which was created from inorganic matter. However, this is a weak argument,
considering how complex a cell is. I will explain this complexity because cell function has been
embossed in my mind. Every cell contains organelles. Organelles produce proteins, generate
energy, or store food and waste. Each organelle is made up of a mass of molecules, making it
seem incredibly unlikely for even one functional organelle to be produced from inorganic matter
if it is simply the product of random chance.

Andrews 2
Another scientific argument in favor of Gods existence is the Big Bang Theory. I have
learned that this theory states the universe was once an incredibly small, dense, and hot point
space, which began to expand rapidly, eventually becoming the universe that we know today.
From this theory one is able to draw one of two conclusions: either the universe immediately
started expanding once it came into existence or the universe has always existed as an
unchanging singularity, and suddenly began expanding. In looking at the first conclusion, there
is no law of physics explaining how something could come into existence from nothing. Thus, if
the universe came into existence from nothing, it had to have been created by something not
bound by the laws of physics. This is a considerable piece of evidence for Gods existence
because God created the laws of physics, and He is not bound by them. Likewise, with the
second conclusion, if the universe has always existed as unchanging singularity, there is logic as
to why the universe would start expanding by itself. An outside force would have been essential
to cause an expansion. As Saint Thomas Aquinas puts it, We must therefore posit a first cause
of change which is not itself changed by anything. And this everyone understands to be God
(45).
Secondly, it is apparent that the essence of morality is dependent on Gods existence.
Morality is the existence of a universal right and wrong, or a moral code. In support of the moral
argument, even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of society, like the
Aboriginals in Australia, observe a moral code much like everyone elses. Even though,
differences obviously exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty, or vices like
cowardice or greed are universal. If such a standard exists, it could not have been created by
humans because humans vary in their beliefs about morality. Morality must have been created
by a perfect entity, who is God.

Andrews 3
There is also no natural reason why humans could have evolved a conscience. Morality
is the opposition to natural principles. The natural law says survival of the fittest. In contrast,
the moral law says help those who are need. And for that reason, there is no natural reason
why we can perceive morality, we were given that ability by something that transcends nature. If
morality exists, God exists.
On the contrary, some might deny the existence of objective morality. It can be
questionable whether some actually believe that. How does one believe there is no significant
difference between the actions of Mahatma Gandhi and Adolf Hitler? What significant difference
can there be if you can not say that one was good and one was evil? Following this logic, our
actions do not really matter, and it does not matter if we live our lives in correspondence to what
we feel like doing, then that means there is not much purpose to life. To conclude, to deny the
existence of morality is to deny that our lives have purpose, which is a harsh philosophy to live
by in order to deny Gods existence.
While all these arguments are compelling, we do not have irrefutable proof of Gods
existence. As a Christian, I believe God has given humans free will for their life on earth.
Because of that free will, one may assume that there is no God and live by his or her own rules,
or one may put their faith in God and live by His rules He has set for us which I believe can be
comprehended in Abrahamic religions texts (The Bible, The Torah, or The Quran). I do
understand that this statement is controversial, but I believe we all have a belief in the same God.
Pascals Wager describes four scenarios about how one may live their life and the existence of
God.
Scenario 1: You follow God and seek to live life the way He wants you to, but it turns out
there is no God. If there is no God, there is nothing after you die and you cease to exist.

Andrews 4
Scenario 2: You follow God and seek to live life the way He wants you to, and it turns out
that God does exist, you spend eternity in Heaven with God.
Scenario 3: You do not follow God and live on your own terms, and there is no God, then
there is nothing after you die and you cease to exist.
Scenario 4: You do not follow God and live on your own terms, but it turns out that God
does exist, it is debatable whether you will merely cease to exist or spend eternity in despair,
forever separated from God.
French philosopher, Blaise Pascal argues it is clear what we should do. Let us weigh the
gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you
gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation that He is (53). My only
hesitation to Pascals argument is that he is saying that it is better off to believe than if we do not.
We should not follow God based on selfish ambitions, for the sole purpose of having an eternity
of indescribable joy. Our motivation to follow after God should be based on our love for Him
because He is merciful and just. He loved us so much that, even though we have turned away
from Him, He sent his son, Jesus to die on the cross to endure the separation that we deserve
because of our rebellions against Him. Jesus did this so that we could humble ourselves and
pursue a relationship with Him.
If the Scientific Argument, Moral Argument, and Practical Argument can be defended
against various objections that have been raised against them, then it proves the existence of a
being that has authority over and that actively rules over all creation. Together, my three
arguments give us proof that there is a perfect, necessary, and eternal being that created the
universe with life in mind and has the authority to tell us how we are to run it.

Andrews 5