The term “God” applies to an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and all-present being. If God is ultimate or supreme, a lesser ascription to God would contradict the idea of the “Godness” of God.
While there are modern scientists and philosophers who are apt to argue the non-
existence of God – like Stephen Hawking, Walter Sinott-Armstrong, and Steven Weinberg – it
cannot be doubted likewise that there are contemporary thinkers, equally scientists and
philosophers, who are wont to demonstrate the plausibility of God’s existence.
Let me mention three modern thinkers.
The first is William Lane Craig. An American analytic philosopher and theologian (with
doctorates in philosophy and theology), Craig contends that God’s existence can be reasonably
demonstrated or explained.
“Well, there are several reasons for believing in the existence of God. First, God is the
best explanation for why anything at all exists rather than nothing. Second, God is the best
explanation for the origin of the universe at a point in the finite past. Third, God is the best
explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life. Fourth, God is the best
explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties in the world. Fifth, I would
also argue that God is the best explanation for the historical facts surrounding the person of Jesus
of Nazareth, particularly his radical personal claims, his miracles and his resurrection from the
dead,” Craig argued.
Craig continues: “Number six, there’s also the famous teleological argument which would
say that the universe exhibits a complexity in its structure that cannot be attributed plausibly to
either chance or to physical necessity, but a product of intelligent design. Number seven, I would
also think that the very concept of God, once it’s properly understood, entails that God exists
such that it’s metaphysically impossible for God not to exist. And lastly, number eight, I would
say that it’s possible to have a personal relationship with God or know him personally. This isn’t
really an argument for God’s existence, but it’s the claim that you can know God exists wholly
apart from arguments by having a personal or intimate relationship with God the creator.”
Then, there’s Owen Gingerich. Believer and scientist, professor emeritus of astronomy
and history of science at Harvard University, Gingerich believes that science is incapable of
giving proofs for the existence or non-existence of God because questions about God are
metaphysical, not physical, in character.
For Gingerich, God is not only a creator, but a sustainer of the universe.
Gingerich explains: “If you think of God as not only a creator, but a sustainer of the
universe, then this framework itself would not exist if it were not for God’s ongoing creation.
Around the time of Galileo, a biblical proof text was used against the Copernican heliocentric
system: ‘The Lord God laid the earth on its foundations, and never will it be shaken (Psalm
104:5)’. Johannes Kepler was right when he said that this verse is talking about the stability of
the earth as home for humankind.”
The third modern thinker is Alvin Plantinga. Philosophy professor at the University of
Notre Dame, Plantinga argues that God’s existence can be demonstrated through the notion of
“proper function” and the “Mozart argument.”
Plantinga explains the notion of “proper function” as explanation for God’s existence:
“The basic idea of proper function is that of something which is designed to work in a certain
way and then it functions properly. When it works that way and as it seems to me you can’t give
an explanation of proper function in naturalistic terms, you can only do it in terms of a creator or
designer of human beings.”
Then, on the “Mozart argument,” Plantinga contends: “The fact that there are people like
Mozart that can create beauty of absolutely stunning proportions, this seems to me to fit in much
better in a theistic universe and one which God is in control, a God who is himself beautiful
beyond compare, and who makes us able to appreciate or make beautiful things and the like. This
fits in vastly better than just being in a naturalistic universe where we come out this way because
of evolution.”
Now, for my part, let me adduce one cogent point beyond dispute.
Yes, God’s existence may be scientifically superfluous, may not be deducible by
comprehension, or may not be established by tangible or empirical evidence – but I like to
reckon that it is more comforting or practicable to believe in a supreme being, or God, who is an
“incomprehensible yet reasonable, transcendent yet immanent, mysterious yet palpable,
seemingly absent yet powerfully present, and a silent yet immensely engaging” companion
for a meaningful and fulfilling life journey. Benedictus Deus!
#WeTakeAStand #OpinYon #OpinYonColumn #ColumnbyBobAcebedo #InspiredAndBlessed #ThreeModernthinkerssayGodexist