Does God exist? Some say that the Earth and the life on It was Just a product of random chance, and not created by any intelligent deity. Others say that It couldn’t have occurred simply by random chance, and it must have been created by an intelligent Creator. I agree with the latter statement, and am writing this to articulate some of the reasons behind why I believe in God. Atheism is sometimes portrayed as being more logical than believing God created the universe, but I think that belief In God, or Theism, is at least equally logical, and perhaps more logical than Atheism.

I will be presenting three arguments supporting belief in God: the Scientific Argument, the Moral Argument, and the Practical Argument. The Selecting Argument* I think a very strong argument in favor of Theism is the development of life on Earth. Many Atheists believe that life was created from inorganic matter through the random process of molecules Interacting together, and that over time, the random combinations of molecules formed different parts of a cell, which then combined to form one cell, which all life on Earth is descended from.

However, I think his is a weak argument when you consider how vastly complex a cell is. Within each cell, there are microscopic cellular “machines” called organelles. Each organelle serves a purpose, whether it be constructing proteins, generating energy for the cell, or storing food and waste. If a cell was missing just one of its essential organelles, the cell would die. Each organelle is made up of a multitude of molecules, and it seems that it would be very difficult for even one functional organelle to be produced from Inorganic matter randomly bonding, let alone every single one of the organelles a cell deeds to survive.

It seems logical to conclude that the odds of a fully functional cell developing from inorganic matter are incredibly unlikely if it is merely the product of random chance. Another argument in favor of God’s existence is the theory of the Big Bang. This theory states that the universe once existed as an Incredibly small, dense, and hot point in space known as a singularity, which began to expand rapidly, and later became the universe as we know it today. This theory is supported by a great amount of evidence.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

From this theory, we can draw one of two conclusions: either (1) the universe came into existence and Immediately started expanding or (2) the universe had existed eternally as a singularity, and suddenly began expanding. (One could also draw the conclusion that the universe was in a constant cyclical state of expansion and contraction, but there is little evidence for this, because it was discovered that the universe’s expansion is actually accelerating, rather than slowing down. Let’s examine the first of these two conclusions: the universe came into existence and immediately started expanding. As far as I know, there is no law of hicks explaining how something could come into existence from nothing. Therefore, if the universe came into existence from nothing, it would have to have been created by something transcendent of physics, something not bound by the laws of physics. I believe that this Is a great piece of evidence for God’s existence, because I believe that God created the laws of physics, and is not bound by them. OFF as a singularity, and suddenly began expanding. If this statement is true, and the universe had existed forever as an unchanging singularity, there is no reason why the universe would start expanding by itself. An outside force would be needed to cause the universe to expand. Since the universe is defined as everything in existence, if the universe existed in a singularity, there would be no object outside of the singularity to cause an outside force.

I believe that if the universe had existed eternally as an unchanging singularity, the only thing that could cause it to start expanding would be God. In response to the scientific arguments I present here for the existence of God, some Atheists may point to the Multiversity theory as an alternate explanation for the origin of the universe and the development of life on Earth. Multiversity theory is the theory that there is an infinite number of parallel universes that cannot be observed from this universe.

This would explain how life could have developed on Earth even though, as stated previously, it is, in my opinion, incredibly improbable that life could develop from inorganic matter: with an infinite number of universes, it becomes far more likely that life would develop in at least one of them. If one person buys a lottery ticket, it is highly unlikely that he will win the lottery, but if a billion people buy lottery tickets, the odds are that at least one of them will win.

Also, the universes outside of our own could provide the outside force necessary to begin the expansion of our universe, or could have created our own universe. However, this theory leads us to an inevitable question: Where did those other universes come from? Even supposing that the universes had all been created by previous universes, where did those universes come from? Furthermore, there is next to no evidence supporting the existence of any universe other than our own. Which is more likely: the existence of an infinite number of hypothetical universes which we have never observed, or the existence of God? Am not a scientist, so my scientific argument is based only on my basic knowledge of the sciences and research on Wisped. The Moral Argument I believe that the existence of morality is dependent on the existence of God. To explain why, first I must explain what I mean by morality. What I mean by morality is the existence of a universal right and wrong, that actions are either moral or immoral based on a constant standard of morality, not based on how one feels about the morality of the action, or whether or not the action is accepted as moral by society.

If such a standard exists, it could not have been created by humans, because humans fifer in their beliefs about morality, and if morality is simply a creation of humans, who is to say which morality is better, if morality is, by definition, perfectly good? Therefore, if morality was created, it must have been created by an entity greater than humans, and since morality is the definition of goodness, that entity would be perfect. The only Being I believe matches that description is God. Some might say that morality didn’t need to be created because it is an idea, not a physical object.

However, if this were true, that morality has existed for all eternity and was never reared, it still doesn’t explain why we have the ability to perceive it. Almost all reason that the idea of morality on its own can give us the ability to perceive it. The fact that an idea is true does not mean that we have the ability to understand it. While the Pythagorean Theorem is true, chimpanzees have no way of comprehending it. There also is no natural reason why we could have evolved a conscience. Morality is in opposition to natural principles. The natural law says “Survival of the fittest. The moral law says “Help those who are in need. ” Therefore, there is no natural reason why we can perceive morality, so we must have been given that opportunity by something that transcends nature and has great power. This is why I believe that if morality exists, God must exist. To counter this argument, some atheists might deny the existence of objective morality. However, I question whether they really believe that. To those who claim that right and wrong do not exist: Do you really believe that there is no significant difference between the actions of Mother Teresa and Doll Hitler?

What significant difference can there be if you cannot say that one was good and one was evil? Following this line of thought, if there is no significant difference, then our actions don’t really matter, and it doesn’t matter if we live our lives Just in accordance with what we feel like doing, or if we lead a self-sacrificing life of following God, since, if there is no morality, there is no significant difference between these lifestyles. If the way we live our lives didn’t matter, then I believe there would not be much of a purpose to life.

So, following this logic, to deny the existence of morality is to deny that our lives have meaning, which I think is a very drastic philosophy to adopt in order to deny the existence of God. The Practical Argument While all of these arguments can be very compelling, we have no indisputable proof of God’s existence. So, the choice is yours of how you decide to live your life: Will you assume that there is no God and live by your own rules? Or will you put your faith in God and live by His rules?

I am writing this to explain why you should live your life by God’s rules, not your own. I will give four scenarios about how you live your 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 that Atheism was right and there is no God. Since if there is no God there is no afterlife, there is nothing after you die, and you cease to exist. 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 right relationship with God. Scenario 3: You do not follow God, and live on your own terms, and it turns out that Atheism was right and there is no God. Since if there is no God there is no afterlife, 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. You have belled against your Holy Creator, and it is debatable whether you will merely cease to exist or spend eternity in despair, forever separated from the Perfect God.

Notice that if you choose to live on your own terms, there is no chance of it ultimately yielding a positive result. You will either cease to exist or spend eternity eternally speaking it will never yield a result worse than the result of living on your own terms. If there is no God, you will cease to exist either way, but if God does exist, the result of following Him is far better than the result of turning your back on Him. I think this makes it clear that we should follow God. I need to clarify something here.

I do not believe that we should follow God based on selfish principles, solely so that we can have an eternity of Joy. Our dedication to God should be based on our love for Him because He is perfect and loved us so much that, even though we have rebelled against Him, He still was willing to send His Holy Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the Cross, and while on the Cross endure the separation from His Heavenly Father that we deserved because of our rebellions against God, so that we could live in right relationship with God through humbling ourselves before Him and accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior.


I'm Niki!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out