A symbolic logic fiction on the existence of God.
Fr. Peter arrived onto the scene with nothing but his Rosary and his wits. “Thank you Father for coming in such short notice,” greeted a senior police officer. “As you can see Father the situation is quite serious.” They are on the rooftop of a 13-storey government building. A well-dressed man named Thomas is standing on the edge of the building about to jump off and end his life. But not without a show. With all the media attention pointed towards him, he wants to make a statement for the world to see.
The senior police officer continues to brief the unprepared priest. “He’s not responding to our negotiator nor is he willing to meet with a psychiatrist. But he did request for a priest.” “Maybe he wants to confess his sins to God,” remarked Fr. Peter, with a twinkle of hope in his eyes. “I think not Father,” explains the officer. “You see a year ago from today his wife and four-year-old daughter died in a tragic car accident. The other driver was drunk and slammed into their family SUV where only Thomas walked away alive. Since then he has been a determined atheist.” “Only a fool sayeth there is no God. Let me talk some sense to this poor man.” “Be careful Father,” warns the officer, “He’s a lawyer… winning arguments is his day job!”
After making an anxious silent prayer to heaven the cautious priest slowly approaches the man on the ledge. “Thomas, my name is Father Peter. Perhaps you would like to talk?” Thomas turns around to the priest, still standing on the edge of the building. “Allow me to make a proposition: [#1] Either I will jump off this building, fall to my death and there is no God or I will somehow not fall to my death and there is a God because supposedly he loves me. What do you think of that Father?” Fr. Peter is dumbfounded by such a proposition.
Almost enjoying the situation, Thomas offers a challenge to the priest: “I will give you three chances to prove to me that there is a God. But I have to be convinced. I don’t want none of that faith mumbo-jumbo stuff. Speak to me with reason. Demonstrate to me the logic in believing in a man in the sky. Game?” Fr. Peter realizes he has no choice and this is perhaps the only way to save this person’s soul.
“Okay, here goes. One way of proving the existence of God is examining what we call the Moral Argument. [#2] Every person possesses a conscience that tells him what is right from wrong. This innate knowledge was not taught to us; we did not receive it from the outside visible world (that’s why it is called the natural law). If the natural law does not come from the visible world then it must come from a supernatural or divine source (God). Therefore, because we recognize we have a conscience then we must also accept that it came from a supernatural or divine source which we attribute as God.”
“Nice argument but may not what we call conscience be the result of education and environment?” rebuts Thomas. “[#3] If a child is raised with a good education and in a positive environment (e.g. loving family, safe neighborhood) then he will develop a healthy moral conscience. If a child is deprived of a good education and is subjected to a negative environment (broken family, dangerous neighborhood) then he will grow up to have an immoral conscience. According to your assertions, if there is a God then a child can and will grow up with a normal moral conscience even with no education, abused by his single parent and raised in a crime-ridden neighborhood. The reality is man has an immoral conscience — just look around us: man commits robbery, rape and murder. Therefore there is no God.”
“Okay, I see you’re not satisfied Thomas. Let’s try another approach. “[#4] If a watch was found in the middle of the forest, we cannot accept that it was assembled by itself. A watch is a complex combination of parts and mechanisms and also performs a specific function, which is to tell the time. If there is function and complexity in its composition then there must be a designer with intelligence who designed it. The universe is also functional and complex. Thus, if that is so then there must be an intelligent designer who also created the universe. That is God.”
“Me, I’m a firm believer of Darwin,” Thomas admits. “What if everything is just a coincidence? Or can we not say coincidence is a perception of order in randomness? There is no God. There is only chance. Blind and unprejudiced. Consider this: [#5] Indeed, the universe is a complex composition. William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” is also a complex composition made up of letters and words. If a letter of the alphabet was to be randomly picked from a small basket and returned 180,000 times, it is not impossible that the order and arrangement of letters could come out as Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, since it has all the material it needs — the 26 letters of the alphabet. Therefore it is quite possible that if there was randomness or chance then something complex such as the universe can be produced by it. It might be improbable, but it’s not impossible.”
“But that’s like expecting a tornado moving through a metal scrap junkyard to result in a fully functional Boeing 747!” exclaimed the priest. “It’s not only impossible, it’s absurd!” “It’s no more absurd then believing a man in the sky is listening to our prayers,” retorted Thomas.
“Okay, let’s try to prove the existence of God through the origin of life, since this was the subject of Darwin’s exhaustive studies but ultimately never really got to answer it satisfactorily himself. [#6] It is a fact of science that there was a time when there was no life on earth. If life did not and could not always exist on the earth then it must originally have either sprung from lifeless matter or been put there by someone, in other words, a Creator. The case cannot be that life sprang from lifeless matter because every living thing comes from a living parent, every life-cell from another life-cell. Such so-called “spontaneous generation” is a figment of the imagination. Hence, there remains only the other alternative that life is the result of a special act of creation, from a Creator, who is God.”
Thomas nods, semi-satisfied, but is not content. “Okay, for argument’s sake, let’s agree that there is an all-powerful Supreme Being that did create everything and put everything into existence. So what. Where is this so-called God now? Where is He in the face of terrible calamities and atrocious human acts? Hiding? Maybe even enjoying it like one enjoys to see mayhem and destruction in a Hollywood movie? Answer this, if you’re so convinced of your God: [#7] You Christians believe that God is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful. If God is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful then He would prevent evil. But evil does exist. If evil does exist then God cannot be all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful. Therefore he is not God or there is no God at all.”
“To be honest, there’s no easy answer to the problem of suffering and evil,” admits Fr. Peter. “But it does require some humility to understand and accept. [#8] God is so good He only wants the best for us. God is truly powerful that He can even turn evil into a good. God is all-knowing and all-wise that He can even see a purpose in evil. God never wills evil but he can permit it. Therefore God does not will evil but permits it if and only if it is beneficial for us.”
“God permits it?” Thomas angrily questions. “God permits that a crazy stupid drunken teenage driver take away the life of the only ones I live for: my beloved wife and precious daughter?! Now tell me Father, what possible good can come from this? If God is so perfect then why didn’t he just create a perfect world where no one is capable of evil and where no one has to suffer like I do now?”
“Freedom, Thomas,” Fr. Peter explains. “God wants us to be free. [#9] A world containing significantly free creatures is more valuable than a world containing no free creatures at all. God can exist and create free creatures but he can’t force them to do only what is right (no evil). If he does so then they are not significantly free after all. If God is to create creatures capable of moral good then He must endow them with the free capability to commit moral evil as well. Therefore, there is no logical inconsistency in the existence of God who creates free creatures alongside the existence of evil.”
“I know of only one way this evil can end,” Thomas contemplates, as he looks down onto the unsuspecting people below. “Escaping reality is not the answer,” Fr. Peter pleads. “But the only reality I knew was taken from me one year ago,” reminded Thomas.
“Do you love your wife and daughter, Thomas?” sternly asked the priest. Without hesitation Thomas responds, “Of course I love them! What kind of question is that?” “You see,” Fr. Peter begins to explain, “[#10] For love to be true then there must be free will. If God were to create a world without evil, especially moral evil, then this world would exclude the possibility of free will. There is no doubt that you truly love your wife and daughter. If you wished for such a perfect world without evil, and therefore without free will, then it would not be possible to love your wife and daughter. Thus, you must choose either a world without suffering but not the possibility of true love or a world where there is suffering but allows us the fullest possibility of love.”
Thomas pulls out a picture of his family from the breast pocket of his suit jacket. The photo has captured a perfect moment of happiness and love with his wife and daughter. “That photo wouldn’t exist if you got your wish for a perfect world without suffering,” interrupted Fr. Peter. With uncontrollable tears in his eyes, Thomas safely steps down from the edge of the building, and reconsiders his actions.
“You didn’t jump,” the relieved priest pointed out. “I guess there is a God,” said Thomas.
SUMMARY OF LOGICAL ARGUMENTS
Argument #1: Leap of Doubt
1. Either I will jump off this building, fall to my death and there is no God or I will somehow not fall to my death and there is a God because supposedly he loves me.
2. I didn’t jump. Therefore, there is a God.
SYMBOLIC FORM: (J·G)v(~J·~G) / ~J // G
Argument #2: The Moral Argument (Conscience)
1. Every person possesses a conscience that tells him what is right from wrong.
2. This innate knowledge was not taught to us; we did not receive it from the outside visible world (that’s why it is called the natural law).
3. If the natural law does not come from the visible world then it must come from a supernatural or divine source (God).
4. Therefore, because we recognize we have a conscience then we must also accept that it came from a supernatural or divine source which we attribute as God.
SYMBOLIC FORM: C / N / NͻG // CͻG
Argument #3: Education & Environment
1. If a child is raised with a good education and in a positive environment (e.g. loving family, safe neighborhood) then he will develop a healthy moral conscience.
2. If a child is deprived of a good education and is subjected to a negative environment (broken family, dangerous neighborhood) then he will grow up to have an immoral conscience.
3. According to your assertions, if there is a God then a child can and will grow up with a normal moral conscience even with no education, abused by his single parent and raised in a crime-ridden neighborhood.
4. The reality is man has an immoral conscience. (He commits robbery, rape and murder.)
5. Therefore there is no God.
SYMBOLIC FORM: (E·P)ͻC / (~E·~P)ͻ~C / Gͻ[C·(~E·~P)] / ~C // ~G
Argument #4: The Argument of Design/Purpose (Teleological)
1. If a watch was found in the middle of the forest, we cannot accept that it was assembled by itself.
2. A watch is a complex combination of parts and mechanisms and also performs a specific function, which is to tell the time.
3. If there is function and complexity in its composition then there must be a designer with intelligence who designed it.
4. The universe is also functional and complex.
5. Therefore if that is so then there must be an intelligent designer who also created the universe. That is God.
SYMBOLIC FORM: WͻA / C / CͻD / U·C // UͻD
Argument #5: Blind Chance/Darwinism
1. Indeed, the universe is a complex composition.
2. William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” is also a complex composition made up of letters and words.
3. If a letter of the alphabet was to be randomly picked from a small basket and returned 180,000 times, it is not impossible that the order and arrangement of letters could come out as William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, since it has all the material it needs — the 26 letters of the alphabet.
4. Therefore it is quite possible that if there was randomness or chance then something complex such as the universe can be produced by it.
SYMBOLIC FORM: U / H / RͻH // RͻU
Argument #6: The Cosmological Argument (The Origin of Life)
1. It is a fact of science that there was a time when there was no life on earth.
2. If life did not and could not always exist on the earth then it must originally have either sprung from lifeless matter or been put there by someone i.e. a Creator.
3. The case cannot be that life sprang from lifeless matter because every living thing comes from a living parent, every life-cell from another life-cell. Such so-called “spontaneous generation” is a figment of the imagination.
4. Hence, there remains only the other alternative that life is the result of a special act of creation, in other words, from a Creator, who is God.
SYMBOLIC FORM: N / Nͻ(MvC) / ~M // C
Argument #7: The Problem of Evil/Suffering
1. God is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful.
2. If God is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful then He would prevent evil.
3. But evil does exist.
4. If evil does exist then God cannot be all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful.
5. Therefore he is not God or there is no God at all.
SYMBOLIC FORM: G / Gͻ~E / E / Eͻ~G // ~G
Argument #8: Greater Good from Evil
1. God is so good He only wants the best for us.
2. God is truly powerful that He can even turn evil into a good.
3. God is all-knowing and all-wise that He can even see a purpose in evil.
4. God never wills evil but he can permit it.
5. Therefore God does not will evil but permits it if and only if it is beneficial for us.
SYMBOLIC FORM: B / T / P / G // (G≡B)
Argument #9: Plantinga’s Free Will Defense
1. A world containing significantly free creatures is more valuable than a world containing no free creatures at all.
2. God can exist and create free creatures but he can’t force them to do only what is right (no evil).
3. If he does so then they are not significantly free after all.
4. If God is to create creatures capable of moral good then He must endow them with the free capability to commit moral evil as well.
5. Therefore, there is no logical inconsistency in the existence of God who creates free creatures alongside the existence of evil.
SYMBOLIC FORM: F / G·~E / (G·~E)ͻ~F / MͻE // G·E
Argument #10: Love is a Choice
1. For love to be true then there must be free will.
2. If God were to create a world without evil, especially moral evil, then this world would exclude the possibility of free will.
3. There is no doubt that you truly love your wife and daughter.
4. If you wished for such a perfect world without evil, and therefore without free will, then it would not be possible to love your wife and daughter.
5. Thus, you must choose either a world without suffering but not the possibility of true love or a world where there is suffering but allows us the fullest possibility of love.
SYMBOLIC FORM: LͻF / ~Eͻ~F / L / (~Eͻ~F) ͻ~L // (~E·~L)v(E·L)
