Johnny Molden REL 101 Research Paper Non topic statement: Im disappointed I didnt wind up getting to do exactly what

I wanted for this paper. I had finally decided to watch and summarize the film The God Who Wasnt There (Flemming, Bryan. Independent. 2005), which questions the existence of Jesus, mounting the Christ Myth Theory against the historical Jesus and other aspects of Christianity. It is basically, from my understanding, an atheistic viewpoint presented in a factual manner using scripture as a basis for much of the fact finding. My hope was to compare and contrast this viewpoint with the Christian understanding and interpretation of the cited scriptures. From that I intended to create a clear and concise comparison and understanding of the varying theories, resulting in a Mythbusters-esque confirmed, plausible, or busted end result. Unfortunately I wasnt the only one trying to find this film, and my netflix cue has had it on a long wait the entire time. So I was unable to actually see the film itself. But with the director and creator being a self described atheist Christian, I thought it could be interesting. Maybe another time! So in that similar spirit, I am just going to wing this and try to look at a few things that come to find from the varying viewpoints of believers versus non-believers. So I shall begin at the beginning with creation. Naturalists main argument in a nutshell is that since energy is able to enter our world, and the building blocks of life were already present, it is possible for chance collisions of molecules to produce life (I would cite a source, but this seems the general synopsis from numerous sources I looked at). This theory, be it something like the big bang for example, would technically be

correct. But yet it is extremely vague and perhaps leads to more questions than answers. The obvious one being how? Indeed energy is free to enter our world, but what mechanism connects that energy in such a precise and complex way in order to create the building blocks of life? If we were to take eggs, milk, flour, sugar, and whatever other basic ingredients youd like for a treat, and then place a stick of C4 under it all and blow it up, is it likely the end result will be a cake? Indeed I suppose it is entirely possible it could, all of the building blocks are present after all. But more likely than not, if we want a cake it will take some intervention by someone or something with purpose and intelligence guiding each ingredient into its proper place. Now that is a rather simple example with very few variables. Extrapolate that out into creating an entire world and universe with life and the odds of our C4 cake become incalculable. Obviously this in itself does not prove without a shadow of doubt that a personal God exists. But neither does an argument such as all elements are there come close to disproving it either, and I know which sounds more likely to me. And for that matter, where did those elements and/or energy come from anyway? Expanding from that example and bringing it into life and nature, I found a really cool example that describes presuppositions and the Naturalists contradictions. The example is so good Im just going to quote it: Suppose two men are riding in a railway coach and glancing from the window at one of the stops, they see numerous white stones scattered about on a hillside near the train in a pattern resembling these letters: THE CANADIAN RAILWAYS WELCOMES YOU TO CANADA. One man observes that it took a lot of work to

arrange the stones in that pattern, but the other disagrees. The second man sees no proof that any work was expended on the arrangement. After all, similar stones are scattered about on other parts of the hill, and they could roll down the slope periodically. He argues that the rocks may have simply rolled accidentally into this curious arrangement. At this point, the first man may feel that the second man is being credulous and irrational, but he has to admit that he has no actual proof (from where they are sitting) that anyone arranged the rocks this way. He may feel his own explanation (that someone purposely arranged the rocks) is easier to believe than the accidental theory, but this judgment is based on probability and is somewhat subjective. A few minutes later, the second man (who believes the rocks were arranged by accident) suggests that they should get out at the station and exchange their U. S. currency for Canadian money. "What makes you think we should do that?" asks the first man. The second man answers, "Can't you read?" while pointing to the rocks on the hill "It says we're entering Canada!" "Okay, hold it right there!" the first man says. "You just claimed these rocks fell into this arrangement by pure chance, but now you're saying the arrangement of the rocks means we are entering Canada!" (Richard Taylor, cited in John Hick, Arguments for the Existence of God. The second man is acting in a way inconsistent with his own presuppositions. By suggesting they change their money, he has demonstrated that he, too, believes the arrangement of the stones is no accident. His conclusion that they are entering Canada, based on the arrangement of the stones, is inconsistent with his earlier claim that the

stones had fallen into that pattern by accident. His actions and words demonstrate that he, too, believes someone placed the stones in this arrangement on purpose in order to communicate something. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1971), pp.23,24). How does this apply? Well to the Naturalist or non-believer, everything in the universe arose out of chaos as a result of chance. It just randomly happened, much as the second man saw the rocks in the above example. Under this line of thinking, everything happens as a result of nature. A series of cause and effects, matter colliding with matter, energy having its purpose, and all working together according to natural laws. Now the key here is natural law. It simply is what it is, no way around it. If this is the case, then everything must be pre-determined, as chemicals, matter, energy, etc dont decide how they will react they can only do what laws and conditions allow. Now, if that is the case then no free will or free thought can possibly exist. We too are part of the Naturalists theory when it comes to nature and creation. Our being, and our brains, are part of the grand series of cause and effect. Hence our free thoughts can only be a series of neurons and synapses firing in a chemical reaction that is predetermined by the same natural laws and conditions of everything else. If this were the case, wouldnt everything just be there? Everything is what it is, and thats all there is to it. But that is not how we operate. We use reason and logic to form our perceptions and our own reality. And those perceptions vary from individual to individual. Should we not all see and think the same were we created from the same chemical reaction? If we do not think our minds are not completely conditioned and bound by those same natural laws of everything else (which even the Naturalist would

agree), then we must presuppose that something non-material exists. If something nonmaterial exists, then we should also suppose something supernatural exists. To the same point as free will and thought, the idea of morality follows the same logic. The chemical reaction could not give us varying ideals of what is right or wrong. Wed all think the same. If I shot you, does the gun go to prison with me? Or does the free choosing individual get punished because he is capable of choice, whereas the machine is not? Under naturalism, all things should be equal. The example seems silly, and it should. Again, this does not prove beyond a shadow of doubt the existence of God but it sure pokes more holes in Naturalist theories than it does Creationist ones. The final broad point in non-believers I wish to look at is the problem of evil. Aside from origin questions, the existence of evil at the same time as an all powerful and good God seems to be the next most popular argument. The general thought is that if God created everything, and if God is good and loving, and evil exists then there must be no such God. Without being redundant, I would point to the earlier arguments on free will and say that the existence of evil does more to prove that there indeed is a God than it does to show there is not. Although I would say it perhaps inaccurate to say God created evil itself, but would rather say God created the conditions and ability for evil to exist. In other words, God created the fact of freedom whereas man performs the acts of freedom. The Atheistic position supposes that absence of evil is more desirable than the existence of free will. I dont think anyone would assume that viewpoint when put into that context.

In closing, while I am sure some of my views are perhaps a bit biased, I did my best to look at the presented arguments logically. And it seems to me that many of the Naturalist and Atheistic arguments against the existence of God may actually defeat their own purpose and give more reason to believe that such a being does exist. Going by probabilities, statistics, and likelihoods, Id dare say it indeed does take greater faith to be a Naturalist than it does to be a Creationist.