(Course number)
Introduction
This perennial question about the existence of God has always been the favorite topic in many debates. It seems that this issue has never been laid to rest yet. This time, the debate was hosted by Birmingham University, in October 2011, and the protagonists were Professors William Lane Craig, who defended the issue on the existence of God, against Professors Peter Millican, a skeptic and atheist himself, who believes that God does not exist. Both were top calibers in their own field of expertise and they presented their position thoroughly well. I agree with Professor William Craig. Hence, in this paper, I will argue that God does exist.
Argument
It is an admitted fact that the universe exists. This so-called universe cannot have infinity since it must have a finite beginning. Hence, it should have a definite starting point. Such being the case, it is correct to conceive the thought that there was an absolute nothingness. In metaphysics, it is totally absurd and absolutely impossible that out of nothing comes something because a non-being cannot create itself in order to become a being. “Non-being has no power” (Craig.youtube.com). There must be a being first who can cause other beings to exist. A mathematical solution can also prove that nothing really comes out from nothing. For instance, zero plus zero equals zero; or, zero multiplied by zero is also zero. Whatever mathematical axiom we use, whether it is subtraction or division, the outcome will always be zero. This is exactly what happened to the universe. If it exists now, it is because an omnipotent, omniscient and intelligent being has pre-existed first and this all-powerful being has caused other beings, including the universe, to exist. As such, this intelligent being is now we call God.
The theory that the origin of the universe came from the big bang is totally absurd and impossible. In the natural causation of things, the question as to what caused the big bang; then, what caused that caused the big bang, so on and so forth, cannot be avoided. Definitely, it will always point to a moment in time when the universe started to exist; and the one that caused the universe to exist was an intelligent being that pre-existed first.
Objection
The primary objection which Professor Millican raised was the conflicting beliefs in God. In objecting to the propositions of Professor Craig, he said, “If the method of acquiring belief leads to a lot of different and conflicting beliefs then the method obviously cannot be relied on” (Millican.youtube.com). Accordingly, many religions have belief in many gods, like the Indian Hinduism or the Japanese Shintoism, and these conflicting beliefs are what make the method of acquiring them dubious. Hence, Professor Millican floated the thought that if dubious was its origin, and then dubious will its outcome be (Millican.youtube.com). This is what Professor Millican called “the Genetic Fallacy” (Millican.youtube.com). He rationalized that “if beliefs in God have dubious origins then the belief in God is false” (Millican.youtube.com). His arguments dwelt on the assumption that Professor Craig’s arguments on the proof of the existence of God are not strong. He based his assumption that there are many religions which advance the belief in many gods. To support his claim, Professor Millican presented in a slide show the many different names on how religions call their gods. He also argued that if there is only one intelligent being, then how come that there are many religious beliefs in different gods? Along this premise, he surmised, “The rational attitude in the absence of a very strong case to the existence of a Christian God is to believe that there is no such thing” (Millican.youtube.com). To refute further the propositions of Professor Craig, Professor Millican laid out a premise contrary to religious beliefs; he said that “Scientific beliefs do not depend on cultural indoctrination for their acceptance and transmission” (Millican.youtube.com). That is why Professor Millican claimed that theories based on science are not influenced by geographical location like religions are (Millican.youtube.com).
Evaluation
The debate was highly intellectual. Both professors were well-equipped with knowledge of the topic and were able to deliver their arguments as they have conceptualized them. However, in debates like this, there is always one side which a listener will align with in order to take his position. In this case, I have aligned with the argument that God really exists, not because I am biased against the other argument. It is because this is my conviction that God really exists.
If there is one point that I would like to comment on, it is the issue of the belief in God, which Professor Millican had objected to in his arguments. If I may quote him again, he said, “If the method of acquiring belief leads to a lot of different and conflicting beliefs then the method obviously cannot be relied on” (Millican.youtube.com). Professor Millican, perhaps, might have forgotten that “the method of acquiring belief” (Millican.youtube.com) and proving the existence of God are two different ideas or thoughts. While “the method of acquiring belief” (Millican.youtube.com) vary geographically, proving the existence of God does not vary because the essence of proof always remains. Another thing which Professor Millican has overlooked is the fact that differences in the belief in God only proves one thing that God exists.
Other points which I would like to raise as issues to the idea of Professor Millican as to the existence of God are the terms monotheism and polytheism. Monotheism is the belief in one God; while polytheism is the belief in many gods. Professor Millican claimed in one of his arguments that if there is only one Supreme Being, then how come that there are religious beliefs in many different gods? The good professor confused the idea of polytheism with the evidence of the existence of God. Beliefs in many gods still point to the evidence that there is a Supreme Being, and so the essence of his existence is never diminished nor is it dependent on the existence of these gods. Hence, another proof of the existence of only one Supreme Being is by way of the hierarchy of beings. So that, if there are many gods, then there must be only one Supreme Being above all of them as the ultimate intelligent being, who must have caused them to exist.
Conclusion
When all have been said, it is still my conviction that God does really exist. If we only open our eyes and minds to the truth of our human existence, the proof of God’s existence is just lying around our own existence. I must admit that there are other proofs of the existence of God, but we need more time and space to be able to write all of them. Professor Craig was able to defend his arguments well in the same manner that Professor Millican was able to point out his objection. Nonetheless, with this paper, I was able to prove the existence of God by way of another proof, that is, through the hierarchy of beings.
Works Cited
ReasonableFaithTour. "William Lane Craig vs Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?", Birmingham University, October 2011." YouTube. YouTube, 2011. Web. 15 Apr. 2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEw8VzzXcjE>.
