Sir, – I marvel at Bernard O’Grady’s proposition (October 27th) that there are only four principal points to consider when discussing the question of the existence of God.
A cursory view of the teleological argument for God’s existence is based on the assumption that there are hundreds of constants that permit life on earth. But this construct is self-defeating. It begs the question why would a God need to create such a complex universe with so many constants, that if deviated from, would cause the destruction of the Earth?
The first cause argument developed by Thomas Acquinas in his Summa Theologica provides proof for some Christians as to the existence of God; every effect has a cause. But the British philosopher Bertrand Russell asked, “Who made God?” If everything has an effect then God must also have a cause.
The majesty and artistry of the Bible cannot be questioned but unfortunately using it as the basis for the validation of a deity could be precarious as well as problematic. Even the popular accepted constants concerning God become more enigmatic as one reads this chronological text. I find no fault with those using the Bible to prove the complexity of the universe. For example, in paragraph four of Genesis 1, God creates the sun and the moon but we wonder what was in existence in paragraph one during day one when there was already “the light of day” and “the darkness of night.” (Genesis 1: 1-5, 14-18). A Biblical understanding of the universe suggests that there are few uniform laws of nature.
Science may not be able to offer any pertinent insights to those who accept the Bible as divinely inspired. But we should all take solace from the incontrovertible fact that the Bible is an elegant testament to the intelligence of mankind’s ability to offer an allegorical raison d’être for the meaning of life. This might be the most useful constant of all. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – “Even the ‘Big Bang’ theory no longer has widespread support”, claims Bernard O’Grady (October 28th). Would he kindly tell us how many astronomers and cosmologists have abandoned it – and where his evidence is to be found? – Yours, etc,