Does God Exist?


Is it Logical to Believe in God? Part 2

There is an inexhaustible number of ways to proceed from this question, but I am drawn to etiological questions. So building on the foundational question above: 

Which is more likely, that the earth and its ability to sustain such vast forms of life came into existence as a result of happenstance – unintentional occurrences over time – or the result of intentional action? And finally: What are the necessary implications I must accept for each argument?

Green.Sands-20140629Does God exist? I have learned to approach a question like this along these lines: At this point in life, with the knowledge I’ve gleaned from the various ways of obtaining it, and knowing that there exists not one method of obtaining knowledge that is both certain and applicable to every situation or question, which forms are most appropriate to employ here? And ultimately, is there a higher degree of probability God exists or that he does not?

    • Did the earth with all its aesthetic qualities – its glorious beauty – a mere speck in size to the unfathomably vast universe that contains her emerge from nothing and just happen to occupy the ideal space to sustain such a variety of life, while her counterparts offer nothing even remotely hospitable?
    • Further, is it logical – is it reasonably probable – to deduce all the qualities, mysteries, and constants in earth’s mathematical and scientific laws are a product of random events?
    • Or, is it more likely something displaying so much order, complex consistencies, and life the result of intentional action?

Order, reason, variety of life, all on a planet capable of sustaining such diversity of life and function would more likely be the result of an intentional action and not chaotic random events that were not intentional. How could chaos lead to or produce order? From a cursory etiological point of view, it seems more plausible that intentional action drove the events that resulted in a world of reason, empirical science, etc.

The implication of accepting what appears to offer a much higher degree of probability of being true – that the earth came into existence as a result of intentional action – is that intent and action both necessitate agency – an agent.  Such an agent could not be a human being, given our limitations, but would have to be vastly superior with regard to intellect and power. Science can not have intentions. Intentional actions require something with a mind, will, and power to execute them, and that at the very least is an agent of being. God?