More Proof of the Existence of a Higher Power

A short time ago, I wrote an essay entitled "How to Prove the Existence of a Higher Power." Kedsand1 wrote a brilliant comment that really hit the ball out of the park! Here is an excerpt from that comment:

"I proffer that Homo sapiens, whether you believe in Jesus, any other god, or no god at all, is eminently special. The mere existence of Homo sapiens vis-a-vis the other creatures of the Earth suggests to me that there was someone at worked that singled out Homo sapiens. If there wasn't, then point out another creature on this Earth that can parallel humans and their doctorates because it seems to me that the universe would have, and should have, allowed for other species to achieve higher reasoning and creativity as exhibited by humankind.

"Where are the lizard men? Where is that lost civilization of velociraptors that wrote tomes of saurian wisdom? Why didn't the "physical laws" allow for the development and "evolution" of any other creature to reach a point where they could build buildings, cars, spaceships, and toasters? Because human beings were made to be as we re."

AMEN! It seems odd that "dispassionate" natural laws "without a purpose or a plan" would favor humans so much. Heck, our nearest rivals in the animal kingdom are the chimpanzees and dolphins--and what have they done that they can write home to their moms about? Diddly doo, that's what. Cheetah and Flipper are their champions.

"Flipper, take us to Bud!" "Cheetah climb tree." Let's face it, WE are IT when it comes to higher intelligence on this planet. Of course some might argue to the contrary: "George W., fetch Osama! No, no, stay on track, George!"

So why would dispassionate, indifferent evolutionary forces single us out? It seems far fetched that they would. Believers would argue that our special status is the result of a god that favors human kind over all other creatures. In the absence of "lizard men," that makes a pile of sense.

Speaking of piles, some scientists who own a PhD. (stands for Piled High and Deep), would argue that it was DUMB LUCK that made us so SMART. Some other scientists, who have a BS following their printed names, would argue that the laws of nature came about by luck--or that said laws have always existed. Additionally, some scientists insist that it is impossible to prove the existence of a god if you don't first define your god with great detail ( i.e., my god is my wife; therefore she exists; "Thou shalt not tonight, honey...I have a headache," sayeth the lord).

Hmmm, let's take a closer look at these various proposals, shall we? I think the existence of a higher power can be proven with the "sandcastle" analogy.

How Did the Sandcastle Get Here?

Imagine you are on a deserted beach. There is no one else around (hence the reason it's deserted). You see a sandcastle. "How did it get here?" you ask. At this point we explore the possibilities mentioned earlier:

A. There is a sandcastle maker;
B. The sandcastle is the product of deterministic and/or random events--or to put it simply: dumb luck;
C. The sandcastle has always been here.

Now some scientists would immediately eliminate "A" as a possibility. After all, there is no sandcastle maker around; the beach is deserted. However, you could argue that such direct evidence is not necessary. The sandcastle is indirect evidence of the sandcastle maker's existence.

"But wait!" the scientists fire back. "How can you prove the existence of the sandcastle maker without first defining what you are trying to prove in nauseating detail?"

At this point you would have to concede that you do not know the name, sex, physical description, or the social security number of the alleged sandcastle maker. However, you could astutely point out that your ignorance of these details does not disprove the existence of the sandcastle maker--the sandcastle could only be here due to the sandcastle maker--therefore he/she/it exists.

"But what about dumb luck?" asks a BS-degree scientist. Well, isn't he a clever monkey! He shows you how anything and everything can come into existence by chance. Sure, there are some deterministic laws involved, but they allegedly have no sense of purpose and could not care less about the outcome of anything and everything. So the sandcastle, according to our BS wizard, has to be a product of dumb luck.

You wince because this possibility goes against your common sense, but you have to admit, dumb luck can make anything happen: a serf eddy and a mini-hurricane could have lifted the chaotic sand on the beach skyward, giving it form and cylindrical symmetry. Then the windows and doorways of the castle could have been dug by hermit crabs. Finally, a seagull flying overhead could have sent its droppings down to paint the exterior.

You have to admit it could have happened that way. It was lady luck, a roll of the dice that built our sandcastle--BUT.....who rolled the dice?

Here again you could argue that the sandcastle is proof of a sandcastle maker. The sandcastle may be the product of evolution or dumb luck, but someone or something had to set the gears in motion; someone or something had to roll those dice.

"Not so!" argues a PhD--Piled-High-and-Deep--scientist. "The sandcastle has always been here. It was not created, nor did it evolve. Therefore no sandcastle maker is required and therefore does not exist." "I like that theory!" rejoices the BS-degree scientist.

"Who has maintained the sandcastle all these years?" you humbly ask. "Why has it remained intact for so many billions of years? Surely, something in all that time would have destroyed it."

Now look what you did! You made the scientists mad! They are both eating BS sandwiches Piled-High-and-Deep. They don't want to admit it, but "A" is the best answer: the sandcastle was made by a sandcastle maker.

If these scientists were worth the pile of degrees they sit on, they would realize that no valid proof of anything is necessarily exclusive. If you use your imagination, you can dream up a myriad of possibilities to explain, say, the existence of the human race.

When faced with what appears to be more than one right answer, I always try to do what my fifth grade teacher advised during a multiple-choice quiz:

"Choose the best answer."

WP