by Joseph S.C. Bonadiman, Ph.D., P.E.
The Proof Of The Existence Of God By Intelligence
Imagine if you will, a graph of intelligence1 of all animals. For example, we can start with sponges and
graph through insects, cold vertebra animals, warm vertebra animals, and we find out that the most
intelligent animal is, let’s say, the chimpanzee and, finally, man.
When we construct this graph we’ll notice two things. First a rather smooth curve from the least
intelligent to the most intelligent in the non-human life forms, and second, we see a gigantic
discontinuity in the graph, which goes 90° and vertical when transferring from non-human to human.
We then must ask what caused this tremendous discontinuity between man and all other living things.
Some might say that it was an evolutionary process. However, if that is the case, why the discontinuity?
Darwinian Evolution2 suggests a progressive development that could be traced, but there is no
traceable connection that would fill this tremendous discontinuity between animal and man. But one
might say, that intellectual continuity was there at one time, but over intervening years those
connecting life forms evolved then perished, and therefore are no longer present. But where is the
proof? We still have creatures like the orangutans, the gorilla, and the chimpanzee that are remarkably
like humans, even down to DNA patterns. Therefore, if these forms of life are still with us, why aren’t
similar types of life that may have been more advanced, and more intelligent? If a more advanced
primate, for sake of argument, disappeared, why didn’t a lower form of primate, the one we see today,
also disappear as Evolution Theory suggests? The only logical explanation, if biblical creation is
excluded, is that the discontinuity between man and primate was due to a plan, and because a plan
takes an intellect to devise it, and a will to put it into action, we must therefore have something with an
intellect and will that was able to accomplish this amazing feat and of necessity is greater than man –
this we Christians call God!
Therefore, at some point in the development of animals, God intervened to add something that makes
humans different than animals, and that something we call a rational soul. And from the time that God
gave man that rational soul, man has known that there was something that he could not explain that
had a power greater than him, which have been called various things, all of which equate to a
Supreme Being, God.
Making A Choice, Pascal’s Wager Argument
Pascal3 addresses his Argument4 to the typical man of the world who regards making money and
amusing himself, not as a means to the end, but the real purpose of existence. Even if he refuses to
consider his ultimate destiny, Pascal maintains such a man still must wager about it. In practice, he
must stake everything on one of two propositions, either A) that there is a purpose in life (God made
us for life with him); or
B) there is not. Man cannot refuse to wager for by doing so he implies that there is no purpose in life.5
Under one disguise or another, human selfishness is always urging man to stake everything on “B.”
Pascal tries to show that it is far more reasonable – even from the viewpoint of self-interest –to stake
all on “A.” If you bet everything on “B” and “A” is the truth, you lose an eternal good. But if you stake all
on “A” and “B” is the truth, you lose only a few temporal pleasures.6
Further, Pascal thinks it is not merely a moral tragedy but an intellectual blunder to wager on “B,” that
is, to refuse to recognize a purpose in life. He feels sure the typical man would soon have faith if he
renounces pleasure.7 At least, he should search for the truth. “According to the doctrine of chance, you
should search earnestly for the truth; for if you die without worshiping the True Cause, you are lost.
‘But,’ you say, ‘if God had wished me to worship him, he would have left me signs of his will.’ Indeed,
God has done so; but you ignore them.” 8
The following is from Shakespeare’s “The Rape of Lucrece.”
A dream, a breath, a froth of fleeting joy;
Who buys a moment’s mirth to wail a week,
Or sells eternity to gain a toy?
1 For this paper nerve nets and instinct will be considered a form of intelligence.
2 Here we are assuming Darwinian Evolution.
3 Pascal (1623-62) French scientist and philosopher. Discovered a hydraulic law which is named for him.
4 Cavanaugh, J.H., Notre Dame, In., Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1952, pp.35-37.
5 “This is the momentous truth, and there is none more disturbing to the consciousness of the world today. The
problem of his destiny is so propounded to man that, whatever he may do, he cannot remain in suspense about it, he
cannot be neutral is a sceptic par excellence; this neutrality is the very essence of the sect.’ If I remain indifferent with
regard to death and the hereafter, I am acting as if I had not an immortal soul; I am deciding against. It is not then a
voluntary choice; we must wager, and he who does not wager for God wagers against him. There is one point settled;
you have to wager one way or another.” Chevalier, Pascal, London, Longmans, Green & Co., 1930, pp. 245-246.
6 “And what do you risk by taking the chance? What evil can happen to you? You will have lived uprightly; you will
have renounced corrupt pleasures, but you will have gained other of inestimable value, and you will not have risked
your eternal life. Perhaps you will object: it is uncertain whether I shall win, and it is certain that I am taking a risk. But
every gambler stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty, and it is not unreasonable to act thus. All men do so; all are
working for an uncertainty as long as they do not know the reason for it; it is thus with sea voyages, commerce, battles.
If we did not work for an uncertainty, we should do nothing at all. Religion is not certain, you say. I agree with you. But
there is more certainty in religion than in the knowledge that tomorrow will dawn for us; nevertheless we are all working
as if tomorrow were a certainty, and this is sensible, and what we ought to do, according to the rule of chances that
has been demonstrated. Now if it is not a sin against reason to risk the finite with certainty to gain the uncertain finite,
ought we not to risk the finite with certainty when the stake is infinity? Chevalier, Pascal, London, Longmans, Green &
Co., 1930, pp. 247-248.
7Cf. Ibid., III, 240
8Ibid., III, 236
|"LIVING & SHARING THE
FULLNESS OF FAITH"
|© 2016-2017 Catholic Society of Evangelists, All rights reserved.