Title: Why does God Exist? Question/Comments: One of the main reasons I believe in God is that His existence is the only plausible explanation for WHY the universe goes to the bother of existing, and existing in the way it does. That is, the meaning and purpose of existence is best explained by a creator. The high degree of design and order in the universe points toward a designer. But atheists would quite rightly contend that God Himself is highly ordered and "well-designed" if He can produce miracles, forgive sins, and be omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously. So if the high degree of wisdom and design in the universe demands an explanation for its meaning, why can't the same questions be asked about God? Why is there a God? What reason(s) does God have for existing? I would be honest in telling atheists that I don't know the answer to that question. Nevertheless, none of this implies that we have not explained the purpose and meaning of the universe. Asking who created God is an example of the compound question fallacy, which involves ignoring or bypassing questions that need to be asked first. For instance, if we sought an explanation for why the apple falls, and discovered that the reason was the force of gravitation, it would hardly make sense to ask "Well, what makes gravity fall?" The question that would need an answer first is "Is gravity a falling object?" Furthermore, if Newton was unable to answer that question – whether because of its sheer absurdity or because of lack of information at the time – atheists would not be justified in saying "See, you can't answer that question, so we are right back where we started." Even if Newton had no explanation for why gravity exists, that does not mean the phenomenon of the falling apple remains unexplained. In the same way, the question "who created God?" deserves entertainment only if the answer to the question "Is God a created being?" is affirmative. Lastly, explanation is by nature progressive. We are never left 'right back where we began' simply because a certain aspect of a discovery remains unexplained. For a long time, we knew that continental drift was the reason that continents 'dispersed' since the time of Pangaea, but it was only after the discovery of plate tectonics that we were fully able to understand how continental drift really works. Does this mean that as long as we had no explanation for how continental drift really worked, we would have no explanation whatsoever for the movement of continents? In other words, how prudent would it be to discard the theory of continental drift entirely so long as plate tectonics remained undiscovered? At any rate, the above only provides resolution to the problem of who created God. But the question, "What REASON or PURPOSE does God have for existing?" or "WHY [not how] is there a God?" is not quite the same query. Is our reply to this simply, "We don't know. But we do have an explanation for why the universe exists, and that is really all that matters"? Please offer your thoughts. Thank you, Omar Sarwar Answer: The question 'Why do we exist', is different from 'how do we exist'. While the latter is answered merely by the discovery of the 'Creator', the former requires an explanation of the 'Creator' or the 'Designer'. It is, in fact, this 'whyness' of our existence, which is explained in the revelations of God. Consider the example of an architectural piece. The 'howness' of the existence of an architectural structure is answered through the existence of the 'architect', but this does not, by itself, provide an answer to the 'whyness' of the existence of the architectural structure. The 'whyness' would only be answered through an explanation provided by either the architect or the person for whom the architect worked. The very question regarding the 'whyness' of the existence of man and other created objects comes into play only because man, the universe and other creations are, in fact, created objects. It is only when we realize that man is created, do we ask 'why is man created'. Had man existed on his own, without being created, the question regarding the 'whyness' of his creation would not even have arisen. When something exists on its own, it is then, itself, the reason for its existence. This should adequately clarify that, in my opinion, the question as to 'why does God exist' would only arise, if it is first confirmed that God does not exist on His own and is, in fact, a created object. I hope this helps. Regards, Moiz Amjad November 7, 2001