Does God Even Exist?
Introduction
Particularly in college, you will hear what seem to be sophisticated, convincing reasons to believe there is no God. You may have a room-mate, classmate, friend or professor that believes there is no God. I?ll give you some sound reasons for believing in God that can help you and others. I?m going to introduce you to some ?arguments? for God?s existence. You may not be familiar with the way we?re going to use that term tonight so you might be thinking, ?I?m not interested in arguing with people about God?s existence. That turns me off.? Let me assure you that is not what I mean. The arguments I will talk about are simply well-thought through logical reasons to believe in God. We should not get into arguments with people over them. The best thing is to leave the emotions out of the discussion so that the facts can be presented clearly, and we leave a good taste in people?s mouths about Christianity.
Truth: There are no true atheists, only agnostics.
Atheists believe there is no God. Agnostics believe we can not know whether there is a God or not. However, we can help the atheist come one step closer by helping them see that they are really agnostic.
Here?s how a conversation could go. I?d ask, ?As an atheist you are claiming there is no God. But in order for you to know there is no God you would have to know everything that can be known about the universe. You?d even have to have the ability to look outside of the physical universe and know everything there is to know about that because God, by definition, is in the spiritual dimension, not the physical. Are you claiming to know everything there is to know? If you are, then you?re claiming to be at least a god if not God. Do you know for a fact there is no God?? If they aren?t going to be a smart aleck they should answer, ?No, I don?t know everything there is to know.? I would reply, ?Then it doesn?t sound like you?re really an atheist. It sounds more like you are an agnostic, that is, someone who doesn?t know for sure either way and is still considering the evidence on both sides of the debate. Is that true??
Do you see how I?ve brought them a step closer and didn?t put them on the defensive? They?ve opened their mind to hear more. I?ve had a lot of success using this strategy. Let?s remember that there really are no atheists, only agnostics.
Truth: Science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, only how reasonable it is to believe.
How do we know God exists? Some people say, ?Science has proved that God does not exist.? I ask them, ?What scientist using what scientific experiment proved that God does not exist?? Of course, they can?t tell me because there isn?t one. We simply can?t devise an experiment or a measuring instrument to observe God or see that there is no God out there. I have a deep respect for the scientific process and an awe over what has been discovered and accomplished. However, the above assertion is laughable, in that the way science "progresses" is by replacing one theory for a new one. Pick up any science oriented publication from popular to academic and notice how often the authors say something like, "this new finding disproves/challenges/stands on its head/etc our previous theory that..." With this in mind, why should we trust any scientific statement about God?
Unfortunately, most people and even many scientists assume that science is able to prove things with 100% certainty. But that is not the case. Thomas Kuhn wrote a book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions which has become required reading for many science students in their doctoral programs. He wrote,
Few philosophers of science still seek absolute criteria for the verification of scientific theories. Noting that no theory can ever be exposed to all possible relevant tests, they ask not whether a theory has been verified but rather about its probability in the light of the evidence that actually exists.
Since scientists are not able to have 100% certainty they must accept their conclusions by faith. We hope that they have good reasons to believe their conclusions but ultimately it is an act of faith. In a similar way, it is not possible to use science to prove or disprove God’s existence. We can only use it to gather evidence and ask, “Is it more reasonable to believe that God exists or that God doesn’t exist?”
We don’t need to be intimidated by people’s claims that science has proved God doesn’t exist because we understand that science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, only how reasonable it is to believe. The rest of this article will introduce various scientific and non-scientific evidences for God's existence.
Truth : The Design Argument makes belief in God’s existence reasonable.
The Design Argument states that the universe exhibits obvious qualities of intelligent design; therefore there must be an Intelligent Designer.
A Christian astrophysicist, Hugh Ross writes in The Creator and the Cosmos , “imagine the possibility of a Boeing 747 aircraft being completely assembled as a result of a tornado striking a junkyard.” He uses this to illustrate how “the building blocks necessary for life to come into existence and the possibility of that happening without someone or some thing designing them stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point.”
Ross illustrates this further with the various physical parameters that characterize the universe and how they have to be exactly the way they are in order for atoms, planets, stars, galaxies and life itself to exist. For example, if the forces that hold an atom?s nucleus together, the force of gravity and the electromagnetic force were slightly different the heavier elements necessary for life could not exist. If the ratio of the mass of an electron to the mass of a proton was either larger or smaller then chemical bonding could not occur. If the polarity of the water molecule was larger or smaller life would not be possible.
In 1993, Dr. Ross listed a total of 26 of these physical constants. Since then, he has accumulated hundreds. If any one of them was a little smaller or larger life could not exist.
This is all so truly amazing that the only reasonable explanation is that the universe has an intelligent designer. So how have the scientists responded to all this. A large number have turned from atheism to believing there is an intelligent designer. Not all have concluded that designer is the God of the Bible, but they?ve taken a big step nevertheless. Physicist Paul Davies used to promote atheism. Now he concedes that ?the laws of [physics] ? seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design.? He further testifies:
[There] is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming.
I have read many similar statements from other scientists. There are several books on the subject I can point you to.
A finely tuned galaxy-sun-earth-moon system
In another chapter Dr. Ross, lists 33 parameters involving planets stars and galaxies. If these parameters were any different than what they are life would not be possible. We have just the right galaxy, the right kind of star, the right kind of solar system, the right kind of planet and even the right kind of moon to support life on earth. It is amazing how dependent we are on the whole universe being the way it is in order to have life on even one planet. He concludes:
Thus, with considerable security, we can draw the conclusion that much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars could possibly possess, without divine intervention, a planet capable of sustaining advanced life. Considering that the observable universe contains less than a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred-billion stars, we can see that not even one planet would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary conditions to sustain life. Astronomers are discovering planets orbiting distant stars, but so far, none are the type that would be able to sustain life as we know it.
We are important
And finally, Dr. Ross concludes that God went to an awful lot of trouble to create an ideal environment for man. In other words, to do things the way God did it required that He make an entire universe in order to produce one planet that would support human life. A bumper sticker I saw recently sums it up well: ?Good planets are hard to find.? Are we important or what? Is what God is doing through the human race important? More than we can imagine!
When I think about how God made the whole universe just so we could exist I can’t help but praise God like King David in Psalm 19:1 when he sang,
The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
He also wrote in Psalm 8:1-5:
Lord, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory above the heavens.
. . .
When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
To summarize, we've seen how scientific evidence through the Design Argument makes belief in God’s existence very reasonable.
For now I will be much more brief on the rest of the arguments for God’s existence. I'll add to these in the future.
Truth 2: The Moral Argument makes belief in God’s existence reasonable.
The Moral Argument states that all people in all cultures at all times innately believe there are absolute universal moral values that apply to them and everyone else. This innate sense of right and wrong can not be explained by natural processes or a phenomenon of evolution or cultural development. It must come from a supernatural moral lawgiver that transcends or is outside of our world.
Writing to the Christian church in first century Rome in Romans 2:15, Paul argues that even though the pagan Gentiles did not possess the Law of Moses and all the information about God the Jews possessed they still had an innate moral compass. He wrote,
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing…them.
But what about people who say morality is culturally determined and point to differences between cultures? It is true that different cultures can have different social mores and taboos, etc, but that's not what I am talking about. I'm talking about the inescapable fact that every person on the planet believes that things like the unjustified taking of human life or someone?s possessions are wrong. Even the person who argues that morality is culturally determined and therefore only relative would complain that it is absolutely wrong for someone to take the life of someone they love dearly or torture their child. Everyone has that innate sense that there is an absolute moral standard that applies everywhere and at all times. The impersonal physical universe through random natural processes could not produce that standard. Only an intelligent personal being can think and act morally. Since all people appeal to some perfect standard of morality it is much more reasonable to believe that there is a God with a perfect standard of morality that flows from His very character and nature. The Moral Argument makes belief in God?s existence reasonable
Truth: The Mind/Personality Argument makes belief in God’s existence reasonable.
The Mind/Personality Argument states that humans are personal beings who are self-conscious and rational, have free will, can love and be loved, seek meaning and purpose, seek justice, seek deeply connected relationships, and a sense of an existence beyond this world. All these traits can not be explained by chance naturalistic processes or a non-personal "life force," etc. Only a personal creator can create personal creatures.
Eternity in our hearts
King Solomon who wrote most of the proverbs in the Book of Proverbs also wrote Ecclesiastics. In Eccl. 3:11 he says that God has “set eternity in the hearts of men.”
This means that men know there is more than this life and this world. There is a God and a life after this one that is beyond us and we yearn for that. The thought of eternity and eternal things preoccupies our thoughts. Mankind has invented countless gods and religions to try to come to terms with what they know to be true in their own hearts. In the past 300 years men have come up with countless philosophies and arguments for why this must just be superstition left over from our ancestors days in the caves, but those men and women can not deny what they know to be true in their own hearts. Somehow it always leaks out and their true belief in God are exposed. Remember, only an intelligent, personal creator can create personal, intelligent creatures. The Mind/Personality Argument makes belief in God?s existence reasonable.
Truth 4: The Kalam Cosmological Argument makes belief in God’s existence reasonable.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument follows a more formal style of logic:
- The universe either had a beginning or it has always existed. Science and logic have shown it is most reasonable to believe that the universe had a beginning.
- The beginning of the universe was either caused or uncaused. Logic tells us that everything must have a cause; therefore the beginning of the universe was caused.
- The cause for the beginning of the universe was either personal or impersonal. Since by definition the universe was caused out of a timeless, changeless, spaceless state of affairs, the best explanation is that a free person or agent caused the universe by a spontaneous, deliberate act.
Philosopher and theologian J. P. Moreland summarized this argument in Scaling the Secular City (p. 42),
[I]t is most reasonable to believe that the universe had a beginning which was caused by a timeless, immutable agent. This is not a proof that such a being is the God of the Bible, but it is a strong statement that the world had its beginning by the act of a person. And this is at the very least a good reason to believe in some form of theism.
All of these arguments assure us that it is rational and reasonable for us to believe there is a God. When you read or hear rebuttals by atheists and skeptical agnostics the rebuttals might sound good and cause you to be unsure about your own belief in God. But these rebuttals usually depend on the ignorance of either the skeptic or the audience or both. You may need to do some more homework, but you will see over and over they don?t really hold water. Skeptics will try to make you feel like an uneducated, unsophisticated fool, but they ignore the fact that many of their peers and many of the most intellectually gifted people find the evidence overwhelmingly entitles them to believe in God.
Truth 5: Because of the evidence, only a small step of faith is required.
Does all this result in an absolutely certain proof of God? No. But does that mean that we don?t have any right to believe in God until someone comes along with absolute proof? No. In the end, it requires faith that God?s exists or doesn?t exist. And that?s OK.
Hebrews 11:6 says,
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
But is this faith a giant ?leap of faith? as some say? Well, let?s look at that analogy so we can learn about what faith involves. Let?s say you want to cross a fast flowing stream but are not sure if you can jump that far. Let?s also say that someone is building a bridge across the stream, but it is not complete. However, even though it is not complete you would only have to take a small step off the unfinished end of the bridge onto the other shore. Would you rather cross the bridge and take a small step to the other shore or risk falling into the rushing water by trying to jump the whole way across?
What is the difference in the faith required to try to jump across and the faith required to walk across the bridge and take a small step to the other shore? The faith required to jump across is a foolish faith based on little support and a lot of uncertainty. It will be based on only a feeling of courage and impulsive risk taking. But there are more uncertainties. You might slip as you plant your foot to jump. You might catch your foot on a stump and trip. You might misjudge the distance and so on. But the faith required to walk across the bridge and take a small step is a wise faith that is based on solid evidence that the bridge, not your feelings, is worthy of your trust. You can examine the bridge to see how well it is built. You can test the strength of the part of the bridge that is finished. The last step doesn?t take as many calculations and effort. So crossing the stream using the bridge has fewer uncertainties. It is not a leap of faith, rather, only a small step.
This shows us that it does not matter how much faith you have but what your faith is based on. You can have great faith that you can jump off a building and not fall to the ground. You can psych yourself up to have a feeling of power and control over your destiny, but the feeling is not going to hold you up once your feet leave the roof. By contrast, you can instead entrust yourself to a parachute that has been tested over and over. You are still taking a chance it won?t open this time, but you know it is a very very very small risk. So now your faith is based on facts. It is based on the trustworthiness of the parachute, which is the object of your faith.
Now, back to faith in God’s existence. If you examine all the evidence for God’s existence it is like having a strong bridge that almost closes the gap and for that reason it is not difficult or risky to believe. The evidence is solid and has proven itself to be worthy of your trust. And as you get to know God more personally and intimately you will then see that His character is worthy of our fullest trust.
Now, we can reply to the skeptic by saying, ?You can?t prove with absolute certainty that God does exist and neither can you prove with absolute certainty that He doesn?t exist. But given the facts and the logical arguments, what is the most reasonable choice? We are most certainly entitled to believe in God. By contrast, the atheist who believes there is no God and the agnostic who is not sure if there is a God must take a leap of faith to deny that all the evidence is best explained by the existence of God.?
Resources
Dembski, William A. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 1999.
Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. 1978.
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3 ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996.
Moreland, J. P. Christianity and the Nature of Science. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 1989.
Moreland, J. P. Scaling the Secular City. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Moreland, J. P. and Kai Nielsen. Does God Exist?: The Great Debate. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers. 1990.
Ross, Hugh. The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Discoveries of the Century Reveal God. Colorado Springs: NavPress. 1993.
Ross, Hugh. The Fingerprint of God. Orange: Promise Publishing Co. 1989.
Copyright 2005. Gary C. Burger and New Media Ministries. This article may be reproduced and distributed freely as long as it is done so in its entirety. If quoted it must be properly cited as a reference.
