The Existence of God
The
Existence
Of
God
“Theist are not just after winning and argument,
But want to see souls won into the
Kingdom of God because the alternative is
unspeakably horrifying”
Nick Keehus
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT GOD EXISTS?
“The question of the existence of God is vital for us today. Most people would probably agree that this question does have great existential significance, but at the same time deny that it is a question to which rational argumentation is relevant. Most people would say that it’s impossible to “prove” the existence of God and that therefore, if one is going to believe in God, he must “take it by faith” that God exists. I’ve heard many students say this is an excuse for not believing in God. “Nobody can prove that God exists and nobody can prove that he doesn’t,” they say with a smile, “so I just don’t believe in him… such a blithe attitude fails to appreciate the depth of man’s existential predicament in a universe without God. The rational man ought to believe in God even when the evidence is equally balanced, rather than the reverse.”[1]
“But it is in fact the case that there is no probatory evidence that a Supreme Being exists? This was not the opinion of the biblical writers. The Psalmist said, “The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse id declaring the work of his hands” (Ps.19:1), and the apostle Paul declared, “Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they [men] are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). Nor can it be said that this evidence is so ambiguous as to admit of equally plausible counter-explanations-for then people would not be “without excuse.” Thus, people are without excuse for not believing in God’s existence, not only because of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, but also because of the external witness of nature.”[2] Thus, we shall examine various arguments for the existence of God.
COMMON ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
1. If everything has a cause, what caused God?
2. All of science points to the Big Bang. The universe just popped into existence.
3. If God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is to be trusted because God says so, then you are arguing in a circle.
4. Claiming that miracles validate Scripture presupposes theism. Odds are better that men have lied about events than the laws of nature have been violated (This is Hume’s argument against the resurrection contained in his short paper entitled “On Miracles.”)
5. The ontological argument (Perfection requires existence, God is perfect, therefore, God exists) is actually backwards. Since existence precedes essence, some thing must first exist before it becomes perfect.
6. If God implanted morals in each of us, why don’t we all have the same morality? Man’s conscience is a Darwinian survival response to a hostile environment
7. People project an omnipotent, omnibenevolent Father-figure to satisfy their need to be taken care of (Freud).[3]
8. The testimony of people who claim that God changed their lives is suspect. People also claim to have been abducted by aliens.
9. People will lie for a variety of reasons. The founders of Christianity were in it for power, or money, or prestige, or all three.
10. Faith and reason are opposites. If one must believe in God by faith, then that person is unreasonable by definition. Faith cannot prove the existence of anything.
11. How could and all-powerful good God permit evil? Why do bad things happen to good people and vice-versa?
12. There are many paths to heaven – Jesus is just a way.
Philosophical Proofs
A. Argument: Ontological
The concept of a perfect being infers the real existence of that perfect being, namely God.
Anslem (1003-1109) wanted to find a single argument that would prove not only that God exists, but also that he has all the superlative attributes Christian doctrine ascribes to him. Having almost given up the project, Anselm landed upon the following reasoning: “God is the greatest conceivable being. This is true by definition, for if we could conceive of something greater than God, then that would be God. So nothing greater than God can be conceived. It is greater to exist in reality than merely in the mind.”[4]
“Which is greater, the artist’s idea of the painting or the painting itself as it really exists? Obviously the latter; for the painting itself exists not only in the artists mind, but in reality as well. Similarly, if God existed only in the mind, then something greater than him should be conceived, namely, his existing not only in the mind, but in reality as well. But God is the greater conceivable being. Hence, he must exist not merely in the mind, but in reality as well. Therefore, God exists.”[5]
Many see this line of thinking having little value and few would argue this way.
Luther wrote:
“This demonstrates that there was in their hearts a knowledge of a divine sovereign being. How else could they have ascribed to a stone, or to the deity represented by a stone, divine attributes, had they not been convinced that such qualities really belonged to God.”
Tertullian:
“It was not the pen of Moses that initiated the knowledge of the Creator. The vast mauority of mankind, though they had never heard the name of Moses-to say nothing of his book-know the God of Moses nonetheless. Nature is the teacher, the soul is the pupil.”
Denney:
“There is that within man which so catches the meaning of all that is without as to issue in an instinctive knowledge of God.”
Anne Sullivan, the teacher of Helen Keller, attempted to explain the Lord to her and her response was, “I already know about Him – I just didn’t know His name.”
B. The Argument From Creation: Cosmological Argument
· The universe is an observable effect, which requires either an infinite regress of causes or else a sufficient uncaused cause. In contrast to the ontological argument, the cosmological argument assumes that something exists and argues from the existence of that thing to the existence of a First Cause or a Sufficient Reason of the cosmos, in other words, it is obvious that something cannot come from nothing, thus there must be an original cause for the world’s existence. Every effect must have a cause. The alternative to this logical deduction is that the universe is eternal, but the second law of thermodynamics rules out this theory.[6] This argument has its roots in Plato and Aristotle and was developed by medieval Islamic, Jewish, and Christian thinkers. The cosmological argument is really a family of different proofs, which can be conveniently grouped under three main types.
1. Kalam[7] Cosmological Argument. Apologists, Nick Keehus in his book Reasoning About God Man & Evil, A Dialogue, puts it this way – “It has its origin in early Christian apologetics[8] and was developed by some Arabic thinkers about a thousand years ago. It was a philosophical defense for a finite view of the cosmos, or the beginning of the universe, in contrast to Aristotle’s infinite assessment of the world.”[9] Lets look at the formulation of this argument by Al-Ghazali, a medieval theologian, he reasons, “Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning.” [10]
Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig the greatest contemporary defender of this argument puts it like this,
(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence.
Secondly, the world, or the universe, began to exist, therefore, it is impossible that there should be an infinite regress of events in time, that the series of past events should be beginningless.
(1) The series of past events comes to an end in the present – but the infinite cannot come to an end.
(2) If the series if infinite going back into the past, then how could the present moment arrive?
(3) It is impossible to cross the infinite to get to today, today could never arrive, which is absurd, for here we are!
(4) If the number of past events were infinite, that would lead to infinites of different sizes.
“Suppose Jupiter completes and orbit once every twelve years and Saturn once every thirty years and the sphere of the stars once every thirty-six thousand years. If the universe is eternal and these planets have been orbiting from eternity, then each of these bodies has completed and infinite number of orbits, and yet one will have completed twice as many or thousands of times as many orbits as another, which is absurd……if we take the orbits completed by just one of these planets, we may ask, is the number of orbits it has completed odd or even? It would have to be one or the other, yet it is absurd to say the infinite is odd or even. For this reason, the universe must have had a beginning, and it must have a cause of its beginning, which Ghazali identifies with God, the Eternal.”[11]
Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas’s Five Ways
Thomistic arguments assert that finite contingent beings owe their existence to either (a) a vicious infinite regress of other dependent finite beings, or (b) a necessary Being with causal powers.
1. Argument from Change or Motion – Aquinas presents Aristotle’s argument that motion implies a First Mover. God is pure actuality, there is no potentiality in the Divine Nature. God is not in the process of becoming, He is Pure Being.
The Unmoved Mover Based on Motion.
We see in the world that things are in motion. But anything that is in motion is being moved by something else. For a thing that has the potential to move cannot actualize its own potential; some other thing must cause it to move. But this other thing is also being moved by something else, and that is also being moved by something else, and that is also being moved by something else, and so on. Now this series of things being moved by other things cannot go on to infinity (infinite regress of causes). For in such a series, the intermediate causes have no power of their own but are mere instruments of a first cause.
--A watch could not run without a spring even if it had an infinite number of gears, or that a train could not move without an engine even if it had an infinite number of box cars.
2. Argument for Causality – Aquinas presents Avicenna’s argument that if every effect requires a cause, then there must be a First Cause for the existence of the world.
First Cause
Nothing can be self – caused, because then it would have to bestow existence on itself, which is impossible. Everything that is caused is therefore caused by something else. There must be a First Cause of the existence of everything else, which is simply uncaused; and this everyone calls “God.”
3. Argument for Necessity – Aquinas presents Maimonides’ argument that if contingent beings exist, then there must exist a Necessary Being. Aquinas argued from the necessity of an absolutely necessary Being[12] from the existence of possible things or Beings. He points out that in the world we notice that there are Beings. Possible Beings[13] whose existence is not necessary at all.
What Aquinas is trying to say is that there are things or beings, possible beings or things, which do not have to exist. That is to say, their existence is not necessary because these beings are contingent or dependent on something else for their existence and could not have existed without the contingent Being present first. The main point of this argument is that if all things were indeed possible, then all of these things could cease from having existence. But Aquinas maintained that these possible things are not self-existent and thus owe their existence to something else that cannot also be possible but must, therefore, be absolutely necessary being. And we call this absolutely necessary being, Aquinas and the rest of us, God.[14] God is a necessary being in that God cannot not exist. Alvin Plantinga[15]does a noce schematization of this argument:
(a)-There are at present contingent beings (“things that are possible to be and not to be”) (b)-Whatever can fail to exist, at some time does not exist. (c)- Therefore if all beings are contingent, then at one time nothing existed-from (b). (d)- Whatever begins to exist is caused to begin to exist by something else already existing. (e)-Therefore, if at any time nothing existed, then at every subsequent time nothing would exist (d) (f)-Hence if at one time nothing existed, then nothing exists now. (g)-Hence if all beings are contingent, then nothing exists now. (h)-Therefore, not all beings are contingent. (i)-Hence there is at least one necessary being. (j)-Every necessary being either has its necessity caused by another being or has its necessity in itself. (k)-It is impossible that there be an infinite series of necessary beings, each of which has its necessity caused by another. (l)-Therefore there is a necessary being having of itself its own necessity, and this all men speak of as God – (I), (j), and (k).[16]
4. Argument from Goodness – Aquinas presents Plato’s argument that since if there are various degrees of perfection in the world, there must be a source of all perfection, the Perfect Being.
5. Argument from Design – Aquinas presents Damascenes’ argument that if there is design in the world, there must be a Designer.
-Big Bang Cosmology-
Contemporary science supports a beginning to the universe called the Big Bang. If the uneverse is expanding and cooling, it was once dense and hot a finite time ago.
THE TWO LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS MITIGATE (to make or become less in force) A BEGINNINGLESS UNIVERSE
1. The Law of Conservation – According to the first law, nothing in the physical universe is now being created or destroyed. There is no evidence that the universe has the capacity to create itself. Nothing in its present structure can account for its own origin.
2. The Law of Entropy – According to the second law, all systems left to themselves move from order to disorder into progressively lower levels of utility culminating in complete randomness and unavailability for further work. Simply, this means that the universe is running out of available energy. Therefore, if it is presently winding down, then it must have been “wound up” a finite time ago or else equilibrium would already have been reached.
The Beginning of the Universe Was Caused
Something does not come from nothing. All effects have causes. These two well-attested principles mitigate naturalistic[17] Big Bang Cosmology by rejecting the notion that the universe “just popped” into existence from an infinitely dense point of no dimensions (literally nothing). Naturalistic cosmology is not held for scientific reasons but for theological reasons: it is the denial of God, why? Jesus said in John 3:19, “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and man loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” “All of the great materialistic systems of the past believed in the eternity and self-existence of matter.”[18] There is zero scientific evidence of something ever coming from nothing. Something coming from nothing isn’t science, its magic.
Even atheist philosopher, David Hume, who showed we could not prove with certainty that the causal principle was true (i.e., cause and effect), still believed it to be true and thought so with certainty. “I never asserted so absurd a proposition that anything might arise without a cause. I only maintained that our certainty of the falsehood of that proposition proceeded neither from intuition nor demonstration, but from another source.”[19]
1. Truths Learned About God:
Intelligence, powerful, eternal, self-existing, will (volition), source of life.
-Scriptures- Romans 1:18-26 (The Issue is Moral not Intellectual)
A. Suppress the Truth:
1. In Greek the word is a present active participle which indicates effort is being exerted to accomplish their task.
2. John 3:19-20 also gives us the answer.
B. We Must Remember that in General Revelation God:
1. Has made Himself known in creation (1:19) (see also Ps. 8; 19:1-6)
Divine Nature: God has revealed Himself as wise, eternal, and powerful (Rom 1:20)
2. Has revealed Himself as a Moral God in giving man a conscience (Rom. 2:14-15)
3. Has revealed Himself as Benevolent through Providence (Acts 14:17)
4. Acts 17:22-34 (esp. 24-28a): His control over the nations thus causing them to seek Him.
Robert Jastrow, an Astrophysicist of NASSA who directs Goddard Institute for Space Studies says:
“Science has proved that the Universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks, what cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter and energy into the Universe? And science cannot answer these questions….For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been there for centuries.”
Perhaps the most interesting statement made from Jastrow is when he said, “Most remarkable of all, astronomers have found proof that the universe sprang into existence abruptly, in a sudden moment of creation, as the Bible said it did.”[20]
C. The Argument From Design: Teleological Argument
· The universe displays purposeful design. Henry Thiessen defines this argument as follows:
“Order and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose in the organizing cause. The universe is characterized by order and useful arrangement; therefore, the universe has an intelligent and free cause,” When one looks at the world they should be able to see that there is a Master Architect behind all of this!
· God designed the universe according to His purpose. Once we have determined that a Personal Creator exists, we turn to an examination of the external, physical world. The apologetic value of the arguments to design lay in their capacity to give us information about the person of God, rather than as arguments for his existence. From these arguments, we learn that God is: purposeful, intelligent, orderly, humorous, caring, playful, artistic, relational, etc. We get a better idea about the personality of God.
“Some evolutionists have criticized God for not being a more efficient engineer, citing ostriches, aardvarks, and albatrosses, etc. This criticism assumes that God needs to be efficient by conserving resources or energy. But why would and omnipotent Being need to conserve energy? Why worry about conserving sand while building sand castles on the beach? God creates some things out of pure joy, with no regard for utility, much like and artist creating a painting. The intent of the artist is to communicate and idea or emotions, not to conserve paint. Engineers conserve, artists communicate.”[21]
Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas notes that we observe in nature that all things operate toward some end, even when those things lack consciousness. For their operation hardly ever varies and practically always turns out well, which shows that they really do tend toward a goal and do not hit upon it merely by accident. Aquinas is here by expressing the conviction of Aristotelian physics that everything has not only a productive cause but also a final cause or goal toward which it is drawn.
Ø Poppy Seeds always grow into poppies.
Ø Acorns always grow into oaks.
Nothing that lacks consciousness tends toward a goal unless it is under the direction of someone with consciousness and intelligence. “The Arrow does not tend toward the bull’s eye unless it is aimed by the archer.” Therefore, everything in nature must be directed toward its goal by someone with intelligence, and this we call “God.”[22]
William Paley
Undoubtedly, the high point in the development of the teleological argument came with William Paley’s brilliant formulation in his Natural Theology of 1804. Paley combined the sciences of his time for evidences of design in nature and produced a staggering catalogue of such evidences, based, for example, on the order evident in bones, muscles, blood vessels, comparative anatomy and particular organs throughout the animal and plant kingdoms.[23]
“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there, yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could no discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it….After observing the watch, the inference, we think, is inevitable; that the watch must have had a maker; that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.”[24]
q Paley’s Argument Would Not Be Weakened Nor Become Uncertain If:
q We had never seen a watch being made nor knew how to make one.
q The watch sometimes went wrong.
q Parts in the mechanism did not seem to have any purpose.
q Nor is it enough to say the watch was produced from another watch before it and that one from yet a prior watch, and so forth to infinity, for the design is still accounted for.
Evolution is mindless, it cannot think, plan, or decide, it’s just randomness or chance at work. So why in the world would anyone think that a watch, loaded with energy (potential energy), with fine tuned or adjusted elastic springs and gears and all, whose purpose it to give time, could be produced by consciousless evolution?
“Could a monkey pounding away on a typewriter produce Shakespeare?”
“What if you saw a painting of the solar system on the ceiling of a classroom, would you say that the painting exploded into existence? No, that’s absurd. A painter painted it. Therefore, if a painter designed a mural of the solar system on the ceiling of a classroom, how much more is there a designer behind the universe as we know today!!!
“He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.” (Job 26:7 NKJV)
“Just as we infer a watchmaker as the designer of the watch, so ought we to infer an intelligent designer of the universe.”[25]
There has been an illustration of evolution and it went something like this; “a tornado blowing through a junkyard won’t result in the assembly of a 747 Jumbo-Jet, or a SAAB plain engine with all of its sophisticated gismos.” Or “just like blowing up a print shop won’t result in an encyclopedia.”
Thiessen – “Order and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose in the organizing cause. The universe is characterized by order and useful arrangement; therefore, the universe has an intelligent and free cause.”
King David said in Psalm 19:1-4, “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun.”
God is yelling out “hey knuckle heads I exist.”
It is so awesome to think that the Creator of the heavens and the earth even thinks of me, “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?” (Psalms 8:3-4 NKJV)
· The Sun is 93 million miles from the earth, thus producing the right climate for life to exist, if the earth was 1 mile closer to the sun we would burn up, if the earth was one mile farther away, we would freeze.
The Sun – gives off 500 million, million billion horsepower.
The Sun – burns up 4 billion tons of matter in each second.
· The Moon is 240,000 miles from the earth and provides the tides at proper levels.
· The Earth is tilted on its axis and provides the seasons.
Ø Our planet alone is 25,000 miles in circumference.
Ø It weighs 6 septillion, 588 sextillion tons and hangs in space – “He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.” (Job 26:7 NKJV)
Ø It spins at 1,000 miles per hour with perfect precision to the split second.
Ø It travels through space around the sun at 1,000 miles per second in an orbit of 580 million miles.
· The Milky Way - Traveling through our galaxy at 186,000 miles a second, it would take you 125,000 years
Our galaxy is only one of billions – astronomers have verified telescopically more than one billion
Truths Learned About God: Wisdom and the fact God has a purpose for the universe.
Related Scriptures: (Ps. 8:3-4; 19:1-4; 94:9-10)
· Can you think of any other examples of the world around us that scream out that there is a Creator?
D. The Anthropological Argument.
· Man has a unique intellectual, social, moral and religious nature. This infers a maker.
Man is not only a physical being, but also consists of a conscience, will, intellect and emotion. Plus the fact man possesses a social, religious and moral nature. This all infers a maker. Chafer says, “A blind force could never produce a man with intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and inherent belief in a Creator.”
“If mind or cognitive faculties were produced by evolution, which itself lacks a mind, then the effect is now greater than the cause which is absurd. The notion that thinking can come from nonthinking
is so improbable if not impossible. And if it were possible, there would still be no good reason to trust our own thinking or beliefs since they are only one of many potential results
of a random, mindless cause.”[26]
Meaning or information must come from a mind!
· Man introspects and realizes his need for God. Each of these features below become evident as man introspects (looks inside). As C.S. Lewis rightly said, “If I find capacities that are unfulfilled in this world, possibly I was created for another world.” Indeed, God exists in the restlessness of the human heart.
(1) I thirst to know the meaning and purpose to life (The Great Conversation). “Why am I here?”
(2) I desire the Good, yet regularly fail to live up to my own conscience. “I am morally confused.”
(3) I yearn for intimacy, yet remain alienated from myself, others, and God. “I feel alone.”
(4) I am more than body parts, I am the thing that has the parts. “I am a rational being.”
(5) I desire to transcend the existential angst of moral evil, pain, and death. “I seek the good, the true and the beautiful.”[27]
Truths Learned About God: God is Just, Holy and Moral.
Related Scriptures: (Gen. 1:26-28; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10)
E. The Argument From the Morality of Man-Moral Argument
· All men have a sense of right and wrong, a sense of morality, a sense of moral obligation. If man is only a physical being, why does he have a sense of moral obligation? Where does his sense of moral justice originate? This implies there is a lawgiver and a Judge (God). Can a sense of morality really evolve?
· Since man has an awareness of right and wrong and a sense of morality, there must be a God who placed it here rather than a blind force or by chance.
Ø Romans 2:14-15 –(notes are taken from Robertson’s Nt Word Pictures)
(Verse 14) - {That have no law} (|ta mê nomon echonta|). Better, "that have not the law" (the Mosaic law). {By nature} (|phusei|). Instrumental case of |phusis|, old word from |phuô|, to beget. The Gentiles are without the Mosaic law, but not without some knowledge of God in conscience and when they do right "they are a law to themselves" (|heautois eisin nomos|). This is an obvious reply to the Jewish critic.
(Verse 15) - {In that they} (|hoitines|). "The very ones who," qualitative relative. {Written in their hearts} (|grapton en tais kardiais autôn|). Verbal adjective of |graphô|, to write. When their conduct corresponds on any point with the Mosaic law they practise the unwritten law in their hearts. {Their conscience bearing witness therewith} (|sunmarturousês autôn tês suneidêseôs|). On conscience (|suneidêsis|) see on ‘1Co 8:7; 10:25; 2Co 1:12'. Genitive absolute here with present active participle |sunmarturousês| as in 'Ro 9:1'. The word |suneidêsis| means co-knowledge by the side of the original consciousness of the act. This second knowledge is personified as confronting the first (Sanday and Headlam). The Stoics used the word a great deal and Paul has it twenty times. It is not in the O.T., but first in this sense in Wisdom 17:10. All men have this faculty of passing judgment on their actions. It can be over-scrupulous ('1Co 10:25') or "seared" by abuse ('1Ti 4:12'). It acts according to the light it has. {Their thoughts one with another accusing or also excusing them} (|metaxu allêlôn tôn logismôn katêgorountôn ê kai apologoumenôn|). Genitive absolute again showing the alternative action of the conscience, now accusing, now excusing. Paul does not say that a heathen's conscience always commends everything that he thinks, says, or does. In order for one to be set right with God by his own life he must always act in accord with his conscience and never have its disapproval. That, of course, is impossible else Christ died for naught ('Ga 2:21'). Jesus alone lived a sinless life. For one to be saved without Christ he must also live a sinless life.
· If man is only a biological creature, there is no explanation for his knowledge of right and wrong – evolution cannot answer the question to why man is able to recognize moral standard and concepts.
Thomas Aquinas
“He observes that we find in the world a gradation of values: some things are more good, more true, more noble, and so forth, that other things….there must therefore exist something that is the best and truest and noblest thing of all….there is some being that is the cause of the existence, goodness, and any other perfection of finite beings, and this being we call “God.”[28]
William Soreley
“In a nutshell, he reasons that morality has its roots in God. Just as there is a natural order to the universe, so there is a moral order. This moral order dwells in personal agents who can will, or choose, to live morally. It seems as though human beings, universally speaking, live according to some moral code.”[29]
COULDN’T EVOLUTION HAVE PRODUCED MORAL VALUES?
Ø No. For the simple reason that they were produced. In other words, it has not always been the case that the act of rape is wrong, but rather this idea of wrongness was produced by evolution at a certain moment in time, which is really “ethical relativism”[30] at best.
Ø Without a lawgiver, there is no moral law, and if no moral law, then “all things are permitted.”
Ø If relativism were true, the act of rape and torturing someone for the fun of it would not really be wrong. Actions like murder, rape and innocent torture would be mere neutral ethical acts, and if this was correct, how are the acts of Hitler and mother Teresa different?
Ø If God does not exist, then ethics is the result of mere human constructions. Humans who are the products of evolution. In turn, if this were true, morality would aim at survival, which has nothing to do with what is absolutely right or wrong.
“If morality is determined from culture to culture, than the extermination of the Jews during World Warr II was justified. After all, that was Nazian ethics. But we all know intuitively (and universally) that what was done to the Jewish people, and many others for that matter, was wrong, wicked, and cruel. The Nazis engaged in genocide[31] in their attempt to systematically exterminate that part of the human race. Anyone who says otherwise is clearly morally handicapped.”[32]
-The Argument From Tolerance-
Ø Is it not intolerant to push your morality down other people throats? I mean, this is clearly wrong!
Ø Response: How come you are pushing your morality on me right now?
“Its Self – Refuting”
Ø “Hey man its wrong to judge. You should not judge.”
Ø The Obviously Reply is: “How come, then you’re judging me right now?”
Truths Learned About God: God is Holy, just, good and truthful.
Related Scriptures: (Romans 2:14-15)
Weakness of These Philosophical Proofs:
One may agree with the argumentation and agree with the conclusions with any one of these arguments. This, however, will not save the individual. The only thing these arguments prove is that there is a powerful and wise Creator. Eternal life is to know the true God and to have a personal relationship with Him through the work of Christ, "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (John 17:3 NKJV) This does not mean that these arguments are not beneficial, but the individual must have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, God come in the flesh, in order to enter the kingdom of God.
These arguments will not bring someone into a saving faith in Jesus Christ but as Christians I think that we should “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.”
THE SUPERIOR ARGUMENT
-The Person of Christ-
Bringing and individual into a confrontation with the Person of Jesus Christ is the most direct way to ‘get around’ the above arguments.
Ø The fact that Jesus claimed to be God (Jn 14:9; Heb. 1:3)
Ø The prophecies of Christ from the O.T.
1. Virgin Birth and Death (Gen 3:15)
2. Virgin Birth (Is. 7:14)
3. Time of Birth (Dan 9:25-26)
4. Place of Birth (Micah 5:2)
5. Type of Death (Ps. 22; Is 53; see Acts 8:31-35, Lk 22:37)
-He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver
(Zech 11:12 with Matt. 27:9-10)
-He would have His garments divided at His death
(Ps. 22:18 with Matt. 27:35)
Ø Prophecies Concerning Christ Continued:
-He would not have one bone broken at His death
(Ps. 34:20 with Jn 19:36)
-He would be pierced at His death
(Zech. 12:10 with Jn 19:37)
-He would die with sinners
(Is. 53:12 with Matt. 27:38)
-He would be ridiculed at His Death
(Ps. 22:7 with Matt. 27:39)
-He would be buried in a rich man’s grave
(Is. 53:9 with Matt. 27:57)
Alternative Views (Pay your nickel and take your chance!)
A. Atheistic View: The belief that there is no God (see Ps. 14:1)
Example: National Atheists Day (April 1st) Ps. 14:1
B. Agnostic View: The belief that on is uncertain about the existence of God (see Romans 1:20)
C. Evolution: The belief that man evolved over a long period of time. This theory starts with the premise that there is no God and then tries to explain life apart from God. Implications: Man is only biological and thus not held morally responsible to any god. (see Ecc. 12:13-14)
D. Polytheism: The belief that there are many gods (See Is. 44:6)
E. Pantheism: Nature is God, God is Nature, we are all bits and pieces of God. The belief that “God is all and all is God.” (See Gen 1:1; Is. 40:22 & Acts 17:24)
F. Panantheism: The belief that “God and the World interact with each other and influence each other.” (See Is. 44:24; Gen 1:1)
G. Deism: The belief that an all powerful God exists but there is no direct, divine intervention in the universe. (See Jn 1:1,14; 3:16; Acts 17:27; Deut. 4:7). Ex. A watch maker and now lets it wind down.
Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason,
Because bad philosophy needs to
be answered
C.S. Lewis
----
[1] Craig William Lane, Reasonable Faith Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway books 1994 pg. 77
[2] Ibid
[3] Actually, A.E. Allan Jones shown that most atheists have had poor relationships with their fathers, thus their atheism is a form of patricide. He goes on to show that those who reject biblical morality usually want to preserve a wanton sexual lifestyle.
[4] Ibid pg 79
[5] Ibid
[6] The second law of thermodynamics asserts that the universe is moving towards decay or heat death. If we grant validity to the big bang model and laws of thermodynamics, you know, the universe being the result of an explosion and progressing towards decay, and since energy is not being created and thus becoming thinner as it is spreading out due to the expansion of the universe, the universe certainly appears to be finite and thus is the effect of something else.
[7] Kalam means “lit. speech’, or dialectic’; applied to theology which is the ‘study of divine speech’. See Glasse, Cyril. The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam (San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc, 1989), pg. 216
[8] Apologetics derives from the Greek word “apologia” meaning a “defense” or rational or reasonable “answer.” The apostle Peter says, “Be ready always to give an answer [an apologia] to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope this is in you” (1 Peter 3:15)
[9] Keehus Nick Magnus, Reasoning About God Man & Evil a Dialogue, Joy Publishing 1997 pg. 14
[10] Craig William Lane, Reasonable Faith Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway books 1994 pg. 80
[11] Ibid pg.80
[12] A necessary being is the opposite of a possible being. A necessary being cannot not exist. It must exist and cannot come to an end. A necessary being exists of necessity.
[13] Possible beings are beings that could at one time or another not have existed, Human beings are possible beings – it could have been the case that humans never came into being.
[14]Keehus Nick Magnus, Reasoning About God Man &Evil a Dialogue, Joy Publishing 1997 pg. 74,75
[15] Plantinga, Alvin, God and Other Minds. A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God. (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1967), pg. 5-6
[16] There has been criticisms raised regarding this argument. Commentators of Aquinas disagree on their interpretation. Plantings does a fair job in addressing the disagreements in his God and Other Minds.
[17] Naturalism (naturalistic Big Bang Cosmology) holds that the universe is eternal, self-sustaining and thus without God. The cosmos consists of matter and energy.
[18] C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock (New York: Inspirational Press, 1996), p. 326
[19] J.Y.T. Greig, Ed., The letters of David Hume, Vol. 1 (Clarendon Press, 1932), p. 187.
[20] Jastrow, Robert. Journey to the Stars, (Bantam Books, 1989), pg. 4
[21] Pastore Frank, How To Defend Your Faith: Answering Tough Questions 1998 pg.94
[22] Craig William Lane, Reasonable Faith Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway Books 1994 pg. 85
[23] Ibid
[24] Paley, William, Natural Theology: Selections. Edited with an Introduction by F. Ferre. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963
[25] Craig William Lane, Reasonable Faith Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway Books 1994 pg. 87
[26] Keehus Nick Magnus, Reasoning About God Man &Evil a Dialogue, Joy Publishing 1997 pg. 89
[27] Pastore Frank, How To Defend Your Faith: Answering Tough Questions 1998 pg.94
[28] Craig William Lane, Reasonable Faith Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway Books 1994 pg.88
[29] Keehus Nick Magnus, Reasoning About God Man &Evil a Dialogue, Joy Publishing 1997 pg.107-8
[30] Relativism. To say that truth is relative is to claim that it varies from one time, place or person to another, and that it depends on the changing conditions they bring: that there is no universal truth, valid for all peoples at all times and places. Ethical Relativists see moral standards as culturally relative. New Dictionary of Theology, Inter-varsity Press 1998 pg. 574
[31] Genocide is the systematic, planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. The American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, 1994 pg. 351
[32] Keehus Nick Magnus, Reasoning About God Man &Evil a Dialogue, Joy Publishing 1997 pg. 115