Sermon Tone Analysis

What would you say to me if I told you that I do not believe in “words.”

More than likely you are thinking, “Are you kidding me?

That is foolish.

You don’t believe in words?

Come on!

That is ridiculous!”

Everyone believes that words exist.

It would be foolish to pull out a dictionary and to try to prove to the person that makes such a claim that words exist.

It is clear that He is, as we examined last month, suppressing a truth that is evident to all.

He is a fool.

He instead needs to be shown how foolish and contradictory such a claim is.

It is self-refuting.

You cannot claim that words do not exist without using them.

This is what we must show this person to show them how ridiculous a statement this is.

What do we say when someone says they do not believe in God? Do we respond in the same way?

Not usually.

Usually we respond by trying to give a list of evidences to the truth that God exists, when the Bible says that they already know that God exists.

Instead, we should be responding with the same attitude that we would respond with if someone said they didn't believe in words.

Just as the person who is suppressing the truth about the existence of words, so to is the one who claims that God does not exist.

Remember what God says in (which we looked at last week)?

Everyone is without excuse for rejecting the God they know exists.

They are foolish for doing so.

You cannot even make the argument that God does not exists unless God DOES exist, let alone prove it.

This subject will be what we study today.

I have titled this sermon, "Proof that God Exists."

The proof that I will show this evening is not like the arguments that we would commonly hear people use to prove God exists, such as the Cosmological Argument, The Design Argument, etc.

I don't use these arguments, because these arguments for God are not designed to prove the God of the Bible, just that a God exists.

Most people that use them even make this point.

At the beginning of their lessons on these topics, they usually begin by saying two things:

1.

I am not attempting to prove the Biblical God, just that a God exists

2. That we need to begin on neutral ground, assuming first that God does not exist, and then show through their arguments that it is more probable that a God exists

Starting your arguments for the existence for God in this way is just plain unbiblical.

We have no Biblical basis to begin any of our arguments in defending the faith on neutral ground.

The opposition sure doesn't do this, and we shouldn't either.

Remember what Peter says in ?

He just doesn't say that we need to be ready to give a defense to those who ask for a reason for the hope that is within us.

This is only the second part of the verse.

The first part of the verse says that we must sanctify Christ as Lord in our hearts, and then give a ready defense.

Can you tell me how we sanctify Christ as Lord in our arguments when we begin by assuming that He is not Lord?

We don't!

Just as all of the Apostles and Prophets of old, we need not be ashamed that we have the truth.

We must begin with the belief, just as they did, that Jesus is Lord and God, teach the truth, and call men to repentance.

The argument that I am going to show this evening is my favorite because this is what the argument does.

It begins with the presupposition that Jesus is Lord and shows the unbeliever that they cannot make sense of one argument that they make unless God does exist.

Their argument is self-refuting.

You cannot live as though God does not exist no matter how much you believe this to be the case!

You must borrow from the Christian worldview to make any arguments against God.

So the proof that God exists that I will be giving tonight: The proof that God exists is that without Him, you cannot know or prove anything!

Saying that God does not exist or even asking for proof that God exists, presupposes the existence of many things that you cannot account for if God does not exist:

• Objective Truth and Morality

• Knowledge

• Reason and Logical Absolutes

• Uniformity/Science

I could do a full sermon on each one of these topics, but for the sake of time I cannot.

You can get more information on these topics by going to the "Ultimate Proof" section of my website.

WHAT IS TRUTH WITHOUT GOD?

I am going to make a bold claim: Without God, there is no such thing as truth.

You must begin with the God of the Bible who is the Truth (), and the source of truth () to have an objective source of truth.

All you have are opinions and preferences.

Society claims that "truth" is based on the person; it is relative.

This is what you have if you don't believe God exists.

All you have is truth based on what each person believes.

But this is not truth at all! Just because you believe something doesn't mean that it is true.

And just because you call something "your truth" doesn't make it truth.

Any claim that truth is relativistic and/or subjective is self refuting.

Truth is objective and absolute.

People may claim that all truth is relative, but you cannot live this way!

Even the claim "all truth is relative" is an absolute truth claim.

Even the claim "It is my truth that God does not exist" is an absolute truth claim.

It is true for all people at all times that to you God does not exist.

Every truth claim is an absolute truth claim.

If God didn't exist, truth would not exist either.

If we are nothing more than evolved chemical reactions that began as simple chemical reactions that became living and over billions of years became us, you cannot have truth.

would be the mere by-product of the chemical reactions in our brains, i.e. “brain fizz.”

You do not get truth from chemical reactions.

I gave this illustration before: Saying you can get truth from chemical reactions would be like shaking up a bottle of Pepsi on one table and a bottle of Mountain Dew on another table, opening them up, and then deciding which chemical reaction is giving you true fizz and which one is giving you a false fizz.

You cannot have truth without God.

Every time someone makes a truth claim, they are presupposing the existence of God.

They are borrowing from God to argue against Him.

WHAT IS MORALITY WITHOUT GOD?

This argument ties closely to the argument about truth.

Every claim that something is right or wrong; good or evil, is an absolute truth claim, and you must have an absolute Law-Giver to make an absolute truth claim.

I make the same claim about morality that I do for truth: without God, there cannot be an objective standard of morality.

Morality also would be nothing more than our opinion and preference.

Saying murder is wrong if God does not exists, would be on par with saying I don't like chocolate ice cream.

You cannot get moral truths from chemical reactions either, just arbitrary and subjective opinions.

Many claim that morality evolved and that society can give us an objective basis for morality.

My usual response to this is: SAYS WHO? Says you, says other men?

For truth or morality to be objective, it cannot be based on the opinions and/or feelings of individuals, and all society is is a collection of individuals.

If the opinions of the majority tell us what is moral, that is not objective.

The atheist or evolutionist should say what Hitler did was perfectly moral.

It was accepted by individuals and by German society as a whole.

If morality is chosen by the consensus of society, there is no reason the unbeliever today can condemn Hitler for what he did.

He believed the things he did was right.

He got the German society to agree with Him.

Only from a theistic worldview can someone observe all that takes place in the world and consider it genuinely evil in any meaningful, objective sense.

Any statement declaring some action or activity as “evil” assumes some objective standard by which good and evil can be judged.

You must have an absolute standard of morality to base it on.

The unbeliever has no basis for even leveling an argument against God, what He does, or what He allows to happen.

He must borrow from the perfect, Biblical God of Truth to make any moral arguments