PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH GOD

The Existence of God

By Larry Siekawitch

How Do We Know God Exists?

Is there a God? Is Christianity fact or fiction? Is the universe just a fluke that came about by chance and will eventually be destroyed? Are we just a compilation of molecules that just happen to work together pretty good or are we the design of God made in his image? These questions are the most important questions in the world. They are more important than who will win the Super-Bowl this year. They are even more important than the hospital x-rays that may show I have cancer. They are more important because they deal with eternity. Think of this way. If Christianity is true then we all live for ever - either in heaven or in hell. We all die but then what? If Christianity is not true and the atheists are right then all the martyrs who died for their faith are fools. The answers to these questions make a world of difference, which is why it makes sense for every individual to examine the evidence. Below is a case for Christianity. Examine the evidence with an open mind - your eternal destiny may be at stake. If the evidence is found wanting then you have been detained for a small portion of time from the things that really matter to you. If the evidence is convincing then you must make a decision, because a fantastic eternal life awaits you. This paper is written for two purposes: for the skeptic to show him that Christianity does not expect him to make a blind leap of faith in the dark without reason, and for the Christian teacher looking for material to train others in the area of apologetics "The branch of theology dealing with the defense and proof of Christianity" (Webster's).

There are three questions that the non-Christian needs to be confronted with: Is there a God? Is the Bible trustworthy? Does Jesus' life, death and resurrection prove the claims of Christianity? If you can show them that the answer to these three questions is yes you have broken down the intellectual walls keeping them from Jesus. This doesn't mean they will accept Jesus. I remember talking with a man in college who was a convinced skeptic. After a while in our conversation he admitted that I had convinced him that there was a God. After a while longer he admitted that Christianity made sense and he thought it was true but he went on to say that he wasn't ready to become a Christian. When I asked why he was honest and said that he wasn't ready to give up his life of sin. There are people that don't want to be confused with the facts. They don't want to believe. This material may make them uncomfortable but it will not change their minds. But for the honest seeker that has never seen a good case for Christianity this material can take away the barriers keeping him or her from following Jesus. There will always be the necessary room for faith. God has provided us enough revelation of himself to convince any honest skeptic but not enough to force a person that doesn't want to believe against his will. It is faith, but it is faith founded on fact.

The direction we will be taking is first to convince the atheist into becoming an agnostic, then to convince the agnostic that there is a god, then to show him that the Bible is true, then to show him that Christianity is true, then finally to answer some of the tough questions that seem to contradict Christianity (see chart A).

Atheist to Agnostic

First, an atheist is someone that believes beyond the shadow of a doubt there is no God. Psalm 53:1 says, "The fool says in his heart there is no God." The Bible calls the atheist a fool because atheism is illogical. For a person to say that there is no possible way beyond his limited knowledge of reality that there might be information revealing God's existence. We are finite creatures; that means we have limited amounts of knowledge; we don't know everything (though some of us appear to think we do). If there are areas of knowledge outside our limited range then it is a possibility that outside our limited range there is knowledge of God's existence. In order for us to say absolutely that there is no true knowledge of God's existence we would have to have all knowledge (see chart B). If we had all knowledge we would have one of the attributes that only God could have therefore we would be God. So we find ourselves in the strange predicament of being God and yet denying God's existence. But if we are limited and therefore are not God we must admit that there is at least the possibility that there is a God outside of our knowledge; it might be a likely possibility or it might be a very long-shot possibility but nonetheless it is a possibility. If we admit this we cease being a fool (a person who thinks he is God and yet denies God's existence) and move into the area of agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the belief that we are unsure whether there is a God or not. There are two types of agnostics: 1) those who say there may or may not be a God, they just have not discovered his existence yet if he does exist, 2) those who say they do not know if there is a God or not and no one can ever know. The first category is a true agnostic. The second category is just a disguise for atheism and moves into the category of being a fool. They are a fool because if there is a God then surely he is able to reveal himself to us, therefore there is at least the possibility that someone could know if there is a God or not.



Agnosticism to Theism

Our next step is to convince the agnostic that there is a God. We are not now trying to prove the existence of the God of the Bible, just that there is some form of supreme being responsible for creating the universe. The Bible claims that God has revealed himself to every person through what theologians call general revelation (Read Psalm 19; Romans 1:18-23; Acts 14:17; 17:26-28; Romans 2:4; 2:14-15). General revelation is the revelation of God through his creation and through our conscience. It is not specific and detailed but it does show that God exists and it does reveal a few things we can know about this supreme being. The general revelation is basic logical deductions from what we can observe and reason. First we will look at the three options for the universe's existence and then we will look at three proofs for God's existence.

I. Three options for the existence of the universe (see chart C):

II.

A. The universe created itself. This is illogical because it would already have to be in existence in order to create itself and therefore would already be created so it could not create itself. Star Trek's hypothesis that sometimes the affect comes before the cause is fun science fiction but it is not logical.

B. The universe is eternal. This solves the problem of being created because it never was created. The problem with this view, which is held by most atheists as well as most Eastern religions, is that is goes against all scientific discoveries concerning the universe. To hold this view is to hold a view without a shred of evidence and with very much convincing evidence to the contrary. It is definitely a leap of faith into the dark. The impossibility of an eternal universe is discussed below in detail under the heading "Does the Bible and Science Conflict?" Briefly stated the Big Bang theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics disprove the theory of an eternal universe.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states, "The amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing due to continuing heat loss. In other words, the universe is running out of usable fuel; it is slowly dying a heat death." If the universe is running down there must have been a starting place where maximum energy was there otherwise it would have already run out if infinite time is given. Listen to what Robert Jastrow, internationally known astronomer and founder and director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has to say:



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 sitting there for centuries.

C. An uncaused, eternal, all-powerful being created the universe out of nothing (see Genesis 1:1-3).

II. Three arguments for God's existence:

III.

A. The Cosmological argument. The cosmological argument is based on the law of Cause and Effect which all scientific investigation depends on. It says that for every effect there was a cause. We drop a ball off the Empire State building and it falls to the ground; what caused it to fall? The affect was caused by gravity. Everything that ever happens had a prior cause to it happening. When we trace the causes and affects back to the beginning we must ask "What caused the first affect?" We know there was a first affect because we have already determined that the universe had a beginning. There must be a first cause and that first cause cannot be contingent (its existence depends on another), must be eternal and uncaused as well as all-powerful and personal. The first cause cannot be contingent because if it had a need and depended on something else for its existence it could not exist before anything else was created or caused. The first cause must be eternal otherwise we would have to ask the question "What caused the first cause?" (which is why it would also have to be uncaused). The first cause would have to be all-powerful or at least extremely powerful beyond our wildest imagination in order to create the vast expanse and intricacy of the universe. The first cause would also have to be personal in order to create personality. The God of the Bible fits all of these:

A. God is self-existent (uncaused) John 5:26

B. God is eternal Deuteronomy 33:27

C. God is independent of anything else (non-contingent; necessary) Psalm 50:9-13,21; Isaiah 66:1-2.

D. God is all-powerful Jeremiah 32:17; The term "LORD Almighty is used of God 252 times in the Bible.

E. God is personal Exodus 3:14

B. The Teleological argument. Cicero said, "If you saw a splendid house, you surely would not assume that it was built by mice or weasels. A splendid house implies a splendid architect; and a wonderful world implies a divine creator." The gist of this argument is that since the universe appears to have design and purpose there must be an intelligent designer. The argument can be looked at like this:

1. The universe appears to have design and purpose.

2. The best explanation for design and purpose is an intelligent designer.

3. Therefore, the universe is probably the result of an intelligent designer.

Clark Pinnock gives one of a multitude of examples of this argument from design:

If we saw a scattering of stones on a hillside spelling out the words, "Welcome to Canada," we would not suppose that these stones had fallen down the hill and formed the message by themselves. They could have done so, but it would be very unlikely. Instead we would conclude that some intelligent agent had arranged the stones in that pattern so as to communicate with us. I believe it is reasonable to think that God wants to communicate with us and does so in part through the wise ordering of the world, which is a cosmos not a chaos (60).

Another aspect besides the complexity, intricacy, and order of the universe is that the universe appears to have purpose. Not only does the design demand a Designer, but the purposiveness of the universe demands a Purposer. First look at the beauty of this world. I agree with Jean Anouilh who says, "Beauty is a rare miracle that reduces to silence our doubts about God." Donald Williams says, "Not even the hardest of hearts can see a blazing sunset over the Pacific without some sense of awe" (150). Let's consider the human being. Think about the purpose and beauty in our ability to reason, communicate, have emotions, see colors, taste foods, laugh and cry. Not only that, we have the ability to ask the question of our own existence. Clark Pinnock challenges us to consider the human brain:

It consists of about three pounds of grey matter, and yet no manmade computer of any size can duplicate the myriad of operations it routinely performs for us every day. Composed of thirty billion nerve cells, the brain is a vast, largely unexplored continent - one of the wonders of the universe. How can a person be expected to believe that an organ of such incredible complexity and versatility came to exist by accident as the result of an unintelligent and purely material process? (59).

The only other explanation is chance. You have heard of the infinite monkey at the infinite typewriter that given enough time will eventually pound out Shakespeare's Hamlet. One day the scientist rushes to the typewriter, pulls out the first page and says, "At last we are vindicated. To be or not to be that is the gershuveblem4ts. By chance alone there is no purpose or design and what chance creates ends up in gersheveblem4ts (Martin). That is why C.A. Chant, Professor of Astrophysics in Toronto University says that "at least 90 percent of astronomers have reached the conclusion that the universe is not the result of blind law, but is regulated by a great Intelligence" (Grounds 22). Nobel Prize winner and physicist Dr. Robert Millikan declares, "To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist" (Grounds 22). The scientists agree; the universe had a beginning; it could not have appeared all by itself; and its design and purposiveness rule out chance. So a creator is necessary and it appears that Romans 1:18-22 is right:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.

This is the argument from design and purpose; it shows that there is a supreme being and that this supreme being must be all-knowing and all-wise or at least very smart and very wise. The God of the Bible is all-knowing and all-wise (see 1 John 3:20 and Romans 11:33-36).

C. The moral argument. In discussing this argument I am indebted to C.S. Lewis and C. Stephen Evans. Romans 2:15 says that God has written his basic laws upon everyone's heart and so we are all without excuse. We all have a conscience (though it is possible to sear our conscience 1 Timothy 4:2). The argument can be stated:

1. Unless there is a God, there cannot be objectively binding moral obligations.

2. There are objectively binding moral obligations.

3. Therefore there is a God (Evans 69).

Some reject objectively binding moral obligations in favor of what is called "cultural relativism." Cultural relativism is the idea that there are no moral absolutes; all morals come from our upbringing in the particular society we grow up in and the circumstances we live through. What might be right for me may not be right for you and what might be evil for you may be good for me. Many point out the dissimilarities of ethical standards in different cultures to back up this view. In actuality the amazing thing is the abundant similarities of basic moral values among all cultures.

The most serious problem with moral relativism is that it nullifies any possibility for moral progress. If there is no real standard then to say we are better or worse now is senseless. We cannot condemn those who promote antisemitism, racism, or infanticide.

Besides the vast similarities of ethics in the various cultures and besides the fact that cultural relativism does away with any possibility of moral progress, nobody lives by this idea in day to day practice. To say you believe something is true and yet all your life is lived as if it were not true is to deny that you really believe it is true (except when it is convenient). Evans puts it this way:

It is extremely difficult to hold consistently to any form of relativism or emotivism in practice. It is easy enough to say that there are no real moral obligations; but most people cannot help believing that, when they are wronged by someone else, the act is really wrong. If a person maliciously trips me and then laughs because I have cut my lip, it will seem to me that the person has wronged me and that it is a true fact that he has done so. It is no good to say that the person who tripped me thought the act was right and therefore for him it was right. The act was wrong, and the person should have recognized this and regretted the act, even if he felt no such emotion. The person who did the tripping is likely to say the same thing when he is tripped (71).

All of us have a conscience. We are compelled to do certain things even though we don't want to, often when it goes directly against our natural instincts. We feel we ought to do something or we ought to abstain from something else. There appears to be a law within us, a sense of ought. This certainly does not prove the existence of a supreme Being but it does cause us to think. It is difficult to conceive of morality and "oughtness" to have evolved from blind chance. None of the other animals have this peculiar trait. They just act on instinct. But not man. Could it be that God has placed within us his ideals to protect us and lead us to himself? This argument reveals that God is a moral being that cares about morality and justice.

When we view the three arguments above we see a strong case for the existence of God. Though we may have not absolutely proved his existence we see that all the evidence is in favor of his existence. From these arguments we learn a little about what God is like. The Cosmological argument reveals that he must be uncaused, eternal, independent, all-powerful and personal. The Teleological argument reveals that God must be intelligent and wise and therefore personal (as well as artistic). The Moral argument shows that he must be a moral Being who cares about justice and morality. Is that all we can know about the creator of the universe? How can we know if Christianity is right? Let's now look at the case for the Christian faith.