In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. —Gen. 1:1 (NIV)
According to polls which have been taken over many years, the vast majority of all Americans believe that God exists. It is not a simple majority. It is a landslide opinion that God exists. But this opinion is not just shared by Americans. Everywhere you go throughout the entire world, you find a fairly universal belief in God. If a vote were taken, God would be the clear winner.
But how do we know that God exists? Does a vote decide the issue? Even the majority of all people could be wrong. The philosopher Voltaire, the French skeptic, said, "If there were no God, it would be necessary for man to invent one." Many believe that God is the invention of man. Indeed, man does find a need to reach out to something greater than himself, especially in extreme and difficult circumstances.
Is God wishful thinking or reality? One of the problems we face is the fact that no one has ever seen God. In fact, the Bible admits that. But at the same time the Bible makes one of the most profound and basic statements about God’s reality. In Genesis 1:1 we read, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This is perhaps the most fundamental and important statements in all of Scripture. It lays the basis for all that follows. Without the truth of this statement, all the rest of the Bible is meaningless. "In the beginning God …" Before anything else was, God is!
But since no one has seen God because He is invisible, that presents us with a problem. How can one prove God? Do we simply accept the Bible’s assumption that God exists? Can we prove God by means of reason or logic? Are there facts which support God’s existence? By our personal experience can we know that God exists? What evidence is there of God’s existence?
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." — Psalm 53:1 (NIV)
What a shame—yes, how stupid!—to decide before knowing the facts! — Prov. 18:13 (LB)
In most basic philosophy courses you study the classical arguments for the existence of God. Do you remember the four most common arguments?
The first argument is commonly known as the ontological argument. This argument was first put forth by St. Anselm of Cantebury, who was a medieval theologian. It is based on the fact that God is defined as an all-perfect being and that the very definition of God as such proves His existence. This argument says that the fact that we have the concept in our understanding of an all-perfect being is evidence that such a being exists. God is a being than which a greater cannot be thought. In other words, God is a perfect being. He possesses, by His very definition, all of the characteristics of perfection. You cannot think of a greater being than God. But existence is an attribute of greatness. A thing which exists is greater than a thing which does not. Therefore, if God is perfect, He must exist. Such is the core of the ontological argument for the existence of God.
Another common argument for the existence of God is known as the anthropological argument. It argues that since people are moral creatures, creatures of intellect, emotion, and will, there must be a being apart from man who has the ability to think, feel, and determine. This is somewhat of an argument of cause and effect. God is the cause and man is the effect. Certainly man, the effect, could not be greater than God, the cause. Man, who is a personal and intelligent being, must have had a creator who is also personal and intelligent.
Then there is the cosmological argument for the existence of God. This is an argument from cause to effect. The name comes from the Greek word kosmos, which refers to the created order. The cosmological argument for the existence of God states that the things which we see had a cause. In other words, things do not come into being by themselves, but are caused to come into being. By this argument you can trace all caused things back to the first cause. By definition the first cause would be uncaused. Therefore the first cause is God.
Finally there is what is known as the teleological argument for the existence of God. This is the argument from order and design. The best illustration of this argument is the story of my watch.
Once upon a time my watch was merely a number of disorganized elements and metals lying on a dusty road. Over the process of time, it began to take shape. A few dinosaurs trotting along that dusty road kicked a few of the metals together. Some cavemen in the nearby area passed that way and their shoeless feet kicked a few more elements together. Well, over billions and billions of years this watch began to take shape. Because of the forces acting upon it, the sun, the rain, the wind, and the weather, it began to evolve. It developed hands, and a face, but no legs. Then one day it started ticking. I came along, picked it up, and put it on. And it’s been running ever since. Let me ask you, do you believe the story of my watch?
This is what the teleological argument for the existence of God is about. It is an argument from design. It argues that a thing which has obvious order and purpose must have been designed by a designer. While you might ask where a rock found on a path came from, you would never think in the same terms if it were a watch. A watch implies a watchmaker. A watch is a thing of order and purpose. Yet there are many things far more complicated, orderly, and purposeful than watches. The idea that a watch may have evolved is ludicrous. Yet compared to the human eye, a watch is a most elementary structure. Is it not then more logical to think of ourselves as part of a creation made by a creator than part of some cosmic accident? Someone said that the best reply to an atheist is to give him a good dinner and ask him if he believes there is a chef who prepared it.
It seems to me that there are many good philosophical arguments for the existence of God based on sound logic and reason. Believing in God is not unreasonable. It seems to me that God is a better explanation for what we see around us than any other. But there are more and even better arguments for the existence of God.
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. — Psalm 19:1 (NKJV)
Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all! — Romans 1:20 (GN)
Just what is science anyway? Wilfred Sellers, who was a professor of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh, has said, "Science is the measure of all things. Of those things that are true and real, that they are real, and of those things that are unreal and false, that they are unreal and false. Science is the end all, be all, and do all of modern knowledge." This view of science is called "scientism," the belief that only if something can be tested by science is it true. And we see this view expressed all around us today.
Scientism, however, is not science, it is a philosophy about science. And the irony of scientism is that true science is built on certain philosophical assumptions outside of science without which science could not function. Science assumes that there is objective truth which can be discovered. It assumes objective values, like reporting data fairly and honestly. It assumes that the world is rationally orderable and that the human mind and sensory faculties are reliable. Science could not function without these and other philosophical suppositions.
True science is a tool of inquiry. As such, it deals with what is observable, quantifiable, and repeatable, as it tries to discover the facts. When it makes conclusions that are not testable or engages in mere speculation to advances theories, those theories should be treated as theories and not as proven facts. For instance, did we evolve from a common life form, as Darwin postulated in his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, published in 1859, or did God form and create man by a supernatural act? Is that theory or fact? Many act as though it were fact. Just listen to almost any nature program on PBS if you don’t believe me.
But did you know that some scientists have a definite bias against any belief in a supernatural creator. Dr. George Wald, Nobel prize winning Biochemist from Harvard, commenting on the impossibility of life spontaneously arising from non-life, said, "That leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. But we cannot accept that on philosophical grounds. Therefore, we choose to believe the impossible, that life arose spontaneously by chance." Some choose to reject the possibility of God without any scientific evidence to do so, just out of personal preference. You see, scientists are people too.
Darwin’s theory swept up almost every naturalist in North America within twenty years of the publication of his book The Origin of Species. But Darwin had simply built upon the presuppositions of Immanuel Kant, who postulated that the universe was infinitely old, infinitely large, and static (that the conditions for life to exist are always present). With such a universe, there was an infinite time in which to throw the dice of chance, and with enough throws of the dice of chance, even highly complex things could be made, perhaps even something as highly complex as a German philosopher. Darwin assumed as much in his theory of life evolving over a vast amount of time.
But Darwin’s theory has run into some trouble with the scientific community. Most scientists now believe that the universe is not infinitely old. With the theory of the Big Bang (that the universe began with an explosion and has been expanding outward since that moment) comes the realization that the universe had a beginning, that it is not infinitely old.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, who was the head of the NASA/Goddard Space Institute, said, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story (big bang) 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."
You see, if there is not an infinite amount of time, there is simply not enough time for even simple things to be accounted for by random chance. And when you couple that with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called the law of entropy, which states that the universe is running down, or that things tend toward disorder, then evolution has a big problem. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is evident all around us. If we saw a pile of bricks in a field, we might say that the pile had once been a house, but we would not say that, without human intervention, it would one day become a house.
Carl Sagan was involved in an organization called SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). They probably had a government grant to do this, although I believe it was Senator Proxmire who suggested that the government could better spend its money looking for intelligent life in Washington, D.C. than in outer space. In any event, Sagan and Company were listening to the universe with an ear to hear any form of "communication" which has a semblance of order and organization about it. They reasoned that even if they do not understand the message, if it is ordered in any way it must come from an intelligence, because order implies intelligence. I agree. What a shame they can’t see how this logic of theirs applies to life on earth.
God has His fingerprints all over the universe. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Astronomer George Greenstein, in his book The Symbiotic Universe, said, "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency — or, rather, Agency — must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" Vera Kistiakowsky, past president of the Association of Women in Science and MIT physicist, said, "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." Allan Sandage, winner of the Crafoord prize in astronomy (much like the Nobel prize), commented, "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Robert Griffiths, Heinemann prize winner in mathematical physics, remarked, "If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use."
For the truly open minded, there is much in science to evidence that there is a creator God.
Find out for yourself how good the Lord is. — Psalm 34:8 (GN)
For all the philosophical arguments for the existence of God, you still may never prove God to some people. Because God is invisible and therefore unseen, some will always deny His existence. But some may deny the existence of atoms. You cannot see an atom, but atoms certainly have an effect. Ask any survivor of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. You can’t see love, but love certainly has an effect. Ask anyone who is in love.
Some people try to eliminate God because that makes them feel better about their own personal condition. Implied in the idea of God is that we are accountable to Him. So, if God doesn’t exist, then there is no God to whom we must answer. So, some have attempted to dismiss the idea of God, as through it is somehow more intellectual to dismiss out of hand the idea of the supernatural.
But there is evidence, as we have seen, in reason, logic, and creation for the existence of God. But there is another area, the area of personal experience, where there is powerful evidence. You may call this the experiential proof for the existence of God. It is the proof we gain by our own personal experience of God. By experiencing the personal effect God can have on our lives we can find out for ourselves that God exists.
Our personal experience of God has its basis in faith. Faith is the key that unlocks the door. In Hebrews 11:6 we read, "For he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." To experience God we must act on the inner knowledge that God is. The inner knowledge of which I speak is the knowledge which all humanity possesses that there is a God. Atheists deny this inner witness. But all of have it. Faith is acting upon this inner knowledge by opening your heart to believe.
As you act on that faith God will reveal Himself personally to you and you will find out for yourself. You see, I am not asking you to believe me. I hope that you do. But studies indicate that within three days most of us forget 95% of what we hear. So since you are going to forget most of what I have said here today, let me encourage you to check God out for yourself. As you open your heart to Him you will gain an experience you will never forget. You will gain a knowledge of God which no one can steal from you. You will come to the conclusion that God does exist.
I believe God exists because it is reasonable to believe so. The arguments for the existence of God make sense to me. But I believe God exists because I have met Him. That convinces me far more than any philosophical or scientific argument ever could. If you’re here today with your mind made up, I will not be able to convince you with the most rational of arguments. If, however, you are open to test the waters for yourself, I can point you to hundreds, thousands, even millions of people who will testify that they have personally found a living God who can make a difference in your life. Without God, life is meaningless. If it is true that God does not exist, then you only go around once and then you die, and it’s over! But in God all that changes. Life takes on meaning and purpose. We live forever as eternal beings. This life is not all there is. So let me encourage you to find out for yourself how good the Lord is.
Copyright © 1999 J. David Hoke. This data file is the sole property of the copyright holder and may be copied only in its entirety for circulation freely without charge. All copies of this data file must contain the above copyright notice.
This data file may not be copied in part (except for small quotations used with citation of source), edited, revised, copied for resale or incorporated in any commercial publications, recordings, broadcasts, performances, displays or other products offered for sale, without the written permission of the copyright holder. Requests for permission should be made in writing and e-mailed to J. David Hoke, at David@JDavidHoke.com.