This is only an introduction to the main arguments for God’s existence. Obviously, much more can and has been written. First, the question of evidence for God’s existence is not a matter of some evidence being for God’s existence and some being against. It is whether or not the existence of God explains all of the evidence better than the alternative (that, is, that there is no Being higher than us).
Second, we say that one’s own understanding of the concept of God is one strong piece of evidence. This is something which most people have no problem understanding even though most people also have a natural tendency to want to reject God (as I once did and all of us actually do by nature). This tendency shows that belief in God is not a matter of wishful thinking.
Third, there is the fact that you or anything else exists, since, as a contingent being, your existence must ultimately have come from some Necessary Being. Fourth, there is the amazing intricacy and capabilities of even simple forms of life. For example, a common house-fly is a far more advanced flying machine than anything we have been able to design. To say that the emergence of such life did not require design, but only mindless natural forces operating over a vast period of time violates the principle of Occam’s Razor, which says that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The naturalistic explanation can only be surmised, never observed. But we constantly observe how the application of intelligence on matter produces complex items. Indeed, in the absence of efforts guided by intelligent purpose, the natural tendency of matter is to go from order to disorder (as anyone who never cleans their house will easily recognize!).
Fifth, the dominant belief today that the universe ultimately consists only of mindless matter/energy in time cannot explain the existence of us as people and any of our knowledge, experience or values (including all ethics). Sixth, ethics can only be arbitrary unless there is a Higher Standard. The only reason good and evil are not arbitrary is because goodness is God’s Nature as The Perfect Being. Anything which contradicts or opposes this is evil. (I would add that the only reason God can truly be self-sufficient as a Person is because He is relational within His own Being as multi-Personal. This shows the superiority of Christian Monotheism.)
Even if one were to claim that all of our experience as human beings is only an illusion, this still wouldn’t eliminate the fact that we still exist as real subjects of the illusion! And, taken to its logical conclusion, the anti-Theistic alternative absurdly posits an empty universe of objects with no knowing subjects. In other words, your existence as a human person disproves the Materialism/Empiricism of Atheism. For example, unless we existed as more than physical chemistry, a person looking at their own brain chemistry could only be described as chemistry somehow viewing itself! This is the “reductio ad absurdum” of Materialism (also known as Naturalism, which is supported by the equally-flawed epistemology of Empiricism).
All of these things point to the necessary existence of The Creator God described in the Bible. They are not necessary proofs in the respect that God’s existence needs to be established by proof. God is not a theorem. He is The Ultimate Fact. In fact, even logic itself is not explainable without the existence of The One True God (as the way His Mind works and the way ours is supposed to work because we have been made in His likeness). So, God must exist or else we couldn’t prove anything.
Thus, all of these “proofs” are not really proofs, but “evidence after The Fact” of something which is above all proof: God’s inescapable existence. But most people “can’t handle the truth!” that God exists because they want to be the god of their own lives. The Bible calls this our “sinful nature”, by which we are naturally-inclined to reject God. This is despite the most direct piece of evidence of all: the fact that all of us inevitably and inescapably know The One True God in our hearts, but suppress this knowledge.
Many reading this will undoubtedly deny that you already know God exists, just as you will likely resist where all of the above evidence points. But that is simply you acting according to the basic characteristic of mankind, as the Bible alone explains it: because you were born as a member of a rebellious race of sinners. Only God can change this, but all of us are culpable for not seeking Him and asking Him to open our hearts, eyes and minds so that we can get to know Him and so that we can be saved and transformed. The Gospel found in the Bible explains this and has led millions to The Greatest Blessing possible: the peace and joy of knowing that I have been forgiven of my sins and that my Creator loves me with perfect love.
I hope and pray that you will truly consider all of this and find the same Blessing which I found 32 years ago.
* * * * * * * Christianity is True * * * * * * * 
Nonsense
Sorry, but if that is all you can say in response then you show yourself to be rather unreasonable. A reasonable person is able to provide reasons why something is wrong. Unfortunately for you, I don’t believe you can. Nevertheless, I suspect that you are certain that Christianity is not only wrong, but ridiculous and, even, evil. I suggest that you are like so many today who have not really been taught how to think critically. You have only been taught to think what others want you to think. I know because I am a recovered victim of this myself. Thanks for at least looking at my blog, though. I pray that God will open your mind and eyes as He did for me 32 years ago. You are culpable for resisting Him, though, and for claiming to know what you don’t know.
“… most people also have a natural tendency to want to reject God (as I once did and all of us actually do by nature). This tendency shows that belief in God is not a matter of wishful thinking.”
Given the prevalence of theism I’m not sure “most people” are inclined as you say.
The many variations of theism, and the tendency of deities and dogma to mirror their parent culture, is exactly what we’d expect if these things were constructs of the human imagination.
“… as a contingent being, your existence must ultimately have come from some Necessary Being.”
Unfortunately God is also contingent upon logic. This also goes for the TAG argument you get to below.
“To say that the emergence of such life did not require design, but only mindless natural forces operating over a vast period of time violates the principle of Occam’s Razor, which says that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.”
Mutation with selection (an observed principle) is very simple. It also explains the overly complex life we see around us. A hallmark of design is simplicity, not complexity.
“… belief today that the universe ultimately consists only of mindless matter/energy in time cannot explain the existence of us as people and any of our knowledge, experience or values (including all ethics).”
There doesn’t seem to be any reason to think this is true. Our ability to sense, remember and relate (to reason) requires only a logical reality.
Apologies I hit send before I had finished.
“… ethics can only be arbitrary unless there is a Higher Standard.”
Which is fine, and seems to be exactly what we see when we look around us. There are many different moral systems, differing opinions, throughout our world. Exactly as we’d expect if these judgements were internal.
“… unless we existed as more than physical chemistry, a person looking at their own brain chemistry could only be described as chemistry somehow viewing itself!”
If chemistry, or physics, is the material foundation of our higher concepts and reasoning this doesn’t seem so problematic.
“…even logic itself is not explainable without the existence of The One True God.”
This is not true. As I think I mentioned above Gods are contingent upon logic, not the other way round. After all if you start with “God” you have already assumed the basic laws of logic (for example, the law of identity). You simply cannot have a concept “God” without it!
In conclusion, gods appear unnecessary unevidenced and have all the characteristics of being entirely man made.
What do you think?
I appreciate the fact that you make reasonable arguments for your position without making personal attacks or attacking false strawman caricatures of my position, unlike many unbelievers I interact with. The biggest problem I have with your argument is that you require God to be subject to logic as we understand it. This both denies His Supremacy and makes logic an unaccountable Ideal.
I believe the proper understanding of the relationship is that logic is part of God’s Eternal Nature as the way His mind works (which our minds also reflect). This and this alone keeps logic from being either arbitrary (or whatever God defines it as, or, for that matter, whatever we decide it is) or from being a limit over Him. As such, the common conundrum: “Can God create a rock which He cannot lift?” must be answered “No” simply because it is a logical contradiction. God cannot contradict Himself, nor can one of His attributes contradict another. The false demand that God must be limited by laws of logic also makes people falsely claim that God must be a contingent being. But there is no logical contradiction in the idea of a Necessary Being. (In a similar way to logic, goodness is also a quality of God’s Nature so that what He does is always good not because He does it, but because He is actually perfectly good. As such, God could conceivably do evil, but never does.)
I would add that not all Christians would agree with these explanations, but I believe that logic, that is, God’s logic entails them. The tradition of theology which I identify with is known as Reformed Theology. I believe it is superior to other traditions because I find it to be both the most consistently logical, as well as the best in showing how the Scriptures are internally coherent. As for other religious or philosophical traditions, it can be demonstrated that all of these become self-defeating or unable to account for undeniable things at some point.
In a sense, the only consistent alternative to Christianity is complete Skepticism. But the latter isn’t really consistent because all of us must constantly assume that we know many things, and rightly so. Thus, a Skeptic is constantly contradicting his skepticism in practice. So, Christianity is the only coherent system logically. Obviously, I realize that all of these claims must be reasonably demonstrated. But they can be for anyone with “ears to hear and hearts to understand” (to use Jesus’ phrases).
You appear to want to hold to two contradictory ideas: that ultimate reality is only material, but there is also such a thing as logic. Logic itself cannot be observed in the world around us. Rather, we must assume logical principles before we can begin to understand the world around us. This includes mapping our brain chemistry. Are you willing to grant that we are more than just physical entities, but have minds as well as bodies (with our brains being part of our bodies)? It is the claim that ultimate reality is only physical which I see as perhaps the biggest flaw of Naturalism/Materialism. Without minds there is no explanation for any subjectivity. Christian Theism alone explains the existence both of the “world” of ideas and the world of objects and also why the two correlate.
As for the design question, you are confusing two things. Design does operate on the principle of simplicity. But it is also an obvious axiom of engineering that the more complex an engineered entity is, the more design will be required. And, while mutations can sometimes offer advantages, the probabilities of enough advantageous mutations to create organisms with the complexity of even relatively simple forms of life have been shown to be astronomical. This is where the Occam’s Razor argument comes in. It is just more reasonable to assume the creation of life, in particular, was a guided process.
And, while mutations can sometimes offer advantages, the probabilities of enough advantageous mutations to create organisms with the complexity of even relatively simple forms of life have been shown to be astronomical.
I would like to demonstrate a simplified model to show how such probabilities are trimmed by regularities of succession, but taking three items from two bins, hydrogen and oxygen. The possible combinations are:
HHH
HHO
HOH
HOO
OHH
OHO
OOH
OOO
By rotation, OOH is the same as HOO, leaving seven.
Also HHO is the same as OHH, leaving six.
Now let the laws of chemisty intervene. The six are whittled down to one, HOH, or water, which is far and away the most probable result of burning hydrogen in air. But this sort of analysis is always omitted when theists toss around their calculations of probability.
Thank-you for posting. You really need to watch the “Evolution’s Achilles Heels” video. The truth is that the probabilities of even the most basic organisms arising due to random events are indeed staggering. But the real problem is not that the existence of life is improbable without design. Rather, it is impossible in principle. For, even the most basic form of life requires an amazing amount of information in order to function. And randomness never conveys information, it only destroys it. The tendency of all life forms to deteriorate and decay itself shows this. Our physical bodies break down and eventually die because they revert to the way of all matter when it is not deliberately manipulated by an intelligent influence.
Imagine there is a small river in the mountains marked by boulders and debris from falling trees. Now imagine that at one place a rolling stone finds a stable position on the left bank. That’s one mutation. Later, another rolling stone finds a stable position on the right bank opposite the first one. That’s the second mutation. Still later, a third rolling stone happens to settle in between the two . By a series of three single steps, completely random, we now have a useful “organ” in the form of a kind of primitive bridge. It is possible to cross the stream at that location by hopping along the three stones. Statistically, such an arrangement of three stones in a line, though rare, is bound to happen.
Now imagine that a log floating in the river reaches these three stones and becomes wedged against them. So we have two bridges existing side-by-side, but the log bridge is better than the stone bridge because people don’t have to risk their neck jumping from one stone to another. This is a mutation that results in an improvement to the “organ”. Travelers end up preferring the log to the stones, and their many crossings depress the ends of the log into the river bank, making it very secure.
Now imagine that the river flowing under the log washes the three stones away one after the other, leaving only the log. Many generations later, people come out and admire this Cadillac of a bridge and remark that it must have had a bridge maker. It couldn’t possibly have formed by chance, because even if one end of the log happened to wedge in a riverbank by chance, the other end would be bent by the stream and the whole log would have swept away. The bridge would be offered by proponents of the Intelligent Bridgemaker as an example of irreducible complexity, and yet, as was shown, the real history of the bridge was a series of single steps, made by nature entirely by chance, but reinforced by the improvements made to its fitness as a bridge.
Your example is creative, but fails to explain how human intelligence and design can exist if all is ultimately due to random events. The scenario you paint is realistic but has nothing to do with what human beings do with nature.
I hope my analogy was interpreted correctly. The humans in my story who used the log bridge and improved the “genome” were merely standing in for natural selection. The purpose of my analogy, and I know you are intelligent enough to understand it, is to illustrate a principle called the Mullerian Two Step which is the principle argument against Behe’s claim of irreducible complexity being an argument for ID.
Just because one can come up with a fanciful scenario doesn’t prove that something like this happened. And there is a flaw in that the humans in the scenario are not a legitimate stand-in for natural selection because they act with purpose, not the random movement natural selection assumes.
While one may be able to cite rare instances where undirected forces cause an increase in order, we observe them being destructive of order far more often. Thus, no build up of order is possible without direction.
There are also many other problems with Evolution and the evolutionary worldview. I focus on the philosophical problems, especially in the “10 Widely-believed Fallacies Today” piece here. I invite you to interact with these. The “Evolution’s Achilles Heels” video presents the scientific problems, including that of the decay of the human genome and the failure to provide any explanation for the development of life without some sort of intelligent influence. Have you viewed this video?
Thank you for the feedback on my bridge analogy for illustrating how natural forces can simulate design. I see that the use of humans to represent natural forces is a mistake, and I will modify the analogy to use non-human animals instead.
When you use the phrase “buildup of order” it seems that you have somehow equated order with complexity, but precisely the opposite is the case. Order is that state of affairs that can entirely described by a simple set of data. For example, if I have twelve items arranged along the baseboard of a room, I can describe them by saying, “Working clockwise from the door,…” and then list the identities of the twelve items until I reach the door again. But if the twelve items are scattered at random positions on the floor, my list becomes three times longer because each item then requires two horizontal coordinates as well. The more disordered my room, the more complex is the list to identify each item.
Sorry, but you are playing a game with the term “complex” in order to avoid the real problem I raised. You really need to view the “Evolution’s Achilles Heels” video. One of the main points made on it is that a tremendous amount of information is needed to arrange things in an orderly fashion, even on a very rudimentary level, not to mention on the amazingly intricate level needed in order for even the most simple organisms to function. That a random arrangement of things requires a more complex description than a well-ordered arrangement is entirely irrelevant to the issue.
Indeed, the truth is that intelligence and information is always needed to impose order on a random arrangement of raw material. That is the crucial point. To go back to your own bridge analogy, it wouldn’t work at all if the humans didn’t have the intelligence to use the wood bridge. If they were simply moving randomly, then they would only rarely, if ever, cross the bridge by accident. But organisms simply don’t work this way.
“The more perfect a nature is the fewer means it requires for it’s operation.”
If creator had created perfection the universe and everything in it would be much simpler.
A claim to complexity being a case for god actually disproves god.
I don’t know where your quote is from, nor why you take it as an axiom (or, an unquestionably true statement). The irreducible complexity argument is actually an argument against the opposing position: that complex organisms can’t develop by means of a build up of mutations because crucial organs won’t function at all if they lack even a single piece. Complex organisms (and even the simplest living organism is now recognized as being far more complex than was thought in the past) just can’t form without the guidance of an Intelligence. I would recommend you get Jason Lisle’s book “The Ultimate Proof of Creation”. It is very readable. The video “Evolution’s Achilles Heels” would also help you, though some of the technical stuff is pretty advanced.
Aristotle. I’ve read them both. Nothing I haven’t read before.
All this talk is a bit above my high school education.
What I can see is that if this god is true, life is a trap.
I never asked to be born. No one consulted me. I feel this is a pretty big deal.
Why is this never addressed? If I am so important why have to go through a bizarre test? Why be born into a game that you cannot win?
I’ve no choice but to choose. That isn’t a choice to me. And it doesn’t matter that god is outside of logic or whatever you mean by that. The reality is I am forced into an unwinnable game but given this “choice” of paths. It is unreasonable, and in my opinion evil. Like some game a kid would play where no matter what he wins in the end. It’s just not reasonable to believe in that at all.
Further, what is the ultimate goal of god? It seems that Heaven is just a bunch of ‘super fans’ stalking this god like some crazed paparazzi forever. That doesn’t appeal to me in the least.
It seems that god is lonely and has low self esteem. It makes absolutely zero sense.
I appreciate your willingness to interact with my arguments and also your honest expression of your struggle with God’s existence. Your objections are well thought out, but there are some basic flaws in them. First, the notion that you could have had a choice in whether or not you exist (whether it was through an accidental alignment of mindless forces or by being created by God) is pointless. You exist. If you didn’t, the question of whether or not you wanted to exist would be nonsensical. And given that you exist, you have countless choices. I would say that that should be seen as a good thing, not a bad thing.
As for what God wants. Worship of beings who either don’t actually exist or beings who are not Perfect is wrong. This is idolatry in Biblical terms. But worship of The True God is both right and most desirable because He loves us as our Perfect Father (if we are willing to accept His love), having sent His Eternal and Perfect Son to suffer and die so that we might be forgiven and restored to Him as His children, and having sent His Holy Spirit in order to make us into perfect children. I would point out that all of this is unique to the Christian Message.
All it takes to “win” is to accept that God exists (which we say that you already know is true, but are both naturally-inclined and taught to suppress) and to accept His offer of immeasurable and endless blessings. God doesn’t need any of us to worship Him, nor did He need to create any of us or, even, create anything at all (unlike the Muslim & Jewish monistic conceptions of God, in which God must create something or someone to relate to). But God created us because He wanted to have a bigger family than He originally had in the Triumvirate of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We can be a part of this family if we wish. But He doesn’t force us to be. However, to refuse His offer is the most foolish choice anyone could ever make.
Please let me know if this is helpful to you.
God bless you,
Chris
“First, the notion that you could have had a choice in whether or not you exist (whether it was through an accidental alignment of mindless forces or by being created by God) is pointless.”
It is not pointless. I resent not having a chance to accept or reject life.
“Even in the womb I knew you.” Why aren’t we given the same courtesy? If god is so pro choice, why aren’t we given a choice? If we are so important how could we not always have been consciously aware of making the choice? Because a conscious choice was not required for birth it is evident that the game is rigged. No choice of birth and force fed an ideology that one must accept or perish is the same device used by ISIS.
It angers me that I am thrust into a world where man was deliberately created to be defective and evil. Because Eve was created by a mans rib and then was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from this magical tree. Then god commands you to get better or he will punish you with eternity of pain, because he wants you to be perfect?
If this is true then it means one of two things.
1- God had to abide by some type of rules and that is why ‘it is what it is’. If that is the case, sign me up!
2- God is malevolent
So giving you the benefit of the doubt that your god exists in the first place, the answer is self evident.
“As for what God wants. Worship of beings who either don’t actually exist or beings who are not Perfect is wrong. This is idolatry in Biblical terms. But worship of The True God is both right and most desirable because He loves us as our Perfect Father (if we are willing to accept His love), having sent His Eternal and Perfect Son to suffer and die so that we might be forgiven and restored to Him as His children, and having sent His Holy Spirit in order to make us into perfect children. I would point out that all of this is unique to the Christian Message.”
WHY?
Why not skip the bullshit and get to the point?
Again, he either has to follow rules or he is evil.
All it takes to “win” is to accept that God exists (which we say that you already know is true, but are both naturally-inclined and taught to suppress) and to accept His offer of immeasurable and endless blessings. God doesn’t need any of us to worship Him, nor did He need to create any of us or, even, create anything at all (unlike the Muslim & Jewish monistic conceptions of God, in which God must create something or someone to relate to). But God created us because He wanted to have a bigger family than He originally had in the Triumvirate of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We can be a part of this family if we wish. But He doesn’t force us to be. However, to refuse His offer is the most foolish choice anyone could ever make.
First, it is the apex of arrogance that you tell me that I already know something is true. Are you apart of my consciousness? No you are not. You have your experience to draw from only. (Not angry just commenting)
If god wanted a bigger family, why the BS?
What’s wrong with him? Honestly why does he require this? Because he wants everyone to feel what he feels? Why does he put the cost of that feeling on the heads of innocent children who suffer and die every second of every day?
He either had to conform to some rule book in order for this to happen, or he is malevolent.
Furthermore, read your paragraph over and over. At some point I would hope you would see how you sound. Love, Love, Love, Love or else. Come one man. Seriously???
If you have children, and for whatever ever reason they chose not to believe in your god, can you honestly say that you would have no problem with god throwing them into a lake of fire?
Then can you say that you would happily forget about them forever? No amount of rationalizing can excuse the insanity of answering affirmatively.
Look I appreciate your concern for your fellow man. You need to be able to open yourself up to the possibility that you are mistaken.
I grew up in a southern baptist church. I was ‘saved’ when I was sixteen. I had my own key to the church! I never attended any of the youth groups. I took only adult classes. I’ve read the Bible cover to cover and I understand how powerful belief is. Couple true belief with emotion and that is the final nail in the coffin of objectivity. I was the guy who was being groomed for leading the next generation of believers. I was the guy that knocked on strangers doors with the good news of salvation. I guarantee you my conviction was the same as yours.
When I was 24, I was in a laundry mat and was thinking about refiners fire. I thought about god testing for impurities of faith. What are these impurities? One idea was the impurities of other ways of thinking and how someone smarter than me could influence me. I needed to ‘know my enemy’ so that I couldn’t be outsmarted and be influenced sub consciously.
I picked up a book, Philosophy for dummies. I left god within 24 hours, and am truly free now.
It was hard. When everything you believed with every once of your being was just a defense mechanism was upsetting. I had to find my own meaning to life. It was the bravest thing I’ve ever done and I am a better human being for it.
Not bad for a high-school education! I share my own intellectual journey in the piece on this site: “The Question That We All Should Ask”. I encourage you to read it if you haven’t already.
How can you say you haven’t had a choice? Have you not made the choice to abandon Christianity, along with countless other choices you have made in your life? I suspect that something happened to you that you haven’t mentioned which made you mad at God and that is the real reason you left Him (your own word choice). But leaving Him doesn’t make Him non-existent. Sorry, but that’s actually a childish pretense.
And the Greeks were simply wrong (like all unbelieving thinkers, rejecting God and His Truth for a substitute, accepting some aspects of The Truth and rejecting others). Good and evil cannot be abstract ideals, which are over us and any other beings (including God, for this would mean He is not truly Supreme). Good and evil only arise from beings who have choices. And the Triune God is The Original Being, without Whom the existence of any other beings is inexplicable.
Everything that God does is good, even though none of us can see this in our current state of existence. I grant that this is a matter of faith. But if it wasn’t true, then it would truly be the case that nothing is what it seems and that “anything goes”. But none of us actually believes this. If anything at all can be trusted, it must be that God is good. And He is good not because He is able to keep some impersonal Ideal which is above Him, nor by definition (that whatever He does becomes good, which would be arbitrary). Rather, God is Perfectly Good because it is a characteristic of His Personality as a Triune Personal Being, just as there are people who are essentially good (though not perfectly) along with people who are essentially evil. Though many Christians don’t understand this, God could do evil, but He never would.
I pray that you will work through whatever really caused you to turn away from your Creator and play the original game of Denial. However, your testimony makes me fear that you may be one of those described in Hebrews 6:4-6. But I don’t think either I or you can know for certain that this is the case until The End. I also wonder if you ever truly understood and trusted in God’s Promise. If so, then you would know that He could never condemn you and will love you forever. We can know that we are one of the Elect during our lives in this world, but can’t know for sure that we are not until The End. After all, how do you know that God won’t forgive and save you before your next breath?
Once again, I thank you for sharing and pray that it will be helpful to you.
Chris
Pingback: Christianity isn't true - Random musings, rambling opinions