The Undeniable Logic in God's Salvation Plan

In looking back at the search for God which has occurred throughout history, many individuals, even most individuals, have questioned how human beings came into existence. Of course, that basic inquiry is really just another way of asking how the universe and life in this universe actually began and of trying to show the existence of either a creator or of at least some kind of creation process. To respond to such a widespread concern among so many, the system around us, by way of the aforementioned intelligencia, has generated or produced numerous theories which attempt to explain all of the various uncertainties about creation, and hence about God, Himself.

Some philosophers, for example, have theorized their own concept of an impersonal, god-like Supreme Being who got everything started. At the same time, many scholars have leaned more toward the complex theories of science, theories like the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution which try to rationalize how life might have begun, even though neither of these beliefs, either separately or together, can adequately resolve the issue. Then, while some have favored one of the above two paths, still others, such as those determined theologians who have also diligently studied this matter of creation in detail, have settled on the traditional spiritual approach which is taught in Scriptures, namely that God created the world and all that is therein. Hence, to be sure, with so many different views from which to choose, knowing the truth about God, about what really happened in the beginning, and about His Salvation Plan is very difficult. But even worse, if one cannot, as we shall see, trust the Bible, then knowing the truth about any or all of these spiritual matters is probably impossible!

The simple fact about our creation is that none of us were there. We did not participate in the beginnings of life. We did not witness how our complicated universe actually came into being. Therefore, we cannot possibly know for certain what truly transpired when this whole thing of life began. Science, as was just noted, cannot provide a sure answer, either! Therefore, each of us really is very much in the dark when it comes to knowing and understanding the true origins of this life. As a result, one can only hope to piece together the available data and then to try to hypothesize or speculate about a feasible solution. This, after all, is what those who have already pondered such questions about the beginnings of life have had to do, although most have done so without much genuine success.

Unfortunately, this lack of success by so many has caused and even now causes an even greater problem, a problem which reveals itself through the following, simple observation. While knowing what really happened in the beginning may be difficult and while it may at times even appear to be impossible, not knowing the truth about the Lord, about our beginnings, and about His Salvation Plan is very much more dangerous because so much is riding on the answers! Many believe in God. Many do not. Many have one point of view about certain religious matters, while many others hold to completely different views. Within various religious circles, there is often heated debate. Yet, despite so much confusion and so many differences, two opposing points clearly suggest the urgency of this whole matter. First of all, if God does not exist, then the expectations of a nonexistent God do not mean very much! Thus, each person in such an instance would be somewhat free to make his or her own choices about life. On the other hand, though, if God does exist, then each individual really does need to know exactly what He expects!

This latter statement about one's need to know the truth should almost go without saying. Yet, people are too often prone to joke about the existence of God, whether He does or does not, and as a result to ignor altogether the potential consequences of being wrong. The significance of the issue, however, is certainly not a laughing matter! If He does exists, then it is quite reasonable to assume that each of us will someday stand before Him and give some kind of account to Him for how we have lived. Not only that, but the outcome of our accounting will be based entirely on His criteria, whatever that might or might not be, not on our own! Consequently, the above observation should definitely show everyone why seeing and understanding that God is real, along with being able to comprehend the logic in His Salvation Plan, is so important. We are a people who are, if God exists, bound for His judgment!

Because of that, men and women for centuries have tried to know and understand about God, even as far back as the philosopher Plato. As a matter of fact, the search from those early days until now has, at times, been like an endless pursuit. Individuals seeking a spiritual solution have looked for a God who could fill the spiritual needs of a whole civilization, while those looking for a purely rational explanation have searched for a god who could be bounded by the rules of mathematics and logic. Some have tried to combine the attributes of both, while others of course have tried to leave Him out altogether. Through the passage of time, a wide smathering of all of these types have been cast into this debate about God's existence. Yet, very few have come forward with something which can really be called "truth."

In his book, The Big Bang Never Happened, Mr. Lerner discusses the beliefs of some of the early philosophers and theologians. Around 400 B.C., a man named Anaxagoras looked into the heavens and asked the now familiar question about his origin. As he looked and evaluated and thought, then looked, evaluated, and thought some more, he finally settled on his belief. According to Mr. Lerner, Anaxagoras thought the universe was infinite, meaning that it did not have either a beginning or an end [1]. That conclusion, by the way, was this philosopher's roundabout method for implying that God did not create the world, or as the pantheist would say, "God is the world"! In pantheism, the position is maintained that God is literally in everything, that the current physical world in which we live and experience our being was somehow emanated from Him rather than being created by Him. Thus, the often used name, Mother Nature, for instance, is an example of an expression which has a pantheistic origin and clear pantheistic connotations.

A short while later, about 350 B.C., the philosopher Plato came onto the scene, and he, too, pondered the question of his existence. As he thought about creation, he envisioned a beneficent creator who had molded or fashioned the universe from preexisting matter. This thinking on his part expressed the idea of what is termed a "dualism," or a belief that God merely shaped or fashioned eternal, preexisting matter into today's universe. According to this view, God would not have actually created from nothing all the matter which exists in our world today. He would not have created the world through a process which is called "creation ex nihilo," meaning creation out of nothing. Instead, the matter, just like He, would have already existed, as though by some trick of fate or magic, and it would have been there in a form which was all ready to be worked into the shape of our current world.

Thus, the god or gods envisioned by Plato would have been one or many god-like supreme beings who could have shaped and modified, but who were still restricted to having to use eternal ideas and forms for molding the universe into a certain shape out of that preexisting matter [2]. To carry that scenario a bit further, Plato believed that the bases for those ideas and forms were mathematical and geometrical. Hence, he envisioned a deistic kind of supreme being who was not necessarily personal, but one who could be bounded by the rules of mathematics and logic. However, while Plato often spoke of gods and a creator, a person must be very careful to not be deceived by such language. His description of a creator was not the God of the Bible! Plato was a polytheist. He believed in the existence of many gods. In his writings, he spoke of Zeus as the leader of all the gods, of Dione his wife, of Aphrodite, their daughter and the goddess of love, and of many others [3]. The Greeks, during Plato's time, had a god for nearly every occasion. Yet, with their dualistic approach towards creation, they still did not recognize or worship the God of the Bible!

After presenting Plato's beliefs, Mr. Lerner goes on to share the views of others; such as, Aristarchus of Samos, Hipparchus, Ptolemy, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Augustine. These gentlemen lived between 400 B.C. and 100 B.C. and generally accepted the Genesis account of Creation. However, by 100 B.C., two central cosmological themes had come to the forefront. The first said that the universe and its origins could be understood and explained through pure reason. The second, by contrast, suggested that the universe had been created from nothing, by a Divine Creator. Over the past two thousand years, philosophers, theologians, scientists, and other scholars have debated both of these two themes, the one arguing for a universe governed by mathematical laws, the other clinging to the belief of a creator.

Yet, despite the ongoing despute, which of course is not new, the Bible tells us exactly how we got here:

But even with this very specific, very clear passage from the Bible, the truth about God has always been and is still difficult to know. There are three reasons why this is so!

The first is that we are continually being overwhelmed by the great minds of our Age. Consider those just mentioned! When a man like Anaxagorus speaks of an infinite universe, he acquires a following because people listen. When a great thinker, such as Plato, uses his logical powers and speaks of a beneficent creator who put everything into motion, his words make sense. So, once again, people listen, even though the speaker is not talking about the God of the Bible. In the same manner, when a present-day scientist presents his or her theory, it too often seems reasonable. Consequently, people listen and believe. Sometimes, however, this passive willingness by the listener to accept that which is heard, without really questioning and without ever having carefully studied the issue, can contribute greatly to one's own undoing!

Generally speaking, most people tend to accept the teachings of science. Consider one of the conclusions of a man like Charles Darwin! In the Descent Of Man, he suggested that God is only the imagined belief of evolved man. He then indicated that he had not been able to find a genuine tendancy within man's natural makeup to believe in God [5]. Next, consider the remarks of a man like Nobel Prize recipient, Dr. Steven Weinberg! In his book, Dreams Of A Final Theory, this author confesses his own disbelief in God, saying that the evidence, in his opinion, does not support the existence of a deity [6]. These specialists in their respective fields put together fancy, complicated theories and equations, all of which usually fit neatly with their observed data. Then, they draw pretty pictures and present their highly compelling logic. As a result, the natural inclination among most listeners is to accept everything or most everything they hear.

The second reason that the truth is hard to find is that the world system around us does not help! In fact, in this regard, the system does more damage than good. By failing to teach young people about the Lord, a condition which has already existed in the public schools of this country since 1959, most kids grow up with a natural tendancy to choose against Him. At the very least, such students lack knowledge and are confused about spiritual matters. When a student hears nothing but anti-God propaganda and then is not even allowed to hear positive instruction about the Lord, then that student almost has no choice but to reject God. Our system treats the Lord like some type of nonexistent, make-believe being. Therefore, the young people who must pass through that system will almost instinctively do the same.

Interestingly enough, the first two reasons that the truth is hard to know are because scientists and educators have made the process very difficult. How ironic it is to be able to make such a statement! Yet, there is still another reason why the truth is difficult to know, and that reason is one which might have been easily overlooked. Namely, not believing in the God of the Bible is really quite easy, and this remark comes from the fact that we have a hard-to-understand God. For whatever His reasons, He chooses to not speak audibly, not even to His own followers. This mysterious silence on His part is one which definitely tends to discredit His whole case! At the same time, He also chooses to not reveal Himself, again not even to His own followers. So, once again, one can never even see Him! How does a person rationally explain and justify to others such a mysterious being? The natural tendancy among most is to reject and not believe that which is both silent and invisible. Hence, it is like I have just said. Not believing in this God, One Who chooses to remain both silent and invisible, is really quite easy!

Amid each of these three barriers, plus in considering all of the various beliefs from which one can choose, how does an individual break through and really get at the "real" truth? In the question of God's existence, there are many sides with profound differences, and most can be presented in ways which make sense. When one examines a proposition like the Big Bang theory, there is enough factual data to make that whole scientific belief seem reasonable. The same is true for the Theory of Evolution. Consequently, while the solutions, in truth, may be few, the questions are still many, meaning that a search through the annals of history really has not shed much new light on our understanding of God. If anything, such a search may have only made the whole process that much more difficult! In closing out this section, therefore, a point which was made earlier must be restated. It is that one cannot have total confidence in God's Salvation Plan until first there is total confidence in the existence of the God of that Plan. Hence, this search for answers about God's existence must not stop! Instead, it must continue as we now look at some of the responses which have been offered by a few of the more recent theologians.

RETURN TO TOP

b. Theistic Proofs for the Existence of "A" God

In 1988, which was my first year at Liberty University, I studied a course entitled Christian Evidences, taught by Dr. Gary R. Habermas. Later, in pursuit of my Master's Degree in Religion from that same institution, I also studied courses entitled Doctrine Of God and Introduction To Apologetics. One of the purposes of those classes was to introduce the students to an area of study called Christian Apologetics, an area of study in which the goal is to prove the articles or main tenets of the Christian Faith. In his book, The Resurrection Of Jesus, Dr. Habermas presented several classical arguments which claim to prove God's existence. According to the author, there are four which are most significant [7], and these are as follows:

Numerous logical arguments can be used to suggest that God probably exists. As can be seen from Dr. Habermas' statement, four of the most popular are the cosmological proof from existential causality, the scientific-teleological argument based on the complexity of life, the ontological proof, and the moral argument. Based on lectures and class notes, each of these ideas are briefly summarized below.

1) The Cosmological Argument

First is the cosmological proof from existential causality. As the description above indicates, the cosmological argument assumes a finite universe and then argues that it had to have been created by an infinite creator. The idea is that everything which exists had to have been caused by something else, or by a so-called "prior cause". The only exception to this rule is the very first cause, which of course cannot be both first and still have had a prior cause. Using these rules and this same manner of deduction, if one begins with the present universe and starts backing up in time, then at each point along the way, a prior cause can always be identified, meaning that everything which exists was caused by something else which existed before it!

By continuing the process, an individual can back up in time and eventually arrive at the very first uncaused thing, this time meaning that its existence was not caused by something else! That first uncaused cause, which would itself be the first cause, would be infinite since it was not created. Also, since it was not created, that first uncaused Cause would have to be God the Creator. By using a logical syntax, the cosmological proof can be rewritten to say the following. If one traces all things back to the beginning of time, then he or she will come to that person or thing which was not created.

2) The Scientific-Teleological Argument

Second is the scientific-teleological proof from the complexity of life, a proof which justifies the existence of God from the standpoint that He was the grand Designer of the universe. This argument has been indirectly supported by the work of two researchers, named Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe. These two gentlemen challenged the likelihood that evolution could have ever really occurred on earth, pointing out the fact that the creation of life is much too complex and too complicated to have actually begun in the lagoon-like environment which would have been necessary for a valid Theory of Evolution [8]. The amino acids, proteins, and enzymes that are necessary for the creation of life must be formed in a very specific order, and that takes a lot of time and even more luck!

Thus, according to these two well-known, highly respected researchers, the probability that life could have actually been evolved as taught by evolution theory is one chance in ten raised to the forty-thousandth power. This number is the number one followed by forty thousand zeroes, a number which is incredibly large. Nothing about our current environment suggests that the atmosphere needed for evolution ever existed! Not only that, but nothing in our current environment is capable of doing anything close to spontaneously initiating life from inorganic matter. As a result, an infinite Designer must have done these things, and He is God! Again, by using a logical syntax, one can restate this argument, as well. This time, it would say that if life is so complex, and it is, then God had to have initiated it.

3) The Ontological Argument

The third proof is the ontological argument which suggests that God exists because it is possible for Him to exist. This proof is based on the fact that regardless of each person's persuasion, most people have some idea or some concept of a Supreme Being in their mind. It is as though we were all born questioning whether or not He really exists. Therefore, He must! Another point with this argument is that no one has ever proven or been able to show that He cannot or that He does not exist. For instance, those scientists, who believe that the Big Bang theory is true, have not been able to conclusively show that God did not create the universe. They believe that the universe once existed in a single mass, then exploded outwardly to produce our current world. But they cannot even prove that hypothesis, much less show that God did not make it all happen in the first place.

In like manner, the Evolutionists, who of course support their own evolution theory, have never been able to produce any concrete evidence to show that life could have been formed in a lagoon-like environment, even if such an environment might have once existed. Hence, they have not been able to show that God did not make their whole thing happen, either! Consequently, their lot in life has been and is very much the same as the Big Bang theorist's. Neither can prove their own position, much less show that God did not have anything to do with it! Therefore, the ontological argument says that God must be true, until He can be shown to be false. Simply put, until God can be proven not to exist, then rational minds to be rational must assume that He does. When putting this argument into logical syntax, the result is that if God cannot be proven to not exist, then He does exist.

4) The Moral Argument

Fourth and last is the moral argument. This proof approaches God's existence from the standpoint that the existence of a moral law implies the existence of an infinite Lawgiver. This Lawgiver would, of course, be God! The argument says that without a moral law, individuals would live by basic "herd instinct" and only seek their own best good. When someone passes a burning house, for example, the herd instinct mentality would tell that individual to keep moving, rather than to be concerned about the potential of danger to others. Moral law, however, which teaches mankind to not live by this herd instinct but instead to help that one who might be in need, does not come from natural law. It is derived from an absolute law, in the form of an absolute standard. It is this absolute standard which originated from an infinite Lawgiver, and as was just stated above, that infinite Lawgiver is God! In this last instance, the logical syntax of the argument is that if a higher moral law exists, then God, the infinite Lawgiver and the One Who created that law, also exists.

If one reviews all of the material which has been presented thus far, the immediate impression should be that many groups believe many different things about God. Moreover, the worst part to this whole predicament is that nothing much about any of them can really be proven or disproven - at least not with what has been shared thus far! The Big Bang theory, which itself is unproven, does not deny the existence of God. The Theory of Evolution, which is also unproven, does not deny Him, either. But at the same time, neither theory teaches that God does or even might exist. Both theories choose natural phenomenon to explain critical happenstances, instead of presuming even a remote possibility of heavenly intervention. And rather than teach that God is the God of the Bible, these theories of science, if anything, support the pantheistic viewpoint, which teaches that God is within everything in nature or that God is nature! As was inferred earlier, the pantheist would not say that God created the universe. He or she would nonchalantely say that God is the universe!

In like manner, Plato identified a god whom he called the creator. But his idea of such a being was someone like Zeus, who according to Greek Mythology was the leader of all the gods. Perhaps, if asked, he would have considered Achilles, Hercules, or one of the other gods to be a better candidate for overall leader, but the point is the same either way. While Plato used the term "god" over and over, he was never referring to the God of the Bible! He was a polytheist. He believed in the existence of many gods, and his writings must be interpreted accordingly! He spoke of the gods, but he did not acknowledge the one and only true God, the One Who was and Who is the Creator of the universe and of mankind.

Hence, as one can readily see, this short journey through history has not resolved the conflict about God. It has only shown that many philosophers, theologians, scientists, and scholars have argued the matter of His existence for centuries without ever really coming to a satisfactory solution. The four theistic proofs just presented suggest the need and probable existence of a God. Yet, in many ways, even those arguments fall short. For example, if those scientists who believe in an infinite, non-created universe are correct, scientists like Anaxagoras, for instance, then the cosmological proof does not prove God. Instead, when the cosmological argument backs up to the first uncaused cause, such scientists would simply say that that first uncaused cause is really the universe, itself, not God! At that point, who can tell which is correct?

The other theistic proofs, on the other hand, come closer to showing that God actually created the universe and started life. For example, the scientific-teleological argument states that living organisms are too complex to have begun in the lagoon-like environment of evolution theory. The ontological argument assumes that God exists until someone can show otherwise. And the last proof by identifying a higher moral law also suggests that humans were somehow created by an absolute, infinite Lawgiver. Yet, these proofs do not link this God to the God of the Bible. Furthermore, they do not show that He is still anywhere to be found or that He is personal and can be known. Thus, these shortcomings with the latter three proofs in my mind are significant! To me, they suggest that something very important is still missing! The above four proofs for God's existence are either not complete or not enough.

Thus, in my opinion, the problem is that all the proofs just presented are still basically trying to predict or explain an event or events which happened during a period when none of us were around. Consequently, by not being able to pinpoint that precise moment of creation, the theologian's position with the above proofs is much like that of the Big Bang theorist's or the evolutionist's. Everyone is trying to overcome time and distance by logic, but this manner of analysis does not work - not really! There are still too many "what ifs"! For instance, what if the infinite universe theorists are correct? Does that mean that the one chance in ten raised to the forty-thousandth power chances also might have occurred and that we, as a result, really could have gotten here from a mysterious, lagoon-like environment? What if evolution theory really is true? Would that mean, as Darwin suggested, that we really have talked ourselves into believing in God and that there really is nothing natural within man to cause him to seek the Lord?

My feeling is that there are still far too many questions and far too much doubt! If knowing the truth about God really is so important and if knowing the truth about Him really is essential for understanding His Plan for us, then any solution to be acceptable must get around all of these lingering loose ends. In a way, it is as though we need to touch the very God Whom we desire to prove, or better yet that He touches us. Even though the answer may be hard to find, the problem is simple. We need to KNOW in a very clear, very definitive way that God really is real! Otherwise, we will never be able to fully see and comprehend the pure logic of His Salvation Plan.

1. Eric J. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened (New York: Times Books, Random House, Inc., 1991), page 64.

2. Ibid, page 68.

3. Plato, Symposium, Great Books Of The Western World, volume 7 (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952), page 153.

4. Genesis 1:1-2, 14-19.

5. Charles Darwin, The Descent Of Man, Great Books Of The Western World, volume 49 (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952), page 593.

6. Steven Weinberg, Dreams Of A Final Theory (New York: Pantheon Books, 1992), page 245.

7. Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection Of Jesus (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984), page 50.

8. Chandra Wickramasinghe, "Science And The Divine Origin Of Life," The Intellectuals Speak Out About God, ed. Roy Abraham Varghese (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, Inc., 1984), pages 24-25.

CHAPTER 2. PROVING THE REALNESS OF GOD BY EXPERIENCING IT

Back To The Table Of Contents

Back To TLEE's Home Page

Send email to: tlee6040@aol.com