What I Believe About God And Why I Believe It

Numerous proofs for the existence of God have been developed through the years. The most popular is the cosmological proof, and according to Dr. J. P. Moreland, this proof comes in the form of the Kalam, Thomist, and Leibnizian arguments [1]. Other proofs for God's existence are the teleological, moral, ontological, and religious experience arguments. While these arguments do not prove God's existence unconditionally, they do suggest that He probably does exist from a probability viewpoint.

The Kalam cosmological argument is more of an argument format than an actual argument for the existence of God because it is based on the answers to three separate questions. The first question asks whether or not the universe had a beginning. Some scientists would say that the universe is infinite and that it did not have an actual beginning. Other scientists, such as German astronomer Heinrich Olbers in 1823 [2] and Dr. P. W. Adkins in 1992 [3], have said and would say that an infinite universe would have cluttered the sky with so many stars that we would never have any darkness. This phenomenon is known as Olbers' paradox.

During the thirteenth century, the Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, fashioned the cosmological argument based on a logical regress back in time with respect to things that currently exist [6]. He said that everything in the universe had a cause and that every cause before that cause also had a cause, until one backed up in time to the very first uncaused cause. The logic of this thinking can easily be seen when one considers the existence of human beings. With the exception of Adam and Eve, each person was caused or brought into existence by other human beings that existed before them, such as by their parents, grandparents, and other ancestors. Aquinas argued that one could go back in time with respect to anything, even people, and eventually arrive at the first and only uncaused cause.

Big Bang theorists speak of an initial mass that contained immense energy, attained a very high temperature, and then, exploded outwardly to create our entire universe [7]. While this theory is compelling, the Thomist cosmological argument would lead one to ask what or who caused the existence of the initial mass that exploded and expanded outwardly. After all, if the Big Bang Theory is true, then the original mass had to come from somewhere. This same question, however, can also be asked of the theologian concerning God. From where did He come? If one is permitted to assume that God is eternal and that He has always been, then one can just as easily assume that the initial mass of immense energy was eternal or preexisting, too. Therefore, while using the Thomist argument to debate God's existence might make for interesting conversation, it does not really answer the more important question. Who or what was the first, uncaused cause?

The Thomist cosmological argument is similar to the Kalam argument in that it looks for a first cause. It is different than the Kalam argument in that it begins with the present and works backward. Based on his consideration of a first cause, Aquinas concluded that God is the first uncaused Cause and that He is the Creator, and the Bible also presents this same conclusion. Psalm 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands," and Psalms 95:5-6 says, "The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land. Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the LORD our Maker."

The Leibnizian cosmological argument tries to consider why anything exists. Developed by the philosopher, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, during the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century, he asked the simple question of why something exists instead of nothing. His conclusion, based on the principle of sufficient reason, was that God is logically necessary [8].

In Psalm 8:3-6, the Psalmist wrote, "When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet."

Like the other arguments, the teleological argument also does not unconditionally prove God's existence, but the above verse makes the argument very convincing. How did the moon and the stars get to be exactly as they are without someone to make them happen? Are we to assume that the existence of our universe in its current form is nothing more than the work of chance? Was the existence of man also brought about by chance alone? The teleological argument tries to answer these questions by saying that none of these things happened accidentally or by chance. They were the work of a Designer, and according to this theory, this designer is also the Creator of the universe.

In looking at the existence of man by chance, two scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, in their work, "Science and the Divine Origin of Life," studied the earth's atmosphere and the development of amino acids in the human body. These men concluded that evolution only has a one in ten raised to the forty-thousandth power chances of being true, and to date, no one has challenged or offered a serious objection to their results [9].

In more recent years, the term "macroevolution" has been introduced to describe evolution from one species to another, such as from a fish to a bird. The term "microevolution" has been established to describe evolution within a species, such as the fact that people are taller now than they were two hundred years ago. There is not much evidence to support a belief in macroevolution, but a belief in microevolution is more acceptable [10]. Macroevolution tries to leave out God completely, while microevolution only considers the growth or development that occurs within any single species. Many theologians believe in progressive creationism, which maintains that God created each species but then left those species alone to develop and evolve on their own [11]. More will be said about evolution and progressive creationism in Chapter Three.

The moral argument comes from the notion that all people have a sense of right and wrong and that they often suffer from a guilty conscience when they do wrong. The fact that an objective moral law seems to exist in the universe and also in the hearts and minds of individuals points to the probable existence of a moral Lawgiver [12]. However, as with the other arguments for God's existence, this argument only suggests God's probable existence as the moral Lawgiver. It does not unconditionally prove it.

According to Dr. Gary Habermas, "the idea of an infinite, necessary and perfect Being demands that such a Being exists" (13). Put into layperson terms, this argument takes into account the fact that people throughout the ages have tried to understand God and that many have believed in Him in one form or another. Uncivilized cultures have believed in Him even though no one or no thing has ever told them to do so. Civilized cultures have also looked for and believed in Him, too. People's search for God over time, however, has been more than a simple search for security and for something higher than themselves. It is as though each of us has something on the inside telling us that He exists so that we are driven to find Him. This argument does not prove that God exists, either. But when taken with the other theistic arguments, this argument adds even more credence to the probability that He does.

The religious experience argument says that people who know God know that they know Him, and there are a couple of forms to this argument. Monistic religious experiences pertain to a type of union between God and the individual. Numinous religious experiences are those in which the individual claims to have a direct apprehension of a personal Being [14]. When someone says that God has changed their life, they are using this latter type of religious experience argument. In his book, Knowing God, Dr. J. I. Packer indicated that people consistently demonstrate four general characteristics when they know God [15]. According to him, they will have great energy for God, they will have great thoughts about Him, they will show great boldness for Him, and they will have great contentment with Him.

Dr. Packer's remarks are idealistic yet probably still very accurate in many or most cases. Historical accounts of the early church during Roman persecution present many instances of Christians who were martyred for their faith rather than deny their relationship with God [16]. These people were bold in their demeanor, they were content in their heart, and they demonstrated to the whole world that knowing God was real. They were willing to let go of everything precious in this life so that they could hasten their entrance into eternity. Had they recanted their faith in Christ, they could have been spared. But most of them faced death rather than deny the One Who had died for them [17].

To accept most of the above arguments for God's existence, one must assume that God has left his imprint on creation so that He can be observed, that we are not totally blinded by sin, and that the laws of logic work [18]. While these arguments do not unconditionally prove the existence of God or show that the God of Creation is also the God of the Bible, they do cause a person to examine critical Creation issues in a logical manner. They force an individual to consider some tough questions, and they quickly cut to the chase on the matter of God's existence.

No matter how one answers any of the questions about God, my opinion is that a person cannot get around the cosmological condition that either something or Someone is eternal. If the creation of the universe had nothing to do with God, then its creation still had to come from something that was and is eternal. On the other hand, if God controlled the creation of the universe, then one must assume that He is eternal and possibly still in control. Given that God created the universe, then the Kalam argument says that He is personal. The Thomist argument says that He is the first Cause and possessor of all power. The moral argument says that He is righteous and just, and the religious experience argument says that He can be known in a personal way and that He can change each of us into better, happier people.

Many individuals question God's existence, and of those who do, many conclude that He does not. As a young person, around eighteen or nineteen, I had decided that He was nonexistent, plus I had thought that I was smart enough to get away with just about anything. I was wrong on both counts. In September 1966, I left home for college. During that year on my own, I did very poorly in school, and of the eleven courses that I had taken, I got one "C" (in Physical Education), one "D", and nine "F"s. I flunked out of school, but even worse than that, I flunked out with a very low 0.017 Quality Point Average.

On November 6, 1967, after I had had some time to recognize the value of an education, I crawled back to the school and asked for a second chance. I spoke with the Dean of Men Students and also with the President of Admissions. Both men said that I could not come back and that I did not deserve a second chance. The President of Admissions, a retired Navy Admiral, even told me that I had a wall of "F"s against me that I would never be able to overcome. I left the school that day totally devastated and broken. I returned home and did not know what to do with my life. So, I sat in my favorite chair and basically remained there for the next five weeks. I did not feel like I had any friends, and I also did not feel like I had much of a life. To say the least, I was at a very low point in my life.

My only escape from total misery was that I would take a nightly drive along an interstate highway that was near my home. That drive gave me a chance to get away from my inescapable predicament, plus it allowed me a few minutes each evening away from my parents. As one might imagine, I felt very guilty when around them because I knew that I had let them down. Then, one evening, on December 14, 1967, while driving my then-familiar route along the Interstate, I began to break. After spending so much of my life against God, I began to pour out my broken heart to a God Whom I could not see and to One Who did not speak back. I told the Lord how very sorry I was for the life that I had led, and I made a commitment that evening to follow Him for the rest of my life, if only He would free me from the mess that I had created for myself.

Many people do not believe in God, but on that night over thirty years ago, I became one of those who do. On December 14, 1967, He changed my broken heart and life, and in the days that followed, He set my feet on solid ground. God did more than give me a second chance. He changed me from the inside out so that I would be better equipped to take advantage of the second chance that He was about to give me. I am thankful for what He has done for me, and I am especially thankful and excited about what He can and will do for others. There is no greater joy in this life than that of personally knowing one's Creator. As the religious experience argument indicates, those who know God know that they know Him, and I do.