Arguments for the Existence of God

Below are eleven arguments supporting the existence of God, simply stated, and a brief response from the atheist's point of view. The goal for you, the reader, is 1) to determine which arguments are strongest from the Scriptures, and 2) to respond to the atheist's response with Biblical discernment. And 3) to comment if you have questions that I can try to answer for you.

All text below is drawn from the manuscript of the Great Debate over the existence of God between Dr. Banhsen and Dr. Stein. These are Dr. Stein's words (holding the atheist world view):

1. The First Cause (Cosmological) Argument. Everything must have a cause, therefore the universe must have a cause, and that cause was God. God was the first or uncaused cause.

Response: This leads to a real logical bind for the theist, because, if everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If God had a cause, he cannot be the first or uncaused cause. If God did not have a cause, then not everything must have a cause. If not everything needs a cause, then perhaps the universe doesn't need a cause. Thus, there is a logical bind and the proof fails.

2. The Design (Teleological) Argument. The universe is wonderful and exhibits evidence of design and order. These things must have had a designer that was even more wonderful, and that designer was God.

Response: Surely if the world is wonderfully designed, and God, the designer, is more wonderfully designed, then God must have a designer even more wonderful than He is. If God didn't need a designer, than neither should the relatively less wonderful thing such as the universe have needed one. Again, there is a logical self-contradiction.

3. The Argument from Life. Life cannot originate from the random movement of atoms, and yet life exists. Therefore the existence of a God was necessary to create life.

Response: Basically, life didn't originate from the random movement of atoms, and no scientists would say so. Because there are limits of a chemical composition and physics of atoms, and they do not move in any possible way, chemicals do not combine in any possible way. That's why when you see these one billion to one kind of odds that people have set for life originating. They're all wet. They haven't considered the possibility that not every reaction can occur. So, it's possible to explain the origins of life without a god and using the principle of parsimony or Occam's Razor, I think we are left with the simpler explanation [which is] the one without the God. I'll go into more detail on that later.

4. The Argument from Revealed Theology. The Bible says that God exists, and the Bible is the inspired word of God, therefore what it says must be true. Therefore God exists.

Response: Well this is obviously a circular argument. It begs the question. We are trying to show whether God exists; therefore, calling the Bible the word of God is not permitted, because it assumes the existence of the very thing we are trying to prove. So, if the Bible is not the Word of God, then we cannot give any real weight to the fact that it mentions that God exists. Thus, it does not become a proof. In fact, to prove God from the Bible is standing things on its head. First you must prove God, then you may say whether God dictated it or inspired it. But you can't really use the Bible as Dr. Bahnsen seems to want to do as evidence for existence of God, per se.

5. The Argument from Miracles. The existence of miracles requires the presence of a supernatural force, or a God. Miracles do occur, and therefore there is a supernatural force or God.

Response: Again, this is begging the question; it requires that you must believe in a God first, beforehand. Then you say there are such things as miracles, which are acting of a God who creates violations of his own laws. So, it is not evidence, per se, it can serve as supplementary evidence, once you have good evidence in another kind of way for the existence of a God - you can use miracles as a additional argument, but in and of itself it doesn't show the existence of a God, because it assumes that which needs to be proven.

A quote from Thomas Paine about miracles: "When you see an account is given about such a miracle, by a person who says he saw it, it raises a question in the mind that is very easily decided. Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man could tell a lie? We have never seen in our time Nature go out of her course, but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in this same time. It is therefore at least millions to one that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie" I think those are good odds.

6. The Ontological Argument. God is, by definition, perfect. A necessary quality of any perfect object is that it exists. If it did not exist it would not be perfect. If perfection requires existence, then God exists.

Response: There is a problem with the word exists. In order for something to be perfect, it must first exist. If something didn't exist, the word perfect wouldn't mean anything. First you must have existence, then possibly you may have perfection. So, this again is going backwards; you must first have an existing God, and then you can decide whether He's perfect, if perfection is a quality of a God, then He may be perfect, but He first must exist.

7. The Moral Argument. All people have moral values. The existence of these values cannot be explained unless they were implanted in people by a God. Therefore, God exists.

An atheist's problem: There are simpler ways to explain the origin of moral values without requiring the existence of a God to implant them into people. Besides, if moral values did come from a God, then all people should have the same moral values. They don't. People's moral values are a result of an accommodation they have made with their particular environment and have taught to their children as a survival mechanism.

8. The Wish Argument. Without the existence of a God people wouldn't have any reason to live or be good, therefore there has to be a God. Most people believe in a God, therefore there is a God.

Response: This really isn't a proof, it is just a wish. It's like saying that it would be nice to have a God (which it would), but that doesn't have anything to do with whether there is one or not.

9. The Argument from Faith. The existence of God cannot be proven by the use of reason, but only by the use of faith. The use of faith shows that there is a God, therefore God exists.

Response: Reason is a proven way to obtain factual information about the universe. Faith has not been shown to produce true information about the universe because faith is believing something is so because you want it to be so, without adequate evidence. Therefore, faith cannot be used to prove the existence of anything.

In addition, there is the fact that faith often gives you the opposite answer to what is given by reason to the same problem. This also shows that faith does not provide valid answers.

10. The Argument from Religious Experience. Many people have claimed to have a personal experience or encounter with God, therefore God must exist.

Response: This is a difficult one to handle, because, first of all, I've never had such an experience, but I'm sure that people have absolutely honestly thought they've had such experiences. But, the feeling of having met God cannot be confused with the fact of having met God. There is a semantic confusion; and also, we cannot use our own feelings as if they were valid ways to obtain information about the world. They are feelings that we have inside of us, but we cannot demonstrate them to another person. They cannot be used as an evidence. If everyone had that same experience; like if we all looked around the room and we all agreed that there is a clock over there, then we might say that the vision of a clock is a consensual one, if everyone agreed on it. Other than that, if you saw a clock and no one else did, or if only two or three people did in the room, then you have a bit of a problem.

11. Pascal's Wager. We have no way of knowing if a God exists or not, and we have no way of finding out, but you have nothing to lose by believing in a God, but on the other hand, you do have a lot to lose by not believing in a God, and it turns out later on that there is one after we're dead.

Response: This is only true if 1) You are right about a God, and 2) you have picked the right religion, because you might wind up on the Judgment Day and be right about a God, but He says, "What religion were you?" and you say, "I was a believer in Islam." And He says, "Sorry, Catholicism is the right religion. Down you go." So, in addition, you might have a God Who punishes people who have lived virtuous lives, say an atheist who has lived a virtuous life, did wonderful deeds in the world, but just does not believe in a God, if the God punishes him, you have an irrational God who is just as likely to punish the believer as the unbeliever.

The Great Debate: Does God Exist?

I came across this quote in a theological debate from 1985 at the University of California, Irvine entitled, "The Great Debate: Does God Exist?" The third point to the opening case for the existence of God, Dr. Greg Bahnsen (Christian theist) argues with Dr. Gordon Stein (atheist) the "Transcendental Argument" (transcendental--something is comparatively beyond other things):

When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary. The transcendental proof for God's existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist world view is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist world view cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist world view cannot account for our debate tonight.

What Dr. Bahnsen is saying is that it is impossible for God not to exist even in an atheist's world view. The atheist is dependent on the "laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes," each of which God is responsible for. No God? Then no debate.

The Newness of the New Earth

Randy Alcorn, in his book Heaven, comments on the “newness” of heaven:

When we open our eyes for the first time on the New Earth, will it be unfamiliar? Or will we recognize it as home? As human beings, we long for home, even as we step out to explore undiscovered new frontiers. We long for the familiarity of the old, even as we crave the innovation of the new. Think of all the things we love that are new: moving into a new house; the smell of a new car; the feel of a new book; a new movie; a new song; the pleasure of a new friend; the enjoyment of a new pet; new presents on Christmas; staying in a nice new hotel room; arriving at a new school or a new workplace; welcoming a new child or grandchild; eating new foods that suit our tastes. We love newness--yet in each case, what is new is attached to something familiar...So when we hear that in Heaven we will have new bodies and live on a New Earth, that’s how we should understand the word new--a restored and perfected version of our familiar bodies and our familiar Earth and our familiar relationships.

Upon reading texts like Romans 8:19–23; Acts 3:21; 2 Peter 3:6–10; and Revelation 21 and 22, I couldn't agree more with Alcorn's line of thinking. What a comfort! What a blessed hope! What endless joy!

"Behold, I am making all things new" (Rev 21:5)!

Relevance of Prophecy

Paul Benware, in Understanding End Times Prophecy, concludes his final chapter discussing the present significance of prophetic texts in Scripture. He comments,

"Knowledge of the future was designed to greatly influence the present. For example:

1. Prophecy reminds us that our God is sovereign over people, nations, and angelic beings;
2. Prophecy reinforces the truth that our God is good, having a glorious future in store for His children, because it gives us hope in a world characterized by hopelessness;
3. Prophecy motivates us to holy living;
4. Prophecy encourages us to establish goals and priorities that are in line with future realities.

It is God’s desire to change the way we see life by allowing us some glimpses of what lies ahead."

After studying and attempting to teach on eschatology throughout this summer, I couldn't agree more with Benware's conclusion. 

So don't shy away from the topic! Don't avoid prophetic books! Don't shut down when you come across futuristic passages! Don't ignore Israel just because the Church doesn't replace them! Don't question the relevance of prophecy! Don't treat eschatology as merely an academic discussion or intellectual debate! 

For, "Knowledge of the future was designed to greatly influence the present."

The Grace of Calvary in the Glory of the New Jerusalem

This weekend marks the final lesson(s) in our topical study of Eschatology (the theology of the end times). For the close of our time in the Scriptures it only fits that we would descent in faithful exposition of the final two chapters of God's written revelation to mankind (Revelation 21, 22).

The focus of the Eternal State (aka "the new heavens and the new earth" or "heaven" as we know it) is the New Jerusalem, which is the holy city and the capitol of the new heaven and earth. John has more than a vision or dream of heaven; he is literally, spiritually transported from the Island of Patmos where he was exiled by Roman authority to the holy city, Jerusalem (21:10).

The predominant characteristic of the celestial city, as described in detail and wonderment by John, is the glory of God. With the arrival of the New Jerusalem, and the dwelling place of God finally and fully being with man, the eternal glory of God fills the heaven and the earth.

The gates of New Jerusalem are large, single pearls. It makes one wonder why pearls are God's choice for the twelve gates fixed in the walls of His holy city. In John MacArthur’s commentary, John Phillips explains [of the nature of pearls and significance to why they are Jerusalem’s gates]:

How appropriate! All other precious gems are metals or stones, but a pearl is a gem formed within the oyster--the only one formed by living flesh. The humble oyster receives an irritation or a wound, and around the offending article that has penetrated and hurt it, the oyster builds a pearl. The pearl, we might say, is the answer of the oyster to that which injured it. The glory land is God’s answer, in Christ, to wicked men who crucified heaven’s beloved and put Him to open shame. How like God it is to make the gates of the new Jerusalem of pearl. The saints as they come and go will be forever reminded, as they pass the gates of glory, that access to God’s home is only because of Calvary. Think of the size of those gates! Think of the supernatural pearls from which they are made! What gigantic suffering is symbolized by those gates of pear! Throughout the endless ages we shall be reminded by those pearly gates of the immensity of the sufferings of Christ. Those pearls, hung eternally at the access routes to glory, will remind us forever of One who hung upon a tree and whose answer to those who injured Him was to invite them to share His home. (Exploring Revelation, rev. ed. [Chicago: Moody, 1987; reprint, Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux, 1991], 254)

Love and Prayer

John Piper's book Desiring God is loaded with one-liners that leave the born again reader reeling back in wonderment of the potency and efficacy of the Scriptures. Piper is gifted with the ability to paint pictures of biblical truths with one and two sentence brush strokes that captivate and fascinate the mind.

In the chapter on Prayer, he stated something profoundly true along these lines (I was listening to it on audiobook): "When the pump of love has run dry, the pipe of prayer has not gone deep enough."

When I read across this section of the chapter about how prayer enables us to love one another, it stung my heart with immediate conviction. I had to pause my iPod, stop running alongside the street, and just contemplate its application to my life...as I huffed and puffed as a sweaty mess.

Questions swirled in my mind:

Who is difficult for me to love?
Where is the limit of my love exposed?
What is the love of Christ?
How do I pray for them?
How can I pray for them more?

The depth of Christ's prayer life was continually found in the depth of the Father's love. He withdrew into the hills for prayer with His Father, He cried over unrepentant Jerusalem, He sweat drops of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane before He endured the cross. What love. What prayer.

Hebrews 5:7 "In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence."

Sin According to the Apostle Paul

What do you think about when you have an unsaved neighbor who is one of the nicest people you ever met? Or when someone on your team, at your job, or in your class seems to do more "good" towards others than a number of "believers" you know? Are these unregenerate acquaintances really "totally depraved"? Are they indeed totally incapable of righteousness before God?

We must not get caught up when understanding one of the most essential components of the Gospel message, taught nearly on ever page of the Scriptures--the sinfulness of man.

To understand what sin really is we must understand sin first and foremost as withholding worship from the Worthy One. Even the most "moral" people in this world are NOT doing good unto the glory of God. Yes, relative good can be done by non-believers because of God's common grace (Matt 5:45), but NO ONE can do anything to receive a right standing before God.

I recently came across this pointed quote in Thomas Schreiner's New Testament Theology that summarized the Apostle Paul's definition of sin. I confess it caught me off guard, but upon second thought made more sense than ever.

The fundamental sin, according to Paul, is not the failure to keep God's law--as serious as such infractions are. The root sin is the failure to praise and worship and thank God, to glorify him as God (Rom 1:21)...Refusing to honor God as God and to give him glory, to worship and adore him, constitutes sin according to Paul.