The Next Step

Question 3: How do we know for sure that God exists? Everyone has asked this question at sometime in their life. How do we know for sure that He exists? The word of God tells us in the book of Romans that we can. We are told that God has put the knowledge of himself into all people, to their own satisfaction, by the things He has made and through direct revelation to our consciouses. All people have this knowledge, but not all people decide to acknowledge this belief in his existence for various reasons. Mostly, people do not want to acknowledge that there is a higher authority to which we must answer, or by which we must be controlled. Theologians have developed 5 logical arguments that prove the existence of God. The first one has already been mentioned, the one called Natural Theology, and is described in the letter to the Romans: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Romans 1:18-23 The second argument is known as the Moral Argument and was first formulated by Immanuel Kant. It has been revised, refined, and commentated upon by many others over the years. The most often quoted version was written by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, and can be summarized as follows: 1. There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no sense, as we all assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g., "The Nazis are wrong"). (c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all do. 2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it: (a) gives moral commands (as law givers do). (b) Is interested in our behavior (as moral persons are). 3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a) otherwise all moral effort would be futile in the long run, since we would be sacrificing our lives for what is not ultimately right. (b) the source of all good must be absolutely good, since the standard of all good must be completely good. 4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver. 5. From the philosophical point of view, without God, there is neither a moral code, nor justice, nor any purpose to life at all. The fourth argument is known as the Teleological Argument and was formulated before the time of Socrates, as there is reference to it by him in Xenophon's Memrabilia, and Plato's Works of Philo and was refined in the Middle Ages. It moves from the obvious design in nature to a necessary designer. William Paley, (1743-1805) stated it like this: 1. A living being, from the simplest one-celled organism to a human being, displays many structures that are both complex and specified. These structures are like those in all other organisms at the same level of being. 2. Human bodies are complex systems of complex systems and fit into a larger natural ecosystem context. At each level, immense complexity is organized in a very specific way and fits the need of all higher levels of organization. 3. Therefore, the uniformity of specified design at all levels intensely implies an intelligent designer (God). The next argument is known as the Cosmological Argument and also goes back prior to Aristotle. It was developed in its generally known form in the Middle Ages by Aquinas and Bonaventure but was also discussed earlier by Anselm and Augustine. It moves from the fact that something exists, thus something must have always existed. One of the latest restatements of the classical argument from that period was penned by Christian Wolff (1679-1754), and goes like this: 1. The human soul exists (i.e., we exist). 2. Nothing exists without a sufficient reason for existence. 3. The reason for our existence must be contained either in ourselves or else in another, diverse from ourselves. 4. The reason for our existence is not in us. Our non-existence is possible or conceivable. 5. So the reason for our existence must be outside us. 6. One does not arrive at a sufficient reason for existence without reaching a being that has within itself the reason for its own existence. If it did not, then there must be a sufficient reason for its existence beyond itself. 7. A being that has within itself the reason for its own existence is a Necessary Being. 8. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being beyond us that is the sufficient reason for our existence. If there is not a Necessary Being beyond us, we would be Necessary Beings, having the reason for our own existence in ourselves. 9. It is logically impossible for a Necessary Being not to exist. Self-existence flows necessarily from the nature of a Necessary Being. 10. Hence, this Necessary Being is identical with the self existent God of Scripture.