http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=5045
7 Reasons to Believe in God
How
can you know that God exists? You can’t see, hear, touch, smell, or
taste Him. You can’t weigh Him like you can a five-pound bag of
potatoes. You can’t put Him under an electron microscope to show your
friends what He looks like on an atomic level. You can’t experiment on
Him with probes and scalpels. You can’t take a picture of Him to show
your neighbor that He’s not just an imaginary friend. You can’t
magically make Him appear in the classroom of an atheistic professor who
is challenging anyone to prove that God exists. So how can you know
that God exists?
Although atheists contend that God does not exist and agnostics allege
that there is a very high probability that He does not exist, theism is
the rational belief that there is a God. A sincere pursuer of truth who
follows the available evidence will come to the logical conclusion that
God exists. Admittedly, this belief in the 21
st century is
not the result of seeing God’s Spirit or touching His actual essence
(cf. John 4:24; Luke 24:39). What we have at our fingertips, however, is
a mountain of irrefutable, indirect, credible evidence that testifies
on God’s behalf. Consider seven lines of evidence that warrant the
conclusion that an eternal, supernatural Creator (God) exists.
1. Matter Demands a Maker
No rational person denies the fact that matter exists. The Universe and
every atom that makes it up is a reality. The logical question to ask
is, “Where did it all come from?” From the Milky Way to the most-distant
galaxy in the Universe—what was the cause? What made matter?
A study of the material Universe reveals that every physical effect
must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause (an idea known as
the Law of Cause and Effect or the Law of Causality). The American flag
that stood erect on the surface of the moon in 1969 was neither eternal
nor without a cause. Its existence on the Moon demands a sufficient
cause. The robotic rovers that have rolled across the surface of Mars
since the early 21
st century are the effect of adequate
causes. No one believes that they popped into existence from nothing or
that they are the result of any number of ridiculous, insufficient
causes that could be suggested (e.g., an accidental explosion in a junk
yard on Earth sent metal objects spiraling toward Mars that assembled
themselves into the robotic rovers). Simply put, all material effects
demand adequate causes (see
Miller, 2011 for more information).
So what caused the Universe and all of the matter in the Universe? The
theory that atheistic evolutionists have advanced for several decades
now, which supposedly best explains our existence from a purely
naturalistic perspective, is known as the Big Bang. Allegedly,
approximately 14 billion years ago
all of the matter
and energy in the Universe was concentrated in a tiny ball of matter
that exploded, causing the eventual formation of galaxies throughout the
Universe.
The obvious problem with this explanation is that even if the Big Bang
actually happened (and sound science argues against such a theory—see
May, et al., 2003), a person must still explain
whence came the “original” ball of matter.
It must have an adequate cause. What do some leading atheists and
agnostics around the world argue about the cause of matter? Atheistic
cosmologist Stephen Hawking stated on national television in 2011, “
Nothing caused the Big Bang” (“Curiosity…,” emp. added). In the book
The Grand Design
that Dr. Hawking co-authored, he and Leonard Mlodinow asserted: “Bodies
such as stars and black holes cannot just appear out of nothing.
But a whole universe can”
(2010, p. 180, emp. added). In 2006, Todd Friel asked Dan Barker, one
of America’s leading atheists, “Do you really believe that something
came from
nothing?” (emp. added). Barker responded with a simple, “Yes” (“Wretched…”).
The observable truth is, however, in nature, matter and energy are
neither created nor destroyed. Scientists refer to this fact as the
First Law of Thermodynamics. Though evolutionists have alleged that the
Universe began with the explosion of a ball of matter several billion
years ago, they never have provided a reasonable explanation for the
cause of the “original” ball of matter.
“Nothing” is
not a reasonable explanation. In 2007, the pro-evolutionary
New Scientist
magazine ran a cover story titled “The Beginning: What Triggered the
Big Bang?” in which the publication attempted to explain the origin of
the Universe. But consider the last line of the featured article: “[T]he
quest to understand the origin of the universe seems destined to
continue until we can answer a deeper question:
why is there anything at all instead of nothing?”
(“The Universe…,” 194[2601]:33, emp. added). The implication of such a
question is quite clear: if at one time in the past “nothing” existed,
then nothing should exist today. A reasonable, naturalistic explanation
for the origin of the “original” ball of matter that supposedly led to
the Universe does not exist. One of the world’s leading atheists,
Richard Dawkins, has basically admitted such.
In a panel discussion in 2012 on Australian national television, Dr.
Dawkins was asked “how it is that something as enormous as the universes
came from nothing?” Notice what Dawkins admitted: “Of course it’s
counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course
common sense
doesn’t allow you to get something from nothing. That’s why it’s
interesting. It’s got to be interesting in order to give rise to the
universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the
origin of the universe” (“Q&A...,” emp. added). Indeed, atheism’s
explanation for the origin of matter is “not agreeing with what seems
right or natural” (“Counterintuitive,” 2014). According to Dawkins’ own
admissions, the idea of getting something from nothing in nature defies
“common sense.” It is far from “sound and prudent judgment based on a
simple perception of the situation or facts” (“Common Sense,” 2014).
What’s more, atheists cannot logically argue that the Universe is
eternal. It seems that relatively few scientists even propose an eternal
Universe anymore. (In fact, there would be no point in attempting to
explain the “beginning” of the Universe in a Big Bang if atheists
believed it always existed.) Furthermore, the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy become less usable
over time, has led most scientists to conclude that the Universe has not
always existed (else we would be out of usable energy; see
Miller,
2013). The fact is, the Universe had a beginning. Alex Vilenkin,
cosmologist from Tufts University, pressed this fact in his book titled
Many Worlds in One:
“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a
proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the
proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the
possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to
face the problem of a
cosmic beginning” (2006, p. 176, emp. added).
At one time in the past, the material Universe did not exist. Then, at
some point, matter came into existence. But since matter is not eternal
and cannot create itself from nothing, then something outside of the
material realm must have brought matter into existence.
In short, matter demands a Maker. The evidence clearly indicates that
the cause of the Universe is inexplicable without a supernatural Being.
Something has to be eternally powerful, but we know it cannot be natural
or material. Romans 1:20 says: “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.” Without some type of eternal power, our Universe cannot
exist, and the atheistic answer that our Universe created itself from
nothing is the furthest thing from either a scientific or a rational
explanation.
2. Life Demands a Life Giver
Life does not pop into existence from nothing. Neither the puppy at the
pound nor the bacteria on the doorknob spontaneously generated. Every
scientist, whether theist or atheist, knows this observation to be true.
In biology, one of the most widely recognized laws of science is the
Law of Biogenesis. “Biogenesis” is composed of two words—“bio,” which
means life, and “genesis,” which means beginning. Thus, this law deals
with the beginning of life, and it simply says that in nature life comes
only from previous life of its own kind. Over the years, the
truthfulness of this law has been documented by thousands of scientists,
most notably Louis Pasteur. His work dealt a crushing blow to the
notion of spontaneous generation.
In 1933, evolutionist John Sullivan admitted that “it became an accepted doctrine that
life never arises except from life. So far as the actual evidence goes, this is still the
only possible conclusion” (p. 94, emp. added). Okay, but that was 1933. As we move further into the 20
th
century the obvious question was “Is it still the only possible
conclusion?” What have we learned since the days of Louis Pasteur in the
19
th century and John Sullivan in the first half of the 20
th
century? Observational science has reached the same conclusion
experiment after experiment, year after year. The eminent evolutionist
George Gaylord Simpson and his colleagues observed that “there is no
serious doubt that
biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that
a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or
offspring of another cell” (1965, p. 144, emp. added). Evolutionist
Martin Moe noted that “a century of sensational discoveries in the
biological sciences has taught us
that life arises only from life” (1981, 89[11]:36, emp. added). More recently, staunch evolutionist Neil Shubin conceded the following in his book titled
Your Inner Fish:
I can share with you one true law that all of us can agree upon. This
law is so profound that most of us take it completely for granted. Yet
it is the starting point for almost everything we do in paleontology,
developmental biology, and genetics. This biological “law of everything”
is that every living thing on the planet had parents.
Every person you’ve ever known has biological parents, as does every
bird, salamander, or shark you have ever seen.... To put it in a more
precise form: every living thing sprang from some parental genetic
information (2009, p. 174).
The importance of Shubin’s concession must not be missed. He recognizes
that the actual scientific information verifies that life in the
natural world must come from previously existing life. Yet he refuses to
carry that fact to its proper conclusion: that life could not have
sprung from non-living chemicals. Materialistic evolution cannot
adequately account for or explain the most basic laws of science, not
the least of which is the Law of Biogenesis.
If it is the case that the “only possible conclusion” which scientific
evidence demands is that in nature “life never arises except from life,”
then, pray tell,
how did the first life come into being? Did it somehow break the most fundamental
natural law of biology and arise “naturally” from non-life? Or is there another possibility? The truth is, there
is another
possibility (which science has not disproved), but it is one that
evolutionists such as John Sullivan admitted that “scientific men find
very difficult
of acceptance” (p. 94, emp. added). According to Sullivan, “So far as
the actual evidence goes,” biogenesis “is still the only possible
conclusion. But...
it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act”
(p. 94, emp. added). Do not miss the point: real, true, operational
science indirectly supports a “supernatural creative act,” which implies
a supernatural Creator.
Evolutionist and Harvard University Professor George Wald similarly
admitted in an article he wrote titled “The Origin of Life” that there
ultimately are two options for life’s origin: (1) spontaneous generation
and (2) “the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of
supernatural creation. There is no third position” (1954, p. 46). Sadly,
though “[m]ost modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the
downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis,” they are “unwilling
to accept the alternative belief in special creation” (p. 46). Rather
than follow the evidence where it ultimately leads (to a supernatural
Creator!), atheists would rather put their confidence in a theory that
was disproven long ago. Antony Flew, who for five decades was the
world’s leading atheistic thinker, was forced in the end to conclude:
“The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed,
self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent
Mind” (2007, p. 132; see
Miller, 2012 for more information).
3. Design Demands a Designer
Everyday observation reveals and confirms the obvious fact that
complex, functional design demands a designer. Paintings demand
painters. Poems demand poets. Architecture demands architects. And on
and on we could go. Everyone knows that cars and computers, pianos and
projectors all require engineers, technicians, and tuners for them to
exist and function properly. But what about the Universe as a whole? Can
it be described accurately as “designed”? If so, what could such design
imply about its origin?
No honest, informed person can deny that the Universe is extremely
fine-tuned and functionally complex. From the Earth’s precise orbit
around the Sun to a shorebird’s 15,000-mile yearly migration pattern,
literally millions of examples of fine-tuned design in nature could be
pondered. But consider just one example involving electrons and protons.
The ratio of the mass of an electron to a proton is 1:1836, which means
that a proton is 1,836 times more massive than an electron. Even with
this mass difference, however, electrons and protons have the same
electrical charge. Scientists suggest that if the electrical charge of
the electron were altered by one part in 100 billion, our bodies would
instantly explode (Barrow and Tipler, 1986, pp. 293, 296). Is such
precision indicative of precise design? Most certainly.
The truth is, atheists frequently testify to the “design” in nature.
Australian atheistic astrophysicist Paul Davies has admitted that the
Universe (which according to atheists is the result of mindless,
naturalistic, random processes) is “uniquely hospitable” (2007, p. 30),
“remarkable” (p. 34), and “ordered in an intelligible way” (p. 30). He
even admitted to the “fine-tuned properties” of the Universe. In a 2008
National Geographic
article titled “Biomimetics: Design by Nature,” the word “design” (or
one of its derivatives—designs, designed, etc.) appeared no less than
seven times in reference to “nature’s designs.” The author, evolutionist
Tom Mueller, referred to nature’s “sophistication” and “clever devices”
(2008, p. 79) and praised nature for being able to turn simple
materials “into structures of fantastic complexity, strength, and
toughness” (p. 79). After learning of the uncanny, complicated
maneuverability of a little blowfly, Mueller even confessed to feeling
the need to regard the insect “on bended knee in admiration” (p. 82).
Why? Because of its “mysterious” and “complicated”
design.
The fact is, as evolutionist Jerry Coyne admitted, “Nature resembles a
well-oiled machine…. The more one learns about plants and animals, the
more one marvels at how well their designs fit their ways of life”
(2009, pp. 1,3).
But how can you get design without purpose, intelligence, and deliberate planning? The first three definitions the
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives for “design” (noun) are as follows: “1a
: a particular
purpose held in view by
an individual or group…b:
deliberate purposive planning… 2
: a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down; 3a
: a
deliberate
undercover project or scheme” (“Design,” 2014, emp. added). After
defining “design” as a drawing, sketch, or “graphic representation of a
detailed plan…,” the
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Languagenoted that design may be defined as “[t]he
purposeful or inventive arrangement
of parts or details” (“Design,” 2000, p. 492, emp. added). A design is
preceded by “deliberate purposive planning,” “a detailed plan,” or an
“inventive arrangement.” A design is the effect, not of time, chance,
and unintelligent, random accidental explosions (what nonsense!), but of
the purposeful planning and deliberate actions of an inventor or
designer. Literally,
by definition, design demands a designer; thus the designed Universe demands a Designer.
According to Paul Davies: “Our universe seems ‘just right’ for life.
It looks as if…a super-intellect has been monkeying with physics”
(2007, p. 30). Similarly, well-known skeptic Michael Shermer conceded,
“The reason people think that a Designer created the world is because
it looks designed” (2006, p. 65, emp. added).
Indeed, both honest observation and rational thought should lead every
truth-seeking individual to the same conclusion that the psalmist came
to 3,000 years ago: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the
firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1). “The whole earth is full of His
glory” (Isaiah 6:3). Both the heavens and the Earth testify day after
day and night after night to anyone and everyone who will listen (Psalm
19:2-4). “Lift up your eyes on high, and see Who has created these
things” (Isaiah 40:26).
Since the Universe exhibits complex, functional design, and (by
definition) complex, functional design demands a designer, then the
Universe must have an intelligent designer. This argument for God is
logically sound and observationally true. A person can know (without a
doubt) that God exists if for no other reason than that the Universe’s
design demands a Designer. “For every house is built by someone, but He
Who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).
4. Intelligence Demands an Intelligent Creator
Intelligence is defined as “the capacity to acquire and apply
knowledge” (“Intelligence,” 2000, p. 910); “the ability to learn or
understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations”
(“Intelligence,” 2014). It is not difficult to identify certain things
that have some measure of “intelligence,” while recognizing other things
that have no intelligence. Man obviously has an extremely high level of
intelligence. He has constructed spaceships that he can guide 240,000
miles to the Moon while both the Earth and the Moon are in motion. He
has built artificial hearts that can extend the lives of the sick. He
continues to construct computers that can process billions of pieces of
information a second. He can write poetry, calculate where Mars will be
50 years from the present, and build everything from pianos to
PlayStation video game consoles. Man is an intelligent being.
Although there is a great chasm between mankind and the animal kingdom,
animals do possess a measure of intelligence. Dogs can learn to sit,
stay, roll over, and play dead. Dolphins can learn to jump through hoops
on command. Birds can make helpful “tools” from twigs in order to
accomplish some basic tasks. A few years ago, two colorful, eight-legged
cephalopods, known as cuttlefish, graced the cover of the journal
New Scientist.
The authors referred to this amazing sea creature as a “sophisticated,”
“inventive,” eight-legged “genius” with “intelligence” and a “secret
code” (Brooks, 2008).
According to atheistic evolution, billions of years ago “nothing”
caused a tiny ball of matter to explode. Then, billions of years after
this Big Bang, galaxies began to form from lifeless, mindless,
unintelligent particles floating around in space in massive clouds of
dust. Allegedly, Earth eventually evolved from such a dust cloud.
Hundreds of millions of years later, intelligent animals and humans
evolved.
What humans have consistently observed in nature, however, is that
intelligence demands previous intelligence. The reason that humans in
the 21
st century are intelligent is because our ancestors
were intelligent. The reason that animals have some measure of
intelligence is due to intelligent creatures that came before them. Dust
does not give way to organized dust particles that have “the capacity
to acquire and apply knowledge.” Water does not think. The mindless mud
that evolutionists contend gave way to intelligent life on Earth is
nothing but a delusional tale unsupported by everything we know from
observation and experience. Neither “nothing” nor inorganic matter ever
produces intelligent creatures. So how did the first intelligent
creatures come to inhabit the Universe? Just as the first life demands a
supernatural life Giver, so the first intelligent beings demand a
self-existent, miracle-working Creator of intelligence.
5. Morality Demands a Moral Law Giver
Why do people generally think that some actions are “right” and some
actions are “wrong,” regardless of their subjective opinions? Why do
most people believe that it is “evil” or “wicked” (1) for an adult to
torture an innocent child simply for the fun of it? (2) for a man to
beat and rape a kind, innocent woman? or (3) for parents to have
children for the sole purpose of abusing them sexually every day of
their lives? Because, as evolutionist Edward Slingerland noted, humans
have metaphysical rights—rights that are “a reality beyond what is
perceptible to the senses” (“Metaphysical,” 2014)—and “rely on moral
values” (as quoted in Reilly, 2007, 196[2629]:7). The fact is, most
people, even many atheists, have admitted that real, objective good and
evil exist.
Although objective morality may be outside the realm of the scientific
method, every rational person can know that some actions are innately
good, while others are innately evil. Antony Flew and Wallace Matson,
two of the leading atheistic philosophers of the 20
th
century, forthrightly acknowledged the existence of objective morality
in their debates with theistic philosopher Thomas B. Warren in the 1970s
(see Warren and Flew, 1977; Warren and Matson, 1978). Atheist Michael
Ruse admitted in his book
Darwinism Defended that “[t]he man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children, is just as
mistaken as the man who says that 2 + 2 = 5” (1982, p. 275, emp. added). Philosophers Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl said it well: “
Those who deny obvious moral rules—who
say that murder and rape are morally benign, that cruelty is not a
vice, and that cowardice is a virtue—do not merely have a different
moral point of view; they
have something wrong with them” (1998, p. 59, emp. added).
Most rational people do not merely feel like rape and child abuse may be wrong; they
are
wrong—innately wrong. Just as two plus two can really be known to be
four, every rational human can know that some things are objectively
good, while other things are objectively evil. However, reason demands
that objective good and evil can only exist if there is some real,
objective point of reference. If something (e.g., rape) can be
legitimately criticized as morally wrong, then there must be an
objective standard—“some ‘higher law which transcends the provincial and
transient’ which is other than the particular moral code and which has
an obligatory character which can be recognized” (Warren and Matson, p.
284).
Recognition by atheists of anything being morally wrong begs the
question: How can an atheistlogically call something atrocious,
deplorable, evil, or wicked? According to atheism, man is nothing but
matter in motion. Humankind allegedly evolved from rocks and slime over
billions of years. How could moral value come from rocks and slime? Who
ever speaks of “wrong rocks,” “moral minerals,” or “corrupt chemicals”?
People do not talk about morally depraved donkeys, evil elephants, or
immoral monkeys. Pigs are not punished for being immoral when they eat
their young. Komodo dragons are not corrupt because 10% of their diet
consists of younger Komodo dragons.
Killer whales are
not guilty of murder. Male animals are not tried for rape if they appear
to forcibly copulate with females. Dogs are not depraved for stealing
the bone of another dog. Moral value could not arise from rocks and
slime.
The fact that humans even contemplate morality testifies to the huge
chasm between man and animals and the fact that moral value could not
have arisen from animals. Atheistic evolutionists have admitted that
morals arise only in humans. George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most
recognized atheistic evolutionists of the 20
th century, confessed that “[g]ood and evil, right and wrong,
concepts irrelevant in nature except from the human viewpoint, become
real and pressing features of the whole cosmos as viewed morally because
morals arise only in man” (1951, p. 179, emp. added). Atheists admit that people (i.e., even “atheists”) have “their own
innate sense of morality” (“Do Atheists…?, n.d.). No rational person makes such admissions about animals. “
Humans,” not animals, “rely on moral values” (as quoted in Reilly, 2007, 196[2629]:7).
The moral argument for God’s existence exposes atheism as the
self-contradictory, atrocious philosophy that it is. Atheists must
either reject the truthfulness of the moral argument’s first premise
(“If objective moral value exists, then God exists”) and illogically
accept the indefensible idea that objective morality somehow arose from
rocks and reptiles, or (2) they must reject the argument’s second
premise (“Objective moral values exist”), and accept the insane, utterly
repulsive idea that genocide, rape, murder, theft, child abuse, etc.
can
never once be condemned as objectively “wrong.”
What’s more, if atheism is true, individuals could never logically be
punished for such immoral actions, since “no inherent moral or ethical
laws” would exist (Provine, 1988, p. 10).
If there is no God, then there is no objective basis to say that some
things are right and others are wrong. Reason demands that objective
good and evil can only exist if there is some real, objective reference
point outside of nature. The only reasonable answer to an objective
moral law for humans is a supernatural, moral law Giver.
6. The Bible’s Supernatural Attributes Demand a Supernatural Author
Christians do not believe that God exists simply because the Bible
teaches that He does, nor do Christians believe that the Bible is the
Word of God simply because the Bible claims to be inspired by God.
Anyone can make claims about whatever they wish. Simply because a person
claims to have revelation from a supernatural Creator does not make it
so (e.g., the Book of Mormon; see
Miller,
2009). However, if the Bible possesses attributes that are super-human,
then the Bible proves itself to be of supernatural origin and has
indirectly proven the existence of the supernatural Author. American
atheist Dan Barker alluded to the legitimacy of this argumentation for
God’s existence in 2009 when he explained that one of the things which
could falsify atheism would be if God spoke to man and gave him specific
information about future events (see Butt and Barker, pp. 50-51).
Indeed, one extremely valuable line of evidence that confirms that the
Bible is the inspired Word of God is the presence of accurate,
predictive prophecy contained in its pages. Not only are the prophecies
of the Bible fulfilled in minute detail with complete accuracy, but
these fulfillments are often accomplished centuries after the prophecies
were made. Even the skeptic understands that if this is the case, a
supernatural agent must be responsible for the writing of the Bible.
That is why the skeptic attempts to discredit the prophecies by claiming
that they were written after the events or by claiming that they were
not fulfilled in detail. By attempting to disparage the prophecies using
these methods, the skeptic admits that if the prophecies were written
centuries before the events, and if they are fulfilled in detail, then a
supernatural agent is responsible for them. As the prophet Jeremiah
wrote: “As for the prophet who prophecies of peace, when the word of the
prophet comes to pass, the prophet will be known as one whom the Lord
has truly sent” (28:9). Completely accurate, fulfilled prophecy is a
characteristic that verifies the divine inspiration of the Bible.
One such prophecy concerned a man named Cyrus and two nations: Babylon
and the Medo-Persian Empire. Isaiah, who prophesied around 700 B.C.,
vividly described how God would destroy the powerful kingdom of Babylon,
“the glory of kingdoms” (13:19). Writing as if it had already occurred
(commonly known as the “prophetic perfect,” frequently employed in the
Old Testament to stress the absolute certainty of fulfillment, e.g.,
Isaiah 53), Isaiah declared Babylon would fall (21:9). He then
prophesied that Babylon would fall to the Medes and Persians (Isaiah 13;
21:1-10). Later, he proclaimed that the “golden city” (Babylon) would
be conquered by a man named Cyrus (44:28; 45:1-7). This is a remarkable
prophecy, especially since Cyrus was not born until almost 150 years
after Isaiah penned these words.
Not only did Isaiah predict that Cyrus would overthrow Babylon, but he
also wrote that Cyrus, serving as Jehovah’s “anointed” and “shepherd,”
would release the Jews from captivity and assist them in their return to
Jerusalem for the purpose of rebuilding the temple. Isaiah's prophecies
were recorded almost 200 years before Cyrus conquered Babylon
(539 B.C.). Amazing! [NOTE: Secular history verifies that all of these
events came true. There really was a man named Cyrus who ruled the
Medo-Persian Empire. He did conquer Babylon. And just as Isaiah
prophesied, he assisted the Jews in their return to Jerusalem and in the
rebuilding of the temple.]
Truly, “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for
prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as
they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21). And, if men were
inspired
of God to write the Scriptures (2 Timothy
3:16), then God exists. In short, the Bible’s supernatural attributes
logically demand a supernatural Author (see Butt, 2007 for more
information).
7. The Historical, Miracle-Working, Resurrected Jesus Demands a Supernatural Explanation
Human beings can do many amazing things. They can run 26.2 miles
without stopping. They can show remarkable courage in the face of great
danger. They can even walk along a tightrope hundreds of feet above the
ground. But there are certain actions that are humanly impossible.
Humans cannot walk on water unassisted, give sight to the blind,
instantly reattach severed ears with only their hands, or raise the
dead. If ever such a “man” existed, his life would logically testify to
the existence of a supernatural Being.
Atheists understand the rationality of this argument. Dan Barker once
said on record, “If Jesus were to materialize” and work any number of
miraculous deeds, atheism would be disproven (see Butt and Barker, p.
51), and thus theism would be established as a fact. The truth is, the
very proof that Barker and other atheists request was provided 2,000
years ago when God put on flesh and came to Earth in the form of man.
And He did not merely claim to be God; He did what a reasonable person
could expect if God were ever to prove His divinity on Earth—He
fulfilled precise prophecies and worked supernatural miracles, including
coming back from the dead Himself. (For more information, see Butt and
Lyons, 2006). The life and works of Jesus testify to the existence of a
supernatural Being.
In 2012, renowned atheist Richard Dawkins was questioned about his
unbelief in God. Specifically, he was asked, “What proof, by the way,
would change your mind?” He quickly responded by saying, “That is a very
difficult and interesting question because, I mean, I used to think
that if somehow, you know, great, big, giant 900-foot high Jesus with a
voice like Paul Robeson suddenly strode in and said, ‘I exist and here I
am,’ but even that, I actually sometimes wonder if that would…”
(“Q&A...,” 2012). So, though Dr. Dawkins raises the possibility of
the legitimacy of disproving atheism with a 900-foot high, hypothetical
Jesus, He continually rejects the historical, miracle-working,
resurrected-from-the-dead Jesus Who walked the Earth 2,000 years ago.
Sadly, such irrational, hard-hearted unbelief is nothing new. Even some
in the very presence of Jesus in the first century, who testified to the
supernatural feats that He worked, rejected Him (cf. John 11:45-53;
12:9-11). Thus, it should not be surprising that many will reject the
Lord God today despite the evidence for His existence.
Conclusion
Atheists are fond of claiming that their way of thinking is logical,
reasonable, and intellectual. Yet atheism irrationally says that
everything came from nothing. Atheism says that an explosion caused
exquisite order. It says that random chances produced precision and that
life popped into existence in nature from non-life. Atheism contends
that a well-designed Universe could come about without a Designer.
Atheism says that fish and frogs are man’s distant forefathers and that
intelligence is ultimately the result of non-intelligence. Atheism
alleges that either man is on the same moral plane as a moose, or he
actually evolved a sense of morality from amoral mice. While trying to
convince others he is galloping confidently atop a stallion called
Common Sense, atheism stumbles on the back of a donkey called
Foolishness.
Theism, on the other hand, is absolutely rational. Why? Because (among
other things) (1) matter demands a Maker; (2) life demands a Life Giver;
(3) design demands a Designer; (4) intelligence demands an Intelligent
Creator; (5) morality demands a Moral Law Giver; (6) the Bible’s
supernatural attributes demand a Supernatural Author; and (7) the
historical, miracle-working, resurrected Jesus demands a supernatural
explanation (which demands God). Indeed, the Christian can say with all
confidence, “I know that God exists.” As former atheist Antony Flew so
eloquently concluded: “I must say again that the journey to my discovery
of the Divine has thus far been a pilgrimage of reason. I have followed
the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the
existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and
omniscient Being” (2007, p. 155).
REFERENCES
Barrow, John D. and Frank Tipler (1986),
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press).
Beckwith, Francis and Gregory Koukl (1998),
Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Brooks, Michael (2008), “Do You Speak Cuttlefish?”
New Scientist, 198[2653]:28-31, April 26.
Butt, Kyle (2007),
Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2006),
Behold! The Lamb of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009),
Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
“Common Sense” (2014),
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common%20sense.
“Counterintuitive” (2014),
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterintuitive.
Coyne, Jerry (2009)
Why Evolution is True (New York: Viking).
“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011),
Discovery Channel, August 7.
Davies, Paul (2007), “Laying Down the Laws,”
New Scientist, 194[2610]:30-34, June 30.
“Design” (2000),
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
“Design” (2014),
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design.
“Do Atheists Have Morals?” (no date), http://www.askanatheist.org/morals.html.
Flew, Antony and Roy Varghese (2007),
There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins).
Hawking, Stephen and Leonard Mlodinow (2010),
The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books).
“Intelligence” (2000),
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
“Intelligence” (2014),
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligence.
May, Branyon, et al. (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Parts 1-2],”
Reason & Revelation, 23[5-6]:33-47,49-63.
“Metaphysical” (2014),
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysical.
Miller, Dave (2009), “Is the Book of Mormon from God? [Part 1],”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=108&article=2787.
Miller, Jeff (2011), “God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality,”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3716.
Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part 1],”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4165&topic=93.
Miller, Jeff (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2786.
Moe, Martin (1981), “Genes on Ice,”
Science Digest, 89[11]:36,95, December.
Mueller, Tom (2008), “Biomimetics: Design by Nature,”
National Geographic, 213[4]:68-91, April.
Provine, William (1988), “Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible,”
The Scientist,
2[16]:10, September 5,
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/9707/title/Scientists--Face-It--Science-And-Religion-Are-Incompatible/.
“Q&A: Religion and Atheism” (2012), ABC Australia, April 9, http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm.
Reilly, Michael (2007), “God’s Place in a Rational World,”
New Scientist, 196[2629]:7, November 10.
Ruse, Michael (1982),
Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Shermer, Michael (2006),
Why Darwin Matters (New York: Henry Holt).
Shubin, Neil (2009),
Your Inner Fish (New York: Vintage Books).
Simpson, George Gaylord (1951),
The Meaning of Evolution (New York: Mentor).
Simpson, G.G., C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany (1965),
Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World).
Sullivan, John (1933),
The Limitations of Science (New York: Viking Press).
“The Universe Before Ours” (2007),
New Scientist, 194[2601]:28-33, April 28.
Vilenkin, Alex (2006),
Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang).
Wald, George (1954), “The Origin of Life,”
Scientific American, 191[2]:44-53, August.
Warren, Thomas B. and Antony G.N. Flew (1977),
Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Warren, Thomas B. and Wallace I. Matson (1978),
The Warren-Matson Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
“Wretched: Nothing Made Everything” (2006), http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sK2yNkTuJkY.
The
Bible is full of scriptures that, when quoted without any consideration
of the immediate and remote contexts, a person can misuse in all sorts
of ways. As proof that we do not have to work to provide for our
family’s material needs, some may quote Jesus’ statement, “Do not labor
for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to
everlasting life” (John 6:27). In order to show that Jesus was a liar,
the Bible critic might quote Jesus’ acknowledgement: “If I bear witness
of Myself, My witness is not true” (John 5:31). Those who exclude
baptism from God’s plan of salvation often quote John 4:2: “Jesus
Himself did not baptize, but His disciples.” When the Bible reader is
“rightly dividing” (2 Timothy 2:15, NKJV) or “handling accurately the
word of truth” (NASB), however, he will remember that “[t]he sum
of thy [God’s] word is truth” (Psalm 119:160, emp. added). Since the
Bible teaches “if anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2
Thessalonians 3:10; cf. 1 Timothy 5:8), Jesus never implied that working
to help feed one’s family is wrong (John 6:27). “He simply was saying
that spiritual food is more important than physical food, and as such,
should be given a higher priority” (
Impossible
concept, and yet it has captured the attention of the news media of
late (e.g., Wolchover, 2012). Will the bulk of society likely tend to
continue its movement away from God in the coming years? Probably, since
that has historically been the trend, inside and outside the Bible. But
God has never been eliminated from human thought in the thousands of
years of human existence, because His providential hand brings
punishment on societies at those times when the population in sufficient
numbers turns its back on God. Then inevitably follows a return by many
to spiritual matters (see