The Existence of God

A Case for the Existence of God As Revealed In the Bible

1. Introduction

What follows in this paper is the presentation of a case for the existence of God, as put against the many contemporary views which would allay the idea of God. Initially that idea of Faith as opposed to reason will be discussed; thereafter the argument/s will be presented, followed by a connecting of the philosophical idea of God with God as presented in the Bible.

2. An Initial Word on Logic

The basis for the arguments presented in this paper is that the Laws of Epistemology are valid; that is the Law of Non- Contradiction (‘A’ cannot equal ‘A’ and ‘non-A’ at the same time and in the same sense, as well as the Law of Causality (For every effect there is a Cause) as well as the other two which naturally follow, that is the basic reliability of sense perception as well as the analogical use of language (Sproul 2003:106). It must be conceded however that some may reject these laws and the whole idea of rationality and reason, such people would argue that they use irrationality as a system of Epistemology. This is fine and such people are entitled to their views, however at this point I would like them to admit that their alternative to Theism is unreasonable and absurd (Sproul 2003:106).

The term atheist according to the Encyclopaedia of Philosophy is as follows,” An atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God; that is, that the sentence “God exists” expresses a false proposition… a person who rejects belief in God (Edwards 1967: 175). Hopefully however in certain of the arguments that are presented for Theism the idea of pantheism will be indirectly dealt with. The point of this paper is not to dispute all the rebuttals of the arguments presented, but to rather present an opening case, although I do hope that since each one is independent and mostly sufficient, the case presented is rather strong. Dealing with all the counter-arguments is beyond the scope of this paper but further study can be made by starting with the bibliography at the end of this paper.

3. Faith and Reason in Cohesion.

It is often believed that there is a difference between faith and reason; that is that reason is based on fact and faith, since it is religious must be devoid of evidence and reason. However the Bible puts faith and reason on equal footing. 1 Thess 5:21 clearly tells one to prove all things, while Acts 1:3 shows that Jesus proved himself with many infallible proofs (Hunt 1996:13-14). In addition Peter calls us to always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in us.

3.1. Sola Fida and Fides Viva

During the Reformation the grand doctrine of Justification by faith alone was rediscovered by the masses. Both Luther and Calvin agreed with this, but they did not believe that the faith that saves is alone, the only kind of faith that saves is what Luther called ‘Fides Viva’- a living and vital faith (Sproul 2003:22).

16^th century thinkers distinguished several nuances of faith they are notitia; assensus and fiducia (Sproul 2003:22).

3.1.1. Notitia

Sproul says,” When we say that we are justified by faith, the faith that justifies has to have a content” (2003:23). What is meant is that there is a necessary point of information that is part of Christianity. Whenever apostles preached in the Scriptures, they gave a certain amount of information, it was this information that people were asked to believe before saving faith, thus the mind was primarily engaged (Sproul 2003:23). The following notes were given, Jesus was born, died and rose to life again. This involved the communication of understandable information.

Before one can call on Christ as their saviour they must understand that they need one, thus that they are sinners, for this they must understand what sin is, and that God exists, that one is alienated from Him and liable to be judged. This is called pre-evangelism (Sproul 2003:23). That is all of the above is an amount of data which must first be mentally processed before a person can react to it in faith or reject it in unbelief.

3.1.2. Assensus

This second level of faith is the Latin word for intellectual assent (Sproul 2003:23). That is to mentally give assent to a proposition/s. Essentially claiming to not hold to a propositional truth is absurd, what then would one believe, is relationship with a corpse or the resurrected Christ (Sproul 2003:24)? Rightly so it is absurd since it breaks the Law of Non-Contradiction.

“All of those things that we say we believe about Jesus involve the mind saying yes to propositions” (2003: 24), says Sproul. The rational aspect of faith is inescapable.

3.1.3 Fiducia

The third level Fiducia is engendered only by the Holy Spirit’s work. Sproul defines it as follows,” Personal trust and reliance, that aspect of faith that involves a genuine affection for Christ that flows out of a new heart and a new mind” (2003:22).

The case presented for God’s existence as well as all other apologetics is focused on the notitia and assensus.

3.2. Fideism

Fideism claims that it needs no reason for what it believes (Sproul 2003:25) However it is hard at best to try and equate this idea of leaping blindly by faith with the Biblical picture of people being called out of darkness into light (Sproul 2003:25). The faith that the New Testament calls one to is ground in something, this something God makes clear as truth.

3.3. Natural Theology

Natural Theology is the idea that one can come to a knowledge (not particular) knowledge of God in spheres such as history, nature and human personality (Erickson 2002:180-181). There are two kinds of General Revelation that make up the natural theology spoken of, that is immediate (innate sense of God in humans) and mediate (creation requires a Creator) (Sproul 2003:75).

It is clear by Rom 1 that people know God to such an extent that they are guilty, apart from His revelation in Christ. Natural theology is that knowledge of God that every human has had since the beginning of creation (Sproul 2003:78).

In an ideal world faith and reason should not have any kind of conflict since all truth is God’s truth, this is why it is perfectly legitimate to argue that the belief in God and Christ is a Reasonable Faith, and it is just that which will be shown now, that the faith we have is very reasonable.

4. Is There a God?

There are many arguments for God’s existence; what follows is a systematic rendering of these arguments for God’s existence, all independent and following the laws of rationality and logic.

4.1 Ontological Argument

Anselm best put this argument,” God is the greatest of all conceivable beings. Now a being which does not exist cannot be the greatest of all conceivable beings” (Erickson 2002:184). One can therefore conclude that God must exist. However it is obvious that this platonic argument has its weakness, as Kant pointed out, ‘existence’ is not an attribute (Erickson: 184). What Anselm was essential saying was that the necessity of this ‘being’ belongs to the perfection of being, there are two facts present in Anselm’s argument, the first one has already been alluded: that necessity of existence is an attribute of being, and a perfection in it, and secondly that necessity of existence is an attribute and perfection that belongs only to absolute and infinite being, not to relative and finite being (Shedd 1988:225). Allowing for the platonic weakness [that ideal is more real than physical (Erickson 2002:184], it must be noted that arguments of dollars and ducks, take whatever you will, and to compare such things to this argument, as Erickson does, is a failure to realize that all the things one would use as an example to counter this argument are all finite and do not need to exist, that is a dollar is not necessary, however as the argument initially shows, there is a necessity of such a perfect being to be, by definition (2002: 184; Shedd 1988:226; Wiley 237:1940).

This argument however is not sufficient, nor simple to prove God’s existence, but it simply serves as a starter before the ‘main meal’ of this case.

4.2. Encountered Reality

What follows is Augustine of Hippo’s method for proving God’s existence along with various insights from various other philosophers and theologians which will be interplayed in the argument.

Everyday people encounter reality, what we shall try to do now is to ascertain a sufficient reason to explain reality as we encounter it, basically how did everything come to be and be the way that it is? A reason is sufficient if it is the only plausible explanation for something, therefore we shall look at the possible theoretical explanations for reality (Sproul 2003:100). Sufficient reason for God’s existence would be one that establishes His existence in such a way that logically demands that He exists, this will rationally explain the universe and the reason for it’s state (Sproul 2003:100).

There are really only four theoretical explanations for reality, all other arguments for or against the existence of God or explaining reality as we know it are included in these four categories, they are: reality is an illusion; the universe is self-created, the universe is self-existent or the universe is created by an eternal, all-powerful, self-existent Being (Sproul 2003:100).

4.2.1. An Illusion

The argument that is being presented is that if anything exists God exists, if anything exists then something that has the power of being within itself must exist. Mull over the following: the reader (assumedly) is holding this paper, let us assume for the purposes of this illustration that this paper is not a figment of our imagination, but that it really exists in reality, what we are trying to say about this paper is one of four possible things: 1)it is an illusion; 2) the paper has created itself; 3) the paper is eternal and has always existed; 4) the paper came into being by the work of a self-existent being (Sproul 2003:101). Many thinkers in history have thought that reality is but an illusion and it is this that will now be addressed.

4.2.1.1. Rene Descartes

The father of modern rationalism, Rene Descartes (1596-1650), being a mathematician wanted to be sure about everything and not have any assumptions that were not valid, so he subjected everything he knew to a ‘process of uncertainty’, thus he came to the question of whether he really existed, and whether he was simply and illusion, a part of someone else’s dream, it is his work here that allows one deal with the concept of an illusion

4.2.1.2. Cogito Ergo Sum

In Descartes’ process of uncertainty he developed the following thought with regards to his own existence: I am doubting my existence, I cannot doubt that I am doubting, even if I do doubt that I am doubting I am doubting, I cannot escape the reality of doubt. What is their required to be doubt? For their to be doubt there must be cognition. Doubt requires thought, conscious thought- since doubt is an action of thinking, if I am doubting I must be thinking, I cannot escape the reality of thinking, since to doubt is to think. Just as doubt requires a doubter, just as thought requires a thinker, if I am doubting I must rationally conclude that I am thinking, If I am thinking I must be, I must exist, since that which does not exist does not think, that which cannot think cannot doubt, since there is no doubt that I am doubting it would mean that I am thinking, therefore I am also existing. Thus; Cogito- I think- ergo- therefore- sum- I am (Sproul 2003:104-105).

Following Descartes’ logic, one can see that reality is not an illusion, although there are illusions in reality, however if we say everything is an illusion, including ourselves, but we cannot doubt our own existence without first proving it (Sproul 2003:105). If a carpet exists it would ultimately prove the existence of God, I may doubt my pen, however if there is an illusion there must be someone to suffer that illusion, this is the Law of Causality, which is a formal truth (Sproul 2003:106). Existentialist irrationalists may reject this law and the law of Non-contradiction, nevertheless we are using reason, and I will allow them to prove that the other option is absurd.

4.2.2. Self-Creation.

This is so obviously flawed, as can be seen by its name that it has been allocated other names, it is normally called ‘chance creation’ or spontaneous generation’. The actual term ‘self-creation’ is analytically false; since every effect needs a cause, something cannot be the cause of itself, an effect cannot have been it’s own cause, self creation says that the universe created the universe, this is impossible because the universe would then have to exist before it existed to create itself, this goes against the Law of Non-contradiction since the universe cannot ‘be’ and ‘not be’ at the same time and in the same sense (Sproul 2003:109-110).

4.2.2.1 Self-Creation VS Self-Existent.

As has already been demonstrated nothing can be self-created, it is an absurd idea, not even God. Hamlet understood this when he said,” To be or not to be”. What about self-existent though, is this idea also absurd? Well, by self-existent what is meant is that the thing or being is eternal, has the power of being within itself and it is uncreated, there is nothing absurd about this, since it is not an effect it has no need to have been caused (Sproul 2003:110).

4.2.2.2. Varieties of Self-Creation

4.2.2.2.1. Spontaneous Generation

The idea of spontaneous generation was the brain child of the enlightenment thinkers, they simply claimed that things just begin on their own, completely ignoring the law that ‘Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit’ that is- out of nothing, nothing comes (Sproul 2003:111). Even the Law of Causality shows how absurd this idea is. Self- Creation was refuted since shortly after the days it was developed, however recently it has been modified to make it somehow more plausible. It is not called ‘Gradual Self-Creation’, the absurdity of this is self evident, simply by adding time into the equation, it will not overcome the natural laws of physics, out of nothing, nothing comes, slowly or fast (Sproul 2003:112).

4.2.2.2.2. Exploded into Being

This view holds that the universe exploded into ‘being’, the question I would pose here would be this; the antonym of being is non-being, so thus what one is saying is that non-being, which is nothing came into something, correct? What this theory is suggesting is that nothing came into something, completely ignoring Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit and the Law of Causality (Sproul 2003:112).

4.2.2.2.3. Creation by Chance

In this theory, power is attributed to chance, however it has not overcome the fundamental problem of all of these views, since they are saying that nothing becomes something ( Sproul 2003:112). Furthermore, having attributed the power to chance they have made a fatal error, ‘chance’ has no power, it is unable to create anything, yet it may describe events, which occur for a number of reasons, yet it’s ontological status is zero (Sproul 2003:118). Chance as everyone knows is a term used to express mathematical possibility, it is not a being it has no power. For power to exist or operate it must be the power of something (Sproul 2003:119).

Overall fundamental to all the views expressed is the ‘irrational’ view that; nothing causes something.

4.2.2.3. A Self-Existent Being

Since it has been established that there cannot be an illusion of reality nor a self-created reality, one is left with the option of a self-existent something. It has already been demonstrated how the idea of a self-existent being is perfectly logical, since it is ‘uncaused’, thus it does not need a ‘cause’. As a matter of fact this idea is aseity in theology (Sproul 2003:122).

What we are saying is that there is a being in which existence is inherent (Sproul 2003:122). In theology God has been called “Ens Necessarium”- that being whose being is necessary (Sproul 2003:123). There are two distinctive ways in which God is necessary: 1) if something exists the existence of God is rationally necessary, then something has always existed; 2) if there was ever a time of absolute nothing how would their be anything now, since Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit, therefore there must be a self-existent being (Sproul 2003:123).

Wiley said of this,” We have a conception of causes only by virtue of the fact that in forming volitions, we ourselves are consciously causes. The First cause must therefore be conceived by us as Will, that is, a Person (1940:236). In Ex 3:4, 5 one has God calling Himself the ‘I AM’, self-Existent, eternal, God’s nature alone requires His existence, He is not dependent on those outside of Him, what a striking similarity.

It is at this point that many would suggest that their may be an infinite regress of causes, and the latest had simply to be powerful enough to create the universe as it is known, however this is impossible, since an infinite regress of causes would thus never have begun (Erickson 2002:183).

4.2.2.4. A Self-Existent Universe

This view holds that there was an infinitesimally small point of singularity, with everything compressed into an organised state, and that now everything is moving from a state of organisation to disorganisation, this is the second thermodynamic law- that everything tends towards disorder (Sproul 2003:128). The question one would know obviously pose is this, how was everything organised in the first place? Furthermore what caused the ‘Big Bang’? It is generally accepted that things remain at rest until acted upon by an outside force, so what acted upon the ball of singularity? Furthermore matter is mutable, not from eternity (Wiley 1940:236).

It is all a big question of causality. Sproul puts it,” What is the outside force that causes monumental change in our little point of singularity that causes it to move, to cause reality to change from the state of organisation towards disorganisation (2003: 129)? Could it be as Aristotle put it, ‘the unmoved Mover’ (Sproul 2003:129). That which caused motion, must have the power of motion within itself, not a ball of singularity in the centre.

Is matter itself eternal? If so the essence of reality of this page is immanent, self-existent, therefore all matter is in a state of process not pure being (Sproul 2003;130). The materialist would say that God is part or the sum total of the universe, but if God is the sum total, then this page is also included, but I can destroy it, tear it, reduce it, it is in process (Sproul 2003: 131). The materialist would concur that the page is individuate, and that its particular existence is contingent, but fundamentally it somehow is some universal or elemental pulsating force that caused everything to exist (Sproul 2003:131). Thus there is a yet undiscovered core or pulsating centre of the universe that is self-existent and eternal, that generated all, does this seem reasonable?

The question may be asked now, why can God not be part of the universe? Well firstly, one needs to define what they mean by universe. Does one mean all things, then of course, God is part of the things which exist in the universe in as much as he is involved, but if one means all created things then no, He is Self-Existent and uncaused (Sproul 2003:132). His transcendence is not a description of His location, but rather refers to His higher order of being, just like the materialists pulsating core would be of a higher order of being (Sproul 2003:132).

4.3. Teleological Argument

Although this view has already been expressed, it is worth mentioning a few other areas. It is noted that by simply looking at the universe, one is able to see purpose and design which calls for a Designer, an intentional Designer.

4.4. Moral Argument

Many have suggested that all we have spoken of already is good and fine, but that the real argument for God lies in the inherent morality in creation, more specifically in humans. Wiley said,” The highest revelation of God is the revelation of right” (1940:239). This is the first insurmountable obstacle to atheism, its inability to escape the infinite reach of a moral law (Zacharias 1994:22). Interestingly, atheists are quick to attack Christians for violent acts, however they are not so quick to acknowledge those of atheists, furthermore the atheist acts of violence are directly as a result of his denial of God; Stalin, Hitler, Moa and others, acted out of their denial of God (Zacharias 1994:22-23).

4.4.1 Kant

Atheists love to point out Kant’s view that mankind does not need revelation from God to discover right and wrong, but can come to this simply by reason, however they forget to quote Kant when he speaks about not to choose a certain path simply because it makes one happy (Zacharias 1994:36). There is a problem with what Kant said initially however, if the moral code comes about as a result of reason, then one says that their reason has authority since it comes out of their culture or worldview, and then that their worldview or culture is a valid source from which to draw authority they would use reason to prove, thus the argument gets circular (Zacharias 1994:40).

Kant did go on to say however that if there is no God, then morality would be meaningless (Sproul 2003:145). ‘Duty’ was a great word with Kant, but duty only meant something if there is a God to be accountable to (Wiley 1940:240). If there is no God then answers to morality, hope, meaning send one back into his/her own world to fashion an individualized answer (Zacharias 1994:60).

The Bible speaks of a moral law that all mankind has in Roman 1. This is what Kant called the ‘Categorical Imperative’ mankind’s inherent oughtness, with its guilt being inescapable, why this if there is no God (Sproul 2003:148)?

If people at this point deny God, design their own world of morality based on whatever they choose, their can be no ground of commonality, sure man would live without God in a physical sense, but not in a reasonable way (Zacharias 1994:61). If there is no God, then there is no ‘no’ (Sproul 2003:149). Life without God would not make sense, it would be meaningless, hopeless and irrational, and may I be so bold as to suggest… hell.

5. The God of the Bible and the God of Philosophy

Sure we stand here, with our God moving beyond that of a mere unmoved Mover, beyond a mere Creator to the Sustainer, Provider and Redeemer of humanity (Sproul 2003:137). God does not create as a result of necessity but voluntarily and decisively, God brings order and fullness (Sproul 2003:138). It is this that one sees in the teleological argument, why direction, why care taken for mankind? Furthermore we have established that God holds us personally accountable, thus accountability implies judgment, this is the story of Gen 1, and the rest of the Bible for that matter (Sproul 2003:140-143). What we must always remember though, is that the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.

We see a God beyond mere fatalism, yet infinite, transcendent yet immanent, a God of care, justice and creativity, one sees the God of the Bible. Bishop Pearson once proved the divine origin of Christianity by showing that its doctrines were such that they could not naturally command success (Maxwell 1945: 174).

6. Secular View of God

Living in an age of religious pluralism, post-modernity and anti-theism, it is hard to pin-point the secular view, if it were to be summed up in one word I would say that this word is ‘tolerance’, all of the above I know are completely incompatible with the God of the Bible, Jesus came to bring a sword, not peace, He alone is the Way the Truth and the Life, no one gets to the Father but by Him (John 14:6). This is rejected by the world, it is seen as bigotry and hateful, the subculture of nihilists and the like, those who think that God is part of the universe, all have been dealt with in this paper’s arguments. No the true God is not compatible with the warm idol of peoples making.

7. Conclusion

Hopefully it has been successful shown that there is a reasonable grounds for the belief in God’s existence, it is a shame that it could not have been dealt with in more detail and more of the arguments against it dealt with, however it would be impressive to see a case presented trying to deny the existence of God that is equal in strength and appeal as this on for. May God give us the grace to always give a defence to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in us; with meekness and fear.

Bibliography

Edwards, Paul (ed) 1967. Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York; Macmillan.

Erickson, Millard J. 2002. Christian Theology. Michigan; Baker.

Hunt, Dave 1996. In Defence of the Faith. Oregon; Harvest House.

Maxwell, L.E. 1945. Born Crucified. Illinois; Moody.

Shedd, William G.T. 1988. Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology. Nashville; Thomas Nelson.

Sproul, R.C. 2003. Defending Your Faith. Illinois; Crossway.

Wiley, H. Orton 1940. Christian Theology. Missouri; Beacon Hill.