|
This article provides an overview of the most compelling reasons to believe in God. Follow-up articles will explore these reasons in greater depth.
It is not possible to prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, the existence of God, much less the Christian God portrayed in the Bible. If we were able to do so, it would undermine the concept of faith, which is critical to Christianity.
As the writer of the New Testament book of Hebrews explains: "...without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6, NKJV) And faith is understood not as certainty, but rather as the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1, KJV).
Since we are called to faith, Christianity would be self-contradictory if it were possible to prove the existence of God beyond a shadow of doubt. Faith is not possible outside of doubt. In fact, faith involves a conscious decision to set aside doubts and commit to a proposition that can't be proven.
Nevertheless, there is a difference between reasoned faith and blind faith. The Bible does not call Christians to blind faith in God. The Apostle Paul told the church in Thessalonica: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (I Thessalonians 5:21, KJV) and Peter cautioned that believers should "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you..." (I Peter 3:15, NKJV)
Are there good reasons to believe in God? Are their reasonable grounds to justify faith in God? This article will lay out the leading, basic arguments for God. Future articles will take each of these up in greater detail.
The reader should appreciate these arguments in a cumulative sense. In other words, they should be weighed collectively, not in isolation. None of these arguments is compelling enough as a stand-alone proposition. Taken together, however, you have a formidable case for God - one that the reader should not ignore.
The Cosmological Case for God
Either the universe is illusory (highly unlikely), eternal (largely rejected by modern science), spontaneously generated out of nothing (again, highly unlikely), or the creation of a supernatural, intelligent being. Thus, according to the cosmological argument, God (and different people will, of course, define "God" differently) is the only rational, sensical reason for the origin and existence of the universe.
The Teleogical Case for God
Pioneered by philosopher William Paley, this theory holds that the complexity of the universe demands the presence of an Intelligent Desiger. Paley provided the example of a watch. If one walks through a field and comes across a watch, he naturally concludes that there had to be a watchmaker. The watch didn't just invent itself.
Paley's theory has some weaknesses, many of them pointed out by philosopher David Hume. However, no one has been able to conclusively and objectively prove the spontaneous generation of a complex entity. Absent such evidence, Paley's theory, since it is backed by common sense and observable phenomena, carries considerable weight.
The Ontological Case for God
Philosopher Renee Descartes embraced this theory for God's existence. It essentially goes as follows:
1. Everyone can conceive of God
2. The idea of God is that of an infinite, perfect, and unlimited Being
3. For everything, there must be a cause as great or greater than the effect
4. Therefore, for the idea of God which we have, there must be an infinite, perfect, and unlimited cause
5. But we are not infinite, perfect, or unlimited - and thus could not create such an idea ourselves
6. Therefore there must be a cause outside of ourselves, which is infinite, perfect, and unlimited, which caused the idea of God which we have in our minds
And, thus, we come to the existence of God.
To be sure, the theory has some problems, namely the suspect premise that we can deduce the existence of a being from the idea of a being. Still, there is an elementary appeal in this argument, for it does attempt to articulate and explain the yearning for a divine Being (or Beings) that seems to have characterized a majority of the human population from the dawn of civilization.
The Historical Case for God
What can history teach us about religion? Each and every faith group sprung into existence based on some historical event or series of events. In some case, the "event" is a false claim made by a fraudulent or self-serving "prophet." What about Christianity?
Future articles will explore historical and archealogical evidence, particularly evidence outside of the Bible, that supports some of the basic claims about God in general and Christianity in particular.
The Biblical Case for God
Many Christians have misstated and utterly discredited any allusion to this argument for God. Such Christians argue: "The Bible says God is real. Therefore, He is." Obviously, such an argument is circular and intellectually laughable. That is not the true nature of this argument.
The Biblical case for God comes at us on two levels. First, the uniqueness and nature of the Bible almost begs for a superintending, providential force behind it. Second, the events described in the Bible, if true, can only be explained by the existence of God.
Let's take the first level. The Bible is not really a singular manuscript. It is, in actuality, a collection of books. These books were written by approximately forty different authors over a period of 1,000 years. And, yet they convey a singular theme that undergirds Christianity, defining its characteristics and essential tenets. This is either a remarkable literary coincidence (highly unlikely), a grand conspiracy, or the work of God. If the latter, then the Bible must be understood as the Word of God.
The second level of this particular argument is that the supernatural events described in the Scriptures, if true, must be attributed to God. They simply cannot be anything else. These events include Creation, the parting of the Red Sea, the virgin birth of Jesus, and of course Jesus' resurrection. In addition, these otherwise inexplicable events include the hundreds of prophecies fulfilled in the life and ministry of Jesus - prophecies written hundreds of years before Jesus was born.
What this all Means
When all these arguments for God are properly understood and taken together, one must acknowledge, at the very least, that belief in God in general, and Christianity in particular, are plausible religious faiths. Not only plausible, but compelling.
We cannot prove, to everyone's satisfaction and beyond all doubt, that God exists or that the Bible is true. But most assuredly, we can show that belief in God is very rational and that the Christian faith is a credible and attractive explanation in understanding who God is.
Our next articles will address each of these arguments for God in greater depth.
The copyright of the article Reasons to Believe in God in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish Reasons to Believe in God in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Oct 9, 2006 8:31 AM
Pink :
.
Very good article.
.
Finally, we have a participant who
shows that he is willing to be reasonable.
.
You have voiced at
least one opinion for which I have been pilloried by others who claim to be
paragons of Christianity here at Suite101.com. <i>"It is not
possible to prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, the existence of God, much
less the Christian God portrayed in the Bible. If we were able to do so, it
would undermine the concept of faith, which is critical to
Christianity."</i>
.
I hope our compatriots here at
Suite101.com will receive your input with enthusiams even though there may
be great disagreement in what it is that we believe beyond the point of
initial faith. It seems to me that most of us are reasonable and I doubt
that any would take issue with you in this article. I think your
"Biblical" case is weak; but, you've already admitted that.
.
I, for one, understand the idea of faith coupled with doubt that
you present and do so quite readily--it is a major pillar of Christian
belief. To reject it is deny faith itself. I can put my faith in God but
cannot do the same for the Bible; although, Scripture can be a treasure
trove of source material as well as a history of some very sick examples of
bigotry.
.
Oct 9, 2006 2:45 PM
Kim Jeremy Sheil :
Cool article. It reminded me of that book The Case for a Creator.
Oct 10, 2006 2:55 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Thanks for the kudos, guys. I appreciate it. Pink, I particularly
appreciate your comments. I hope that, although we may not agree on
everything, I can continue to earn your respect.
Oct 10, 2006 3:27 PM
Pink :
.
Heh heh heh.
.
R E S P E C T ?
.
That's the name
of a song, isn't it?
.
We all have a crack in our persona. You
have an open mind, that's easy to see. Perhaps your father-in-law doesn't
labor in vain. :)
.
As long as we maintain our open minds, we are
able to see new truths when they are made available to us.
.
My
grandfather gave me a book just a year before he died. It was titled,
"Peck's Bad Boy". I'm sure you can bring it up on the 'Net.
.
He copied a line from the book and put it on the first blank page
at the inside front cover. Here it is:
.
<i>"Man is
like a sausage, fair upon the skin; but, you cannot tell from the outside,
what there is within.".</i>
.
It's what's on the
inside that counts. And, when we talk about our beliefs about God, that
comes out. Maintain your cool attitude. It will serve you well.
.
Oct 10, 2006 10:56 PM
Kim Jeremy Sheil :
You're welcome. I'm just glad to have an intellectual like yourself writing
here.:)
Oct 11, 2006 6:13 AM
Pink :
.
Do you think you might consider the reasons not to believe in God as
well? I wonder what they could be.
.
Oct 11, 2006 6:57 PM
Brian Tubbs :
So, you want me to do the other side's work for them? :-)
Seriously, most of the reasons people give for not believing in God deal
with the Judeo-Christian God. I've not heard that many truly intellectual,
logical arguments against the existence of a Supreme Cosmic Entity of some
kind. It just makes sense that there is some kind of divine entity
responsible for the universe. That's why there are (according to polls)
very few true atheists in the world today.
Oct 11, 2006 7:49 PM
Pink :
.
When a person looks out into space even without the benefit of the
Hubbel space telescope, they are amazed at the complexity of being and
existence. So vast and so unlimited.
.
It's difficult to imagine
the endlessness of space and that there may be even other spaces beyong the
one to which we are exposed. Unlimited possibilities. A being that brought
it all into existence from nothing? Where did the being come from?
.
What seems most likely is that somehow, something began to be out
of the nothingness that must have been. Did it just grow and accumulate
energy unto itself? A trillion years or a quadrillion eons of time? An
idea? Who can know? But, something came into being. Was it the One
existence? Did that One gain an awareness? Did it imagine the galaxies?
.
Who can possibly know? But, one thing is for certain and that is
that the ideas of a supreme being fascinates us. We are caught up in our
thoughts about such a being. I'm sure there were people at one time or
another who claimed knowledge--some who were more clever than others. And
they told stories that thrilled the minds of the followers.
.
And, I can imagine that was repeated over and over again and again until
the stories were extremely sophisticated.
.
Maybe this all took
place in Adromeda and maybe a team went out into space and found the Milky
Way where they seeded the planet earth with life. That's as plausible as
anything else.
.
In the sixties, there was a saying,
"Whatever turns you on, man."
.
It's hard to imagine
that we are the most advanced form of being in all the galaxies of the
universe. There must be beings out there that have advanced far beyond
us.
.
At least, some people think so.
.
Maybe one of us
is an agent of the masters from Andromeda? Is it you?
.
:)
.
FOMYCLMBO
.
Maybe I'm Just a nut case.
.
Might
as well have some fun about it.
.
Ever hear this song by George
Gershwin
.
Life Is Just A Bowl Of Cherries
by George
Gershwin
.
People are queer, they're always crowing,
scrambling and rushing about;
Why don't they stop someday, address
themselves this way?
Why are we here? Where are we going? It's time
that we found out.
We're not here to stay; we're on a short holiday.
Life is just a bowl of cherries.
Don't take it serious;
life's so mysterious.
You work, you save, you worry so,
But you
can't take your dough when you go, go, go.
So keep repeating it's the
berries,
The strongest oak must fall,
The sweet things in
Oct 11, 2006 9:17 PM
Brian Tubbs :
My next three articles - already written and queued up - address what
you've written here. I'll simply say, for now, that I think the theory that
a) there is a divine cause, and b) an intelligent designer of some sort is
more logical and rational than a randomly generated universe that came from
nothing. I really believe that - and I say that as one who has gone through
doubts (deep, serious doubts about God, religion, and the whole nine
yards). As an intellectual, I just don't see the logic in pure atheism. I
mean no offense to you or anyone else. But arguing that the universe is an
uncaused cause defies logic (at least it does to me).
Oct 12, 2006 5:31 AM
Pink :
.
I'm not an atheist.
.
I probably qualify as a theist.
.
I was trying to be a little jocular in that post.
.
Be
careful admitting to being an intellectual. That can be as liberalism.
Intellectuals spend time in their minds sorting things out rather than
quoting the drill. That's what the apostle Paul advised Timothy to do in
the passage you quoted just the other day--dividing the word of truth.
Religionists do not believe in seeking understanding beyond the
fundamentals. That would be heresy. But heresy has always led to further
enlightenment.
.
It's interesting that you had no sooner come on
the scene and the famous Brother Jones took off for the tall timber. I
wonder if his concern was that you might come into conflict with Southron
religion.
.
Oct 12, 2006 7:35 AM
Pink :
.
Just in case you don't know about it, here is a link:
.
http://www.geocities.com/mosouthron/?200612
.
How about the
treatment they give the picture of Abraham Lincoln?
.
A nice
bunch, hey? The further south you go from the Canadian border, the thicker
those Southron religionists get to be. I'm sure you've got your share down
there in Ohoho.
.
.
.
Oct 12, 2006 5:22 PM
Pink :
.
I've picked up a copy of The God Delusion at Barnes and Noble.
.
I'll be reading it over the next several days. It will deal with
the subject of this thread. I'll share anything I think you might find of
interest.
.
Oct 12, 2006 5:43 PM
Robert Sharp :
I like the sentence "Faith is not possible outside of doubt." But
what does it mean? It could mean that you need the possibility of being
wrong for it to be faith (that links to your idea that proving God would be
a problem). But it could also mean that people who don't experience doubt
don't really have faith. I think this latter claim is just as true,
actually. When you see people with absolute certainty about God and what He
wants, they seem to have a smug arrogance. They often say they have
knowledge, not faith.
This seems to be a dangerous idea because
if you already KNOW what God wants, nothing anyone says can change you
mind. With faith, there is still the possibility of modifying your view.
Oct 12, 2006 6:30 PM
Pink :
.
I watched the two videos by Dawkins on the 'Net.
.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2439999165547892433
.
That got me interested in his teachings. The next day, I happened to hear
an interview on NPR's Science Friday that featured him. So, I bought the
book.
.
So far, I've read the preface. I'm sure it will be an
interesting book.
.
Oct 12, 2006 7:20 PM
Brian Tubbs :
lol - I'm actually from Virginnie! :-) My family and I moved to Ohio just
this summer. I grew up in the Old Dominion - home of Robert E. Lee and
Stonewall Jackson. So, I know ALL about Lincoln-bashing and the "South
shall rise again" and all that......
stuff. :-)
Oct 12, 2006 7:26 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I agree with everything you say, Robert. Those that claim absolute
certainty usually fall into two camps -- 1) they really don't know what
"certainty" means, or 2) they are deceiving themselves and
others.
The story of Jesus with doubting Thomas should convince
Christians that God is calling on us to believe in that which we cannot
see. Hebrews 11 says this very thing. Yes, we see indications of the truth.
We can see A LOT of indications of the truth - but we can't directly see
the Truth itself, not yet anyway. Thus, we are called to faith.
Faith is like stepping out of the airplane with a parachute. You're
pretty sure the parachute will open, but...there's still a part of you that
experiences that "rush" or that torrent of colorful language that
goes something like "Oh $%&@!, what have I done?"
Oct 13, 2006 6:22 AM
Pink :
.
Virginnie!
.
There has been a series of advertisements on
t-v in which a Lincoln-like person and a beaver have some interaction with
a teenaged boy. Some insurance company? It is a disgustingly disrespectful
display of someone's idea of humor. I wonder how it plays in the South.
.
Southron thinking portends sad and dangerous days ahead for
America. I think it might be a large part of where our president is coming
from. He has now indocrinated an entire generation of young Americans into
the violence of war. God help us.
.
Oct 14, 2006 7:09 PM
Brian Tubbs :
The South is changing. Though it's still culturally and politically
conservative (much to your chagrin? :-) ), it is becoming much more
racially tolerant, economically vibrant, and ethnically diverse. Now,
before you challenge any of those things, I didn't say the South had
arrived. I said it was getting better.
I think Lincoln would be
pleased with its overall progress, all things considered.
Oct 14, 2006 7:35 PM
Pink :
.
Most of my relatives have gone south to live in the Sun Belt.
.
In the old days, self respecting Baptists in the North would have
never had an affiliation with the Southrons as they were considered the
worst of hypocrits; smoking, drinking, racists, self righteous, and wore
their religion on their sleeves like a badge of honor, Suh! I don't know
what's going on in the churched population any more. I left the church when
things were turning legalist and the Old Testament was coming into vogue. I
didn't want to sow discord. That's to my chagrin. If I were in the church
today, I would be a problem--big time. I would not be quite. I would do my
best to lead splinter groups. Basically, I buy the Baptist philosophy of
independence and free thinking on the local church basis.
.
.
Aug 22, 2008 6:53 PM
Guest :
William Paley's opinion carries even more weight when you consider that the
universe, as we know it, always goes from order to disorder (rather than
just describing it as being "complex", as written on this web
site). There must be some outside force to cause disorder to come to order
in our universe (please no anti-universe, reverse 2nd law arguments here);
hence a watchmaker, hence our God. And please keep in mind that a human
being, well, actually, any living thing I can think of, is much more
complicated than a watch, would you not agree? Could a watch have somehow
come into existence through the big bang and the nature that followed? I
think not. And if I am correct, it then follows that that humans, or any
living thing, for that matter, could not have as well. Dear brothers and
sisters... science will never be able to answer these questions.
Aug 25, 2008 1:52 PM
Guest :
It has taken me a long time to read a reasonable argument for believing in
God. The vast majority of Theistic authors are so caught up in the
conclusion which they so desperately want to draw, that they don't even
bother to look at how terribly illogical and non-sensical their arguments
are.
The fact that this author has pointed out the neccesity of
not being able to prove the existence of God, to truly be a Christian is a
point which I feel that millions of believers make.
It is clear
that the author also realises that all of the arguments put forward for
believing in God add up to nothing more than 'it is plausible that God
could exist.' Perhaps, reading them in a more subjective manner may lead
one to think that these arguments mean that it is 'likely', but in truth
all of the arguments listed above have equally strong counter arguments,
and from an academic point of view are not very convincing.
Having said that, I feel that it is equally likely that God does not
exist. Given that it is impossible to prove either point conclusively it
would be reasonable to rule out neither.
For the theist then, he
believes not because he knows that it is true, but rather because he is
able to put aside his doubt about God.
In my opinion, a rational
person would only accept this position if he had some other motive for
believing. eg. Fear of punishment or the good feeling they get inside by
believing that we are not alone in this world. However, if you have no
desire to believe or not beleive in God, then there are no rational reasons
to do so. According to Theists, God tells us to put aside our doubts and
believe in him. He says that it can not be proved that he exists, we just
have to trust him. This is circualr, because how can one believe in God,
because that God 'tells' him to. One would be forced to believe in God
before this, to believe that he 'told' you to beleive in him.
21 Comments
|
