But most naturalists discount theism out right. In particular, the media and the university only consider theism as a privatized matter of an individual or a people-group. But the concept of God isn't treated seriously because, in this view, science has provided a far better explanation for reality than the introduction of a deity. Is that true? I don't believe it is. There are three very basic evidences for God in general and one I bring up for the Christian God, specifically, to offer up. These are not intellectually complicated concepts. They are really very simple. In fact, although the skeptical arguments against God are prevalent from K-12, the university and media, it's not that those arguments are simple at all...just familiar.
The first three evidences are not based on Scripture, but simple reality. God has revealed Himself through Scripture, but the fundamental and ubiquitous evidence for God is not Scripture.
The universe began and something caused it.
First simple idea....anything that begins to exist is caused. If the universe began to exist, it was caused and since it couldn't be naturally caused by anything within it, the only explanation is that the cause was a Will or Mind.
A very basic idea behind the second law of thermodynamics is the idea that energy naturally gets used up, rather than the other way around. You fill up a car with gas and drive it, the gas burns up and the tank becomes empty. It's an established fact that the universe is expanding and using up energy. When the energy is used up in the universe, some things happen. First, the lights go out. Since it takes fuel for stars to burn, once they burn off, they no longer emit light. Second, the heat goes out. Heat requires energy and once energy is gone, there will be an absence of heat. Third, there will be no motion.
But, if the universe is using up its energy, then it must have started using up energy in the past. It couldn't have been using up its energy for an infinite past. If that was the case, it would have already burned up all of it. Go back to the car. If you have a quarter tank of gas, you never question whether or not gas was initially pumped into the tank. It couldn't have been burning up gas for an infinite past or else you'd already be out of gas, rather than have a quarter tank. In the same way, it is obvious that the universe had a beginning. It's not an infinitely old universe. A consensus of cosmologists have even concluded that at some time in the finite past, our universe began.
Something can't begin without a cause. A car just doesn't pop into existence, spontaneously, out of nothing. Since the universe began to exist, it has a cause. That cause can't be a part of the universe or even explained by the laws of the universe, since those very laws began with the universe. God is the only reasonable explanation for that cause. Why? What else could be a proposed efficient cause for time, space and matter? Well, it would probably have to be timeless, spaceless and immaterial. And since it would be prior to natural causes, the only other explanation for a sufficient cause would be a mind or will to cause it to come about.
So, the universe isn't eternal. It had a beginning. That beginning was caused and the only reasonable cause for it is a Mind or Will and that Mind or Will is God.
What's the alternative? Well, there are many. But do they fair better? You tell me. Let's take the beginning of the universe. Some may say the universe and time itself is infinitely old. But how could you ever arrive at the present if time had no beginning? Let me put it to you this way....how could you jump out of a bottomless ditch? You need a beginning point to even get anywhere and without a beginning point, there is no way you could arrive at the present time anymore than you could jump out of that bottomless ditch.
How about a cause for the beginning? Is it easier to believe something that begins to exist was caused or else something begins to exist without any cause at all? With regards to the sort of cause, does it make more sense to embrace some concept that the cause was due to chance or law, over a Mind? Seems as if it was chance, we simply can't even think about it, let alone talk about it anymore...and if it was law, again, how does something produced in the universe become the cause of the universe? The alternatives are far more of a stretch than the simple idea that the universe began to exist, was caused by a Mind or Will.
The origin of complex biological information.
The simple idea is that information can only come from an intelligent mind. Life contains huge volumes of information. All life must have been designed by a Mind.
I have to use Moreland's example from last weekend, since it is better than anything I could dream up off the top of my head. Let's say I have a huge bowl of alphabet soup and toss it into the air. When I do, the ceiling fan (which is on high) flings symbols all over the place sending a series of symbols to land on my desk. The pattern is "&KKH!8216,;@0". That would be a random sort of pattern. It conveys no sort of information. But, let's say I do the same thing 800 times and the 800th time, the letters on my desk form a simple pattern of "MEMEMEMEMEMEME". That would be a pattern, rather than mere randomness. Yet, it would only be a pattern and wouldn't convey any information in it. What if I threw up the soup, hit the ceiling fan and the symbols on my desk had this pattern, "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country."? This would convey information....content.
Stay with me a bit. Think of the movie, Contact. Jodie Foster's character worked for SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence). Satellites launched into deep space would receive sounds and transmit them back to SETI and SETI would look to determine if those sounds contained information. If they did, it would provide evidence of intelligent life in the galaxy, outside of earth. In the movie, Foster's character received a pattern of prime numbers, providing her ample evidence that we were being communicated with, by intelligent life. Had she received a random series of blips or even a simple pattern of blips, it wouldn't cause as much excitement as did receiving a pattern of prime numbers. And if SETI receives a pattern that can be classified as information, it must come from an intelligent mind.
Living things are filled with volumes and volumes of information. Did you know there are between 25,000 and 35,000 genes among 3 billion DNA pairs of the human genome. A DNA pair contains a combination of A, C, T, G and U proteins that pair up to make a chromosome that contain information that give us brown or blue eyes, tallness or shortness, hypoglycemia, etc. A living organism, in general, and human beings, in particular, contain billions of pieces of coded information. What best explains this? Chance or the same definition SETI would use if it received a series of prime numbers from outer space...that it comes from an intelligent Mind?
The most prevalent alternative explanations out there are that given enough time, under the precise natural circumstances, micro-cellular bits and pieces would form simple amino acids, which form more complex proteins and eventually we get DNA strands and libraries of coded information, which lead to life and then people named Charles that think, create, relate, using a mind. The explanation to reduce enormous complexity of information, outside of a Mind, is to attribute it to a long enough time line. Which makes more common sense? Do we redefine information as something that doesn't necessarily come from a mind? If so, if SETI received a series of prime numbers, couldn't you also conclude that it was chance, rather than intelligence? Nothing to get all that excited about. But the reality of it is, we all realize that information assumes a mind. Under a naturalistic view, we would have to introduce the concept of God, THEN discount it, prior to thinking of it as not really associated with intelligence. Like the cause of the universe, a theistic account for all life...that it contains billions of libraries of information that were designed by a Mind, has far more explanatory plausibility than a long enough time line.
Undeniability of Moral Obligations and Absolutes
Objective moral values exist. In order for morals to be objective and universal, they have to transcend humanity or else they aren't objective or universal. Objective moral values reflect the character of a moral Law Giver.
Among the things we know as facts are moral propositions. We know that throwing yourself on a grenade to save your comrades or giving half of your income to the poor are good things. We know that torturing toddlers for pleasure is wrong. Once more, we know these things as certain as we do that the external world exists or that 2+2 = 4.
What are the alternatives? Only theism and cognitivist pure virtue ethical theories provide objectivity to moral obligation. All the others reduce down to subjective moral values. And subjective moral values are far different from objective moral values for a couple of obvious reasons. First, they can only describe behavior rather than prescribe it. Second, there's no over-arching reason to determine morality between two conflicting views, outside of whoever has power is right and whoever doesn't is wrong. Once you get to the top of a ladder, climbing further requires falling. Likewise, if you peel the moral layers back and arrive at things like sociological evolutionary conventions, mere preference, etc., they are the top of the ladder and can go no further. However, everything within us knows that we have to go further in what is undeniably an objective moral view we have. Lastly, we can't live as if there are no objective moral values. Take a radical leftist environmentalist who rejects the concept of God and objective, universal absolute moral values. Then tell them you think it would be fun to throw tons of pool chemicals into the ocean. Would they say, "Hey, that's cool if it works for you." or would they get red faced and want you locked away? You can't live as if moral values aren't objective, absolute, universal.
But if that's true, they have to transcend humanity. You can't have more steps to a ladder, beyond its top step unless you can transcend that ladder. In the same sense, you can't have real rights or wrongs for humanity unless those concepts are grounded in something that transcends humanity. Since moral values convey propositional information that go beyond mere behavior, those moral values must originate in a transcendent moral Law Giver. Outside of that, you fall back down to the ground or get stuck on the top rung.
It's more plausible and persuasive to think the universe had a beginning, that it was caused and the cause was supernatural and intelligent. It's far more plausible than to consider the universe as infinitely old, or had a causeless beginning or that the any cause could only be in accordance with natural laws.
It's more plausible and persuasive to believe the volumes upon volumes of genetic encoding is information, that information can only come from an intelligent Mind and that all life reflects this Mind. It's far more plausible than to believe the information for all life, as complex as it is, is the result of lots of time and coincidental circumstances.
It's more plausible and persuasive to believe there really are real rights and wrongs, moral obligations and many are universally true and that because they are this way, they either had to come from a moral Law Giver or they don't really exist. It's far more plausible than to believe that morals are objective and come from a Law Giver than they come from nowhere, or that they are based on preference or biological convention and are yet still objective and real. And it is impossible to live as if they weren't.
The old fashioned Bertrand Russell argument says that it is rational to not believe in God simply because there is no evidence to support a God's existence. There are three obvious objections to this. How can you conclude it less plausible to believe the evidence above without first believing God's existence is impossible? If it is more plausible than the non-theistic alternatives, wouldn't that mean you might have to question your atheism or agnosticism and at least be open to the possibility of God's existence? Otherwise, there could never be any evidence to convince you, because you approach any evidence rejecting the existence of God outright as your rule to judge the evidence for His existence in the first place. That's putting the cart before the horse.
Second, the non-theistic alternatives require us to force them by devaluing common sense or experience. Let's face it. Which is easier to understand, the concept of imaginary time with reference to space-time curvature concluding in no real singularlity or beginning, or that the universe began and was caused? Which is easier to swallow, that DNA strands are accidental libraries of information that happened given enough time or that they reveal a Mind that designed this information, because information by definition comes from intelligence? Is it easier to believe there are real, actual and universal rights and wrongs that have to come from beyond us, or that they really don't exist outside of our conventions?
Lastly, several may conclude there are evidences against God's existence, like the reality of pain and suffering. But there are problems with using purported evidence against God's existence in this manner. First, it doesn't really provide an explanation to the evidence for His existence. Second, it confuses not being able to explain a difficult reality as conclusive evidence, when all it concludes is that there are difficult things that we just can't explain. Lastly, especially in terms of the reality of pain and suffering, assuming no God doesn't provide any resolution to the problem. In fact, I think it does the opposite....it jerks the rug out from any justification for concluding negative implications for these things. Voltaire's Professor Pangloss was an example of a wrong-headed response, but non-theism fairs no better and doesn't really deal with evidence that does exist that points to God.
As believers, we have no reason to waffle on even the most sophisticated arguments, because any sophisticated argument is based on a very simple concept that either makes sense or doesn't...either flies with what we know, or doesn't. Sometimes we let perceived intellectual superiority or study intimidate us. Once more, unfortunately, many in the church have bought into the false dichotomy between faith and thinking...belief and knowledge, emphasizing the former and discouraging the latter, as if that were even possible. We can stand flat footed, have the confidence Peter talked about and provide very good reasons for the hope we have.
Christian God versus Alternatives
None of these ideas show that Christianity is true. They only show that it is far easier to understand the existence of God as the best explanation to things, than atheism or agnosticism. But can the Gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in the New Testament arguably be the best option among all other religious claims? I think so.
First, you have to pick a religion that believes in the supernatural. The naturalist would argue there can be no supernatural because we never see signs, wonders, miracles or supernatural beings in everyday life. But limiting knowledge to just what can be observed with the five senses will cut the rug out from under all rationality. Empiricism is one way to knowledge, not the only way. Secondly, I would argue that there is evidence for the supernatural in everyday life. We have consciousness and consciousness cannot be reduced to physical processes. Believe me, I have read on this topic at length and the best naturalism can provide in terms of explaining consciousness is that it has to be reducible to physical processes, even if we can't figure out how that would be possible. Really? That's preferable over consciousness not being reducible? And if it can't be reducible, we walk around everyday with evidence of something beyond nature....supernatural. And it is so mundane and regular, that it is more so than any perceived law of physics. The evidence provided above also point to something beyond the natural. Nature can't explain the universe's cause, the origin of life's detailed information or the existence of objective moral values. To accept a religion that rejects the supernatural is naturalism with extra bits to it.
Second, you need a religion that is verifiable, rather than unprovable. Let me use Islam as an example. The entire religion hinges on one man, Mohamed, going into a cave and coming back out with a different story to spread, given to him by an angel. How is that different from Christianity? Well, Jesus Christ is purported to have been born in Bethlehem, became a teacher in His adulthood, was arrested by the Sanhedrin, turned over the Pontius Pilate and executed with two other prisoners. It is also purported that many people, including friends and enemies, witnessed Jesus bodily resurrected from the dead. According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, 500 or so were eye witnesses and several were still alive to talk to about it, when he penned that letter. There's lots of strong historical evidence that points to validating the Gospel accounts of Christ's life, death and resurrection. I won't go into them in this note, but the point is, it is open to historical verification, unlike Islam.
Which is easier to take seriously, something where you have to take the word of one man for an event that is unverifiable or take the historical accounts in the New Testament and test them to see if they can be verified or rejected? The unique thing about Christianity is that it is tied to time-space historical events, people, places. It is open to verification. None of the other religions are. The fact that liberal scholarship has spent over 100 years trying to debunk the history and release Christian beliefs from history is, in and of itself, very telling of its uniqueness.
For the non-believer, I ask you to consider some of the simple evidences and also consider my own story and life, when it comes to God's existence. I am not the most moral person in the world, but He changed my life in 1996 and I have never looked back....and I used to be an avid skeptic of the Christian faith and all religion. But don't just consider my own personal testimony. Look at what is obviously very good evidence and don't presuppose skepticism of God's existence before you consider the evidence. That's close minded.
For the believer, you have nothing to fear. Truth need not fear evidence and will always vindicate itself. It isn't about winning or being right. It's about finding the truth and going where the evidence and existential realities lead. We have good reasons to give people for the hope we have. And it doesn't matter if you are knowledgeable in physics, chemistry or philosophy. God has provided us very simple and obvious evidence for His existence outside of Scripture. And if you do engage with a skeptic, don't take the postmodern route of separating faith from knowledge and use it to try to escape dealing with the arguments on their face. Your faith is based on knowledge. Truth is a real state of affairs. Knowledge is a belief about a real state of affairs. Regardless of all the scholarship that tries to undermine that, it's rock solid and even the scholars who teach against this, use it everyday to do it. Don't get intimidated. All of the sophisticated arguments are window dressing of fair simpler ideas that more than likely don't hold any water.
