
Reasons for Believing in God
- now, in a court case, a panel of jurors is carefully
selected and charged with the duty of weighing all the evidence brought
before it
- and then to render a guilty or a not-guilty verdict
- interestingly, the judge in these cases never asks
the prosecuting attorneys to prove their cases beyond a shadow of a
doubt
- what is the standard phrase used?
- the judge reminds the jury that the prosecution must
present sufficient evidence to convince the jury beyond what? Beyond
a reasonable doubt
- to expect any prosecuting attorney to present enough
evidence in a trial to convince all the jurors beyond a shadow of a
doubt is deemed in our judicial system to be an unrealistic expectation
-
- if you think about it in everyday life, we all make
decisions based on reasonable probability
- seldom on absolute certainty
- when we're about to board an airliner, we don't know
with absolute certainty that once it leaves Toronto it will land in
Los Angeles
- there's a high probability it will, but absolute certainty,
no
- next payday you'll probably drive to your local bank,
and deposit your paycheck there
- you aren't absolutely certain that the bank computers
won't crash and forget your account details, but you figure there's
a pretty good chance they won't, so you deposit your check and leave
-
- the point I'm making except in the field of math and
formal logic, almost all of life must be negotiated on the basis of
probability factors
- seldom do we have the luxury of making decisions based
on enough evidence to move out with absolute certainty
- you weren't absolutely certain about your spouse on
your wedding day
- some of you are less certain now
- you aren't absolutely certain that you'll have a job
tomorrow morning
- or that the meal you'll eat after this service hasn't
been tainted
- all of us learn to live with a measure of uncertainty,
and we grow accustomed to weighing evidence, considering data, and finally
making decisions based on high probability factors
-
- now, I bring this up because it is extremely important
to realize this with the subject matter at hand
- as you know, for four weeks we're in a segment called
Faith Has Its Reasons
- and today we're looking at reasons for believing in
God
- it must be said at the outset that insistence on absolute
proof of the existence of God is an unreasonable and unrealistic demand
for someone to make
- as discussed, life just doesn't operate that way
- we don't even place that kind of evidential burden
on the judicial system
- what is a reasonable request for a person to make is
that enough evidence or arguments for the existence of God be presented
to tip the scales of probability to the point where one can say, "I
am now convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there is in fact a God"
- or "I am sufficiently compelled by the evidence
and moved by the arguments to the point where I must be true to my mind,
and conclude that there is a God"
-
- now with the time that remains in this first session,
I want to give you an overview of four classical arguments that have
stood the test of time and debate in building a case for the existence
of God
- I obviously don't have the time to go into each of
these arguments in the detail that they deserve
- but Christian bookstores have shelves full of material
that can increase your understanding of these types of evidences if
you're so inclined
- most of my research will be coming from two sources
- this morning's message is almost taken wholly from
a series preached in Chicago in 1989 by Bill Hybels
- and there are other excellent books such as one called
When Skeptics Ask by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks
-
- but let me begin by explaining what has been known
historically as the cosmological argument for the existence of God
- this is basically an argument from Creation
- and don't let the word cosmological scare you
- it comes from two Greek words, logos, which
has many meanings, one of them being reason, and cosmos, which
means world
- put the two together and cosmological means the reason
for the world
- or the explanation for the world
- there are many variations of this particular argument
- the one I'm going to put forward contains three notions
- three kinds of rationale
- the first of which is called the principle of sufficient
reason
- look outside for even a second
- lo and behold, you will observe by looking outside
that some things exist
- you see trees and grass and water and flowers and the
sun
- the first notion in the cosmological argument is the
question, why do these things exist?
- what is the reason?
-
- now, suppose for just a moment that nothing existed
- would nothingness require and explanation?
- some of you are saying, "We're entering the Twilight
Zone"
- would nothingness require and explanation?
- certainly not
- the split second something, anything exists, the cry
goes out, "Why does it exist?"
- what is its sufficient reason for existing?
-
- the second notion in the cosmological argument is
that when we carefully observe what we see, we conclude upon careful
observation that all of it seems to be contingent
- which simply means that everything we see seems to
depend on something else for its existence
- the tree needs air, the grass needs water, they both
need the sun
- nothing we observe around us appears to be utterly
independent, self-caused, or self-reliant
- rather, we conclude that everything we see around us
did not even exist at one time and probably will not continue to exist
forever
- you're all aware of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
which reminds us that everything in our universe is in a gradual state
of entropy
- slowly disintegrating
- including human beings
-
- so this second notion, the principle of contingency,
that everything seems to depend on something else, and is not independent
or self-caused or self-reliant, leads us to ask this third notion, the
big question, which is:
- if all that exists is indeed contingent, fragile,
and fading, who or what is the explanation for all of these contingent
objects and beings?
- if they all sort of feed off each other and rely off
each other, who is responsible for all of them as a total?
- let me try to explain what I'm talking about by having
you pull yourself out of the universe for a second
- get way away from the universe for a second in your
mind and draw a circle around everything that exists in the universe
- all the galaxies, the worlds, the planets, draw a circle
around it
- now everything that exists in the universe exists within
that circle
- and as we already concluded, everything in that circle
is contingent, or dependent on something else within that circle for
its existence, and it's slowly headed for non-existence
-
- the big question is, who or what caused all this contingent
stuff within the circle to exist in the first place?
- now, keeping this imaginary circle in mind, the answer
must lie in one of two places
- the ultimate cause of everything in that circle must
be located either within that circle itself, or outside the circle
- what explanation makes the best sense?
- now if everything within the circle is contingent,
dependent, and fragile, inter-reliant on other things within that circle,
how rationale is it to locate the ultimate cause, the first cause of
everything, inside the circle, where by definition nothing is self-caused,
independent, self-reliant?
- it doesn't make sense to locate the first cause within
the circle
- doesn't a thinking person have to conclude that the
explanation for everything that lies within the circle must lie outside
the circle?
- and by definition, what lies outside that circle must
be non-contingent, absolutely self-caused, self-reliant, independent
- which would make it eternal, unlimited, and all-powerful
- and those kinds of adjectives come dangerously close
to a working definition of God
- don't you agree?
-
- friends, over hundreds of years, thousands of people
have wrestled with this cosmological argument for the existence of God
- people have studied it and dissected it and debated
it and lost a lot of sleep over it
- because it makes perfect, logical, rationale sense
-
- many people have concluded that it is a powerful piece
of evidence pointing to the existence of an eternal, all-powerful, non-contingent
Being
- and I would urge you to read more about this cosmological
argument
- there are many books that go into this argument in
fuller form
- it is a logically compelling evidence for the existence
of an eternal, all-powerful, non-contingent Being
-
- now, let's move on to a second classic argument for
the existence of God
- and that's referred to the teleological argument,
or an argument from design
- this argument points to the order and the design in
the world around us
- it asks the question, who is responsible for the intricacies
and the symmetry and the purposefulness and the coordination of all
that we see in the created realm?
- one philosopher wrote, "There simply cannot be
a design without a - designer. There cannot be contrivance without
a contriver. There cannot be order without choice."
- the teleological argument simply challenges the familiar
theory that all we see around us came into existence by sheer chance
- most of you know that for centuries people looked at
the wonders and complexities of the created realm, and they simply assumed
that there was a master designer behind it all
- common sense told them that
- this traditional supposition was basically unchallenged
until the 18th century's age of reason, when scientists began
postulating that the origins of the universe were scientifically explainable
- in vogue today is the Big Bang theory, which says that
a chance collision of floating gases in space set into motion a random
series of events which over billions and billions of years, finally
brought us to the complex state where we are today
- you've all heard this theory; it's widely taught
- yet no single scientist can confidently explain where
the mysterious gases came from in the first place
- and many blush outright at the mathematical probabilities
of a chance collision of floating gases eventually producing even a
single molecule, let alone a process as complex as photosynthesis, or
as breath-taking as an eagle in flight
-
- the teleological argument, or argument from design,
says the complexity and order and design of the world is highly, highly,
unlikely
- it says that wherever and whenever there is order and
purpose and design and structure, reasonable people know that someone
was responsible for it
-
- now, after the service, go home and take the back off
your television set
- look inside that thing, and notice the hundreds of
tiny circuits
- look at the wires leading here and there, and the switches
and little connections
- look at it very carefully
- then go out in your backyard and sit under a tree,
and think for a time, and ask yourself if that television set was designed
and assembled by an intelligent human being, or if it was the result
of a random explosion in a steel mill
- now, if the evidence falls on the side of the intelligent
designer, then you will have a new appreciation for the teleological
argument for the existence of God
- that argument says that God alone can account for the
miracles and marvels that we witness all around us every day
- Charles Darwin himself, the kingpin of evolutionary
theory, in a chapter entitled Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication,
from his book The Origin of the Species, wrote, "To suppose
that the eye, with so many parts working together, could have been formed
by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest
degree"
- that portion of Darwin's writings I agree with wholeheartedly
- it is absurd to think by random chance, by some kind
of collision in space, that that all led to the complexities and the
design and the order we see around us
- only an intelligent design can explain the eye or the
natural homing abilities of a pigeon, or the spinning abilities of a
spider
- and has been said by countless thinking people, much
more faith is required to attribute the wonders of our world to a collision
of floating gases than to accept the existence of an intelligent, eternal,
all-powerful designer God
- it takes more faith to believe the one than the other
- in fact, one eminent scientist calculated the probability
of a single protein molecule to happen once in 10243rd years
- that's 10 with 243 zeroes behind it
- that's billions of trillions of years for the creation
of one single molecule
- I just want to ask all of you to determine how honest
you're really being with yourself and the evidence
- how rational are your thinking patterns, really?
- if the next time you hold a baby in your arms, you
buy the line that something that magnificent and purposeful and complex
is the result of a cosmic accident, please be careful
- weigh the evidence
-
- so we've looked at the cosmological argument, or argument
from creation, and the teleological argument, or the argument from design
- now let's shift gears and look at the moral evidence
for the existence of God
- this is formally called the axiological argument
- this argument asks a different type of question
- it asks the question: how does one account for the
fact that in human beings everywhere, there is a kind of moral code
that provides human beings with a sense of moral oughtness
- if human beings simply evolved from primeval gases,
they are really only grown-up germs or recent improvements on the ape
- how does one account for the fact, then, that on almost
every culture on the planet, people value truth telling over deceitfulness,
kindness over violence, and loyalty over back-stabbing?
- how do you explain that?
- who accounts for that?
- are gases or germs or genes capable of creating a moral
code of values, and planting them in the hearts and minds of people
worldwide, a remarkably consistent code in the minds of billions of
people?
- did it happen by sheer chance, by accident, by coincidence?
-
- it's amazing to see atheists campaigning to save the
whales or to help the homeless
- on the one hand, by theological definition, they're
saying, "We are not created beings made in the image of God. We
do not have a moral law stamped on our hearts from a supreme moral being"
- on the other hand, this atheist is appealing to the
universal code of oughtness in all of us to stop the savage extermination
of whales and to help the plight of the homeless
- the irony of it amazes me
-
- I ask you to sit under that same tree in your backyard
that you were thinking about the television set under, sit under that
tree and ask yourself, "If this moral sense of oughtness that is
in every heart did not come about from a supreme moral being, how do
you explain it?"
- what's your theory?
- author C.S. Lewis explains the moral argument in his
book Mere Christianity with such clarity and cogency that thousands
of people have come to believe in Christ by that single book
- it was this book that had the single greatest impact
that led to the conversion of Charles Colson
- the argument was absolutely compelling to Charles Colson
-
- so we have the cosmological argument, the teleological
argument , the axiological argument, and finally, let me just touch
on the argument from religious experience
- admittedly, this argument is far from being conclusive
in and of itself
- but according to philosopher William Alston, Christian
experiences, such as feeling the presence of God, or receiving a sense
of guidance from God, or feeling strengthened by God, Alston says that
all of this combines to make us even more confident in our belief in
God when we come to that conclusion
- author Ron Nash goes so far to say that religious experiences
must be taken very seriously as evidence of the existence of God, providing
that the person making the experiential claim is widely known to be
a trustworthy person
- what he's driving at is that hundreds of millions of
intelligent, well-adjusted people all over the world, including presidents
and professors and economists and butchers and bakers and candlestick
makers, claim that they are regularly experiencing a relationship with
God, and they testify to feeling loved by God, and they have received
forgiveness from God that have unshackled them from bondage
- and millions of people would go so far to say that
God has transformed their lives
- Ron Nash says that should not and cannot be lightly
dismissed
-
- now no-one is arguing that once in a while a deluded
and deceitful individual does not manufacture religious experience
- but that shouldn't completely discount the testimony
of someone with integrity who bares witness to the presence of God in
his or her life
- those who have experienced great tragedy in their lives,
the loss of a loved one, can testify that at their lowest moment they
experienced a strong sense of the presence of God in their lives at
that point
- Christians all over the world would gladly take polygraph
tests to prove the reality of these unforgettable moments when God makes
Himself known in our experience
- when he receive an answer to prayer, guidance from
above, support and strength and comfort and peace
-
- the question is, how should we account for this?
- are hundreds of millions of Christian people hallucinating?
Are they lying? Is it a well-organized conspiracy, and for what purpose?
- the argument from Christian experience simply says,
"Look, when you consider the cosmological argument, the teleological
argument, the moral argument, and tack on the end the fact that hundreds
of millions of intelligent, non-delusive people are claiming to regularly
talk to God - you have to put that on the scale as well - when you put
it all on the scales of judgment, you're going to have to make up your
mind"
- every jury eventually has to come to the point where
they make a verdict
- one day, you will stand accountable for coming to a
conclusion about these evidences for the existence of God
- how can we explain all of this without acknowledging
the obvious?
- friends, there is a God
- an eternal, powerful, creator God, author of the moral
code, and He's calling out to you this morning
- stop running
- stop pretending you don't need Him
- stop pretending He doesn't exist
- open up your heart to Him just a bit
- find out who He really is and what He's up to
- find out what He can do in your life
-
- to those of you who are Christians, you have no reason
to be embarrassed or to shrink back from boldly proclaiming that you
walk and talk with a God who is there
- you have no reason to shrink back or cower when someone
challenges your faith
- because your faith is not based on shifting sand
- it has a strong, rational foundation, a compelling
foundation logically
-
- weigh the evidence you've heard this morning
- and when God visits next time to establish contact
with you because of His love, simply say to Him, "I believe"
adapted from a message by Bill Hybels