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 18^th 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 10^243rd 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"

DashHouse.com

Sermon Index

New! Sermon Audio

Subscribe to DashSermons

Reasons for Believing in God

adapted from a message by Bill Hybels