The following is a short devotional that I wrote for my worship team at Standing Stones Community Church, in Phoenix, AZ. For previous blogs in this series: Apologetics 1, Apologetics 2. This specific post is summarized from portions of When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences by Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996).
Worship Team Devotional: Apologetics – Existence of God
September 24, 2015
What follows is a (very) brief summary of the traditional arguments for the existence of God.
Cosmological (argument from creation): This argument is based on the law of causality, which says that every limited thing is caused by something other than itself. Therefore, the universe, which is limited, must be caused by something other than itself. Some counter with the steady state theory: that the universe is eternal. Science, however, shows that the universe is running out of usable energy (i.e. second law of thermodynamics). Philosophically, it is impossible to pass through an infinite series of moments because you can never finish an infinite series of real things.
Teleological (argument from design): Watches imply watchmakers. Paintings imply artists. The greater the design, the greater the designer. Monkeys might type words, but they would never type Hamlet. A single DNA molecule has information the equivalent of one volume of an encyclopedia. Some may counter that this could have come about through random chance. Science, however, is based on repeated observation, not chance, so this counter is unscientific. In probability, the chances are a lot higher that there is a designer than that random chance produced the universe. One scientist places the odds for chance producing a single, one-celled animal at 1 in 1040000. The universe is fine tuned for life on Earth, each fine tuning with its own unlikely ratio of probability if left to chance.
Axiological (argument from moral law): All humans are conscious of a moral law. Moral laws imply a lawgiver. Social conventions do not explain morals as there are certain values that all societies everywhere consider wrong, like murder and rape. If they claim the morals are subjective, then they fall into a self-defeating argument, since they are making an objective value statement about morals even while stating that all value statements are subjective. Finally, consider that evolution through random chance can only explain what is, not what ought to be.
Ontological (argument from being): Whatever perfection can be attributed to a most perfect Being must be attributed to it. Necessary existence is part of what makes a perfect being perfect. If God exists, then he must be necessary.
Often you will notice that people behave like a God exists, even if they would never admit it. For example, normal, sane people believe that life is valuable, which is not something that random chance can ascribe to anything. Another example, people complain when their rights are trampled on, yet if we are all merely a conglomeration of cells produced by random chance, then we have no intellectual basis by which to talk about rights. I can’t reasonably complain if someone wrongs me because the concept of “wrong” doesn’t exist. Random chance can only explain what is, not prescribe what should be. It cannot ascribe value.
Challenge:
This week, pay close attention to those around you to see if what they say they believe about God’s existence actually matches their actions (see above paragraph). If you decide to share these arguments with this person, remember to do so with humility, love and respect.