Proving the Existence of God<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Dr. Randy White
www.randywhiteministries.org
 
Arguing God's existence has seemed like a futile attempt for many.  How do you argue the invisible?  Should you argue that which takes a gift of faith to believe?  Is there logical evidence for the reality of the Supreme Being we call God?
An old Hymn speaks about the joy of our faith in the risen Christ.   The songwriter answered the question regarding the existence of the living Christ by saying, "You ask me how I know He lives?  He lives within my heart!"  While those of us who have been indwelt by the Spirit of God can attest to this reality, such and answer is subjective, and really a non-answer for those who sincerely seeks knowledge.
So how can we answer the question of God's existence?  To use the Bible as some proof or evidence would be unfruitful, because the one asking the question likely has no faith in the Bible.  Why would an agnostic have any confidence in Scripture?  So is there any evidence outside of Scripture for the existence of God?  While our understanding of God's character, plan, and will, can only come from Scripture, evidence for an Ultimate Being exists beyond Scripture.

While the starting place may seem obscure, the existence of morality is prime hunting ground for God's existence.  So let's begin by asking if there is such a thing as objective morality.  Circumstantial morality is of no question, nor consequence.  Clearly, "what is right for you" or "what is right for the time" is part of everybody's experience.  But is there outside, verifiable, right-for-everyone morals? 
I recently read one skeptic who, in arguing against objective morality, said, "If morality is truly objective, we would all have the exact same morals."   While this seems true at the outset, it quickly becomes an illogical statement.  For example, consider these statements-
·        If math is truly objective, we would all have the exact same math.
·        If science is truly objective, we would all have the exact same science.
·        If grammar is truly objective, we would all have the exact same grammar.
And while, as you begin, you may want to say "We do all have the exact same math" I would challenge you to remember your High School geometry class.  The teacher taught the theorems and postulates (they are objective, right?), and you used them to answer the problems.  But, you didn't all get the exact same answer.  Why not?  Isn't math objective?  Isn't there only one math?  Is math subjective?  Here's the point:  math is objective, but you didn't all get the same answer because some of you were wrong!  Sometimes you were carelessly wrong, sometimes you used the wrong theorem, sometimes you forgot an important step, but regardless how you got there, your answer was wrong.  The objectivity of math has nothing to do with the answer you gave!  That answer is subject to the manner in which you handled the object.
So trying to disprove the objectivity of morals by pointing to the subjectivity of behavior is pointless and illogical.   Are there some things that are truly wrong?  Regardless of behavior, response, circumstance, childhood trauma, mental condition, or physical reality, are there some things that are truly wrong?  If so, then there is such a thing as objective morality, and we are on the way to proving the existence of God.  Perhaps this is one reason why so many in our society promote the evolutionary concept that only allows for situational ethics.  If right and wrong exist, then we are headed on a pathway to God.

Somehow, somewhere, something or someone made "right" comparatively different than "wrong."   We have "commands" (objective morals), so a commander must exist (whether that commander is a person, place, thing, or event).  Was there a council of Neanderthal men who set the right and wrong standards, or was it earlier than such a supposed man?  Were the standards set in place by the manner in which the elements went bust when the big bang banged?  How did these commands come about?
Evolution has an interesting contradiction in the area of morality.  Since evolution is "the survival of the fittest," then it would seem that strength is right.  But most who teach evolution also teach that bullying is wrong.  Why this disconnect with evolutionary mindset?  Perhaps the evolutionist would have us believe that "we need to cooperate to survive."  While this sounds nice, what about altruism-that behavior that puts the wellbeing of others before your own?  If evolution is really right, then it would demand that we begin to teach "might makes right."  Strength, after all, is the only sure hope for the survival of the species.  If we teach altruism, we are teaching our own death!
Evolution has no answers for this inconsistency.  An evolutionary process clearly did not bring about the values we carry today.  Something, someone, someway has commanded right and wrong.  While we do not yet know, in our process, who/what this is, it does lead us to the next step.  We will call this someone/something/somewhere/somehow the "commander" of morals.

If someone/something is making moral commands which are based on his/her/its own standards, then he/she/it must have some kind of intellect.  The ability to "order" society demands a thought process.  If he/she/it has intellect, then we would expect that this order would display itself in other areas of our life and universe as well.
And, not surprisingly, we live in an unbelievably ordered universe.  From the macro to the micro, every element of existence seems to have a set path, function, and place.    We could write a book on the detail of order in our world, from the molecular level to the most distant reach of the universe. 
Would you be surprised if summer came next December?  What if the sun rose at 10:00 tonight?  Would there be any surprise if the moon's dark side finally turned our direction?  What surprise would there be if the earth flipped, and north became south and south became north?  These would be surprising (a most irresponsible understatement) because there is order in our world.  We are not surprised by order because we know that ultimate right and wrong is objective.  So someone/something made those commands, and he/she/it must have had some intellect which would surely display itself in other matters beyond morality.

It would certainly be freakish to believe that all the order we see in the universe happened accidently.  Something certainly causes summer in the Northern Hemisphere to arrive in June and not in December.  Whether it was the serendipitous manner by which the elements landed by chance when flung from their speck of dust from which the universe supposedly began, or it was the hand of an Intelligent Designer, or something in between, the fact is that life as we know it did not "just happen."
Why are these letters which you read on a page?  Because I have placed my finger on the appropriate key on the keyboard, and some binary function has caused certain pixels on my screen to change colors.  Eventually I will send this binary code process I have begun to a printer that will cause droplets of ink to land in a very precise way upon a piece of paper.  Clearly, there has been a cause, and one which I have oversimplified.  To deny cause and effect is to commit intellectual suicide.

Can the cause and effect go on forever, like looking at two mirrors facing each other?  Is an infinite "reflection" possible?  Even the most prominent atheists and evolutionary adherents believe there must have been some cause.  Many refuse to think of it beyond the speck of dust or, more recently, the arrival of crystals that they believe made up our beginning, but what caused that speck or those crystals?  What caused the explosion?  Even Richard Dawkins, the 21st Century's most blatant anti-God scientist, carries the claim of possible alien invasion which planted the seeds for life.  Why would such a dignified scientist carry such a hair-brained idea?  Because he knows that causes run into a brick wall, and that an ultimate cause is eventually essential.

This "first cause" necessitates eternality.  He/she/it could have no beginning, or we would need to go back further in our search.  He/she/it could also have no ending, or that which was caused would have no further basis of continuation.  What we have with the ultimate cause is the Ultimate Being.  We have God!  Our Ultimate Being would have to have ultimate characteristics, and one of the chief components of these characteristics would, by necessity, be existence.  How can the Ultimate Being be ultimate if he/she/it does not exist?
So God exists.  From this point one could certainly argue the character, style, wishes, will, purpose, and activity of God, but could not logically claim there is no God. 
For this reason and a thousand more, I believe God exists!
This message is available in sermon form here.
This article is available for download in pdf version here.
For additional resources, visit us at http://www.randywhiteministries.org