Have you ever been asked why you believe in God? Why you trust the bible? I’ve wrestled with that question for many years.
I) First Cause Argument. – Scientific consensus is that the universe has a beginning in the finite past. The Universe is not eternal, it came into existence at some point and is moving to an ultimate end in the future.
1. Whatever comes into existence has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause.
You must come to the unactualized actualizer. This is something that exists and has the capacity to actualize the potential of other objects. Otherwise you have an infinite regression. I think the strongest argument for an unactualized actualizer is God.
II) Argument from Design
1. All design implies a designer, while great design implies a great designer
2. There is great design in the world.
3. Therefore there must be a great designer.
I think the strongest argument for a great designer is God. I look at it like this. I’m a computer programmer. I code programs all day long. If you break down DNA it is a very complex version of a program. Programs do not write themselves. They must be programmed, by a programmer.
As a matter of fact, in 2004 Antony Flew, the world’s most influential atheist of the last 50 years publicly acknowledged his move from atheism to a belief in the existence of God. What was the evidence? To quote-
“I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those taht are supported by recent scientific discoveries….I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than when I first met it.”
III) Argument from Morality
1. If there is no universal moral law then-
a. Disagreements would make no sense.
b. All criticisms are meaningless (e.g. The Nazis were wrong, Stalin was wrong)
c. Promise and treaty keeping are unnecessary.
d. We do not need to make excuses for breaking any moral laws.
e. We need not apologize for anything.
f. Murder, rape torture are ok whenever one thinks it is ok.
I think that deep down we have an awareness of right and wrong. Some might disagree. However, I think people’s actions bear this out. I also think that the strongest argument for right and wrong is that there is an absolute perfect power outside of mankind that sets an objective moral standard by which people should live by. I think the most logical arugment for this power is God.
IV) Argument against evolution.
Logically and scientifically we can see that life does not come from non-life.
1. Non God guided Evolution requires life to come from non-life (abiogenesis)
2. Life cannot come from non-life.
3. Non God guided Evolution could not have occurred.
Whether you agree with evolution or not, there are some basic scientific facts and just logical thinking that we can use to make a decision on this question. I personally think there are too many holes in the evolutionary argument to believe that God used evolution to create man. However, even if you think there is enough evidence to prove that man evolved, you still have to answer the question that stops all evolutionists. How did life start from Non-life. And we know from everything we have seen and tested, that this does not happen.
If you step back and just look at the things we know, things just don’t appear out of nothing. You don’t expect to walk into your backyard one day and find a baby there. And if you did, you would immediately think, I wonder whose baby that is? No one with any intellectual honesty would admit to thinking, wow, this baby must have evolved and appeared in my backyard. This is a very basic form of a far more complex and even more compelling argument against evolution.
I have actually entertained many long conversations with evolutionist friends at work. One of their favorite arguments is, “Well eventually at some point in the future science will prove that evolution happened!” Please don’t ever take this argument as proof. First off, it is a logical fallacy called, arguing from the future. This is no evidence and there is no proof whatsoever to this argument. And in fact, we could use the same argument that “Well eventually in the future, science will prove that evolution DID NOT happen!”
The other “proof” they fall back on is the Miller-Urey experiment back in 1952. These scientists were able to in a highly controlled environment, in a closed and sealed environment, to create amino acids. There are a million different reasons why this in no way proves evolution. And in fact, I like to argue that it goes more towards showing that to do this required a designer to actually make it work. However, besides that, we have no idea what the earth was like back in the day when evolutionists speculate that evolution started. Also, creating some amino acids in no way shows that life can be created. There is far more as well, but I will leave it at this for now. If you are interested in discussing or even more info, just let me know and I’d be happy to share.