The Existence of God: 1

The ole Southern Presbyterian preacher Ben Haden would often begin his sermons by saying, “Question:…” followed by a pause then a question. Those who have heard him preach recall that he would ask a question then introduce two seemingly unrelated stories, then open the Bible (a third story) and say, "Let's talk about it...". He has an extraordinary talent of tying the three stories together by the close of his sermon and in so doing providing the tools for the hearers to answer the question. It will soon be obvious that I am not that clever.

Question: Does the Bible present a formal proof for the existence of God?

Answer: No!

Rather it assumes the existence of God and that all mankind should know that He is. Proving axiomatic truth seems pointless. Contenders for the faith must take the high ground, declaring “There is one God!” (cf. Genesis 1:1; Romans 1:18-32) He has revealed Himself to us in nature and in His Word.

There are however, naturalistic arguments for the existence of God. If you recall we asked, “What are some of the accomplishments of reason?” The answer was, “Some achievements of reason are the naturalistic arguments for the existence of God”. I will explain them here to the best of my understanding for the purpose of informing us that they are out there. I do not think we will be quizzed on these terms in eternity, so they may be quickly forgotten, perhaps the sooner the better.

There are two types of naturalistic arguments a-posteriori and a-priori. First a-posteriori or simply put inductive reasoning for the existence of God. A-posteriori or inductive reasoning is that which moves from effect to cause; consequence to antecedent; particulars to principal; and phenomenon to ground. Examples of a-posteriori or inductive reason are the cosmological argument, teleological argument, and the anthropological argument; we will touch on these soon.

Then there is also a-priori or deductive reasoning for the existence of God which moves from cause to effect; antecedent to consequence; principal to particulars; ground to phenomenon An example of a-priori or deductive reason is the ontological argument; we will also touch on this soon, (stay with me here we'll get through this and perhaps have an "aha!" moment or two further on).

Neither of these proves the existence of God. Both, however, provide a predisposition to the fact of Theism (i.e. they set the stage for the natural mind to accept that God does exist that is if it does not do so already)! Both are insufficient to redeem, yet both are sufficient to condemn.

The Cosmological Argument

Remember this word: Powerful

The first of the two types of naturalistic arguments a-posteriori; inductive reasoning for the existence of God that we will look at is the cosmological argument (cf. this fine article). Its etymology is cosmos meaning universe. The universe is an effect that has a probable cause (see Hebrews 3: 4; and Psalm 19: 1-6). This a-posteriori reasoning attempts to demonstrate that God is omnipotent or all powerful. This argument will not necessarily take us to the God of the Bible, because some may say,

1. Matter is eternal (eg. Atheism) or

2. Matter is an effect (i.e. it came by chance, force, or God plus natural forces, or God alone).

3. Matter is an effect that must have a cause and the effect is dependent on the cause for its existence, nature cannot produce itself out of nothing.

All of the blather aside the key word to understanding the cosmological argument is:

Powerful!