Want Some Answers ???Home Page
('Atheism is a belief'. Replies to those who refute this article, below)
If there is no God there's no meaning to life, no ultimate right or wrong and no hope just despair. God's existence should be greeted with joy, excitement, wonder and thanks. Disagree? Write and say why.the prism of Esarhaddon. Describes the invasion in the land of king Manasseh 2 Chr.33:9,11. (Univ. Pennsylvania Museum).
Perhaps test-tube experiments won't prove or disprove God's existence. If you want to know God test-tubes won't help. So do I have blind faith? No! It's easier to argue He exists than prove He doesn't. The evidence is obvious. All I need is eyes that can see and a brain that works. My faith is based on what I KNOW, not on what I don't know. Insisting there's 'no God' is an absolute non-provable statement by one who must know everything. But no one has all knowledge and it's an unscientific assumption that everything's just some form of matter or energy.
But here's a problem. If an atheist claims 'nothing is certain' then HOW can we be certain of that? Or if 'there is no truth', then HOW do we know that's true? No one can demonstrate anything to one unreasonable. If they argue definitions or act ignorant, none can help. Hence the problem between theists and atheists. Atheists should heed Hume's dictum "The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence". When common sense is abandoned no evidence is good enough. In fact any concept held by natural and materialistic atheism will struggle with rules of evidence. Yet in contradiction the main evidence for evolution is story telling. Stories explain everything so that all evidence fits evolution and none conflict.
Even so without God, atheism has no reason to exist. The Bible declares, God is Spirit (Jn.4:24), transcending human thought (Isa.55:8-9), outside the created order (Ac.17:29 Heb.1:10-12). And without the Bible God can’t be comprehended, without His revelation how can we know One we can’t see or touch? And so -
ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE
The Cosmological Argument
(A) The existence of an effect indicates the existence of a cause.
The atheist or agnostic at best, can only say a first cause for the universe is uncertain or unknown. And before the Cosmic Egg is more uncertainty. This is a non-answer because we know from nothing, comes nothing. One who does not know what caused the universe is not an atheist but an agnostic. So atheists must believe nothing created everything "...space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it." http://curious.astro.cornell.edu (Scientists Cornel Univ.) (Many reject the big bang theory)
"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing--is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice". (Prof R. Dawkins. “The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution”)
Yes 'mad' and unexplainable.
"To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something."Discover Magazine “Physics & Math/Cosmology” http://discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/cover
'Quantum' mechanics never produces something out of nothing. It's true matter can produce energy but that's not something from nothing. It's scientifically impossible and metaphysically absurd to claim something came from nothing. And intellectually embarrassing to believe 'nothing created everything'. In nothingness, not even potentialities exist. There had to be a cause which had to be immaterial, unchanging and timeless - a free agent who freely wills to produce.
So nothing cannot make something. If it can then its something not nothing. And if there was "something" to begin with, where did it come from? Hence there is no intelligent secular origin theory, since all are based on pre-existing matter or energy.
We know of nothing in this world without a cause behind its existence, so there must be a cause behind the world and universe. Even an atheist must admit there was a first cause, because there obviously was. Things everywhere are explained by a cause lying outside them. We are forever inquiring into causes. We can’t make sense of anything without a cause behind its existence. There is no reason to deny what we experience as true everyday. There is no single case of a physical state or event observed or known to originate from nothing. If there was, our leading scientific societies would love to know about it. All science, history, and law enforcement would collapse if 'cause and effect' are denied. The fact the universe exists at all, is significant. Why is there 'nothing' instead?
(B) All Events Have A Beginning and Cause.
In contrast God doesn't need a cause since He is neither an event nor a contingent being. He is an uncaused Being, self-existent and eternal. So everything else must be subject to the law of 'cause and effect' and must have as its source an independent and must be traced back to a first cause, the Creator.
Who designed the creator? Another creator? Then who designed him? This is a pointless argument. One has to stop somewhere with an ultimate explanation, or there is no knowing ultimate truth. No evidence in a Law Court could be accepted. One does not need to go on and on. But as with other questions, we accept explanations and a proper stopping point. The universe requires a cause, because it had a beginning. Unlike the universe God had no beginning and is not subject to a cause. Einstein showed that time is linked to matter and space, so time begun with matter and space. God as Creator is not subject to matter or space.
It's true, limited human minds struggle with God's infinite nature. The universe then, is a good example of God's nature. "His eternal qualities are clearly seen in the things he has made, even his eternal power and Godhead, therefore they are without excuse". (Rom.1:20). So the infinite in our mind presupposes the infinite Himself.
The 'cause and effect' argument then, looks into the past and inquires as to the origin, the ‘whence’ of all existence. It says if the universe began to exist at some time, its reasonable to assume something caused it's beginning (ie., “here is a book someone must have written it” (books don’t write themselves). The First Cause must have intelligence because there are intelligent beings in the universe and the universe is intelligible, capable of being studied and described intelligently. And moral and spiritual realities are not self-produced, since we are aware of such, its certain the First Cause must be both moral and spiritual in an exceedingly high degree.
The Teleological Argument
The Teleological Argument looks into the present and considers the ‘how’ of all existence. It argues from design in order, purpose, beauty, simplicity, complexity and information. The world not only exists, it has these in abundance. Flowers, feathers, snow-flakes, blades of grass, fingerprints etc. This argument isn't silenced by Hume or Darwin but rests in scientific discovery. We KNOW every building, car, plane, boat, computer, has design. Atheists would have us believe that only these need a designer, but complex systems of life forms happen by chance. Yet our minds always link design to construction and a product of a mind, not chance, its a feature that goes with intelligence. It would be silly to talk of “Random design”. Design must have a Designer. If all things were 'random', mathematics would not work. If there's no plan or order, predicting anything by an equation would be unworkable.
DESIGN: Living things appear like they were designed, so how does one know they were NOT designed? Living things show too much design to exist by chance. Also, the earth is astonishingly well suited for highly conscious beings like men. It's not outrageously impossible that design is the reason. The odds of a naturalistic development of design are virtually infinity to one. A naturalistic account can provide no reason for expecting any arrangement which caused life to come about, other than the fact it just happened to be a perfect arrangement. So when science finally discovered the factors necessary for life (predicted in a theistic framework) are so finely balanced this confirmed theism. Atheism can only suggest these cosmic constants with life are coincidences. The world and universe are so finely tuned and delicately balanced and so sensitive to minor alterations that it's numerical values are evidence for cosmic design.
Belief in a God then, is not a religious idea based on a nebulous 'faith', but based on what we know. When I say, "I believe there is a God" its a statement based on facts.
Not only is there design there’s order. You can’t have order without putting things in order. The human mind won’t accept that order comes any other way. The probability of order evolving from nothing or chaos is zero. And we have order emerging from our minds into the physical world, this means the possibility of a being such as God is significant and substantial.
ORDER: The components of the earth indicate a purpose for their order. The earth is constructed for a specific purpose (life). (i.e. ozone, rotation, seasons, the 3 states of water, atmosphere, balance in nature, distance from sun, etc.) Life depends on order. If no God, there's no way to deduce from atheism the universe is (or should be) orderly. It's impossible to prove from nature the universe is orderly. We must presuppose and prove it. And we know nature OBEYS LAWS, these laws govern the earth and universe. All set in place, many relational and so complicated we don't know how they work. Yet these scientific LAWS cannot be proven, they are identified and formulated through observation. If we deny they exist we have a very limited knowledge of physical, chemical, astronomical and biological processes. Theism has the only serious explanation why these laws are there.
INFORMATION: is universal, it exists as well as design, order and laws. All living things have an information code to reproduce life. What coding system has ever come into existence without intelligent design? Or improved by random or accidental mistakes? Improvements going from single cell, to multi-cell to human, improvements that some how planned sexual parts of the body to ensure reproduction? A vast amount of information is behind life, it always points to an intelligent source. If you can say how information comes into existence, you can say how life came into existence. 'There is information written on the DNA code. The existence of information is one of the strongest evidences of God's existence. Information is not matter, and matter or energy cannot generate information. Information is a non-material thing. There can be no information without a code. No information without a sender. No information without a will' (Pro. Werner Gitt). The latest advanced studies in information by Prof. Werner Gitt make it no longer possible to deny the existence of a Supreme Source of Information.
Atheistic evolution teaches information develops of its own accord. But it cannot!
(1) The laws of nature show it doesn’t. There are no exceptions or half-laws. Chemicals always follow strict laws, while mathematical laws are independent of the external world (How does one explain these without a law-maker ?)
(2) Life forms require information to be written on the DNA before life can exist. So information can exist outside and prior to the arrangement of the parts in a sentence in the mind. It is meaning that determines which parts get into a sentence. So the information in the genetic code could exist prior to and outside of the parts of that code. And that information was imposed on the parts by a mind. Meaning or information must come from a mind. By the way, the DNA reads like a book and makes sense from front to back, as well as from back to front.
Just as we apply the use of information, design, order and laws every day and we can understand them in our mind. This argues that creation is the product a Greater Mind. An intelligence who also has a mind and understands information, design, order and laws FAR BETTER than we. 'Do you insist on seeing the builder before you believe that the house you are in was built? Is that your criteria for belief? The building is ample proof that there was a builder' (Ray Comfort http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com
The Anthropological Argument
What does it mean to be human? What value is placed on a human life? What makes man different from a horse or rat? "Am I not a man and a brother?" (anti-slavery slogan). These are not silly questions in our culture of evolutionary philosophy. Which reduces man to an ape, and emphasizes DNA similarities between men and ape (ignoring the fact the expected and predicted countless millions of transitional fossils are still missing).
What it means to be human changes for the worse without God. The sanctity of life is a religious or transcendental concept without meaning otherwise. If there is no God human life cannot have sanctity. The knowledge of God somehow lifts man out of the dust and ashes as something valuable and meaningful. Transcendental values give man dignity, meaning and life sanctity. And the value of a man is determined by the value God places on him (Gen.1:27 Mt.16:26. 2 Pe.3:9 Jn.3:16 Rom.5:8).
Man’s special on earth, he’s separate from the animals. He's skillfully and wonderfully made (Parts of the body do not cooperate towards an objective unless they were put together by a planner for that objective). The finest looking ape can’t compare to man in his total being. Beasts have no knowledge of God, or moral judgment, conscience reflection, or sense of accountability. They don't make images of a god or build alters for sacrifices. No appreciation of information, beauty, design, order or laws. The understanding of beauty comes from a superior human intellect, similarly the discovery of beauty in the world comes from the Mind which formed beauty.
Only humans shed emotional tears and weep or laugh. Animals don’t reason but act by instinct (Man’s instinct is subject to a higher power). All other creatures don’t know 'love', a dog has loyalty but not love (Love is a transcendent quality as the sacredness of life). Animals lick their young but when grown, they are forgotten. They don't communicate intellectual ideas in language, or understand words intellectually, if they had intellect it would be expressed by language. They have no rules of behavior as to their kind, or ponder the actions made.
Without the revelation of the bible, what is man? Just an animal. Hence atheists are often strong supporters of abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality (which is anti-human). While theists supporters of hospitals, hospice and social services. The Bible says “God formed the spirit of man within him” Zech.12.1. And “the body returns to dust but the spirit returns to God who gave it” God gave man dominion over the beasts because his spirit can commune with God. The Bible teaches human life has greater value than animal. Men are unique made in God’s image (Gen.1:26). So its shameful when men stoop to behave like animals. Just as God creates, so men create. Men form plans, vision, imagination, animals don't. Hence the rise of science and technology. The human brain is so complex and amazing its simply unbelievable to imagine its specialized cells and connections could have evolved.
For an atheist to call himself a 'free-thinker' is a contradiction in terms. Atheism doesn't believe we have a Free Will. If there's no God there's no Free Will. True, if we are just creatures of matter its difficult to argue we have Free Will or should have moral standards. The brain would be just chemicals with a sensation of thought. And thoughts don't exist, just chemicals reacting in the realm of matter. Not only so, but if no one made the universe or our brain for thinking, how could we know "its" thinking is correct? If mind emerged from matter without the direction of a superior intelligence, why should we trust the mind to be rational or true? Since random forces produced it? If 'thought' is the product of chemical reactions, there is no logical basis for reasonable debate. So from its own logic, truth cannot be established from atheistic dogma.
But the fact is, we are not only communicating intelligent beings, but we have a Free Will to believe and act. Atheists argue that people who believe in God were born and raised in a God-believing society (no bearing on if there's a God or not). But this ignores the fact people can DECIDE (in an atheistic society) God exists and CHOOSE to act on the evidence. Free Will is evidence for God's existence. If there is 'no God' it can't exist, it could only be a product, outcome or result of genes, chemistry laws or circumstances. Man would just be an animal. If we argue it doesn't exist, how can anyone be accountable for crime? No one would have any genuine ability to choose their actions. And neither would slavery exist. All concepts of Freedom, Moral Obligation, Responsibility and Punishment must go. Nothing can be believed for any good reason. If belief or non-belief is determined without Free Will then there is no ground for holding that our judgment is true or false. So by implication Free Will is more evidence of God's existence.
The Ontological Argument
There is a clash between the picture science gives of the world around us and the picture our senses provide. Science does away with secondary qualities, but we know they exist as part of our sense data. So our minds exist and the secondary qualities are real properties of objects. Physicalism is an incomplete world view, for there is more to life than what physics can tell us. Test tube science is not the only source of knowledge, many things are unproven by science yet exist and are true. Love is better than hate, but we can't prove it with a test-tube. Our perception is that some things are more important than things demonstrated by science. This information is extrasensory, beyond our ability to touch, taste, hear, see and smell. Yet based on what we know is true. So believing there is a God is no less reasonable than physics or chemistry.
"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of healing, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without the profound faith" Albert Einstein
Also, man has an intuition about 'a God'. Intuition is an understanding and knowledge without the process of reasoning or dependant on IQ, education or culture.
Men know intuitively there is a God, particularly in the fox-hole or death-bed. Millions worldwide (rich, poor, clever, young, old) insist there is, to them it's common sense. Man is born with this knowledge, part of his nature, called the “religious instinct”. It makes men worship something or someone. Generally men believe in a god or gods and if they don’t find or accept the true God, they make their own to worship, to satisfy their intuitive knowledge. If the deity doesn’t have Personality, Power and Perfection man is unsatisfied.
When men live in denial of their intuitive knowledge they are forever trying to satisfy the spiritual vacuum in their lives. When denying the One true God eventually they discover it takes an infinite number of lesser deities to fill His shoes. Atheism argues physicalism, that matter and energy are all that exist. If true, these become absolute. But its not true because number’s are non-physical abstract entities, yet exist. If their existence is denied why does mathematics give information or truths that are universal? Universals can be in more than one place at a time. Every attempt to deny them has failed, only the theist can embrace them. Without number’s mathematics and science are unworkable. So if numbers exist physicalism is false, because numbers are not physical entities.
Also values (morals) exist, yet they are non-physical entities. Doing good deeds has a non-physical property of worth or goodness. Moral laws are absolute (ie we don’t torture babies). So if certain moral laws and laws of logic are real laws and objective realities, then physicalism is false, because the nature of moral laws is not physical. Theories, meaning, concepts, propositions and truth also suggest the same, or there is nothing to comprehend or understand. So if one can only believe what one can see, and say 'here it is touch it', it doesn't mean what is unseen is nonexistent. Otherwise, I must even deny the existence of my thoughts or reduce them to physical entities or actions, (clearly nonsense).
The Moral Argument
(A) The empiricism (since the 1920s) that nothing is worthy of belief unless its demonstrated scientifically doesn't satisfy man's current knowledge. Because if there is no God, there are no absolutes, no ultimate moral law. Nothings really absolutely right or wrong but just opinion. If humans came from and survived evolutions dog eat dog world, any form of morality or altruism is contrary to ones evolutionary worldview. "If nobody made us, nobody owns us or sets the rules. We make and break rules as we please". But when absolutes are ignored, nations, business, society, and families break-down and we cry out for justice. Absolutes are nonphysical entities and nonphysical laws. Yet are real and true for all men regardless of culture or if we even don't believe they exist.
Atheist: “There are no absolutes”
Christian: “Are you sure ? “
Christian: “Are you 100% sure?
Christian: "So you insist on making your own rules in life?
One cannot deny the existence or know-ability of moral 'ought's' in one breath and affirm an absolutist 'ought' in the next breath, and be consistent. If 'there are no absolutes' or ultimate values, the worlds a mad-house, because billions pursue them everyday. Yet in contradiction we are told -
“Life has no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” (Dawkins R. Quoted from, The Dawkins Delusion, Scheff Liam. 2007 Salvo.2:94) "There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life and no free will for humans either" (Pro.W Provine, Cornell Univ.)
Lets test this. Is there any such thing as a lie? The answer can only be 'yes.' Therefore truth exists. But atheism says make up your own minds what's right or wrong, which can be whatever you want. So the Nazis turned Jews into bars of soap. The inconsistency of atheism is that it cannot reject the basic morality of the bible. Man needs absolutes or universals by which to judge. If one has no basis on which to judge then reality falls apart, fantasy is indistinguishable from reality, there's no value for the human individual and right and wrong have no meaning. When atheists say, 'all truth is relative'. If true, that statement includes itself. So it cannot be certain or true. This is why when atheists and agnostics describe how physical strength works, what it involves, and it's effects, they cannot derive any idea as to how it ought or ought not to be used. Atheists have a 51% view of morality - the majority must be right (even if they are wrong).
(B) A sense of absolutes makes man a Moral Being. He has a sense of right and wrong, a desire to pursue a greater right and avoid evil. As moral creatures man is higher than animals. Hence a civil court will punish man if he transgresses certain moral boundaries. No animal court system exists among animals to pursue justice.
If 'bad' came from animal ancestors where did 'good' come from? Because if evolution is true and there's no God why be moral? Why include in life any moral dictates? Yet men everywhere recognize that 'good' is better than 'bad' and 'right' better than 'wrong'. And intuitively know the difference between right and wrong, even though they may disagree about precise definitions.
The Bible describes this as a conscience given by God, commonly inherited in man. It tells us what we are and ought to be and if we don’t measure up we feel guilt and fear punishment. It's the clearest and simplest expression of the exalted character and dignity of human life. It touches on what makes man above the animals. According to a Christian worldview, virtue-properties exist, and can be seen in people. And virtues and vices can be epistemologically distinguished. But atheism cannot accept that as true.
Even the existence of evil in the world argues God's existence. If there is no God, there cannot be such a thing as 'evil'. Evil is the reason men can behave worse than animals. And the most convincing atheist with their most persuasive argument will fail, to honest man who realises guilt before God when they did what they know was wrong.
Ethics then are not testified by science but transcendental and everyone has a standard of morality. When two argue each will claim to be right and have an ultimate standard they’re closer to than the other. If moral values exist and can be known, it isn't strange to say God exists and can be known since moral and religious knowledge are similar. The Creator then, isn’t an inanimate force but a moral being and must have standards. Moral consciousness can be explained only in terms of the First Cause with a great moral consciousness.
If there's no God, then nature becomes God. If no absolutes, then the media rules, the elite, the 51%, dictator or gun. If man is nothing but chemical material, the product of an 'up-bringing' then he's not responsible nor should he be punished for doing wrong. So if one kills another, it's what's right for them. If no God, there can be no injustice in this world, only indifferent evolutionary processes. No need to bring criminals to justice for crime, responsibility, morality or punishment. That does not make any sense if we are merely physical animals. And with DNA just "98% similar to chimps" and just a few mutations away from the lower animals how can 'human rights' be natural, God given or absolute in any sense, if there's no God? It's absurd to even talk of 'human rights' if there's no God. Such superstitious talk must stop.
The Biological Argument
How did the galaxies form? With the spiral arms and billions of stars? How did our solar system form independent yet within this galaxy? Of all the kinds of universes that could develop by chance, life-permitting universes like this one with its fundamental forces, physical constants and precision are wildly improbable. The chances of a life-permitting universe would need to be far less. There are thousands of alternative possibilities to ours and life would be impossible. The more we examine other kinds of universes which physics allow, then the more special this one appears. But if the universe came into existence by its own, that violates the 1st Law of thermodynamics. If it always existed that violates the 2nd Law. Big Bang cosmology however negates the laws of physics, the universe could have easily become a chocolate milkshake instead. So the atheistic account provides no reason for expecting the arrangement that yielded life to come about, other than the mere fact that it was just the one that happened.
We are not surprised there are conditions in this universe incompatible with our existence but we ought to be very surprised that we observe ALL the conditions compatible with our existence. There are no easy obvious answers in natural processes which are all according to chance. One cannot assign numerical probability to life. Those who speak of billions and billions of years are simply trying to fool you into thinking chances are high. There are enormous complexities and improbabilities by chance
However, if Darwinian evolution is true and there's no God: then when, why and how did evolution by naturalistic means and chance produce both male and female species, as we see in all creation? And the geological strata should contain millions of transitional forms between species (not yet discovered, only disputable claims exist). It remains a scientific fact, life can only come from pre-existent life not from matter alone. The basis for atheism is that matter and chance produced life. And what’s the matter with that? The problem with matter, is that its not eternal it could only have come from non-matter. So matter must have originated some time in the past by a method equivalent to creation.
Its been said, "Some find it hard to think God could make everything from nothing, it's even more unthinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything". Nothingness has no nature, properties or power for the production of a specific state of affairs. Its absurd to speak of nothing as identical to an existent state with properties. So how can nothing produce matter and matter produce life, when even the simplest biological living cells are amazingly complex.
Chance needs a simple arrangement not mind-boggling complexity. The embryonic development of creatures is too highly organized. It's never a disorderly growth of cells but systematic, purposeful plan and according to a timetable. A precise plan followed at all stages, programmed in fine detail, never to vary. If evolution occurred, how could this? So there is an analogy between man-made machines and various aspects of the natural world. Since the former are designed, why not the later. Or we are asked to believe non-living matter jumped the many hurdles required to form living cells. Natural selection can't explain the origins of the first life. And the random formation of even a single enzyme from amino acids anywhere on earth by chance is so outrageously impossible, it should not be considered possible. All that we know about chemicals is that they do not self-assemble to form living cells. Chemistry laws indicate the biopolymers necessary for life would break down, not build themselves up. Even if assembled, it’s impossible an undirected process would have the correct form. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would cause a break down long before.
So there is no explanation for life, because without a Creator life has no sense. It makes more sense to believe “in the beginning God created the heavens and earth” than in the beginning nothing produced something. Then millions of atoms fell together by themselves without a blueprint to make a simple cell. The origin of life is a problem for materialists because natural selection can't explain it. Its pointless discussing natural selection if there are no two contenders to start with. Natural selection can not account for the first life forms. It only functions AFTER you have life forms that reproduce. Darwin did not know there is no such thing as a 'simple cell'. What was once believed 'a simple cell' is now regarded as complex as a city. Not a random collection of chemicals but a super complex living machine which carries an information code. Constructed and function by a set of rules. Hence scientists find it difficult to understand parts of a cell because they are so incredibly difficult to design, build or reproduce. So function and purpose exist before a machine.
So there must be intelligence to start with, to direct atoms. All things left to themselves fall apart, not together. Computers don’t happen by chance and matter, it takes intelligence to produce something intelligent. So how can matter and chance (both void of intelligence) ultimately produce something as complex as the human brain? Something more complicated than the world's most advanced computer. If the brain and sensory faculties resulted from random chance, there's no reason to trust them to give accurate information about the world. Yet the reliability of our cognitive sensory capacities is most reasonably explained in the light of the fact they were designed to give reliable information about the world. That's why when 'scientists' discover primitive stone tools in caves they recognize intelligent input and conclude an intelligent creature was responsible. So why treat life forms differently?
Finally, information is stored on DNA code, but the code itself is not intelligent nor improved by random chance. Genetic defects or accidents never improve DNA only destroy or damage it. So the problem with biological chance is that the odds are too great. Chance is a non-answer, chance is something we apply to something we don’t have a sensible explanation for. The origin of life by chance is fantastically improbable.
The Historical Argument
Man first appears on the pages of human history as a full-grown, intelligent worshipper. Human history points to an unseen hand, guiding the destinies of the nations ie., Israel, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Assyrian, Roman. The Bible, God's existence, and history must stand side by side. So the bible accurately describes historical events eg., the rise and fall of great empires like Greece and Rome (Dan.2:39-40). The destruction of cities (Tyre, Sidon Isa.23). Tyre's demise is recorded by ancient historians who tell how Alexander the Great lay siege to the city for 7 months. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon failed for 13 years to capture the seacoast city and completely destroy its inhabitants. There's plenty of historical observable evidence for bible accuracy:-
Consider Hezekiah's Tunnel. (2 Chr.32:10. 2 Kg.20:20) This 533m tunnel under Jerusalem still exists, one can walk through. Hezekiah's inscription of construction was found in the tunnel wall (Istanbul Museum).
Consider Solomon's Wall. A 70 meter wall constructed during King Solomon's day. Opened to the public (outside the Old City Jerusalem). The Ophel Wall offers archeologists relics dating back 1000BC during Solomon's expansion work. Visitors can walk through and touch these walls.
Consider Jacobs Well. Only 76 meters from Tell Balata, still there today Jn.4:6.
Consider the Stela of Shalmaneser III. This mentions 'Ahab the Israelite' 1 Kg.22:1. Those of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles were real historic people. (British Museum London, Room 6).
Consider the Black Obelisk. (841BC) Pictures Jehu bowing before Shalmaneser. 2 Kg.9-10 (British Museum London).
Consider the Relief from the Palace at Nimrod of Tigath-pileser III. Depicts Tiglath taking captive Israelites. 2 Kg.15:29 & 1 Chr.5:2526. (British Museum London).
Consider the Astartu Relief. Depicts Tiglath-pilsesr III 2nd invasion of Israel (732BC). 2 Kg.15:19-20. He's mentioned 9 times in the bible. (British Museum London)
Consider Tiglath-pileser's Annals. Confirms 2 Kg.15:30. He tells how Ahaz of Judah paid him treasures and Hoshea was made king 2 Kg.17:1-6. (British Museum).
Consider the Sargon Inscriptions. 2 Kg.17:6,24. He took credit for the fall of Samaria (In the Louvre Paris). A comprehensive record is on a prism in the Baghdad Museum.
Consider the Moabite Stone. (853.BC)('Masha's Stele') Discovered in 1868. Confirms 2 Kg.3:4-5 . (In the Louvre Paris).
Consider the burnt Lachish and Khorsabad Reliefs. Regarding Hezekiah's tribute to Assyria, confirming 2 Kg.18:1-8, 13-15. 2 Chr.32 & Isa.36-37. Inscriptions are burnt because 100 years later Nineveh was destroyed by fire as Nahum prophesied (British Museum Room 10).
Consider the numerous Hittite artifacts. Remains of the Hittite empire. Critics of the bible once considered Hittites a figment of imagination, a mythical people. 2 Sam.11 Gen.15. (British, Istanbul Museums)
Consider the Tiled Archer. (536-400BC) From the Palace of Susa or Shushan, built by Darius. Queen Esther would have seen this, Ne.11 Es.1:2 Dan.8:2 2 Chr.36:22-23. (British Museum Room 52)
Consider Ezekiel's Closed Gate. Confirming Ez.44:1-2. Also Ez.10:9, 11:1, 40:6. (Jerusalem City)
Consider the Altar at Petra. This high place 47ft by 24ft with steps cut out of rock confirms 2 Chr.25:20. (Petra in Edom)
Consider the Ram of Tirhakah. (690-640BC) Depicts the Ethiopian king-regent who distracted Sennacherib while he besieged Lachish 2 Kg.19:9 Isa.37:9. (British Museum London, Room 4).
Consider the Lachish Letters. (586BC) In Hebrew, on pottery. Confirms the historic reality of the bible in Jer.34:6-7 38:4, 42:1. (British Museum, Room 57)
Consider "Ahab's Ivories". (874-853BC) Found in Samaria. Confirms 1 Kg.22:39 Amos 3:15. 6:4. (British Museum, Room 57)
Consider the Fortress of Sha'arayim. Archaeologists believe it the City of David at Shaaraim confirming 1 Sam.17:52 Jos.15:36 1 Chr.4:31. (Khirbet Qeiyafa Archaeological Project)
Consider the Stela of Merneptah. (1231BC) Confirms settlement of Israelites in Canaan (Exodus, Joshua, Judges) (Cairo Museum)
Consider the Inscriptions over Shebna's Tomb. (715BC) Shabanyahu or Shebna is mentioned in Isa.22:15-17 (British Museum Room 57)
Consider the Taylor Prism. (691BC) Sennacherib's annals record deportation of 200,150 Judeans. His claimed siege of Jerusalem, tribute to Hezekiah 2 Chr. 33:10-13. (British Museum, case 11, Room 55)
Consider the city of "Ur". Discovered in 1854. Its existence was denied by critics of the bible prior to discovery (Gen.11:33).
Consider the Stamped Bricks of Nebuchadnezzar. (605-522BC) Confirms Dan.4:30 (British Museum, case 12, 14 Room 55)
Consider the Cylinder Inscription of Nabonidus. (555-540BC) Dan.5:5, 30 is not fiction, Belshazzar existed. (British Museum, Room 55)
Consider the Babylonian Chronicles for 615-609BC. Confirms the predicted fall of Nineveh in Nahum and Zephaniah. And Egyptian troops in the Euphrates region (609BC) 2 Kg.23:29 2 Chr.35:20-24. (British Museum, Room 55)
Consider the Babylonian Chronicles for 605-597BC. Confirms the bible record - battle of Carchemish and siege of Jerusalem Dan.1:1-5. 2 Chr.36:6 9-10. 2 Kg.24:1 8-17. Jer.52:27 (British Museum)
Consider the Nabonidus Chronicle. (556-539BC) Daniel's record vindicated as historical, Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. (British Museum) case 15 Room 55)
Consider the Cyrus Cylinder. (536BC) Silenced the critics of Ez.1:1-3. Also confirms Daniel's record (again) of the fall of Babylon. (British Museum case 6 Room 52)
Consider the Silver Bowl of Artaxerxes I. Regarding the rebuilding of Jerusalem Ezra 4:7-23. Inscribed 'son of Xerxes, son of Darius' Kings mentioned in Ezra 4. (British Museum Room 52)
Consider the Epic of Gilgamesh. Although with some fanciful details, similarities confirm Gen.6-9. (British Museum, case 10 Room 55)
Consider the mud brick of Ramesses II. (1279-1213 BC). With straw showing, similar to those of Israelite slaves Ex.5:7-19. (British Museum case 35 Room 61)
Consider the burned mud bricks from ancient Sumeria. They confirm Gen.11:3,4 (Australian Institute of Archaeology)
Consider the Statue of Nimrod. Confirming Gen.10:8-11. (Nemrut Dagi Turkey)
Consider the Sculpture of Augustus. (27 BC - 14 AD) Roman emperor. Caesar at Christ's birth Mt.2:1. (British Museum Room 70)
Consider the Sculpture of Tiberius. (AD 14-37) Caesar during Christ's life, Lk.3:1. (British Museum Room 70)
Consider the Denarius of Tiberius. (AD 14-37) Known as the 'Tribute Penny'. The type of coin featured in Mt.22:18-21 (British Museum case 3 Room 68)
Consider the remains of the Temple of Artemis (Diana) in Ephesus. The goddess and temple mentioned in Acts 19.
Consider the Elgin Marbles from Parthenon in Athens. Sculpture Luke mentioned in Acts 17. (British Museum)
Consider the Elah Fortress (discovered 2007). Inscriptions found indicate Israelites were literate with books during the days of David and Solomon. (Judean Foothills)
Consider the Politarch Inscription. Luke was correct after all in his use of words Acts 17:6,8. (British Museum Room 78)
Consider the Temple Warning Notice (AD31). An inscription confirms Luke's record in Acts 21:28-29. (Istanbul Museum)
Consider the Stela of Shoshenk I. 'Shishak's' city list on Temple Wall in Karnak. This Egyptian Pharaoh invaded Israel taking cities, plundering the temple. His inscription at Megiddo provides double evidence for 1 Kg.14:25-28. 2 Chr.12:2-12. (Temple Wall Egypt)
Consider the city of Tyre. Its ancient ruins verify Jos.19:29. 2 Sam.5:11, 24:7. 1 Kg.5:1, 7:13-14. 9:11. 1 Chr.14:1, 22:4. 2 Chr.2:3, 11-14. Ezra 3:7 Neh.13:16 Ps.45:12, 83:7 87:4. Isa.23:1-5. Mt.11:21. (Tyre Lebanon) Dozens of other cities and verses can be verified.
Consider the Ancient Lyre's from Ur. It was once claimed the bible was wrong. No Harps existed in the time of Genesis or even in King David' day. These Harps date 1000 years before David, confirming Gen.4:21-22. (Museums London, Baghdad, Pennsylvania)
Consider the Elephantine Papyri (404 BC). Letters and contracts. The Book of Ezra (once denied) is verified. Delaiah, Shelemiah, sons of Sanballat, High Priest Johanan (in Nehemiah) are mentioned. (Brooklyn Museum)
Consider Queen Pu-Abi's Rein Post. Silver Donkey on Chariot rings. This Sumerian decorative harness has iron rings. 1000yrs before the so-called iron age confirming Gen.4:22.
Consider the vast Coal Deposits, billions of Fossils and Flood Legends (worldwide) verify Noah's Flood in Genesis.
Consider Herod's Temple. Its ruins still survive. Dozens of other places and verses can be verified. (Jerusalem)
Consider the Dead Sea Scrolls. Confirming accuracy and preservation of thousands of bible verses.
The Bible has 100% accurate prophecy regarding history and nations. The rebirth of Israel today is an Old Testament fulfillment. Verses which foretold a return to the land after captivity in Babylon/Assyria have come alive since 1948 when Israel was reborn and Jew's returned to their ancient land. Biblical scholar J.N. Darby in 1829 could foretell this rebirth over 100 years before, just by reading the bible (pgs. 141-160. Prophetic No.1 Vol.2. Stow Hill Bible & Tract Depot. Kingston-On-Thames 1829). The Jewish people were the ones to whom the Old Testament was given.
The bible connects to this argument for its rooted in history. It's historical accuracy is far superior to the written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations. The events recorded did not take place secretly "in a corner" (Acts 26:26) but were objective facts of history. The Hebrews were meticulous at keeping records of their kings, even at times in two separate books. While Luke for example, has been described by experts as the greatest historian that ever lived. God maybe not the kind of God we would want to project (surely one would want a more tame person, not so holy or demanding) yet even this verifies the truthfulness of the writers.
Historically every Easter and Christmas point to God existence. Months and years are governed by solar cycles but humanity universally numbers the calendar by a working week. Where did that come from? The 'week' originated from Genesis 1-2. This was the period of time of creation and ever since governed how humanity marks time. It points to God's existence.
This is true, yet the knowledge of a great Almighty God has flourished for centuries without any assistance of a bible or Christianity. Its incorrect to assume man became aware of the God of Genesis only after 'Christian evangelism' or a bible translated into their hands. Its incorrect to assume ancient pagans had no concept of a higher divinity than idols. As Chinese, Roman and Greek records testify - Cicero, (44BC) Lao-tzu, (6th century BC) Hesiod, Plato, Chrysippus and Xenophanes (8th century BC).
Historically many testify God's existence is proven by obeying 'the gospel'. When one truly repents and trusts in Jesus Christ they come to know personally the God that created all things. This conversion experience is more real than any argument for God’s existence that can be made. God gives a new life and heart with new desires and opens the eyes of the understanding. Like one born-blind suddenly seeing colour for the first time. As "new creatures" God’s existence becomes so real to them they are astounded any would deny it.
And so historically the lives of people point to God’s existence. What a person believes impacts on what they do. There should be certain patterns of life change that occur in people. When they do they serve as evidence of the hypothesis which predicts them. God is real because He produces real effects. Multitudes testify to answered prayer and demonstrate changed lives. And willing to live or die in the consolation of their assurance. God's actions in history are central to Christianity and all Christian theology is rooted in history. This sets Christianity apart from all other world religions and validates its truthfulness. It's based on objective events (the bible, history, the resurrection) when one has a basis for predicting certain patterns of life change will occur, this becomes plausible evidence of reality.
Dismissing God as a 'psychological crutch' refutes itself. For what we need usually exists (eg water, air) so if one needs God that also provides some evidence for His existence.
The Christological Argument
Many of the arguments for God's existence only do just that. They don't explain what, or who God is. Until we come to Jesus Christ. Rationalists have tried to bluff people that the story of Jesus is fiction, but no serious historian has ever entertained the view that Jesus never lived at all. He never wrote a book, yet changed the lives of millions and more books are written about Him than anyone in history. This in itself demands attention. Fairytales and imaginary friends rely on our imagination but not the historical Christ. The life of Christ is an historical fact, He is a lawyers delight. The bible provides a huge amount of details, places and names one can check. One of the greatest evidences that God exists is the fact of Jesus Christ. He divides history into BC and AD and central to the whole argument.
Over 300 Old Testament prophesies about Christ came true and were fulfilled in His life time. His life and person are unexplainable if God doesn’t exist. Even those who hold Him in no regard, will take His name in vain.
The claims of Christ are unique compared to the claims of all the religious founders of the world. 'Mohammed didn't claim deity; Buddha was silent about God; Confucius refused to discuss God. And Moses was only a prophet. Only Jesus claimed to be God incarnate.' People have described Him as more than a 'great master'. His enemies said, "Never a man spoke like this man" (Jn.7:46). Those who saw his works "were all completely amazed... saying We have never seen anything like this" (Mk.2:12). He has been the subject of relentless study, His words have been analyzed with endless scrutiny, revealing a flawless character and unselfish nature. But it wasn't just His words, he healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, raised the cripple and the dead, walked on water and spoke to the wind and waves which obeyed.
His miracles were seen and regarded as genuine and authentic. Crowds followed and marveled at His words, miracles and wisdom. All he said and did points to God’s existence. And ancient writings foretold Him and referred to Him as Deity in the flesh. Try to understand God apart from Him results in an incomplete picture of God.
"Except by Jesus Christ we know not what our life is, what our death is, what God is, what we are ourselves. Thus without Scripture, which has only Jesus Christ for its object, we know nothing, and we only see obscurity and confusion in the nature of God and in nature itself" B. Pascal (1623-62)
Jesus said, "no man comes to the Father but by me". For those desiring to know God, He has revealed Himself through His Son. "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him." (Jn.1:18). The key to knowing God, is knowing Christ.
The Bibliological Argument
If there’s an all powerful God, could He not inspire the formation and preservation of at least one book? Why couldn't He reveal Himself in a way and time that pleases Him? Common sense tells us a book accessible and readable is the obvious means of such a revelation. The bible is the most important book ever written. Easily the most influential, with the most beautiful literature and the best moral code ever devised (how inconsistent to reject it in matters history and science yet follow it in morality? Why not include in that rejection all its moral teaching?)
The bible is the key that fits the lock of what we know about ourselves and the universe. Any seriously investigation finds it's claim of divine inspiration (over 3,000 times) justified. There is a Divine and human nature reflected within, with the character and styles of the human authors. Yet there's an influence that is not human and evidence of a higher intelligence who guided its writers. It surpasses other writings in inspiration. Written by over 30 authors in 3 languages and over 1,600 years yet books, chapters, verses, words, dovetail together in patterns and themes with remarkable unity.
One does not need to believe it blindly. There's good and sufficient reasons for knowing it as true. Atheists try to live in the period before the advent of modern archaeology when it was easy to reconstruct bible history with imagination. In the 1800's weird theism flourished. In the early 1900's scholars had little evidence outside the bible for its record. Geographical sites and ancient languages were unknown. Much of the ancient world was shrouded in mystery. That day is gone. Today the bible has been confirmed in its historical data, even in minuscule details. Nowhere can anyone dogmatically assert a statement has been disproved by modern archaeology. The believer has more reasons for believing it as 'God's Word' than the unbeliever's unbelief.
The Dead Sea Scrolls validate the Old Testament (as never before) while the New Testament documents can withstand even closer examination. Today there are thousands of ancient documents can check. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach with similar numbers -
5300 Greek NT manuscripts.
267 uncials (written in capital letters)
2768 minuscule manuscripts (small letters)
2146 Greek lectionaries
81 papyri portions of New Testament text
10,000+ Latin Vulgate MSS.
But even more, 'During the first generation of Christian leaders, referred to as the Church Fathers, we find numerous quotes of the New Testament (NT) from their personal correspondence. Eg, Clement of Alexandria, who lived about AD150-212, has 2,406 quotes from all but three books of the NT. Tertullian, who was an elder of the church in Carthage and who lived around AD 160-220, quotes the NT 7,258 times. Of these quotes, around 3,800 are from the gospels. Other quotes from Church fathers include Justin Martyr, 330 quotes; Irenaeus, 1,819 quotes; Origen, 17,922 quotes, Hippolytus, 1,378 quotes; and Eusebius, 5,176 quotes, making a total of 36,289 quotes of the NT' (Dave Hunt).
There are in fact, 30,000 citations prior to 325 AD in the writings of the Church Fathers. These reveal that if all manuscripts (MSS) of the NT, and all bible versions were destroyed we could reproduce all but 11 verses of the NT. And many large MSS were laboriously engrossed by hand (proving the existence of the originals) and the high regard which they were held. So, when it comes to checking and cross checking the readings of the NT, it is the most historically attested work of the ancient world. And has been subject to closer scrutiny and analysis than any other ancient text. In fact most historians accept the textual accuracy of other ancient works on far less adequate manuscript grounds.
In 1886 scholars could list 767 distinctively NT words with no parallels in any known Greek literature. The list in 1986 was under 50 and today is still shrinking. Today we have less reason then ever before for not believing the bible as accurate. And so while conjectural theories flourished in the 1800's it was only until archaeology developed. Today bible maps have come alive with names and places, while older maps are completely antiquated. In the early 19th century scholars had little evidence for the bible record, today that has totally changed. As far as we know there is not a single historical problem in the NT that has not been solved by archaeology or further study.
A significant aspect of the biblical writings are also the eye witnesses. Particularly the NT, much of it's information is from eyewitnesses. And within the text a tremendous value is placed on eyewitnesses and their testimony.
So it's totally impossible that the bible is a fraud. From a scientific standpoint, irrespective of ones attitude toward the bible, it is impossible now to defend the thesis that the bible is a result of some kind of fabrication. Those who study myth know the earmarks of myth. It cannot survive in the classification of myth and legend. Scholar J.B. Phillips "I have read, in Greek and Latin, scores of myths but I did not find the slightest flavour of myth here". The bible reads like history, not myth. Biblical writers opposed myths and fiction (1 Th.1:4 2 Pe.1:16).
So it's the 'genuine article', it's been closely, carefully and critically examined yet survived with greater dependability. Its accuracy is not waiting to be verified by science, yet it remains open to verification by historical study. In fact, geological research is a slow and devious method when testing the Bible. Science changes, man’s knowledge is limited and men misread facts, yet the Bible has proven true prophetically, geographically and historically. And has not needed constant revision to keep pace with the latest scientific theory. New geological discoveries that reinforce the bible's accuracy of historical events don't get the press coverage as a bone fragment by someone trying to prove the correctness of evolution.
Biblical Exegesis and Hermeneutics.
As with any book, there is a science established for rules of communication. It's not a 'blind faith'. Erroneous interpretations arise when this science is ignored. Usually those who don’t believe the Bible is true, are those who have never studied it. And usually those who don't know much about the Bible, don't know much God. Ignorance of it has caused most of the skepticism concerning it. Yet it solves the question of truth, meaning to life and the problem of man.
It reveals information not provided by any other source of human investigation. Information we would NOT know by any other means. It teaches man is different from animals, it explains why there is sickness, suffering and death. And why man is confused about himself, life, right and wrong. It reminds us who we are and provides answers to the inner most cry of the heart, it strengthens, guides and gives hope.
The writers were eyewitness of events pointing to God's existence which they describe. They had nothing to gain by lying but everything to lose. Hostile eyewitnesses could have checked and refuted. Voltaire, French philosopher said, "Another century and there will not be a Bible on earth" (1694-1778). Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away but my words shall not pass away" (Mt.14:35). Today just the 'Bible Society' alone circulates over 600 million Bibles, in over 1200 languages, in over 60 countries. They alone spend over $100 million on translations per year. So another reason we know God exists is because He has revealed Himself and told us about His character and plans.
The Congruity Argument
The nine previous arguments are in agreement and blend harmoniously. If God doesn’t exist they’re inexplicable. The case for Christian theism does not rest on a particular evidence or argument but the convergence of many. E.g. without the special revelation of the biblical God, the nature of objective morality is nebulous. To know kindness, goodness, virtue, knowledge, wisdom, etc in a Godless universe is somewhat puzzling to say the least. And to hold that non-natural properties exist in an impersonal universe is less reasonable than a universe created by a personal God. If men visit Mars and find a beautiful piece of pottery on the planet, they will conclude intelligent beings created it. Because based on overwhelming evidence and experience the information they have proves the existence of a creator. Information is an abstract representation of something else, it does not arise by chance.
The idea that 'all this talk about God' was produced by a primitive, uneducated arbitrary imagination appears utterly inadequate. Mythology can create stories about gods, but it cannot create the idea of God itself because the idea transcends all the elements of experience which constitute mythology.
The cumulative effect of these arguments establishes the rationality of theistic Christianity. Belief in God’s existence is in harmony with history, mans mental and moral nature, as well as the nature of the material universe. Its the most logical and feasible world view there is. Even if there is uncertainty, the evidence for the proposition is better than the evidence against it. Atheism solves no problems and answers no questions, but God's existence is like a magical key that fits the facts of Scripture, knowledge and science. In some way, a man discovers himself when he discovers God, and he discovers in God something identical with himself. Atheism is unbelievable. It tells a lie and asks us to believe the unbelievable and tells us its true. If we start to discuss truth, it tells us nothing is true, nothing can be known.
Who would believe these words written had no writer? No processor, hands, keyboard or mind. No one put letters and words together just chance. Words came to exist from nothing and fitted themselves perfectly for coherent sentences. After all the issues are considered, the answer is obvious. The fact that there was a writer is axiomatic (self-evident).
Men don't ignore or reject God because science or reason requires, but because they want. "They did not like to retain God in their knowledge..." (Rom.1:19-28) God says, “…when you shall search for me with all your heart…. I will be found of you….” (Jer.29:13-4) Quotes Page.
 Click Here  Click Here  Click Here  Click Here  Click Here
 Click Here  Click Here
 Bronte - a 'genuine atheist'? [2-3] Jason defends atheism.  Prof Lloyd Geering. [5-6] Unbelief.org  'Debunking Christianity" website.
 Click Here  Click Here  Click Here  Click Here  Click Here
[1-5] David is Chair of the Atheist Foundation of Australia.