Does God Exist?
No:
Test of All Knowledge - draw a circle representing all of the knowledge in the universe. Have the person make a dot which represents
the scope of their knowledge. In order to know that God does not exist, someone would have to possess all knowledge, since God could
always exist somewhere beyond the scope of their knowledge and experience.
Meaning and Purpose - Does the person believe that there is any meaning and purpose to life? Apart from a transcendent being, there is
no meaning or purpose. Calvin Miller: “If we begin with a zero and end with a zero, then everything in between is necessarily a zero.”
Maybe:
The Three Laws There are three laws that must be true and without which we can't really even begin searching for Truth; or even know anything about
anything. These three laws must be affirmed by the physicist, astronomer, biologist, historian or anyone else if they that they know
anything about our world and our universe. The three laws are: The Law of Non-Contradiction, The Law of Casualty, and The Basic
Reliability of Sense Perception.
The Law of Non-Contradiction. This law simply says that A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For
example, an elephant cannot be an elephant and not an elephant at the same time. Or a chair cannot be a chair and not a chair. But a chair
can be a chair and blue at the same time. So something can be A and B at the same time and in the same relationship.
The Law of Casualty. All this law says is that every effect has a cause. Let's look at why. What do scientists study? They study effects.
They have to, because you can't know a cause of something until you see the effect. but once you see the effect then you can go back and
try to find or understand the cause. Something else to keep in mind is that every effect can also be thought of as a change.
The Basic Reliability of Sense Perception. What this law is getting at is that we can basically rely on our the truthfulness of our senses.
What we sense basically corresponds to reality. So if we see a truck coming down the street we would never say to ourselves, "Well I'm
not really sure that really is a truck so I'll just walk right out in front of it."
It is impossible to deny any of these laws and still function in life. Nobody's life denies any of these even though they might try to
temporarily deny them with their mouths.
The Cosmological Argument
Here is what the argument is going to try to prove to us: if something exists now, something exists necessarily. What does "exists
necessarily" mean? It means this, that something has the power of being within itself, it is self-existent, eternal, infinite, perfect, the
ultimate source of all things, it is unchanging. Now let's see if this is really true.
What we need to start is only one real object, it can be an atom or a molecule or a pen or a chair or a tree. There are four options as to how
this object, we'll pick a pen, how this pen got here: it is an illusion, it is self-created, it is self-existent, or it was created, ultimately, by
something that is self-existent.
Option 1: Our pen is an
illusion.
Not possible: Law 3
Option 2: Our pen is
self-created.
Not possible: Laws 1
&2
Option 3: Our pen is
self-existent.
Not possible: Law 2
Option 4: Our pen is created by
something that is self-existent.
Only possible option
This Something that created our pen is the Source of all things, the Creator of all things, this Something is infinite, eternal,
perfect, changeless, and personable. This Something is everything we would call God. To argue that the universe is self-created
or self-existent violates the three laws. However, the idea of a self-existent non-material being, does not violate any of the three
laws.
Other evidences for the existence of God:
Design: The existence of order and design points to a creator.
Teleogical: Purpose vs. confusion. Chaos does not produce order... only more chaos. A tornado blowing through an aircraft
factory will not produce a Boeing 747, and more time only reduces the likelihood of anything orderly being produced.
Anthropological: Personality, thought, morality and aesthetics cannot be explained without reference to a creator.
Moral: There is a universal moral law that all people know and follow. In no culture is it a virtue to hurt or kill people for no
cause, to steal from them, or to lie. Why would this be so? It implies a universal moral law that cannot be explained by “chance”
or evolution.
Physical Evidence: The abundance of free hydrogen in the universe; 1 st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics
Ontological: Conception of an idea implies its existence. Eternality, perfection, etc.
Is the Bible Reliable?
1) Do you understand the Bible?
Don’t get on the defensive immediately. Many people who doubt the authority of the Bible have absolutely no idea of what it
teaches. And many have no idea that there is a difference in the way we understand different genre of literature contained in it,
such as poetry, history, prophecy and instruction. Example: It says in Psalm 29 that God makes “makes Lebanon skip like a calf.”
The Bible is not in error because cities do not “skip like calves.” This is clearly a poetic reference! Genre, context and the
authors’ intentions all help us to explain the difficulties that many people have with the Bible.
2) Authenticity
The Bible is a Historically Reliable Document
The Bible was written by 40 different authors from every walk of life, kings peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, statesmen
and scholars. They wrote from different places, at different times, and in different moods. It was written on three continents,
Africa, Asia, and Europe, and in three languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The Bible was written over a period of 1,500
years. Every one of these authors wrote in complete harmony and continuity with one another and were consistent with how they
talked about the redemption of mankind and of God.
Old Testament
There are currently over 25,000 archeological sites that have been identified as dating from Old Testament times. Of the
thousands that have been thoroughly explored and excavated there is not one that refutes anything that the Bible says about a
place or event or a person. The Dead Sea Scrolls. Among the scrolls and fragments was a complete manuscript of Isaiah which
was dated by paleographers to around 125 B.C. This text is virtually the same as the Massoretic text, which was compiled
between 500 B.C. - 900 B.C..
New Testament
In terms of the New Testament, there exists more overwhelming evidence to its accuracy than any other book of the ancient
world.
Caesar
Thucydides
Tacitus
Plato
Homer (Iliad)
N.T.
Date Written
1st Cen. B.C.
5th Cen. B.C.
100 A.D.
5th Cen. B.C.
900 B.C.
49-90 A.D.
Earliest Copy
900 A.D.
900 A.D.
1100 A.D.
900 A.D.
400 B.C.
130 A.D.
Number of Copies
10
8
20
7
643
5,300
Time Between Events and Writing
1000 yrs.
1300 yrs.
1000 yrs.
1300 yrs.
500 yrs.
40 yrs.
These 5,300 manuscripts contain either parts or all of the New Testament. In addition to these manuscripts there are some 10,000
Latin copies of the New Testament written around 400 A.D. and some 350 Syriac/Aramaic copies of the New Testament written
between 150 and 250 A.D.
In comparing the New Testament and Homer's Iliad we find that in the New Testament there are 40 lines (or 400 words) which
are in question as to their authenticity. In the Iliad there are 764 lines in doubt which represents 5% of the text. The New
Testament has only one-half of one percent in question.
The New Testament appeals to eyewitnesses and sets a specific historical stage (Luke 1:1-4; Luke 3:1; Acts 2:22; Acts 26:24-28;
1 Corinthians 15:3-8; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:3).
The New Testament writers included details which would detract from its credibility, not add to it. There is no logical reason to
include material which would cause people to have difficulty with Christianity (women testifying to the resurrection, etc.) unless
these were not historical events.
The New Testament accounts of Jesus began to circulate within the lifetime of those who were alive at the same time He was. All
of the disciples, except John, died for what they believed about Jesus Christ.
The Bible stands up to the most rigorous tests it is subjected to. It is internally consistent, has never been shown to contradict a
known archaeological fact, and is accurate in the thousands of predictive prophecies contained in it. Its preservation over nearly
3 millennia has been shown to be remarkable by comparing manuscript evidence. It stands up to any bibliographical test of
ancient literature far better than any known document of antiquity. Given these facts, the question is not, “How can we know that
the Bible is reliable,” but, “On what possible basis would we doubt that the Bible is reliable?”
If we agree that the Bible is essentially reliable, then we must take seriously its teaching and the claims made by Jesus Christ.
Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good People?
John Stuart Mill:
If God desires there to be evil in the world, then He is not good. If He does not desire there to be
evil, yet evil exists, then He is not omnipotent (all powerful). Thus, if evil exists, God is either not
loving or not all-powerful. Evil casts a shadow over God's love and power. This is no small
dilemma, and answers to it are exceedingly difficult.
A. Where did evil come from?
1. Satan, the father of lies. Isa. 14:12-14
2. Before Satan - did God create evil?
No, but there's really no satisfactory answer
Problem faced by the skeptic is twice as hard - where did good come from?
B.
1.
2.
3.
Who's in charge?
God's sovereignty, vs. Satan's limited, but real, power
God's restraining of evil - why don't more bad things happen?
God does allow evil. He has not chosen not to exercise his final judgement on sin (yet).
C. How does sin figure in to this?
1. What happened in the garden?
2. What were the effects?
Suffering is linked to sin. There was none in the garden, will be none to be in heaven. All of creation is
affected - physical (disease, weather, etc.), spiritual (loneliness, suicide, searching, etc.), interpersonal
(crime, wars, etc.)
3. Bad things are not to be tied to a specific sin, but may be used by God. Also allowed as a discipline.
John 9:1-3, Hebrews 12:5-1, Job
D. The problem of perspective
1. Are there really any "good people?" cf. Luke 13:1-5 The question is not, "why did this happen to them,"
but, "why didn't it happen to you!"
2. What do we really deserve in this life? Certainly not the blessings we receive! Even "bad" people enjoy
God's "common grace."
3. We tend to define what's "right" for God to do, allow, etc. by our perspective alone. Be careful not to be
presumptuous with God! This is a key concept! cf. Job 38-41.
4. Tragedy seems to be purposeless. But we cannot say that it IS purposeless, yet!
5. God did enter into our suffering. Christianity is the only religion in which God experiences the same pain
that we do. God shares our frustration.
E. How do we deal with evil in the world?
1. 4 secular approaches
a) illusion, denial (Christian Science); b) passive acceptance (fatalism)
c) hedonism, escape (drugs and alcohol); d) existentialism (reckless abandon)
2. Christian approach a. Strive for good, resist evil. Pray for healing, peace. Evil is not inevitable nor pleasing to God.
b. Ask the right questions - How can God use this? What can I learn? How might I be used in this
situation?
c. Grief is not an ungodly response. Mourn with those who mourn. Romans 12:15, Ecl. 3:1-9, Matt. 5:4,
John 11:32-35
d. Express your feelings to God and ask for His comfort. Psalms 13:1-3, 2 Cor. 1:3-5
e. Keep your perspective - God is not absent from the situation, but is in charge.
f. Don't become bitter. Allow God to use the situation to draw you closer to him and teach you something
from it. James 1:2-4
Following are objections that are raised regarding Christianity’s claim to be the
only way to God:
1) All major religions are equally valid, produce much wisdom and happiness, and basically
teach the same thing.
Yes, many of them do produce happiness. No they are not basically the same!
Pluralism asks religions to remake themselves in the image of religious pluralism. It
claims “tolerance” but only after it asks religions to divest themselves of anything
exclusive about their beliefs and practices. Pluralism refuses to acknowledge the
diversity of religions, often in the name of promoting diversity! So, pluralism is actually a
new religion, and an intolerant one at that!
2) Lots of good and intelligent people differ with the Christian viewpoint, so it is arrogant to
claim that Christian beliefs are the only true ones.
Yes lots of good an intelligent people differ. And arrogance is rife within XTY. But
arrogance does not invalidate a truth claim. If you invent a cure for cancer and are
arrogant in promoting it, it does not invalidate your work. Moreover, to hold that it is
arrogant to persuade others of your views on religion, then why is the pluralist not being
arrogant to dissuade others from holding exclusivist views? The pluralist is doing the
same thing he is forbidding, and at the very moment that he forbids it.
3) You can’t hold people responsible for rejecting Jesus when they have never heard of
him.
We need to concede that we do not know everything that God knows. We can only do
and say what God seems to have clearly told us to do and say, which is to tell people that
the only way to God is through a personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ.
4) Nobody can know whose religion is true, so Christianity can’t claim it is the only way.
See elephant and mountain illustrations. In order to say this, you would have to know
everything there is to know about religions and truth. Otherwise you would not be able to
say that you cannot know whose religion is true.
5) Pluralism and tolerance are the critical ethical values, therefore religions which cannot
support these by making exclusivist claims must be flawed.
Pluralism and tolerance are only critical values in certain societies, mostly Western. In
many other cultures they are not seen as the highest values. Therefore, in the name of
pluralism and tolerance, proponents are often unwittingly being intolerant and culturally
regressive.
Steven Carter wrote:
Efforts to craft a public square from which religious conversation is absent, no matter how thoughtfully worked
out, will always, in the end, say to those of organized religion that they alone, unlike everyone else, must enter
public dialogue only after leaving behind that part of themselves that they may consider most vital.
Is Jesus the Only Way to God?
First, this discussion assumes the existence of heaven, or a way to a real God. This is not a great
assumption today, but our only other option is to start with another whole discussion - does God exist.
Challenging point #1: If you don’t believe in Jesus, then either:
1) everyone gets into heaven, or
2) good works must be enough.
Let’s look at these alternatives:
1) Everyone gets into heaven.
Hitler? Stalin? Muhammad Atta? Child killers? Perhaps, but not a tasteful idea to most people. If this
were true, why have any standards at all? In fact, we might fairly say that you’re smart to grab all you
can, kill, steal, etc. because you will gain by hurting people here and still be rewarded in eternity!
2) Good works must be enough.
Good works would include faithful devotion to one’s religion, charitable works, etc.
*If good works are the criterion, then God accepts people based on performance. Somewhere there is
a cut-off point unless you subscribe to #1 above. And that is quite exclusive! The good are in, the bad
are out. What if you were born into an abusive family? What chance do you have of being good? It’s
not fair.
Christianity is the only religion that does not claim that the good are in and the bad are out. In that
sense, it is the ONLY religion that is not exclusive. EVERYONE has an opportunity and everyone may
be accepted, even the worst of people. That’s far from exclusive. If God Himself paid our penalty, then
how may we regard Him as exclusive?
Challenging point #2: “How can you say that your way is right and everyone else is wrong?” But in
asking the question, you are doing the same thing only worse.
Are all religions like blind men describing an elephant - each one sensing only part of the elephant but
not seeing the whole truth? Or people trying to climb a mountain, each taking separate paths but
reaching the same summit?
The only way you could tell these parables is if YOU could see the whole elephant or if YOU could see
the summit. Otherwise you simply do not have enough information to know whether or not these folks
are indeed washing an elephant or climbing the same mountain!
In other words, you are saying, “My relativistic way is right, and you are wrong.” Your position assumes
greater spiritual knowledge than all of the world’s religions. Very exclusive indeed! People’s offense is
that you claim you can know or do know truth. They are making the same claim. At least Christians are
honest about their exclusivism!
First Key Question: Has God not done enough?
Many people who ask this question are doing so because they feel that God is somehow
“narrowminded” or “too exclusive” of people who reject Christ. It is useful for us to put
ourselves in God’s place for a moment before we deal with this question. Consider this:
1) Despite being only a created being, mankind has rejected God’s gracious provision,
rebelled against his authority, and disobeyed His commands (Genesis 3)
2) Mankind rejected God’s law, did not appreciate His deliverance from trouble and
oppressors, and killed the many prophets and teachers that God sent over thousands of
years. (Neh 9:5-35)
3) Mankind did not receive Jesus or his teaching, but instead mocked and crucified him.
(Mark 15:1-15)
4) Despite all of this, God raised Jesus from the dead and still offers mercy, forgiveness
and abundant life. Can it be said that God is exclusive or narrowminded because he
requires faith in his Son? Can it be said that God has not done enough, and that it is
unfair of him to regard our belief in other religions as idolatry?
Second Key Question: Can you or I speak for God?
Do not put yourself in the place of God. As Christians we can only testify to what we have
seen and heard. We do not judge people’s hearts. Be careful to let Scripture speak for
itself, and do not have a judging attitude!
Third Key Question: Does the Bible speak to and explain people’s insistence on
other religions?
Yes, it most certainly does. Check out Romans 1:18-25, Isaiah 44, and John 3:16-21
Romans 1 talks about idolatry as rebellion - a need to worship something because we are
naturally religious, but rejecting what we know to be true.
Isaiah 44 is great - very facetious. It talks about the ridiculousness of worshipping an idol
of our own construction. Religions are similar to this in that they are human constructs.
John 3 suggests that there is a moral repulsion against coming into the light of truth.
People even say, “The god I believe in...” as if they’d created Him! That’s religion.
What is the nature of revelation? This discussion leads us to the authority of Scripture
and the question of “how do you know what you know?” There are other sacred texts, to
be sure. How do we know that we can trust God’s revelation in Scripture? Another issue,
but a key one!
All religions are basically the same. They only disagree on: Whether or not God
exists; The nature of the God who may or may not exist; Whether mankind is flawed,
damaged, or unenlightened; The existence of truth; The pathway to holiness; The
possibility of life after death; How to please God; The identity of every religious leader;
How to treat those who don’t believe like you do; The road to spiritual liberation; Ultimate
reality; The nature of revelation; Ethics
Recommended Readings in Apologetics
Every Thought Captive, by Richard Pratt
(This one is a “presuppositional apologetic, not a
“classical” apologetic like the others on this list. Excellent reading.)
*Reason for God, Tim Keller
*More than a Carpenter, Josh McDowell
*A Ready Defense, Josh McDowell
*Evidence that Demands a Verdict & More Evidence that Demands a Verdict,
Josh McDowell
*Reason to Believe, R.C. Sproul
*Who Moved the Stone?, Frank Morison
*Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson
*Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis
*Can Man Live Without God?, Ravi Zacharias
*The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel
Surprised by Suffering, If There's a God why are There Atheists?, R. C. Sproul
The Problem of Pain, The Case for Christianity, C.S. Lewis
Philosophy and the Christian Faith, Colin Brown
Why Should Anyone Believe Anything at All?, James Sire
The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, F.F. Bruce
Classical Apologetics, Sproul, Gestner, Lindsley
Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Kreeft & Tacelli
When Skeptics Ask, Norman Geisler & Ronald Brooks
Socrates Meets Jesus, Peter Kreeft
Give Me an Answer, Moody
The Canon of Scripture, F.F. Bruce
Know Why you Believe, & Know What you Believe, both by Paul Little