5 Reasons

Why I Still Believe in God

by Randall Stewart

To

Clarence and Mary Lou Stewart

my parents

who taught me that God exists

and lived as if He does

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD by Dr. Richard C. Wells

INTRODUCTION

FIRST STEPS (Days 1-12)

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (Days 13-28)

ARGUMENT FROM FAIRNESS (Days 29-37)

ARGUMENT FROM SUPERNATURAL BELIEF (Days 38-45)

ARGUMENT FROM HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS (Days 46-51)

ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL TESTIMONY (Days 52-55)

CLOSING STEPS (Days 56-60)

AFTERWORD

ENDNOTES

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF QUOTATIONS

FOREWORD

In his well-known autobiography Surprised by Joy, C. S. Lewis relates that before he experienced conversion to Christian faith, he experienced conversion of another sort, a more radical sort actually—he became convinced of the existence of God. He became, in short, a theist, rather than an atheist (which he pretended for a while to be) or an agnostic (a position he found more defensible intellectually, but no more satisfying).

Lewis resisted this conversion to theism, not least because he realized that, alas, if it were really true, that if anything like the God of the Christians really existed, then his life would change forever. “Amiable agnostics will talk cheerfully about ‘man’s search for God,’” Lewis recalled, but “to me, as I then was, they might as well have talked about the mouse’s search for the cat.”1

Lewis’ experience perhaps explains why philosophers and theologians over the centuries have spilt so much ink on arguments for and against the existence of God. God certainly has more to do than merely to exist, as George MacDonald somewhere said, but if such a Being does exist, the implications are immeasurably immense. Anyone might glibly answer a pollster’s question about belief in God—ninety percent plus of Americans say “yes” every year—but no one can truly confront the reality that (as Francis Schaeffer phrased it) “He is there,” and take it lightly.

For that very reason, Dr. Randy Stewart’s 5 Reasons is, in a manner of speaking, dangerous. Like the scholars, Dr. Stewart has examined, thoroughly examined, the evidences for belief in God. But more importantly, like Lewis, he has come to grips with the disturbing consequences of believing—or not believing. And now, most disturbingly, he invites you to come to grips with God yourself. He is your guide through the “whether” of God’s existence, and he is your companion through the “so what?”

As to the “whether,” Dr. Stewart is a skillful guide indeed. He presents complex ideas in easily digestible form. His writing proves the point of Professor Stephen Evans, whom he quotes (Day 12), that “Belief in God is genuinely coherent with all we know about ourselves and our universe.”

As to the “so what?,” Dr. Stewart has passed this “dangerous” road himself and found that it leads at last to a heavenly court. It may feel in the beginning like “the mouse’s search for the cat,” but it ends in a room full of Brie.

A thousand years before Jesus Christ, and three thousand before C. S. Lewis or Randy Stewart, King David declared, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Ps. 14.1).  If God is there, and we deny Him, we are fools. But what should we call ourselves if we never bother to ask the question?

C. Richard Wells – past president and professor of Pastoral Theology at The Criswell College in Dallas, Texas.

1C.S. Lewis, Inspired by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1955), 227

INTRODUCTION

Why would a physician write about the existence of God, and why should I read what he says? These are the first questions that may enter your mind when you preview this book, and they are the questions I want to address in this introduction.

I was a "seminary baby," born in 1956 in Louisville, Kentucky while my father was preparing for the pastorate. It is not an exaggeration to say that my formative years revolved around the church and that I developed at an early age an appetite for all things religious. Before I could read or write, I could sing all the familiar hymns by memory, even the oft-ignored third verses. I can remember reciting in order the sixty-six books of the Bible before I could name the fifty states. I would read children's Bible story collections from cover to cover, then read them over again. By the age of seven, I knew enough about the Christian faith to realize my need for repentance and conversion. I became a Christian then (to this day, I have no doubt that I knew what I was doing) and was baptized into the fellowship of the Church.

Unlike many of my peers, my teenage years were marked by obedience to my parents. I never did "sow my wild oats," electing instead to keep my life pretty much "between the white lines." All the while I kept accumulating knowledge—all of it in a conservative, Southern Baptist format—about God and the Bible. By the time I graduated from high school, I can honestly say that I knew more Bible facts than any person I had met who was my age and more than most who were several years my senior.

It is not surprising, then, that I left home for college in 1974 fully intending to become the fifth minister to dot the family tree. I quickly declared religion as my major, to which I later added history as a second major. My beliefs at the time of my enrollment were largely a reflection of my exposure as a child. I believed in God almost as a reflex, never entertaining the possibility He might not exist. My view of the Bible was typical of most mainstream Southern Baptists—conservative, without any trace of leftward leanings. As is true of many conservatives, I knew what I believed and never questioned why I believed it. Unaware of its shaky subjective foundation, I considered my faith to be rock-solid.

This all changed the fall of my sophomore year. It was then I became aware of a galaxy of thought much different than my own. I studied in one class history's greatest philosophers, many of them atheists, and found their incessant questions about life and God unsettling. In another class I read the works of theologians whose views of the Bible tilted in a moderate-to-liberal direction. I listened to fellow students, most of them upperclassmen, who in typical cocksure fashion poked fun at anyone within the narrow confines of traditional belief. To say the least, it was a time of soul-searching, the first time I remember doubt and my faith mentioned in the same breath.

I am not implying that all I experienced that sophomore year was negative. In fact, I embrace today many views about God and the Bible that were introduced to me then. The problem for me was not so much that I faced new ideas but that they were thrust upon me in a short period of time in such volume. Much like a novice rider on a powerful motorcycle, I was being asked to control more than I could safely handle. As would be expected, given the implications, the arguments I heard against God's existence troubled me the most. The men and women espousing them seemed to be so educated and so passionate in their defenses. They appeared to have so much to say and could say it with certainty and flare. I, on the other hand, had no immediate answers. My college professors helped a great deal by presenting counterarguments to the atheists, but these rebuttals were new to me and not yet internalized by me. It would take a while—years, in fact—for them to take root. All the while my ship of faith, continuously rocked by waves of doubt, began to show signs of wear and tear.

While this intellectual struggle raged within me, I continued on a practical level to live as if God's existence were certain. No one who observed me on a casual basis would have imagined me to be in any degree of perplexity. Only my closest college friends, with whom I shared my questions and doubts, knew what was going on. They knew the rest of the story, that I was being forced to reevaluate everything I had been told as a child and had accepted "hook, line, and sinker." Such second-hand, subjective belief was no longer enough for me. I needed an objective foundation for my faith and began to search in earnest for it.

This curious mixture of faith and doubt colored all the major decisions I made in the next few years. If someone had looked close enough for long enough, my internal dichotomy would have been evident. I finished my studies in religion and history, graduated with honors from college, visited seminary as a prospective student, then shunned the ministry in favor of the pursuit of medicine. In light of my wavering theology, I envisioned some difficulties in the future standing before a congregation whose basic beliefs were different and, worse yet, more secure than my own. I began to feel out of step with my denomination, and I feared covert or open reprisals from the convention hierarchy if my convictions turned out to be too "unconventional." So I opted for pre-medical instead of pre-ministerial studies, medical school instead of seminary, a Doctor of Medicine instead of a Doctor of Ministry degree. And I remained the consummate paradox, serving as minister of music at a small suburban church to help pay medical school expenses in an attempt to avoid the ministry altogether.

As is so often true in times of theological upheaval, subtle cracks began to form in my character. My moral fiber began to have frayed edges, as slowly and almost imperceptibly the relativism of the day pervaded my thoughts and actions. The lines separating right and wrong became blurred, which produced in me something good (a tolerance of others that I sorely lacked in my conservative days) and something not so good (a tendency to rationalize my behavior). Gradually I saw key relationships in my life deteriorate due to neglect or injury on my part. I was not as moral on the outside as I once was, even less so on the inside. Although stopping shy of outright rebellion against the morality of my youth, I detoured enough that those closest to me could notice the change and enough that I could consider myself to be every bit of the hypocrite.

Fortunately, I never gave up on faith. I kept searching for answers to my questions. As time would allow, I read the theological works of some of the greatest believers, past and present. I understood most of their arguments and, after rejecting a few that seemed to me a little strained, accepted the majority as true. I listened to their brilliant analogies and illustrations, internalized them, and added to them some of my own. In time I found myself solidly in their camp, not just because of pedigree or emotion but because of objectivity and reason. I came to fully believe in God once again because I discovered that the universe in which I lived made the most sense if He existed. I maintain that same faith today, a faith that has met doubt head-on and, while not eliminating it entirely, has rendered it meaningless. Although my belief in God may not be as dogmatic as in my youth, it is a conviction with deeper roots and is today a source of genuine happiness and peace.

What you are about to read is a summary of my reasons to believe. To those of you who possess nagging doubts about the existence of God, I extend to you an invitation to join me on a sixty-day sojourn. Atheists and never-a-doubt believers are also encouraged to come along. I will serve as your guide as we ascend the slope of God's existence. I will tell you why I believe in God and will try to do so in a way that is sensitive to everyone in our group. I realize that I may at times seem a little hard on the atheists among us, but this is inevitable if my task is to show why I believe they are mistaken. If the setting were different, I am confident we would be able to enjoy each other's company and earn each other's respect.

My purpose, then, is to present an old concept—the existence of God—in fresh and understandable light. My prayer is that you will acknowledge and, better yet, embrace Him. To this end, I encourage you to meet me tomorrow to begin our travels. Our time of departure is at hand.

FIRST STEPS

Days 1-12

Day 1 – the universal starting point

If we refuse to discuss the existence of God, we are simply avoiding the central issue.  –ELTON TRUEBLOOD

The first leg of each of our religious journeys is the existence of God. No matter how far our paths may later diverge, our initial steps are the same. We first must decide in our hearts and minds whether or not “He is there.”

Most people throughout history have come to the conclusion that God does exist. Some have restricted their worship to one deity, as seen in the three great monotheistic faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Others have embraced a plethora of gods, Hindu polytheism being a prime example. Regardless, all religions have as their common denominator a belief in some type of divine being. A religion without a god would be as meaningless and impossible as a water molecule without hydrogen. A godless religion is no religion at all.

Our answer to the question of God’s existence is thus the first fork in the road. If we say “yes”, we head in one direction. If we say “no”, we travel a different path, one that leads quickly to a dead end. It is a waste of time to continue a religious journey without a belief in God.1

Day 2 – religion and atheism contrasted

I am an atheist and this means at least: I do not believe there is a god, or any gods, personal or in nature, or manifesting himself, herself, or itself in any way.  –MADALYN MURRAY O'HAIR

Some people argue that atheism is as much a religion as all the others. Here I beg to differ. Every religion consists of men and women who believe in a divine being (or group of beings) and who do so to a point that influences their day-to-day activities. Atheists, on the other hand, do not look to any divine source for truth. They believe no spiritual dimension exists that can affect their lives on a daily basis. For this reason, atheism is not a religion. In fact, just the opposite is true. It is anti-religion, life lived without a divine impulse.

I am aware that some people define religion in such a way that atheism is included therein. They view religion as any system of beliefs, any worldview. I limit it to those belief systems that include the worship of God or the supernatural. This is why I do not consider atheism a religion. Inside its shell of beliefs it has no spiritual core. It is, admittedly, a belief system, but it is one that is separate from and antithetical to religion itself.1

Day 3 – advantage #1 of God’s existence: life after death

The Dogma of Atheism: There is no God. There is no objective truth. There is no ground for reason. There are no absolute morals. There is no ultimate value. There is no ultimate meaning. There is no eternal hope.  –STEVE KUMAR

It matters much whether a person believes in the existence of God. If there were no God, reality would be confined entirely to the natural world. There would be nothing supernatural—or, described more accurately, supra-natural—to acknowledge or with which to interact. Our lives in such a godless universe would arise from nature and be reabsorbed into nature, much like drops of rain are recollected into the ocean. There would be no afterlife, in the sense most of us tend to think of it, only a recycling of our chemical elements at death. We would live on only through the legacy we leave behind. In contrast, God’s existence opens wide the possibility of life beyond the grave.

This is no small matter. If you doubt its importance, ask one hundred people on death's doorstep whether they wish to continue as an individual or be absorbed into nature. It would be the rare person who would choose the latter. Then ask one hundred mothers and fathers whose children have died before them if it matters whether or not they will someday interact with their son or daughter in a personal way. I cannot fathom one parent who would not immediately and joyously embrace the prospect of such a reunion.

In short, life after death is not conceivable to the atheist. God’s existence alone permits this blessed hope.1

Day 4 – advantage #2 of God’s existence: ultimate justice

My father and mother were deeply religious. My brother and I had no time for religion… Then my brother was killed. My father and mother had resources, and with their resources they could meet that shattering loss. But I had no one. I had no resources at all.  –ROBERT J. DEAN

Every person on earth, it seems, has a sense of justice. If we play a board game, we want it to be played fairly. If we seek a promotion, we want equitable treatment. If the game or the hiring isn't fair, something innately recoils within us, something that desires the wrong to be made right.

What is so frustrating is that all of us, so universally bent on fairness, live in a world that seems so unfair. Hear the psalmist, complaining to God that the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper.1 Listen to Job, demanding a day in court with God to address his undeserved treatment.2 Recall the words of Jesus, asking "why?" as he hung in torture on the cross.3 They are professing what we all know to be true—the world is often an unfair place with no guarantee that justice will prevail.

This is the final conclusion of atheism, the end of the story. When the universe seems unfair, it advises us to resign ourselves to this pessimism and move ahead. It asks us to quit looking for justice, for justice does not exist in a universe without God.4

Belief in God, however, opens the door to justice (in this life or the life beyond), because it asserts there is more to the universe than nature alone. If God values justice, it assures us we have every reason to hope that justice will someday come.

Day 5 – advantages #3 and #4: morality and purpose

If God does not exist, we find no values or commands to turn to which legitimize our conduct.  –JEAN-PAUL SARTRE

Theologians often mention two additional advantages of God’s existence. The first is that it gives us moral absolutes, and the second is that it grants us individual and community purpose. The universe of the atheist, in sharp contrast, is forever amoral and purposeless.

While I understand these advantages and agree with them, they are not as helpful to me as the two I have already proposed. If I were an atheist, I can imagine myself living what appears to be a "moral" life. Whether I did so because of natural instincts or social practicality, I can see myself behaving as a fairly decent individual, appearing in every respect to be "moral" and "upright." I also can easily imagine, even if I believed in a purposeless world, having what appears to be a worthy purpose or goal for my life. I think I would want to live in a manner that would positively impact those around me and secure for myself a meaningful legacy. If this is not purpose, it's something close to it.

Thus, while only a belief in God yields absolute morality and true purpose, atheism permits at least the appearance of a moral and purposeful life. This is why these last two advantages of God’s existence do not resonate with me as loudly as the others. Life after death and ultimate justice, however, are different matters. Here the atheist has nothing at all to offer and the believer everything. On these two points an honest atheist must concede total advantage.

Day 6 – the task before us

No fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling can preserve an individual life beyond the grave… all the labour of the ages, all the devotion, all inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genious, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system… the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins.  –agnostic BERTRAND RUSSELL

The atheist, therefore, cannot conceive of life after death, nor can he hope for all things unjust to be made right. Only the believer embraces these possibilities. Such faith is worthless, however, if the atheist is right and the believer wrong about the existence of God. If the atheist is right, then life after death and ultimate justice are mirages. Only if the atheist is wrong—if God, indeed, does exist—can you or I consider living beyond death and seeing justice prevail.

God's existence, then, is the first hurdle we must leap in our religious quest. Only then can we determine if we have reason to hope at all. Only then, when we truly believe He does exist, can we begin to look at His character. Only after perceiving His character can we begin to see whether or not our hopes are in vain.

The task before us can be simply stated: we must first examine the existence of God to see if eternal hope is possible and, if so confirmed, must then examine His nature to see if this hope is reasonable.1

Day 7 – God’s existence: the two possibilities

The question whether there is or is not a god can and should be rewarding, in that it can yield definite results.  –J. L. MACKIE

God exists or does not exist; there are no other possibilities.

The theist asserts that the former is true, that there is a supernatural, divine force behind the universe. The atheist believes the latter, that there is no God and that any such notion is but a myth.

That only one of these is correct can be surmised by common sense. If God exists, then the atheist cannot be right to any degree. If the atheist is right, the theist is 100% wrong. There is no middle ground. Even the agnostic, who cannot decide if God exists, would agree that one is true and the other false.

Regarding the reality of God, therefore, our discussion is limited to two possibilities: either God exists or He does not.1

Day 8 – the limitations of theological arguments

I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God.  –BERTRAND RUSSELL

Theists will never be able to prove God's existence, if by "proof" we mean evidence beyond any doubt. Their arguments may be reasonable but will never be absolute. Their logic may be compelling and sensible but will always end shy of certainty, leaving faith (based on the evidence at hand) as the final bridge to belief.

The flip side is that atheists cannot prove their position either. They, too, use rational arguments to support their beliefs, but these likewise yield an inevitable degree of dubiety. They do not possess a monopoly on certainty any more than the theists.

In short, neither the theist nor the atheist can prove beyond any doubt that God exists or does not.1

Day 9 – the impracticality of agnosticism

The conclusion we reach in our reflection on this question [Does God exist?] has the most momentous consequences in the orientation of our thinking and of our daily living.  –EDWARD SILLEM

If neither theists nor atheists can absolutely defend their positions, shouldn't we accept this and resign ourselves to agnosticism? Shouldn't we begin to live as if it's impossible to know if God exists? Wouldn't that be the most practical solution? My answer is "no," and let me try to explain why.

Intellectually, I have to agree that there is some truth to this line of thinking. If I am honest, I must admit as a theist that I have fallen short of proving God exists. I may be 90% sure intellectually, but that leaves 10% doubt. The honest atheist would admit the same, that there lurks in his or her mind a degree of uncertainty unreachable by logical arguments. I guess you could say, intellectually speaking, that both the theist and the atheist have a little bit of the agnostic in them and will always have.

That would be the end of the whole matter if we lived in a world strictly intellectual, one confined to our thoughts alone. This, of course, is not the case. Our existence consists of action as well as thought, and this very activity makes it impossible to embrace agnosticism as a practical alternative. It would be maddening, in fact, to conduct my life consistent with my intellectual dichotomy. I would be inconsistent at best if I determined to spend 90% of my waking hours as if God existed and 10% as if He didn't. The atheist would have the same problem if 10% of his or her actions turned out to be religious. Such an existence would be unacceptable to all and would be decried as the height of hypocrisy.

My point here is that agnosticism, although in some respects the only intellectual alternative, cannot be lived in practice. In fact, it amounts to practical nonsense. The sensible thing for the agnostic would be to weigh his or her doubts in the balance, pick the most likely intellectual position, and then live as if that position were 100% correct. It would be best if he or she would become a practicing theist or atheist. But then, on a practical level, he or she would cease to be an agnostic altogether.

Such is the problem with agnosticism. It is intellectually acceptable but pragmatically infeasible. It is a mental exercise with little or no practical value.

Day 10 – the impracticality of agnosticism (II)

Those who believe they believe in God but without passion in the heart, without anguish of mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, and even at times without despair, believe only in the idea of God, and not in God Himself.  –MADELEINE L'ENGLE

An illustration may serve to drive home the problem with agnosticism.

Suppose a seven-year-old girl arrives home from school and reports that her teacher has questioned her belief in a moon made of cheese. When asked by her father what she believes now, she replies, "I'm not sure. I'm just confused about the whole thing.” It would be possible for the girl to hold these opposing thoughts in her mind for some time without a charge of inconsistency being leveled at her, because she does not have to act upon either of them. Not one of her daily activities is influenced by her position on the cholesterol content of the moon. To her, this is 100% an intellectual dilemma. It has 0% practical value.

Suppose she returns the next day saying her teacher does not believe in a real Santa Claus, and she again tells her father she has not yet made up her mind. Now the situation is different, for she has some decisions to make when Christmas rolls around. She must make a choice to write a letter to Santa Claus as if she is 100% convinced he exists or to refrain from writing as if she is certain he does not. Likewise, she must decide whether or not to sit in his lap and make her requests. She may leave him milk and cookies or decline to do so; she cannot do both. Because her belief in Santa Claus affects her on a practical as well as an intellectual level, she is forced to make a choice between the two at every step she takes. It is impossible for her in any activity to remain on the fence. She may, because she is confused, act one day as if Santa Claus is coming and one day as if he is not, and we may smile and write this off as part of a learning process that will end at the truth. None of us, however, will think it funny if she acts the same way twenty years later. We would expect her by then to decide which is true and to act, even if she has some lingering doubts, as if she's right.

Belief in the existence of God is similar to the second example. It is not like the girl's belief in a moon of cheese, a purely intellectual concept. It is more like the girl's belief in Santa Claus, an intellectual concept with practical implications. Every day we must decide whether or not God exists. No matter if we are 20% shy of certainty, we are forced in our individual actions to declare ourselves solidly in one camp or the other. We may be indecisive and inconsistent for a while, but within a reasonable time we should practice one or the other exclusively, even if our percentage of certainty remains unchanged.

For anyone to remain an agnostic for long is the height of impracticality. Eventually a decision must be made one way or the other. Then, and only then, can a life of meaningful activity begin.

Day 11 – the impracticality of agnosticism (III)

If God does not exist, then life is futile. If the God of the Bible does exist, then life is meaningful… Therefore, it seems to me that even if the evidence for these two options were absolutely equal, a rational person ought to choose Biblical Christianity.  –WILLIAM LANE CRAIG

Given the impracticality of agnosticism, it would seem the prudent course to remain a professing agnostic for as little time as possible. Admittedly, it is not uncommon to spend some time as an agnostic while sorting out the evidence for and against God's existence. After such a sorting has been made, however, it does not behoove the seeker to tarry there any longer. The time has arrived to stop balancing on the fence railing and leap to one side of the pasture. The time has come to begin to exist as either a theist or an atheist.

The agnostic, of course, must make this leap based on evidence that is less than certain. But to choose one side or the other he must do, for to remain on the fence railing forever is lunacy. For one thing, nothing ever gets accomplished while straddling the fence. The work is done and the harvest gathered in the field. Secondly, it is impossible to stay on the fence 100% of the time. Every now and then a fence-straddler loses his balance and falls to the ground, sometimes into one field and sometimes into the other. He appears quite pitiful to workers on either side as he goes through his cycles: falling to one side, climbing back on the railing, then falling again to one side or the other. At one moment he seems to be a theist but later, when he plunges to the other side, an atheist. His existence serves no practical purpose whatsoever.

The agnostic, therefore, must make a decision and move away from the fence into one of the two fields. Only there can he have a meaningful existence. Only there will his life begin to make sense. Even there he can gaze occasionally at the laborers on the other side and, if the work yonder begins to seem more attractive, proceed to that field to work a while. You can rest assured, however, that in due time one side or the other will become his permanent home. That is how real life works, isn't it? We make choices, act upon them, reevaluate them, and finalize them through trial and error in the fields of life. Nothing is accomplished if nothing is chosen.1

Day 12 – an objective foundation

Belief in God is genuinely coherent with all we know about ourselves and our universe.  –C. STEPHEN EVANS

There is a common misconception about faith in God that needs to be dispelled now and forever. Many people think that anyone who believes in God does so entirely from a subjective standpoint. They think theists have no objective reasons to believe. They assume there are no rational arguments to support the existence of God. They are wrong.

Now there are many reasons to believe in God, and several of these so happen to be subjective. A person may say, "I believe there is a God because something inside me says He exists." Or he or she may say, "I believe because it just feels right." Such subjectivity is present in all theists, including me. But this is not the whole story. Rational arguments and concrete evidence are also at hand to assist me and others toward faith in God. It is important that we acknowledge and embrace this objective dimension, for it is the supporting foundation upon which subjectivity rests. Subjectivity alone carries little weight. Resting on a firm objective foundation, it can be quite compelling.

The Bible (in the New Testament book of Hebrews) defines faith as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." The substance and evidence are objective, not subjective. Faith, then, is not mindless any more than it is emotionless. It includes intellect and feelings, evidence as well as hearsay. As I convey to you in the following pages my reasons for believing in God, you will encounter both. I will give you objective reasons why I believe, rational arguments that compel me to believe. These are not my original arguments but are the classic "proofs of God" handed down to us over several hundred years by thinking men and women. I will try to present these so that they can be understood by all. In addition, I will include in my case for God's existence some subjective reasons to believe. These, I predict, will be encouraging to any reader who is a theist and disquieting to anyone who is an atheist. They will be so, however, only after the objective dimension has been explored. The foundation of the building must be laid first.

ARGUMENT

FROM

DESIGN

Days 13-28

Day 13 – the design of the universe

In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anyone could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback… Now it is more respectable among philosophers than it has been for a generation to talk about the possibility of God's existence.  –Time ("Modernizing the Case for God")

We don't have to travel far to begin our argument for God's existence. All it takes is a nature walk. Come with me outdoors and observe the natural world. Let’s start early in the morning when dew is on the ground and end at midnight when stars are in the sky. Everywhere we look, we encounter evidence of organization and design. We see magnificent trees, appropriate for the season of the year. We watch birds, ants, and squirrels go about their daily activities. We marvel at the beautiful symmetry of rainbows, spider webs, and daffodils. In the light of day, we bask in the sun's glow and observe its steady westward course through the sky. At nightfall, we gaze at the stars in their galaxies and the moon in its predictable phase. We return from our walk and fall quickly to sleep, our intricate involuntary nervous systems keeping us alive without our input. When we arise the next day and gaze out our bedroom window, we are more fascinated than ever before with the natural world around us.

Having made such a journey together, can we agree that the universe in which we live gives evidence of organization and design? Do you perceive with me order in the world and find it easy to do so? Doesn't it seem the height of folly to look at nature and deny such design? If you still have any doubts (which is unlikely), spend a few seconds thinking about each of the following: a rose, gravity, the human heart, autumn, tides, comets, childbirth, the eye, a diamond, breathing, sleep, a butterfly, the atom, the harvest. After this period of contemplation, you should be convinced that there is order, structure, and design in the world.

Day 14 – the design-designer relationship

I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.  –DAVID HUME

Now take a stroll with me down the streets of a small town. In doing so, we have traded the glory of nature, seen yesterday, for the marvels of commerce. As we proceed down Main Street, we pause briefly at its various businesses and window-shop. In several of the stores we make purchases and by the end of the day carry home with us the following items: a pocket watch, a dollhouse, a bicycle, a radio, and some fudge-nut brownies. We place these items on display inside our home and notice they have two things in common: (1) each has a design; and (2) each has a designer. You and I may not have seen these designers in town today, but this in no way makes us doubt they exist. We know that somewhere there is a watchmaker, a dollhouse builder, a bicycle manufacturer, a radio constructor, and a sweet-toothed baker. Our intuition tells us these people exist. In fact, we would argue with anyone who entered our house and told us they did not. The presence of design in these purchased items screams to us that there has to be a designer behind each.

This commonsense principle can be stated thusly: evidence of design demands the existence of a designer. It is a principle I find easy to grasp. It has the ring of truth to it. We must keep it in mind tomorrow when we take our third trip together, this time a sunset walk along a beach.

Day 15 – the classic argument

The mathematical precision of the universe reveals the mathematical mind of God.  –ALBERT EINSTEIN

Imagine that you and I are walking at sunset along a deserted beach when you discover a watch half-buried in the sand. With curiosity you pick up the watch and examine it, noting it to be quite intricate. You discover that it is composed of various metals—silver, gold, and alloys—and of glass and crystal, all precisely molded or cut to a perfect fit. Glaring through the transparent face, you observe the fine movements of its small hands, each circling the numbered dial at its own monotonous pace. Not content to stop there, you open the watch to expose its innermost parts and therein discover an even more complex arrangement of springs, spokes, and wheels, aligned so as to propel the hands along their designated routes. You marvel at the watch’s beauty and complexity and begin to praise aloud the talents of the person who fashioned it.

Just then, I angrily snatch the watch from you. I tell you that it had no maker, that out of the earth's core spontaneously came forth metal and glass, that these materials somehow fashioned themselves into specific shapes and began to move precisely enough to reveal the time of day. I say this to you, and you call me a fool. You say that I have lost all touch with my reason and common sense, for the existence of such a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker.

Now suppose that I put the watch aside, point toward the just-darkened horizon, and show you an even greater mechanism—a universe whose parts are arranged with such precision that by their movements tides are made to rise and fall, seasons to come and go, and day and night to alternate in predictable fashion. I show you this intricate mechanism and then hear you reply that there is no God, and I call you a fool. I say to you that your position is illogical, that it violates my sense of reason, that the existence of such a universe implies the existence of a Creator.1

Day 16 – the author’s favorite

I shall always be convinced that a watch proves a watch-maker, and that a universe proves a God.  –VOLTAIRE

A watch has design; therefore, there must be a designer (a watchmaker). The universe has design; therefore, there must be a Designer (a Creator God). This is the classic Argument from Design. It was introduced over two hundred years ago and has worn the test of time.1 I am aware that atheists have attempted to pick it apart and discredit it (tomorrow, we will look at one of their rebuttals), but I have found nothing they say that compels me to abandon the argument as originally put forth. Unlike many theological arguments, it can be easily understood and bears the seal-of-approval of our common sense. It continues to be, after years of reflection, my favorite argument for God's existence, the one I instinctively turn to first, the toughest for the atheist to counter.

Day 17 – the atheist’s 1st rebuttal: an eternal universe

There may be some theoretical chance that wind and rain erosion could produce the faces of the four presidents on the side of a mountain, but it is still far more probable to assume that an intelligent sculptor created Mount Rushmore.  –NORMAN GEISLER

The first way atheists try to counter the Argument from Design is to claim that the universe had no beginning, that it “always was and always will be” and thus would require no Creator. An eternal universe, they assert, negates the need for God. So when I argue that nature’s design reveals the Designer’s existence, the atheist is not fazed. Such design, he counters, has been a part of the universe forever.

This is certainly plausible, but is it likely? Think with me again of the watch, bicycle, dollhouse, radio, and fudge brownies. We could claim that these items had no maker if we assumed they were a fragment of an eternal item of the same character. We could assume that our watch was merely a part of the Eternal Watch, the bicycle came from the Great Bicycle, the radio was a subset of the Grand Radio, the dollhouse was a fragment of the Universal Mansion, and the brownie was a square off the Infinite Planar Cookie Sheet. We could propose these theories because they are possible, but can we really take them seriously? Do they make sense to us? Do they have the ring of truth to them? No, they do not. Something is not to be considered likely just because that something is possible.

Day 18 – the atheist’s nightmare: a finite universe

[T]he universe itself is the ultimate explainer.  –ANTONY FLEW

An eternal universe is thus one route atheists take to discredit the Argument from Design. They claim that the Argument from Design would not apply to a universe that is eternal and self-sustaining. There would be no need for a Creator if the universe was never created, no need for a Designer if the universe was eternally designed, no need for God the Sustainer if the universe is self-sustaining. On this “ultimate” universe, as Flew describes it, all atheists pin their hopes.

On the other hand, a universe with a definite beginning is a real dilemma for atheists. They know all too well that a finite universe begs the existence of God, for such a world as ours could not arise on its own and keep itself running. If the universe is not eternal, they find themselves in irrational quicksand with only two options of rescue available: they can embrace the Argument from Design and begin to believe in God, or they can continue to deny Him while searching elsewhere for ways to counter the believer.

In other words, they could reconsider or retreat.

Day 19 – the answer of science

[T]he older idea of an eternally existing world is now known to have a problem. These measurements of what scientists call the background radiation that fills the universe tell us that the world is not eternal, but that it actually had a beginning.  –ROBERT GANGE

A finite universe, one with a definite beginning, is a nightmare for the atheist. He or she can ignore the Argument from Design if the universe is chronologically infinite. An eternal universe needs no Creator, just as an eternal watch would need no watchmaker. If the universe is finite, however, then there must have been a Designer behind it. A universe with a beginning thus brings the atheist face-to-face with God.

Ironically, the problem today for the atheist is science itself, for the current trend—based on the evidence at hand and espoused by the leaders of the scientific world—is to assume that the universe did have a beginning. From the Big Bang Theory to lesser-known hypotheses, the physicists present to us a universe that most likely is not eternal, one that had a real birth billions of years ago.1

This places the atheist in an obvious predicament. An eternal universe is what he needs to refute the Argument from Design. Science, usually the atheist's megaphone, proclaims a universe with a beginning. To remain an atheist, he is forced to disagree with all the talk about a finite universe and thus turn his back on science, or else he must agree with the scientists that the universe had a beginning and thus turn away from the Argument from Design and his own common sense. There is for him no logical escape.

Day 20 – from atheist to theist

Today, it seems to me, there is no good reason for an intelligent person to embrace the illusion of atheism or agnosticism, to make the same intellectual mistakes I made. I wish I had known then what I know now.  –PATRICK GLYNN

If the universe needs to be eternal to make atheism plausible but science says the universe had a definite beginning, we would expect to find honest men and women who once were atheists but have changed their position in light of the evidence before them. We would expect to find men and women who are intelligent enough to see that atheism is not logical or rational in a finite universe, men and women who are brave enough to admit they were wrong about God and change their tune. We would expect to find such people, if what I have said is true, and we do.

Take, for example, Patrick Glynn. He is a Harvard-educated scientist and a former atheist. In his book, God: The Evidence, he tells us why he is now a believer:

Today, the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis… Those who oppose it have no testable theory to marshal… Ironically, the picture of the universe bequeathed to us by the most advanced twentieth-century science is closer in spirit to the vision presented in the Book of Genesis than anything offered by science since Copernicus.

Along with Glynn, you can now include Antony Flew as one of the most recent converts to theism. For over fifty years this British philosopher argued against the existence of God. He wrote volume after volume and participated in debate after debate giving evidence that God is not real. Aware of his reputation as “the atheist’s atheist,” I included one of his quotes as a preface to Day 18’s reading. At the time I did so, I had no idea that Flew had made a 180-degree theological turn and changed his mind about God. He made his startling announcement in a December 2004 group discussion at New York University. “It seems to me,” he boldly declared, “that the case for a God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence is now much stronger than it ever was before.” Unable to maintain his atheism in the light of recent scientific evidence, Flew’s newly embraced theism is, according to theology and philosophy professor Gary Habermas, “testimony to the many, especially scientific figures, who are coming to God by way of intelligent design… The fact that he has become a theist is testimony to the type of evidence we have for God’s existence today.”

I could relate to you numerous other examples of ex-atheists who have made the switch to theism because it made the most sense to them scientifically and philosophically. The point I am trying to make is that such men and women do exist and that this is what you would expect if atheism proposes an eternal universe and science proposes the opposite. I am not blind to the fact that there are other men and women who have made the switch in the opposite direction, from theism to atheism, and have done so because the latter makes the most sense to them. I realize the atheist could quote them as readily as I have quoted Patrick Glynn and Antony Flew. Their switch to belief in God does not in any way prove that God exists. It does, however, drive home the fact that such belief is possible from a scientific, evidential standpoint, not just an emotional, subjective one. This, I think, is a huge step in the right direction. Far too long has the assumption been made that science and reason are exclusively the tools of the atheist.

Day 21 – alternate theories of the universe

[T]he fine-tuning of the universe points powerfully toward an Intelligent Designer—and some people will hypothesize anything to avoid reaching that conclusion.  –WILLIAM LANE CRAIG

The Argument from Design presents a tough challenge to atheists. They must admit there is evidence of design in the universe. How then can they say that the universe had no Maker?

We have already seen two ways atheists have addressed this dilemma. The first is to theorize an eternal universe, one with no beginning, a universe that always existed and required no Maker to bring it into being. The problem with this, we have noted, is recent scientific evidence that the universe is not eternal, that it had a definite beginning in time. The second way atheists have responded to the Argument from Design is to admit they were wrong about the universe and to conclude that there must be a God behind it. We have observed that a number of atheists have for this very reason converted to theism, and we have given quotes from two such individuals.

The majority of atheists, however, still cling to their unbelief. Steadfast and determined, they have looked at the evidence pointing toward a finite universe and tried to find ways to refute it. In so doing, they have come up with some alternate theories to explain how the universe can appear to be finite yet really be eternal.

One of their theories is commonly called the Many Worlds Hypothesis.1 It states that our universe may be one of a legion of universes, and while ours may indeed have had a definite beginning, the conglomerate of universes did not. The proponents of this hypothesis claim that the universe as we know it arose from the conglomerate, much like a drop of water arises from the sea. When our universe ends, it will be reabsorbed into the eternal whole.

A second alternate theory is what I call the Accordion Universe Hypothesis, usually referred to as the Oscillating Model.2 The universe, this theory claims, is much like an eternal accordion, sometimes expanding and sometimes contracting but always existing. Its nature is one of eternal oscillation. Going through cycles of compression, then expansion—each cycle lasting billions of years—our universe could very well be eternal but appear to be finite. What science sees today as its definite beginning would simply be one of the points where it is maximally compressed and begins to change direction.

I am not about to attempt to weigh the merits of these alternative theories. That is the job of the scientists. But I do want to make you realize something that is as obvious as the nose on your face: the fact that atheists have had to come up with these theories is testimony enough that the Argument from Design is a formidable challenge to them. In fact, if it were ever proven that the universe had a beginning, the atheist would have no intellectual recourse but to throw up his or her hands in surrender to the theist. If spiritually receptive, he or she would have no reasonable response than to bow in reverence before the reality of God.

Day 22 – the atheist’s 2nd rebuttal: an illusory universe

[A] student...troubled his professor with a contradictory question, “Sir, how do you know that I exist?” The professor paused for a while, lowered his glasses, gazed at the student and demanded, “And whom shall I say is asking?”  –STEVE KUMAR

There is yet another way the atheist may try to rebut the Argument from Design. Instead of proposing new theories that leave open the possibility of an eternal universe, he or she may claim that the universe doesn't exist at all. The whole universe, it may be argued, could just be an illusion, and there would be no need for God if this were so. Only things that exist need a creator.

If you think that this is somewhat farfetched and that no thinking person could find it believable, then look at the Eastern religion of Buddhism. Many of its millions of followers have tried to deal with the problem of evil in the world by rejecting its existence, saying it is but an illusion. If people can believe that all the pain and suffering in the world, even their own, is not real, would it be a huge leap to proclaim the whole universe illusory? No, it would not.

The problems with this line of thinking are twofold. First of all, no one lives his or her life consistent with this hypothesis. As Norman Geisler explains, "They may maintain that all is an illusion, but if one were to push them in front of an oncoming bus, they would quickly 'warm up' to the reality idea! Accepting the illusionist's position," he says, "demands that one admit that all of life as he experiences it is deceiving him."

In addition to the problem it poses from a practical standpoint, the illusion theory doesn't make sense philosophically. If you believe the entire universe to be an illusion, then you must also believe that your mind, a part of the universe, is not real. Do you see the inconsistency? First you claim that everything, including our thoughts, is an illusion. A minute later you declare one thought—"the world is an illusion"—to be real. This obvious flaw was the source of Rene Descartes' famous assertion: "I think; therefore, I am." He knew all too well that his own thoughts made an illusory world impossible.

I am not in any way implying that the majority of atheists have embraced this view. In fact, not many have. During the Enlightenment, theists like Descartes and skeptics like David Hume dismissed the illusory hypothesis as impractical and nonsensical. A few atheists, however, hoping to find some way to negate the need for a Creator, have resorted to the silly notion that the universe is no universe at all. Isn’t it amazing the lengths some people will go before admitting they are wrong?

Day 23 – a review of Days 1-22

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.  –the PSALMIST

I said at the start (Day 1) that the first phase of our religious journey is the question of God's existence. I think now would be a good time to pause and review just how far we've come. We have presented theism and atheism as the only two possible destinations, describing the latter as "anti-religion," a system of beliefs with no spiritual core (Day 2). We have considered the advantages of believing in God, the principal two being the hope of life after death and ultimate justice (Days 3-5). We have declared such hope futile, however, if it turns out the atheist is right and the theist wrong (Day 6). We have discussed the limitations of arguments for and against God, admitting that neither the atheist nor the theist can disprove or prove God's existence beyond a shadow of a doubt (Days 7-8). In so doing, we have raised the possibility that agnosticism could be the only honest recourse and have come to the conclusion that it is intellectually acceptable but pragmatically impossible to forever waffle about God's existence, that agnosticism should serve only as a step toward theism or atheism (Day 9). We have informed agnostics that the only practical thing to do is to declare a position and begin to live as if that position were true, always possessing the option to defect to the other camp if it is necessary to do so to make their final choice (Days 10-11). A permanent choice, we have said, is one that can only be made while "working in the fields," not while straddling the fence, and it is a choice that everyone expects them to make in due time.

In an effort to help you choose between theism and atheism, we have dispelled the myth that belief in God is purely subjective and have relied instead on rational arguments, scientific evidence, and commonsense axioms (Day 12). We have taken three excursions together, two into nature and another into town, and have come to the conclusion that the presence of design in an object demands the presence of a designer (Days 13-14) and that an Intelligent Designer—God the Creator—must be behind our universe (Days 15-16). We have seen that this Argument from Design poses a significant problem to the atheist, who must assert, in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary, that the universe is eternal and in need of no Creator to bring it into existence (Days 17-18, 21); or must admit that it is indeed finite and become a theist, as several atheists have done (Day 20); or must come up with the self-refuting notion that the universe needs no Creator because it is nonexistent, a mere illusion (Day 22).

That is how far we have come on our journey, but we have just started this first leg of our religious quest. We must cover much more ground in the next few days. In addition to the Argument from Design, we will look at four other arguments for God's existence and examine the atheist's response to them. Before we do so, however, we need to address the most common retort given by atheists when confronted with the Argument from Design.

Day 24 – the atheist’s 3rd rebuttal: a disordered universe

Not many years ago, when I was an atheist, if anyone had asked me, “Why do you not believe in God?” my reply would run something like this: “Look at the universe we live in… If you ask me to believe that this is the work of a benevolent and omnipotent spirit, I reply that all the evidence points in the opposite direction.”  –C. S. LEWIS

The universe, in addition to its intricate design, also bears the marks of disorder and disarray. This is the most common counterargument used by the atheist against the Argument from Design. Almost as an immediate reflex, he or she will point toward the same heavens we used earlier to prove the universe's design and remind us that from these same skies come tornadoes, hurricanes, and other natural calamities that turn its design into chaos. When we point to the intricate human machine, he or she will take us to the oncology unit of the hospital and show us human machines gone awry. When we say that the presence of design in the universe demands the presence of God, he or she will reply that the presence of such chaos in the universe declares just as much that He is not present.

Each of us easily recognizes that this is a formidable objection to the Argument from Design. As a resident of Alabama, I vividly recall a day several years ago when—on a Palm Sunday morning in a rural Methodist church in the small town of Piedmont—a tornado destroyed the building and took the lives of several little children, all sitting in the front pews awaiting their turn to participate in the service. One of the deceased was the daughter of the minister there. If there is a God who is an Intelligent Designer, how could this ever happen? Doesn’t this kind of tragedy deny His existence? As an emergency physician, I have treated several individuals injured by another tornado and have witnessed death at its hands. I have also seen the ravages of diseases which appear to inflict men, women, and children indiscriminately, and I can understand why anyone at their bedsides would wonder if God is there. We cannot ignore such events and their theological implications. We must meet them head-on. If not, we appear to have lost considerable ground on our journey.

Day 25 – good question, wrong time

Since God is the one who directly creates everything, why does He create famines, earthquakes, mud slides, AIDS, deformed babies, and the like?  –EDWARD BOYD

I have an answer for any atheist who claims that evidence of disarray in the universe makes the Argument from Design meaningless. I acknowledge that such disorder exists and am aware of the misery associated with it. I cannot, therefore, flippantly dismiss it as unimportant. It is, in fact, of supreme significance to any religious seeker, for the theological problems it poses can shake even the strongest faith. Most assuredly, we must deal with its implications at some time during our pilgrimage.

This first leg of our journey, however, is not the time. We are ascending the slope of God’s existence, and the plain truth is that the presence of suffering has no bearing on this subject. It is irrelevant to our present topic. Consequently, it does not weaken the Argument from Design one bit.

When analyzed in-depth, this finger-pointing by atheists is nothing more than an attempt to distract us from the subject at hand. Like everyone else, they must admit that there is design in the world. Failure to do so is analogous to the ostrich burying its head in the sand. Unless the universe is eternal or illusory, they must also admit that the presence of this design demands the existence of a Designer. Having made these admissions, they then divert our attention away from the design and toward the just-as-obvious disarray. They say to us, "Look at this disorder! It makes the question of God's existence easy. He cannot be said to exist in the face of such discord."

When atheists argue thusly, they argue illogically. They raise a good question but do so at the wrong time. I believe the fallacy of their argument is easy to grasp. Given the propensity of atheists to resort to this defense, its irrationality must be exposed before we move full-speed ahead. A commonsense illustration will be used tomorrow to shed light on the truth.

Day 26 – good question, wrong time (II)

A loving God could not possibly be the author of the horrors we have been describing; it is obvious that there cannot be a loving God.  –CHARLES TEMPLETON

Imagine that you enter a bakery and notice on one of its tables a three-tiered wedding cake. You marvel at its design, noting it to be one of the most beautiful cakes you have ever seen. Its three cylindrical sections are aligned with such precision that there is no hint of asymmetry. Its snow-white icing is as smooth as the surface of a pond on a calm day. Bordering each section is more icing, strands of pink in a rope-like configuration. You smile as you observe on top of the cake's surface the ornate bride and groom figurines, facing each other as if repeating their vows.

Now imagine that you look around and see that the bakery is devoid of life, save for a small dog lying beside the doorway. Would you, in the absence of anyone in the room, surmise that the wedding cake before you had no baker, that its ingredients threw themselves into three cake pans, baked themselves until done, arranged themselves vertically on the table, and then decorated themselves in so elaborate a fashion? Of course, not! You would assume a baker existed who was responsible for this cake. If you were to ask any question at this time, it would be "Where is the baker?" rather than "Does the baker exist?" The presence of a cake of such intricate design would demand the existence of a baker. This, applied to the universe, is the Argument from Design.

Needing a cake the next week for your son's birthday, imagine further that you leave a note on the table asking the baker to fashion one for the occasion. When you return the day before the birthday, you enter through the same doorway past the same dog and see on the same table a birthday cake you assume to be yours. It, too, is a three-tiered cake with white icing and colored trim, this time blue. It is adorned with seven candles at the top, the words "Happy Birthday" engraved around them.

At first glance you are pleased with the cake, until you step closer and notice the paw prints on its surface. Sometime after the cake was placed on the table, the dog must have raced across it, destroying its perfection. Because of this canine romp, your birthday cake appears to be in some disorder and disarray.

Although no one is present in the bakery, you begin to air your objections aloud. What kind of remarks would you make? Would you begin to scream at the top of your lungs, "There is no baker! The baker doesn't exist!"? No, the disarray of the cake would not cause you to doubt the baker's existence whatsoever. Your remarks would instead be more like this: "What kind of baker would leave a cake unprotected on his table? What kind of baker would let a dog ransack his creation? What kind of baker would allow this to happen?" The disorder evident on the cake's surface would not cause you to question the baker's existence, but it would cause you to call into question the baker’s character.

In the same way, disorder in the universe does not in the least call into question God's existence. Atheists cannot look at the mixture of design and disarray before them and scream, "There is no God! God doesn't exist!" anymore that you could doubt the baker's existence based on the imperfect cake. In light of such imperfection, the character of God, rather than His existence, is called into question. "What kind of God would allow disorder into His universe? Does He not have the power to prevent it from happening, or does He just not care?" These are the type of questions raised by suffering.

Thus, when the atheist points toward an imperfect universe and denies God’s existence, he is running ahead of the group. He is asking a good question ("What is God's nature?") at the wrong time (on the first leg of our journey, when the only question before us is: "Does God exist?"). In effect, he is diverting our attention from the subject at hand. We should encourage him to return to the group and concentrate on the present. He must save his question for a later date.

Evidence of disorder in the universe, it turns out, does not hinder the reality of God. The Argument from Design still stands.

Day 27 – good question, wrong time (III)

This world doesn't look at all like the kind of world we'd have if there were an all-powerful, all-loving God behind it.  –EDWARD K. BOYD

No one who has nursed cancer patients can believe in God.  –a skeptical NURSE

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust.  –C. S. LEWIS

Is it possible to believe that there is a loving or caring Creator when all this woman needed was rain?  –CHARLES TEMPLETON

When I say that the universe's disarray has no bearing on the existence of God, I am not trying to minimize the significance of suffering and pain in the world. The presence of such widespread agony cannot be dismissed or ignored, for sooner or later we all will experience it in full force. Philosopher Elton Trueblood describes it as "a problem which no theist can avoid and no honest thinker will try to avoid."

I cannot, however, let sentiment about this subject rule over reason. It is obvious to me that the reality of pain and suffering does not bring God's existence into question anymore than the presence of that faulty cake in yesterday's illustration brought into question the existence of the baker. It is the character of God, not His existence, that is put on trial by suffering. People tend to look at suffering and ask, "Is there really a God?" when the appropriate question to raise, the only rational question, is: "What kind of God are You?"

When we get around to discussing the nature of God, we must address the presence in the universe of disorder and disarray, of pain and suffering, of disease, war, and calamity. But this will have to come later, for we have not yet fully ascended the slope of God's existence. The four quotations preceding today’s reading may be unsettling to us, but we must recognize them for what they are (questions about God's character) and not let them distract us from the issue at hand. As the old adage urges, "First things first."

Day 28 – The universe: three alternatives

The fact of evil in no way eliminates the reality of God. –STEVE KUMAR

It turns out, then, that all the commotion made by atheists about disorder in the universe is nothing but an attempt at diversion. All they are trying to do is get us off-track, to distract us from the subject at hand. That subject is whether or not God exists. Regarding it, we have already concluded that the universe's intricate design implies the presence of a Designer God. This implication does not change if disorder is also seen within His design. It is God's character, a later subject, that is called into question by this disorder, not His existence. Any design-gone-bad is still a design and must have a designer behind it.

When faced with the Argument from Design, the atheist is thus left with only three rational alternatives:

1. He or she may claim that the universe is eternal and in no need of a Designer.

2. He or she may claim that the universe is an illusion and in no need of a Designer.

3. He or she may admit that the universe had a beginning and requires a Designer.

These are the only options open to the atheist. As far as I am concerned, he or she does not have the option of turning our attention to the universe's disarray. That is merely a diversionary tactic. From a rational standpoint, this disarray has everything to do with God's nature, but it has no bearing at all on His existence.

The sooner the religious seeker sees this, the better.

ARGUMENT

FROM

FAIRNESS

Days 29-37

Day 29 – the argument defined

Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe…the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.  –IMMANUEL KANT

The Argument from Design is just one rational defense of God's existence. In my opinion, it is the easiest to understand and the most difficult to rebut of such arguments and is the one I usually turn to first in a theological discussion. Other arguments are available, and the time has come for us to look at them. I think you will likewise find them to be rational and comprehensible. Together with the Argument from Design, they present a formidable challenge to any atheist.

To introduce the next argument, pretend that you and I ask a friend of yours to join us for a game of Monopoly. During the course of the game, I roll a "seven" with the dice, but instead of moving my game piece seven spaces forward, I move it ahead a full nine squares.  When you question me, I reply, "I know I rolled a 'seven,' but I needed to land on Boardwalk, so I moved there instead." Your immediate response would be, "That's not fair!" When we resume our board game, I continue to violate the rules repeatedly. Finally, having had your fill of such antics, you and your friend tell me that the game is over and you are going home.

After you leave, I begin to think about my actions and recognize that I have behaved badly. I fear that I have jeopardized our friendship and, in sincere remorse, come to your house and beg forgiveness. As evidence of my sincerity, I offer to you and your friend a free dinner with me at a local restaurant. Your response is that you will not forgive me, even if I offer you the Hope diamond.  Then you snatch the dinner coupons from my hand and tell me that you and your friend will enjoy dinner at my expense but that I am not welcome. After you slam the door shut, I yell to you through it, "That's not fair!"

My argument will be: (1) that every person has at times been driven to say, "That's not fair!”; (2) that making an accusation of unfairness implies that fairness must also exist; (3) that the atheist, when he screams, "That's unjust!," is admitting that somewhere justice exists; and (4) that justice (which includes morality, the sense that some things are right and some things are wrong) cannot exist unless God exists.1

Day 30 – Point One: life is unfair

This is not fair! This is not just! I shouldn't be graded on the color of the cover but on the content of the paper.  –a PHILOSOPHY STUDENT (after writing a research paper on the absence of fairness and justice) to his teacher, who gave him an "F" because he didn't like blue covers

I believe it is impossible to go through life without the phrase "That's not fair!" crossing our lips. I know most of us need only replay the past twenty-four hours to note the last time a sense of unfairness entered our minds. My first point in what I call the Argument from Fairness is that everyone has this innate sense that some things are unfair. I believe it is universal, as sure as the sun setting in the west.

Most of you will see rather quickly that I am right. There are some of you, I presume, who may counter that some of history's most evil people were so blind to justice that the thought of fairness and unfairness never entered their minds. The reason they acted so badly, you say, is that no sense of justice was ever a part of them. Think with me a little, and you will see that you are wrong, that even the vilest people this earth has ever known have cried, "That's not fair!”

Take, for example, Adolf Hitler. Although we can never in any way condone the holocaust he inflicted, is it not easy to recognize that he did so in part because his warped mind believed it unfair for Jews to have political and economic advantage over the "superior" Aryan race? When he looked at the world around him, he said, in essence, "That's not fair!" Or take the terrorists who destroyed the Twin Towers and the innocent lives of thousands in the process. Did they not act because they sensed it was not fair for the United States to have such a dominant place in the world? Didn't they also cry, "That's not fair!"? What about the men who conspired to have Jesus crucified? Did they not act on the premise that it was unfair for anyone to make the claims he was making and get away with it? As they heard him speak, they thought, "That's not fair!"

Now I want to make sure that no one misunderstands me. In no shape, form, or fashion am I saying that any of these people were justified in their actions. I am not saying they were right; in fact, I believe they were 100% wrong when they committed these infamous acts. Just because someone thinks he or she has been treated unfairly does not make it a fact. Even if it were, such unfairness does not give anyone license to retaliate with acts of injustice exponentially greater. I’m merely trying to prove to you that evil men and women also consider life unjust. They, like everyone else, have uttered the phrase, "That's not fair!"

Atheists are no exceptions. We have just discussed how they point to sickness, natural calamity, and evil as reasons not to believe in God. In other words, they consider the universe too unjust to have a God behind it. They, in essence, are saying, "That's not fair!"

So it is with the whole of mankind.

Day 31 – Point Two: fairness exists

The point we dare not miss about that story [of the philosophy student and his teacher] is that it pretty accurately depicts how every person claiming to believe that morality is subjective acts when an injustice is done to him or her.  –PAUL CHAMBERLAIN

Men and women have forever looked at the universe around them and thought, "That's not fair!" Even people who claim that there is no such thing as justice act as if there is. Take, for example, the philosophy student quoted yesterday. When push came to shove, he accused his teacher of unfairness. He could not apply the premise of his research paper to real life. This, of course, was the point the teacher was trying to make to him, the reason he gave a failing grade. And it is the first point I am trying to make to you. Everyone knows intuitively that life is not fair, and everyone acts in a manner consistent with that intuition.

The second point I want to make follows from the first, namely that it is impossible for something to be unfair unless fairness also exists. I think this is not hard to grasp and should not take a lot of our time. How could you and your friend complain that I was being unfair in Monopoly unless you had some notion that fairness existed? How could I scream through the shut door, "That's not fair!" unless I believed that something else was? How could Hitler, the Islamic terrorists, and the angry mob at the cross consider themselves to be correcting injustices unless they believed that such a thing as justice existed, too? They could not, and neither can you. It is irrational to claim that there is no such thing as fairness in the universe and then say a minute later that something is unfair. That is what the philosophy student tried to do, and he appeared rather foolish in the process. As soon as he complained that the grade on his paper was unfair, he made it clear to the teacher that a better grade, an "A" or a "B", was fair. The whole premise of his thesis, that there exists no such thing in this world as right/wrong or fair/unfair, turned out to be a lie exposed by his very actions.

Unfairness cannot exist without fairness as its standard. You cannot have the first without the possibility of the second. To say that unfairness exists but fairness does not is like saying that bad exists but good does not, hate exists but love does not, losing exists but winning does not, death exists but life does not. Such thinking is nonsensical. It is a waste of anyone's time.

Day 32 – Point Three: points 1 and 2 apply to the atheist

The problem with [the statement that nothing is absolutely right or wrong] is…that it refutes itself. It is something like the statement “I can't speak a word of English.” By speaking the sentence, I refute it.  –PAUL CHAMBERLAIN

Thus far we have laid down two of the four principles of the Argument from Fairness, my second defense of God's existence. We have observed that people have a universal sense that certain things are unfair, and we have noted that if such unfairness is a reality, fairness must also be real. Anyone who labels one thing in this universe "unjust" and then claims there is no justice in the universe is being illogical. If unfairness exists, fairness must exist as well.

My third point takes these first two and applies them to the atheist. He, like everyone else in history, has often cried, "That's not fair!" His atheism, in fact, rests in part upon the view that the world is too unjust to attribute it to a loving God. But by leveling this accusation of unfairness, he implies that fairness also exists. To avoid irrationality and self-refutation, he must believe in a standard of justice which can be used as a point of reference. No one can claim anything to be unfair without fairness as its standard, anymore that I can declare anything to be unequal to one foot without a ruler as my standard.

Point One

Everyone in history has at times considered life to be unfair.

Point Two

Everyone, then, must concede that fairness also exists.

Point Three

The atheist is no exception.

Day 33 – the ambiguity of atheists regarding justice

Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple.  –C. S. LEWIS

To understand the view of the atheist, consider the following:

You and I decide to spend a rainy day playing a dice game. Every time you roll a higher number than I do, I give you a dollar bill. Every time I roll a higher number, you place a buck in my hands. After 100 rolls, it just so happens that I have had to give you $75, and you have had to give me $25. Incredibly, the dice have landed in your favor three-fourths of the time. Is this unfair? No, it is not, for the simple reason that the whole exercise is one of pure chance. It is luck (good for you and bad for me) and nothing else that has tipped the scales in your favor. Even if I am poor and need the money and you are rich and don't, I still cannot cry, "That's not fair!" The truth is that there is no such thing as fairness and unfairness in a world of 100% chance. There is only a mixture of good luck and bad luck, good fortune and bad fortune.

Atheists look at the universe much like the dice shoot above. They see it as a product of blind evolutionary forces, 100% the result of chance. Everything that happens within it is labeled by them as fortunate or unfortunate, good luck or bad luck. They will not admit anything to be fair or unfair, for no such thing as fairness and unfairness can exist, they say, in a universe of pure chance. Circumstances may be advantageous or not advantageous to the individual, but they cannot be considered to be just or unjust. Atheists believe that justice is a myth, right and wrong a matter of personal taste. Like C. S. Lewis in his atheist days, they present to us a “senseless” world devoid of justice or morality.

Why, then, do atheists not practice what they preach? If they truly believe the universe to be 100% chance, they would never shout, "That's not fair!" But, as we have noted earlier, they do shout it. If they truly believe that justice is a myth, they would consider the cruelty meted out to them to be bad luck and move on. But they don't just accept the bad and move on. If they really believe what they are saying, they would consider the universe to have rolled them a series of low numbers and would write it off as such. But they do not write it off. They should resign themselves to the fact that it is just their bad luck that they are poor, sick, and weak and just their neighbor's good luck that he is rich, healthy, and powerful. But they don't resign themselves to this fact.

Let me remind you of Lenin and Stalin, two of the most passionate revolutionaries in recent history, and of Karl Marx, their philosophical mentor. They all were staunch atheists. We would have expected them to take what the universe dished out. They did just the opposite. While denying that the universe had any justice, they proceeded to render their own with violent passion.

Day 34 – the ambiguity of atheists regarding justice (II)

The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong.  –RICHARD TAYLOR

We can better see the inconsistency of the atheist’s position if we go back to our game of dice.

What if you and I play the same game and once again you have $75 and I have $25 after a hundred rolls. This time, however, I discover that you are using dice that are weighted, making it more likely for you to roll a higher number. Would I brush this off as easily as yesterday? Of course, not! I would accuse you of unfair tactics and demand my money back. I would say that you have chosen to stack the odds in your favor, that the game is not fair by any standards. If you refuse to give me the money back, I would be infuriated and would take measures to correct the injustice. If you are rich and don't need the money and I am poor and do, my fury would be even hotter and my quest for justice more intense.

Atheists would like us to believe that the world is 100% chance and that no such thing as fairness or unfairness exists. They do not tend to act, however, as if this is true. Instead, when they see that others have chosen to stack the odds against them, they immediately begin to think it all unfair. Even if told they still have a small chance to succeed, they are not amused. They demand the playing field to be leveled. If not, they threaten to level it themselves. Isn't that what Lenin and Stalin did? Didn't they, like all atheists, act on the assumption that life is not fair?

Day 35 – the Moral Law within us

... the requirements of the law are written on their hearts .  –PAUL, the apostle

We have now come full-circle in our Argument from Fairness. We have noted that everyone has tended to look at life and cry, "That's not fair!" We have seen that if unfairness exists in the universe, then fairness (a system of justice) must exist as well. We have observed how inconsistent and hypocritical the atheist appears, one moment alleging that the universe has no real justice or absolute right or wrong, then the next moment proclaiming—as he retaliates against people who have stacked the odds against him—that it's his absolute right to do so. The atheist wants to have it both ways. He wants to say there is no such thing as fairness in the world, but he wants to live as if there is. It is my assertion that he is forced to live that way, for that's the way the universe is made. It is a universe with a thread of justice run through it. Only when the atheist sees this will he realize that the way he looks at the universe, the whole foundation of his atheism, is wrong.

Contrast this with people who believe in God. They proclaim that God created this universe and imposed upon it His own sense of justice and morality. When things appear unjust, they can say "That's not fair!" and not be called a hypocrite. When people act badly, they can say "That's not right!" and not be considered inconsistent. They believe that fairness exists in the universe and that the existence of God is the only explanation for it. They recognize that all human beings have a God-given sense of right and wrong, a Moral Law, "written on their hearts."

Day 36 – Point Four: justice must come from God

Ethics, if it is anything, is supernatural.  –LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN

The fourth and final point of the Argument from Fairness is that justice and morality must come from God. The best way to look at this is to consider the whole matter of rules. If you think about it, rules are always separate and transcendent. Take, for example, the rules of Monopoly. They are separate from the game board and players, in a sense above and beyond them. The rules of football are the same. Sanctioned by the league officials, embraced by the players and coaches, and upheld by the referees, they must by their very nature transcend the component parts of the game. It is this way in music as well. The notes on the staff are the rules. These notes are separate from the keyboard and from the pianist, who must follow them if music is to be played.

To summarize, the keyboard and pianist cannot be a part of the musical score; the latter transcends the former. The playing field and quarterback cannot be a part of the rules of football. These, too, must be separate and transcending. In similar fashion, the rules of Monopoly must be distinct from the game board and players.

Now nature is the “field” upon which the "game of life" is played, and we are the “players” of the game. Since there are moral rules that govern life, then these rules—for the reasons just stated—must be transcendent. These rules must be separate and distinct from nature (the “field”) and must be separate and distinct from humanity (the “players”). Right and wrong, therefore, cannot be attributed (as atheists are prone to say) to natural instincts or human opinion. These moral rules must transcend both nature and us. They must, by the process of elimination, be supernatural in origin. In other words, the Moral Law must come from God. Fairness and justice (which include right and wrong and the rules that govern them) must arise from a source that is transcendent, above and beyond nature and man. Its source must be God Himself.1

The conclusion here is that justice, if it exists at all, must come from God. The only question that remains is whether or not justice exists, and we have already proven how silly the atheist looks when he or she says it doesn't.

Day 37 – the first two arguments reviewed

The issue is whether the world is explicable solely in terms of itself, i.e. is the world itself ultimate, or is there a being other than the world to which the world is related?  –DAVID H. FREEMAN

Before we proceed to my third argument for the existence of God, let's pause and summarize the two we have examined thus far. The first, usually referred to as the Argument from Design, focuses on the universe’s design and infers from it the existence of an Intelligent Designer. The strength of this argument, we have seen, is its simplicity and its appeal to common sense, for hardly anyone has a problem understanding that there must be a creator (for example, a watchmaker) behind an organized structure (in this case, a watch). The only recourse for the atheist is to assert that the universe is either eternal or illusory (and, therefore, in no need of a Creator) or to try to divert attention from the subject at hand by pointing to the presence in the universe of evil, pain, and suffering, all of which call into question God's character, not His existence.

The second defense, what I call the Argument from Fairness, emphasizes the tendency every person has to designate things as fair/unfair and right/wrong. It asserts that our sense of justice and morality must originate from a source above and beyond nature, a supernatural source. It likens the rules of right and wrong to the notes on a sheet of music, giving the “pianist” (humanity) directions on how to behave on the “keyboard” (earth). The atheist responds by saying that there is no such thing as fair/unfair and right/wrong in a universe that is based on pure chance. The problem is that he does not act consistent with his worldview. In fact, when confronted with life's misfortunes, he is quick to call his lot unfair and his cause right. Atheists, therefore, attempt to deny the existence of justice and morality and then try to impose on the universe their own brand of each. The contradiction here between thought and practice is blatantly obvious.

The simplest deductions from the two arguments above would be:

1. The presence of design in the universe demands the existence of a supernatural Designer.

2. The presence of fairness/morality (i.e. a Moral Law) in the universe demands the existence of a supernatural Lawgiver.

These are the conclusions I and a multitude of others, many of them former atheists, have reached on our religious journeys. If you are not yet convinced, perhaps the next argument will compel you to join us.

ARGUMENT

FROM

SUPERNATURAL

BELIEF

Days 38-45

Day 38 – outside help

The direct inference from black to white…staggers belief.  –C. S. LEWIS

To begin the next argument, imagine with me a person blind since birth who has lived his entire life alone on an island. Left there as an infant, he has never heard that light exists and has never seen one glimmer of it. As far as he is concerned, the world is complete darkness upon which is superimposed a mixture of sounds, smells, and sensations. This man, having no idea that light exists, does not long for it one bit. He assumes that darkness is ultimate reality. He has no reason to assume otherwise.

Now answer this question: is it possible for this man, unless he has outside help, to begin to believe in the existence of light? The answer is obvious. It is not possible without such help, because the concept of light is completely foreign to his view of the world. He has no idea that light exists, is not looking for it, and cannot perceive it. The only way he can come to know about it is to be told it is there. Perhaps a boat lands one day on his island and its passengers tell him of a world he never dreamed of, the world of visual perception—rainbows and sunsets, moonlight and stars, reflections of others in the sun's glow and of himself in the water's surface. Or perhaps he is somehow made aware of light by a bird or monkey or some other animal. The point remains the same. This man begins to believe in light only because the seed of awareness has been planted within him from an outside source.

Although hypothetical, this picture of a blind man completely unaware of the existence of light is easy to grasp. It is likewise easy to see that unless he has outside help, light would never enter his mind. Without such help, light could be all around him in its most radiant and awe-inspiring forms, and he would remain oblivious to it. He would not sense it, desire it, or seek it. Neither would we, were we placed in the same predicament.

The relevance of this to our discussion of God's existence is enormous and will be explained in the days ahead. Before turning the page, however, I would ask you to review today's illustration once more to make sure that you understand it and accept it as true.

Day 39 – outside help (II)

…it is incongruous with everything else we know about the world to suppose that nature could produce creatures which have longings which nature doesn't itself fulfill.  –GREGORY A. BOYD

Yesterday's illustration of the blind man on a deserted island has a counterpart in the animal world that may serve to reinforce it. I remember as a child visiting several caves with my parents and hearing a guide tell us about some unique fish deep within it. The novelty of these fish was their complete blindness. Years of nonuse had rendered their eyes nonfunctional. I recall how amazed I was when the guide beamed a bright flashlight into the waters and the fish acted as if nothing had changed. They were like our blind friend, unaware that light exists and unable on their own to discover it.

Other examples could be cited that confirm this principle. Take, for example, plants growing at the bottom of the ocean's surface, never experiencing anything but water all around them. Always wet, they have no idea what dry is. To them, total immersion is ultimate reality. To make these plants aware of the world above would require outside intervention, such as a free ride to the surface from underwater explorers. Only with such outside help could they get a glimpse of the upper world and begin to experience it as a reality.

Now humans throughout history have possessed the notion that, in addition to nature, an “upper world” exists. As far back as archaeology can unearth, belief in a supernatural realm has been a universal finding. How was it possible for this thought to creep into the collective consciousness of humanity, and what does this have to do with the blind man, cave fish, and ocean plants alluded to above?

Tomorrow we will attempt to supply the answers.

Day 40 – the argument defined

If there isn't a natural explanation and there doesn't seem to be the potential for finding one, then I believe it's appropriate to look at a supernatural explanation.  –WALTER L. BRADLEY

Let me start by making three statements:

1. Atheists believe that the natural world is all there is, that there is no such reality that can be described as supernatural.

2. Many human beings believe that a supernatural reality exists.

3. Belief in the supernatural could not be present in the human mind unless it was planted there by a supernatural source.

You will see I am right if you take the first two facts above and try to explain them from the atheistic viewpoint. Atheists believe that men and women are 100% natural creatures, as completely surrounded by nature as the blind man and cave fish were by darkness. If so, you would expect men and women, like the blind man and the fish, to be unaware of anything else. You certainly would not expect them to acknowledge anything beyond nature, anymore than you would expect the blind man or the cave fish to acknowledge light. You would not expect humans, if as immersed in nature as ocean-bottom plants are in water, to ever conceive of a supernatural world “above.”

But what you have throughout history are men and women doing just that. On the earliest pottery pieces unearthed, on the most primitive cave drawings deciphered, and within the most ancient tombs explored, you find evidence of a belief in, almost an obsession with, the supernatural, one that has continued unabated to the present. What you have in history are people, supposedly engulfed in nothing but nature, believing that something more than nature exists.

As with the blind man, cave fish, and ocean plants, such a leap of awareness could never have occurred without outside help. Something or someone had to tell humans of a supernatural realm; if not, we would never have fathomed it possible. The question is: who or what brought it to our attention? Atheists would say that the voice directing man to begin to look outside nature came from nature itself. But if nature is all there is, as atheists are so apt to remind us, does it make sense that nature would tell us that something else exists?

Then who told us? As long as my mind is allowed to reflect on it, I cannot come up with any other candidate than something beyond nature. It must have been something supernatural that gave to men and women this odd sense that nature is not the end. It must have come from beyond nature, this novel idea put into our collective consciousness that another realm exists. It must have been something or someone separate from nature that planted this seed within us and started us on our individual quests to nourish and harvest it. It must be that same supernatural voice that entices men and women today to seek God until they find Him.

This, my third argument for God's existence, is what I refer to as the Argument from Supernatural Belief. Stated simply, it claims that belief in the supernatural could never have happened without outside help, unless a supernatural source intervened to make us aware of its existence.1

Day 41 – a “good” God in a “bad” world

There was one question which I never dreamed of raising… If the universe is so bad, or even half so bad, how on earth did human beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator?  –C. S. LEWIS

The Argument from Supernatural Belief focuses on the overwhelming consensus throughout history that the supernatural exists and argues that such a belief could have arisen only if a supernatural reality let us know. It states that nature alone could not possibly have been the author of our awareness of things beyond nature, just as an atlas of North America alone could not be the source of our awareness of things in the southern hemisphere. Belief in the supernatural, therefore, implies and demands the existence of the supernatural itself.

What is just as astounding is the tendency through the ages to ascribe to this supernatural reality a benevolent disposition. It is one thing, a distance we cannot ourselves jump, to go from a worldview limited to nature to a one that includes the supernatural. That is evidence enough that the supernatural is real. It is another thing, a leap of equal magnitude, to profess a belief in the cruelty of nature and then begin to believe the supernatural to be anything but cruel. This is not at all what you would expect in a world considered so bad and impersonal.

The atheist keeps reminding us ad nauseam of the disorder and chaos in the universe and tells us there is no way he or she can attribute this to a loving God. The remarkable thing to remember is that the majority of humankind has disagreed. They have come to the baffling conclusion that behind nature's apparent injustice and malevolence is a just and benevolent Spirit. Somehow the atheist must explain this paradox. He may say that humans have deduced the goodness of God from nature itself, but this would go against his basic view of nature as cruel. Or he may claim that belief in a loving God originated from outside nature, but then he will be admitting there is more to reality than nature itself. The atheist, then, has painted himself into a corner. There is for him no logical escape.

Day 42 – the atheist’s rebuttal

I do not believe in a God. The belief in a God is still generally accepted… But, in the light of scientific discoveries and demonstrations, such a belief is unfounded and untenable today.  –ROBERT BLATCHFORD

We have noted that belief in a supernatural reality is uniform across contemporary and ancient cultures, and we have surmised that the presence of this belief puts the atheist in a real dilemma. How did such a belief come to be? We have answered that it must have been placed within our minds by the supernatural itself, that it would be unlikely for nature—if nature is all there is—to introduce something to us outside the natural realm.

Not to be outdone, the atheist will usually counter with an alternate explanation of our supernatural belief. In summary form, it goes like this:

Primitive man was ignorant of the physics of the natural world yet dependent upon nature for his very existence, so he began to reverence and fear its component parts. The sun, for example, became an object of favor and wind and locusts objects of disfavor. Man then began to believe he could influence these natural objects through rituals or behaviors. Thus, nature worship was born. Today, belief in the supernatural is nothing more than an outgrowth of this primitive superstition. It is our futile attempt to woo nature's benefits and deflect its fury. If the truth were known, it serves no useful purpose than to appease us in our ignorance. Sooner or later, with the continued march of science, it will be discarded once and for all.

Now I agree with the atheist to a certain point. Primitive man did fear and favor the component parts of nature and did try to influence them through rituals. I agree that it was futile for him to do so, for ritualistic fervor, no matter how sincere, will not change the course of the sun in the sky or send rain upon a parched earth. The activity of the sun and the excesses and shortages of precipitation are now known to be governed by scientific laws unknown to early man. I agree that modern science has made nature religions obsolete, reserved only for those who are scientifically illiterate.

Where I disagree with the atheist is his assertion that today's religions are essentially grown-up versions of these primitive religions, that the former are a continuation of the latter. I do not believe that nature worship could have ever given birth to modern religions like Judaism or Christianity that worship a God above and beyond nature.

Tomorrow, I will use an illustration that may help us see more clearly the error of the atheist's argument.

Day 43 – outside help (III)

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”  –the PSALMIST

We are all familiar with William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Set in Italy centuries ago, this story of love in the face of adversity remains a touching classic today. For the purpose of our discussion, I want you to consider what it is possible for these two fictional characters to know. If you think about it awhile, you will come to the conclusion that the entire extent of their reality is the play itself. They are familiar with each other and the characters they happen to meet in the play, but they are not aware of anyone outside it. They know all the settings wherein they are placed but cannot possibly know other settings. Their awareness is confined to the storyline. It is impossible for them to perceive anything else.

In much the same way, atheists believe that all of us are characters in nature’s storyline. We act out our lives totally within its confines. Over the years, they say, we have come to respect and revere the natural world around us and have tried to seek its benefits. They claim that religion is merely an outgrowth of our awe of nature and our desire to influence it in our favor. Belief in God thus can be explained without having to believe at all in a supernatural world.

Up to a point, I think the atheist is right. Nature religions need no other explanation than nature itself. A supernatural reality is not necessary to account for them. Where I think the atheist is mistaken can be seen by looking again at Romeo and Juliet. What if these two characters suddenly began to believe that someone outside the storyline existed? What if they began to believe, for example, that someone named William Shakespeare created them? How could this happen? The only way would be for Shakespeare himself to let them know. He could have inserted an additional character into the play and added a scene where that character tells Romeo and Juliet of his existence. Or he could have written himself into the play and scripted himself to walk right up to the two lovebirds and say, "Hi! My name is William Shakespeare. In my writing room at home, I created you and your world." In that way, too, a reality outside the play itself, the creative world of William Shakespeare, could have entered their minds. It could never happen, however, without William Shakespeare’s input. The possibility of his existence could never enter their minds without his help.

So it is with religion today. Atheists may claim until they are blue in the face that nature religions gave birth to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but what they are shouting still won't make sense to me. To say that we have come to believe in God through nature alone, totally without any outside help, is like saying that Romeo and Juliet could come to know Shakespeare without Shakespeare's help. How could men and women living in a world 100% natural come to believe that something beyond nature exists? How could they begin to say that a God separate from nature created them and their world? How could they claim to know and experience something outside nature’s storyline? The only logical answer is this: belief in God would never have happened unless God Himself “wrote it into the script.” Without His help, even the possibility of His existence would never have entered our minds.1

Day 44 – divine education

…the God beyond the mountain, the God beyond the sky… This God is the initiator; he encounters [human beings], they do not encounter him.  –THOMAS CAHILL

I want to add something at this point about those primitive nature religions. The atheist seems to assume that they consisted only of nature worship, that none of them had any notion of a reality beyond nature. But is this true? One look inside the pyramids of Egypt will show you that it is not. There you will find the mummies of Egyptian royalty entombed with their kingly possessions and their servants. Obviously they are anticipating life after death, a journey beyond the grave to another world, a world beyond nature, one that looks very much supernatural. This same supernatural thread can be found in Sumer and Babylon and other ancient cultures. That these people worshiped nature cannot be disputed, but it is also clear that a hint of the supernatural was woven into their religion. We have already concluded that nature could not have been the seamstress sewing this supernatural thread. The weaver was God.

It seems, then, that even in these primitive nature religions the voice of God can be heard, telling the ancients there is more to reality than nature alone. In the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh and in other ancient writings, occasional odd and curious references to a world outside nature can be found, references that are inexplicable unless something outside of nature is letting these early writers sense its existence.

What you see here is the beginning of man's education about God by none other than God Himself. Like a teacher showing first-graders the existence of an alphabet, God begins with man at the most rudimentary level, the level of nature worship, and inserts there the ABCs of His existence. He takes man's myths and superstitions and uses them as a medium through which truth about Him can be grasped.

Thus we see in these nature religions the beginning of a journey that leads centuries later to the words of one considered by many to be God Himself: "You have heard that only on this mountain you should worship God. I say to you that God is a spirit and that anyone who worships Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."1 Words cannot relate how beautiful this whole process appears to all of us who worship God today.

Day 45 – a look back, a look ahead

I've tried to show He [God] exists by appealing to the common facts of science, ethics, history, and philosophy. Taken together, they form a powerful case for God.  –WILLIAM LANE CRAIG

It is now over six weeks since our journey began. Along the way we have looked at three arguments for the existence of God. As your guide, I have challenged you to gaze at the world around you and explain how certain things came to be. What is the best explanation for the universe's design? How can you account for the sense of fairness that resides in mankind? Why is there this tendency through the ages to acknowledge a supernatural world? The answer to each question has been the same: the existence of God is the best explanation.

We must now take broader and quicker steps. There are two more reasons to believe in God for us to consider. We will add these to the Argument from Design, the Argument from Fairness, and the Argument from Supernatural Belief and thus bring the first leg of our pilgrimage to a close. By then, the choice between theism and atheism should be easier for you. Hopefully, you will be persuaded by the weight of the evidence to get off the fence and to point the compass of your heart in the direction of God.

ARGUMENT

FROM

HUMAN

CHARACTERISTICS

Days 46-51

Day 46 – the argument defined

If the ultimate canvas against which the cosmos is painted is not personal like we are, then we are very much like fish out of water.  –GREGORY A. BOYD

Suppose you and I are invited to a friend's house for coffee and dessert. Upon entering, we are escorted into his dining room and asked to have a seat. Seconds later our friend returns from the kitchen with three cups of freshly brewed coffee and three slices of homemade chocolate pie. He informs us that he prepared the coffee and pie in his kitchen just before our arrival. If he is telling the truth, you and I can look at the drink and dessert before us and know in part what his kitchen is like. Even without stepping one foot into it, we can be certain that it contains an oven or microwave, because the first bites of pie we put into our mouths are warm. We know that it has a refrigerator to keep the cream in our coffee cold and the eggs in the meringue topping fresh. We also correctly assume that the kitchen has utensils to stir coffee with, pans to pour chocolate filling into, and spices that give flavor to both. Every characteristic of the coffee and chocolate pie must be explained by the kitchen in which they were made. In fact, if the pie is hot and our friend tells us his kitchen has no heating appliance, we would say to him that it cannot be a product of his kitchen alone.

Now suppose that you and I attend a banquet that evening. As we converse with people at our table, we find that we have several characteristics in common. We each have "a mind that is self-aware and rational, a heart which is free and can love and which is, therefore, morally responsible, and a soul (or call it what you will) which longs for meaning and significance." Just as sure as we described the pie as warm and the coffee as spicy, we determine that everyone at our table has these traits: reason, morality, and purpose.

We then turn our attention to the guest speaker at the banquet. He introduces himself as an atheist and begins to explain his view of the world. During his speech, he quotes existentialist atheist Jean-Paul Sartre: "It is meaningless that we are born; it is meaningless that we die." Then he quotes atheist Sigmund Freud: "The moment a man questions the meaning and value of life, he is sick, since objectively neither has any existence." He goes on to express the unanimous opinion of atheists by describing the universe as irrational, amoral, and purposeless.

When he is finished and the floor is open for questions, you stand to your feet and begin to speak:

Sir, this afternoon I enjoyed coffee and pie prepared in my friend's kitchen. The pie was warm and the coffee spicy, so I knew that the kitchen had to have warmth and spices within it. I knew that anything that came from his kitchen must be explained by it. But what you are telling me tonight about the universe is just the opposite. I am surrounded at my table by men and women who are rational, moral, and purposeful. That we are all products of nature and nature alone you boldly proclaim. Then you turn around and say that nature itself, the “kitchen” from which we are made, has no reason or morals or purpose. You are claiming that nature has produced humans with characteristics it does not itself possess. How, sir, is this possible? If nature has no reason, morals, and purpose and humans do, doesn't it mean that these traits must have originated somewhere else than nature? Doesn't this prove that something other than nature is out there, that a supernatural world exists? Doesn't the existence of these personal traits in a world considered devoid of them demand the existence of God?

You then sit down, having just voiced my fourth argument for God's existence, what I call the Argument from Human Characteristics.

Day 47 – multiple questions, one answer

Man cannot find the ultimate expression of his own being anywhere but in God Himself.  –EDWARD SILLEM

The Argument from Human Characteristics states that several human traits cannot be accounted for unless they have a supernatural source. It is a broader version of the Argument from Fairness and the Argument from Supernatural Belief and, like them, tries to explain the qualities humanity as a whole possesses. It comes to the same conclusion as the preceding arguments (that nature alone cannot be responsible) and points toward the same solution (the reality of God).

Let's make a running list of human characteristics that the atheist, given his view of the world, has a hard time explaining. In question form, they are as follows:

-If the universe is irrational and we are rational, what is the source of our rationality?

-If the universe is amoral and we are moral beings, where did our sense of right and wrong originate?

-If the universe is purposeless, from whence did our sense of purpose come?

-If the universe has no sense of fairness and justice and we do, how did we obtain it?

-If the universe has no meaning and we perceive meaning in our lives, how did we find it?

-If the universe is not self-aware and we are, where did we attain consciousness?

-If the universe has no love and we do, how do we explain the feeling of love within us?

-If the universe has no controlling mind and we do, how did we come to possess it?

-If the universe is impersonal and we are personal, what is the source of our personhood?

Remember that even an atheistic skeptic like David Hume (Day 14’s quotation) knew that every effect must have a cause. To be consistent, atheists must be able to explain how nature—their one and only cause—can produce characteristics it doesn't itself possess. To put it bluntly, I don’t believe they can. Taking into account the law of cause and effect, the summary answer to the questions above is that all of these human characteristics (rationality, morality, purpose, fairness and justice, meaning, consciousness, love, cognition, and personality) must come from something that is rational, moral, purposeful, fair and just, meaningful, self-aware, loving, cognizant, and personal. It appears that there is a force behind the universe that is beginning to look less and less like the “blind force” of nature and more and more like a real God. And it begins to look this way because it makes the most sense to us, not just because we wish it to be so.1

Day 48 – cause and effect in the “backyard”

The actual theory of atheism…entails at the close of the argument a manifest absurdity.  –ALPHONSE GRATY

Another way to see the truth of the Argument from Human Characteristics is to imagine walking through a backyard littered with apples. With apples everywhere at your feet, you don't have to look up to know that an apple tree is nearby. You know that apples come from apple trees, that an effect must be able to be explained by a cause.

What if you also encountered a few oranges in the same yard? Would you assume these to have come from the apple tree, too? No, you would immediately surmise that they came from somewhere else, specifically from an orange tree. To say that the apple tree could produce oranges would be laughable and indefensible.

But this is just what the atheist is asserting. He first claims the entire universe to be irrational, amoral, and without purpose. Then, as he walks through the universe's “backyard” and sees at his feet human “fruits” like reason, morality, and purpose, he still denies the existence of any "tree" other than nature. He asks us to believe that nature can produce “fruit” incompatible with itself, that it is irrational but can produce rational humans, that it is amoral but can produce moral humans, that it is without purpose but can produce purposeful humans. What he asks us to believe does not make sense. If nature does not possess these characteristics and we do, we all know that there must be a “tree” other than nature in the “backyard.” In addition to nature, there must be a reality that is rational and moral and purposeful. We know a supernatural source must exist when we see these “fruit” within us, for the same reason we know an orange tree must exist when we see oranges at our feet.

Day 49 – the atheist’s rebuttal

Doesn't evolutionary theory say that our minds and morality are just a part of our survival drive?  –EDWARD K. BOYD

If atheists are adamant that the universe has no reason, morals, and purpose, how do they explain these characteristics in humans without having to admit the existence of God? How do they answer the Argument from Human Characteristics?

One way is to deny that humans have these characteristics at all. The appearance of reason, morality, and purpose could be just that—only an appearance. If the truth were known, some atheists claim, these traits are not what they seem to be. They are not real, and that means that no supernatural entity is needed to explain them. Nature thus remains the one and only reality.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it goes completely against what atheists observe in the world on a daily basis. They deny the existence of human reason, morality, and purpose while humans who appear rational, moral, and purposeful are walking all around them. They ask us to look in the mirror and deny that we have any of these traits; then they expect us to accept their ideas as rational and their outlook meaningful. They claim that what they observe all around them is only a mirage, an illusion. At its core, this answer to the Argument from Human Characteristics is just another version of the illusory theory used to discredit the Argument from Design. It falls short of its goal for the same reason: it doesn't hold true in real life.

Another way to rebut the Argument from Human Characteristics is to say that reason, morality, and purpose are by-products of our animal instincts. Just as a dog at times appears to be smart or good but is acting only on instinct, reason and morality in humans could be nothing more than these same instincts in higher form. Since instincts come from nature, there would be no need to look elsewhere to explain these characteristics. There would be no need to resort to supernatural belief.

The problem here is twofold. For one thing, this line of thinking still doesn’t explain why you and I have traits that nature itself doesn’t have. It doesn’t explain how an irrational and amoral "tree" like nature can yield through its animal instincts rational and moral "fruit." The inconsistency of the atheist is not really changed. Secondly, the fact that we often are forced to choose one instinct (such as compassion) over another one (such as self-preservation) means that something more than our instincts must be at work. You cannot use another instinct to decide between the two, anymore than another key on the piano can decide for you which one of two keys you are to play. That decision must come from above, from the sheet of music (in the case of the pianist) and from the supernatural (in the case of humanity).1

The third way atheists try to counter the Argument from Human Characteristics is to bring to our attention all the negative traits of man. Instead of focusing on humanity's tendency to love, reason, and act morally, they remind us that it is just as common for humans to hate, act irrationally, and be immoral. This, they say, is just as much evidence against the supernatural as the positive traits are evidence for it. The two cancel each other, leaving a stalemate.

What the atheist is attempting to do once again is distract us from the question at hand. That question does not concern any negative traits humans happen to possess. (It is assumed that atheists, with such a negative worldview, can account for them.) The question at hand is whether or not atheists can explain the presence of positive human traits in a universe 100% negative, and the truth is they cannot.

Eventually we will address the irrational and immoral side of humanity. We will tackle negative human traits in due time. But we will reserve this topic for the second and third legs of our journey, when God’s nature and human nature are explored. To point us in its direction now is just an attempt to evade the present issue.

Day 50 – the strategy of atheistic debate

Atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of the mind.  –PLATO

Let me add a few comments about atheistic arguments in general. There is a certain pattern to them. First, the atheist will attempt to provide rational reasons why he could be right and the theist wrong. This is what we saw yesterday in the first two rebuttals to the Argument from Human Characteristics. But if there is no rational answer or the ones available seem a bit farfetched, the atheist will proceed to distract the theist from the main issue. He will raise questions that appear relevant to the subject at hand but, on further reflection, can be shown to be irrelevant. His third answer yesterday is a classic example. It is an attempt to divert us from the main subject, the presence of positive human traits, to another—the presence of negative ones. It is used, of course, because the atheist can explain the latter but cannot account for the former. The intention here is to get us off track, to divert our attention from the immediate road ahead. The theist must be alert to this tactic, recognize it when it comes, and expose it as nothing other than the atheist changing the subject.

Take, for example, the criticisms voiced by the eighteenth century skeptic David Hume concerning the Argument from Design.1 When told that the universe, like a watch, must have a designer, he first tried to present rational alternatives. He argued that the universe could be more like a wild plant than a watch. It could sprout on its own and show evidence of design, yet not require a designer. It could expand, then die, then sprout again, just as day lilies do year after year. What Hume was alluding to is a universe that needs no creator because that universe is eternal, forever recycling itself, forever expanding and contracting, forever creating itself anew. That this is a rational alternative to the Argument from Design has already been noted (Day 21), as has been the fact that it tends to conflict with recent scientific evidence pointing toward a finite universe.

If Hume had stopped there, he would have begun and ended on a rational note. But he did not stop there. He proceeded to resort to a diversionary tactic. He argued that the universe, instead of being created by an Intelligent Designer, might just as well have been the best effort of a committee of lesser gods or the first effort of a baby god. By saying this, Hume conceded the existence of a designing force behind the universe then evaded the issue by calling into question the credentials of the designer(s). He attempted to avoid the subject at hand (whether a god exists) and redirect the focus to an entirely different subject (what this god is like). His response was no different than that of the young boy who, when caught with his hand in the cookie jar, tells his mother he intended to feed them to the dog. The boy's explanation does not in any way change the main issue (that his hand is in the jar); in fact, he concedes to her that it is. His statement to her is merely an attempt to distract her from that main issue. I doubt that he is successful. His mother is too smart to fall for that clever ploy. So should we be when the atheist, caught in a theological predicament, tries to evade the question at hand.

Day 51 – science and faith

Late-twentieth-century science has overturned the assumptions that reigned at the end of the nineteenth century.  –PATRICK GLYNN

Atheists have always tended to use discoveries of science as a weapon against theists. For a while it appeared they did so with good reason. Starting with Copernicus in the fifteenth century and continuing well into the twentieth, a succession of scientists painted a composite portrait of our universe that seemed quite different from the one traditionally described. The universe was not within our reach but was a vast expanse of mostly empty space, billions of light-years across, interspersed occasionally with stars and their planets. Earth was not the center of the universe, as had been touted for centuries, but just another planet within it. Its claim to fame was that only on it had life been discovered. The world was not a few thousand years old, as creationists had claimed, but was found to extend farther back in time than ever imagined. Man did not appear to be the most special creation on earth but the last in a long sequence of random evolutionary steps within the natural world. Every stone the scientists looked under seemed to yield something atheists could use as evidence and theists had to explain away. It was as if the door to God had been closed shut by science with no key available to reopen it.

The repercussions in the last two centuries should not be understated. Belief in God, once taken for granted, has lost considerable ground to disbelief, especially in the scientific community. Although most Americans still believe that God exists, they are often perceived by the educated to do so out of scientific ignorance. Even among these "uninformed" masses, enough scientific information has become known to them to shake many a faith at its foundation. If theists are honest enough to admit it, at least a seed of doubt has been planted in many of their minds. Atheists, on the other hand, have tended to walk with a swagger. They have boldly asserted that the universe is 100% natural and that belief in God has become obsolete. The cry "God is dead!" has echoed through college campuses and has received considerable ink in the lay press. Along with the announcement of God's demise, the atheists have injected into the vacuum thus formed their own worldview, one that is devoid of any absolute morals, any sense of meaning and purpose, and any hope of life beyond the grave. Thus has been born the culture seen in America today.

What is little known by most people is that science, for centuries the thorn in the side of theism, has in the past fifty years become its pulpit. A series of recent discoveries, all accepted by the scientific community as evidential, has cast serious doubts on the atheist's case. For one thing, the presumption of an eternal universe seems to be inaccurate. Though admittedly billions of years old, it has been found (through the measurement of its background radiation) to have had a definite beginning in time. Once thought to be random, it seems more likely (in light of what scientists call the anthropic principle) to be highly structured and precise, down to the smallest details. What's more, the whole purpose of this fine-tuning of the universe, the end to which the universe seems to be pointing, say the scientists, appears to be the existence of human beings. Adding to this, the veracity of several concepts of Darwinism has been called into question. The picture that science now gives us of the universe is that of a huge, precise, non-random, finite mechanism built for one purpose: human existence. It is as if science has found the hidden key, reopened the door, and brought us face-to-face with the reality of God.1

ARGUMENT

FROM

PERSONAL

TESTIMONY

Days 52-55

Day 52 – the majority opinion

According to various Gallup surveys, 94% of Americans believe in God and 90% pray.  –PATRICK GLYNN

The last reason I will offer for belief in God lies squarely in the realm of the subjective. I call this the Argument from Personal Testimony, because it directs our attention to the voices of men and women who believe in God and claim to have experienced Him in some way.

In every time and culture, the notion that God exists has been the overwhelming consensus. You will not find one era where theism is overshadowed, one period where atheism reigns supreme. Sometimes that belief has been rather primitive and other times mature, but it has always been there, this tidal wave of opinion in the direction of God. He may be perceived by some cultures to be unapproachable and by others to be near, but only occasionally has He been declared to be nonexistent. The theist, therefore, is solidly in the ranks of history’s majority. If the weight of personal testimony is used as a gauge, to believe in God becomes the easy choice.

The majority is not always correct, however, and atheists are quick to point this out. The sad history of Copernicus and Galileo is evidence enough that strength in numbers is not always proportional to degree of truth. They alone were perceptive and brave enough to declare to an incredulous public that the earth was not the astronomical center of the universe. They were in the minority, but they were on the side of right. Those in the  majority proceeded to compound their error by persecuting anyone whose opinions differed from their own. “It just might be the case,” the atheists warn us, “that our minority opinion about God is also correct and will be proven so in due time.”

This argument notwithstanding, I believe there is good reason to maintain, when it comes to belief in God, that the majority opinion is true. I do not believe that theism would have remained the consensus opinion if it were false. Is it not amazing, once everyone conceded that Copernicus and Galileo were right, that belief in God went unscathed? Wouldn't it seem likely that theism would suffer when the fallacy of an earth-centered universe was exposed? How was it possible for such belief to remain supreme in the face of evidence that seemed to threaten it at its very core? I do not think it would have weathered that storm unless it was true.

Over the past two centuries, the continued embrace of theism by human beings in the face of the Scientific Revolution is likewise a paradox that can best be explained by its veracity. With the immense popularity of Darwin and Freud in the classroom and the neglect therein of creationism and traditional ethics, one would have expected atheism to have made huge gains. Within certain populations, it did. By the year 2000, 90% of psychologists had dismissed the existence of God as untrue, indeterminate, or irrelevant. These skeptics, however, still remain the overwhelming minority. Today, the overall picture of humanity given to us by independent pollsters is of a group of people whose faith in God has refused to yield to cultural and scientific trends. Incredibly, ninety-four of every one hundred Americans still profess belief in God, a fact atheists would like to blame on the public's ignorance of any alternatives. I would assert that the ubiquity of humanism in public schools and college campuses over the past forty years makes it doubtful the masses believe in God simply because they are uninformed. The truth is they are well informed yet continue to believe.

Science and knowledge will continue to evolve. Old ideas will be discarded and new ones embraced. Discoveries will come that seem to undermine faith. Faith will not be fazed. It will emerge stronger, wiser, and deeper. Belief in God will always remain the constant in the equation of the universe. It will never die, because truth never dies.

Day 53 – conflicting testimony: whom do I believe?

Christian theism must be rejected. –GEORGE H. SMITH

The evidence of God’s existence…is more than compelling. –BLAISE PASCAL

I have always been a little wary of making decisions based on subjective testimony. It can be difficult to gauge the truth of what the person is saying, and he or she may be inclined to spin it in the most favorable light. What results is a testimony that is a hybrid of that person's experience and perspective. It cannot be trusted, for the same reason a personal testimony on a television infomercial can't be trusted: there may be a tendency to make things appear better or more certain than they are.

In such cases, I try to look for things that tend to lend credibility to the story. Does the person have anything to gain from it? If not, it is more likely to be true. Does he or she back up the story with objective evidence? If so, it is to be taken more seriously. Is the person, by giving the testimony, placed in a position where he or she may be criticized and penalized instead of praised and rewarded? If so, the testimony has much more the ring of truth to it. Is his or her testimony as a whole logical? If it is, it may merit a closer look.

I have already pointed out that a good many atheists have changed their position and have begun to bear witness to the reality of God. I have recognized others who have made the change in the opposite direction, ex-believers who now espouse atheism. As I have sifted through their conflicting testimonies, I have noticed several things that make the converts to theism more believable.

If you analyze the collective witness of theists-turned-atheists, you will encounter five reasons they do not believe in God. One is that scientific evidence points them toward atheism. The classic example is Darwin, who left on his famous excursion a Christian and returned an agnostic. Others point to the unjustified pain and suffering on earth as evidence that God doesn't exist. Charles Templeton, a former teammate of Billy Graham and the author of Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith, uses this approach. A third reason given is the inability of theists to prove beyond a doubt the existence of God. A fourth is the fact that theism has always been embraced by some who have acted in ways completely antithetical to its tenets. If these four accusations are answered, all that remains is a subjective intuition that atheism is right. Those who have already made up their minds usually make this final defense.

The collective witness of atheists-turned-theists is qualitatively different. Staunch atheists—men of intellect and leadership such as C. S. Lewis, Patrick Glynn, Lee Strobel, and Charles Colson—have begun to believe in God and have defended their change of direction. Having been there before, they have exposed the following weaknesses in atheistic rhetoric:

1. when atheists use science as proof, they fail to acknowledge a whole body of scientific evidence that points toward God;

2. when they refer to the world's pain as evidence against God's existence, they fail to see that it's God's nature (not His existence) that is put on trial by suffering;

3. when they accuse theists of being unable to prove their case, they are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black;

4. when they point to religion's atrocities as reason to abandon faith, they fail to acknowledge that the good done in the name of God far outweighs the bad, that democracy has its warts as well and they have yet to abandon it;

5. when they refuse to change their position no matter the argument, all they are left with as the basis of their belief is subjective opinion—hearsay and hunch—with little or no objective foundation.

Contrast this with the converts to theism above, who use rational arguments to buttress their subjective beliefs, arguments that have stood the test of time. Their personal testimony rests squarely upon an objective foundation. For this reason, their witness seems to me the most credible, the kind most likely to sway an impartial jury.

Day 54 – the author’s testimony

Increase our faith!  –the DISCIPLES of Jesus

I believe; help my unbelief!  –a FATHER who brought his sick son to Jesus

In the introduction to this book, I gave you a bit of my own personal testimony. I told you about my early belief in the existence of God, a belief that was more a product of my upbringing than anything else. Unaware of any evidence to the contrary, I accepted as true virtually everything I heard about God at home and church. In college, however, I encountered skepticism about God that totally went against the grain of my youth. There I studied the greatest philosophers who ever lived and discovered that some of them were avowed atheists.1 As much as I would have liked, I could not easily discard their passionate and persuasive arguments. I was a novice in the area of theology and philosophy and, in every sense of the phrase, was in water way over my head. Inevitably, my rock-solid faith began to show some cracks. I began to doubt.

Thus began for me a religious journey that continues to the present, a journey of persistent faith in the midst of lingering doubt. Through the years I sought and found satisfactory answers to the rhetoric of atheists and agnostics. Forced daily as a physician to weigh diagnostic and therapeutic evidence in the balance, I found it rather easy to analyze the arguments for and against God and discard the ones that were marginal. The others I put under a microscope with three lenses: the lens of reason, the lens of common sense, and the lens of practicality. Only those arguments that were all three—rational, sensible, and livable—were embraced by me as true.

After years of such study and reflection, I have come to the conclusion that my childhood faith in God was legitimate, in spite of the doubts and uncertainties put in its way. The existence of God, a belief I took for granted in my youth and thoroughly dissected as a young adult, is now to me a viable hypothesis that has been tried and tested in the "laboratory" of my mind, emotions, and experience. While I cannot truthfully claim to have eliminated every parcel of doubt, I can declare that my life today as a theist—in the midst of some occasional doubts—is more rewarding, meaningful, challenging, and fulfilling than ever before.

In a sense, I left the simple faith of my youth to seek the path of truth, only in the end to find myself back where I started. Although I still, like Paul, view the world through a lens that is not completely transparent, the prism of my faith is clear enough to see in the landscape of the universe the face of God. In the knowledge of His presence, I have found peace.

Day 55 – the universe’s testimony (5 Reasons reviewed)

Nothing in this world is able to explain its own existence; thus, there must be a God in order to explain the world in which we find ourselves.  –JOHN WARWICK MONTGOMERY

If I were given five minutes to tell you why you should believe in the existence of God, I would relate to you what has made sense in my own experience. First of all, I would limit our discussion to these two possibilities: theism ("He exists!”) and atheism ("He does not!"). In so doing, I would eliminate agnosticism ("I'm not sure!") as a viable option, simply because it cannot be true. If we knew all the facts about the existence of God, agnosticism would become extinct, leaving theism or atheism—whichever is true—as the only logical choice.

Next, I would admit to you that any argument for or against God's existence will fall short of absolute proof. Nevertheless, I would assert that it is imperative for you to make a decision one way or the other based on the evidence at hand, for only at work in one of the "fields" (theism or atheism) can anything meaningful be accomplished.

After this brief introduction, I would share with you five arguments for God's existence:

1. Argument from Design – Everyone is aware that there is order and design in the universe. Just as the presence of design in a watch demands the existence of a watchmaker, the presence of design in the universe demands the existence of a Creator. To deny this, you must assert, in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary, that the universe is eternal and in no need of a Creator. Or you must claim, contrary to common sense, that the universe is an illusion and in no need of a Creator. Of course, you could point to all the disorder in the world as evidence against God, but that is evidence concerning God's character. It has nothing to do with whether or not He exists.

2. Argument from Fairness – Everyone has a sense that some things in life are unfair. It follows, therefore, that something called "fairness" must also exist. This standard of fairness—this belief that some things are just/right and others are unjust/wrong—could not have come from nature or from humans, because rules must always transcend the "playing field" and the "players." The existence of this Moral Law within us demands the existence of God. You could, like atheists, try to deny this by saying that there is no such thing as fair/unfair or right/wrong if the universe is 100% the product of chance. The next moment, however, you will proceed to act as if you are right and I am wrong. You will find yourself unable to live what you preach.

3. Argument from Supernatural Belief – As far back as history has been recorded, human beings have believed that something other than nature exists. This awareness of a supernatural world could not have entered our minds without God's help anymore the existence of Shakespeare could enter the minds of Romeo and Juliet without Shakespeare's help. The presence of supernatural belief, therefore, demands the existence of God. Without His assistance, no one could have ever conceived that He was possible. You may, like atheists, try to deny this by claiming supernatural belief to be a by-product of nature, but what you are claiming does not make sense. If nature is all there is, as atheists assert, why would it relate to humans the existence of something outside itself? God must be the source of our supernatural awareness.

4. Argument from Human Characteristics – To be consistent with the principle of cause and effect, you must believe your human traits to have originated from a source consistent with them. Just as apples come from apple trees, your reason and your sense of morality and purpose must come from a source that is rational, moral, and purposeful. Atheists may claim nature to be that source, but their view of nature—100% irrational, 100% amoral, and 100% without purpose—makes the effect unexplained by its cause. Or they may claim, as many atheists do, that human characteristics like morality and purpose do not really exist. The problem is that they proceed to act in their daily lives as if they do. Next, they may try to point to our negative traits as evidence against God, but this is just an attempt to change the subject. They know that their view of nature can explain why humans are sometimes irrational, immoral, and purposeless. But the question at hand is whether or not the atheists' worldview can account for the many times humans are rational, moral, and purposeful. The answer is: it cannot. You must conclude, therefore, that the presence of such human characteristics in us demands the existence of a source with similar characteristics. It demands the existence of God.

5. Argument from Personal Testimony – Belief in God has been the consensus testimony throughout history, even during the rise of cultural and scientific trends that have tended to undermine its credibility. The "roll call" of such theists today includes many former atheists who have embraced the existence of God as the most sensible explanation for what they know about the universe and experience in it. My personal testimony is the same. Although never an atheist, I have through the years had some doubts about God, only to see the vast majority of them vanish in the spotlight of truth.

These are my reasons for believing in God. The first four form an objective foundation upon which the fifth rests. They are an integral part of my faith. My hope is that they will be of some benefit to yours.

CLOSING STEPS

Days 56-60

Day 56 – what about the Bible?

"Mr. Crampton, I don't believe that story ...”  –a young STUDENT, to his Sunday School teacher

We need to tie up a few loose ends before we conclude. First of all, I want to make you aware that the Bible has seldom been referred to on this leg of our journey. You may have already noticed this dearth of scripture and assumed that it was an accident. Just the opposite is true. You have seen few Biblical references along the way because that was what I intended from the start.

This may at first glance seem a bit hypocritical. Why would I, a professing Christian who loves and reveres the Bible, not include it herein? If I consider it to be true, why would I ignore it? If I am arguing about the existence of God, how could I omit a source so pivotal to that belief, one whose first four words are, "In the beginning, God..."?

The reason I have declined to use it is rather simple. I have tried to give everyone journeying with us some valid reasons for believing in God. Some who have chosen to read this book are Bible-believers. Quoting scripture would be just fine with them. On the other hand, atheists in the audience would object, for they do not believe that the Bible is true. If I had argued, "I believe in God, because the Bible says God exists," their response would have been, "So what? I don't believe what the Bible says.” To them, the Bible is a prejudiced source. They consider it biased testimony, the kind you would expect an impartial jury to mistrust.

For this reason, I have chosen to begin where we all can agree and proceed from there. I have attempted to start at our common ground instead of embarking from our areas of contention. Purposely avoiding the Bible’s testimony, I have chosen to use as evidence the universe we encounter every day. What do we know about the universe around us, and how can it best be explained? Does the kind of world we live in make the most sense with or without a God behind it? This has been the type of argument I have put before you from the first day until now. In doing so, I have chosen a path that has steered us clear of Bible verses as proof texts.

Be assured that this detour is only temporary. On a later leg of our journey, I will lead you on a path lit with such verses. I will use the Bible freely, holding it high before you in public with the same zeal that, even now, I feel for it in my heart. Until then, the theist should be comforted (and, I think, the atheist troubled) that a strong case can be made for God's existence even with the Bible temporarily placed on the shelf. If anything, this will make us respect the Bible all the more when, in due time, we pick it up again.

Day 57 – friends of other faiths

We have not yet got as far as the God of any actual religion, still less the God of that particular religion called Christianity.  –C. S. LEWIS

I also want to make you aware that no evidence has yet been offered that would tend to favor one religion over another. Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians agree with the main point of this book. They may use different quotations and arguments, but they come to the same conclusion. They all claim that a God or, in some cases, a group of several gods exists. Pertaining to the subject at hand, they are on the same side of the fence. They are theists. They are working in the same "field."

Since I am a follower of Jesus, you can correctly assume that I think Christianity is preferable to the others. But I do so with a sense of respect for people of other faiths and with a tolerance of them that is sorely lacking in society today. Regarding the present issue, the existence of God, they are my friends. As fellow theists, we walk side by side as the first leg of our journey draws to a close.

Day 58 – common sense

... faith is not an irrational leap...[It is] supported by reason and evidence.  –CHARLES COLSON

Throughout this journey we have approached the existence of God from a commonsense standpoint. Instead of blindly, even stubbornly, believing in God, we have attempted to discover if there are any objective reasons for our faith.

First, we surveyed the world around us and agreed that these five facts are true:

1. Humans live in a universe that shows evidence of order and design.

2. Humans tend to have a notion that some things are fair/unfair and right/wrong.

3. Humans have throughout history believed in the existence of the supernatural.

4. Humans everywhere possess certain characteristics considered to be positive.

5. Humans abound who will gladly give personal testimony of God's existence.

After stating these five facts, we attempted to find the best explanation for them:

1. Is the order and design in the universe best explained by God or without Him?

2. Does our notion of justice and morality make the most sense in a theistic or an atheistic universe?

3. Is humanity's tendency toward supernatural belief best explained by a universe governed by God or a one governed by nature?

4. Are our positive human characteristics more likely the product of a world that is 100% natural or one that includes the supernatural?

5. Does the testimony of God's existence throughout history make the most sense if that testimony is true or if it is false?

These are the five facts we observed and the five questions we raised about them. In the final analysis, there has been but one answer: the existence of God is the best explanation. Belief in God, it turns out, has had much more the ring of truth to it than atheism. When put to the test, theism has earned the seal-of-approval of our common sense.

Day 59 – many maps, one treasure

…atheism cannot credibly account for…the fine-tuning of the universe..., the existence of moral laws, [or] the supernatural confirmation.  –LEE STROBEL

As I have progressed through these five reasons for believing in God, I suspect that one or two may have resonated with you more than the others. This is to be expected, given the varied backgrounds among us. Unfortunately, the tendency sometimes is for the religious seeker to become concerned if he or she cannot embrace every one of them. I want to correct this misunderstanding once and for all. What the reader must realize is that the numerous arguments for God's existence (one writer has listed two dozen of them) are not like a series of sums leading to one right answer. They are not linked in sequence so that one bad one ruins the whole equation. They are more like separate maps to the same treasure. If only one of them is right, the treasure exists.

In a sense, I have given you five maps to the treasure of God's existence. Some of them may have led you to a dead end. You may have had to turn back and try the other ones. But if any has led you to that treasure, it matters not if the others failed you. You have sought and embraced the reality of God. Instead of worrying about the maps that did not work, a time for celebrating the one that did would seem the proper course.

My advice to you, then, is to become acquainted with the five arguments given in this book and others alluded to elsewhere, latch on to one or two that ring true to you, and quit worrying that you have left the others behind.

Day 60 – the summit of God’s existence

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.  –ROBERT JASTROW

In his letter to the church at Rome, Paul argued that humans should be able to come to believe in God just by looking at the world around them. Even if they had no family to tell them, no angel to enlighten them, and no Bible to inform them, they could still perceive "God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” —by looking at "the things that are made."

I have come to the conclusion that Paul was right. You and I are no different in many ways than primitive men and women thousands of years ago. We may not be as illiterate and unlearned, but we inhabit the same universe, one that bears a divine handprint. God first planted the seed of His awareness in us; then He put us in a universe with evidence of Himself all around us. If we would just take the time to examine our fascinating and complex world, that seed would begin to take root, sprout, and bloom.

This is what many of you have tried to do on our journey. Over the past sixty days, you have invested much time and effort trying to cultivate that seed of faith. My prayer is that the same God who planted it will reward you with a harvest, that you may come to believe and receive the reality of God.

With the "amen" of this prayer, we have reached the end of the first leg of our journey. I hope we will meet again at a later stage of our pilgrimage. Until then, be assured that I will always be grateful for the opportunity to have ascended the slope of God's existence with you. My faith in God has grown stronger as together we have walked over territory so familiar to me. If you likewise desire stronger faith, I encourage you to retrace these steps in the future. You, too, will better understand and more tightly embrace the reality of God. In this case, familiarity will breed contempt's opposite: reverence.

AFTERWORD

The subject of God's existence has never generated a shortage of passion and opinion. It has always had the potential to be controversial and polarizing. The book you have just read is no exception. It will, I predict, foster criticism from several sources. Unless persuaded otherwise as they read, atheists will disagree entirely with my conclusion and will try to poke holes in my arguments. Most agnostics will do the same and will remain skeptical and unconvinced. Ironically, the strongest reservations may be voiced by fellow theists, people who share with me a belief in God but object to my approach, emphasis, or style. Some will say that my arguments have been too objective. Others will find them too subjective. Some will say that I have described God in terms much too personal and have neglected the awe and mystery of divine transcendence. Many will accuse me of just the opposite, of not emphasizing God's personality enough, making Him so distant that He seems irrelevant to everyday life. Some will assert that the entire book is a waste of time and mental effort, since God's existence should be assumed and not argued, reverenced and not rationalized. Many will consider my approach much too Christian, while others will be disappointed that it is not Christian enough. Some will opine that I have led them on a path much too laden with clever analogies and simplistic illustrations, while a few will probably accuse me of talking "over their heads." When all is said and done, negative reaction to what I have written will range from boredom to disappointment to disgust.

I am not surprised nor upset by these criticisms. In fact, I understand and accept them. I believe each of them exposes a potential weakness in the way I have chosen to deal with the subject of God. The reason I have decided to proceed, even with full knowledge of these limitations and liabilities, is that I firmly believe a subset of people exists who will find this book beneficial. I am convinced there are many today who profess a belief in God but, just as I did for several years, struggle with His existence. The number of such people is more than it appears at first glance, because I am certain most conceal these doubts from family and peers, relegating them to moments of quiet introspection. Their crisis of faith is similar to what I experienced and its solution, I hope, the same. If any of these individuals reads what I have written, relates it to his or her religious journey, and finds it a useful adjunct to his or her faith, then the book will have achieved its intended purpose.

As we shall see in the next leg of our journey, the way believers have dealt with the reality of God has varied considerably from person to person and time to time. Indeed, the way He is perceived by each individual tends to evolve and change over the course of a lifetime. I am no different. Even today, I sometimes perceive God to be transcendent, distant, Wholly Other. At other times I sense Him immanent, relational, and personal. Often my faith is objective and rational but just as often subjective and mystical. As I will later explain, I have adopted a faith that can be described as a balance of these opposites, a faith that embraces a God who is both transcendent and personal and approaches Him with a blend of reason and mystery.

If this book has not seemed to reflect this dynamic balance in my faith, I hope the reader will understand why. The arguments atheists used years ago to create doubt within me were largely objective ones. It was natural that my path back to faith would likewise be objectively bent. For this reason, I fear that this book does not give the subjective dimension of my faith its due. This is the feeling I get every time I read it in its entirety. If you, too, have sensed this apparent imbalance, then trust me that it is a temporary, albeit necessary, distortion. Now that I have revealed to you how I came to fully believe in God again, I feel no compulsion to handle the subject of God's nature the same way. I will certainly approach this next topic objectively and rationally, but I predict that you will be able to better appreciate the subjective and mysterious side of my faith.

Toward the completion of this book I reread Karen Armstrong's A History of God, in which she provides "a history of the way men and women have perceived him from Abraham to the present day." She is able to capture better than anyone the tension that has existed throughout history between God's transcendence and His immanence, between a faith in Him that is subjective versus one that is objective. Her work once again showed me that humans have always seemed to wrestle with the balance of reason and mystery in religion.

Instead of trying to eliminate or avoid this paradox, my own view is that we should embrace it, accepting it as an integral part of the religious experience. I believe that God is both transcendent and personal and can be experienced both objectively and subjectively. I include both reason and mystery in my faith. My faith, in fact, consists of holding these opposites within me in permanent, dynamic tension.

We will discuss this in more detail when we begin to examine God's nature. As we do so, the question of His existence should no longer trouble us. We will assume, based on the testimony given in this book, that God exists and that humanity's inclination toward faith in Him has not been in vain. We will accept faith in God as something indigenous to men and women.

In the introduction to her book, as she recounts her own religious journey from life as a nun to that of a religious writer, Ms. Armstrong agrees that we are all in the same boat:

…my study of the history of religion has revealed that human beings are spiritual animals. Indeed, there is a case for arguing that Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus. Men and women started to worship gods as soon as they became recognizably human; they created religions at the same time as they created works of art. This was not simply because they wanted to propitiate powerful forces; these early faiths expressed the wonder and mystery that seem always to have been an essential component of the human experience of this beautiful yet terrifying world. Like art, religion has been an attempt to find meaning and value in life, despite the suffering that flesh is heir to. Like any other human activity, religion can be abused, but it seems to have been something we have always done. It was...natural to humanity... I expected to find that God had simply been a projection of human needs and desires... I have been extremely surprised by some of my findings.

So have I been pleasantly surprised about the reality of God. I have found that He is not a product of my fears and wishes, nor is He merely an extension of the forces of nature all around me. I have discovered that God truly exists and that His existence would not change if I (and all my needs and fears) and nature (and all its beauty and fury) were to pass away.

ENDNOTES

Day 1

1When I say it would be foolish to proceed forward if God does not exist, I am not implying that your mind must be completely made up about God's existence before the subject of His nature can be considered. I am aware of several people, now professing and practicing theists, who looked at these two aspects of God simultaneously as they made their decision. While remaining unconvinced that God was real, they tried to imagine what He would be like if He was. I see no problem with this approach, except that it can incline the seeker to ask appropriate questions at inappropriate times, often with disastrous consequences. (Take, for example, the temptation to use the presence of evil and suffering in the world—a discussion relevant to God's nature—as a reason to deny His existence.) If the seeker can keep his or her mind clear that the subjects of God's existence and nature are two separate legs of the same journey and will not forget the differences inherent therein, then to proceed along these dual fronts should not be discouraged.

I do, however, think it ludicrous to go any further when one has already made up his or her mind that there is no God. And if it were ever proven that he or she is right, then it would be foolish for any of us to continue. It would be a waste of anyone's time to try to figure out the nature of a nonexistent God.

Day 2

1In my own Protestant denomination, there are many who claim that Christianity is not a religion. It is, instead, a relationship. It is not man seeking God, but God seeking man. I do agree that there are significant differences in the way Christians view their interaction with God, and I am convinced of the benefits a personal relationship with Jesus brings to the individual. But the way I broadly define religion allows me to include Christianity along with all the other faiths. Very simply, if you belong to a group that worships God or the gods, you belong to a religion. That is as far as my definition goes.

Day 3

1For a review of the scientific evidence in favor of an afterlife, read “Intimations of Immortality” in Patrick Glynn’s God: The Evidence (Roseville, Calif.: Prima Publishing, 1999).

Day 4

1Psalm 10:1-15; 94:3-7.

2Job 13:3; 23:1-7.

3Matthew 27:46.

4Although atheism denies the existence of ultimate justice, no atheist acts as if this is so. The Argument from Fairness (Days 32-34) will elaborate further on this inconsistency.

Day 6

1When referring to God, I have chosen throughout this book to use the traditional masculine pronoun. I am aware of the debate about such use in certain theological and political circles and am not trying to be insensitive to those with differing views. If the truth were known, I believe that God transcends the bounds of gender just as much as the bounds of race. Why I have elected to use “He,” “His,” and “Him” exclusively is rather practical. If theology isn’t already confusing enough to the non-theologian, equally distributed references to God as masculine and feminine would have made this book much more difficult to follow. It would have defeated the purpose of the whole project: to relay God’s existence to the masses in the most understandable terms possible. Another option—to refer to God as “It”—would have projected an image far too impersonal, almost demeaning. And to use no pronouns whatsoever would have made these pages unbearable reading.

Two other points are worth mentioning. Since most people are already accustomed to masculine references to God, their use here may help keep the reader focused on the main issue (is there a God?) rather than on a secondary one—whether God is male, female, or neuter. Lastly, and not the least important, Jesus freely used the male pronoun for God. I suspect he did so for similar practical reasons: to maximize the message and minimize the minutia. If such an approach was good enough for him, so be it for me.

Day 7

1Some would venture a third option, namely that God should not be thought of as either existing or not existing. It is futile, they would say, to try to define in any terms what is utterly indescribable. These mystics, as they are often called, shun any objective approach to God, relying entirely on subjective acknowledgement and worship. Such wholesale abandonment of the intellect has never satisfied me. On the other hand, to rely on reason alone and totally dismiss mystery seems no better. My personal faith is actually a blend of the two, as tangible as the wind but just as elusive. For more on this, I refer you to this book’s “Afterword.”

Day 8

1The atheist is less likely than the theist to approach certainty. He has the unenviable task of trying to prove a negative. His job is to prove that God is not, while the theist’s is to prove that God is. The philosophers tell us that his task, for this reason, is much more difficult. See “The Absurdity of Atheism” in Steve Kumar’s Christianity for Skeptics.

Day 11

1Agnosticism, in fact, is so impractical that virtually every person I have read who espouses it is indistinguishable from an atheist. The agnostic Bertrand Russell is a classic example. He professes to be an agnostic, but his rhetoric and outlook are nothing short of atheistic. There is seldom a hint in his writings of the ambiguity he claims to possess about God. While maintaining that he spends his life straddling the fence, he speaks as one who has decided to work in the "field" of the atheists. I am sure there are some agnostics as well inside the church who appear in every respect to be theists. You would never guess they are unsure about God, because they decided long ago to inhabit and embrace the theist’s world. They, like all agnostics, have found it impossible to remain on the fence. The daily lives of agnostics, therefore, are witness enough to the fact that agnosticism is not livable.

Day 15

1Credit is usually given to William Paley, the nineteenth century philosopher, for the watch-watchmaker analogy used today to explain the Argument from Design. My rendition here is based on a paraphrase of Paley in Bruce Barton’s What Can a Man Believe?

Day 16

1The Argument from Design is, in reality, much older than two hundred years. In fact, there are variations of it in Jewish and Islamic writings early in the second millennium. It was not until the eighteenth century Enlightenment that Christian philosophers, like Paley and Voltaire, began to restate it and others, like David Hume, sought to discredit it.

Day 19

1I am afraid I will lose a few supporters here. Science’s claim that the universe is finite comes with another—that its beginning took place billions of years ago. All creationists would applaud the former, but Biblical literalists would take offense with the latter. They contend that the earth is no more than a few thousand years old and have written at length in defense of that opinion. If you are among them, I ask that you overlook our disagreement on the universe’s age in deference to our agreement on its finitude. If you think about it, the fact that the universe had a beginning is the more central of the two issues. Whether that birth took place thousands or billions of years ago pales in comparison. Peripheral also is whether God chose the Big Bang to bring the world into being or merely shouted it into existence ex nihilo. The core issue—“in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”—is upheld either way. So if you disagree with the scientists and me about these side issues, I implore you to continue on with the group. I will not ask you to change your opinion; it, indeed, may be right. When we get to heaven and know the whole truth, I may be the one whose opinion must change. What I do ask of you is to save this discussion for a later date. Now is the time to stand on common ground, not to wrestle in peripheral currents.

Day 21

1For a more detailed discussion of the Many Worlds Hypothesis, read Lee Strobel’s The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), pp. 141-144.

2Strobel also includes an explanation of the Oscillating Model of the Universe in the work just cited, pages 113-117.

Day 29

1For a thorough, easy-to-read, and entertaining discussion of this argument, read Paul Chamberlain’s Can We Be Good Without God? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996).

Day 36

1The bulk of this argument is a recounting of C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1943), Book I.

Day 40

1One of the objections to this argument goes like this:

If humanity’s awareness of the supernatural implies that the supernatural is real, then our childhood beliefs in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, ghosts and goblins, and the like would imply that they are real, too. And since we all know that they aren’t, the Argument from Supernatural Belief does not pass the test. If you cannot apply it across the board, you should not use it to defend the existence of God.

The atheist continues by posing to us a question:

Do we, as adults, really believe in Santa Claus, ghosts and goblins, and the Tooth Fairy? Of course, not! We line up at Christmas to see him, not because we believe but rather because our children and grandchildren do. We place a tooth under the pillow at bedtime only because our child has faith in her. And we speak of ghosts and goblins around the campfire to scare the uninformed. We, the informed, realize that no such beings exist. Can’t the same be said for belief in God? Isn’t God a concept that with time and knowledge we will likewise outgrow? All we need is to be properly educated, and our belief in God will fade as quickly as a real Santa does in a young, maturing mind.

This argument, in essence, claims that God is a product of our imagination. What it fails to ask (because it has no good answer) is this: where did our imagination come from? If it came from nature (this is what atheists would tell us), then nature is allowing us to believe in imaginary beings. And if nature is this much a liar when we are young, why should we believe it years later when it tells us that our imaginations are false? Now, as then, it could be deceiving us, and it would be impossible for us to know. The atheist may claim that he knows, but in making this claim he may be falling right into nature’s trap. He may be making a wrong guess. He may be playing the role of nature’s fool. Thus, when the atheist argues that all of our imagination—including our belief in God—is false, he finds himself placing his trust in the same nature that in his childhood led him astray.

The theist sees it all differently. He knows there is a difference between believing in the supernatural in general and believing in the specific imaginary creatures alluded to above. Belief in the supernatural in general, as we shall see in this argument, could not have come from nature. If specific parts of that belief—imaginary beings like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and those ghosts—are later found to be false, supernatural belief in general does not end. Curiously, humanity as a whole has never abandoned the conviction that something other than nature is “out there.” Neither should you. And there is no reason to believe nature if it tells you any differently.

Day 43

1The idea for today’s analogy once again comes from Lewis’ Mere Christianity.

Day 44

1A paraphrase of Jesus’ words to the Samaritan woman as recorded in John’s Gospel, chapter four.

Day 47

1Credit here is given to Greg Boyd for his ideas on cause and effect in Letters from a Skeptic (Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor, 1994), pp. 50-52, 54-57.

Day 49

1See Mere Christianity, Book I.

Day 50

1Fearing imprisonment, Hume left unpublished his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religions, in which he launched his counter-attack on the Argument from Design that is summarized in today's reading.

Day 51

1I am not a physicist. For this reason, I chose not to include in the main text a detailed account of how the dual discoveries of background radiation and the anthropic principle have seriously called into question the atheist's belief in a random and eternal universe. These concepts involve mathematical formulas far too technical for my level of training. If I were asked to explain the two discoveries in terms the average non-scientist could understand, I would (after making apologies to the physicists for over-simplification) use the following analogy:

Suppose that you and I, while driving through a busy city, happen to notice the smoke and rubble of a multi-story building that has recently collapsed to the ground. At first we assume that this collapse was purely random, the chance result of blind forces (wind, erosion, gravity, etc.) acting in concert. Upon closer inspection, however, we notice several peculiarities about the debris that make us question its randomness. For one thing, we see that the building has collapsed in such a way that no structure nearby is affected. In addition, a broken clock we find in the rubble shows that the time of the collapse was three in the morning, when traffic and pedestrians would be at a minimum. Furthermore, a quick glance at the site from a distance indicates that the building seems to have fallen symmetrically, as if a giant foot has caved it in from top to bottom.

Our curiosity getting the best of us, we decide to study this site and determine what really happened. We enlist a corps of engineers to assist us in our efforts. They are able to analyze the smoke and dust that has yet to settle to the ground and confirm the time of the explosion. Within the structure the engineers find evidence of tiny explosives spaced at intervals that seem to have guaranteed a symmetric collapse. It is further determined that for the collapse of the building to be so symmetric, the timing of the detonation had to be just right. In fact, the experts discover that if only one of these explosives failed to fire or only one fired at the wrong time, there would have been no chance at all for a safe implosion. Incredible as it seems, if the timing was off to any degree in the first half-second of the explosion, the engineers predict that the damage to nearby buildings and to any people in the area would have been great.

After days of such analysis, the engineers come to the unanimous conclusion that the collapse of the building was not a random event at all, that it was designed and planned, that the goal from the start was to explode the building in such a way that the city's architecture and population would be preserved. In short, what they discover is an explosion organized from the beginning for one purpose: the improvement of the city.

Now scientists have believed for many years—based on evidence that the universe is expanding—that a big explosion, commonly called the Big Bang, started the whole process. In a sense, when scientists look at the universe, they find themselves gazing at the aftermath, the rubble, of a cosmic explosion. For many years the evidence seemed to suggest that this explosion was random and that any design seen within it was the result of multiple blind forces acting in concert over billions of years. Human existence, it seemed, could be attributed solely to chance. Then the scientists discovered background radiation in the universe and determined it to be the "smoke" left over from the Big Bang. They were then able to analyze this radiation and determine mathematically the approximate time of the explosion. The universe, it began to appear, had a definite beginning in time. It was not, as the atheists had hoped, eternal.

If that was not disconcerting enough, the atheists had to be alarmed even more by the discovery in the early 1970s of the anthropic principle. While analyzing the "rubble" of the universe, scientists found multiple constants (four in all: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force) that had to be precisely timed and arranged to make life possible. They also found that if any one of these constants were altered to any degree in the first nanosecond of the Big Bang, life would never have occurred. The Big Bang, far from being the random event heralded by the atheists, seems to have been a designed, nonrandom explosion orchestrated from the beginning for one purpose: the formation of life.

The implications are tremendous, as Patrick Glynn explains:

For hundreds of years science had been whittling away at the proposition that the universe was created or designed. Suddenly, scientists came upon a series of facts that seemed to point toward precisely such a conclusion—that the universe is the product of intelligence and aim, that in the absence of intelligent organization of a thousand details vast and small, we would not exist... Today, moreover, the physicists find themselves constantly looking over their shoulder at the theologians, who watch with intrigue as the scientists are forced to wrestle anew with an issue they thought they had put to rest a long time ago: God... The anthropic principle...does offer as strong an indication as science and reason alone could be expected to provide that God exists.  –Patrick Glynn, God: The Evidence (Roseville, Calif.: Prima Publishing, 1999), 8-9, 40, 55.

Day 54

1I want to make it clear that the religion curriculum at the Christian college I attended was not, in my opinion, out-of-balance. Included therein were courses that cemented traditional beliefs as well as those that challenged them. The college professors who taught there remain dear to my heart. It would be an insult to them, and the furthest thing from the truth, to imply that they wanted to confuse and disillusion students preparing for the ministry. They were educators par excellence and considered a broad introduction to religious issues a requisite to service.

It was I, not the university or its teachers, who was out-of-balance. I entered college with no previous exposure to beliefs outside the narrow spectrum of evangelical Christianity. Although I was aware that atheists existed, I knew nothing of their arguments, much less any answer to them. If you could fault my religion professors any, they may have underestimated the impact such ideas can have on unsuspecting students, even those from solid Christian backgrounds. At the same time, they may have overestimated our ability to comprehend and internalize the counterarguments they offered and thus may not have spent enough time on them. If this was my experience in a Baptist college, I can only imagine the plight of students attending other institutions where no apology is made for a bias toward atheism. Little can one wonder why so many people today consider faith in God obsolete or irrelevant.

The solution, it seems to me, would be early (pre-college) exposure to atheistic and agnostic rhetoric and instruction in how to answer it. We need not fear that such knowledge will make it more likely for high school students to abandon their belief in God. We, in medicine, know that mentioning suicide to the depressed patient does not make an attempted suicide more likely. In fact, just the opposite is true. It allows us to recognize and deal with the problem before it happens. In the same way, telling our youth about atheism, far from turning their hearts in its direction, will be a preemptive strike against over-zealous atheistic teaching in their college years. The burden of this early, broad theological education falls squarely on the shoulders of two organizations: the family and the church.

Day 55

1If you are not acquainted with theological jargon and have no desire to learn it, then take heart. I have not tried to mesh the five arguments just summarized with the traditional vernacular of the nineteenth century, when it was common to label such arguments as teleological, ontological, cosmological, or moralistic. The most positive thing about this old classification system is that you don’t really need it. You don’t have to be aware of it or understand it to argue God’s existence. So I will leave it to you whether or not to study it further. If it helps you sort things out, use it. If it tends to confuse or amuse you, forget you ever heard about it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF QUOTATIONS

Day 1

D. Elton Trueblood, General Philosophy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963), 209.

Day 2

Madalyn Murray O'Hair, What on Earth is an Atheist? (New York: Arno, 1972), 38.

Day 3

Steve Kumar, Christianity for Skeptics (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2000), 61.

Day 4

Robert J. Dean, How Can We Believe? (Nashville: Broadman, 1978), 25.

Day 5

Jean-Paul Sartre, "Existentialism," Existentialism and Human Emotions (trans. Bernard Frechtman; New York: Philosophical Library, 1957), 22.

Day 6

Bertrand Russell, A Free Man's Worship (Portland, Me.: Thomas Mosher, 1927), 6-7.

Day 7

J. L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 1.

Day 8

Bertrand Russell, What I Believe (New York: C. P. Dutton and Co., 1925), 13.

Day 9

Edward Sillem, Ways of Thinking About God (London: Darton, Longman, & Todd, 1961), 1.

Day 10

Madeleine L'Engle, quoted in: Lynn Anderson, If I Believe, Why Do I Have These Doubts? (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House, 1992), 60.

Day 11

William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton: Crossway, 1984), 72.

Day 12

C. Stephen Evans, The Quest for Faith: Pointers to God (Leicaster: InterVarsity, 1986), 131.

Hebrews 11:1 KJV

Day 13

Time, April 7, 1980, 65.

Day 14

"David Hume to John Stewart," February 1754, The Letters of David Hume (ed. J. Y. T. Greig; Oxford: Clarendon, 1932), 1.187.

Day 15

Quoted in Steve Kumar, Christianity for Skeptics, 10.

Day 16

Quoted in Steve Kumar, Christianity for Skeptics, 10.

Day 17

Norman Geisler, False Gods of Our Time (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1985), 52.

Day 18

Antony Flew and Thomas B. Warren, The Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro, Ark.: National Christian, 1977), 241.

Day 19

Robert Gange, Origins and Destiny (Waco: Word, 1986), 8.

Day 20

Patrick Glynn, God: The Evidence (Roseville, Calif.: Prima Publishing, 1999), 20.

Ibid., 53-54, 26.

Quoted by Baptist Press in Baptist and Reflector [Brentwood: Tennessee Baptist Convention Executive Board, December 22, 2004], 2.

Ibid.

Day 21

Quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 79.

Day 22

Steve Kumar, Christianity for Skeptics, 15.

Norman L. Geisler, The Roots of Evil (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 18.

Norman L. Geisler, Philosophy of Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 312.

Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, trans. Donald A. Cress (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1979), 17.

Day 23

Psalm 19:1,2 NIV

Day 24

C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: Macmillan, 1962), 13-15.

Day 25

Gregory A. Boyd and Edward K. Boyd, Letters from a Skeptic (Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor, 1994), 32.

Day 26

Quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith, 29.

Day 27

Edward K. Boyd and Gregory A. Boyd, Letters from a Skeptic, 22.

Quoted in Leslie D. Weatherhead, Why Do Men Suffer? (New York: Abingdon, 1936), 72.

C. S. Lewis, The Best of C. S. Lewis (New York: Hafner, 1969), 429.

Quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith, 31.

D. E. Trueblood, General Philosophy, 226.

Day 28

Steve Kumar, Christianity for Skeptics, 44.

Day 29

Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (trans. by N. K. Smith; New York: St. Martin's, 1965), 166.

Day 30

Steve Kumar, Christianity for Skeptics, 25.

Day 31

Paul Chamberlain, Can We Be Good Without God? (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1996), 51-52.

Day 32

Paul Chamberlain, Can We Be Good Without God?, 48.

Day 33

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1943), 29-30.

Day 34

Richard Taylor, Ethics, Faith, and Reason (Englewood Cliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall, 1985), 65.

Day 35

Romans 2:15 NIV

Day 36

"Wittgenstein's Lectures on Ethics," Philosophical Review, 1965, 47:7.

Day 37

David Hugh Freeman, A Philosophical Study of Religion (Nutley, NJ.: Craig, 1964), 78.

Day 38

C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 15.

Day 39

Gregory A. Boyd and Edward K. Boyd, Letters from a Skeptic, 56.

Day 40

Quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith, 108.

Day 41

C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 15.

Day 42

Quoted in Vernon C. Grounds, The Reason for Our Hope (Chicago: Moody, 1945), 18.

Day 43

Psalm 14:1 NIV

Day 44

Thomas Cahill, The Gift of the Jews (New York: Nan Talese, 1998), 85-86.

Day 45

Quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith, 84.

Day 46

Gregory A. Boyd and Edward K. Boyd, Letters from a Skeptic, 56.

Ronald Hepburn, in Antony Flew and Alasdair, New Essays in Philosophical Theory (New York: Macmillan, n.d.), 140.

Ernest L. Freud, ed., Letters of Sigmund Freud (London: Hogarth, 1961), 432.

Day 47

Edward Sillem, Ways of Thinking about God, 182.

Day 48

Quoted in J. P. Moreland and Kai Nelson, Does God Exist? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 35.

Day 49

Edward K. Boyd and Gregory A. Boyd, Letters from a Skeptic, 53.

Day 50

Jules A. Baisnee, ed., Readings in Natural Theology (Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1962), 149.

Day 51

Patrick Glynn, God: The Evidence, 48.

Day 52

Patrick Glynn, God: The Evidence, 171.

Day 53

George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Amherst, NY.: Prometheus Books, 1989), 51.

Blaise Pascal, Pensees No. 430 (trans. H. F. Stewart; New York: Random House), [n.d.], [n.p.].

Day 54

Luke 17:5 RSV

Mark 9:24 RSV

Day 55

John Warwick Montgomery, How Do We Know There Is a God? (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1973), 9.

Day 56

Quoted in Fleming Rutledge, Help My Unbelief (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000), 190.

Day 57

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 29.

Day 58

Charles Colson, How Now Shall We Live? (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1999), 31-32.

Day 59

Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith, 252-253.

Day 60

Quoted in Los Angeles Times, June 25, 1978, Part VI, 1, 6.

Romans 1:19-20 NIV

Afterword

Karen Armstrong, A History of God (New York: Ballantine Books, 1993), xx.

Ibid., xiv.

Table of Contents

DEDICATION

FOREWORD

INTRODUCTION

FIRST STEPS Days 1-12

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Day 5

Day 6

Day 7

Day 8

Day 9

Day 10

Day 11

Day 12

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN Days 13-28

Day 13

Day 14

Day 15

Day 16

Day 17

Day 18

Day 19

Day 20

Day 21

Day 22

Day 23

Day 24

Day 25

Day 26

Day 27

Day 28

ARGUMENT FROM FAIRNESS Days 29-37

Day 29

Day 30

Day 31

Day 32

Day 33

Day 34

Day 35

Day 36

Day 37

ARGUMENT FROM SUPERNATURAL BELIEF Days 38-45

Day 38

Day 39

Day 40

Day 41

Day 42

Day 43

Day 44

Day 45

ARGUMENT FROM HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS Days 46-51

Day 46

Day 47

Day 48

Day 49

Day 50

Day 51

ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL TESTIMONY Days 52-55

Day 52

Day 53

Day 54

Day 55

CLOSING STEPS Days 56-60

Day 56

Day 57

Day 58

Day 59

Day 60

AFTERWORD

ENDNOTES

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF QUOTATIONS