Three Arguments For God’s Existence

The biblical writers presupposed the existence of God, as did their readers ("In the beginning God . . ."). 

But this informal, unexamined belief will not do for those who question the reality of God. We cannot have a real relationship with people who do not exist except in our minds. 

This is precisely what atheists claim: God exists only as a belief which cannot be proven or even rationally defended.

So how can we argue for God’s existence to those who deny his reality?

1. Ask how there can be a creation without a Creator.

This is the “cosmological argument.” 

If the universe began as a Big Bang, where did the Big Bang come from? Since we live in a world where every effect has a prior cause, it's easy for us to reason that the world came from somewhere or Someone. This "First Cause" (to use Aristotle's term) we can call God.

However, it would be impossible to prove these claims unless we were there at the beginning or are there at the end. And using God's word to prove God's existence is the dictionary definition of circular reasoning.

2. Ask how there can be a design without a Designer.

This is the “teleological argument” (The Greek telos means “design” or “end”).

To state the argument in its classic sense, suppose you were walking in a forest and came upon a rock. You'd not be surprised to find it where it is. But suppose you walked a little further and came upon a watch lying on the ground. You would not believe that the hands, wristband, and other components of the watch just "happened" to fall together in that place and in that way.

Is the world not infinitely more complex than a watch?

However, Darwinian evolutionists would argue that, over eons, natural selection and survival of the fittest resulted in our design.

3. Ask how there can be morality without a moral God.

This is the “moral argument.” 

We all have a sense of right and wrong, but why? Where did your conscience come from? "My parents," you might say. But where did your parents get theirs?

Ultimately, we can reason back to a God who is holy and created the human race with a sense of morality that reflects his own.

Unfortunately, this approach is not very compelling for skeptics, either. It's easy to claim that our morality illustrates the Darwinian principle of self-preservation since it often does.

Which of these arguments is most compelling to you? Which do you think would compel nonbelievers? And what rebuttals do you think nonbelievers would make to each of these points?