Charles
Ryrie states that traditionally there have been two lines of argument used to
demonstrate the existence of God, the naturalistic and the biblical arguments.[1]
Here I will evaluate those that fall within both the naturalistic as well as
the biblical arguments.
Naturalistic Arguments
Dan
Story contends that “it doesn’t take much reflection for us to realize that we
exist, and we did not create ourselves. And since that’s true, it’s easy to
figure out that something or someone besides ourselves brought us to be. And
with a little more reflection, we can also see that the entire universe came to
be in one of three possible ways: (1) it created itself; (2) it has always
existed, and therefore had no Creator; or (3) it was created by something or
someone outside of itself.”[2]
A
well-established philosophical principle is ex nihilo nihil fit (Latin
meaning, “from nothing, nothing comes”). The idea or point of the principle
is that you cannot get something out of nothing, something simply cannot derive
from nothing, all one can get out of nothing is nothing. The concept of
“nothing” just means “non-being” or “absence of existence.” In other words,
existence does not—indeed, cannot—come from nonexistence.[4]
The cosmological argument is the argument from cause and effect which simply states that every effect must have a cause. Something cannot come out of nothing and since the cosmos (world) exists then there must be an original cause. A simple illustration will help make the point; you have a vehicle parked on your driveway; you have never seen the people who built that vehicle, yet you know they exist because the vehicle is in your driveway. Since there is an effect (the vehicle) there must be a cause (the people who built it). Since an effect has never been proven to be uncaused, or in other words, since something created has never been proven to come from nothing, the only logical and reasonable explanation is that an original cause, a supremely intelligent and powerful Being created all that is. God is that Cause, the only One who could produce such a complex and magnificent effect as the universe or the human body. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible (Heb. 11:3). Here is a clear suggestion that there is nothing haphazard or accidental in the coming into being of the cosmic order. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1).
The cosmological argument is the argument from cause and effect which simply states that every effect must have a cause. Something cannot come out of nothing and since the cosmos (world) exists then there must be an original cause. A simple illustration will help make the point; you have a vehicle parked on your driveway; you have never seen the people who built that vehicle, yet you know they exist because the vehicle is in your driveway. Since there is an effect (the vehicle) there must be a cause (the people who built it). Since an effect has never been proven to be uncaused, or in other words, since something created has never been proven to come from nothing, the only logical and reasonable explanation is that an original cause, a supremely intelligent and powerful Being created all that is. God is that Cause, the only One who could produce such a complex and magnificent effect as the universe or the human body. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible (Heb. 11:3). Here is a clear suggestion that there is nothing haphazard or accidental in the coming into being of the cosmic order. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1).
Teleological Argument
The
teleological argument is the argument from order and design. Henry Thiessen argues that “order and useful arrangement in
a system imply intelligence and purpose in the organizing cause. The universe
is characterized by order and useful arrangement; therefore, the universe has
an intelligent and free cause.”[5]
Everywhere
you look in this universe, all you see is design, order, usefulness, harmony,
and purpose which must be accounted for. Let us go back to the vehicle
illustration; that vehicle parked on your driveway is not just a heap of metal
and plastic, that vehicle has design, functionality, and purpose. Did that just
happen, or was there a designer, an engineer behind it? We have been eyewitnesses
to God’s magnificent creation; the universe declares the glory of the Master
Designer.
The teleological argument points out that such intricate
design and complex order simply cannot be the product of random processes and
chance (which is powerless to create since it is . Rather, these
characteristics indicate an intelligent being caused them. When I observe
your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you set
in place, what is a human being that you remember him a son of man that
you look after him? (Ps. 8:3-4); The heavens declare the glory of
God, and the expanse proclaims the work of his hands. Day after day they
pour out speech; night after night they communicate knowledge. There is no
speech; there are no words; their voice is not heard. Their message has
gone out to the whole earth, and their words to the ends of the world. In the
heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun (19:1-4).
Biblical Arguments
The biblical argument can be presented simply by
enumerating a number of Scriptures that clearly teach the existence of God. A
Bible student would do well to study these passages and even commit them to
memory. This list is not meant to be exhaustive but rather a sampling of
verses: Gen. 1:1; Ps. 8:3-4; 19:1-4; Isa. 40:26; Acts 14:17 ; Rom. 1:18 -20.
[1] Charles C.
Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Chicago:
Moody, 1972), pp. 11-15.
[2] Story, D.
(1997). Defending your faith (p.
23). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Stand Firm:
Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel.
[5] Henry C
Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology,
revised by Vernon D. Doerksen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 28.
Comments
Post a Comment