The Existence of God

The First Cause Argument

The Existence of the Universe is Better Explained by The Existence of God. I will begin by laying out the argument:

Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else. There cannot be an infinite series of past causes. Therefore, there exists a first cause which did not come into existence. In other words, the first

cause always existed. Let us look at each of the steps in the argument:

Premise 1. “There are things which come into existence.” Many things have come into existence. This article is coming into existence as I write it. You

came into existence and so did I. This premise is not uncontroversial.

Premise 2. “Everything which comes into existence is caused to exist by something else.” It is obvious that Nothing can cause itself to come into existence. Anything that causes itself to

come into existence has to exist before it exists. This is impossible. Perhaps something can come into existence from Nothing without any cause whatsoever. Can a thing just pop into existence with absolutely no cause? This also does not seem reasonable.

Premise 3. “There cannot be an infinite series of past causes.” Is the series of past causes infinite? Can the universe have an infinite past? The answer is that it

cannot.

Why can’t the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.

There must exist a First Cause, because if there is no First Cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course! But that is what the universe is like if there is no First Cause: impossible!

The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.

Big Bang theory does not prove that the universe had a beginning, but it supports this claim. The second law of thermodynamics does not prove that the universe had a beginning but it also

supports this claim.

The First cause is not a part of the space-time physical universe because it caused the space time universe to begin. Therefore it is outside of space and time. It is not physical. Second, it has a great deal of power. Third, it is a personal agent. This means it is not an inert force but it must have aspects of person hood; namely, that it wills. How do we know this?

This is because it is the best answer to the question of why the Big Bang happened when it did. Why not sooner? Why not later? All of the conditions for producing the Big Bang existed from eternity. The only kind of cause we know of that can initiate an effect when all of the conditions are already present is the will of a personal agent.

I have not argued that it is logically impossible that the universe popped into existence from nothing without cause. I have argued that it is more reasonable to hold that it has a cause and that this cause is a non-physical personal agent — God.

So it seems that the first argument is fairly strong. The existence of the universe is better explained by the existence of God.

MATTER DEMANDS A MAKER

No rational person denies the fact that matter exists. The Universe and every atom that makes it up is a reality. The logical question to ask is, “Where did it all come from?” From the Milky Way to the most-distant galaxy in the Universe—what was the cause? What made matter?

A study of the material Universe reveals that every physical effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause (an idea known as the Law of Cause and Effect or the Law of Causality). The American flag that stood erect on the surface of the moon in 1969 was neither eternal nor without a cause. Its existence on the Moon demands a sufficient cause. The robotic rovers that have rolled across the surface of Mars since the early 21st century are the effect of adequate causes. No one believes that they popped into existence from nothing or that they are the result of any number of ridiculous, insufficient causes that could be suggested (e.g., an accidental explosion in a junk yard on Earth sent metal objects spiraling toward Mars that assembled themselves into the robotic rovers). Simply put, all material effects demand adequate causes (see Miller, 2011 for more information).

So what caused the Universe and all of the matter in the Universe? The theory that atheistic evolutionists have advanced for several decades now, which supposedly best explains our existence from a purely naturalistic perspective, is known as the Big Bang. Allegedly, approximately 14 billion years ago all of the matter and energy in the Universe was concentrated in a tiny ball of matter that exploded, causing the eventual formation of galaxies throughout the Universe.

The obvious problem with this explanation is that even if the Big Bang actually happened (and sound science argues against such a theory—see May, et al., 2003), a person must still explain whence came the “original” ball of matter. It must have an adequate cause. What do some leading atheists and agnostics around the world argue about the cause of matter? Atheistic cosmologist Stephen Hawking stated on national television in 2011, “Nothing caused the Big Bang” (“Curiosity…,” emp. added). In the book The Grand Design that Dr. Hawking co-authored, he and Leonard Mlodinow asserted: “Bodies such as stars and black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can” (2010, p. 180, emp. added). In 2006, Todd Friel asked Dan Barker, one of America’s leading atheists, “Do you really believe that something came from nothing?” (emp. added). Barker responded with a simple, “Yes” (“Wretched…”).

The observable truth is, however, in nature, matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed. Scientists refer to this fact as the First Law of Thermodynamics. Though evolutionists have alleged that the Universe began with the explosion of a ball of matter several billion years ago, they never have provided a reasonable explanation for the cause of the “original” ball of matter. “Nothing” is not a reasonable explanation. In 2007, the pro-evolutionary New Scientist magazine ran a cover story titled “The Beginning: What Triggered the Big Bang?” in which the publication attempted to explain the origin of the Universe. But consider the last line of the featured article: “[T]he quest to understand the origin of the universe seems destined to continue until we can answer a deeper question: why is there anything at all instead of nothing?” (“The Universe…,” 194[2601]:33, emp. added). The implication of such a question is quite clear: if at one time in the past “nothing” existed, then nothing should exist today. A reasonable, naturalistic explanation for the origin of the “original” ball of matter that supposedly led to the Universe does not exist. One of the world’s leading atheists, Richard Dawkins, has basically admitted such.

In a panel discussion in 2012 on Australian national television, Dr. Dawkins was asked “how it is that something as enormous as the universes came from nothing?” Notice what Dawkins admitted: “Of course it’s counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing. Of course common sense doesn’t allow you to get something from nothing. That’s why it’s interesting. It’s got to be interesting in order to give rise to the universe at all. Something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe” (“Q&A...,” emp. added). Indeed, atheism’s explanation for the origin of matter is “not agreeing with what seems right or natural” (“Counterintuitive,” 2014). According to Dawkins’ own admissions, the idea of getting something from nothing in nature defies “common sense.” It is far from “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts” (“Common Sense,” 2014).

What’s more, atheists cannot logically argue that the Universe is eternal. It seems that relatively few scientists even propose an eternal Universe anymore. (In fact, there would be no point in attempting to explain the “beginning” of the Universe in a Big Bang if atheists believed it always existed.) Furthermore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter and energy become less usable over time, has led most scientists to conclude that the Universe has not always existed (else we would be out of usable energy; see Miller, 2013). The fact is, the Universe had a beginning. Alex Vilenkin, cosmologist from Tufts University, pressed this fact in his book titled Many Worlds in One: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of acosmic beginning” (2006, p. 176, emp. added).

At one time in the past, the material Universe did not exist. Then, at some point, matter came into existence. But since matter is not eternal and cannot create itself from nothing, then something outside of the material realm must have brought matter into existence.

In short, matter demands a Maker. The evidence clearly indicates that the cause of the Universe is inexplicable without a supernatural Being. Something has to be eternally powerful, but we know it cannot be natural or material. Romans 1:20 says: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” Without some type of eternal power, our Universe cannot exist, and the atheistic answer that our Universe created itself from nothing is the furthest thing from either a scientific or a rational explanation.

The Argument from Design

This sort of argument is of wide and perennial appeal. Almost everyone admits that reflection on the order and beauty of nature touches something very deep within us. But are the order and beauty the product of intelligent design and conscious purpose? For theists the answer is yes. Arguments for design are attempts to vindicate this answer; to show why it is the most reasonable one to give. They have been formulated in ways as richly varied as the experience in which they are rooted. The following displays the core or central insight.

1.The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. 2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design. 3. Not chance. 4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design. 5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer. 6. Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.

The first premise is certainly true—even those resistant to the argument admit it. The person who did not would have to be almost pathetically obtuse. A single protein molecule is a thing of immensely impressive order; much more so a single cell; and incredibly much more so an organ like the eye, where ordered parts of enormous and delicate complexity work together with countless others to achieve a single certain end. Even chemical elements are ordered to combine with other elements in certain ways and under certain conditions. Apparent disorder is a problem precisely because of the overwhelming pervasiveness of order and regularity. So the first premise stands.

If all this order is not in some way the product of intelligent design—then what? Obviously, it "just happened." Things just fell out that way "by chance." Alternatively, if all this order is not the product of blind, purposeless forces, then it has resulted from some kind of purpose. That purpose can only be intelligent design. So the second premise stands.

It is of course the third premise that is crucial. Ultimately, nonbelievers tell us, it is indeed by chance and not by any design that the universe of our experience exists the way it does. It just happens to have this order, and the burden of proof is on believers to demonstrate why this could not be so by chance alone.

But this seems a bit backward. It is surely up to nonbelievers to produce a credible alternative to design. And "chance" is simply not credible. For we can understand chance only against a background of order. To say that something happened "by chance" is to say that it did not turn out as we would have expected, or that it did turn out in a way we would not have expected. But expectation is impossible without order. If you take away order and speak of chance alone as a kind of ultimate source, you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of chance at all. Instead of thinking of chance against a background of order, we are invited to think of order—overwhelmingly intricate and ubiquitous order—against a random and purposeless background of chance. Frankly, that is incredible. Therefore it is eminently reasonable to affirm the third premise, not chance, and therefore to affirm the conclusion, that this universe is the product of intelligent design.

Question 1: Hasn’t the Darwinian theory of evolution shown us how it is possible for all the order in the universe to have arisen by chance?

Reply: Not at all. If the Darwinian theory has shown anything, it has shown, in a general way, how species may have descended from others through random mutation; and how survival of these species can be accounted for by natural selection—by the fitness of some species to survive in their environment. In no way does it—can it—account for the ubiquitous order and intelligibility of nature. Rather, it presupposes order. To quote a famous phrase: "The survival of the fittest presupposes the arrival of the fit." If Darwinians wish to extrapolate from their purely biological theory and maintain that all the vast order around us is the result of random changes, then they are saying something which no empirical evidence could ever confirm; which no empirical science could ever demonstrate; and which, on the face of it, is simply beyond belief.

Question 2: Maybe it is only in this region of the universe that order is to be found. Maybe there are other parts unknown to us that are completely chaotic—or maybe the universe will one day in the future become chaotic. What becomes of the argument then?

Reply: Believers and nonbelievers both experience the same universe. It is this which is either designed or not. And this world of our common experience is a world of pervasive order and intelligibility. That fact must be faced. Before we speculate about what will be in the future or what may be elsewhere in the present, we need to deal honestly with what is. We need to recognize in an unflinching way the extent—the overwhelming extent—of order and intelligibility. Then we can ask ourselves: Is it credible to suppose that we inhabit a small island of order surrounded by a vast sea of chaos—a sea which threatens one day to engulf us?

Just consider how in the last decades we have strained fantastically at the limits of our knowledge; we have cast our vision far beyond this planet and far within the elements that make it up. And what has this expansion of our horizons revealed? Always the same thing: more—and not less—intelligibility; more—and not less—complex and intricate order. Not only is there no reason to believe in a surrounding chaos, there is every reason not to. It flies in the face of the experience that all of us—believers and nonbelievers—share in common.

Something similar can be said about the future. We know the way things in the universe have behaved and are behaving. And so, until we have some reason to think otherwise, there is every reason to believe it will continue on its orderly path of running down. No speculation can nullify what we know.

And, anyway, exactly what sort of chaos is this question asking us to imagine? That effect precedes cause? That the law of contradiction does not hold? That there need not be what it takes for some existing thing to exist? These suggestions are completely unintelligible; if we think about them at all, it is only to reject them as impossible. Can we imagine less order? Yes. Some rearrangement of the order we experience? Yes. But total disorder and chaos? That can never be considered as a real possibility. To speculate about it as if it were is really a waste of time.

Question 3: But what if the order we experience is merely a product of our minds? Even though we cannot think utter chaos and disorder, maybe that is how reality really is.

Reply: Our minds are the only means by which we can know reality. We have no other access. If we agree that something cannot exist in thought, we cannot go ahead and say that it might nevertheless exist in reality. Because then we would be thinking what we claim cannot be thought.

Suppose you claim that order is just a product of our minds. This puts you in a very awkward position. You are saying that we must think about reality in terms of order and intelligibility, but things may not exist that way in fact. Now to propose something for consideration is to think about it. And so you are saying:a. We must think about reality in a certain way, but b. Since we think that things may not in fact exist that way, then c. We need not think about reality the way we must think about it!

Are we willing to pay that high a price to deny that the being of the universe displays intelligent design? It does not, on the face of it, seem cost-effective.

Thinking about Design Takes Brains There is one especially strong version of the Design Argument that hits close to home because it

is about the design of the very thing we use to think about design: our brains. The human brain is the most complex piece of design in the universe. In many ways, it functions just like a computer. But are computers themselves reliably accurate?

Imagine you were on a plane. After take-off, the flight attendant announces that there was no pilot, but the plane was being flown by an unattended computer. How much confidence would you have in that computer? On that plane?

If our brain computer is designed merely by our heredity and environment, why should we trust it when it tells us anything?

The Design Argument is bolstered by St. Paul in Romans 1, and Acts 14 and 17.   God has provided us with a witness to Himself in the creation. St. Paul says, “Since the creation

of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so they are without excuse” (Rom 1:20).

DESIGN DEMANDS A DESIGNER

Everyday observation reveals and confirms the obvious fact that complex, functional design demands a designer. Paintings demand painters. Poems demand poets. Architecture demands architects. And on and on we could go. Everyone knows that cars and computers, pianos and projectors all require engineers, technicians, and tuners for them to exist and function properly. But what about the Universe as a whole? Can it be described accurately as “designed”? If so, what could such design imply about its origin?

No honest, informed person can deny that the Universe is extremely fine-tuned and functionally complex. From the Earth’s precise orbit around the Sun to a shorebird’s 15,000-mile yearly migration pattern, literally millions of examples of fine-tuned design in nature could be pondered. But consider just one example involving electrons and protons. The ratio of the mass of an electron to a proton is 1:1836, which means that a proton is 1,836 times more massive than an electron. Even with this mass difference, however, electrons and protons have the same electrical charge. Scientists suggest that if the electrical charge of the electron were altered by one part in 100 billion, our bodies would instantly explode (Barrow and Tipler, 1986, pp. 293, 296). Is such precision indicative of precise design? Most certainly.

The truth is, atheists frequently testify to the “design” in nature. Australian atheistic astrophysicist Paul Davies has admitted that the Universe (which according to atheists is the result of mindless, naturalistic, random processes) is “uniquely hospitable” (2007, p. 30), “remarkable” (p. 34), and “ordered in an intelligible way” (p. 30). He even admitted to the “fine-tuned properties” of the Universe. In a 2008 National Geographic article titled “Biomimetics: Design by Nature,” the word “design” (or one of its derivatives—designs, designed, etc.) appeared no less than seven times in reference to “nature’s designs.” The author, evolutionist Tom Mueller, referred to nature’s “sophistication” and “clever devices” (2008, p. 79) and praised nature for being able to turn simple materials “into structures of fantastic complexity, strength, and toughness” (p. 79). After learning of the uncanny, complicated maneuverability of a little blowfly, Mueller even confessed to feeling the need to regard the insect “on bended knee in admiration” (p. 82). Why? Because of its “mysterious” and “complicated” design. The fact is, as evolutionist Jerry Coyne admitted, “Nature resembles a well-oiled machine…. The more one learns about plants and animals, the more one marvels at how well their designs fit their ways of life” (2009, pp. 1,3).

But how can you get design without purpose, intelligence, and deliberate planning? The first three definitions the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives for “design” (noun) are as follows: “1a: a particular purpose held in view by an individual or group…b: deliberate purposive planning… 2: a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down; 3a: a deliberate undercover project or scheme” (“Design,” 2014, emp. added). After defining “design” as a drawing, sketch, or “graphic representation of a detailed plan…,” the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Languagenoted that design may be defined as “[t]he purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details” (“Design,” 2000, p. 492, emp. added). A design is preceded by “deliberate purposive planning,” “a detailed plan,” or an “inventive arrangement.” A design is the effect, not of time, chance, and unintelligent, random accidental explosions (what nonsense!), but of the purposeful planning and deliberate actions of an inventor or designer. Literally, by definition, design demands a designer; thus the designed Universe demands a Designer.

According to Paul Davies: “Our universe seems ‘just right’ for life. It looks as if…a super-intellect has been monkeying with physics” (2007, p. 30). Similarly, well-known skeptic Michael Shermer conceded, “The reason people think that a Designer created the world is because it looks designed” (2006, p. 65, emp. added).

Indeed, both honest observation and rational thought should lead every truth-seeking individual to the same conclusion that the psalmist came to 3,000 years ago: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (19:1). “The whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3). Both the heavens and the Earth testify day after day and night after night to anyone and everyone who will listen (Psalm 19:2-4). “Lift up your eyes on high, and see Who has created these things” (Isaiah 40:26).

Since the Universe exhibits complex, functional design, and (by definition) complex, functional design demands a designer, then the Universe must have an intelligent designer. This argument for God is logically sound and observationally true. A person can know (without a doubt) that God exists if for no other reason than that the Universe’s design demands a Designer. “For every house is built by someone, but He Who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).

The Moral Argument

1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil. 2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one. 3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation. 4. Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct.

We need to be clear about what the first premise is claiming. It does not mean merely that we can find people around who claim to have certain duties. Nor does it mean that there have been many people who thought they were obliged to do certain things (like clothing the naked) and to avoid doing others (like committing adultery). The first premise is claiming something more: namely, that we human beings really are obligated; that our duties arise from the way things really are, and not simply from our desires or subjective dispositions. It is claiming, in other words, that moral values or obligations themselves—and not merely the belief in moral values—are objective facts.

Now given the fact of moral obligation, a question naturally arises. Does the picture of the world presented by atheism accord with this fact? The answer is no. Atheists never tire of telling us that we are the chance products of the motion of matter: a motion which is purposeless and blind to every human striving. We should take them at their word and ask: Given this picture, in what exactly is the moral good rooted? Moral obligation can hardly be rooted in a material motion blind to purpose.

Suppose we say it is rooted in nothing deeper than human willing and desire. In that case, we have no moral standard against which human desires can be judged. For every desire will spring from the same ultimate source—purposeless, pitiless matter. And what becomes of obligation? According to this view, if I say there is an obligation to feed the hungry, I would be stating a fact

about my wants and desires and nothing else. I would be saying that I want the hungry to be fed, and that I choose to act on that desire. But this amounts to an admission that neither I nor anyone else is really obliged to feed the hungry—that, in fact, no one has any real obligations at all. Therefore the atheistic view of reality is not compatible with there being genuine moral obligation.

What view is compatible? One that sees real moral obligation as grounded in its Creator, that sees moral obligation as rooted in the fact that we have been created with a purpose and for an end. We may call this view, with deliberate generality, "the religious view." But however general the view, reflection on the fact of moral obligation does seem to confirm it.

Question 1: The argument has not shown that ethical subjectivism is false. What if there are no objective values?

Reply: True enough. The argument assumes that there are objective values; it aims to show that believing in them is incompatible with one picture of the world, and quite compatible with another. Those two pictures are the atheistic-materialistic one, and the (broadly speaking) religious one. Granted, if ethical subjectivism is true, then the argument does not work. However, almost no one is a consistent subjectivist. (Many think they are, and say they are—until they suffer violence or injustice. In that case they invariably stand with the rest of us in recognizing that certain things ought never to be done.) And for the many who are not—and never will be—subjectivists, the argument can be most helpful. It can show them that to believe as they do in objective values is inconsistent with what they may also believe about the origin and destiny of the universe. If they move to correct the inconsistency, it will be a move toward the religious view and away from the atheistic one.

Question 2: This proof does not conclude to God, but to some vague "religious" view. Isn’t this "religious" view compatible with very much more than traditional theism?

Reply: Yes indeed. It is compatible, for example, with Platonic idealism, and many other beliefs that orthodox Christians find terribly deficient. But this general religious view is incompatible with materialism, and with any view that banishes value from the ultimate objective nature of things. That is the important point. It seems most reasonable that moral conscience is the voice of God within the soul, because moral value exists only on the level of persons, minds and wills. And it is hard, if not impossible, to conceive of objective moral principles somehow floating around on their own, apart from any persons.

But we grant that there are many steps to travel from objective moral values to the Creator of the universe or the triune God of love. There is a vast intellectual distance between them. But these things are compatible in a way that materialism and belief in objective values are not. To reach a personal Creator you need other arguments (cf. arguments 1-6), and to reach the God of love you need revelation. By itself, the argument leaves many options open, and eliminates only some. But we are surely well rid of those it does eliminate.

MORALITY DEMANDS A MORAL LAW GIVER

Why do people generally think that some actions are “right” and some actions are “wrong,” regardless of their subjective opinions? Why do most people believe that it is “evil” or “wicked” (1) for an adult to torture an innocent child simply for the fun of it? (2) for a man to beat and rape a kind, innocent woman? or (3) for parents to have children for the sole purpose of abusing

them sexually every day of their lives? Because, as evolutionist Edward Slingerland noted, humans have metaphysical rights—rights that are “a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses” (“Metaphysical,” 2014)—and “rely on moral values” (as quoted in Reilly, 2007, 196[2629]:7). The fact is, most people, even many atheists, have admitted that real, objective good and evil exist.

Although objective morality may be outside the realm of the scientific method, every rational person can know that some actions are innately good, while others are innately evil. Antony Flew and Wallace Matson, two of the leading atheistic philosophers of the 20th century, forthrightly acknowledged the existence of objective morality in their debates with theistic philosopher Thomas B. Warren in the 1970s (see Warren and Flew, 1977; Warren and Matson, 1978). Atheist Michael Ruse admitted in his book Darwinism Defended that “[t]he man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children, is just asmistaken as the man who says that 2 + 2 = 5” (1982, p. 275, emp. added). Philosophers Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl said it well: “Those who deny obvious moral rules—who say that murder and rape are morally benign, that cruelty is not a vice, and that cowardice is a virtue—do not merely have a different moral point of view; they have something wrong with them” (1998, p. 59, emp. added).

Most rational people do not merely feel like rape and child abuse may be wrong; they are wrong—innately wrong. Just as two plus two can really be known to be four, every rational human can know that some things are objectively good, while other things are objectively evil. However, reason demands that objective good and evil can only exist if there is some real, objective point of reference. If something (e.g., rape) can be legitimately criticized as morally wrong, then there must be an objective standard—“some ‘higher law which transcends the provincial and transient’ which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized” (Warren and Matson, p. 284).

Recognition by atheists of anything being morally wrong begs the question: How can an atheistlogically call something atrocious, deplorable, evil, or wicked? According to atheism, man is nothing but matter in motion. Humankind allegedly evolved from rocks and slime over billions of years. How could moral value come from rocks and slime? Who ever speaks of “wrong rocks,” “moral minerals,” or “corrupt chemicals”? People do not talk about morally depraved donkeys, evil elephants, or immoral monkeys. Pigs are not punished for being immoral when they eat their young. Komodo dragons are not corrupt because 10% of their diet consists of younger Komodo dragons. Killer whales are not guilty of murder. Male animals are not tried for rape if they appear to forcibly copulate with females. Dogs are not depraved for stealing the bone of another dog. Moral value could not arise from rocks and slime.

The fact that humans even contemplate morality testifies to the huge chasm between man and animals and the fact that moral value could not have arisen from animals. Atheistic evolutionists have admitted that morals arise only in humans. George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most recognized atheistic evolutionists of the 20th century, confessed that “[g]ood and evil, right and wrong, concepts irrelevant in nature except from the human viewpoint, become real and pressing features of the whole cosmos as viewed morally because morals arise only in man” (1951, p. 179, emp. added). Atheists admit that people (i.e., even “atheists”) have “their own innate sense of morality” (“Do Atheists…?, n.d.). No rational person makes such admissions

about animals. “Humans,” not animals, “rely on moral values” (as quoted in Reilly, 2007, 196[2629]:7).

The moral argument for God’s existence exposes atheism as the self-contradictory, atrocious philosophy that it is. Atheists must either reject the truthfulness of the moral argument’s first premise (“If objective moral value exists, then God exists”) and illogically accept the indefensible idea that objective morality somehow arose from rocks and reptiles, or (2) they must reject the argument’s second premise (“Objective moral values exist”), and accept the insane, utterly repulsive idea that genocide, rape, murder, theft, child abuse, etc. can never once be condemned as objectively “wrong.” What’s more, if atheism is true, individuals could never logically be punished for such immoral actions, since “no inherent moral or ethical laws” would exist (Provine, 1988, p. 10).

If there is no God, then there is no objective basis to say that some things are right and others are wrong. Reason demands that objective good and evil can only exist if there is some real, objective reference point outside of nature. The only reasonable answer to an objective moral law for humans is a supernatural, moral law Giver.

The Uniqueness of Christianity

If you've had any exposure to popular culture, whether academia, entertainment, or other media, you have learned that it doesn’t really matter what you believe or even if you believe, eventually you will get to that wonderful place. I bring this point up because it raises some important questions about the Christian faith. Christians believe that the only way to get to heaven is through trusting in Jesus Christ. This audacious claim, of course, is the very thing that turns many people off Christianity. How narrow-minded, they say. What makes Christianity unique anyway? Isn't it true that all religions basically teach the same thing? Besides, what about those who have never even heard about Jesus Christ?

These are relevant questions. The world is shrinking. We can travel anywhere on earth within twenty-four hours. Right here in the Bay Area, we have every language, culture and religion at our doorstep. We are sensitized to the amazing diversity around us. Furthermore, wasn't our country founded on the principle of religious tolerance? People feel quite entitled to ask, What do you mean, there is only one right way?

IS CHRIST THE ONLY WAY?

Let us begin by asking why is it that Christians believe this. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, not because we like being right, but because that is the only option the Bible gives us.

The teachings of Christ

Consider the teaching of Jesus. What did Jesus think about himself? In the gospel accounts it is clear that he believed he was in a category by himself. He even viewed himself as equal with God. For example, in chapter 5 of John's gospel, the apostle records that Jesus healed a lame man on the Sabbath. That in itself was quite a feat. If Jesus was the Son of God, we would expect him to do such things. But the religious leaders were furious because he healed a man on the Sabbath, and that was against the rules. Let's begin reading at John 5:16:

And for this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making himself equal with God.

Jesus calls God his Father. We call him Father too, of course, but not in the same way that Jesus did. He knew that in saying this the Jews would understand he was claiming to be equal with God. That was why they became so angry. Look what Jesus says as he goes on to describe his unique relationship to the Father. John 5:19-24:

Jesus therefore answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He himself is doing; and greater works than these will He show Him, that you

may marvel. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. For not even the Father judges any one, but He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."

Here Jesus says a number of things that only a person who viewed himself as equal with God could say. He says in verse 19 that he "only does what the Father does." He claims he has the power to give life, something only God can do; and that he himself has been given the authority to judge the whole world. Even more startling is his claim that people will be judged based on their response to him. They are to honor him just as they honor the Father. In order to receive eternal life, they are to believe in him as the One sent from God. As far as Jesus is concerned, you cannot get to the Father unless you believe his Son.

The work of Christ

Now someone might argue that just because Jesus viewed himself as the way to God doesn’t mean that he is the only way. Perhaps God sent other "sons" into the world as well. But Jesus does not allow for that. In John 3:16 he calls himself the "only begotten Son." But he is even more explicit in John 14. It is the night before his crucifixion. He is having dinner with his disciples, and he is trying to comfort them. Look what he says in John 14:1-4:

"Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way where I am going.

It is clear that Jesus is talking about heaven. He calls it "my Father’s house." It is the place where God lives. Thomas, the only honest one in the group, has a question about that. John 14:5-7:

Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going; how do we know the way?" Jesus said to him, " I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."

Could Jesus have made it any clearer than that? "You can’t come to the Father unless you go through me. My Father and I are one. To know me is to know the Father and to see me is to see the Father. You can’t have one without the other." There is an important reason why it is that Jesus is the only possible way to know God. It is wrapped up in the very reason that God sent his Son in the first place, which was to provide a way for mankind to be made right with him. That "way" was the cross. This is obvious from the beginning. When the angel came to Joseph to tell him that Mary was with child, the angel said, "She will bear a Son, and you shall call him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). When John the Baptist saw Jesus, before Jesus had even begun his public ministry, John said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). John was identifying Jesus with the sacrificial lamb of the Old Testament. Because God is holy and just, a blood sacrifice was required to pay for sin. But, because God loves us so much, he sent his only Son to be payment in full for our sin.

That is why Jesus throughout his whole life was focused on that final hour. In John 12 the apostle records that during the final week of his life on earth, Jesus was praying about his impending death. The prospect of being nailed to the cross, the object of his Father’s anger against sin, was frightening to him. That is why he says, in verse 27: "Now my soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save me from this hour’? But for this very purpose I came to this hour." This was the very purpose for which Jesus came. And this is why he is the only way to God: Because it is only through his death that our sin is paid for and we can be made right with God. Let me put it this way. If there was any other way to God, any other way God could accept us into heaven, then the death of Christ was a tragic waste, a supreme blunder, a form of divine child abuse. Why would God allow his only Son to die if there was some other way to rescue a lost humanity?

The life and teaching of the Apostles

This is what the chosen apostles taught. Acts 4 records an event that took place in Jerusalem just a few years after Jesus was crucified. The apostles Peter and John heal a man, and this gives them opportunity to tell the people to turn to Christ for forgiveness. The Jewish leaders are offended by this and throw them in jail. The next day they bring the two of them out for questioning. Beginning with verse 7, Peter says to them:

And when they had placed them in the center, they began to inquire, "By what power, or in what name, have you done this?" Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers and elders of the people, if we are on trial today for a benefit done to a sick man, as to how this man has been made well, let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by this name this man stands here before you in good health. He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the very corner stone. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."

Peter was probably Jesus' closest friend. If we were to ask Peter the question, Is Christ the only way?" what would he say? He would say the same thing he said in verse 12, "There is salvation in no one else..."

This is what motivated Peter and the rest of the apostles to give their lives to bring this message of salvation through Christ to the ends of the earth! These men weren’t naturally courageous. If anything, they were cowardly. Yet, Peter was crucified upside down. Paul was beheaded. Stephen was stoned to death. If there was some other way to find God, why go to such extremes? Why give your life to bring this good news to people when there might be some other way? If Christ is not the only way, what a tragic waste!

For centuries, men and women have been willing to do the same thing the apostles did. Why? Because Christians believe what both Jesus and the apostles believed: "There is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

Isn’t it arrogant and intolerant for Christians to say their way is the right way?

But, as I indicated earlier, this raises a lot of questions. Someone may ask, Isn’t it arrogant and intolerant for Christians to say their way is the right way? It is true that at times Christians are arrogant and intolerant. And I’m not going to defend behavior that Jesus himself condemned. But you can believe something is true and not be arrogant or intolerant. Nobody ever accused Jesus of being either."

In saying that Christ is the only way, we Christians are not claiming we are better than anyone else. Quite the contrary. We are saying we recognize we are sinners in need of a Savior, and that Savior has come in the person of Jesus. By the grace of God, we have believed in him. That is not arrogance; it is humility. Unfortunately, in our society many people feel it is arrogant to believe one thing is true and another false. As a young child I believed one day I would get even with my older brother, because some day I would be older than him. I remember the day he told me that would never happen. I was crushed. I felt he was arrogant for saying such a thing, but what he said was not arrogant, it was the truth.

What about this notion of intolerance? Hasn’t religious intolerance led to bigotry, persecution, and even war? Isn’t it intolerant to say there is only one way to God? Again, this line of thinking is based on a myth.

Tolerance is one thing; saying that it doesn’t matter what you believe because truth is what you make it, is quite another thing. Christians should show charity and love in relating with people who differ from them--but tolerance does not mean that everyone is right. Is it intolerant for a diabetic to believe that insulin rather than penicillin is the proper treatment for his diabetes? Is it intolerant to tell a fellow diabetic who insists on taking penicillin that it might kill him and that he should try insulin instead?

What about those who may never hear about the Gospel? How could God condemn them for not believing what they have never heard?

The Scripture teaches that though every person does not have the opportunity to hear the Gospel, no one is left without a witness. Romans 1 says every person has the outward witness of God’s creation. Romans 2 says every person also has the inward witness of their own conscience telling them what is right and wrong. Those people will be judged according to the light God has given them. Again, in Romans we are told that people who suppress and disregard the truth that they have, are without excuse. There is no such thing as an "innocent native." Just like us, they all sin. But it's also possible that they could acknowledge God, recognize their sin, and somehow trust in him to save them. In this case, they could be saved by the death of Christ without ever consciously trusting in him. The problem with that is that the Bible does not give much assurance that anybody ever does that. So it impresses on Christians the need to get the good news to those people. Here is what C.S. Lewis said about this issue: "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know him will be saved through Him. But if you are worried about people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is remain outside yourself."

What about other religions? Aren’t those people sincere in their belief? Aren’t all religions basically teaching the same thing?

Here again, we have to deal with some false assumptions. It is a fallacy to say that sincerity is all that matters. We can be sincere about the wrong things. Hitler was sincere in his belief in Arian supremacy. As a little boy I was sincere in my belief that one day I would be older than my brother. It's quite possible to be sincerely wrong!

It is also a fallacy to say that all religions are the same. This idea became popular in the nineteenth century, when scholars studied different religions to discover what they called the "essence" or "bottom line" of truth that is common in all of them. Some said the essence of all religion is the Golden Rule. Others said it is the universal fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. But all religions were perceived as trying to get at the same thing. This is where the so-called "mountain analogy" came in. You know how that goes: God is at the peak of the mountain and man is down at the base. The story of religion is man trying to ascend to the peak. The mountain has many roads, many paths, but they all lead to the same place.

Now it may be true that all religions contain certain elements of truth. Christians don’t deny that. Muslims say there is one God; Christians agree. We should honor truth wherever it is found. But the problem is that when we look carefully at the major religions of the world, we see that there are major differences in what they teach.

Look at some different views of God. Christians believe there is one God who exists in three eternal and co-equal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Above all, God is defined by love. Muslims say there is one God. The concept of the Trinity is repulsive to them. And the Qur’an never once applies the word love to Allah. To Muslims, Allah is purely a god of force. Most Hindus believe in a pantheon of gods. Most Buddhists don’t even believe there is a God. How does one find the "essence" of all these differing points of view?

What about the issue of how people attain salvation? The Muslim tries to earn salvation by performing the five duties of his faith. The Hindu believes that he reaches his desired state through a series of reincarnations where he reaps in his next life whatever good or bad he has done in this life. The Buddhist believes he must keep the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path before he melts into eternal nothingness. Notice that in each of these religions, salvation is achieved through some form of human effort or moral achievement. As the analogy implies, man has to climb up the mountain to reach God.

Christianity is unique in this regard, however. Christianity holds that salvation comes not through what we do, but through what God has done for us. We don’t climb up the mountain. God has come down the mountain in the person of Christ. The only way we can get to the top is on his back! We do not achieve anything. Instead we come to that place where we give up trying, and accept God’s free gift. Good works come only as a result of what God does for us and in us. As a result, Christianity is the only belief system where one can have any assurance at all that he is going to make it to heaven. Ask a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Buddhist if he is going to heaven and he will say he can’t be sure. How can they be sure when it all depends on them? This is a recipe for fear.

The Christian faith focuses not so much on a way of life but on a Person. Christ didn’t point to a way of life and tell us to follow that path. He pointed us to himself and said "Follow me." He offers a relationship, not a religion. You can take Buddha out of Buddhism and you can still be a Buddhist. You can take Mohammed out of Islam and still be a Muslim. You can take Moses out of Judaism and still be a Jew. That is why great religious teachers can die and still leave a legacy--just follow their teaching. But if you take Christ out of Christianity, you do not have anything left. That is why, if Christ had remained in the grave, Christianity was as good as dead. But, unlike any other religious leader, Christ's tomb was empty.

CONCLUSION

Is Christ the only way? If you are not convinced that he is, allow me to ask you to consider the alternatives. There are only three choices, really: You can chose to believe that Jesus is who he said he was, the unique Son of God, equal with the Father, the only way to the Father. Or you can chose to believe that he was sincere in every way but absolutely deluded about his own identity. Today we call such people insane. We feel sorry for them, but eventually we lock them up, because they are dangerous. Or you can chose to believe Jesus was a liar and a con artist; that he knew he was not who he said he was but he succeeded in convincing enough people to start a movement. Those are the only three options. What you cannot say is that Jesus was merely a good moral teacher. He didn’t leave us that option. Now, knowing what you know about the life of Christ, which choice seems the most logical to you?

Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus is the unique Son of God in human flesh. However, some unbelievers, who may or may not believe Jesus existed, do not believe that Jesus was necessarily a wise or a particularly good man. Others, such as Muslims, think that Jesus was a prophet, along with other prophets. Hinduism depicts Christ as one among many great gurus. Liberal Christians and many others hold Christ as a good human being and a great moral example.

In his essay “Why I Am Not a Christian,” the agnostic Bertrand Russell wrote, “Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if he did we know nothing about him.” As to Christ’s character, he said, “I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above him in those respects” (Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian).

Deity and Humanity.

Jesus Christ was unique in that he alone, of all who ever lived, was both God and man. The New Testament teaches the fully unified deity and humanity of Christ. The Nicene Creed (325) states the uniform belief of all orthodox Christianity that Christ was fully God and fully man in one person. All heresies regarding Christ deny one or both of these propositions. This as a claim alone makes him unique above all other religious leaders or persons who have ever lived.

Unique in Messianic Prophecies.

Centuries before his birth he was foretold by supernatural prophecy. The Old Testament, which even the most ardent critic acknowledges was in existence centuries before Christ, predicted the where (Micah 5:2), the when (Dan. 9:26), and the how (Isa. 7:14). He would come through the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10) and would be the son of David (2 Sam. 7:12f.). The Old Testament predicted that Christ would die for our sins (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53; Dan. 9:26; Zech. 12:10) and would rise from the dead (Pss. 2:7; 16:10).

All of these supernatural prophecies were uniquely fulfilled in Jesus Christ. This is not true of any great religious leader or person who has ever lived.

Unique in Conception.

His virginal conception, Matthew (1:22-23) points to the prophecy of Isaiah (7:14). Luke, a physician, records this miraculous inception of human life (Luke 1:26f.); Paul alludes to it in Galatians 4:4. Of all human conceptions, Jesus’ stands as unique and miraculous.

Unique in Life.

Jesus’ ministry was marked by its miracles (cf. John 3:2; Acts 2:22), These were not healings of delusional illnesses, nor were they explainable on natural grounds. They were unique in that they were immediate, always successful.

Jesus turned water to wine (John 2:7f.), walked on water (Matt. 14:25), multiplied bread (John 6:11f.), opened the eyes of the blind (John 9:7f.), made the lame to walk (Mark 2:3f.), cast out demons (Mark 3:10f.), healed all kinds of sicknesses (Matt. 9:35), including leprosy (Mark 1:40-42), and even raised the dead to life on several occasions (Mark 5:35f.; Luke 7:11-15; John 11:43-44). When asked if he was the Messiah, he used his miracles as evidence to support the claim saying, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see; The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised” (Matt. 11:4-5).

Jesus Christ was also unique in His sinlessness. He once challenged his accusers, “Which of you convicts me of sin?” (John 8:46), but no one was able to find him guilty of anything. This being the case, the impeccable character of Christ gives a double testimony to the truth of his claim. Jesus’ sinlessness was unique

Unique in Teaching

He condemned meaningless traditions and misinterpretations of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:21f., 15:3-5). Though the essence of what he taught was not new, the form and the manner in which he taught it was unique. The Sermon on the Mount employs a fresh teaching method.

The Jewish intellectuals admitted, “No one ever spoke the way this man does” (John 7:46). As he taught in parables, he was thronged by the multitudes (Matt. 13:34). As a lad, he impressed even the rabbis in the temple. For “Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers” Luke 2:47). Later, he confounded those who attempted to trick him so that “No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions” (Matt. 22:46).

Unique in Death.

The darkness from noon to 3 P.M. (Mark 15:33) and the earthquake that opened the tombs and rent the temple veil (Matt. 27:51-54). The way in which he actually died was miraculous. As Jesus said, “I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (John 10:18). At the very moment of his departure, he was not overcome by death. Rather, he voluntarily dismissed his spirit. “Jesus said, ‘It is finished.’ With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (John 19:30).

Unique in the Resurrection.

The crowning miracle of Jesus’ earthly mission was the resurrection. It was not only predicted in the Old Testament (Psalms 2, 16), but Jesus himself predicted it from the very beginning of his

ministry, (John 2:19, 21; Matt. 12:40-42; 17:9). Jesus demonstrated the reality of his resurrection in twelve appearances over forty days to more than 500 people.

Unique in the Ascension.

After commissioning his disciples, “he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them” (Acts 1:10).