What are some reasonable conclusions related to a belief in God?
Let’s assume that there is a God.
Because I’m a human being, I think and feel and make choices. I know that I am an effect—the result of a greater cause. It is reasonable to assume that this cause—which I believe is God—is both infinite and personal because I am finite and personal.
He created me like He is—in His image—with the ability to think, feel, and make choices. How can I know that this “cause” we call God is personal?
Is it more reasonable to think that God is personal or impersonal?
For one thing, to even consider this question, we have used our minds in reasoning to the absolute. Wouldn’t it be strange if we required rational minds and personalities to engage in this argumentation, but when you finally arrive at God, He was non-rational?
It would be more reasonable to assume that the reason we are able to get there rationally is that God is a rational and personal being Himself.
For another thing, in our experience, the impersonal does not give rise to the personal. You do not have birdhouses creating birds. The personal gives rise to the impersonal. Human beings build bridges. Bridges do not build people. So it is more reasonable to assume that the Source of the universe is personal and rational rather than impersonal and irrational.
Life never evolved from non-life. If I’m an effect, there must be a greater cause that comes from a greater being.
The atheist has a big problem in understanding any type of moral values. If there is nothing eternal and no absolutes, who determines what’s right and what’s wrong? If there is no absolute God in authority, then who determines the value of anything? Popular vote?
The atheist has no answer for where the laws of logic come from. So he can never defend his position from logic, because logic must have an ultimate Source to appeal to.
When a person says there is no God, they are a finite person with finite understanding making an absolute statement about the nature of God and infinity. This person must think they possess total knowledge of the cosmos.
Let’s ask that question. How much total knowledge does mankind have at this time? Albert Einstein, the Nobel Prize winner in physics, said, “Less than one percent of what nature has revealed to us.”
If we have less than one percent of total knowledge, would it be possible that God might exist in the other 99-percent we don’t have? One cannot logically say there is no God when they only possess one percent of all knowledge.
When trying to answer the question about the universe from basic principles of logic, the atheist puts himself in a difficult position.
One of the basic principles of logic is that it is more difficult to prove a negative—no God exists—than a positive—God does exist. For example, one could say, “There is no gold in Alaska.” But to prove there is no gold in Alaska, I would need to dig up all of Alaska. On the other hand, to prove the statement “There is gold in Alaska,” all I need to do is to dig until I find gold.
Every belief or position of faith is held because one has chosen to believe specific evidence. If I doubt “A,” it’s because I believe “B.” Unfortunately, often our faith conclusion is not purely objective. Many times it is emotional.
Many who believe that there is no God usually come to that conclusion not because of empirical evidence but, rather, philosophical presuppositions.
For example: I cannot believe in a God that allows evil or suffering in the world.
But if you look objectively, I believe that you’ll find that the evidence of a God—one who is infinite and personal—is found in each one of us.