Defense of the Existence of God.

The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the reality of God has been contested throughout history, with exceptionally gifted people taking one or the other sides of the debate. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a combative attitude that denunciates all who dare to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Today’s atheist and skeptic feel that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted. Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the atheists and skeptic? Is there sufficient merit for believing in a Creator? I contend, the case for atheism and unbelieving skeptics alike, is extraordinarily weak. To make an argument for the existence of God, must we not ask the right questions? As an apologist’s, let me begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Can something come from nothing?” Is this not the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing?

My position and assertion is that “something does not come from nothing.” Since something exists, a transcendent force is necessary to explain this something. I use the word “force”, rather than God, since we have yet to establish personality. Would not this force have to be above and beyond time, space, and matter? Is it not reasonable to believe that if something exists, there must be a definitive account or reason? Whatever one calls it, it has to be transcendent to all the laws of nature so as to avoid the cause and effect relationship. Being outside of time, this force does not need a reason, but is itself, the reason for all things. To deny such a transcendent force is as illogical as it is irrational. To reject this transcendent force as personal is to be blinded by one’s own unsupported intellectual mindset.

There are two reasons I believe that this transcendent force has personality. First, personality, consciousness and self-awareness cannot come from non-personality. Since we possess all three of the mentioned qualities, does that not tell both believer and skeptic that we must share these same attributes or qualities with creating force? Furthermore does not creation itself demand an act of will? Think about this; if this creative force did not have a will, creation would have never been created or it would have always been being created. This being true (and I believe it is), creation must have been a willful action by a creator, who is a being whose existence and personhood are both defensible and obligatory. God is the essential elucidation or explanation for all existence.

Let me conclude with a statement from former atheist, Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago,  “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In their words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”