College Study #1: "the Existence of God"

 

‘Behold, the Lamb of God’

ide o amnos tou theou

College Study

1^st teaching

6.21.2012

 

“the Existence of God”

 

                   What is systematic theology? Theology is a word that comes from two Greek words: theos which is the word for God and logos, which means study of. Put them together and you have theology, the study and discussion of God. Systematic theology, then, is an organized and rational study of God, including the Bible, the doctrines, the miracles, the fundamentals and so on.

                   In beginning this series on systematic theology, we’ll be addressing one subject each Thursday night.

          Talk about the outline of the series:

                   Systematic theology is broken up into several parts, each addressing a different topic. For example, the study of Christ is known as Christology, the study of the church is called Ecclesiology and the study of the last things is called Eschatology.

                   To keep us in order, we’re going to begin with an introduction to theology called Prolegomena, or the first speech. The introduction will be based on things we should understand before we can begin a study of theology itself. These are called pre-conditions to theology. In the Prolegomena we’ll cover topics like God’s revelation to man, the interpretation of Scripture and the existence of miracles. So for example, there’s no point studying the Scripture unless we know there is a God whose word it is. And there’s no use talking about miracles such as the resurrection of Christ unless we know it is possible that miracles occur.

                   After the Prolegomena, we’ll look at God’s special revelation to man, which we call the Bible; how it was put together, how it is without error and so on.

                   After the study of Bibliology, the study of the Bible, we’ll enter Theology Proper, which is the study of God Himself; his attributes, actions, persons and characteristics.

                   After that, if we ever get there, comes Christology and Anthropology, the study of man; Harmartiology, the study of sin; Soteriology, the study of salvation; Ecclesiology, the study of the church and Eschatology, the study of the last things.

                   Obviously, there is a lot of information here. As there should be: we are studying the Infinite Mind and Nature and Character of God. So I highly encourage you to take notes. You never know when this information will come up in conversation and you may need it to defend the faith or provide an answer to someone who asks.

                   That leads us to the purpose and reason why we’re studying this. It is not to overwhelm you. We’ll go slowly and have discussions and questions.

          Talk about the purpose of this study.

                   Why are we all here? Our purpose in gathering tonight is to, as John the Baptist said, ‘Behold the Lamb of God’. I chose this topic of systematic theology to give us a comprehensive and total view of all that we know about God and His Scripture. My prayer is that this study will strengthen your faith, remove your doubts, encourage you with reasons to believe, equip you to share these reasons with others, that it will make known the will and purpose of God for your life to you and to cause you to know and therefore love God more. May the truths we learn and discover here not just be head-knowledge, but be useful for practicing Christianity and saving the lost.

                   I’m asking you specifically to devote this time to the Lord in your thoughts and in your hearts. We are each of us either entering adulthood or have just entered it recently; we are in a pivotal place in our society and in our world. Young men and women have been the instruments of great change and movements throughout history. And here we are in a privileged age of grace that is rapidly coming to its close. So what does God want to accomplish with you and I in this world today?

I hope and pray that in seeking and studying about God, we can be a part of the work He desires to accomplish in these last days, in effecting the world toward the end and in effecting the eternal destinies of our loved ones who aren’t saved.

 

 

          Prolegomena: part I

                   Tonight, we’re going to talk about the existence of God. This is the very bottom, the very foundation of theology. Without God you obviously cannot have any discussion about God.

Really, without God there could be no universe in which to have our planet not to mention have any discussions of any kind at all. And if God did not exist then the Bible would be a nonsensical, pointless piece of man-made literature and poetry; so too, if God did not exist, then Jesus could not be the Son of God, since there is no God to have a Son. If God did not exist, then our lives would be inherently and fundamentally pointless and without direction or reason. If God did not exist, there would be no Uncaused Causer to cause everything else to be. Simply put, if God did not exist, nothing else would. And we’re going to prove that tonight.

          God is the single beginning of everything and so the existence of God and proving the existence of God will be the basis of our entire study. His existence is the first precondition for studying theology.

          Now most of us probably already have a firm belief in the kind of God there is, and we’re familiar with the God of the Bible specifically. But is this the only kind of God there is or could be? Can reason and evidence show this to be true?

God claims through the prophet Isaiah: “I am the First and the Last; besides Me there is no God.” And again “I am the LORD, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me.” Is this true?

 

Let’s look at the 7 major worldviews of God. Each of these worldviews, with the exception of two, are incompatible with the others. If one of them is true, then the others are logically false.

The 7 major worldviews are: theism, atheism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, finite godism and polytheism. Not that another popular view concerning God is agnosticism, which says that you can’t know anything about God. This view doesn’t have anything to do with the kind of God there is, so we’ll talk about it another time. Right now we’re trying to get at what kind of God exists, if One exists.

          Theism means One Almighty God. It is the worldview that says there is a single, infinite and personal God beyond the physical universe, who created it, sustains it and can act within it supernaturally. This view forms the basis of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

          Atheism means there is no God at all. It is the opposite of theism. The natural and physical universe is all there is or ever will be. Some famous atheists are Nietzsche, Marx and Richard Dawkins.

          Pantheism means God is all. This view says that the universe and God are just two different ways of viewing the same reality. This view worships the Cosmos and the sacredness of the Universe and Nature, thus God is not a Creator or a Cause or a personal Being, but the processes of the universe. Therefore, God is all, a force and not a distinct person. Neither can there be any limited beings (humans) truly in existence because we are all part of this God-process. Pantheism is represented by Hinuism, Zen Buddhism and some New Age religions.

                   So thus far we have either God is all, pantheism, or no God at all, atheism, or God made and is beyond all, theism.

          Panentheism not to be confused with pantheism, panentheism means God is in the universe. This view believes that God has two ‘poles’, the actual universe and God’s infinite existence beyond it. This view claims that God is in the universe like a mind is in a body, and thus the universe is God’s body, and everything in it is a part of that God, God is in all and all are in God. This desk is part of God, as is this carpet and the trees outside.

          Deism means God is beyond the universe but not in it. Deism is exactly like theism minus the miracles. Deism claims there is an infinite God Almighty but that he does not or can not act within the universe. Thus, God made the world and set it in motion, but then took no further part in it.

          Finite Godism means a God exists beyond the universe and can act inside it, only he is not infinite. Finite godism is just like theism minus the Almighty part. This view also denies miracles and uses the existence of evil as proof that god is limited in power.

          Polytheism means there are many gods that are limited in power. Polytheism is represented by the ancient Greeks and Romans who had their pantheon of many gods. A more recent example is the Hawaiian culture which believed in many gods and goddesses.

          Now clearly, if theism is true, then all the others are false. There cannot be one God and many gods at the same times. Also, there cannot be a God who performs miracles and does not perform miracles, or one who is Almighty and limited in power at the same time.

          So we must choose which view we will adhere to.

          Obviously, we can agree with only one worldview, and so can the Bible. Deuteronomy 6:5, “Hear O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” The God of the Bible is singular. And the God of the Bible is personal, that is, He is a person: He can be grieved, He can love, He can become angry, He can speak and He can show mercy. Those are all attributes of a personality. And the God of the Bible is infinite, powerful and beyond our universe. You can see that just from Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” He was the original Uncaused Cause, powerful enough to create our ever-expanding universe and intelligent enough to populate it with matter and creatures and light and life.

The Bible agrees with the worldview that there is a singular, personal, infinite God beyond the universe that can act within it: known as theism.

                   Let me give you three basic arguments for the existence of a theistic God. Each of these have been in use by theologians and the church for generations. There are other arguments than just these, but these three are a great place to start.

         

          The Cosmological Argument

                   This statement argues from the beginning of the universe to a beginner, from that which was caused to the original cause. It goes like this:

1.    Everything that had a beginning had a cause.

2.    The universe had a beginning.

3.    Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Now this is definitely not a science class but we all know pretty well that the universe had a beginning. This may not have been the common consensus back in the day, when some still considered matter and the universe to be eternal, but we know now that this is not true. And so we have the prevalent Big Bang Theory or any number of theories to try and explain how we all got here.

Not only is it evident that the universe had a beginning, but it is evident that whatever had a beginning must have a cause. Remember the last time you were startled by seeing something move out of the corner of your eye, say, when you were alone at home? You look quickly and discover either its not there, or something else began the movement of the object: such as the wind or a human being. Things simply do not begin without a cause.

          The same is true of the universe. It could not simply have began out of nothing, with nothing to have caused its beginning. Nor could it have created itself, for it was not around before it existed in order to act upon its own creation. Makes total sense right?

          So then how could a rational person believe that all this universe, all this something, came out of nothing? The Big Bang can explain how the beginning progressed but not how it all began in the first place. There had to be something there before the Big Bang occurred in order for any Bang to occur.

          Of necessity, if the physical realm is not eternal, but the physical realm had a beginning, then there must be a cause outside of the physical realm to cause it to be. This we must call the Uncaused Cause.

          Now why does this first Cause of the universe have to be itself uncaused? Simply because there cannot be an infinite series of causes. No one and nothing caused God to be because He never had a beginning. He is everlasting. Therefore, by definition of being God, He needs no cause.

          And if we say the universe had a cause which had a cause, which had a cause, then where did anything begin? Where was the first cause, if it too had a cause? Imagine it this way: it’s like arguing that a sky-diver whose parachute did not open can hold up another sky-diver whose parachute did not open. No matter how many parachutes and sky-divers you add doesn’t help the problem. There must be something above them all to hold them up.

          There must be a first Uncaused Cause, and so we have our first glimpse of God. Is this what the Bible says? Certainly! We’ve already made ourselves familiar with Genesis 1:1. At the beginning of time, God the Uncaused Cause created everything out of nothing.

 

          The Teleological Argument

                    This next one argues from design in the universe to a designer of the universe. It goes like this:

1.    All designs imply a designer.

2.    There is design in the universe.

3.    Therefore, there must have been a designer of the universe.

          The first premise of this argument comes from our own experience. None of us who ever saw a painting or a sculpture or a building or a book ever thought for a moment that it sprung into existence through natural means; watches imply watchmakers, buildings imply architects, drawings imply artists, organized items imply an organizer and codes imply code-maker.

          Also, consider that the greater the design, the greater the designer. When I was a child, I loved to draw. There was nothing more magical than an empty page and a box of crayons. But my greatest masterpiece would pale in comparison to the Mona Lisa, because Da Vinci was a master of his craft, and you could certainly guess that if you compared the art of a 6 year old next to that of Da Vinci.

          Similarly, I like to write. But my best writing is nothing compared to an epic like the Lord of the Rings or the works of Shakespeare.

          Now consider the design of the universe. How great must the implied designer be? After all, that first Uncaused Cause was able to craft galaxies and stars, the biological orders of animals and plants, our own bodies, atoms and electrons, the wind, light particles and on and on and on.

          The amount of specific complex information in a simple one-celled organism is greater than that found in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. So, believing that life occurred without an intelligent cause is like believing that billions of copies of Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary resulted from an explosion out of nothing. Where did all that information in a single cell come from?

          Another support for the teleological argument comes from the anthropic principle, which states that the universe appears to be fine-tuned for human life.

          Norman Geisler provides a list of some aspects of the anthropic principle: “For example, oxygen makes up 21 percent of the atmosphere. If it were 25 percent, fires would erupt, and if only 15 percent, humans would suffocate. If the gravitational force were altered by merely one part in ten to the fortieth power, the sun would not exist and the moon would crash into the earth or veer off into space. If the centrifugal force of planetary movement did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun. If the universe were expanding at a rate one-millionth more slowly than it is, the temperature on earth would be 10,000 degrees Celsius. If Jupiter were not in its current order, the earth would be bombarded with space material. If the earth’s crust were thicker, too much oxygen would be transmitted to it to support life. And if it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life unsustainable. And if the rotation of the earth took longer than 24 hours, temperature differences between night and day would be too great.”

          So the teleological argument, arguing from design to a designer, shows us that the first Uncaused Cause was intelligent, an aspect of a person. Thus far this is lining up with the theistic God of the Bible, who is everlasting, who is intelligent, and who is a person.

          Thirdly, and lastly, there is the Moral Argument.

                   The Bible itself uses this argument, though it has been restated many times throughout history, notably by C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity. Romans 2:12-15 says “For as many as have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)…”

          Here is the basic structure of the Moral Argument:

1.    A Moral law implies a moral lawgiver.

2.    There is an objective (absolute) moral law.

3.    Therefore, there is an objective (absolute) Moral Lawgiver.

Again, the first premise is obvious from our experience. A moral law is a prescription and prescriptions come from prescribers. No code of conduct in the world came from nothing. Always, someone prescribed the morals of their law: whether it’s the Ten Commandments or American laws. Laws have Lawmakers.

But the laws of nature are descriptive laws of how things act and moral laws don’t describe but prescribe how people ought to act. So for example, I cannot disobey the laws of gravity, but I can disobey a moral law all I want. Get the difference?

The weight of this argument lies on the second premise, that there exists an absolute moral law. The question is whether or not there exists a universal and absolute prescription that is binding on all human beings.

There is plenty of evidence it does exist. When was the last time you heard someone say “the world is getting better” or maybe they said “it’s getting worse”? When was the last time you read about a murderer being evil, or Hitler being wrong, or an act by someone as being unfair, or that lying is wrong or racism is wrong?

          Just earlier today, I read a news article about a 68-year-old grandmother who worked as a bus monitor. Caught on tape is footage of a pack of junior high boys profanely bullying and berating and teasing her to tears. They made fun of her weight, her age and her livelihood. You could hear one kid saying ‘Why’s there water down your face?’ She said ‘I’m crying’. Another boy says ‘she probably misses her box of Twinkies’.

          One of the kids put the video up on facebook and it sparked outrage. One man decided to start a fund for the old woman to raise enough money to send her on vacation.

          Now I use that example to show that we all feel and agree that kids bullying an old woman is bad and wrong and that raising charity to give her a vacation was good and right. How could we call these actions good or bad unless we had some concept of good or bad? How could we call something crooked unless we knew what something straight was? So then where does this sense of good come from?

          It’s not from us. Human experience and history shows us as anything but good apart from a few actions. There must exist a perfect standard by which everything can be judged by. Even the existence of evil in the world pre-supposes an absolutely perfect standard. We all know how we ought to act, even though we do not act that way. This is the moral law, and the same basic laws can be found throughout history and throughout societies. And this perfect moral standard exists as the Nature of God, who wrote the laws into the very fabric of human beings, so that they each know as they ought to behave.

          For detailed information about the moral law, and responses to criticisms about it, I’d advise you to check out the book Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

 

          Conclusion

          Let’s finish off by re-examining the 7 major worldviews in light of these 3 arguments.

          Finite Godism, the view of one limited god cannot be true, because everything that had a beginning had a cause, the cosmological argument shows. Thus every finite, limited thing must have had a cause, thus the Cause of all things must be Uncaused and therefore not finite but infinite. IF God had a cause then there would need to be a God who caused God to be, since nothing cannot cause something.

          Polytheism, the many limited gods view cannot be true, because an infinite God is required to be an Uncaused Cause. God has always been and always will be, and He sustains Himself. He is self-existent. Many limited gods would themselves require causes, and therefore cannot account for the beginning of the universe. Also, there must be only one Infinite God, because there cannot be two infinite gods. Two infinite beings would have to be identical, otherwise one would have what the other lacked and cease to be unlimited.

          Pantheism, the god is all view and it is also false. Pantheism says yes to an unlimited God in the form of the universe but denies the reality of limited and finite beings in that universe. This view is self-defeating since a man must exist in order to suggest that he does not exist. The Pantheist must exist to believe that he does not exist.

          Panentheism, the view that god is in all is also false. Panentheism claims that God has two poles: the eternal and unchanging beyond the universe and the temporal and changing world we know as the universe. The cosmological argument demonstrates that there is an Uncaused Cause for the universe, which by definition must be infinite and not finite, otherwise it too would need a cause. And what is infinite cannot change, again, by definition. Because it is a logical impossibility to have more than the most possible. There is no such thing as more than infinity. Therefore, the changing in-universe god of panentheism is false. You cannot have it both ways, infinite and eternal, and then changing and finite in one deity.

          Atheism claims there is no god, but they have the toughest spot of all. The universe could not have created itself no more than you or I could have. Nothing is there before it exists to cause its own existence. The fact that we are here in creation means that there is a first Uncaused Cause, God by definition. Besides that, without God there would be absolutely nothing: no meaning, no morality, no rationality, no laws, no physical space and no matter.

          Deism, the view that god is not involved with the world today and does not perform miracles. Miracles, that is the supernatural actions of God within the natural world, will actually be our subject next week, so we will discuss them then. But it is safe to say that if a miracle has happened then they can happen. And we know from the arguments tonight that one of the greatest miracles of all time has already happened, namely the creation of the universe out of nothing.

          Theism, the only true view and the only view that the Bible holds to is a fact. There is a single infinite God who was the first Uncaused Cause, who was the intelligent Designer and the giver of the Moral Law. Next week, we shall find out that this God is able to act within the universe, acts which we call miracles.