The First Premise: God is Real

There are times when a Christian may be confronted with a question where they do not know the answer. This question may be very troubling, especially if they do not have someone they can go to for advice and it can be detrimental to their faith. There are times when a Christian might have to say "I don't know." At those times, that believer should do their utmost to find the answer but at the same time, their faith should not depend on it. The reason is that there are three basic premises that any Christian can fall back on in times of confusion. It is the first of these (that the God of the Bible is real) that will be the focus of this work.

The first basis for this is the evidence of God's work in history. If there is a God (who continues to interact with His creation) then it is logical that there should be periods and events in which one can say that He directly intervened. The foundations of such a claim may be broken down into purpose (did it achieve something), improbability (should this have happened if there was no intervention), and effect (was there an unusual reaction to this). The fair reader will note that this being only the first of three premises, it can not be expected to explain or otherwise justify why God does something. Like wise, the fact that one sign of intervention is present does not mean that the other two are obvious or perceivable.

One major support for this idea is the Jewish race. According to the Bible, the Jews are God's chosen people, picked out by Him to serve in His plan for the world. In correspondence with this, the Jews are now among the oldest people groups to continually maintain their identities. At the same time, they are also among the most oppressed people in history, facing persecution at the hands of Assyrians, Romans, Persians, Nazis, various Christian groups, and countless other peoples. They have been victorious in battle many times yet never have they been anything resembling a world power. Again and again they have been persecuted as a race and yet they have continually maintained their identity with only a set of religious beliefs and laws holding them together.

The persecution of the Jews corresponds with the Bible's claims that God and His followers are hated by the world as it explains much of the Jewish people's persecution at the hands of pagan nations. Additionally, in order to serve God, the Jews had to be kept as pure as possible which is also discussed in scripture as various conquerors are said to be led by the Lord to oppress His people, thus bringing them back to a reliance on Him instead of their own pride and sin. Finally, God even provides them with a specific diet to follow which protects them from certain afflictions as well as a law that keeps them isolated from worldly influences.

Beyond evidence of God's refining and preparation of the Jews, there is also evidence of their fulfillment of the role He has prepared them for. If the Bible is to be believed, then this role is to be a springboard for the Christian church. While this is a debated matter, any reading of the Old Testament would lead to the conclusion that Israel is to produce the Messiah. Therefore the fact that Jesus emerged from Israel continues the support for the Jewish status of God's chosen people.

Nearly two-thousand years after the crucifixion, the American Revolution served as another example of strange and unlikely coincidences that may form a support for the existence of Creator. The Revolution was fought with tired, inadequately supplied, unprofessional soldiers led by George Washington, a great leader but also a somewhat inadequate strategist, against the elite, English army, which was led by experienced generals with plenty of materiel.

Before even considering the matter of strategics, however, one must recognize how improbable that the Revolution could even have been organized or that independence could have been declared. Without the diplomatic skills of Benjamin Franklin, Congress might have failed and French aid would surely have never come. On the other hand without the relentlessness of John Adams, Congress might not have agreed on independence and the States might have become heavily entangled in the affairs of France. At the same time, Boston would never have been such an angry rebel without the words of Samuel Adams nor as tireless without the wealth of John Hancock. Those and other famous names were not simply brilliant contributors to American independence, they were indispensable to the Revolution.

Returning to the subject of the war, Great Britain sent three elite generals ( Sir William Howe, General Burgoyne, and Thomas Gage) to work together in the North. Those generals could have easily destroyed the Revolution in its infancy if not for their pride. Instead of working together as had been planned, the commanders set off on their own separate courses in search of glory.

It would take at least an entire, individual essay to even come close to expressing the incredible amount of luck (or perhaps, blessings) that was involved in the victory of the Americans but suffice to say that it would describe a long string of perfectly timed coincidences, coordinated accidents of the right people being born in the right time and place, and obvious blunders on behalf of the British forces.

In addition to the historical objections to atheism there is also the matter of philosophy. To begin there is the matter of moral truth. One thing true to just about all philosophers is that they hold that there is a right and a wrong. Benevolence is right. Charity is right. Justice is right. Cruelty is wrong. Greed is wrong. Rape is wrong. However, if taken seriously, the two primary philosophical alternatives to theism, relativism and naturalism, will be found to have fundamental objections to any moral standard.

To begin, relativism is easily the predominant worldview in America, if not by percentage of the general population then by percentage of the powerful and influential people our culture idolizes, Yet at the same time, very few people would ever profess to be relativists. This is actually quite unsurprising as relativism is by far the most ridiculous and insane of all philosophies ever introduced to the general population.

Relativism is the belief that there is no absolute truth and all religions (and thus all moral standards) are relative. The first gaping hole in this idea is that it is self-contradictory since the statement that there is no absolute truth is itself a statement of absolute truth. Additionally, if no religion can be right and many religions disagree about aspects of right and wrong, then it must be determined that right and wrong are also relative. For instance, Nazism, often viewed as a political affiliation, was actually a religion unto itself, mixing the pagan mythologies of the Norse with Christianity and many occult creeds. If relativism is true (ignoring the obvious contradiction there) then Hitler was a righteous man, since he lived up to the moral standards of his religion.

The reason for this faulty logical standing is that relativism did not arise out of a need for truth but rather out of a desire for a way out of all the quarrels now emerging over right and wrong and out of a fear of political incorrectness. With relativism one can cast aside the difficult question of whether or not Islam is inherently radical or tends toward radicalism or any of the many other moral conundrums of this day. It is adopted, in other words, out of a desire to be respectful and tolerant toward all religions.

Tragically, it does exactly the opposite, for if all religions are equal then it can only be because all religions are wrong. Even if one can actually get to heaven or nirvana or whatever one believes in through their faith and in this way they are all true, relativism still makes all religions out to be worthless since that means anyone can achieve paradise just by believing they will. Ultimately what this path leads to is a denial of all moral standards and with them all that holds us together as a society. If you can get away with it, there is nothing wrong with murder, theft, or rape.

The other alternative to theism is naturalism, the belief that only what can be scientifically proven to be true is true. According to this worldview, there is no God, no soul, and no divine order of any kind. There is nothing beyond this universe, or if there is then it is all in accordance with the big bang theory. The important thing is that if other universes exist, none of them fit the description of Heaven or Hell.

Unlike relativism, naturalism is usually believed out of a sincere desire for truth. It is considered the rational view of the world and when Christian doctrine is not intellectually supported it most certainly appears to be just that. However, upon a more careful examination of the universe and all that which exists within it, the rational, objective nature of the belief begins to deteriorate. This examination shall lead us first to the conclusion of this brief summary of the philosophical objections to atheism and bring us to a similar listing of the many scientific holes in a faith in a lack of any divinity.

If the traditional philosophical view of morality, that there is a right and there is a wrong, is true, then the question is how moral truth fits into naturalism. If one were to ask most naturalists what the right way to live is, they would usually get an answer, and as vague as that answer might be, it still proves that the majority of naturalists subscribe to the theory of right and wrong. Yet how does naturalism justify this? how does the rational worldview scientifically prove that there is a moral standard?

If there is no divine being or order outside of the physical universe that confirms the existence of virtue then there must be some property within the physical universe that states this moral standard. Is it in the stars? Is it in all matter, pervading this universe in the same way that gravity does? Absurd! If there exists a moral property within this universe then surely whatever it resides in must show some manifestation of it and since there have been no recorded instances of evil men being killed by small meteorites the only place to turn to for a manifestation of any moral property is the human mind.

Yet here naturalism has destroyed its only defense. If there is no soul, no mental exists superceding the chemistry of the brain, then there can be no right and wrong. After all, according to naturalism, the brain was the result of billions of years of random events in which the best results were passed on to later reactions and events.(On the topic of evolution, the Christian reader may note that a process of evolution is not necessarily outside what a serious Christian may believe; evolution as a divine tool as still biblically defensible.) Thus the conscience is simply another way to preserve the species; after all, without it how could a species as powerful as us have refrained from murdering itself?

But once again, a deeper look brings yet another challenge to the naturalist outlook. You see, natural selection is not about the survival of the species or even the survival of the fittest; indeed any description using the word survival is a lie. The truth is that natural selection is not about survival but rather reproduction and with this standard one must ask how a conscience can in any way help an individual pass on their genes. Shouldn't it be the brutes and the players that are most successful in this way? While it is true that the individuals must survive well enough together to reach an age of fertility, one must still ask why this does not result in a half-formed conscience instead of one that favors an absolute right an wrong? Instead we find that an emphasis on loyalty and the other aspects of a simple moral standard are the result not of human instincts but rather of social conditioning. When a deeper and more consistent moral standard is introduced we usually change our standards out of an inner desire for righteousness and while this change takes time it is still much faster than natural selection would require.

At this point, some naturalists might diverge from the strict orthodoxy of their faith and venture to say that perhaps there is a moral property and perhaps evolution is not as random as it is often described. According to this theory, there is a moral property within the universe that influenced evolution and caused the atoms and molecules that make up our brain to gain a property in this new whole which they had not previously exhibited individually and thus give us the moral standard of right and wrong with which we are born. However, any analysis of this theory will find great similarities between it and most beliefs maintaining that there is a divine order, similarities that will only deepen with any attempt at a more in-depth explanation. Thus, in explaining one quandary, the naturalist has undone the basis of their entire belief system

On the other hand, the die-hard naturalist would simply reply that the only rational conclusion is that there is no right and wrong. Yet this belief has already been discredited by the previous analysis of the human conscience. The same instincts that cause the unorthodox naturalist to move in the direction of theism (which then take the form of a need to maintain a belief in morality) and the orthodox naturalist to deny a moral standard (in this case their reaction is based on a subconscious connection between virtue and scientific truth) rebukes any doctrine against a moral property.

When the question of a moral property is brought before a theistic worldview, the quandary is much less troublesome. If one accepts that there is a divine being and that this being created the world, then one must also recognize that any moral statement made by this being is at least as real as the matter and energy of which the physical universe is comprised. Indeed, according to the Book of Genesis, God established the physical and the moral in exactly the same way as he first speaks the physical universe into existence and then speaks again when making the value judgment that "it is not good for Man to be alone".

Of course, there are many naturalists who would simply ignore these arguments on the basis that philosophy is not a legitimate source of truth and history cannot be examined thoroughly enough. For such people, the only true battleground is the realm of science, a subject they are supposedly the masters of. However, as with history and philosophy, there can be found within scientific knowledge yet another pillar of evidence in favor of an eternal being outside this universe.

First there is the matter of the mind. According to naturalism, the human is no more that the a collection of chemical reactions and electric impulses within the brain. There is no soul and when those reactions stop, you stop. The problem with this is that while modern biology has mapped out just about every mental function we possess in relation to the various regions of the brain, modern science is still no closer to understanding how calculation becomes thought, how sight becomes awareness, how endorphins and adrenalin become emotions, or how all these various processes become self. After all, a computer can be programmed to calculate, store information, react intelligently to new developments, demonstrate creativity (as proven by computerized chess players and games featuring other computer-generated enemies), and react abnormally to unique circumstances just as a human reacts abnormally when frightened. The one defining quality that a computer lacks and a human possesses is the self. A computer does not recognize its own existence when it carries out its various functions. If a computer is programmed to carry out a different protocol when faced with a different situation that programming may cause a change but it does not cause an actual emotion. In short, computers are not sentient.

Additionally, it is well-accepted that while different molecules and atoms may combine to form a more complex whole, the new compound can only have properties already possessed by at least one of its components. For instance, no matter what, no combination of granite and marble will ever be able to demonstrate electrical conductivity because neither granite nor marble display that particular property. However, if there is no spirit and the human mind is composed of nothing except the brain, that is exactly what has happened in the biochemical composition of the brain: the particles that make up our nervous system somehow gained the property of sentient thought.

Second, there is the matter of creation. According to naturalism, this universe and everything in it was brought about by chance reactions which built upon each other, slowly growing more and more complex, and eventually produced the world in which we live today. Yet this idea is also flawed and lacking certain necessary explanations. In regards to life there is the question of how one-celled organisms could possibly have developed into heterogeneous, multi-celled organisms, or even how the one-celled organisms came about at all. The second of these questions was once believed to have been answered in 1953, when it was proven that some naturally occurring reactions could produce certain amino acids. This discovery was seen as proof of the first process of evolution, yet that hope was crushed when further experimentation failed to expand on these results. The plain and simple truth is that no amount of chance has ever been proven to make those acids combine into the complex DNA strands, cell walls, or other organelles required for even the most basic cells.

Of course, there is still the underlying challenge that resides at the center of any naturalist worldview. This complaint is the simple question of why there would be some kind of superbeing causing all this to happen. Wouldn't it be more likely that any creative force be simply senseless energy? It just seems so out there, so nonsensical, that this force would actually be intelligent. This final inquiry is now more answerable than ever before due to the study of quantum physics.

According to traditional naturalism, the material reality of the chair you are sitting in is the highest reality it or anything else ever achieves. In contrast, quantum physics says (much like the claims that theology has made all along) that the physical reality of that chair is only its lowest and most shallow existence, beyond which there is the reality that it is actually made not of wood or metal but of the energy that we now know that matter is made of and beyond that reality there is its existence as information (or "wisdom" as scientist and theologian Gerald L. Schroeder often refers to it) which that energy is made of. In this context, the creation of all the matter and energy of this universe (or all the information of this universe) by an intelligent being appears much more likely.

Furthermore, there is the nature of the universe to consider. In this world if you take a chunk of gold and divide it into halves you eventually get an atom which can't be further divided into a smaller amount of gold but instead into protons and neutrons. While those parts can be divided further, the fact that you no longer get the same substance as you divide more and more suggests that there must at some point be a basic unit of some kind which can be divided no further. However, this is a universe that both science and religion agree has a beginning and will eventually reach an end. In other words, this universe is finite by nature. Yet this basic unit which I have described must have no need for an explanation or else there must be something else it is made of and it is not a basic unit after all. It must be of such a nature that it simply is. In other words, it must be infinite. There is something else besides matter and energy which also must have basic units which do not need to be explained. This "something else" is morality. Therefore, if right and wrong have any meaning, whatever force created the universe must be able to lay the basis for them virtue as well. Why should there be a creative being instead of a creative force? Because the only thing that has ever displayed any comprehension of or interaction with morality is the sentient mind.

In summary, evidence has been presented from the three subjects of history, philosophy, and science which not only supports the existence of divine being, but also refutes all claims to the contrary. In these final words, I would remind the reader that they have been shown only a fraction of all the facts and logical arguments that could be brought to bear against the challenge of atheism. I would remind them also that some of these arguments may be dismissable or vulnerable individually but together the consistency constant presence of God's mark upon each and every aspect of the mortal universe amounts to an argument that the objective, rational mind cannot ignore.