[Footnote: A fuller and complete presentation of these arguments
for the Existence of God may be found in the works of Dr. Augustus
H. Strong and Dr. Francis L. Patten, to whom the author is here
indebted.]
These arguments may not prove conclusively that God is, but they
do show that in order to the existence of any knowledge, thought,
reason, conscience in man, we must assume that God is (Strong).
It is said of the beautiful, "It may be shown, but not proved." So
we say of the existence of God. These arguments are probable, not
demonstrative. For this reason they supplement each other, and
constitute a series of evidences which is cumulative in its nature.
Though taken singly, none of them can be considered absolutely
decisive, they together furnish a corroboration of our primitive
conviction of God's existence, which is of great practical value,
and is in itself sufficient to bind the moral actions of men. A
bundle of rods may not be broken even though each one separately
may; the strength of the bundle is the strength of the whole. If in
practical affairs we were to hesitate to act until we have absolute
and demonstrable certainty, we should never begin to move at all.
Instead of doubting everything that can be doubted, let us rather
doubt nothing until we are compelled to doubt.
Dr. Orr, of Glasgow, says: What we mean by the proof of God's
existence is simply that there are necessary acts of thought by
which we rise from the finite to the infinite, from the caused to
the uncaused, from the contingent to the necessary, from the reason
involved in the structure of the universe to a universal and eternal
reason, which is the ground of all, from morality in conscience
to a moral Lawgiver and Judge. In this connection the theoretical
proofs constitute an inseparable unity--'constitute together,'
as Dr. Stirling declares, "but the undulations of a single wave,
which wave is but a natural rise and ascent to God, on the part of
man's own thought, with man's own experience and consciousness as
the object before him."
Religion was not produced by proofs of God's existence, and will not
be destroyed by its insufficiency to some minds. Religion existed
before argument; in fact, it is the preciousness of religion that
leads to the seeking for all possible confirmations of the reality
of God.
a) Universality of Belief in the Existence of God.
(1) The fact stated and proven:
Man everywhere believes in the existence of a supreme Being or
Beings to whom he is morally responsible and to whom propitiation
needs to be made.
Such belief may be crudely, even grotesquely stated and manifested,
but the reality of the fact is no more invalidated by such crudeness
than the existence of a father is invalidated by the crude attempts
of a child to draw a picture of its father.
It has been claimed by some that there are or were tribes in
inland Africa that possessed no idea or conception of God. Moffat,
Livingstone's father-in-law, made such a claim, but Livingstone,
after a thorough study of the customs and languages of such tribes,
conclusively showed that Moffat was wrong.
Nor should the existence of such few tribes, even if granted, violate
the fact we are here considering, any more than the existence of
some few men who are blind, lame, deaf, and dumb would make untrue
the statement and fact that man is a seeing, hearing, speaking,
and walking creature. The fact that some nations do not have the
multiplication table does no violence to arithmetic.
Concerning so-called atheists in Christian lands: it may be
questioned if there are really any such beings. Hume, known as a
famous sceptic, is reported to have said to Ferguson, as together they
looked up into the starry sky: "Adam, there is a God." Voltaire,
the atheist, prayed to God in a thunderstorm. Ingersoll, when
charged with being an atheist, indignantly refuted the charge,
saying: "I am not an atheist; I do not say that there is no God;
I am an agnostic; I do not know that there is a God." "I thank God
that I am an atheist," were the opening words of an argument to
disprove the existence of God. A new convert to atheism was once
heard to say to a coterie of unbelievers: "I have gotten rid of
the idea of a supreme Being, and I thank God for it."
(2) Whence comes this universal belief in the existence of God?
aa) _Not from outside sources_, such as reason, tradition, or
even the Scriptures.
_Not from reason or argument_, for many who believe in God
have not given any time to reasoning and arguing the question; some,
indeed, intellectually, could not. Others who have great powers
of intellect, and who have reasoned and argued on the subject are
professed disbelievers in God. Belief in God is not the result of
logical arguments, else the Bible would have given us proofs.
_Nor did this universal belief come from tradition_, for
"Tradition," says Dr. Patton, "can perpetuate only what has been
originated."
_Nor can it be said that this belief came from the Scriptures
even_, for, as has been well said, unless a man had a knowledge
of the God from whom the Scriptures came, the Revelation itself
could have no authority for him. The very idea of Scripture as a
Revelation, presupposes belief in a God who can make it.--_Newman
Smith_. Revelation must assume the existence of God.
bb) _This universal belief comes from within man._
All the evidence points to the conclusive fact that this universal
faith in the existence of God is innate in man, and comes from
rational intuition.
(3) The weight and force of this argument.
The fact that all men everywhere believe in the existence of a
supreme Being or beings to whom they are morally responsible, is a
strong argument in favor of its truth. So universal an effect must
have a cause as universal, otherwise we have an effect without any
assignable cause. Certain is it that this argument makes the burden
of proof to rest upon those who deny the existence of God.
b) The Argument from Cause: Cosmological.
When we see a thing we naturally ask for the cause of that thing.
We see this world in which we live, and ask how it came to be. Is
it self-originating, or is the cause of its being outside of itself?
Is its cause finite or infinite?
That it could not come into being of itself seems obvious; no more
than nails, brick, mortar, wood, paints, colors, form into a house
or building of themselves; no more than the type composing a book
came into order of itself. When Liebig was asked if he believed
that the grass and flowers which he saw around him grew by mere
chemical forces, he replied: "No; no more than I could believe that
the books on botany describing them could grow by mere chemical
forces." No theory of an "eternal series" can account for this
created universe. No matter how long a chain you may have, you
must have a staple somewhere from which it depends. An endless
perpendicular chain is an impossibility. "Every house is builded
by some man," says the Bible; so this world in which we live was
built by a designing mind of infinite power and wisdom.
So is it when we consider man. Man exists; but he owes his existence
to some cause. Is this cause within or without himself, finite or
infinite? Trace our origin back, if you will, to our first parent,
Adam; then you must ask, How did he come into being? The doctrine
of the eternity of man cannot be supported. Fossil remains extend
back but 6,000 years. Man is an effect; he has not always existed.
Geology proves this. That the first Cause must have been an intelligent
Being is proven by the fact that we are intelligent beings ourselves.
c) The Argument from Design: Teleological.
A watch proves not only a maker, an artificer, but also a designer;
a watch is made for a purpose. This is evident in its structure.
A thoughtful, designing mind was back of the watch. So is it with
the world in which we live. These "ends" in nature are not to he
attributed to "natural results," or "natural selection," results
which are produced without intelligence, nor are they "the survival
of the fittest," instances in which "accident and fortuity have
done the work of mind." No, they are the results of a superintending
and originating intelligence and will.
d) The Argument from Being: Ontological.
Man has an idea of an infinite and perfect Being. From whence this
idea? From finite and imperfect beings like ourselves? Certainly
not. Therefore this idea argues for the existence of an infinite
and perfect Being: such a Being must exist, as a person, and not
a mere thought.
e) The Moral Argument; Anthropological.
Man has an intellectual and a moral nature, hence his Creator must
be an intellectual and moral Being, a Judge, and Lawgiver. Man has
an emotional nature; only a Being of goodness, power, love, wisdom
and holiness could satisfy such a nature, and these things denote
the existence of a personal God.
Conscience in man says: "Thou shalt," and "Thou shalt not," "I
ought," and "I ought not." These mandates are not self-imposed. They
imply the existence of a Moral Governor to whom we are responsible.
Conscience,--there it is in the breast of man, an ideal Moses
thundering from an invisible Sinai the Law of a holy Judge. Said
Cardinal Newman: "Were it not for the voice speaking so clearly in
my conscience and my heart, I should be an atheist, or a pantheist,
when I looked into the world." Some things are wrong, others
right: love is right, hatred is wrong. Nor is a thing right because
it pleases, or wrong because it displeases. Where did we get this
standard of right and wrong? Morality is obligatory, not optional.
Who made is obligatory? Who has a right to command my life? We must
believe that there is a God, or believe that the very root of our
nature is a lie.
f) The Argument from Congruity.
If we have a key which fits all the wards of the lock, we know that
it is the right key. If we have a theory which fits all the facts
in the case, we know then that we have the right theory. "Belief
in a self-existent, personal God is in harmony with all the facts
of our mental and moral nature, as well as with all the phenomena
of the natural world. If God exists, a universal belief in his
existence is natural enough; the irresistible impulse to ask for
a first cause is accounted for; or religious nature has an object;
the uniformity of natural law finds an adequate explanation, and
human history is vindlcated from the charge of being a vast imposture.
Atheism leaves all these matters without an explanation, and makes,
not history alone, but our moral and intellectual nature itself,
an imposture and a lie."--_Patton_.
g) The Argument from Scripture.
A great deal of our knowledge rests upon the testimony of others.
Now the Bible is competent testimony. If the testimony of travelers
is enough to satisfy us as to the habits, customs, and manners of
the peoples of the countries they visit, and which we have never
seen, why is not the Bible, if it is authentic history, be enough
to satisfy us with its evidence as to the existence of God?
Some facts need more evidence than others, we know. This is true
of the fact of the existence of God. But the Bible history is
sufficient to satisfy every reasonable demand. The history of the
Jews, prophecy, is not explainable minus God. If we cannot believe
in the existence of God on the testimony of the Bible we might
as well burn our books of history. A man cannot deny the truth of
the testimony of the Bible unless he says plainly: "No amount of
testimony will convince me of the supernatural."
Scripture does not attempt to prove the existence of God; it asserts,
assumes, and declares that the knowledge of God is universal, Rom.
1:19-21, 28, 33; 2:15. It asserts that God has wrought this great
truth in the very warp and woof of every man's being, so that
nowhere is He without this witness. The preacher may, therefore,
safely follow the example of the Scripture in assuming that there
is a God. Indeed he must unhesitatingly and explicitly assert it as
the Scripture does, believing that "His eternal power and divinity"
are things that are clearly seen and perceived through the evidences
of His handiwork which abound on every hand.