This is the sermon that I preached on Sunday about the existence of God. Please note that this is a sermon and not an academic lecture. But I thought people might find it interesting. If anyone wants it in mp3 format, please contact me.
Introduction
There has been a major change in the ways that atheists are presenting themselves. There have been numerous bestsellers by atheists promoting their views and being very critical of religion. A recent example is a bus campaign where an atheist organization bought advertising space stating that “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy life.” Atheists are organizing and even evangelizing. Of course in our society we value tolerance and we defend atheists’ right to express their disbelief. And anyway, there is nothing wrong with being an atheist is there? There are even some respected religious people who are atheists. The Dali Lama, one of the most respected individuals today and the most exalted figure in Tibetan Buddhism is an atheist. But what about in Christian circles? Pastor Klaas Hendrikse, serves a congregation of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands. In 2007 he published a book described as a “manifesto of an atheist pastor.” In the book Hendrikse argues for the non-existence of God, but he insists that he does believe in God as a concept. In his book, Hendrikse recounts how his conviction that God does not exist has become stronger over the years. “The non-existence of God is for me not an obstacle but a precondition to believing in God. I am an atheist believer,” Hendrikse writes in the book. “God is for me not a being but a word for what can happen between people. Someone says to you, for example, ‘I will not abandon you’, and then makes those words come true. It would be perfectly alright to call that [relationship] God.” I have heard of numerous other stories of religious leaders who were also atheists. Does this make sense? In all this we have to wrestle with Psalm 14:1. “Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”” (Psalm 14:1, NRSV) Does this mean that you are foolish if you have doubts or questions? No! This is about people’s apparent certainty that God does not exist. It is one thing to question something, it is another to assert the non-existence of something. I have not seen the planet Jupiter myself and in principle I can accept that it could be a conspiracy by astronomers. But even if I questioned whether Jupiter exists, I could not assert that it definitely did not exist. The same is true of God. How is it possible to assert the non-existence of God? Question it if you wish but we must always keep an open mind. What if you are already a believer? This is worth talking about because it is good for us to know why we believe. As our confidence in God is strengthened, we are better able to serve Him. It also equips us to respond to friends and family who doubt God’s existence. Let us take a look at why we believe in God.
I. Universe
One of the reasons that we know that God exists is that the universe exists. Why does anything exist? Perhaps you are acquainted with the big bang theory. This theory suggests that the universe is approximately 14 billion years old and that it started from a primordial dense and hot state that suddenly expanded at an incredible rate resulting in all of our galaxies and was the birth of the universe. This is very important. One of the critiques of belief in God is who created God? But think of this big bang theory which is sometimes used as an attempt to have creation without God. But the big bang theory requires this very small but infinitely dense and hot singularity to exist. Where did that matter come from? How could something come from nothing? If the big bang theory is correct, it actually is explained more easily if God was behind it. If the natural state of all things is at rest, then it is a miracle that anything is moving, much less a universe expanding. This is why the philosophers called God the Unmoved Mover.
II. Morality
Another reason that we know that there is a God is the existence of morality. We call some things good and some things bad. Why is that? And why are these morals found across societies with no apparent relationship? We say that murder is wrong. There is no society that says that it is okay to just walk up to someone for no reason and to put a knife in their heart. There are individuals who may do this but society reacts in horror to such acts. We value people who are loyal and we avoid people who betray and are insincere. We value honesty and truth and reject lies and deceit. Who is to say that murder is wrong and charity is right? There seems to be something inside us that tells us right from wrong. But what about the holocaust? That seems to be an example of a society that turned morality upside down. First of all we have to understand that it was a small segment of society that participated in it. Secondly, notice the feelings we have toward it. We do not look at the holocaust and see it as an interesting but disturbing social experiment. We are overwhelmed with grief and anger that such injustice took place. We can call it injustice because we believe that something can be called justice. This sense of morality seems to point to a reality beyond what we see. Notice that our word God is so close to the word good. God seems to be the measure by which we determine what is good.
III. Instinct
One of the interesting things about belief in God is the fact that it is almost universal. Not that everyone believes in God, but unbelief is a very small percentage. Not only that, belief in some sort of god is found across cultures, societies, levels of education and so on. Even in Buddhism, a religion and philosophy designed to explain life and provide hope without God, has in may of its forms, adopted beliefs in some sort of divine presence. There is something deep within us that makes us long for God to be real. But desire doesn’t not equal reality. Or does it? Ponder this statement by C.S. Lewis, an atheist who converted to Christianity “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures can satisfy it, that does not mean the universe is a fraud…earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.” The reason our desire for God is so strong is because there is a God who exists to satisfy that longing.
IV. Intelligent Design
I could spend a lot of time on intelligent design but I will just go over it in brief. Intelligent design is completely separate from the debates between six day creation and evolution. It does not start with the Bible and then attempt to describe nature through a biblical lens. Intelligent design is science and it starts with the data and attempts to find the best explanation. What many people, not theologians but scientists, have discovered is that all life, including human life, seems too complex to occur without outside assistance. To say that all life came about by accident is like saying a tornado could go through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747.
V. Beauty of Creation
Say for a moment that Darwin was correct with his theory on the survival of the fittest. That could explain some of the beauty that we see in creation, as that contributes to a species ability to mate and multiply. But what about a sunrise or sunset? What about majestic mountains? What about a brilliant blue sea? There is no utilitarian reason for these aspects of creation to be beautiful. I believe that the beauty of creation points to God.
VI. Changed lives
There are some very sincere atheists out there. Many of them are very good people. But I have never heard of a person converting to atheism who as a result had a radically good change as to who they were as a person. And yet there are thousands and thousands of stories of drug addicts, criminals, corrupt politicians, greedy businessman, and so on, who called out to God and had their lives completely transformed, becoming loving and compassionate members of their community. Transformed lives point to God.
VII. Resurrection
There are many other reasons to believe in God, but I will conclude with one last one. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a revelation of God. There is much I could say about that, but specifically the resurrection of Jesus points to the reality of God. An atheist could affirm Jesus as a moral teacher and as a man that cared for the poor. But how do you explain the resurrection of Jesus on the third day without God? The apostles died because of their belief that Jesus really did rise from the dead. They would not have done this if they had made it up. The historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection points to the reality of God.
Conclusion
I can not prove to you that God exists. If you have come here as an atheist convinced that God does not exist, you probably will leave the same way. But I do hope that with an open mind that I have given you something to think about. The universe, morality, instinct, intelligent design, beauty of creation and the resurrection of Jesus all point to the reality of God’s existence. None of the individual arguments might be convincing for you but the cumulative effect is a strong argument that God does indeed exist. If you are a Christian, may that strengthen your faith. If you are not yet a Christian, may that give you something to think about.



14 responses so far ↓
Same Old, Same Old: Creationist Arguments « Matt’s Notepad // May 5, 2009 at 5:56 am |
[...] is apparently run by some sort of minister/pastor. The entry in question is simply called “Does God Exist?“. You can read the full text via the link, I will concentrate on the actual reasons listed [...]
Ben // May 5, 2009 at 11:30 am |
Surely we can see with our scientists about to create life artificially, (see Craig Ventner – Genesis II, are they not at the first rung of the ladder of becoming as Gods.In other words the scientists are becoming more like those whom our ancestors could only interpret as ‘God or gods.Scientists are becoming creators. They ae becoming creationists, even though they may still believe in the theory of evolution
Stephen Bedard // May 5, 2009 at 12:33 pm |
Scientists are not really creating life in the same way Christians claim that God created life. Christians believe that God created life from scratch. Scientists are taking already existing DNA and manipulating. It is the difference between designing a better snow tire and inventing the wheel.
Ben // May 5, 2009 at 1:22 pm |
Stephen, yes not yet but surely it is not unimaginable for our scientists to synthesise DNA from scratch? I have great faith science and do believe this will be possible.Our level of science is just at the beginning of an incredible road of discovery. Just imagine you had a mobile phone 2000 years ago.People then would be in awe of you, to say the least.They would probably begin to worship you!
Matthew // May 5, 2009 at 7:50 pm |
Wow…those are some serious misconceptions and outright lies about ID. ID is not science at all. It is not testible, verifiable, or falsifiable. It makes claims based on the design argument which has been refuted many many times. Scientists are NOT saying that life is too complex to occur without outside assistance…thats just a lie. These types of ignorant arguements might work on your flock but they don’t work with individuals who look at the evidence.
Stephen Bedard // May 5, 2009 at 9:09 pm |
Please name one lie that I presented about ID. I said that some scientists have looked at the evidence and have concluded that life is too complex to have developed by accident. That is true. You may disagree with their conclusions but that does not take away from their science.
I have yet to hear any good reasons for believing that ID is not science. One of the objections I hear is that if you seriously look at ID then eventually you will have to deal with six day creationism so better to reject it all. That is like rejecting any discussion of evolution because some extreme Darwinists were involved in the holocaust. The other reason ID is rejected as science is that assuming that God is a fiction, he belongs to the subject of religion or mythology, not science. But what if there was a Creator out there? Why would we not want to look for evidence scientifically?
Design has not been refuted. It has been disagreed with by some scientists, been contemplated by other scientists and accepted by yet others.
Matthew // May 6, 2009 at 8:35 am |
Stephen…you didn’t say some…you said many scientists. This is simply untrue. As stated above, ID is not science because it is not testible, verifiable, or falsifiable.
The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.
Just take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
This can help explain some of the MANY difficulties associated with ID.
Matthew // May 6, 2009 at 8:40 am |
“Intelligent design is science and it starts with the data and attempts to find the best explanation”
That was another lie you threw out there. Not science at all (see links)…and what data does it start with? The Bible? Saying things look too complex for you to understand how it happened other than design just seems like an argument from ignorance. Since you can’t understand it…god did it. That’s not science.
Ben // May 6, 2009 at 6:43 am |
I agree with Stephen, re,Why would we not want to look for evidence scientifically? Scientists have to take the scientific method and examine history, with a 21st century perspective to look for evidence. Difficulty for many scientists is to examine history with an open mind. The past is the key to understanding humanity’s future. If we can do in science today why not much more advanced science elsewhere?
Yes progression of design has not been refuted but understandably 150 years ago was presumed to be nature. What about the idea of progression of design by advanced science?
Matthew // May 6, 2009 at 8:36 am |
Ben: We DO want to look for evidence scientifically…that is why we don’t believe in ID. Because it is not science or scientific in any manner of the words. Please read the above links if you are interested in learning more about the actual critiques of ID.
Stephen Bedard // May 6, 2009 at 9:24 am |
How do you define “many”? I did not say most. But it is not just one or two either. There are hundreds of scientists that are open to ID. That sounds like many to me. And are you really using wikipedia as a legitimate source? You speak of ID as pseudoscience and yet wikipedia is pseudo scholarship. I like wikipedia as a place of interest but I would never quote it as a legitimate source.
You ask a good question when you ask where one starts. I agree that it is not scientific to start with the Bible and then try to explain everything through a literal reading of Genesis. But that is not where ID begins. ID begins with the complexity of life and then concludes that there are only two options: everything is an accident or there was someone or something behind it. It is perfectly legitimate to go down both paths. In fact I would say it is unscientific to say that there can be no designer because I just refuse to believe in God. If a person discovered an island and saw some strange formations, it would be perfectly legitimate and scientific to investigate whether or not the formations were naturally formed or were the result of human activity.
Matthew, consider why people are so angry about ID. Is it based on a scientific evaluation of ID or is it hangover from the old creation-evolution debates in the schools and fear that religion will take over science?
Matthew // May 6, 2009 at 12:34 pm |
Wikipedia is not scholarly work but it at least covers the arguments against ID fairly thoroughly.
Your premise that you built your argument on is faulty in the first place. You claim: “there are only two options: everything is an accident or there was someone or something behind it.”
No one is saying everything is an accident. There are scientific theories that describe the process quite nicely. It is far from an accident. It’s no wonder you think a god did it if those are your only choices. Thank goodness it’s not!
By the way…I would love to see a list of those ’scientists’ you claim believe in ID. If you are only going to quote from the Creation Institute then don’t bother because those are not scientists. Have you ever read Ken Miller? He’s a perfectly happy scientist who is also a theist….who also talks about how crazy the ID idea is. You should look up some of his books or catch some of his lectures.
Stephen Bedard // May 6, 2009 at 9:28 pm |
If non-theistic evolution is not about an accident, please describe for me how life began on this planet. I do not mean how did humans evolve from a common ancestor with apes but how life initially began.
Ben // May 7, 2009 at 9:31 am |
Surely we can see with our scientists about to create life artificially, (see Craig Ventner – Genesis II, are they not at the first rung of the ladder of becoming as Gods.In other words the scientists are becoming more like those whom our ancestors could only interpret as ‘God or gods.Scientists are becoming creators. They ae becoming creationists, even though they may still believe in the theory of evolution
I agree with Stephen, re,Why would we not want to look for evidence scientifically? Scientists have to take the scientific method and examine history, with a 21st century perspective to look for evidence. Difficulty for many scientists is to examine history with an open mind. The past is the key to understanding humanity’s future. If we can do in science today why not much more advanced science elsewhere?
Yes progression of design has not been refuted but understandably 150 years ago was presumed to be nature. What about the idea of progression of design by advanced science?