Belief in God

As sure as we are about our ability to deduce and know things, nothing can ever be proved absolutely in this life. We understand that everything in this world is related to everything else. Therefore to understand anything completely we must be able to understand everything. Based on that logic, you would have to prove everything if you are to prove any one thing absolutely.

Does that indicate that any claim to prove something is without meaning? We do say we have proof when we mean we have enough evidence for working purposes. Without absolute proof, we accept a preponderance of evidence that one thing is more true and accurate than another.

This is particularly important when considering religious matters. There are those who believe that religious convictions rest upon wishes and imagination while legal, logical, and scientific conclusions are based on demonstrable facts. They feel that scientific conclusions constitute proof while religious convictions are simply charitable conjecture. There are many scientifically, logically and legally settled court cases finally found to be entirely false.

We must remember that our system of logic is a human contrivance and thus vulnerable. This old conundrum is truly nonsense but it is logical.

David said, “All men are liars”;

Therefore, David, being a man, was a liar;

Therefore, what David said is not true;

Therefore all men are not liars.

Scientific proof is generally considered more dependable, and on the whole, it is, particularly where it deals with things we can see, hear or feel. It is less so when scientists must intuit the existence and makeup of something invisible based on its effect on something that is discernable.

Religious proofs are accused of depending on a call upon faith. How many scientific experiments start with an assumption and proceed to prove them either right or wrong? Both types of proofs depend on the assumption that there is reliability and uniformity in the laws of nature.

We look for the source of our world and conclude that there must have been an origin of things or a First Cause. The alternative is to live in a delirium of unreason. Our very existence demands a First Cause or Creator or we question our own existence. From there we see that the world is intelligible and we are capable of understanding it. It must have been created with some plan and sequence or there would be nothing intelligible to discover. Logic tells us that an intelligible world necessitates an intelligence behind it that corresponds with our own intelligence.

Even if we don’t understand how all the parts work, we do not believe that all the parts of an automobile fell from chaos into a working model. Our world is much more complicated, and our comprehension of it grows slowly but every step adds clarity. If all is eventually understandable, there must be an Intelligence which produced it and continues to govern it. If our own intelligence is valid, there must be a supreme Intelligence we call God.

As we continue to study our world, we learn there is a purpose in this creation. It is subject to certain laws and responds predictably to certain controls. It does not take long to understand that to live well in this world; we must reckon with these laws and controls. If we adapt ourselves to them and cooperate with them, we find new and wonderful results forthcoming. As a result of adapting and cooperating with these laws, we can ride in cars, trains, airplanes and rockets. Contrary to the implications of some scientists, we didn’t create these laws; we simply discovered and cooperated with them.

The purposes of these laws were inherent in the beginning. They are not the result of spontaneous combustion. They come from a Lawgiver who provides the purpose. We find purposes emerging as we cooperate with the laws and the greater our cooperation, the greater the purpose. The natural conclusion of this is that there must be a dominating purpose of which all these lesser ones are minor manifestations, and that whenever the time comes that mankind fully cooperates with all the laws of the Lawgiver, that final purpose will be achieved.

This Lawgiver we call God, and the purpose implanted in His laws we call the Divine Will. The state of life in which His purpose is fulfilled we call the Kingdom or Realm of God. So we pray, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done.” Here we find real progress with an end to be attained. Otherwise life becomes a hodge-podge of disjointed impulses and a lawless nightmare of idiotic fantasies. There must be a Lawgiver with a purpose for His laws.

The theory of evolution is often used to discount the logic just outlined. However it is a theory which may or may not be true. Even if true, it does not destroy our logic. The Creator had to create the substance from which things evolved. Even though frequently punctuated with blind spots, evolution is a reasonable explanation and it supports our belief in God’s design and purpose. In addition, evolution does not teach that man is descended from the monkeys. It teaches that life began in a very simple form which gradually developed into something more complex. That development moves in both directions. Some lines moved upward and some moved downward.

What about conscience. Is there really a sense of moral responsibility? Throughout the history of man, we have heard there are things that ought to be done whether we want to or not. Granted, moral codes and customs have changed over time, but the variations only emphasize the universal presence of the impulse itself.

All people are conscious of a distinction between right and wrong. It is true that what was once considered right may be considered entirely wrong today. That is indicative of growth and advancement in our response to conscience. The distinction between right and wrong, the consciousness of moral responsibility is there, inbred in us, a normal factor in human nature. This is not an artificially cultivated reaction to the conventional standards of our day because conscience often forces us to go diametrically opposite to current public opinion.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant called this the most compelling evidence of the existence of a Supreme Moral Arbiter. The universal presence of moral consciousness among men implies a moral principle embedded in the very constitution of human life. It is another law which demands a Lawgiver or Moral Arbiter. Saying, “I ought” is predicating a reason for doing something which I might not want to do at all.

Men have always held some sort of belief in a Supreme Being. While some primitive manifestations have been monstrosities in the light of modern learning, men have always sought God. It is inconceivable that there should be such an instinct for God if there were no God to be found. In that case, human life would be irrational and human experience would be a fictitious dream

Not one of the points mentioned can be called a proof of the existence of God. But if you add them up, the cumulative effect of them is very impressive. If proof means the preponderance of evidence, it is difficult to escape an affirmative answer. Most people would agree that it is harder to explain away the evidence for God than to accept it. This preponderance of evidence indicates that God is:

Ø The Source of all creative power

Ø Ever present and sustains His creation

Ø The Supreme Intelligence

Ø The Moral Guide

Ø The final Answer to human searching

Theologically speaking, God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. He is a being possessed of reason, intelligence, self-consciousness and a sense of moral responsibility. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a Personal God.