(Continued-Chapter I-The Existence of God)

The Prophet Isaiah assumed that every honest truth seeker who desires facts can look into the heavens above and at the things upon the earth and can recognize that the one who created the universe is the one who is controlling the nations--is working in history. It is this one who will come again and deliver Israel and restore the faithful to favor with the Almighty.

Having seen that belief in God is universal, we now wish to ascertain if possible whether this conviction is simply a matter of coincidence or whether it is an absolute necessity. In other words, is it possible for man to avoid or to eradicate the idea of God's existence from his being? Put differently, is it possible for man to discard the conviction regarding God's existence? Thus far it has been impossible to get a satisfactory explanation of this conviction upon any basis other than that it is a part of his constitution. To put the question another way, is it possible for a sane man to disbelieve the existence of God? Many answer this question in the affirmative, calling attention to the fact that there are not a few atheists. In view of this situation, let us look more closely at the evidence and facts.

All fair-minded, scientific men must admit from the evidence which we have that belief in God is a universal fact. Can we say that this conviction is a necessary belief? It is, if it is based upon the very constitution of man's nature. If it is grounded in his being, it will be impossible for him, in his sane, sober moments, to discard this belief.

There are certain truths which are of such a nature that it is impossible to gainsay them. For instance, no one in a normal state of mind can deny that two and two make four. There are, however, different kinds of necessary truths. For example, there is the type of first principles the opposite of which is unthinkable. The principle of the law of causation falls into this category. There must be an adequate cause for every effect. The whole is greater than any of its parts. The opposite of these propositions is inconceivable.

In the next place, there are truths involved in certain physical phenomena and others pertaining only to mental or spiritual data. Although these exist in two separate realms and differ one from the other in producing conviction, nevertheless each is real in its own sphere. To the normal mind which is unhampered by preconceived ideas, the material or physical world is a reality, the existence of which cannot be denied. At the same time no fair-minded person can logically and reasonably deny the existence of mind and psychological phenomena. To be more specific taking a sober, rational, and logical view of myself, I cannot deny the reality of my body. Nor can I dispute the existence of my mind. The impossibility of denying either of these is apparent. Though the evidence in each case is different, conviction regarding both is produced and is unshakable.

In the third place, there is a class of truths which cannot be denied without doing violence to the laws of our mental make-up. In this realm lie moral and spiritual facts. In instances where denial is possible, external influence or false reasoning has been brought to bear to produce such abnormal convictions. To draw an illustration from the physical realm, one would say that a plumb bob may, by a person, be held from a vertical line. When, however, it is released, it will return to the normal position. By reason of some preconceived and fanciful theory or teaching, one's mind may be pulled aside from the vertical line of truth and facts. For many physical reasons a person may deny the existence of God and also man's moral nature. While he is under the influence of such unfounded theories, he may honestly and conscientiously believe all of those positions which are involved in the theory. When, however, the false conception is brushed aside by the stark experiences of life with its stubborn facts, especially in the face of death and eternity, men forget, as a rule, the theories and philosophizings of the learned and begin to face facts as they are--often after it is too late, after they have by willful rejection of light and truth wrecked their moral and spiritual make-up. On this point I wish to quote Dr. Charles Hodge: "Whatever arouses the moral nature, whether it be danger, or suffering, or the approach of death, banishes unbelief in a moment. Men pass from skepticism to faith, in many cases, instantaneously; not of course by a process of argument, but by the existence of a state of consciousness with which skepticism is irreconcilable, and in the process of which it cannot exist. This fact is illustrated continually, not only in the case of the uneducated and superstitious, but even in the case of men of the highest culture. We see by everyday experience--and the statements of the Scriptures prove conclusively--that the moral law is indelibly written in man's very nature. This fact implies that there is a Lawgiver who thus constituted man as he is, who will enforce these great moral principles, and to whom man is responsible. As long therefore as man, in his normal condition, recognizes himself as a moral being, he must admit the existence of God to whom he is personally responsible for his life and actions. To this extent, and in this sense, therefore, it is to be admitted that the knowledge of God is innate and intuitive; that men no more need to be taught that there is a God, than they need to be taught that there is such a thing as sin. But as men are ignorant of the nature and extent or sin, while aware of its existence, until instructed by the Word of God, and enlightened by His Spirit; so they greatly need the same sources of instruction to give them and adequate knowledge of the nature of God, and their relation to Him."

There are, however, men who deny this innate knowledge of God and who attribute a belief in His existence to the reasoning faculty of man. Such philosophers tell us that men, who have reached a high plane of education, culture, and science, by the inductive method in their examining nature and its phenomena, are the only ones who rationally come to the conclusion that a Supreme Being exists. A case analogous to this one, they claim is that which pertains to the law of gravitation. This power has been in existence in the physical realm since the creation, but was never understood properly until Newton recognized and stated the fundamental principles involved. This case is not analogous; because, as has been seen, it has been, from time immemorial to the present day the universal experience of the educated and uneducated, the cultured and uncultured alike, to believe in the existence of God.

Other thinkers endeavor to place the subject under discussion upon a different basis. To this class of philosophers, it seems evident that children and illiterate men, as they move in their limited spheres, stumble upon the idea of God from their various experiences. Such an hypothesis is the only reasonable foundation upon which they can base a conclusion relative to the different phenomena with which they come in contact. On this point I again quote Dr. Hodge; "Thus the existence of God is so obviously manifested, by everything within and around us, the belief in that existence is so natural, so suited to what we see and what we need, that it comes to be generally adopted. We are surrounded by facts which indicate design; by facts which demand a cause. We have a sense of the Infinite which is vague and void, until filled with God. We have a knowledge of ourselves as spiritual beings, which suggests the idea of God, who is Spirit. We have the consciousness of moral qualities, of the distinction between good and evil, and this makes us think of God as a Being of moral perfection." While the things just mentioned are true, none of them gives man his idea of God. As has already been seen, man's moral nature and the very constitution of his being inevitably lead him, with few exceptions, to the theistic faith. But these matters of daily experience, to which the author just quoted refers, only heighten and deepen and at the same time broaden and clarify man's intuitive, innate idea of God's existence.

I wish to summarize this phase of the subject by another quotation from Dr. Hodge: "The truth is, that all the faculties and feelings of our minds and bodies have their appropriate objects; and the possession of the faculty supposes the existence of those objects. The senses suppose the existence and reality of the objects of the sense. The eye, in its very structure, supposes that there is such an element as light; the sense of hearing would be unaccountable and inconceivable without sound; and the sense of touch would be inconceivable were there no tangible objects. The same is true of our social affections; they necessitate the assumption that there are relations suited to their exercises. Our moral nature supposes that the distinction between right and wrong is not chimerical or imaginary. In like manner our religious feelings, our sense of dependence, our consciousness of responsibility, our aspirations after fellowship with some being higher than ourselves, and higher than anything which the world or nature contains, necessitate the belief in the existence of God."

One has called our attention to the fact that the evidence points in the direction that Adam, when he was created, believed in the external world and at the same time in the existence of God. His religious nature, unbiased and unstained by sin and rebellion, apprehended the existence of God as truly as his sense perceived the external world.

There is still another class of theologians who attribute the idea of God to an original, supernatural revelation which the Lord made to primitive man. It is true beyond a doubt that there was such a revelation. Enoch was a true prophet (Jude 1:14). Abraham had the revelation of God and obeyed His voice, keeping His charge, commandments, and laws (Gen. 26:5). In this connection let us remember that he lived approximately four hundred years before Moses. Nevertheless there was a divine revelation in his day which he obeyed. (For further light on this most interesting phase of our study, see chap. i, Messiah: His First Coming Scheduled.) As has already been shown, the knowledge of God is perceived by man's intuitive powers; but in the light of the revelation which the Lord made of Himself and of His will from the very beginning, this knowledge was clarified and enriched.

Notwithstanding the fact that by his innate powers man recognizes the existence of the Supreme Being, there are those who deny the possibility of proving His existence. As we have already seen, the Apostle Paul stated that the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived by the things that are made, even His everlasting power and divinity. From this declaration we must conclude that it is possible for us to prove the existence of the Almighty. There are usually four lines of reasoning employed by theologians and philosophers in establishing this theses: the ontological, cosmological, teleological, and anthropological arguments. A misunderstanding however has arisen in regard to them. No one of these alone can prove the existence of the Supreme Being. The cosmological argument does prove the existence of an adequate cause operative in the universe. The teleological proof emphasizes the intelligence of this adequate cause, whereas the anthropological line of reasoning shows it to be a moral creature. Since the ontological argument is inconclusive and is lacking in convincing power, I shall omit a discussion of it and shall proceed to the evidence drawn from the cosmological proof.

The cosmological argument has by some been considered equivalent to the law of causation which may roughly be stated thus: All changes and phenomena are the result of some adequate cause. One sees that this statement, when viewed properly, is inadequate, for it is simply an assertion that every caused event must be the result of a prior cause. A more exact statement of the argument is that everything begun, whether it be material substance or phenomenon, is the result of a cause sufficient to produce it. The material heavens and earth as we view them today most obviously had a beginning and owe their existence to a cause sufficient to produce them as they now are. Modern science has greatly enlarged our conception of the vastness of the physical universe, the enormity of which staggers our finite minds. Evidently then the cause which produced it as it is today must be infinitely greater than the universe itself.

The fair-minded man must concede the cogency of the argument thus stated. Some, of course, will grant all that has been said. They reply however with the assertion that the phenomena to which I have just called attention does not account for the coming into existence of the material universe, but only to the change or changes which have brought it to its present condition. The force of this objection I unhesitatingly grant.

All science of today is built upon the law of causality, which asserts that there is an adequate cause for every result. If we should push the law of causation beyond its natural bounds, we would be forced to admit that there was a cause which brought the Eternal God into existence--but we will not be illogical and force this argument beyond its proper limits, seeing that truth and facts will not justify such conclusions. The evidence in the material universe does not require us to assume anything other than resident forces latent in nature to produce the results which we see on every hand--if we close our eyes to mind, psychic phenomena, and evidences of plan, purpose, and design. According to Flint, in Theism, "The Cosmological argument alone proves only force, and no mere force is God." In harmony with this conclusion is one from Diman, in Theistic Argument, who asserts, "The cosmological argument alone cannot decide whether the force that causes change is permanent self-existent mind, or permanent self-existent matter." Existence of mind in the universe is the only answer to the question. Whenever we begin to discuss this phase of the subject, we immediately move away from the cosmological argument to that of teleology.

One replies that he concedes the existence of a cause which has produced the present phenomena, but insists that it is impossible for us to affirm that this cause was not in turn the result of a prior cause. Moreover, if this argument is granted--and no one from the basis of the cosmological argument can affirm anything more than that--one must admit that there might have been an indefinite series of causes which have been operating throughout the ages of the past eternity. If this position is taken, it is impossible from the cosmological argument to arrive at the conclusion that there was at the end of this long series of causes an uncaused Cause.

The skeptic may admit the law of causality in the universe but, at the same time, refuse to grant that this cause was anything more than a finite one. Our argument does not require the admission of a cause greater than one that was necessary to produce the phenomena or changes observed.

What does the cosmological argument prove? It simply brings us to the conclusion that there was a cause sufficiently great to produce the changes observable in the material substance of the universe and the phenomena as we observe them today. Further than this it cannot carry us. But this contribution to our knowledge in connection with other facts, as we shall presently see, lays a firm foundation upon which the theist can stand and enables him to see facts as they really are. In other words, the cosmological argument is a bedrock fact upon which the truth seeker may take his stand as he enters into a further investigation of additional evidence bearing upon the subject of God's existence.

The teleological argument is not, as some have supposed, properly reasoning from design to a designer. That design argues a designer is an identical proposition. When one observes order, beneficial arrangement, and allocation of goods and objects in any system or place, one immediately and logically infers the existence and operation of an intelligent cause as that which produced the phenomena observed. The one using the teleological argument, observing the order, collocation, and distribution of things in the cosmic order, sees in such a system the proof of the existence of an intelligence who possesses volition and power sufficient to produce or to account for the phenomena which he observes. For instance, I wish to call attention to the science of chemistry as an illustration of correlation to definite ends; the relation of inanimate creation to animate; order and gradation in organic creation; the existence and interrelation of the so-called laws of nature; and finally the great cosmic order.

From the very beginning of the human race to the present time men have been impressed with the soundness of this argument to prove the existence of a personal intelligent Being whom we call God. Some would, however, try to invalidate the force of the evidence by asserting that in many instances there are order and system apart from intelligent purpose³. I concede that there may, by bare chance, appear to be some order and beneficent allocation of things. Nevertheless, we must, when we understand our own nature and constitution, deny the force of this suggestion. The law of chance⁴ prohibits our accepting for one moment the proposition that accident and coincidence could produce the enormous amount of evidence of order and intelligence observable throughout the universe. But, one claims that this order and distribution of good and blessing are due to physical forces and law. In reply I wish to call attention to the fact that law always implies a lawmaker who is able to carry out the so-called law.

The teleological argument cannot prove the existence of God. It does, however, as we have already seen, give positive evidence of the existence of a power possessing intelligence and will. As to whether or not this power is a person or such a being as the pantheist imagines, this argument alone does not and cannot establish.

There are those who call our attention to the fact that, should it be granted that there is a personal intelligence behind the physical universe, the evidence does not prove his unity nor his eternity; for there could be system, organization, and coordination by mutual agreement of various intelligent beings. Nor does the evidence prove the eternal nature of this Intelligence the existence of which is gathered from the general idea of teleology which is seen everywhere; for, as far as this line of reasoning goes, there could be such a being as the imaginary demiurge of the Gnostic Systems. From the teleological argument, therefore since our minds are finite, we cannot draw the conclusion that this Intelligence is infinite and eternal.

The value of the teleological argument has been summed up in the following words of Dr. A. H. Strong: "It proves from certain useful collocations and instances of order which have clearly had a beginning, or in other words, from the present harmony of the universe, that there exists an intelligence and will adequate to its contrivance. But whether this intelligence and will are personal or impersonal, creator or only fashioner, one or many, finite or infinite, eternal or owing its being to another, necessary or free, this argument cannot assure us.

"In it, however, we take a step forward. The causative power which we have proved by the cosmological argument has now become an intelligent and voluntary power."

We have already seen from the cosmological argument that we must accept the proposition that there is a cause in the universe adequate to produce the various changes and phenomena which we observe at the present time. More than this we could not draw from that line of reasoning. We did, however, step forward in our investigation by examining the teleological argument. From it we have seen that there is evidence that proves conclusively the existence of a power in the universe which is both intelligent and volitional. Whether or not this power or being is personal or impersonal, this line of reasoning is unable to settle. At this stage of our investigation we make another step forward by investigating the anthropological argument. In the world as we know it today, there are various forms of life, all of which--even microscopic ones--give evidence of a certain amount of intelligence and determination. Thus we know life, as it exists today, from the one-cell animal of the amoeba up to man. Each type of life is limited in its intelligence and volitional capacity. In this discussion, however, it is necessary for us to divide all living beings into two sections: those below the human plane and man who alone lives on the high level of communion and fellowship with the Almighty.

Scientific observation of all animal life--from the amoeba up to the highest form of the anthropoid ape--gives evidence of a certain amount of intelligence and of determination. Animals are guided by instincts and will but are devoid of the capacities, capabilities, and powers that are characteristic of the human family.

Animals do not give any evidence of capabilities for advancement. The sphere of each species is very much limited. The single individual possesses the characteristics of the species in the beginning of life as much as at the close. There is, therefore, no progress and advancement made either by the individual or by the species.

When we come, however, to the consideration of the human family, we see that man possesses intelligence, sensibility, will, and conscience. He is capable, as he has demonstrated time and again, of great and wonderful advancement--within certain limits. From what source did he derive the characteristics which differentiate him from the lower forms of life? There can be but one answer, which is that his intellectual and moral nature must have had as its author a moral and intellectual Being. This fact becomes evident from the general proposition that something cannot be taken from nothing. Man's intellectual and spiritual capacities are unlike that of any other creature. He as a moral and intellectual being had a beginning upon the earth. Material and unconscious forces cannot be considered as sufficient to produce his reason, conscience, and free will. Since he possesses these characteristics, obviously the Cause bestowing these endowments upon him must of necessity have been a self-conscious and moral Being. But these characteristics are those of personality. The reason, therefore, for man's possessing these qualities is that there exists in the universe an intelligent personal Being.

Man's moral nature demands in explanation of its being the existence of a holy lawgiver and judge. The correctness of this statement becomes obvious when we remember that our consciences recognize the existence of a moral law which has supreme authority over us. Whenever we violate this moral law of our beings, we experience compunctions of conscience and fear of judgment. This moral law is not self-imposed; neither are the threats of judgment self-executed. These facts argue for the existence of a holy will which has imposed these laws upon our nature and a chastening power that will execute the threats of our moral being.

Man's emotional and volitional nature argues for the existence of a Being who himself constitutes the worthy object of man's affection and whose existence calls forth the best and highest in the human soul. A being possessing power, knowledge, wisdom, holiness, righteousness, and goodness can meet the demands of the human heart. Belief in the existence of such a Being does call forth the noblest, the highest, and the best in man. If such a Being does not exist, a false conception works in man, but the truth cannot. Such a thought as this is preposterous. The facts as they exist therefore demand unequivocally the existence of a moral and intellectual Being, who possesses the characteristics which are common to man in a holy, undefiled state, but in an infinitely greater degree.

By the anthropological argument we are brought to the conviction that a personal God does exist. This argument, however, does not and cannot prove that He is eternal. Neither does it demonstrate that He is infinite in all His being and perfections. This is evident from the fact that we are reasoning from the finite. Moreover, from the cold facts of nature, the love, mercy, and goodness of this personal Being, of whose existence we are now convinced, are not revealed. Dr. Strong sums up this argument in the following words: "The value of the argument is, that it assures us of the existence of a personal Being, who rules us in righteousness, and who is the proper object of supreme affection and service. But whether this Being is the original creator of all things, or merely the author of our own existence, whether he is infinite or finite, whether he is a being of simple righteousness or also of mercy, this argument cannot assure us."

After having examined carefully the ontological argument and having pointed out its defects, Dr. Strong summarized the value of the arguments which we have been considering in the following words; "But the existence of a Being indefinitely great, personal Cause, Contriver, and Lawgiver, has been proved by the preceding argument; for the law of parsimony requires us to apply the conclusion of the first three arguments to the one Being, and not to many. To one Being we may ascribe the infinity and perfection, the idea of which lies at the basis of the Ontological Argument--ascribe them, not because they are demonstrably His, but because our mental constitution will not allow us to think otherwise. Thus clothing Him with all perfection which the human mind can conceive, and these in illimitable fullness, we have one whom we may justly call God."

In our investigation thus far we have been led to the conclusion by the three lines of reasoning that there is standing behind the universe a Power adequate to produce the changes and the phenomena which we see today, that this Power possesses intelligence and volition, and that this Being is a personal one who possesses in an infinite degree the attributes of intelligence, volition, and a moral character.

I would like to sum up the results thus far of our examination by giving another quotation from Dr. Strong: "The three forms of proof already mentioned--the Cosmological, the Teleological, and the Anthropological Arguments--may be likened to the three arches of a bridge over a wide and rushing river. The bridge has only two defects, but these defects are very serious. The first is that one cannot get on to the bridge; the end toward the hither bank is wholly lacking; the bridge of logical argument cannot be entered upon except by assuming the validity of logical processes; this assumption takes for granted at the outset the existence of a God who has made our faculties to act correctly; we get on to the bridge, not by logical process, but only by a leap of intuition, and by assuming at the very beginning the very thing which we set out to prove. The second defect of the so-called bridge of argument is that when one has once gotten on, he can never get off. The connection with the further bank is also lacking. All the premises from which we argue being finite, we are warranted in drawing only a finite conclusion. Argument cannot reach the Infinite, and only an infinite Being is worthy to be called God. We can get off from our logical bridge, not by logical process, but only by another and final leap of intuition, and by once more assuming the existence of the infinite Being whom we have so vainly sought to reach by mere argument. The process seems to be referred to in Job 11:7: "Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?"

Dr. Strong has correctly told us that we can enter this logical bridge by assuming the validity of the logical processes and by assuming also the existence of God who made our faculties to act correctly. In making these initial presuppositions we are both scientific and logical. To illustrate, may I call attention to the fact that in geometry we often assume a certain proposition to be true. Starting out with such an hypotheses, we build upon it propositions which we have already proved and finally and logically reach the conclusion sought, which is the very thing assumed. Such a procedure is recognized as sound and logical. In this way we establish the correctness of the proposition assumed in the beginning. This method is adopted in all scientific research. This is nothing other than the trial-and error method. When we, led by our intuitive knowledge, assume the existence of God and the reliability of our mental processes, and reach the logical bridge, presented by Dr. Strong, we see that the data justify and establish the fact of the existence of a personal God. We get from this logical bridge to the farther bank in the same way. There we stand on bedrock facts and rejoice in the eternal God and His existence.


Footnotes:

³ Pantheism, generally speaking, conceives of God's being the totality of all existence. Nature is impersonal and comes to consciousness only in man. It is illogical in many respects. One must shut his eyes to many facts in order to accept it as a philosophical explanation of the universe. It does not come within the scope of this work to refute it.

⁴ For the validity of the proof derived from the law of chance consult any textbook on higher arithmetic or algebra. "It is only within narrow, limits that seemingly purposeful arrangements are produced by chance. And therefore, as the signs of purpose increase, the presumption in favor of accidental origin diminishes."--Momerie, Christianity and Evolution. There are twenty-six letters in our alphabet. In Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, 1939, sec. ed., there are 600,000 words defined. These twenty-six letters of our alphabet were used in spelling these 600,000 words and the terms defining each. In addition to the dictionary proper there are certain sections giving much valuable information. According to the law of chance it is utterly unthinkable that this volume came into existence by blind chance or impersonal resident forces within. In the same manner the useful combinations, arrangements, allocation of things throughout the universe absolutely and unequivocally preclude the possibility of our attributing these things to blind chance.

(Continued on next page)