Can we be certain that God exists? Many have claimed that we can be absolutely certain, and that and doubt regarding God’s existence is absurd. While I appreciate the sentiment, and generally agree that you can’t even talk about the existence of God without assuming that he exists (by the use of logic, reason, and language), I don’t believe that attaining absolute certainty regarding his existence should be our goal.

The Bible tells us that it is impossible to please God without faith. Furthermore, we must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him (Hebrews 11:3). If we could attain certainty regarding the existence of God, what role would faith play? How could we believe that he exists if we could know with absolute certainty that he does?

Instead of attaining certainty in the existence of God, we should aim for confidence. “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Heb 11:1). Consequently, we need an informed faith. A faith that is strong, confident, and full of substance. A faith that is strengthened by what we do know, yet is content with what we do not know. This is the kind of faith we need.

As we consider three arguments for the existence of God, let’s keep this kind of faith in mind. Our faith cannot be separated from reality, yet it cannot demand the certainty that would render faith useless. For example, God has clearly shown us his attributes in the things that have been made, and thus we are without excuse (Romans 1:20). But the righteous must still live by faith (Romans 1:16-17).

Therefore, when these arguments regarding the existence of God are considered, we must recognize the clear demonstration of God’s existence and his attributes, but we must choose to exercise faith in them, or rather in God. Its not enough to be convinced of God’s existence intellectually, we must exercise faith in the God who’s existence we are considering. With that being said, here are three of my favorite arguments for the God’s existence:

1. The Cosmological Argument

The primary claim of the cosmological argument is that the universe must have a cause. If everything that begins to exist has a cause, and if the universe began to exist, then the universe must have a cause. That which causes the universe to come into must be its creator, able to stand outside of the universe and bring it into being. Nothing comes from nothing. Something must come from something, or someone.

Imagine you are taking a stroll down the beach, and you come across a glorious sand castle. Would your assumption be that it has always existed, or that at some point in time, it had a beginning? Of course you would assume that it had a beginning. Such is the case for everything else you experience in life. Everything that exists has a cause. This is why the scientific consensus has adopted The Big Bang Theory, because it explains the beginning, or the cause, of the universe. However, even The Big Bang, if it began to exist, had to have a cause. Who or what caused it?

The cosmological argument asserts that the universe had to have a beginning, and that it is probable for that beginning to be God. More on that in the next argument.

2. The Teleological Argument

The cosmological argument leads naturally into the teleological argument. If the universe must have a cause, who or what caused it? The teleological argument looks to the fine tuning of the universe to argue that it must not only have a cause, but its cause must be an Intelligent Designer.

If something appears to be intricately designed for a specific purpose, it is likely that someone made it to be that way. For example, if it appears that a saw is intricately designed for the purpose of cutting, it is likely that someone designed it to be able to cut.

If the earth appears to be fine-tuned, including things like gravity, distance from the sun, oxygen levels, etc., then it is likely that it was designed to be that way. Furthermore, if you look at the intricacies of our bodies and how they function, from organ function all the way down to the micro level of DNA coding, it certainly appears that we were designed for life, for a specific purpose.

What is that purpose? We might ask. Science cannot answer this. “The preservation of the species” the classical Darwinist might interject. But that does not answer the question of purpose. What is the purpose of species being preserved? And if a purpose can be supplied, where does that purpose come from?

The Christian answers that God has finely tuned everything for a specific purpose: to glorify his character and attributes and display his creative handiwork and unfolding redemption. “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities- all things were created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16).

Its almost as if- with our relational and emotional and spiritual and physical capacities- we were designed to image God and to bring him glory. If so, that would be our purpose. And the earth would be the stage upon which we get to do that, alongside the creatures and natural phenomena that do the same (“the heavens declare the glory of God,” Ps. 19:1).

“Then God said, “Let us make manin our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:26-27).

3. The Moral Argument

The moral argument appeals to our natural inclinations of  fairness and justice to prove God’s existence. At our core, we all know that some things are right and some things are wrong. You don’t have to teach a child to say, “that’s not fair.” If their sibling gets two pieces of candy, they expect two pieces as well. But where does this sense of fairness come from? It comes from the innate knowledge of right and wrong.

The moral argument goes like this: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. But, if objective moral values and duties do exist, then God must exist. If he did not, where would these objective moral values and duties come from?

What do I mean by values? I mean that if there is no God, nothing is intrinsically valuable. This includes humans. We are just another biological organism living on a planet. We are no more valuable than an ant. Nothing is valuable. Everything is just protons and electrons. Any appearance of beauty, love, goodness, or virtue is just a mirage. Its all a figment of protons and electrons bouncing around in our brains. And therefore we have no duties. Why should we respect each other if there’s nothing to respect?

This is precisely why atheistic regimes have committed some of the most horrific human rights crimes in history (think 20^th century Soviet Union). Because human life has no value. Family life has no value. And so they govern based upon their belief that no one is inherently valuable.

But here’s the catch. We all live and operate as if moral values and duties do exist. We know from experience that there is meaning in life. That love is real. That there is such a thing as beauty and goodness. That there really is evil and there really is good. No one watches a movie wanting the bad guy to win, for unjustice to reign, or for the crime to go unsolved. We want truth, virtue, righteousness, justice, because these things are real.

But these things- of good and evil, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, must come from outside of us. Why? Because if it comes from within us, it is merely subjective to preference, culture, or place in history. It cannot be universal.

For example, many people will argue that morality does not come from God but from societal consensus. If the majority believe it to be right, then it is right. If the majority believe it to be wrong, then it is wrong. And then we codify that into law. But are we willing to apply this historically? If most Americans in the 19^th century believed slavery was morally acceptable, does that make it morally acceptable? If the majority of Romans in the first century believed infanticide to be a morally acceptable way of culling unwanted genders out of a family, does that make it morally acceptable?

Certainly not. We bristle at these examples and wonder how such horrors could be morally acceptable in their day. But if we do not allow a God outside of us to give us moral values and duties, societal consensus is all we are left with. Well, there’s always anarchy.

 The only other option is to recognize that moral values and duties do exist because we were created by a moral being who has given us moral values and duties. Ironically, many people don’t want to do this, claiming that they can’t believe in a good God who would allow so much evil in the world. But this also presupposes God’s existence. If there is evil, mustn’t there be good? And if there is good, where does it come from? And what will allow the good to overcome the evil (what most of humanity wants!)?

Therefore, if we simply look around us and apply what we see to our questions about God, it becomes evident that God must exist. We observe that everything that exists has a beginning, and so must the universe. We observe that all of creation appears to be fine-tuned for life and existence, and so someone must have created it that way. And finally, we observe that we live as moral values and duties are real, so there must be someone outside of us that we derive them from.

These are mere summaries of these arguments, but I hope it gives you a sense of them. Which one do you find to be the most compelling?

Next- we will move from these general theistic arguments to considering why we can be confident that the God who created us, fine-tuned us, and gave us moral values is the Christian God.