Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Let it be known, that the evidence of a God exists. The proof of God's existence is only in how we handle the evidence. Being that there is such an abundance of evidence, why do so many people not believe in God? Why then do so many intelligent people, even brilliant scientists, profess to be atheists? To watch the Discovery Channel, one would get the idea that only the uneducated believe in God. People of faith are often shown as naive folks that never have considered anything outside the Bible.
The amazing thing is that with God whose existence is supreme and abundantly evident, why do so many people deny Him or ignore Him? It is clear that facts alone will not bring about the acceptance of God to people who have the mind set not to believe in God. It should be noted, the Bible never tries to prove that God exists. The Bible starts with "In the beginning God.." and from that point on, speaks of God as a matter of fact.
Yet the Bible makes bold claims against non-believers.
Psalm 14:1
The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.
Other such statements are found throughout the Bible. Why then do we have atheism if God is so easy to know? Or is God easy to know? Is God easy to find? Is this just a mindset by some that want to believe and therefore convince themselves there is a God based on little evidence?
Let me state from the beginning that faith in God is just that, faith. No matter what evidence is placed on the table to show that one should believe in God, those that do not believe can counter with an argument of no God. Belief in God cannot exist outside of faith. This is not to say there is no evidence, for there is. In the last fifty years, with advances in science the evidence mounts.
Knowing God, in the way the Bible would have us know Him, is a close personal one-on-one kind of way. Yet there is also an innate knowledge of God. In philosophy and psychology, an innate idea is a concept or item of knowledge that is said to be universal to all humanity. Though this is part of knowing God, nothing will replace the relationship. To only have facts about God can become a rather cold subject.
In the 1100s Anselm wrote a discourse on the existence of God called "Proslogion" The most well known line from that work still used today is..."For I do not seek to understand so that I may believe; but I believe so that I may understand". Anselm also said, that "unless I believe, I shall not understand." In fact, his life's motto appears to have been fides quaerens intelligentiam, which translates to "faith seeking understanding." I do believe Anselm had the right order to understanding God. Though I do not agree with all of his work, much of it showed he did in fact know his God.
Innate knowledge means that which is not founded on experience. No research and reasoning is needed. This knowledge of God is sitting in front of us if we only consider it.
A few well known arguments for God is as follows:
Dr. Samuel Clarke's Argument
Since something exists now, something has always existed; otherwise nothing would exist now because nothing comes from nothing. What has existed from eternity can only be either an independent being, that is, one having in itself the reason of its existence, or an infinite series of dependent beings. However, such a series cannot be the being that has existed from eternity because by hypothesis it can have no external cause, and no internal cause (no dependent being in it) can cause the whole series.
Cousin's Argument
Cousin's Argument repeats continually the same argument in a somewhat different form. Look at the infinite and that of the finite. We cannot have one without the other. "These two ideas are logical correlatives; and in the order of their acquisition, that of the finite and imperfect precedes the other; but it scarcely precedes it. It is not possible for the reason, as soon as consciousness furnishes the mind with the idea of the finite and imperfect, not to conceive the idea of the infinite and perfect. The infinite and perfect, of course, is God.
Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument is the study of the cosmos and it's processes and comes to the conclusion that the existence of motion implies ultimately a prime mover.
All of the above arguments, in one way or another, are a casual argument. Both scientist and logician work and think in terms of cause and effect. If a ball is placed on one side of the room and later it is found on the other side of the room, something caused that ball to move. This is as basic as one can get in science that relates to phenomenon and factors or causes that produce them. Each effect has a cause to produce the effect. The cause must in effect be caused by another cause and yet another beyond that. This leads to only two possibilities. Either the chain of causes never ends, or it ends at a great First Cause. That First Cause is God.
What this means is obvious. The ball did not move across the room on its own. This is logic 101. Matter does not come from no matter. This too is logic 101. An earth in motion was placed in motion. Ah, it must be the Big Bang theory. Get real! No doubt you have heard and seen the bang of a firecracker. Would you say that the bang of a firecracker caused chaos or logic and order? Does our earth flow in random chaos, or in a controlled path of order? Besides if this were the case, what cause was behind the effect of the Big Bang?
Well, there was no Big Bang. This ridiculous scheme has been falling apart over the last 50 years. After many years of forcing an idea that does not work on us, science is starting to give up. Much of this had to do with Dr Henry Morris' work. A year ago this month, Dr. Henry Morris passed away at the age of 87. Dr. Morris helped lead the way in exposing the sham of evolution. Dr. Morris was founder and president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the "father" of the modern creationist movement turning the tables on the scientific world when he co-authored the book "The Genesis Flood" in the early 1960s. ICR now has close to 400 books in print dealing with the Bible and science in all fields of study, with subjects covering the fossil record, dinosaurs, DNA, thermodynamics, carbon-14 dating, radioactive assumptions, helium, magnetic field, the escaping moon, population growth, moon dust and many other subjects. ICR claims thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creationist scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science and their numbers are increasing rapidly. In the Creation Research Society alone there are over 1000 scientist members with either Doctorates or Masters degrees in some field of natural science.
In one of Dr. Morris' books "What is Creation Science," Morris, along with co-author Dr. Gary Parker, displays a list 65 processes that would only happen in a Bible based young earth. It should be noted that this list has grown greatly since the book was published. One process that I think is interesting is moon dust. Based on an old age of the moon, in the billions of years category, the Lunar Lander had to take into count the moon dust factor. Thus you saw with your own eyes the large disk shaped feet at the bottom of the Lander. The disks were placed on the Lander, for the dust had to be 50-180 feet deep, based on the age of the moon and interplanetary space dust that it had collected. After billions of years there just had to be a rather large amount of dust. The disks were necessary so that the Lander would not sink into the all that dust.
And what did they find? The amount of moon dust found was minor. One would think that this would lead to those doing the calculations to question the age of the moon. But they just dropped it without mention. But what would the age of the moon be under these conditions? Using the same calculations that were used to place the disk on the Lander, we would have a moon about 10,000 years old. That is a number creation science can live with, and a number evolutionists run from.
There is no greater factor that points to a real God than the life of Christ. Here we have someone claiming to be God and backing it up with His life. The unique birth, the miraculous life He lived, His teachings, His death and resurrection can only happen if He was God. The reality of the lives his followers lived after his death, such as being stoned and put to death for their refusal to deny Him, seeing Him in person after his death, point to a real God. But you may say, you do not believe the Bible story is true. As stated from the start, the facts are there if you want to believe them. Yet at the same time, one can counter with many objections in order to not believe.
God is the great self-existing one. God is outside of time, in fact, He created time. This means you do have to believe it in faith. The evidence does exist, but it rests on the other side of faith.
Hebrews 11:6
'But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him'
But this is not blind faith, as some would judge. In fact, the evolutionists who deny God have a blind faith, they have to believe something that is against real science, namely, that information can arise from disorder by chance.
The Christian faith is anything but a blind faith; it is a logically defensible faith. This is why the Bible makes it clear that anyone who does not believe in God is without excuse.