Either God exists or He doesn't. There is no middle ground. Any attempt to
remain neutral in relation to God's existence is automatically synonymous with
unbelief. It is far from a "moot" question, for if God does exist,
then nothing else really matters; if He does not exist, then nothing really
matters at all. If He does exist, then there is an eternal heaven to be gained
(Hebrews 11:16) and an eternal Hell to be avoided (Revelation 21:8). The
question for God's existence is an extremely important one. One might wonder why
it is necessary to present evidence for the existence of God. As Edward Thomson
so beautifully stated it: "...the doctrine of the one living and true God,
Creator, Preserver, and Benefactor of the universe, as it solves so many
problems, resolves so many doubts, banishes so many fears, inspires so many
hopes, gives such sublimity to all things, and such spring to all noble powers,
we might presume would, as soon as it was announced, be received by every
healthy mind." Some, however, contrary to their higher interests, have
refused to have God in their knowledge and thus have become vain in their
reasonings and foolish in their philosophy (Romans 1:21,22,28). They do not see
the folly (Psalm 14:1) of saying there is no God. The Christian has not only the
obligation to "give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning
the hope that is in you..." (I Peter 3:15), but an obligation to carry the
Gospel message to a lost and dying world (Mark 16:15-16, et al.). There will be
times when carrying the Gospel message to the world will entail setting forth
the case for the existence of God. In addition, we need to remember that
Christians are not agnostics. The agnostic is the person who says that God's
existence is unknowable. As difficult as it is to believe, some Christians take
that same stance in regard to God's existence. They assert that they
"believe" there is a God, but that they cannot know it. They state
that God's existence cannot be proved. `This is false!' God's existence is both
`knowable' and `provable.' Acceptance of God's existence is not some "blind
leap into the dark" as so many have erroneously asserted. The Christian's
faith is not a purely emotional, subjective "leap," but instead is a
`firm conviction' regarding facts based upon reasonable evidence. God's
existence can be proved to any fair-minded person. Granted, we do not mean by
the word "proved" that God's existence can be scientifically
demonstrated to human senses as one might, for example, prove that a sack of
potatoes weighs ten pounds. But we need to be reminded (especially in our day of
scientific intimidation) that empirical evidence (that based solely upon
experiment and/or observation) is not the only basis for establishing a provable
case. Legal authorities recognize the validity of a `prima facie' case. Such a
case exists when adequate evidence is available to establish the presumption of
a fact which, unless such can be refuted, `legally stands as a fact'.
Inferential proof (the culmination of many lines of evidence into only one
possible conclusion) is an invaluable part of a `prima facie' case which simply
cannot be refuted. But an important question which serves as a
"preface" to the case for God's existence is this: "From whence
has come the idea of God in man's mind?" The inclination to be religious is
universally and peculiarly a human trait. As one writer observed, even today the
evidence indicates that "no race or tribe of men, however degraded and
apparently atheistic, lacks that spark of religious capacity which may be fanned
and fed into a mighty flame." If, therefore, man is incurably
religious--and has the idea of God in his mind--and if we assume that the world
is rational, it is impossible that a phenomenon so universal as religion could
be founded upon illusion. The question is highly appropriate therefore: what is
the source of this religious tendency within man? Alexander Campbell, in his
celebrated debate April 13-23, 1829 in Cincinnati, Ohio with Robert Owen,
provided the answer to this question in a very positive fashion. He asked Owen
from whence the idea of God had come in man's mind. Owen (and all skeptics) had
(have) stated that the idea of God has not come from reason (skeptics hold, of
course, that the concept is unreasonable), and that it has not come from
revelation. Campbell pressed Owen to tell him from whence the idea of God `had'
come. Owen retorted, "by imagination." Campbell then quoted both John
Locke and David Hume, two philosophers who are highly respected in the secular
community. Hume stated that the "creative power of the mind amounts to
nothing more than the faculty of combining, transposing, augmenting and
diminishing the materials afforded to us by sense and experience." The
imagination, it turns out, has `no creative power'. Neither reason nor
imagination create. Reason, like a carpenter's yardstick, is a measure, not an
originator. Imagination works only on those items already in the mind; it does
not "create" anything new. [Sigmund Freud, German psychoanalyst of the
first part of the 20th century, attempted to explain God's existence by stating
that man had indeed formed the "heavenly father" from the idea in his
mind of his "earthly father." But this idea will not suffice either.
Is the God of the Bible the God man would "invent" if asked to do so?
Hardly. Look around at the "god" man invents when left to his own
devices--the "god" of hedonism, epicurianism, subjectivism, or the
"god" of "if it feels good, do it." The God of the Bible is
not the God man would invent, if left to his own devices. Freud's attempt to
explain the idea of God in man's mind failed miserably.] Campbell pointed out to
Owen, in a very forceful way, that the idea of God in man's mind could only have
come through revelation. There is no other choice. The concept of God,
therefore, though greatly perverted in heathen hands, is ultimately traceable to
an original communication between the Creator and the creature. There is no
other alternative, all the disclaimers of the atheist notwithstanding. But
suppose the unbeliever objects: "If the idea of God is basic to human
nature, we would not be able to deny it; we do deny it, however; therefore it is
not intuitive." It is sufficient to observe in rebuttal to such a claim
that man, under the enchantment of a deceptive philosophy, can deny the most
obvious of things. Those deluded, for example, by "Christian Science"
religion deny the existence of matter and death. Some today deny that the earth
is spherical or that man has ever been to the moon. But a denial of facts does
not automatically negate the facts. Man's attitude toward Truth does not change
Truth. Can God's existence be proven? Can we `know' God exists? The answer is a
resounding "YES!" The psalmist said, "Be still and `know' that I
am God" (Psalm 46:10) as he echoed the Creator's sentiments to man. The
allusions to th e manifestations of Deity in the created world are profuse.
David exclaimed, "O Jehovah, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the
earth, Who has set thy glory upon the heavens?" (Psalm 8:1). In the same
psalm, the inspired writer was constrained to say that the heavens are "the
work of thy fingers" and the moon and stars "thou hast ordained"
(Psalm 8:3). Later David was to utter the beautiful words of Psalm
19:1--"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his
handiwork." Isaiah graphically portrayed the majesty and power of nature's
God when he wrote that God "hath measured the waters in the hollow of his
hand, and meted out heaven with a span, and comprehended the dust of the earth
in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a
balance" (40:12). Dr. E.A. Maness once remarked, "If the word God were
written upon every blowing leaf, embossed on every passing cloud, engraved on
every granite rock, the inductive evidence of God in the world would be no
stronger than it is." John C. Monsma, in the text which he edited entitled,
`The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe' (which is a compilation of
testimony from forty outstanding American scientists), affirmed "that
science can establish, by the observed facts of Nature and intellectual
argumentation, that a super-human power exists." . Dr. A. Cressy Morrison,
former President of the New York Academy of Sciences, affirmed that "so
many essential conditions are necessary for life to exist on our earth that it
is mathematically impossible that all of them could exist in proper relationship
by chance on any one earth at one time." Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Professor
of Physics at the University of Chicago and Nobel laureate, wrote: "It is
not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where
there is a plan there is intelligence--an orderly, unfolding universe testifies
to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered--`In the beginning,
God.'" . Louis Agassiz, M.D., Ph.D., Harvard University (and a life-long
opponent of Darwinian evolution), made these remarks:.. "Though I know
those who hold it to be very unscientific to believe that thinking is not
something inherent in matter, and that there is an essential difference between
inorganic and living and thinking beings, I shall not be prevent ed by any such
pretentions of a false philosophy from expressing my conviction that as long as
it cannot be shown that matter or physical forces do actually reason, I shall
consider any manifestation of physical thought as an evidence of the existence
of a thinking being as the author of such thought, and shall look upon
intelligent and intelligible connection between the facts of nature as direct
proof of a thinking God....` All these facts in their natural connection
proclaim aloud the one God whom man may know, adore, and love, and natural
history must in good time become the analysis of the thoughts of the Creator of
the universe' as manifested in the animal and vegetable kingdoms." Lord
Kelvin, the famed English thermodynamicist once said, "I cannot admit that,
with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative
Power. `Science positively affirms Creative Power'. It is not in dead matter
that we live and move and have our being, but in the creating and directing
Power which science compels us to accept as an article of belief.... There is
nothing between absolute scientific belief in a Creative Power, and the
acceptance of the theory of a fortuitous concourse of atoms.... Forty years ago
I asked Liebig [famed chemist Justus von Liebig--BT], walking some-where in the
country, if he believed that the grass and flowers that we saw around us grew by
mere chemical forces. He answered, `No, no more than I could believe that a book
of botany describing them could grow by mere chemical forces'.... Do not be
afraid of being free thinkers! `If you think strongly enough you will be forced
by science to the belief in God', which is the foundation all religion. `You
will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion.'" . One cannot
help but wonder what has caused many of the most prominent and brilliant minds
of both days gone by and of our day to make such statements. No doubt, at least
a partial explanation lies in the fact that they saw a few, or many, of the
thousands of "signposts" or "ensigns" scattered throughout
the natural world which point clearly to the unseen Designer of nature. These
"signposts" are multitudinous in our world, and plainly obvious to
those whose minds have not been blinded by the "god of this world" (II
Corinthians 4:4), "refusing to have God in their knowledge" (Romans
1:28). An examination of these "ensigns" makes for a profitable and
edifying study. NATURE'S HOME: THE UNIVERSE When the writer of Hebrews stated
that, "...every house is builded by someone..." (Hebrews 3:4), he
suggested the well-known principle of cause and effect. Today the Law of
Causality is the fundamental law of science. Every effect must have an adequate
cause. Further indicated is the fact that no effect can be qualitatively
superior to or quantitatively greater than the cause. The universe is here, and
is a tremendous effect. Hence, it must be explained in terms of an adequate
cause. There are four possible explanations for the universe. (1) It is but an
illusion, and does not really exist. This is hardly worthy of consideration. (2)
It spontaneously arose out of nothing. This view is absurd, and cannot be
entertained scientifically. Dr. George E. Davis, prominent physicist, has
declared:"No material thing can create itself." . (3) It has always
existed. This theory, though held by many atheistic scientists of our day, is
scientifically untenable. Many evidences (e.g., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics) reveal that the stars are burning up, the sun is cooling off,
the earth is wearing out, etc. Such facts indicate that the universe had a
beginning; otherwise it would long ago have already reached a state of deadness.
Dr. Robert Jastrow, of NASA, states in his book, `God and the Astronomers :
"I am fascinated by some strange developments going on in astronomy.... The
essence of the strange developments is that the Universe had, in some sense, a
beginning--that it began at a certain moment in time.... And concurrently there
was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of
thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates that the Universe is running
down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it
was fully wound up....The astronomer comes to a time when the Universe contained
nothing but hydrogen--no carbon, no oxygen, and none of the other elements out
of which planets and life are made. This point in time must have marked the
beginning of the Universe." (4) It was created. This is the only remaining
alternative and the only reasonable view of the origin of the universe. Since
our finite, dependent (and contingent) universe (of matter/energy) did not cause
itself, it was obviously caused by an infinite, independent, eternal Mind. God,
speaking through Moses (Genesis 15:5) and Jeremiah (33:32), mentioned that
"the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea
measured ...." Little did we know how true those statements were. Johann
Bayer (1603) devised a system to indicate the brightness, or magnitude, of the
stars, using the Greek and Roman alphabets to denote their brightness. [Remember
Paul's statement to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 15:41): "...for one star
differeth from another star in glory."] Men before and after Bayer tried to
count the stars. Hipparchus the astronomer, in 128 B.C. counted the stars and
said there were 1,026. In 150 A.D., the famous astronomer Ptolemy counted the
stars and arrived at the number of 1,056. Years later, in 1575 A.D., the
renowned Danish astronomer, Tyco Brah, counted the stars and said there were
777. In 1600 A.D. the German astronomer Johannes Kepler counted the stars and
gave the number 1,005. At last counting (and we are nowhere near finished yet)
the number of stars stood at `25 sextillion'. That's a 25 with twenty-one zeroes
after it! There are an estimated one billion galaxies,. and most of them contain
billions of stars (the Milky Way galaxy in which we live, for example, contains
over `100 billion stars'). It is so large that travelling at the speed of light
(186,317.6 miles per second) it would take you 100,000 years to go across just
the diameter of the galaxy. Light travels in one year approximately 5.87 x
1O.MDSU/12' miles. In 100,000 years, that would be 5.87 x 1O.MDSU/17' miles, or
587+ quadrillion miles. Our nearest neighboring galaxy is the Andromeda galaxy,
which is an estimated 2,000,000 light years away. That's so far that a radio
wave which goes around the earth approximately 8.2 times in one second would
require over 1 million years to get there, and a return message would take
another 1+ million years. The observable universe has an estimated diameter of
20 billion light years. But it isn't simply the size of the universe that is so
marvelous. The size is important, of course, but so is the `design'. The earth,
for example, in orbiting the sun, departs from a straight line by only one-ninth
of an inch every 18 miles--a very straight line in human terms. If the orbit
changed by one-tenth of an inch every 18 miles, our orbit would be vastly larger
and we would all freeze to death. If it changed by one-eighth of an inch, we
would come so close to the sun w e would all be incinerated.. Are we to believe
that such precision "just happened by accident"? The sun is burning at
approximately 20 million degrees Celsius at its interior.. If we were to move
the earth `away' 10%, we would soon freeze to death. If we were to move the
earth `closer' by 10%, we would once again be incinerated. The sun is poised at
93 million miles from earth, which happens to be just right--by accident? The
moon is poised some 240,000 miles from the earth. Move it in just onefifth, and
twice every day there would be 35-50 feet high tidal waves over most of the
earth's surface. The distance of 240,000 miles happens to he just right--by
accident? And consider these facts: the earth is rotating at 1,000 miles per
hour on its axis at the equator, and moving around the sun at 70,000 miles per
hour (approximately 19 miles per second), while the sun with its solar system is
moving through space at 600,000 miles per hour in an orbit so large it would
take over 220 million years to complete just one orbit. [Remember the psalmist's
statement (Psalm 19:61) about the sun--"his circuit is from the ends of the
heavens."] What would happen if the rotation rate of the earth around the
sun were halved, or doubled? If it were halved, the seasons would be doubled in
length, which over most of the earth would cause such harsh summer heat and
winter cold that not enough food could be grown to feed the world's population.
If it were doubled, no single season would be long enough to grow the amount of
food necessary to feed the world's population. [Remember God's words to Moses:
(a) "Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from
the night: and let them be for `signs and for seasons', for days and for
years" (Genesis 1:14, emp. added), and; (b) "While the earth remaineth,
seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and
night shall not cease" (Genesis 8:22).] Then there is this matter: from
where does our day come? It comes from the earth's rotation once approximately
every 24 hours on its axis. From where do we get our month? It comes from the
moon circling the earth once approximately every 28 days. From where does our
year come? It takes the earth approximately 365.26 days to go around the sun.
`But where do we get our week?' There is no purely natural explanation for the
week. The explanation, instead, is found in Exodus 20:11 (cf., Exodus 31:17):
"for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in
them is, and rested on the seventh day...." The week is an entirely
universal phenomenon. Yet there is no purely natural explanation for it. Little
wonder Isaiah wrote (40:26): "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who
hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number; he calleth
them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power;
not one faileth." The fundamental law of science, we repeat, is the Law of
Causality which states that every effect must have an adequate cause. There is
no known exception. The universe is admittedly a known effect. [Note Dr. Robert
Jastrow's statement in his book, `Until The Sun Dies': "The Universe and
everything that has happened in it since the beginning of time, are a grand
effect `without a known cause'." . The question is: `What is the adequate
cause?' The atheist/agnostic has no answer, as Dr. Jastrow has so well
explained. The Christian, of course, does. `God is the First Cause', and has
left the evidences of His existence so evident that they are incontrovertible.
NATURE'S HUMAN INHABITANT: MAN "Men go abroad to wonder at the height of
mountains, at the huge waves of the sea, at the long courses of the rivers, at
the vast compass of the ocean, at the circular motion of the stars; and they
pass by themselves without wondering." So stated Augustine many years ago.
So many people fail to see one of the most powerful arguments possible for God's
existence--their own selves! Consider, for example, the "earthly
tabernacle" (II Corinthians 5:1) that we call the human body. It is comp
osed of 30+ different kinds of cells, totalling over `100 trillion' cells when
all added together to make up the human adult.. These cells come in all
different sizes and shapes, with different functions and life expectancies. For
example, some cells (e.g., male spermatozoa) are so small that 20,000 would fit
inside a capital "O" from a standard typewriter, each being only
1/20th mm long. Some cells, put end-to-end, would make only one inch if 6,000
were assembled together. Yet all the cells of the human body, if set end-
to-end, would encircle the earth over 200 times. Even the largest cell of the
human body, the female ovum, is unbelievably small, being only 1/1OOth of an
inch in diameter. Yet each cell is composed of a lipo- protein membrane lining
(lipids/proteins/lipids) which is approximately 6/100-8/100 fm (4 atoms) thick.
Yet it allows selective transport outside the cell of those things that ought to
go out, and selective transport into the cell of those things that ought to go
in. Inside the cell's three-dimensional cytoplasm there are over 20 different
chemical reactions going on at any one time, with each cell containing five
major systems: (1) communication; (2) waste disposal; (3) nutrition; (4) repair,
and; (5) reproduction. The endoplasmic reticulum of the cell serves as a
transport system. The ribosomes produce protein, which is then distributed
around the body as needed by the Golgi bodies. The mitochondria (over 1,000 per
cell) are the "powerhouses" of the cell, producing the energy needed
by the body. The nucleus, of course, carries the genetic code in its DNA
(deoxyribonucleic acid). Red blood cells (there are approximately 30 trillion of
them) live about 120 days; white blood cells (the blood's defense system) live
about 13 days; platelets (which help blood to clot) live about 4 days; nerve
cells may live over 100 years. In any given 60-second period, approximately 3
billion cells die and are replaced in the human body through the process we call
`mitosis', whereby the standard chromosome number (in the human, 46) is
faithfully reproduced. A single cell contains a strip of DNA (placed in the nuc
leus in a spiral-staircase configuration) which is about one yard long, and
which contains `over 6 billion biochemical steps'. Every cell of the body
contains such DNA--over a billion miles total in one human. How powerful is the
DNA? It provides, in coded form, `every physical characteristic of every living
person'. How many people are there on the face of the earth? There are a few
more than 5 billion. It took two cells (a male spermatozoan and a female ovum)
to make each one of these people. If there are roughly 5 billion people on the
earth, and it took two cells to make each of them, that's approximately 10
billion cells (remember: this is the DNA it took to give every living person
every physical characteristic he or she has), and that DNA would fit into no
more than `1/8th of a cubic inch'! Does that tell you how powerful the DNA is?
Are we to then understand that this kind of design came "by accident"?
Hardly! The Hebrew writer was correct when he said, "For every house is
builded by someone; but he that built all things is God"(3:4). Consider the
skin of the human. It is a nearly waterproof layer, enclosing the body's
contents, almost 60% of which is water. It prevents the exit or entrance of too
much moisture, and acts as a protector for the rest of the body. At the same
time it is both a radiator and retainer of heat, helping to regulate the body's
temperature in conjunction with the two hypothalamus glands in the brain. Skin
may be as thick as 5/16th of an inch (e.g., the eyelid). The skin contains over
2,000 sweat glands which form one of the most ingenious air-conditioning systems
ever known to man. Skin acts as a barrier to protect the sensitive internal
organs, and even has the power to regenerate itself. Consider the skeletal
system of the body. It is composed of 206 bones, more durable and longer lasting
than man's best steel. Each joint produces its own lubrication and the system as
a whole is able to provide not only structure, but great protection (e.g., the
24 ribs guarding the internal viscera). There are 29 skull bones, 26 spinal
vertebrae, 24 ribs, 2 girdle bones, and 120 other bones scattered over the body.
The bones range in size, from the tiny pisiform bone in the hand, to the great
femur (over 20 inches long in the thigh of an average man). Yet in a man
weighing 160 pounds, the bones weigh only 29 pounds. [Remember Paul's comment
about "all the body fitly framed and knit together through that which every
joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part,
making the increase of the body into the building up of itself..."
(Ephesians 4:16).] And consider, of course, the muscles. There are over 600 of
them in the human, with the function of contraction and release. From the smile
on the face of the newborn baby to the legs of the marathon runner, the muscles
are in charge. They are placed, however, into two systems--the `voluntary
system' over which you have control (reach out and grab a ball), and the
`involuntary system' over which you have little or no control (try stopping a
kidney). Are we to believe that the skeletal and muscle systems, in all their
complexity, "just happened"? No one could ever convince you that, for
example, a Cadillac limousine "just happened." Yet something
infinitely greater in design and structure-- the human body--we are asked to
believe "just happened." What kind of incongruous logic is that, to
reach such a conclusion? As G.K. Chesterton once said: "When men stop
believing in God, they don't believe in nothing. They believe in
`anything!'" How true. One does not get a poem without a poet, or a law
without a lawgiver. One does not get a painting without a painter, or a musical
score without a composer. And just as surely, `one does not get purposeful
design without a designer!' Consider, for example, the human ear and the human
eye. The average piano can distinguish the sounds of 88 keys; the human ear can
distinguish over 2,500 different key tones. In fact, the human ear can detect
sound frequencies that flutter the ear drums as faintly as one- billionth of a
centimeter (a distance one-tenth the diameter of a hydrogen atom).. The ear is
so sensitive that it could even hear, were the body placed in a completely
soundproof room, the blood coursing through the veins. Over 100,000 hearing
receptors in the ears are sending impulses to the brain to be decoded and
answered. The human eye is the most perfect camera ever known to man. So perfect
is it that its very presence caused Charles Darwin to say, "That the eye
with all its inimitable contrivances...could have been formed by natural
selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Darwin
also commented: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ
existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive,
slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." The eye, as
it turns out, is such an organ, and Darwin's theory, as such, has broken down.
Each human eye is composed of over 107 million cells with 7 million cones
(allowing the eye to see in full, living color) and 100 million rods (allowing
the eye to see in blacks, whites, and greys). The eyes are connected to the
brain by over 300,000 nerves, and can detect light as feeble as 1/100 trillionth
of a watt. How is the eye supposed to have "evolved"? What
"intermediate state" between no eye and a perfect eye could nature
have "selected" to be passed on to successive generations? As Mark
Twain once c ommented, "It's amazing what men will believe, so long as it's
not in the Bible!" There are so many systems in the human body that could
be discussed, but since space precludes discussing them all, it is now to the
brain that we turn our attention. The brain, of course, regulates the rest of
the body. It contains over 10 billion nerve cells, and 100 billion glia cells
(which provide the biological "batteries" for brain activity). These
cells float in a jellied mass, sifting through information, storing memories,
creating what we call consciousness, etc.. Over 120 trillion connections tie
these cells together. The brain sends out electrical impulses at a speed of 393
feet per second (270 mph), and receives nerve impulses being produced at a rate
of over 2,000/second. The brain receives signals continuously from 130,000 light
receptors in the eyes, 100,000 hearing receptors in the ears, 3,000 tastebuds,
30,000 heat spots on the skin, 250,000 cold spots, and 500,000 touch spots. The
brain does not move, yet consumes 25% of the blood's oxygen supply. It is
constantly bathed in blood, its vessels receiving 20% of all the blood pumped
from the heart. If the blood flow is interrupted for 15-30 seconds,
unconsciousness results. If blood is cut off to the brain for longer than 4
minutes, brain damage results. Four major arteries carry blood to the brain as a
sort of "fail-safe" system. And, the brain is protected from damage by
not one, but three major systems: (1) the outer skull bone; (2) the `dura mater'
(Latin for "hard mother"--the protective lining around the brain),
and; (3) the absorbing fluid, which keeps the brain from hitting the inner
skull. With the brain properly functioning, all the other body systems
(hormones, circulatory, digestive, reproductive, etc.) can be overseen and
controlled. Are we, as Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard stated some years
ago, "an accident in a universe that did not have us in mind in the first
place"? Or, are we created "in the image of God" (Genesis
1:26,27)? Sir Isaac Newton once said, "In the absence of any other proof,
the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence." How much more, then,
should the cells, the brain, the lungs, the heart, the reproductive system,
etc., be shouting to us that `there is a God, and He is not silent.' As the
psalmist so well said, "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully
made" (Psalm 139:14). Or, as Imogene Fey has observed: "The birth of
every new baby is God's vote of confidence in the future of man." Dr. Lewis
Thomas, the renowned medical doctor and author of `The Medusa and the Snail',
commented in that work about the "miracle" of how one sperm cell forms
with one egg cell to produce a single cell that will, nine months later, become
a new human being. His conclusion: "The mere existence of that cell should
be one of the greatest astonishments of the earth. People ought to be walking
around all day, all through their waking hours, calling to each other in endless
wonderment, talking of nothing except that cell.... If anyone does succeed in
explaining it, within my lifetime, I will charter a skywriting airplane, maybe a
whole fleet of them, and send them aloft to write one great exclamation point
after another around the whole sky, until a ll my money runs out." Yet we
are told that such a "miracle" has "just happened." Carl W.
Miller once stated: "To the reverent scientist...the simplest features of
the world about us are in themselves so awe-inspiring that there seems no need
to seek new and greater miracles of God's care." In order to get a poem,
one must have a poet. In order to have a law, one must have a lawgiver. In order
to have a mathematical diagram, one must have a mathematician. A deduction
commonly made is that order, arrangement, or design in a system suggest
intelligence and purpose on the part of the originating cause. In the universe,
from the vastness of multiplied solar systems to the tiny world of molecules,
marvelous design and purposeful arrangement are evidenced. In the case of man,
from the imposing skeletal system to the impressive genetic code in all of its
intricacy, that same design and purposeful arrangement are evidenced. The only
conclusion that a reasonable, rational, unbiased mind can reach is that the
existing systems of our world, including all life, have been purposefully
designed by an Intelligent Cause. We call that Cause "God." Conclusion
Alan Devoe significantly writes, "Some naturalists have become convinced
that there is an `unknown force' at work--a force that guides creatures by
influences outside the entire sphere with which science ordinarily works."
We would prayerfully urge those who speak of this `unknown force' to turn to the
"God that made the world and all things therein" (Acts 17:24), and
ascribe honor and glory to Him. The revelation He has left of Himself in nature
simply could speak no louder of His existence than it already does. Furthermore,
this examination of arguments for God's existence has not even touched upon the
"historical" arguments which come to bear on the case. For example,
the historical Christ, the resurrection, the Bible, the system of Christianity,
and other such arguments are equally as important. The arguments from historical
fact are additional proof that there is a God, and He is not silent. That Christ
existed cannot he doubted by any rational person. His miracles and other works
are documented, not only in biblical literature, but in profane, secular history
as well. The empty tomb stands as a silent but powerful witness that God does
exist (Acts 2:24; Romans 10:9) and that Christ is His Son. The Bible exists;
therefore, it must be explained. The men who wrote it were either deceivers,
deluded, or telling the truth. What do the evidences say? The internal and
external evidences are enough to tell the story of God's existence, and the fact
that He has spoken to us from His inspired word. Additional evidences are
available at every turn. Little wonder Paul stated that "in him we live,
and move, and have our being..." (Acts 17:28). Moses' statement still
stands as inspired testimony to the fact of the existence of God: "In the
beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).