Since the very first humans glanced into the night sky and viewed the vast universe in its seemingly infinite wonder, mankind has searched for answers to life’s most difficult and enduring questions.
In pursuit of these answers, man has surely created a number of imaginative religions, each proclaiming over time to be the true understanding of the relationship between the heavens and Earth. Nearly all of these contrived belief systems proclaim all others to be false, and some have claimed that such anthropological evidence is proof of the nonexistence of God. “Many cultures have their own version of ‘god,” skeptics say. “What makes you think your God is better than all the others? Why should I even believe at all?”
This sort of logic is understandable from the position of the skeptic, who must disprove a foundational part of the human experience for thousands of years to be false. But what is clearly lacking in such an approach is this: The existence of many wrong answers is not proof against another unevaluated answer. By this same philosophy, man would never have flown in the air, traveled to the moon, or developed an understanding of virtually anything that exists in the modern world, because he would have surely said a long time ago, “Man has tried to answer these questions and has failed over and over again, thus, there must not be an answer.”
“All scientific answers are measurable,” a skeptic may reply. “Therefore, all scientific answers can be verified. Questions of religion, however, cannot.”
Assuming that we ought to throw out all of the miraculous experiences men have underwent throughout history that tend to point in the direction of the existence of an all-powerful supernatural Spirit and the fact that virtually every independent culture ever to roam Earth, even those who have operated independently of one another, have some tradition of God, the existence of God remains a more reasonable explanation than any other for the primary philosophical questions regarding the existence of man. In fact, I believe it requires far more blind faith to reject God’s existence than it does to simply believe.
Proof in the Stars
There are only two conceptions of the universe — either God exists and the entirety of creation can be attributed to Him or everything that has ever happened and ever will happen is purely by chance, a fortunate roll of the preverbal dice. No other possibility is reasonable, and in that sense, this question, as difficult as it is, is quite straight forward. Either God exists or God does not exist; there is no middle ground.
If God does not exist, as an increasing number of individuals in the world today claim, then the creation of the world was a spontaneous event from which nonliving, unintelligent space, which is to say pure emptiness, produced something akin to energy or matter, which then, over a great period, eventually was able to reproduce more energy or matter until the random replication of inanimate objects, by pure happenchance, produced a living cell. This living cell then itself reproduced trillions of times, all the while evolving into more complicated living matter, until you end up with the world we have today — a world teeming with life at every turn that owes the entirety of its existence to an undefined force acting upon absolutely no matter at all, just empty space.
Assuming for a moment that such a hypothesis excludes the possibility that the initial “force” upon which the entire universe owes its existence was not an act of God or God Himself, the most obvious flaw in this “more-scientific-than-religion” hypothesis is that it isn’t scientific at all. One can hypothesize all he or she wants, but without the ability to reproduce a universe with absolutely nothing in it, including energy and matter of any kind, and the ability to measure and replicate results of experimentation, the scientific method has been abandoned in favor of a quasi-form of religion in and of itself. To say one rejects the notion of God in favor of a purely natural view of creation is to say one embraces a philosophical construct with even less evidence and explanatory power than the most outrageous of religions.
At least the gods of ancient Greece, for instance, offered an explanation for the existence of the universe that was internally consistent if true. Suggesting the world was created from nothing, with nothing, by nothing, with only gravity and other inanimate forces (which themselves cannot be explained), is completely illogical and unscientific — so much so in fact that the only explanation for such a hypothesis is that any theory, regardless of plausibility, is better in the minds of some than a hypothesis which embraces God.
A Skeptic’s God
Most reasonable skeptics acknowledge the difficulty of the position outlined above and choose to counter with a hypothesis which imagines some kind of supernatural and unexplainable creative force that could be considered God but isn’t really anything like the God promoted by religions. God, for these skeptics, is quite like gravity — yes It, whatever It is, exists, but there is no purpose, plan, or love in God, just directionless and meaningless forces that, by absolutely complete chance, created the entirety of the universe.
This again, however, is a completely unscientific hypothesis. If we are to imagine the existence of God playing out in a courtroom drama, skeptics of God could offer absolutely no evidence in favor of a vision of God that sees Him as a meaningless, brainless, blunt force. The best the skeptic can do is disprove certain beliefs held by various other religions. In other words, a skeptic could argue that the founder of Islam, Muhammad, was not a real prophet, that Jesus didn’t really exist, or that the Jewish Torah was manmade. But even if a skeptic could completely disprove every facet of every religion, an impossible task, he or she would still have offered absolutely no evidence in favor of the position that God is a simple force. Skeptics would prefer to see believers abandon faith in favor of a completely disprovable position which makes no attempt at all to explain itself.
The Meaning of Creation
Once one admits that creation must be the result of a supernatural force of some kind, only two possibilities exist: Either that supernatural force created the universe with purpose or without purpose. The skeptic must argue the universe was created without purpose, because if the universe was created with purpose, religion would suddenly become all too probable. Again, however, the skeptic cannot make his or her case. It’s impossible to prove that whatever supernatural force created the universe did so without any purpose at all. The skeptic can offer absolutely no evidence to suggest a meaningless creation. In fact, all of the evidence that does exist suggests a purpose.
By observing the universe — the movement of the planets, the rhythm of life on earth, the symbiosis of all of creation — it’s impossible to deny that order exists. Surely one can point to chaos or seemingly random acts, but it’s impossible to ignore the simplistic complexity of the ordered universe. Even if one is to argue that order is poor evidence of a meaningful creation, it’s impossible to argue that it is not evidence at all. As such, the believer looking at the order in the universe has more evidence to his claim than the skeptic does to his assertion, which contains no evidence at all. If one chooses to deny a meaningful, purposeful creation, he does so by ignoring the only evidence that exists.
Not only is the skeptic incapable of proving a meaningless creation, he is utterly incapable of disproving a theory of meaningful creation. Further, the skeptic must admit that a supernatural force capable of creating the universe from absolutely nothing is, at the very least, capable of creating the universe with purpose.
God’s Dartboard
The only claim a skeptic can make is that God’s creation was random, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. This, of course, would require that God exists within ordinary time, is bound to its laws, and is unaware of what will occur in the future. Without appealing to a religious text, the believer cannot prove God exits apart from ordinary time or that God knows everything that will happen before it happens. However, again, the only evidence that exists suggests that God does.
The universe is ordered, which is proof that a design existed at the time of creation. More importantly, the very assertion of God is a claim of a supernatural force existing apart from time. This is an immensely vital aspect of the argument for the believer. If God created the universe and all that exists, God must have existed prior to the creation of the universe. If God existed prior to what we consider to be reality, then God exists outside, as well as within, reality. This effectively means God cannot be bound to time since God created time.
The skeptic would have us believe that God’s creative act was directionless and meaningless, much like throwing darts at a dartboard while blindfolded. Perhaps God had a general idea in mind, but He didn’t know precisely where the darts would land. This argument is, at the very least, conceivable, but it fails to explain how a creative power so magnificent that He can literally create an entire ordered universe from absolutely nothing would be incapable of knowing precisely what He was creating.
Again, this position cannot be proven by the skeptic. In fact, no evidence can be offered in its favor. By contrast, the believer can point again to the order of the universe, the mere fact that life exists, and the various scientific processes as evidence of a deliberate and successful creation. If God is throwing darts at a dartboard, He is quite good at it; for in His creation, trillions upon trillions of acts deemed by the skeptic to be random have “luckily” come together to create a universe capable of sustaining life against tremendous odds to the contrary.
Predestination
Once the skeptic acknowledges that a supernatural power must have created the universe apart from the current universe and did so knowing what would become of creation, the only logical step is faith in God. For if God created the universe with purpose and if God exists apart from time, God must know everything that will happen before it happens. Thus, at the moment God chose to create the universe and began that process, God must have deliberately chosen to create it and every event that would follow for His own sovereign, purposeful reasons.
If God desired for the universe to be created in another fashion, or for some event in history to occur differently, God could have simply created the universe in an alternative manner to achieve the desired result. The only other explanation then is that God simply doesn’t care. God created the universe with the ability to blind Himself from knowing what would happen at the moment of creation. This, however, cannot be proven by the skeptic, because there is no evidence at all to support such a position. The only evidence we have regarding God’s creation is the observable universe, which is orderly and contains a harmony that seems to contradict a “blind creation” approach.
The Weight of the Evidence
Even the most ardent skeptic must admit that he or she makes daily decisions without perfect knowledge. We all drive cars knowing we could die in a car accident. We all believe George Washington was a real person even though no one living ever met him, and even if someone had, we would all have no way of knowing whether that individual is telling the truth or not. The study of history is predicated on the idea that humans must trust the weight of the evidence, and this is something everyone on Earth accepts.
The food we eat, the choices we make, and virtually everything we do is based on trusting the weight of the evidence. Do I know for sure grass is green? One may say, “of course,” but the truth is that all sorts of improbable possibilities exist to the contrary. Perhaps I have a problem with my eyesight and “green” to me really looks like “blue” to everyone else, and the world has come together in some sort of a massive conspiracy to trick me. Perhaps we are all living in “the Matrix” and nothing I see, feel, or touch is real. As unlikely as all of these claims are, they are possible alternatives to what we perceive as true. It was once thought that Earth is flat, and for those who believed in a flat world, nothing else made any sense at all. Today, everyone knows the world is round, but do most people really know that? Have you seen Earth from space yourself? Are you sure you can trust the geographers and mathematicians that claim the world is round? How do we really know anything?
Humans, in the pursuit of truth, base every decision on the notion that we must trust the weight of the evidence, acknowledging all along that we do not have perfect knowledge. Faith in the existence of God should be no different for the skeptic. Although there are alternative theories for creation, is there any scientific evidence at all to support them? Is there any anthropological evidence? Any evidence from history? No.
Skepticism in God is an odd business. On the one hand, science is held up as the primary reason for why God cannot exist, and yet, on the other hand, the skeptic can offer absolutely no scientific evidence to refute God. In fact, the only evidence that exists favors the belief in God. In the mind of the skeptic, is faith in God a 100-percent guarantee? No. However, do humans have perfect knowledge of anything? No. We make every decision based on the weight of the evidence, and the evidence is clearly on the side of the existence of God.
Competing Claims
What then of the competing claims of who God is? How can anyone tell whether Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or some other religion is more correct than the others?
Numerous books, articles, and movies have been made to address these concerns, and this is not the time nor the place for such a complicated question. Plenty of very good resources exist that will answer these questions better than I can in this limited space. However, I would promote a few essential points.
First, only three possibilities exist regarding the various religions of the world. Either none understand God, one understands God, or they all partially understand God. They all, however, cannot be absolutely true. Only one, if any do at all, can contain the fullness of the truth. This is because each religion asserts exclusivity that would, by definition, invalidate the claims of the others. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism cannot all be correct. Either Jesus is or is not God, and if he is God, then Islam and Judaism cannot contain the full truth. There is simply no other way to look at it.
Second, as a former skeptic of all religions myself, I can tell you that if one examines each one, weighing the historical evidence each presents, some are far more believable than others, and Christianity, in my view, is by far the religion that offers the best evidence for its claims. Within the Christian tradition are contained the oldest original sources, the grandest claims (the resurrection of Christ), and the most complete understanding of God that I believe surpasses all other religious constructs.
Even for those who have not yet experienced the Holy Spirit working directly in their lives, I believe the weight of the evidence in favor of Christianity is much stronger than the weight of the evidence against it — and again, this is coming from someone who spent most of his life with a strong skepticism of Christianity.
While I cannot offer the sort of apologetic work that is needed at this point in the discussion, I can strongly suggest that even the most ardent of skeptics take the time to fairly evaluate the claims of all religions, especially Christianity. Through this process, I believe the truth can and is revealed, but only when an individual’s heart is open to the possibility (and sometimes even when a skeptic’s heart is not open to it).
It took me several years to come to grips with what I now fully and completely accept as absolute truth. So, with that in mind, I will leave you with this little bit of scripture I tried to constantly keep in mind even in the darkest days of my search for God: “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened” (Matthew 7:7-8).
Editor’s Note: This essay also appeared in Justin Haskins’ American Book of Prayer. It is available to download for free here.
