Does God Exist? – Why Christianity

Why does it matter if God exists? If God does not exist, then it is generally agreed that life has no ultimate meaning, that is no hope beyond death, and that the universe is ultimately doomed.[1] For example, in Samuel Beckett’s 1969 play “Breath,” a dim light shines on a stage littered with rubbish, a faint cry is heard, there is a short breath, the curtain closes, silence – such is life—meaningless meaningless (cf. Eccl 1:2).[2] Another illustration is by atheist Richard Dawkins who states, “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”[3]

That is just the dire consequences of a world without God, but is there any reason to think that God does exist? There have been several arguments concluding that theism is more probable than not,[4] as Christian philosopher William Lane Craig argues, “God is the best explanation why anything at all exists; …of the origin of the universe; …of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world; …of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life; …of intentional states of consciousness; …of objective moral values and duties; The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists; [and] God can be personally known and experienced.”[5]

Space only permits the examination of one of these arguments in more detail, and for this, the moral argument shall be explored and can be formulated as follows:

“There are objective moral facts.
God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts.
Therefore, (probably) God exists.”[6]

So why think the first premise is more probable than not? There seem to be certain things, which I am sad even to mention, such as child abuse.[7] Such abuse is not just a matter of subjective preference or cultural relativity; one who rejects this conclusion is rightly understood as a psychopath. There are undoubtedly grey areas such as abortion,[8] but the fact that such moral issues are even discussed indicates that both sides believe that moral progress can be made, and it is not a mere matter of personal preference akin to what is the best-tasting fruit.[9]

What about the second premise concerning God as the best explanation of objective moral facts? God, being maximally excellent, provides an appropriate grounding for morality. God is eternally love (cf. Psa 90:2; 1 John 4:16); consequently, His nature is a suitable ontological basis for morality.[10] Whereas, given atheism, when a big asteroid collides with a smaller one, no crime is committed, nor when one chimpanzee group attacks another is it a felony. Naturalism envisions only a material world where objective morality is not generally a part of such a physical world.[11] For instance, Yuval Harari writes, “Homo sapiens has no natural rights, just as spiders, hyenas and chimpanzees have no natural rights. But don’t tell that to our servants, lest they murder us at night.”[12]

In conclusion, the existence of objective morality suggests that God probably exists. While there are more complexities to consider, the evidence indicates that God’s existence is more likely than not. That means we live in a meaningful world, a universe charged with purpose, with the potential for hope beyond the grave. God is the greatest conceivable being, the most amazing thing we humans could ever contemplate (let alone personally know), so it is well worth looking further into whether there could be more to life than what the daily grind has to offer – for just perhaps we were made to live for so much more.[13]

By David Graieg 30 Mar 2022

[1] On the fate of the cosmos and the options of a big crunch or heat death, see Davies, The Last Three Minutes.

[2] Some also interpret Beckett’s 1952/3 play “Waiting for Godot” in a similar fashion. In the play, two people carry out a trivial conversation while they wait for the enigmatic Godot to arrive, but he never does. Are our lives like that? Waiting for something that never comes, all the while filling the time with insignificant chatter.

[3] Dawkins, River Out of Eden, 133. Cf. Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 1887, para. 125; (1974, 181–82) (italics original); “Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek God! I seek God!” —As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? —Thus they yelled and laughed. The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. “How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us—for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.” Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves. It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: “What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?””

[4] Cf. Dougherty and Walls, eds., Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God.

[5] Craig, “Does God Exist?” For short, animated videos discussing these arguments, see: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX

[6] Evans, “Moral Arguments for the Existence of God.”

[7] For instance, Ruse states, “The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5” (Darwinism Defended, 275).

[8] Cf. Greasley and Kaczor, Abortion Rights.

[9] For a discussion of other metaethical options, see Moreland and Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 413–23.

[10] For a discussion of the arbitrariness of God’s commands or that goodness is independent of God, see Miller, “Euthyphro Dilemma.”

[11] For two attempts at objective morality on atheism, see Harris, The Moral Landscape; Wielenberg, Robust Ethics. For a response, see Craig, “Navigating Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape;” Craig, “Review: Robust Ethics,” 473–7; Johnson (ed.), A Debate on God and Morality; Morris, Believing Philosophy, 224–30.

[12] Harari, Sapiens, 111. This point is also made by several others, including Lewis, who writes, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal; a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, my argument against God collapsed too – for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist – in other words, that the whole reality was senseless – I found I was forced to assume that one part or reality – namely my idea of justice – was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known that it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning” (Mere Christianity, 38). Nielsen states, “We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that really rational persons unhoodwinked by myth or ideology need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me… Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality” (“Why Should I Be Moral?,” 90). Tom Holland concludes, “If secular humanism derives not from reason or from science, but from the distinctive course of Christianity’s evolution – a course that, in the opinion of growing numbers in Europe and America, has left God dead – then how are its values anything more than the shadow of a corpse? What are the foundations of its morality, if not a myth?”(Dominion, 540).

[13] Cf. Switchfoot “Meant To Live;” U2, “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For.”