__________________ ____________________  

The Case For the Existence of God Introduction


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,
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
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
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
"Though I know those who hold it to be very unscientific to
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,
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
between absolute scientific belief in a Creative Power, and
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.
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
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
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.
"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
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
astonishments of the earth. People ought to be walking
around all day,
all through their waking hours, calling to each other in
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."
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).
1. Thomson, Edward. `Evidences of a Revealed Religion'.
Hitchcock and
Walden. Cincinnati. 1872. p 1.
2. Dummelow, J.R. (Editor). `The One-Volume Bible
MacMillan. New York. 1944. p vi.
3. Hume, David. Quoted in: `The Campbell-Owen Debate'.
Gospel Advocate
Co. Nashville Tennessee. 1957. p 124.
4. Monsma, John C. (Editor). `The Evidence of God in an
Universe'. G.P.Putnam's Sons. New York. 1958. p 12.
5. Morrison, A. Cressy. `Man Does Not Stand Alone'. Revell.
New Jersey. 1944. p 13.
6. Compton, Arthur H. `Chicago Daily News'. April 12, 1936.
7. Agassiz, Louis. `Contributions to the Natural History of
the United
States'. Boston, Massachusetts. 1857. Vol. 1. p 298. Emp.
8. Kelvin, Lord. `Nineteenth Century and After'. June,
1903. LIII. pp
9. Davis, George E. `IN: The Evidence of God in an Expanding
Universe'. John C. Monsma, Editor. G.P. Putnam's Sons. New
1958. p 71.
10. Jastrow, Robert. `God and the Astronomers'. W.W. Norton
& Co. New
York. 1978. pp 11,48,110.
11. `Science Digest'. Jan/Feb. 1981. p 98.
12. `Ibid'. p 105.
13. `Ibid'. p 124.
14. `Ibid'. p 102.
15. Jastrow, Robert. `Until The Sun Dies'. W.W. Norton Co.
New York.
1977. p 21.
16. `Science Digest'. Sept/Oct. 1980. p 49.
17. `Ibid'. p 52.
18. `Ibid'. p 118.
19. Brand, Paul and Philip Yancey. `Fearfully and
Wonderfully Made'.
Zondervan. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1980. pp 24,25.
20. Darwin, Charles. `The Origin of Species'. J.M. Dent &
London. 1956 edition. p 167.
21. `Ibid'. p 170.
22. `Fearfully and Wonderfully Made'. pp 188,189.
23. Newton, Isaac. Quoted in: `Fearfully and Wonderfully
Made'. p 161
24. Thomas, Lewis. `The Medusa and the Snail'. Viking
Press. New York.
1979. pp 155-157.
25. Miller, Carl Wallace. Quoted in: `The Encyclopedia of
Quotations'. Frank S. Mead, Editor. Revell. Westwood, New
1965. p 179.
26. Devoe, Alan. `IN: The Marvels and Mysteries of Our
Animal World'.
Readers Digest Association. Pleasantville, New York. 1964.
p 232.
Emp. added.


Quotes: Search by Author