Why I Believe!

Part 4

"WHY I BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD"

In my previous articles I dealt with "Natural Revelation," "Special Revelation" and "Personal Revelation" as they relate to the existence of God. Surely these three would be enough to conclude that God does indeed exist and that He has revealed himself to man. There is no way secular humanism can adequately explain to the intelligent mind the existence of the cosmos, the phenomenon of the Holy Scriptures and the personage of Jesus Christ. Oh, yes, I am fully aware of their attempts to do so, but I am also aware of the miserable attempt that has left their ideology bankrupt.

The reason they hold on to it, in my opinion, is not because they have weighed all the evidence and come to a logical conclusion, but rather as William J. Murray (Religious Freedom Coalition) recently concluded. He said that they are not Intellectual Atheists, but rather Moral Atheists, because if they acquiesce to the theist position then this makes them responsible for their actions. If God exists then there is such a thing a "right and wrong," and so they could not continue their lifestyle without incurring guilt, and having to deal with their conscience.

And that brings me to another argument for the existence of God. The Moral Argument For The Existence Of God is an ever present reminder to man that he is made in the image of God, therefore can know right from wrong and feel guilt.

This argument goes way back in history. Some good works on this subject are: "Sin, Suffering and God," by Thomas B. Warren; "Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis; and "The Existence Of God," by John Hick. These all argue that there is within man that causes him to act in a "moral," or "immoral" way, and that these actions along are based on some standard of conduct that supersedes and transcends man himself. And, this is a universal principle at work because every society has "societal norms" that people are expected to live by. Law and order is a universal reality. No government anywhere is in existence without it. Even the remote tribes on the planet have moral codes that the people must live by. Where did all this come from? Did it just happen? Or, is man unique amongst all creatures in this respect.

While at the Harding Graduate School of Religion, Memphis, Tennessee, it was my privilege to be a student of Dr. Thomas B. Warren. In our Apologetics class he told of an incident that happened at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee when he was there working on his doctorate. One of his professors was an avowed atheist and while discussing this issue of "moral responsibility," Thomas Warren asked him a series of questions that point up exactly what I am referring to. He posed a scenario to the atheist professor that caused the Atheist himself to admit that there was something innate about man that is not so of the other animals. Thomas Warren asked him what he would do if he were to find a helpless baby lying in the middle of the street on a cold winter's day? He responded by saying that he would pick up the child and take it to shelter so it would not freeze to death. The next question Mr. Warren asked him was, "Why?" "Why would you do that?" The answer should be obvious to the most casual observer, but in reality it becomes one of the strongest defenses for the existence of God. The atheist said, "It would be BETTER to do that than to let the baby lie there and die." Then came the clincher! "Better in relation to what?" And, of course, the answer to that is the whole point. Man has the capability to make moral judgements as to what is good or bad. The term "better" is a comparative term, representing "degrees" of whatever is under consideration. It is an adjective, describing the action of "taking the baby to shelter," and therefore draws a sharp contrast between doing that and doing nothing.

Thomas Warren presented to his atheist professor the perfect, hypothetical case for the Moral Argument. He had just admitted that there was a standard of "right and wrong," "good and bad," "better and best."

But what we have to recognize is that this innate "oughtness" of man did not and could not have originated with man himself. Animals do not possess it. And I might add that if a hungry wolf has sauntered along, by chance, while the poor helpless baby was lying there naked on the street, he probably would have eaten him. And not only that, he would have felt absolutely no remorse for having done so.

To further illustrate what I am saying about the "moral oughtness" that is within man, let me remind you of the Nuremberg Trials, 1945-1946, Nuremberg, Germany.

This was the site of trials of the Nazis who were accused of war crimes. Now, if there had not been a universal law, that transcended Germany's law, this whole thing would have been a joke. What justification would anyone have to accuse somebody else of crime who did not even live in their country? The same principle has been reiterated many times recently in the world where there was an absence of basic civil rights. Brutal acts of murder and terrorism are met with strong resistance around the world.

This "moral sense of oughtness" originated from a transcendent God, who made man with the innate ability to know the difference between right and wrong. And He further gave man a conscience to help monitor his behavior. This, my friend is one of the strongest evidences for the existence of God that I know about. And it is universal, without exception.

Does God exist? Absolutely so, and it is seen in the way people act, either one way or the other!

[Home]