Does God Really Exist?
We should understand from the beginning that God's existence is completely unaffected by man's opinion of Him. Man's denial does not lessen the reality of God's existence, nor does man's belief prove that He is. Many have let others turn them from a belief in God, without carefully studying all of the evidence in the case.
But Where Shall We Begin?
If God has revealed Himself in nature, then in nature there must be some trace of God. If God has revealed Himself in the Bible, then we must also examine its Pages for whatever proof of God we can find. Let's first turn to nature in our search, and then we shall turn to the Bible. Let's start with the world that is already here, and the life that already exists. Our world and the life that is therein must have had an origin. There must have been a time when these things first came to be, for their presence cries out for an explanation.
Many theories have been advanced, but what is the most logical explanation? It is generally understood by all that the world has not always been there. How did it get here? Was it created, or did it evolve from something else? If it was created, who created it? If it evolved, from what did it evolve, and how do you account for such a process? There was a time when something had to appear which never before existed, or something has always existed. If something once appeared which never before existed, what was it? What caused it to appear? If something has always existed, what was that? Was it life, or was it matter? If it was matter, then life came out of non-life. How did this happen? What explanation can be given for such a unique occurrence?
Life, as we know it, brings forth life. Man, an intelligent being, with his scientific knowledge, and under the best of laboratory conditions, has tried, but has been unable, as yet, to produce life from non-life. Is it thinkable, then, that, somewhere along the way, non-intelligent matter, by itself, and without any help from any intellect, once brought forth life from non-life? Is this a plausible explanation for the beginning of life? This spontaneous generation of life coming from non-life would be by far a greater miracle than any we have ever heard of.
On the other hand, if it was life that always existed, then there must have always been a Supreme Being! Shall we say, "In the beginning God created", or "In the beginning matter brought forth life"? Which is more reasonable to believe?
Could the world have come into existence by accident or chance? This would be mere assumption, and an unreasonable one at that. Someone has said, "It would be just as logical to believe that Webster's Unabridged Dictionary resulted from an explosion in a print shop, as to believe that the world came into existence by chance or coincidence".
What about the process of evolution? Again, we are back to the same question, namely, what was the beginning of such a process, and what caused the process to start? There just had to be a beginning, and with what did the world begin? Where did that, from which everything else evolved, come from in the first place? The theory of evolution is not a satisfactory explanation. The disbeliever has more difficulty in rejecting God than the believer has in accepting Him. The disbeliever must assume three times more than the believer, for he assumes that such a thing as matter existed, that force existed, and that force acted upon matter; whereas the Christian has one premise upon which he builds his faith, namely, that an eternal God brought about life and all things.
Some have discarded a belief in God on the ground that they have never seen Him, nor has He appeared to them through any other of the five senses. On the same ground, what about a man's mind? Has anyone ever seen a man's mind? Can you prove through any of the five senses that man has a mind? To rule out God on this ground would be to rule out the fact that man has a mind. In the same way, it is not possible to prove a mother's love by using a slide-rule or a computer, but the fact that such things cannot be proven in this way does not show that they are not true.
Since God created the universe and all of the natural laws which govern the universe, it is obvious that God himself is not limited or bound by any of these laws. Matter, regardless of circumstance, is bound to respond to the Law of Gravity, but God is not limited in such fashion.
Since scientific proof in the commonly understood sense depends for its evidence upon the fact that all matter is subject to natural law, it is clear that
we would not use the same approach in proving the existence of God as we would in working a problem in physics, any more than we would prove the existence of a mother's love with an adding maching. God has, however, left throughout the universe, numerous indications of his existence (Psalms 19:1-3).
The Bible claims to reveal God and to be a revelation from God. It claims to give an accurate account of the way the world came into being. Can these claims
be substantiated? If not, surely they can be disproved. But, men have tried every way imaginable to disprove the Bible and have miserably failed. Many theories have been advanced which are in conflict with the Bible account of creation, but not one of these theories has been proved. If the Bible is wrong, and some other explanation is right, why can't such be proved? The Bible brings to us the most reasonable conclusions of all.
Let the Bible be disproved, and its account of creation will fall; otherwise, the only true explanation we have for the way things came to be is that there is a God who created all things. The Psalmist once said, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalms 14:1). in light of all that has been said, and the evidence thus given, how foolish to say "There is no God", since the Bible explanations of the creation is far more logical than any other ever advanced.
Does God really exist? Rather, How could it be that He does not exist?!!!