THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
T.P. Simmons
The fact of God's existence is both the scriptural and the logical
starting-point for a systematic study of Bible doctrine. It is the scriptural
starting-point because the first verse in the Bible apprises us of it. It is the logical starting-point because the fact of God's existence
underlies all other Bible doctrines. Without the existence of God all other
Bible doctrines would be meaningless.
John Gill, in his "Body of Divinity," (p. 1) remarks
very appropriately: "I shall begin with the Being of God and proof and evidence of it; which is the foundation of all religion; for if
there is no God, religion is a vain thing; and it matters not what we believe,
nor what we do; since there is no superior Being to whom we are accountable for
either faith or practice." In commenting on the first verse of Genesis,
Prof. Herbert W. Morris, in "Science and the Bible," (p. 25) says:
"Thus opens the Book of God with the announcement of a truth which no process
of reasoning could have reached, and a declaration of fact
which no philosophy could ever have unveiled. Nothing can exceed the grandeur
of the thought, nothing surpass the appropriateness of the words, as an
introduction to the sacred volume. Looking back across the wide waste of all the
ages past, this sentence of divine sublimity, like a magic ARCHWAY, stands at
the closing bounds of eternity past-beyond it are the silence and darkness of
eternal night; out of it issue the periods, and scenes, and
events of time."
1. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS ASSUMED IN THE BIBLE.
The Bible begins by assuming and declaring the existence of God,
without undertaking to prove it. This is a noteworthy fact.
Commenting on this fact, J. M. Pendleton, in "Christian Doctrines,"
says: "Moses, under divine inspiration, had, no doubt, the best of reasons
for the course he adopted."
The author believes this is true, and he believes there are at
least three good reasons for the course adopted by Moses; viz.
1. ISRAEL, FOR WHOSE BENEFIT MOSES WROTE PRIMARILY,
ALREADY BELIEVED IN GOD.
Hence the purpose of Moses, which was practical
rather than theological, did not require a discussion of proofs of God's
existence.
2. THE EVIDENCES OF GOD'S EXISTENCE ARE APPARENT AND
FORCEFUL
Thus it was unnecessary, even for the human
race as a whole, that a practical discourse should deal with the evidences of
God's existence. But our study is theological as well as practical; hence it is
in place for us to note these apparent and forceful evidences.
"Some, because the being of God is a first principle, which
is not to be disputed; and because there is one self-evident proposition not to be disproved; have thought that it should not be
admitted as a matter of debate; but since such is the malice of Satan as to
suggest the contrary to the minds of men; and such the weakness of some good
men as to be harassed and distressed with doubts about it at times; it cannot
be improper to endeavor to fortify our minds with reasons and arguments against
such suggestions" (Gill Body of Divinity, p. 1).
These evidences come to us from-
(1) Inanimate Creation.
A. Matter is not Eternal, and, therefore, must
have been Created.
George McCready Price, author of "Fundamentals of
Geology" and other scientific books, says: "The facts of
radioactivity very positively forbid the past eternity of matter. Hence the
conclusion is syllogistic: matter must have originated at some time in the past
. . ." (Q. E. D., p. 30). Prof. Edward Clodd says that
"everything points to a finite duration of the present creation"
(Story of Creation, p. 137). "That the present form of the universe is not
eternal in the past, but has begun to be, not only personal observation but the
testimony of geology assures us" (Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 40).
B. Matter must have been Created other than by
Natural Processes; hence the Evidence of a Personal Creator.
Prof. Price says: "There is no ambiguity of evidence. So far
as modern science can throw light on the question, there must have been a real
creation of the materials of which our world is composed, a creation wholly
different, both in kind and in degree, from any process now
going on" (Q. E. D., p. 25). The origin of things cannot be accounted for
on a naturalistic basis. Seeking to do this, Darwin was made to say: "I am
in a hopeless muddle." It would be just as sensible to believe that books
are written by forces resident in the alphabet and by the operation of the laws
of spelling and grammar as to believe that the universe was created by forces
resident in matter and the operation of natural law. "Thus
the investigations of modem science, at whatever point of the horizon
commenced, converge and unite in the grand and fundamental truth, that 'IN THE
BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH'" (Herbert W. Morris,
Science and the Bible, P. 30).
"Every thoughtful person believes in a
series of causes and effects in nature, each effect becoming the cause of some
other effect. Now, the acceptance of this as a fact logically compels one to
admit that there must be a beginning to any series, that is, there could never
have been a first effect if there had not been a first Cause. This First Cause
to me is Deity, and because I cannot tell where the First Cause came from is
not satisfactory reason for denying that He exists, else I might
as well deny the existence of the millionth effect, which, for the sake of
argument, might happen to be this world. You see, if I admit one cause as ever
having existed, I am bound eventually by induction to arrive at the first
cause" (R. A. L., in a tract, "The Reason Why," Loizeaux
Brothers, Publishers).
A. Living Matter cannot Spring from the Non-Living.
Writing in the London Times, Lord Kelvin said: "Forty years
ago I asked Leibig, walking somewhere in the country, if he believed
that the grass and flowers which we saw around us grew by mere chemical forces.
He answered, 'No more than I could believe that a book on botany describing
them could grow by mere chemical forces." In an address before the Royal
Institute of London, Tyndall candidly stated the results of eight months of
laborious experiments as follows. "From the beginning to the end of the
enquiry, there is not, as you have seen, a shadow of evidence in favor of the doctrine of spontaneous generation . . . In the
lowest, as in the highest of organized creatures, the method of nature is, that
life shall be the issue of antecedent life." Prof. Conn says: "There
is not the slightest evidence that living matter could arise from non living
matter. Spontaneous generation is universally given up" (Evolution of
Today, p. 26). And Mr. Huxley was forced to admit: "The doctrine that life
can come only from life is victorious all along the
line" (The Other Side of Evolution, p. 25).
B. Since Matter is not Eternal Physical Life, which Involves
Living Matter, cannot be Eternal.
The fact that matter is not eternal forbids
the supposition that physical life is the result of an infinite series of
begettings. And since, as we have seen, living matter cannot spring from the
non-living, we are forced to accept the fact of a personal, non-material Creator.
That this is a fact that even the theory of evolution cannot properly eliminate
was frankly stated by such a thorough-going evolutionist as Professor Drummond,
who said: "Instead of abolishing a Creative Hand, evolution demands it. Instead of being opposed to Creation, all theories begin
by assuming it" (The Ascent of Man).
(3) Order, Design, and Adaptation in the Universe.
We behold marvelous order in the planetary
system, where we find "not the disconnected and jarring results of
chance," under which there would have been at least "a thousand
chances against conveniency and safety for one in their favor;" but
instead "we find the system as it exists free from all these dangers and
inconveniences," with all "the planets moving in orbits that ensure
perfect safety to all and the highest advantages to each." This has been
brought about by "the most uniform and the most
mathematically exact adjustment of number, weight, and measure in every part,
exhibiting the most convincing evidence that the whole is the work of one
Omnipotent and All-comprehending Mind" (Morris, Science and the Bible, pp.
309, 312).
The full import of the foregoing can be
appreciated only when we take into consideration the mutual attraction of all
the planets and their satellites, by which equatorial planes are shifted, north
poles are made to wander, axes rotated, orbital speeds altered, and planets are
pulled out of the smooth ellipse they would otherwise follow. Our solar system
is so arranged that these perturbations are oscillatory or cyclical. "Now
all this, as Laplace and Lagrange have demonstrated, is secured by three specific and distinct adjustments, namely, the motions of the
planets being in the same direction their orbits being of small eccentricity,
and those orbits being slightly inclined to each other" (Morris, Science
and the Bible, p. 317). To these may be added three other adjustments, namely,
the vastly superior gravitational force of the sun, the great distances between
the planets, and the fact that no two planets come into opposition (form a line
with the sun on the same side of the sun) at the same
places in their orbits each time. "We thus see that the ecliptic is
constantly modifying its elliptical shape; that the orbit of the earth
oscillates upward and downward; that the north pole steadily turns its long
index-finger over a dial that marks 26,000 years; that the earth, accurately
poised in space, gently nods and bows to the attraction of sun, moon, and
planets. Thus changes are taking place that would ultimately
entirely reverse the order of nature. But each of these variations has its
bounds beyond which it cannot pass" (Steele, New Descriptive Astronomy,.
p. 112). "Who can contemplate this proof of the beauty and perfection of
the planetary system, and not bow in reverence and adoration before the
Omniscient Architect of the heavens, saying, 'Great and marvelous art thy
works, Lord God Almighty; thou art wonderful in counsel and excellent in working'" (Morris, ibid, p. 317).
We see wonderful design in that the earth has been placed just the
right distance from the sun to receive, under all the circumstances that
prevail, the benign benefit of its life-giving rays and yet not be scorched by
its unimaginable heat.
This advantageous distance of the earth from the sun is seen to be
exceedingly remarkable when we reflect upon the fact that it is maintained
because it is here that the attractive force of gravity is exactly equalized by
the antagonistic force of the earth's centrifugal impulse. The attractive force
of gravity between the earth and the sun is dependent upon the sizes and densities
(which determine the "masses") of both the earth
and the sun, together with the distance between the earth and the sun. The
centrifugal force of the earth is dependent upon the earth's mass, its velocity
of movement in revolving around the sun, and its distance from the sun. Change
the mass of either the earth or the sun materially, or change the velocity of
the earth materially, and the distance of the earth from the sun would be
materially altered automatically. "The distance of a planet
from the sun, other things being equal, determines the amount of light and
heat. If, therefore, the earth with its occupants, as now constituted, were
placed much nearer the sun, or much farther from him, the change would be
attended with fatal consequences. Were it transferred, for example, to move in
the orbit of Mercury, our light and heat would be increased seven-fold, and the
dazzling splendor of the sun would extinguish our vision, and the intensity of his beams would speedily dry up all the fluids in our
bodies. On the other hand, were the earth driven away to revolve in the distant
orbit of Saturn, our light and heat would be only one-ninetieth part of what we
now enjoy, and the feeble and scattered rays of the sun would scarcely enable
us to distinguish him from a star; nay, ere we could cast about to make such an
observation, the immeasurable cold would transform us into a rock of ice. We see, then, that our globe might have moved at a hundred
different distances too near the sun, and at a thousand other distances all too
far from him, to be a suitable abode for its present inhabitants. But we find
it placed in an orbit where the temperature is exactly adapted to the bodily
constitution, and the degree of light precisely suits the visual organs, of its
living tenants. To whom, then, are we to ascribe this striking coincidence, this
happy and universal adaptation? To chance? or to the
foresight of the Infinite Mind?" (Morris, Science and the Bible, p. 282).
We observe amazing adaptation in the fitness of the things that
have been provided for man. Take the air we breathe as only one of the myriad
examples. The atmosphere is composed of approximately twenty-one parts of oxygen and seventy-eight parts of nitrogen. (The other one
part is made up of carbon dioxide, hydrogen, argon, helium, neon, krypton, and
xenon, mixed with a variable quantity of water-vapor, dust, and organic
matter.) These proportions of oxygen and nitrogen are exactly those which are
best suited to man's needs. If the quantity of nitrogen were appreciably
increased, all the functions of the human body would be performed with such
difficulty and pain as to be brought eventually to a
standstill. If the proportion of oxygen were considerably increased, all the
processes of life would be accelerated to such a feverish pace that the bodies
of all men and animals would soon be burned up. Certain other proportions of
these gases would be transformed by heat into deadly poisons. In fact, out of a
hundred possible proportions of oxygen and nitrogen, we have the only one
perfectly adapted to the needs of both man and beast.
It is not amiss to note further the provisions that have been made
for maintaining these proportions, under ordinary circumstances, without
noticeable variation. When men and animals breathe they take much of the oxygen
out of the air and give back the nitrogen. Furthermore the small amount of oxygen that is exhaled by men and animals is combined with
carbon to form carbon dioxide, which is unfit for breathing. Much carbon
dioxide is also poured into the air by the processes of combustion and decay.
But the balance is maintained. Nitrogen is lighter than air. Consequently, when
it is exhaled, it rises; never to return until it is once more mixed with the
proper proportion of oxygen. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, and therefore
settles so as to become available for vegetation; which
takes out the carbon to sustain its growth and returns most of the oxygen to
the air. Also plant leaves, under the influence of sunlight, give off an extra
supply of oxygen. Thus, by a nicely adjusted system of compensation, the air we
breathe is kept suitable to sustain life. There is no natural explanation of
this, since nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere do not enter into a compound
but remain free.
All of this evidences an intelligent Creator. It is sufficient to
convince all except those who are willfully blind. One might as well believe
that it is only by accident that rivers in civilized countries always run by
towns and cities as to believe that the universal order, design, and adaptation
manifest in the universe are the products of a fortuitous
concourse of atoms.
(4) The Human Conscience.
For practical purposes, conscience may he defined as man's power
or facility of approving or condemning his actions on a moral
basis. The Apostle Paul, one of the greatest scholars of his day, affirmed that
the heathen who had not heard of God or His law showed "the work of the
law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and
their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them" (Rom.
2:15). Paul thus affirmed that men who had not been taught an authoritative
moral standard had a consciousness of right and wrong. Scholars of this day
tell us that the most benighted peoples of the earth have
conscience.
It cannot be said, therefore, that man has conscience because of
the moral teachings he has received. It cannot be doubted that moral
instruction sharpens conscience and makes its compunctions more pungent. But
the presence of conscience in the untaught heathen shows that moral education
does not produce conscience.
Conscience, then, apprises us of the existence of law. The
existence of law implies the existence of a lawgiver. Hence the human
conscience attests the fact of God's existence.
The reference here is not to the testimony of the Bible concerning
the existence of God. It is illogical to give Bible authority as proof of God's
existence, for Bible authority implies God's existence. Such a course amounts
to begging the question. But the reference is to-
A. The Nature of the Contents of the Bible.
It has been well said that the Bible is such a book that man could
not have written it if he would and would not have written it if he could. It
reveals truths that man, left to himself, could never have discovered. A fuller discussion of this fact will come in the next chapter.
And if man could, why should he write a book that condemns him as a sinful,
failing, rebellious creature, deserving the wrath of God? Is it like human
nature thus to condemn itself?
The detailed fulfillment of scores of Old Testament prophecies is
recorded in the New Testament, which bears the internal evidence of a reliable
history. The fulfillment of prophecy evidences a supreme being that inspired
the prophecy.
C. The Life of Jesus.
Accepting the testimony of the gospels as possessing the
credentials of a reliable history, we see in Jesus a unique life. Neither heredity
nor environment, the only two natural forces in the formation of character, can
account for His life. Thus we have evidence of a divine
being who indwelt Jesus.
D. The Resurrection of Jesus.
The resurrection of Jesus, as a supernatural
and well-attested fact, shows that He was divine. Thus we have further evidence
that there is a divine being.
Proof of the resurrection of Jesus: After hearing a conversation
on a railroad train between two men who were discussing the possibility of
being deceived about the resurrection of Jesus, W. E. Fendley, a lawyer of Mississippi, wrote an article that was published in the
Western Recorder of December 9, 1920. He approached the matter as a lawyer, and
he gave the three following reasons for denying the plausibility of the
suggestion that the body of Jesus was stolen: (1) "It was not a good time
for stealing the body." The fact that three Jewish feasts came at the time
of the crucifixion makes it certain that the streets of Jerusalem would be full
of people. For that reason, Mr. Fendley says that it was
not a good time for stealing the body. (2) "There were five penalties of
death attached to the stealing of the body, and not one of those penalties was
imposed or carried out." The penalties are given as being: first, for
allowing the seal to be broken; second, for breaking the seal; third, for
stealing the body; fourth, for allowing the body to be stolen; fifth, for going
to sleep on duty. (3) "I deny the allegation again on the ground of premeditated and unpremeditated testimony." And then
he shows how the soldiers came from the sepulchre and told that an angel had
driven them away from the tomb; and that, when bribed by the Pharisees, they
told that the body of Jesus was stolen while they slept.
Mr. Fendley goes on to give five things which
people must believe in order to believe this report of the soldiers. They are:
(1) "They must believe that sixty-four Roman soldiers, under
the penalty of death, all slept at once." (2) "They must accept the
testimony of sleepers." (3) "They must believe that the disciples who
were so afraid, all at once became tremendously bold."
(4) "Again they must believe the thieves took plenty of time to fold up
the grave clothes, and place them neatly to one side." (5) "They must
also believe that those disciples would risk their lives for a dead imposter,
when they would not for a living Saviour."
3. THE FACT OF GOD'S EXISTENCE IS
ALMOST UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED
This is given as the third reason that justifies the course
pursued by Moses in assuming and declaring the fact of God's existence without
offering any proofs. It may also be taken as further evidence of God's
existence. The few that deny God's existence are insignificant. "The lowest
tribes have conscience, fear death, believe in witches,
propitiate or frighten away evil fates. Even the fetish-worshipper, who calls a
stone or a tree a god, shows that he has already the idea of God" (Strong,
Systematic Theology( p. 31). "The existence of God and future life are everywhere
recognized in Africa" (Livingstone). The great Plutarch summed it all up
in the following famous quotation from him: "If you go over the earth, you
may find cities without walls, letters, kings, houses,
wealth, and money, devoid of theatres and schools; but a city without temples
and gods, and where is no use of prayers, oaths, and oracles, nor sacrifices to
obtain good or avert evil, no man ever saw." Cicero says quite truly:
"The consent of all nations in anything is to be reckoned the law of
nature," and he refers to notions about God as implanted and innate.
Men instinctively feel the existence of God. Why, then, do some
deny it? Is it because of lack of evidence? No; it is only that this feeling is
not pleasing to them. It disturbs them in their sinful course. Therefore they
conjure up arguments to erase the thought of God from their minds. Every
atheist and agnostic labors mainly to convince himself. When he presents his arguments
to others it is partly through a desire to test them and
partly in self defense. It is never through a feeling that his views can be of
any help to others.
An atheist is a man who, through love of sin, has tampered with
his mind and has brought it into a state of war with his heart, wherein the
mind attacks the heart and tries to wrest the feeling of God from it. The heart
counterattacks the mind and seeks to compel the mind to
retain the thought of God. In this warfare the mind, therefore, is constantly
looking for arguments to use as ammunition. As it finds these arguments, it
fires them at the heart with the loudest possible report. This is why an
atheist likes to expose his thinking. He is at war with himself and it gives him
confidence when he hears his guns exploding.
There is much evidence that the mind of the atheist is never fully
victorious over his heart. "The number of real speculative atheists have
been very few, if any; some have boldly asserted their disbelief of a God; but
it is a question whether their hearts and mouths have agreed; at least they
have not been able to maintain their unbelief long without some doubts and
fears" (Gill Body of Divinity, p. 3). Shelley, who was
expelled from Oxford for writing a pamphlet on the "Necessity of
Atheism," delighted in thinking of a "fine intellectual spirit
pervading the universe." Voltaire is said to have prayed in an Alpine
thunderstorm, and, when dying, said, "O God-if there be a God-have mercy
on me?" Therefore we conclude with Calvin: "Those who rightly judge
will always agree that there is an indelible sense of divinity engraven upon
men's minds." There is no rational explanation of this
"law of nature" except on the hypothesis that God exists.
Before passing it is deemed well to note the sources of this almost
universal belief in the existence of God. There are two sources of this belief;
viz.,
(1) Tradition.
Chronologically, our belief in God comes from tradition. We
receive our first ideas of God from our parents. No doubt this has been true of
each successive generation from the beginning. But tradition is insufficient to account for the almost universal acceptance of the
fact of God's existence. The fact that only a few ever disavow this acceptance
(it is doubtful that any ever fully reject it) shows that there is an inner
confirmation of the traditional belief in God's existence. This points us to
the second source of this belief, which is-
Logically, our belief in God comes from intuition. Intuition is
the immediate perception of truth without a conscious process of reasoning. A
fact or truth so perceived is called an intuition. Intuitions are "first
truths," without which all reflective thought would be impossible. Our
minds are so constituted as to evolve these "first truths"
as soon as proper occasions are presented.
A. Proof that the Almost Universal Belief in God Proceeds
Logically from Intuition and not from Reasoning.
(a) The great majority of men have never tried to reason out the
fact of God's existence, and are not capable of such reasoning as would serve
to strengthen their belief in God's existence.
(b) The strength of men's belief in God's existence does not exist
in proportion to the development of the reasoning faculty,
as would be the case if that belief were primarily the result of reasoning.
(c) Reason cannot fully demonstrate the fact of God's existence.
In all our reasoning about God's existence we must begin with intuitive
assumptions that we cannot demonstrate. Thus when men accept the fact of God's existence, they accept more than strict reason would lead
them to accept.
B. The Existence of God as a "First Truth."
(a) Definition. "A first truth is a knowledge
which, though developed on occasion of observation and reflection, is not
derived from observation and reflection,- a knowledge on the contrary which has
such logical priority that it must be assumed or supposed. Such truths are not,
therefore, recognized first in order of time; some of them are assented to
somewhat late in the mind's growth; by the great majority of men they are never
consciously formulated at all. Yet they constitute the
necessary assumptions upon which all other knowledge rests, and the mind has
not only the inborn capacity to evolve them so soon as the proper occasions are
presented, but the recognition of them is inevitable so soon as the mind begins
to give account to itself of its own knowledge (Strong, Systematic Theology, p.
30).
(b) Proof. "The processes of reflective
thought imply that the universe is grounded in, and is the expression of,
reason" (Harris, Philosophic Basis of Theism). "Induction rests upon
the assumption, as it demands for its ground, that a personal, thinking deity
exists . . . It has no meaning or validity unless we assume that the universe
is constituted in such a way as to presuppose an absolute and unconditional
originator of its forces and laws . . . We analyze the several processes of
knowledge into their underlying assumptions, and we find
that the assumption which underlies them all is that of a self-existent
intelligence" (Porter, Human Intellect). "Reason thinks of God as
existing. Reason would not be reason, if it did not think of God as existing
(Domer, Glaubenslehre). It is for this reason that God has said in His word:
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psa. 14:1). Only
a fool will deny God's existence. Some such fools are
illiterate; some are educated. But they are fools nevertheless, because they
have not or, at least will not acknowledge, even the beginning of wisdom, the
fear of the Lord. See Prov. 1:7.
11. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD NOT DEMONSTRABLE
MATHEMATICALLY, YET MORE CERTAIN THAN ANY CONCLUSION FROM
REASON.
1. GOD'S EXISTENCE NOT DEMONSTRABLE MATHEMATICALLY
In regard to all the arguments for the fact of God's existence
Strong says: "These arguments are probable, not demonstrative (Systematic Theology, p. 39). We read again: "Nor have I
claimed that the existence, even, of this Being can be demonstrated as we
demonstrate the abstract truths of science" (Diman, Theistic Argument, p.
363). Strong quotes Andrew Fuller as questioning "whether argumentations
in favor of the existence of God has not made more skeptics than
believers;" and then adds: "So far as this is true, it is due to an
overstatement of the arguments and an exaggerated notion of
what is to be expected from them" (Systematic Theology, p. 40).
2. GOD'S EXISTENCE YET MORE CERTAIN THAN ANY
CONCLUSION FROM REASON
Let the student read over again the quotations given to show that
the existence of God is a "first truth," a truth that is assumed by
all in the process of reason. "He who denies God's existence must tacitly
assume that existence in his very argument, by employing logical processes
whose validity rests upon the fact of God's existence" (Strong, Systematic
Theology, p. 33). It is an axiomatic truth that that which
is the foundation of all reason is more certain than any conclusion from
reason. "We cannot prove that God is, but we can show that, in order to
the existence of any knowledge, thought, reason, in man, man must assume that
God is" (Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 34).
Descartes, (1596-1650) who distinguished
himself in physics and revolutionized the study of geometry and philosophy,
perhaps has never been excelled in stating the case for the existence of God.
In his Discourse on Method he wrote as follows: "Finally, if there still
be persons who are not sufficiently persuaded of the existence of God and of
the soul, by the reasons I have adduced, I am desirous that they should know
that all the other propositions, of the truth of which they deem themselves perhaps more assured, as that we have a body, and
that there exist stars and an earth, and such like, are less certain; for,
though we have a moral assurance of these things, which is so strong that there
is an appearance of extravagance in doubting of their existence, yet at the
same time no one, unless his intellect is impaired, can deny, when the question
relates to a metaphysical certitude, that there is sufficient reason to exclude
entire assurance, in the observation that when asleep we
can in the same way imagine ourselves possessed of another body and that we see
other stars and another earth, when there is nothing of the kind. For how do we
know that the thoughts which occur in dreaming are false rather than those
other which we experience when awake, since the former are often not less vivid
and distinct than the latter? And though men of the higher genius study this
question as long as they please, I do not believe that they
will be able to give any reason which can be sufficient to remove this doubt,
unless they presuppose the existence of God. For, in the first place, even the
principle which I have already taken as a rule, viz., that all things which we
clearly and distinctly conceive are true, is certain only because God is or
exists, and because he is a Perfect Being, and because all that we possess is derived
from him; whence it follows that our ideas or notions,
which to the extent of their clearness and distinctness are real, and proceed
from God, must to that extent be true. . . .But if we did not know that all
which we possess of real and true proceeds from a perfect and infinite being,
however clear and distinct our ideas might be, we should have no ground on that
account for the assurance that they possessed the perfection of being
true."
"The most unreasonable people in the world are those who
depend solely upon reason, in the narrow sense" Strong). "Belief in
God is not the conclusion of a demonstration, but the solution of a problem"
(Strong); and that problem is the problem of the origin of the universe.
"The universe, as a great fact, demands a rational explanation, and . . .
the most rational explanation that can possibly be given is
that furnished in the conception of such a Being (as God). In this conclusion
reason rests, and refuses to rest in any other" (Diman, Theistic
Argument). "We arrive at a scientific belief in the existence of God just
as we do at any other possible human truth. We assume it, as a hypothesis
absolutely necessary to account for the phenomena of the universe; and then
evidence from every quarter begins to converge upon it, until, in the process of time, the common sense of mankind cultivated and
enlightened by ever accumulating knowledge, pronounces upon the validity of the
hypothesis with a voice scarcely less decided and universal than it does in the
case of our highest scientific convictions" (Morell, Philosophic
Fragments). Therefore, we may say; "God is the most certain fact of
objective knowledge" (Browne, Metaphysics).
111. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, THEREFORE, MAY BE TAKEN
FOR GRANTED AND BOLDLY PROCLAIMED.
The foregoing facts should make the preacher bold in his
proclamation of the fact of God's existence, fearing not to proclaim it confidently to the worldly-wise. We are on safe ground in
proclaiming this truth. No man can successfully gainsay our message. There are
times, perhaps, when the preacher in the pulpit should discuss the evidences of
God's existence; yet, as a usual thing, he should assume it and declare it as
Moses did. And when he does deal with the evidences of God's existence, let him
not overstate them so as to leave the impression that the validity of the fact
of God's existence depends upon a strict rational
demonstration.