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.