Let’s explore five arguments for the existence of God. We are not going to fully flesh out these arguments. Instead, we will treat them as springboards for future discussions or research. If you’re not yet at a point in your journey where you believe in God, I recommend you look deeply into these five arguments. Or, if you are a Christian, and are looking to develop your understanding of Christian apologetics, you should become well-versed in these five arguments. At the end of the study, we are going to explore one bonus argument that is great for Christians to explore, but one you definitely should think twice about before trying to use it in your conversations with your skeptical friends.
If you want to go straight to the arguments, skip to the first heading below. But if you’ll hear me out a little longer, I believe the following foundation and warnings are important to say when it comes to these types of discussions.
I began my faith journey seriously when I was nearly 18 years old. When I learned the truth about Jesus, I was so excited, and I wanted to tell people about His kingdom. And if you’re a believer, you know exactly what I’m talking about, whether you learned about Jesus at 18 or 80. And let me know if you also know what this is like: One of the first times I tried to share my faith in the Lord, I was attacked (verbally) and presented with alleged evidence against God’s existence. What do you do in that situation? Should you simply agree to disagree? There are occasions when Jesus told His disciples to not cast their pearls before swine, shake the dust off their feet, and move on. However, in most cases, that’s not the first course of action. What is? Of course, you need to provide an apology.
What? You need to apologize for your faith in Jesus? Of course not. This is what we’re talking about:
Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.
1 Peter 3:15
See that word defense? It’s translated from the Greek word apologia (ἀπολογία), which is, of course, where we get our English word apology. Sure, if you are apologizing for something, you may be trying to defend or rebuild trust or reputation. However, when the word apologetics is used in philosophy or religion, it’s the idea of providing solid reasoning and evidence for a given reality. In Christian apologetics, it’s about defending the existence of God, the historicity of Jesus, and the assurance of Scripture, which includes the promises of God, or as we saw, “the hope that is in you.”
Look at the verse again. It instructs us in not only the arguments and evidence to prepare for, but also in the delivery of the evidence. The Bible says that when we defend the hope of the kingdom of God, we must do so in meekness and fear.
Meekness is not weakness. It’s the idea of being gentle. Do you have the ability to tear someone up, make them feel foolish, and end the discussion with a mic drop? Perhaps. But you take all of that ability and temptation, and you put it under control. The Scriptures say the fruit of the Spirit includes love, peace, kindness, gentleness, and self-control. So, when we provide arguments for the existence of God, we don’t do so argumentatively. We don’t do so with the goal of making the other person foolish. We do so in meekness. When we view our mental opponents as enemies, when we tear them to pieces with weapons of our wrath, and laugh when they weep, do we give anyone a reason to believe in God’s existence? Perhaps, but we also destroy any reason to believe in an internal hope.
As you prepare to gently provide evidence, don’t confuse gentleness with softness or wishy-washy-ness. The Scriptures say you defend your hope also with fear. Fear of what? First, it begins with a respect for the person with whom you’re conversing. But with that respect, do you fear what they may say about you? No. Check this out:
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
Proverbs 1:7
But fools despise wisdom and instruction.
A couple of verses after directing the Christian to prepare to defend his or her faith, Peter says:
For it is better, if it is the will of God, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.
1 Peter 3:17
Jesus talks about not fearing what people can do to your body, since the worst they can do to you is kill you. Instead, fear the One who has authority over your soul, because that’s what’s going to matter when it’s all said and done. In the end, you and I will not be mainly concerned about how we crafted our sentences to change people’s minds. We’ll be concerned about whether or not we truly and reverently represented God and the Lord Jesus, who said:
For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.
Mark 8:36–38
With that in mind, let’s prepare to follow through with our discipleship, as Paul reminds us:
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.
2 Corinthians 10:3–5
Let’s begin with what I think is the most powerful argument for God’s existence. It’s also the one we will spend the most space on.
1. The moral argument points to the existence of God
It’s cute when your three-year-old is trying to convince you of the best flavor of ice cream. Vanilla is good. Strawberry is gooder. And chocolate is goodest. However, by the time he’s eight years old, the cuteness wears off, and it’s time to correct his language. Strawberry isn’t a good ice cream flavor. And Moose Tracks is the goodest, or best, we may say.
In our conversations, we talk about things that are good, both in a subjective way and an objective way. What’s the difference?
Subjective truth is grounded in the subject. It is, indeed, a fact that Moose Tracks is the best ice cream flavor…to me. But what’s your opinion? The point is, although this is a fact, that fact is rooted in the opinion-holder (the subject), and it very well can change over time. It’s not rooted in the ice cream (the object).
Objective truth is, of course, rooted in the object. Whatever is objectively true would be true, regardless of any person’s opinion. Imagine a scoop of pistachio ice cream. Some facts about it are: It’s round, it’s -9 degrees Celsius, it contains sugar, and it’s green. Whether or not you prefer these facts or pistachio ice cream at all will not change these facts, because the facts are rooted in the object, not the subject.
Here’s how all this relates to God’s existence. When it comes to morality, there are certain things that are good, and some things that are bad. And here, we can turn this into a two-fold defense.
First, if there is an objective moral law, then there is a moral lawgiver. What do you think about genocide? Additionally, do you think it’s wrong to torture innocent people to death just for fun? Or is that just a matter of opinion? Some people like ice cream, and others prefer to torture children. Is that how this works? Of course not. We all think it’s wrong. So even when an individual person (or nation) actually enjoys racism, genocide, and torture, all while calling it “good,” the rest of us appeal to an objective law outside of ourselves—a higher ethic, a higher law—that tells us it’s wrong. It’s not based on the local or national justice system. It’s founded on something even higher than that—something above human lawmakers.
There are things that are objectively right and wrong. For example, stealing, murder, rape, and torture are objectively wrong. Service and love, on the other hand, are objectively good. How can something be objectively right or wrong without the existence of God?
People who don’t believe in God can be morally good. But they can’t justify why something is right or wrong. They may appeal to culture or majority, but that only answers the question of how we come to the conclusion on morals. That’s not the question. The question is, if God does not exist, then why is anything right or wrong? It can’t be. In fact, the honest atheists admit this: If God does not exist, then objective moral law cannot exist. Yet, what would happen if you snatched that same person’s wallet? Would he shrug his shoulders and say there really was nothing wrong with that?
The naturalistic worldview claims that everything exists because of mindless, random chance. Therefore, since there is no governing mind, the atheist must agree with Dr. Richard Dawkins, who claims a naturalist worldview requires a belief in “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”1
However, every single time a person has been upset at another person’s behavior, or said something like, “You ought to have done this,” or “You should not have done that,” they have appealed to an objective moral standard—something higher than themselves. When humans act in heinous ways, our hearts cry out for justice, because something is not right. We believe a moral law has been broken; therefore, it should be dealt with.
Additionally, if we say someone is morally good or morally bad, then we, like the toddler, know that someone could be gooder or badder. If there, indeed, is better and worse, then there is also best and worst. The Christian worldview sees God as not just the moral lawgiver, but also the standard of what is morally best.
Of course, atheists and skeptics often attack God, claiming He is not good or something He commands is not good. Those are certainly worthwhile topics to explore. However, a person must first borrow from the theistic worldview in order to make this accusation. He has to assume an objective moral law to try to accuse God of breaking it. If God does not exist, then objective moral standards do not exist, and whatever anyone does cannot be right or wrong beyond personal opinion. But objective moral law does exist; therefore, God exists.
2. The cosmological argument points to the existence of God
This one is based on the law of causality. Everything that exists in or is affected by space, time, and matter had a beginning. Everything that is an effect had a cause. The laws of thermodynamics help us understand that the universe had a beginning—it’s not eternal.
For example, the first law of thermodynamics (also known as the law of conservation of energy) states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in a closed system; it can only be transferred or transformed. The amount of energy remains the same; however, the second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of usable energy is decreasing. Since the universe is winding down (it’s in an increasing state of entropy), at one point, it was wound up. It had a beginning.
The law of causality states that anything that had a beginning had a begin-er. Consider anything in the universe—your phone, a dog, your brain, the earth, the moon, the star called Betelgeuse—every one of them had a beginning. Where did it come from? Everything, including the universe, had a cause. Once we learn the cause of a particular object, it’s reasonable to then ask, “But where did that cause come from?” Eventually, we have to arrive back to an uncaused cause. This is what led Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, in 1927 to be the first to propose the Big Bang Theory. That’s right; atheists often present the Big Bang as their idea, but it originated with a theist, one who studied the works of Einstein and believed God was behind it! However, naturalism’s claim is, “In the beginning, nothing…” If nothing ever existed, nothing would still exist. And I’m talking about real nothing, not nothing plus something that skeptics often try to cheat with. That’s why it’s reasonable to believe the first sentence in the Bible:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1
God is the uncaused cause. He is the self-existing one. This is what He told Moses:
“I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.’”
Exodus 3:14
Jesus said:
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
Revelation 1:8
This raises a question in a thinker’s mind: “If all things had a cause, then who created God?” Simply put, the answer is in the question itself. God is not a thing. He does not exist in, nor is He affected by, space, time, and matter. If you are thinking about a god who had a beginning, then don’t worry; I am not trying to defend the existence of that god.
3. The aesthetic argument points to the existence of God
I love art in various forms. I’m guessing you do too to some degree. Perhaps you love music, movies, theater, or paintings. Sometimes when I hear a particularly complicated piece of metal music or witness a beautiful painting, it blows my mind. I ask, “How in the world do people come up with such ideas? How many hours of work or practice did it take to make something as unique and beautiful as this?”
Beauty, of course, is subjective. Only some people understand the work of Jackson Pollock. Not everyone loves my favorite genre of music. Even when I find someone who does, we disagree on who the best bands are. Yet the fact that beauty exists at all points to the existence of a personal, loving, relational Creator, because people have an innate appreciation for beauty, symmetry, and order in the world.
Many discoveries in the scientific field can be traced back to our innate ability to recognize and appreciate beauty. A child may become enthralled by the beauty of a snowflake, which drives her to eventually pursue a life in meteorology. A teenage walking home one night does the unthinkable—he keeps his phone in his pocket and is surprised by the beauty of the stars, which leads him down a lifelong pursuit of knowing the heavens. Upon learning about the Fibonacci Spiral, a student is thrust on a journey of beauty-chasing. For me, working in New Zealand for a decade inspired me to become a hobbyist landscape photographer.
But things don’t have to be aesthetically pleasing to be functional (I’m looking at you, Cybertruck 😏). But can you imagine a sunrise that’s not beautiful? If naturalism is true, then why beauty? The order, complexity, and beauty we find in creation are not random occurrences. They are deliberate creations of an intelligent and creative being—God.
Not only has the close observation of a snowflake, sunset, or flower pedal thrust people into the pursuit of knowledge, in many cases, it has also sent them on a journey towards their Creator.
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
Psalm 8:3–5
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?
For You have made him a little lower than the angels,
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.
To take this argument deeper, we need to consider the implications of the naturalistic worldview. If there is no mind behind our existence, and we are simply accidents of nature, then every thought, every emotion, and every experience you have had was nothing more than a chemical reaction. Not only have we never observed mere chemicals create artwork for the sake of art, but we have also never observed mere molecules appreciate beauty. Accidents neither take in nor create beauty. What do you think? Does beauty exist in the world? If so, you have reason to believe in God. You may think the random scatterings from an explosion are beautiful in a sense. But we all know that the chaotic scattering of shrapnel is not the same as what Van Gogh painted, the Beatles composed, or what a child doodles in a notebook. If that’s true on a small scale, then think of the implications of the magnificent view from atop a mountain, the lush spread of a forest, and the awesome expanse of the heavens. Paintings in a museum were created to be appreciated. So was the universe, which is the work of a creative God, not a cosmic accident.
4. The teleological argument points to the existence of God
This one closely relates to the aesthetic argument, but it is more objective. We all think some things are beautiful, but we don’t all agree on what those things are. However, who can deny the complexity of all creation? Simply put, the teleological argument states: Wherever we point our lenses, whether telescopes or microscopes, we find design. And design demands a designer.
Let’s see if the first part of this Bible verse makes sense to you:
For every house is built by someone.
Hebrews 3:4a
Sure, if you’re bent on disagreeing with that statement, you could twist the definition of house to mean anything. However, basically speaking, I imagine you agree with the statement, “every house is built by someone.” Additionally, you and I would also agree that every painting has a painter. Every book has an author. Every song has a composer. And so on.
Wouldn’t it also be the case that every design has a designer? Just scratch the surface of subjects like astronomy, the water cycle, or microbiology, and ask yourself, “Who designed this?” Where did the language of DNA come from? Who came up with the digestive system in not just humans, but in all kinds of living things? How in the world can the single cell in its irreducibly complex state have evolved without a guiding hand?”
The first part of that Bible verse says, “every house is built by someone.” The rest of it says:
but He who built all things is God.
Hebrews 3:4b
It would take a lot of blind faith to believe mindless accidents should be credited for the design we see in the world.
5. The historical argument points to the existence of God
Not only does this argument help us defend the existence of God, but it also helps us in understanding the authenticity of the Bible. Just because we can defend the existence of God, who’s to say that that God is the God of the Bible? This argument begins to deal with that question.
I’ve heard of Sunday school teachers trying to equip their kids with confidence by saying things like, “We know the Bible is the word of God, because it says so!” Or, “We know God exists, because the Bible says God exists.” Of course, this is circular reasoning. Do I believe what the Bible says about itself or the existence of God? Absolutely. However, my confidence is supported by further examination of the external and internal evidences of Scripture. You see, if the Bible can be proven to be from a divine source, then when it says that God exists, that claim becomes a substantial, tested claim built upon a solid foundation.
The historical argument concerns things like archaeological discoveries and extra-biblical written accounts. Do the discoveries we find in these fields confirm or deny what we see in Scripture? Without a doubt, they confirm what the Bible says. There are certain scientific facts about the world the Bible has been saying all along, yet their discoveries or explanations in the scientific fields are relatively new.
For years, critics of the Bible accused the writers of Scripture of inventing people and people groups, like king David, Pontius Pilate, and the Hittites. But when archaeological discoveries later proved the historicity of these people, the mouths of the critics were stopped.
The Bible is not a history book per se, but it, indeed, includes history—history begging to be fact-checked. Just look at the first three verses of the third chapter of the gospel of Luke and go down the rabbit hole of researching any of the times, places, or people Luke mentions by name. Not only are they right there in the Bible, but they are also concreted in history, just as Luke says. Luke, an educated doctor, wrote more words in the New Testament than anyone else, and most of his writings are just like this—laced with historical and geographical markers.
Since Luke all but demanded fact-checkers to handle his work, that’s exactly what Scottish archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay did. He was actually a skeptic of the authenticity of the Bible, and in the late 19th century, he set out on a journey to prove Luke and the rest of the Bible wrong. After much travel, digging, research, and comparison, he was no longer a skeptic. Here are some of the things he said about the books of Luke and Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament:
Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements trustworthy, but he is possessed of the true historic sense. […] In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.2
Further study […] showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement.3
I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there [in the book of Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment.4
If this is the case with the author Luke, this would also apply to the entire Bible by extension, since Luke himself believed in the authenticity of all Scripture. Likewise, other biblical authors and Luke’s contemporaries believed that he was not just recording a historical account, but also a document inspired by God. For example, Paul, who was inspired by God to write part of the Bible, referred to Luke’s writings as holy Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18. Likewise, Peter confirmed Paul’s writings to be God’s Scripture in 2 Peter 3.
Despite the fact that the Bible was penned in three different languages by about 40 different authors, who lived at different times and had different cultures, backgrounds, and social statuses, it tells one unified story and commentary on reality. Despite the fact that the Bible covers all of history from the beginning of time through the first century AD, and was written over a period of about 1600 years, there has not been a single scientific or historical discovery that clearly refutes anything written in Scripture.
When speaking of the historical argument for the existence of God, you must not neglect the most attested figure of all antiquity: Jesus of Nazareth. There is not a single credible historian, including those who doubt the existence of God, who denies the historical life and death of Jesus. Beyond that, there are also loads of historical evidence for the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus. We’ve covered that briefly in another study, and we might expand on that later, so we won’t get too deep here.
Suffice it to say that when one studies Christian apologetics, the study is not complete without a deep dive into the historical argument for the existence of God, the historicity of Jesus and his resurrection, and the authenticity of the Bible.
Bonus: The experience argument points to the existence of God
There are a couple of Christian hymns I have mixed feelings about. The song, “I Serve a Risen Savior,” written by Alfred Henry Ackley in 1933 says:
I serve a risen Savior
He’s in the world today.
I know that He is living,
Whatever men may say….
You ask me how I know He lives?
He lives within my heart.
More recently, Gary Leon Mabry wrote “Blue Skies and Rainbows,” which includes these lyrics:
I know that Jesus is well and alive today. He makes His home in my heart.
My family loves both of these songs. They assert the existence of God. But my mixed feelings come from where the assurance and presentation of evidence is coming from: emotion and experience. Experience is a powerful defense and motivation. Sometimes you know something to be true, not because you can fully articulate why or defend its truth to a skeptic, but because it has affected you so deeply that you can’t explain your life or state of mind without it! To a degree, that should be true for every Christian’s relationship with Jesus Christ.
Experience in many people’s lives points to the existence of God. How does an addict explain being released from twenty years of bondage after turning to Jesus? How can a wife explain the Christian transformation of her husband who used to abuse her? How can I defend the thankfulness and peace within my heart when I praise Jesus for His sacrifice? By a five-point essay on the scientific and historical arguments for the existence of God? That doesn’t feel like the right direction. Simply experience in the presence and promises of God Almighty feel like a sufficient explanation. Here’s the kicker: This really only convinces one person, though—the person with that experience.
John, when he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to instill confidence of salvation, he didn’t ask, “What does your heart tell you?” or “Have you not experienced Jesus living in your heart?” No, he said this:
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
1 John 5:13
God wants you to be confident in both His existence and His promises. That’s why He’s provided all this evidence. Nature points to the existence of God. God and history point to the work of Christ. Christ has given us the Scriptures to know both His will and His promises. And on that foundation, you can be sure what your hope is. With that line of reasoning, you can give a defense for the hope that is in you. You can be sure that your experience with God is real, so long as it’s based on what He has revealed in Scripture.
Yes, the experience argument points to the existence of God. But as powerful as your personal experience may be, it is still subjective. Senses can be fooled. Minds can hallucinate. Religious so-called “experiences” often contradict the Scriptures. That’s why I have a healthy skepticism of many so-called “experiences” I hear about today, and we shouldn’t blame our less religious friends when they’re skeptical too.
Yet, someone asks, “But what about Paul? Didn’t he—as well as others in the Bible—use their experiences to convince skeptics?” Yes. Again, we agree that experience is powerful and, indeed, can argue for the existence of God. There is a place in evangelism for your story. Yet Paul also shared further evidence beyond his story to convince his friends, acquaintances, and even strangers that Jesus is the Son of God. So we continue to recommend you, as a Christian, equip yourself with the study of Christian apologetics. We are building our resources on apologetics here. We also suggest you check out the good material by Apologetics Press.