Can You Really Prove God Exists in Six Steps?
Really? Six small and easy to understand steps? Steps not only easy to understand, but easy to explain to others. Here we go.
Your opposition, the Dark Party, wants you to believe their explanation of reality makes sense and is rational, and there is no need for a God. Simply stated, they believe that in the remote past a lightning bolt struck a nutrient rich primordial swamp and produced life. From that primitive form over billions of years and billions of upward mutations eventually produced all we now see and experience.
And this was the result of a force they call “natural selection”. And because they don’t want anyone saying “that is just your name for ‘God,’” they insist that this invisible force they call natural selection MUST be “blind, mindless and without purpose”!
On our side, we believe in God.
Who’s right? How can you know? Have you ever wondered what or how much you can know on your own, without some stranger in a white lab coat, authoritatively telling you what to believe? Should we wonder if he might have his own agenda? Wonder if he might view God as bad news? Wonder if that might bias him in his research?
Let’s look at six categories where we do not need outside help. Where we can “think on our own”.
ORDER (1) From the very largest to the smallest things we can see, there is order. Do you wonder why there is order? And why there are laws of nature producing order? And where the laws came from? Time to vote: Do you think it is more reasonable to believe: (A) from a blind, mindless and without purpose process? Or (B) From a Mind?
DIVERSITY (2) It is evident there is an enormous variety of things in the world. Do you think this is explained by” (A) a blind, mindless and without purpose process? OR (B) a Mind?
COMPLEXITY (3) And within this vast diversity we find a mind boggling complexity that, as we speak, multiplied millions of dollars are being spent to unlock its secrets. Do you think it is more reasonable to believe: (A) from a blind, mindless and without purpose process? Or (B) From a Mind?
UTILITY (4) Or usefulness and purpose. Many things are good for food. And clothing. And shelter. And medicine. And a host of other things to benefit us and improve our lives. What do you think the most likely explanation is? : (A) from a blind, mindless and without purpose process? Or (B) From a Mind?
INTER-RELATEDNESS (5) Ecology and Environmentalism show the harmonious relationships between various aspects of nature and that unwise stewardship threatens that precarious balance. Why? Do you think this is explained by” (A) a blind, mindless and without purpose process? OR (B) a Mind?
INTELLIGIBILITY (6) The really astonishing thing about all this is the incredible rationality of it all! Why should it all be so clearly understandable? Why should we be able to fathom the Order, Diversity, Complexity, Inter-relatedness and Utility of it? Let’s vote: Do you think it is more reasonable to believe: (A) from a blind, mindless and without purpose process? Or (B) From a Mind?
When you consider the six views, without any outside help, why would anyone want to see it as “blind and Mindless and Without Purpose”? Could it be that a Mind, a Person, might have a moral code? That He might expect his creatures to observe and obey that moral code?
That in our fallen state we might view any code of conduct as Bad News? And therefore, the existence of God as Bad News? Could that explain why some might view “science” as a liberating force that frees us from “ancient superstitions.?” Could that be why modern “science” has been championed as liberator from the unscientific restraints of the past? Could it be that, having “liberated” us from the shackles of “myth” they have not seen that with God out of the picture, we are no more “image bears of God, with great purpose, value, significance and meaning,” but mere accidents of natural processes, with no hope and no meaning?
The facts are on God’s side. The other side is used to saying “We have the facts. You have only faith”. Looks like they are wrong on that.