The real purpose of Open Your Eyes Ministries!

This is from the Book by NORMAN L. GEISLER and
RONALD M. BROOKS
The Need To Answer Every Man “You know, all this stuff about arguments for God’s existence and evidence for the Resurrection is interesting, and I know there is a place for it, but I’ve never needed it,” the pastor said as he looked in the rearview mirror to change lanes. The young man seated next to him remained silent for a moment, slightly shocked by this statement. The pastor continued, “The people I share the Gospel with just don’t ask those questions. They aren’t interested in whether truth is objective, or what ancient historians said about Jesus and the Resurrection, or solutions to the problem of evil. Most people just aren’t the kind that are philosophical about what they believe.” Finally the young man blurted out, “REALLY? That’s the only kind of questions I ever get!” He had come from a family that was Christian in name only and raised in a part of the country where religion was typically ridiculed. When he finally became a Christian in college, he had to work out a lot of difficult questions about his faith, and the unbelievers he had contact with had been thoroughly trained skeptics and agnostics. Through his whole life he had been keenly aware of the fact that the world is opposed to Christianity on intellectual grounds. Whenever he shared Christ with someone, he or she would inevitably raise some of the objections that he himself had once voiced. It seemed inconceivable, from his experience, that a pastor could minister without ever confronting the same kind of opposition. These two men were engaged in two different ministries. Both are valid and both are necessary. The pastor’s ministry focused on evangelism, but the other man was used by God in a separate and distinct ministry of pre-evangelism. Rather than first trying to lead people to Christ, he removed the obstacles to faith. Rather than just preaching the Word, he spent more time using reason to explain why objections are groundless. Instead of asking immediately for a spiritual commitment, he sought intellectual agreement on the issues that must be understood before the Gospel can be accepted. For example, if someone does not believe that God exists and that He can perform miracles, then it makes no sense to him to say that God raised Jesus from the dead, because that is a miracle—a big one! Not all people have questions of this kind, but when they do, they need answers before they can believe. Before we can share the Gospel, we sometimes have to smooth the road, remove the obstacles, and answer the questions that are keeping that person from accepting the Lord. The following chart clarifies the difference between evangelism and pre-evangelism. EVANGELISM PRE-EVANGELISM Done by all Christians Done by any Christian when needed Anytime/anyplace Only if an objection is raised Content is Gospel Content is all of Christian doctrine Based on revelation Based on reason States Gospel Clarify Christian teaching Goal is faith Goal is understanding So evangelism and pre-evangelism are different ministries. We know that the Bible tells us all to do evangelism, but what about pre-evangelism? Is that only for a few geniuses and specially gifted people, or should we all be involved? Do we really need to answer every man? There are three simple reasons why we need to be involved in pre-evangelism. UNBELIEVERS HAVE GOOD QUESTIONS The objections that unbelievers raise are usually not trivial. They often cut deep into the heart of the Christian faith and challenge its very foundations. If miracles are not possible, then why should we believe Christ was God? If God can’t control evil, is He really worthy of worship? Face it: if these objections can’t be answered, then we may as well believe in fairy tales. These are reasonable questions which deserve reasonable answers. WE HAVE GOOD ANSWERS Most skeptics have only heard the questions and believed that there were no answers. But we have some great answers to their questions. Christianity is true. That means that reality will always be on our side, and we just need to find the appropriate evidence to answer whatever question is asked. Fortunately, Christian thinkers have been answering these questions ever since Paul’s time, and we can draw on their knowledge to help us find the answers we want. GOD COMMANDS US TO GIVE THEM THE ANSWERS This is the most important reason of all. God told us to do it. In 1 Peter 3:15 we read, “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (niv). This verse says several important things. First, it says that we should be ready. We may never run across someone who asks the tough questions about our faith, but we should still be ready just in case. But being ready is not just a matter of having the right information available; it is also an attitude of readiness and eagerness to share with others the truth of what we believe. Second, we are to give a reason to those who ask the questions. It is not expected that everyone needs pre-evangelism, but when people do need it, we must be able and willing to give them an answer. Finally, giving these answers links doing pre-evangelism with making Christ Lord in our hearts. If He is really Lord, then we should be obedient to Him by “destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and … taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). In other words, we should be confronting issues in our own minds and in the expressed thoughts of others that are preventing them from knowing God. That is what pre-evangelism is all about. But this is not the only command to do pre-evangelism. There is also Jude 3, “Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” The people Jude was writing to had been assaulted by false teachers, and he needed to encourage them to protect the faith as it had been revealed through Christ. Jude makes a significant statement in verse 22 about our attitude as we do this when he says, “Have mercy on some, who are doubting.” There is also Titus 1:9, which makes a knowledge of Christian evidences a requirement for church leadership. An elder in the church should be “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.” Paul also gives us an indication of our attitude in this work in 2 Timothy 2:24–25. “And the Lord’s bondservant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth.” Anyone attempting to answer the questions of unbelievers will surely be wronged and be tempted to lose patience, but our ultimate goal is that they might come to a knowledge of the truth that Jesus has died for their sins. With so important a task at hand, we must not neglect obedience to this command. BUT WHAT ABOUT …? No doubt some of you have already thought of some reasons why we don’t need to be involved in pre-evangelism. Some even seem to be “biblical” reasons. There is no way that we can answer all those objections, but there are a few common ones that we should take a little time to address. “THE BIBLE SAYS, ‘DO NOT ANSWER A FOOL ACCORDING TO HIS FOLLY.’ ” We agree with Proverbs 26:4. We also agree with verse 5 which says, “Answer a fool as his folly deserves, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” Either the Book of Proverbs was put together by a madman, or the lesson of the passage is that we have to be careful in how and when we choose to confront false ideas. Don’t just argue with someone who will not listen to reason, or you will be just as foolish as he. But if you are able to show a person the error of his thinking in a way that he can understand, perhaps he will seek God’s wisdom rather than relying on his own. “LOGIC IS NOT VALID. IT CAN’T TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT GOD.” Look at this carefully. It says that logic doesn’t apply to these issues. But the statement is logical about these issues. It is logical because it claims to be true while its opposite is false. That claim, called the law of noncontradiction, is the basis of all logic. In order to say that logic doesn’t apply to God, you have to apply logic to God in that very statement. So logic is inescapable. You can’t deny logic with your words unless you affirm it with the very same words. It is undeniable. When a truth cannot be denied, it must be true. So this objection is false. Logic can tell us some things about God. For instance, since God is truth, He cannot lie (Heb. 6:18). Logic is a valid tool for discovering truth and can be used effectively with non-Christians who don’t believe that the Bible is a revelation from God. “IF PRE-EVANGELISM IS BIBLICAL, THEN WHY DON’T WE SEE IT DONE IN THE BIBLE?” That’s a good question. It may be that we aren’t looking for it, or we don’t recognize it when we see it. Moses did pre-evangelism. The first chapter of Genesis clearly confronts the mythical accounts of creation known in his day. Elijah did it. The whole scene at Mount Carmel with the prophets of Baal is designed to show the superiority of Yahweh. Jesus did it. His meeting with the woman at the well is a good example of confronting social, religious, and moral barriers to faith. Paul did it a lot. On at least four occasions (Acts 14:8–18; 17:16–34; 24:5–21; 26:1–29), we see Paul making his case for the faith to unbelievers from different religious backgrounds. In addition to this are the commands that we have already discussed and the many times the New Testament authors confront false teachings in their writings. There are many examples of pre-evangelism throughout the Scriptures as God has reached out to the world with the message of His love. Unbelievers have good questions. Christianity has good answers. And God has told us to give them the answers they are looking for. Not everyone has deep philosophical questions, and God never guarantees our success. Success is His business. But He has told us to be ready. That is what this book is all about. Questions About God The existence of a personal, moral God is fundamental to all that Christians believe. If there is no moral God, there is no moral being against whom we have sinned; therefore, salvation is not needed. Furthermore, if there is no God, there could be no acts of God (miracles), and the stories of Jesus can only be understood as fiction or myth. So the first question that must be addressed in pre-evangelism is, “Does God exist?” The second question is very closely related to the first: “If God exists, what kind of God is He?” Both of these questions will be answered in this chapter, and in chapter 3 we will look at questions about other gods. DOES GOD EXIST? ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD There have traditionally been four basic arguments used to prove God’s existence. They are called the cosmological, teleological, axiological, and ontological arguments. But since these are technical terms, let’s just call them the arguments from Creation (cosmos means creation), design (telos means purpose), moral law (axios means judgment), and being (ontos means being). Argument from Creation The basic idea of this argument is that, since there is a universe, it must have been caused by something beyond itself. It is based on the law of causality, which says that every limited thing is caused by something other than itself. There are two different forms of this argument, so we will show them to you separately. The first form says that the universe needed a cause at its beginning; the second form argues that it needs a cause right now to continue existing. History of the Argument from Creation Paul said that all men know about God “for God has made it evident to them. For since the Creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made” (Rom. 1:19–20). Plato is the first thinker known to have developed an argument based on causation. Aristotle followed. Muslim philosophers Al-Farabi and Avicenna also used this type of reasoning, as did the Jewish thinker Moses Maimonides. In Christian thought, Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Descartes, Leibniz, and others to the present day have found it valuable, making it the most widely noted argument for God’s existence. The universe was caused at the beginning This argument says that the universe is limited in that it had a beginning and that its beginning was caused by something beyond the universe. It can be stated this way: 1. The universe had a beginning. 2. Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else. 3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else, and this cause was God. In order to avoid this conclusion, some people say that the universe is eternal; it never had a beginning—it just always existed. Carl Sagan said, “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”1 But we have two ways to answer this objection. First, the scientific evidence strongly supports the idea that the universe had a beginning. The view usually held by those who claim that the universe is eternal, called the steady state theory, leads some to believe that the universe is constantly producing hydrogen atoms from nothing.2 It would be simpler to believe that God created the universe from nothing. Also, the consensus of scientists studying the origin of the universe is that it came into being in a sudden and cataclysmic way. This is called the Big Bang theory. The main evidence for the universe having a beginning is the second law of thermodynamics, which says the universe is running out of usable energy. But if it is running down, then it could not be eternal. What is winding down must have been wound up. Other evidence for the Big Bang is that we can still find the radiation from it and see the movement that it caused (see chap. 10 for details). Robert Jastrow, founder-director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, has said, “A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is. The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation.”3 But beyond the scientific evidence that shows the universe began, there is a philosophical reason to believe that the world had a starting point. This argument shows that time cannot go back into the past forever. You see it is impossible to pass through an infinite series of moments. You might be able to imagine passing through an infinite number of dimensionless points on a line by moving your finger from one end to the other, but time is not dimensionless or imaginary. It is real and each moment that passes uses up real time that we can’t go back to. It is more like moving your finger across an endless number of books in a library. You would never get to the last book. Even if you thought you had found the last book, there could always be one more added, then another and another.… You can never finish an infinite series of real things. If the past is infinite (which is another way of saying, “If the universe had always existed without a beginning”), then we could never have passed through time to get to today. If the past is an infinite series of moments, and right now is where that series stops, then we would have passed through an infinite series and that is impossible. If the world never had a beginning, then we could not have reached today. But we have reached today: so time must have begun at a particular point in the past, and today has come at a definite time since then. Therefore, the world is a finite event after all and it needs a cause for its beginning. Two Kinds of Infinite Series There are two kinds of infinite series, one is abstract and the other is concrete. An abstract infinite series is a mathematical infinite. For example, as any mathematician knows, there are an infinite number of points on a line between point A and point B, no matter how short (or long) the line may be. Let’s say the points are two bookends about three feet apart. Now, as we all know, while there are an infinite number of abstract mathematical points between the two bookends, nevertheless, we cannot get an infinite number of actual books between them, no matter how thin the pages are! Nor does it matter how many feet of distance we place between the bookends; we still cannot get an infinite number of books there. So while abstract, mathematical infinite series are possible, actual, concrete infinite series are not. Now that we have seen that the universe needs a cause of its beginning, let’s move on to the second form of the argument. This argument shows that the universe needs a cause of its existence right now. The universe needs a cause for its continuing existence Something is keeping us in existence right now so we don’t just disappear. Something has not only caused the world to come into being (Gen. 1:1), but is also continuing and conserving its existence in the present (Col. 1:17). The world needs both an originating cause and a conserving cause. In a sense, this question is the most basic question that can be asked, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” It can be put this way: 1. Finite, changing things exist. For example, me. I would have to exist to deny that I exist; so either way, I must really exist. 2. Every finite, changing thing must be caused by something else. If it is limited and it changes, then it cannot be something that exists independently. If it existed independently, or necessarily, then it would have always existed without any kind of change. 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of these causes. In other words, you can’t go on explaining how this finite thing causes this finite thing, which causes this other finite thing, and on and on, because that really just puts off the explanation indefinitely. It doesn’t explain anything. Besides, if we are talking about why finite things are existing right now, then no matter how many finite causes you line up, eventually you will have one that would be both causing its own existence and be an effect of that cause at the same moment. That is nonsense. So no infinite regress can explain why I am existing right now. 4. Therefore, there must be a first uncaused cause of every finite, changing thing that exists. This argument shows why there must be a present, conserving cause of the world, but it doesn’t tell us very much about what kind of God exists. How do we know that this is really the God of the Bible? Argument from design This argument, like others that we will mention briefly, reason from some specific aspect of creation to a Creator who put it there. It argues from design to an intelligent Designer. 1. All designs imply a designer. 2. There is great design in the universe. 3. Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe. The first premise we know from experience. Anytime we see a complex design, we know by previous experience that it came from the mind of a designer. Watches imply watchmakers; buildings imply architects; paintings imply artists; and coded messages imply an intelligent sender. It is always our expectation because we see it happening over and over. This is another way of stating the principle of causality. Also, the greater the design, the greater the designer. Beavers make log dams, but they have never constructed anything like Hoover Dam. Likewise, a thousand monkeys sitting at typewriters would never write Hamlet. But Shakespeare did it on the first try. The more complex the design, the greater the intelligence required to produce it. History of the Argument from Design “For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well” (Ps. 139:13–14). Responding to the birth of the Enlightenment and the scientific method, William Paley (1743–1805) insisted that if someone found a watch in an empty field, he would rightly conclude that there had been a watchmaker because of the obvious design. The same must be said of the design found in nature. The skeptic David Hume even stated the argument in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, as have several others. However, there have been at least as many objectors to it as there have been proponents of it. The classic exponent was William Paley, and the most noted opponent was David Hume. We ought to mention here that there is a difference between simple patterns and complex design. Snowflakes or quartz crystals have simple patterns repeated over and over, but have completely natural causes. On the other hand, we don’t find sentences written in stone unless some intelligent being wrote them. That doesn’t happen naturally. The difference is that snowflakes and crystals have a simple repeated pattern. But language communicates complex information, not just the same thing over and over. Complex information occurs when the natural elements are given boundary conditions. So when a rockhound sees small round rocks in a stream, it doesn’t surprise him because natural erosion rounds them that way. But when he finds an arrowhead he realizes that some intelligent being has deliberately altered the natural form of the rock. He sees complexity here that cannot be explained by natural forces. Now the design that we are talking about in this argument is complex design, not simple patterns; the more complex that design is, the greater the intelligence required to produce it. That’s where the next premise comes in. The design we see in the universe is complex. The universe is a very intricate system of forces that work together for the mutual benefit of the whole. Life is a very complex development. A single DNA molecule, the building block of all life, carries the same amount of information as one volume of an encyclopedia. No one seeing an encyclopedia lying in the forest would hesitate to think that it had an intelligent cause; so when we find a living creature composed of millions of DNA-based cells, we ought to assume that it likewise has an intelligent cause. Even clearer is the fact that some of these living creatures are intelligent themselves. Even Carl Sagan admits: The information content of the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among neurons—about a hundred trillion, 1014 bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world’s largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty million books is inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a very small space.… The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy, the circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans.4 Some have objected to this argument on the basis of chance. They claim that when the dice are rolled any combination could happen. However, this is not very convincing for several reasons. First, the design argument is not really an argument from chance but from design, which we know from repeated observation to have an intelligent cause. Second, science is based on repeated observation, not on chance. So this objection to the design argument is not scientific. Finally, even if it were a chance (probability) argument, the chances are a lot higher that there is a designer. One scientist figured the odds for a one-cell animal to emerge by pure chance at 1 in 1040000. The odds for an infinitely more complex human being to emerge by chance are too high to calculate! The only reasonable conclusion is that there is a great Designer behind the design in the world. Argument from moral law Similar arguments, based on the moral order of the universe rather than the physical order, can be offered. These argue that the cause of the universe must be moral, in addition to being powerful and intelligent. 1. All men are conscious of an objective moral law. 2. Moral laws imply a moral Lawgiver. 3. Therefore, there must be a supreme moral Lawgiver. History of the Moral Argument This argument did not gain prominence until the early nineteenth century after the writings of Immanuel Kant. Kant insisted that there was no way to have absolute knowledge about God and he rejected all of the traditional arguments for God’s existence. He did, however, approve of the moral approach, not as a proof for God’s existence, but as a way to show that God is a necessary postulate for moral living. In other words, we can’t know that God exists, but we must act like He exists to make sense of morality. Later thinkers have refined the argument to show that there is a rational basis for God’s existence to be found in morality. There have also been attempted disproofs of God’s existence on moral grounds based on ideas coming from Pierre Bayle and Albert Camus. In a sense, this argument also follows the principle of causality. But moral laws are different from the natural laws that we have dealt with before. Moral laws don’t describe what is; they prescribe what ought to be. They are not simply a description of the way men behave, and are not known by observing what men do. If they were, our idea of morality would surely be different. Instead, they tell us what men ought to do, whether they are doing it or not. Thus, any moral “ought” comes from beyond the natural universe. You can’t explain it by anything that happens in the universe and it can’t be reduced to the things men do in the universe. It transcends the natural order and requires a transcendent cause. Same, Different, or Similar? How much like God are we? How much can an effect tell us about its cause? Some have said that the effect must be exactly the same as its cause. Qualities such as existence or goodness in the effect are the same as those qualities in its cause. If that is true, then we should all be pantheists, because we are all God, eternal and divine. In reaction, some have said that we are entirely different from God—there is no similarity between what He is and what we are. But that would mean that we have no positive knowledge about God. We could only say that God is “not this” and “not that,” but we could never say what He is. The middle road is to say that we are similar to God—the same, but in a different way. Existence, goodness, love, all mean the same thing for both us and for God. We have them in a limited way, and He is unlimited. So we can say what God is, but in some things, we must also say that He is not limited as we are—“eternal,” “unchanging,” “nonspatial,” etc. Now some might say that this moral law is not really objective; it is nothing but a subjective judgment that comes from social conventions. However, this view fails to account for the fact that all men hold the same things to be wrong (like murder, rape, theft, and lying). Also, their criticism sounds very much like a subjective judgment, because they are saying that our value judgments are wrong. Now if there is no objective moral law, then there can be no right or wrong value judgments. If our views of morality are subjective, then so are theirs. But if they claim to be making an objective statement about moral law, then they are implying that there is a moral law in the very act of trying to deny it. They are caught both ways. Even their “nothing but” statement requires “more than” knowledge which shows that they secretly hold to some absolute standard which is beyond subjective judgments. Finally, we find that even those who say that there is no moral order expect to be treated with fairness, courtesy, and dignity. If one of them raised this objection and we replied with, “Oh, shut up. Who cares what you think?” we might find that he does believe there are some moral “oughts.” Everyone expects others to follow some moral codes, even those who try to deny them. But moral law is an undeniable fact. Argument from being A fourth argument attempts to prove that God must exist by definition. It says that once we get an idea of what God is, that idea necessarily involves existence. There are several forms of this argument, but let’s just talk about the idea of God as a perfect Being. 1. Whatever perfection can be attributed to the most perfect Being possible (conceivable) must be attributed to it (otherwise it would not be the most perfect being possible). 2. Necessary existence is a perfection which can be attributed to the most perfect Being. 3. Therefore, necessary existence must be attributed to the most perfect Being. History of the Argument from Being When God revealed His name to Moses, He said, “I AM THAT I AM,” making it clear that existence is His chief attribute (Ex. 3:14, kjv). The eleventh-century monk Anselm of Canterbury used this idea to formulate a proof for God’s existence from the very idea of God, without having to look at the evidence in Creation. Anselm referred to it as a “proof from prayer” because he thought of it while meditating on the idea of a perfect Being; hence, the name of the treatise where it is found is the Monologion, meaning a one-way prayer. In another of his writings, the Proslogion, he dialogues with God about nature and develops an argument from Creation also. In modern philosophy, the argument from being is found in the writings of Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, and Hartshorne. To answer the first question, necessary existence means that something exists and cannot not exist. When we say this of God, it means that it is impossible for Him not to exist. This is the most perfect kind of existence because it can’t go away. Now this argument succeeds in showing that our idea of God must include necessary existence; but it fails to show that God actually exists. It shows that we must think of God as existing necessarily; but it does not prove that He must necessarily exist. This is an equivocation that has confused many people, so don’t feel stupid for having trouble with it. The problem is that it only talks about the way we think of God, not whether or not He really exists. It might be restated this way: 1. If God exists, we conceive of Him as a necessary Being. 2. By definition, a necessary Being must exist and cannot not exist. 3. Therefore, if God exists, then He must exist and cannot not exist. All Roads Lead to a Cause We have seen that all of the traditional arguments ultimately rest on the idea of causality. The argument from being needs the confirmation that something exists in which perfection and being is found. The argument from design implies that the design was caused. Likewise, morality, justice, and truth as principles of an argument all assume that there is some cause for these things. This leads us back to the argument from Creation as the basic argument which proves God’s existence, for as one student said, it is the “causemological” argument. It is like saying: if there are triangles, then they must have three sides. Of course, there may not be any triangles. You see, the argument never really gets past that initial “if.” It never gets around to proving the big question that it claims to answer. The only way to make it prove that God exists is to smuggle in the argument from Creation. It can be useful, though, because it shows that, if there is a God, He exists in a necessary way. That makes this idea of God different from some other ways to conceive of Him, as we will see later. Now for the $64,000 Question: If all these arguments have some validity but rely on the principle of causality, what is the best way to prove that God exists? If you answer, “The argument from Creation,” you are on the right track. But what if we can combine all of these arguments into a cohesive whole that proves what kind of being God is as well as His existence? That is what we will do in the following pages. WHAT KIND OF GOD EXISTS? If we want to show that God exists and that He is the God of the Bible, then we need to show that all of the things in the arguments mentioned are true. Each one contributes something to our knowledge of God and, taken together, they form a picture that can only fit the one true God. GOD IS POWERFUL The argument from Creation proves not only that God exists, but that He has power. Only a God with incredible power could create and sustain the whole universe. His energy would have to be greater than all the energy that was ever available in the whole Creation, for He not only caused all things, He holds them together and keeps them in existence and still sustains His own existence. That is more power than we can imagine. GOD IS INTELLIGENT Even Carl Sagan admits that the design of the universe is far beyond anything that man could devise. The argument from design shows us that whatever caused the universe not only had great power, but also great intelligence. God knows things—things that we cannot understand. This opens the possibility for God to know all sorts of other things, but more on that later. For now it is enough to say that God at least knows everything there is to know about the way we think, because He designed our brains. GOD IS MORAL The existence of a moral law in the mind of a moral Lawgiver shows us that God is a moral Being. He is neither beyond morality (like some kings think they are) nor beneath morality (like a rock). He is by nature moral. This means that part of what He knows is the difference between right and wrong. But we can take this one step further: He is not only moral; He is good. We know that part of what He created was people, and persons are good, in and of themselves. The fact that persons always expect to be treated better than things shows that. Even someone denying that people have value at least expects you to value his opinion as a person. But whatever creates good things must be good itself (a cause can’t give what it hasn’t got). So God is not only moral, He is good. GOD IS NECESSARY The argument from the idea of a necessary being may not prove that God exists, but it sure does tell us a lot about God once we know that He does exist (by the argument from Creation). We said already that necessary existence means that He cannot not exist—so He had no beginning and no end. But it also means that He cannot “come to be” in any other way. He must be as He is necessarily. He can’t become something new. That removes all change from His being—He is unchanging. And without change, time is not possible, because time is just a way to measure change—so He is eternal (e = no, tern = time; no-time). In fact, since a necessary being cannot not be, He can have no limits. A limitation means “to not be” in some sense, and that is impossible—so He is infinite. Also, He can’t be limited to categories like “here and there,” because unlimited being must be in all places at all times—therefore, He is omnipresent. All of these are attributes that follow just from knowing that He is necessary. God Cannot Change Change can only be essential, like changing from a dog to a horse, or accidental, like changing from a brunette to a blond. Essential changes change what a thing is; accidental ones only change little details. God can’t change His essence because that would mean not existing (remember: His essence is to exist). He can’t change any details because everything He’s got is wrapped up in His existence. Therefore, God is changeless. But His necessity also tells us something about His other attributes. Because of His necessity, He can only have whatever He has in a necessary way. That means, as we have seen, without beginning, without change, and without limitation. So while the argument from Creation tells us that He has power, the argument from the idea of a perfect being shows that it is perfect, unlimited power. The argument from design tells us that He is intelligent, but His necessity informs us that His knowledge is uncreated, unchanging, and infinite. The moral order suggests that He is good, but the perfection of His being means that He must be all good in a perfect and unlimited way. Anything that God is He must be in accordance with His nature; so His power, knowledge, and goodness are as perfect as His being. GOD IS UNIQUE We have said that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, infinite, uncreated, unchanging, eternal, and omnipresent. But how many beings like that can there be? He is a class of one by definition. If there were two unlimited beings, how could you tell them apart? They have no limits to define where one stops and the other begins—but neither one can “stop” or “begin” anyway. There can only be one infinite Being and no other. GOD IS LORD OVER CREATION The argument from Creation does more than prove that God exists; it also proves that He is the Creator. There is no way to distinguish two infinite creatures, but God is distinct from the finite world that He has made. The whole point of the argument from Creation is that the universe cannot explain its own existence—that it is not God. The same point can be made if we consider an individual. I exist; but I have no way to account for my existence in myself. It is painfully clear that my being is not necessary—I could cease to exist at any moment and the world would go right on without me. Only by recognizing an infinite Being, a necessary cause for my being—One who gives me being—can I make sense of my existence. And as the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator, He has control over the creation. Not only does God exist, but His creation also exists distinct from Him. GOD IS YAHWEH Is this the God of the Bible? At the burning bush, God told Moses His name and said, “I AM WHO I AM” (Ex. 3:14). This signifies that the central characteristic of the God of the Bible is existence. His very nature is existence. Popeye can say, “I am what I am.” But only God can say, “I AM WHO I AM.” He is the “I AM.” The Bible also calls God eternal (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:2), unchanging (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 6:18), infinite (1 Kings 8:27; Isa. 66:1), all-good (Ps. 86:5; Luke 18:19), and all-powerful (Heb. 1:3; Matt. 19:26). Since these beings are the same in all these respects, and there can’t be two infinite beings, then this God that the arguments point us to is the God of the Bible.