Milo

Some people argue that God is man-made; that is, the concept of God is merely a human fabrication handed down through the generations from those who didn’t know any better. They claim that the idea of a God or gods is simply the way human beings explain things that are too difficult to understand. Some state that belief in the supernatural ignores science and embraces superstition. So, is the idea of God a fantasy based on ignorance and concocted by our forefathers before science proved it to be false?

No, God is not man-made; rather, God made man. Even sceptics’ agree that there is a beginning for every created thing, including man. So, in order for man to have a beginning, there must be a “first cause” that existed before him. Evolutionists argue that the first cause was an impersonal force, a “big bang,” that started the universe. But even that explanation leaves a lot of unanswered questions. The logical response to this line of thinking is, “What caused the Big Bang? What or who put those forces into motion?” No reasonable answer, outside of the Bible, has been offered.

The Bible starts with the fact of God in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God . . . .” When we set aside prejudice, the Bible’s answer seems to be the most logical explanation for that first cause. In the beginning was God. He was not created and therefore needs no first cause. He has always been and always will be, apart from time and space (Psalm 90:2). He introduced Himself to Moses as I AM (Exodus 3:14). The meaning of His name signifies the eternal aspect of His nature. He always was and always will be the Eternal, Self-existent One (Revelation 1:8; 4:8).

A second consideration in the matter of whether or not God is man-made is the nature of God as He has revealed Himself through the pages of His Book. Many attributes of God are not those that human beings would necessarily think to include if they had invented Him. God’s character includes omniscience (Isaiah 46:9–10), omnipotence (2 Samuel 22:3; Psalm 18:2), patience (2 Peter 3:9), and consistency (Malachi 3:6). He is described as loving (Psalm 25:10), faithful (Psalm 31:23), and desirous of having a relationship with us (Jeremiah 29:13; James 4:8). But He is also perfectly just, and that justice requires payment for man’s high treason against his Creator (Zephaniah 3:5; Romans 6:23). Rather than hand down a list of requirements we must meet in order to gain His favor (as all other religions include), the God of the Bible took on human flesh, lived among us, and then allowed the people He created to torture Him to death while He forgave them (Luke 23:34; Philippians 2:5–11). That kind of selfless, sacrificial love is outside human experience and not present in any man-made religion. Grace is a concept exclusive to the God of the Bible.

Man-made gods are usually fashioned in the image of man. The gods of pagan cultures are fraught with flaws, inconsistencies, and human-like weaknesses. They are petty, selfish, cruel, and capricious; in short, they behave as man-made gods would behave, with the same sins and jealousies found in the human heart. In order for God to be man-made, His nature could only extend as far as man’s imagination. The God of the Bible far surpasses our understanding, yet He leaves hints, like a trail of spiritual breadcrumbs, for us to follow as we come to know Him better.

A third point to consider in the matter of whether or not God is man-made is the spiritual quality of the human soul. Every human being is unique and possesses an innate sense of “me.” We have an inborn understanding of the eternal (Ecclesiastes 3:11) and the sense that there is more beyond this world. Genesis 1:27 says that human beings were fashioned in the image of God; Colossians 1:16 says we were created for His purposes and His pleasure. We were created like Him in some ways, but He is not necessarily like us (Numbers 23:19). If God were merely a human fabrication, then many new questions arise: What makes human beings different from animals? Where do humans get the ideas of justice, benevolence, self-sacrifice, and love—abstract qualities not found in the animal kingdom? Such traits, found in every culture in the world, would never have survived the evolutionary process. However, when we see those traits showcased within the character of God Himself, we understand why we possess them.

Another consideration in the matter of whether or not God is man-made is the trustworthiness of the Bible. In order to contend that God does not exist, one must deal with the accuracy of the Book that tells about Him. Within the pages of the Bible, God has revealed Himself to us and given us hundreds of examples of His dealings with man through the centuries. Many who staunchly argue against the reality of God are also blindly ignorant about the Bible. They often claim it is “an ancient book written by a bunch of Jews.” Statements like that demonstrate the flawed foundation upon which they have constructed their arguments. The Bible is a collection of books written by over 40 different authors, over a 1,500-year time span, from three continents, and in three different languages. Yet it weaves together the pieces of a single story like a jigsaw puzzle fits together. The Bible is God’s story of His relentless pursuit to redeem His fallen creation.

Those who believe that the idea of God is man-made must also consider the manner in which the Bible portrays mankind, especially the Jews. If the Jews wrote the Bible to honour themselves, they failed miserably. Even the Lord Himself is clear that He chose the Israelites for His own reasons, not because they were deserving of special treatment (Deuteronomy 7:7). The failures of the Israelite nation are showcased again and again, right up to the crucifixion of the Son of God (Isaiah 65:2; Mark 15:9–15). Humanity is portrayed realistically, complete with sin, rebellion, and punishment. No group or individual is exalted. This raises the obvious question: if man fabricated the idea of God, what was his motive? Throughout the Old and New Testaments, the only hero is God. Rather than pave the way for personal gain, the truths of the Bible lead to self-sacrifice and surrender. Rather than instruct us how to earn God’s favour, the Bible warns us that no one is righteous (Romans 3:10, 23). Throughout history, those proclaiming the Bible’s truths have been martyred, stoned, and driven into hiding (1 Kings 19:10; Acts 7:58; 2 Corinthians 11:25).

If the idea of God is man-made, then there is no God, really, and the biggest question left unanswered relates to the complexity and apparent design of the universe. A single strand of DNA shows such intricate brilliance that random chance cannot come close to explaining it. Beyond that, the billions of perfectly synchronized atoms, molecules, systems, and universes shout to us about a Designer. Removing God from the realm of possible explanations gives rise to many unanswerable questions. No other explanation makes sense. Theories abound, but none can claim definitive scientific evidence for the startling harmonization of the universe’s complexity. Even Charles Darwin had to admit, “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree” (The Origin of Species, J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., London, 1971, p. 167).

We cannot simply remove the idea of God without replacing that idea with a more reasonable explanation. Questions do not disappear by eliminating the possibility of God. However, when we remove the prejudices and presuppositions that refuse to allow God to be considered, He remains the only logical explanation for this amazing world. Those who have decided that God cannot exist build their worldview around that idea and pretend that their fallible answers fill in the blanks. Denial of God is a strong, almost religious assumption that taints their so-called search for truth. However, those who truly desire to be open-minded and pursue truth wherever it may lead find that the evidence always leads to God.

Yes, the miracles of the Bible are to be taken literally, just as all Scripture is to be taken literally except those portions which are clearly intended to be symbolic. An example of symbolism is Psalm 17:8. We are not literally apples in God’s eye, nor does God literally have wings. But the miracles are not symbolic happenings; they are real events that actually happened. Each of the miracles in the Bible served a purpose and accomplished something that couldn’t be accomplished in any other way.

The earliest and most profound miracle of all was that of creation. God created everything ex nihilo—from nothing—and each succeeding miracle reinforced His incredible power. The book of Exodus is filled with miraculous events God used to bring about His will. The plagues on Egypt, beginning with the water of the Nile being turned to blood (Exodus 7:17) through the death of the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), were literal events that eventually caused Pharaoh to free the Israelites from bondage. If the plagues did not happen, why did Pharaoh let the people go? And if the plague of the death of the firstborn was not real, then God did not move through Egypt that night killing the firstborn, nor was there any necessity for the Israelites to sprinkle blood on their doorposts. Then the foreshadowing of the shed blood of Jesus on the cross is voided, which puts the crucifixion itself into doubt. Once we begin to doubt the reality of any miracle, we have to discount everything the Bible says came about as a result of the miracle, which puts all of Scripture in doubt.

Among the best-known Old Testament miracles is the parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14), during which Pharaoh and much of his army were drowned. If the miracle is symbolic, then how do we know what parts of the rest of the story are literal? Did the Israelites really leave Egypt? Did Pharaoh’s army really follow them, and, if so, how did the Israelites escape? Psalm 78 is one of the many passages where God reminds the Israelites of the miracles He performed in releasing them from the Egyptian bondage. God’s mighty miracles proved to the surrounding nations that the Lord is the one, true God. The pagan idols of wood and stone were capable of no such things. Only the God of miracles deserves worship.

In the New Testament, Jesus performed numerous miracles beginning with His first one at the wedding in Cana where He turned water into wine (John 2:1-10). One of His most spectacular miracles was the raising of Lazarus after he had been dead four days (John 11). All the miracles He did were to prove that He was indeed who He said He was—the Son of God. When He calmed the storm in Matthew 8, even the disciples were astonished: “The men were amazed and asked, ‘What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!’” (v. 27). If Jesus’ miracles were not real, then the gospel accounts of Jesus’ healings were just nice stories, and those people remained afflicted by diseases, calling into doubt His compassion (Matthew 14:14; 10:34; Mark 1:41). If He didn’t really feed thousands of people with a few loaves and fishes, those people remained hungry and Jesus’ words “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill” (John 6:26) have no meaning at all. But Jesus did heal, He did create food for thousands, He did turn water into wine, and He did raise Lazarus from the dead. John 2:23 tells us that many believed in Him because of the miracles.

All the miracles had a purpose—to prove that God is like no one else, that He has complete control of creation because He is its source, and to convince us that if He can do all these miraculous things, nothing in our lives is too hard for Him to handle. He wants us to trust Him and know that He can do miracles in our lives as well. If the miracles did not occur, then how can we trust anything the Bible tells us, especially when it tells us eternal life is available through Christ? When we begin to call any part of Scripture into doubt, all of God’s marvellous plan is suspect, and we open the door for the lies and distortions which are Satan’s plan to destroy our faith (1 Peter 5:8). The Bible is to be read and understood literally, including the miracles.

The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held their beliefs due to a ‘wish fulfilment’ factor that produced what Freud considered to be their unjustifiable position. The philosopher Frederick Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted. 

Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is yes it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak. 

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.” 

In considering this question there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all: 

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what several eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking then he must ‘be.’ In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So, the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When you study philosophy, you learn that there are things called ‘analytically false’ statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as ‘spontaneous generation’ —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” This being the case, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out. 

Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal ‘something’ exists.

Notice that you must go back to an eternal ‘something.’ The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door they can choose. But the question now is: where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900’s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So, in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated. 

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements: 

• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal ‘something’ exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented: “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God’s existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

But the next question we must tackle is this: If an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised: 

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (incredibly). 
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time). 
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality). 
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites. 
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being. 
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver). 
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7). 

One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes — ‘no god’ which is what ‘atheist’ means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure they have not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. Therefore, intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist. 

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other, he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice. 

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support their position, but they cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom they convince of their position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist and that such a place is an awfully long time to be wrong. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

So, does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish fulfilment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish fulfilment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13 NAS).

Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120) was considered the greatest historian of ancient Rome. He wrote of Nero who “punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus [Christ], the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.” 

Also, Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian, (A.D. 38-100+) wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities, saying that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, that Jesus was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected. 

The existence of Jesus Christ is recorded not only by Josephus and Tacitus, but also by ancient writers such as Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian. And from the Jewish Talmud, “we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God.”

Thus, historians both favourable and unfavourable regarding Jesus did write about him. Also, there were many historical writings about the early Christians.

Note: Many people also have an internal source of confirmation that Jesus existed, and still exists today.

The Bible says that God by His Spirit bears witness of Christ (John 15:26) and convinces the world concerning Him (John 16:8-11). So, it’s possible for someone without access to ancient historical writings or the Bible to believe that Jesus was real. A person can hear about Jesus from another source, and God can confirm it by His Spirit.

Answer: The technical term for the teaching that “God is dead” is the othanatology, a three-fold compound from the Greek: theos (god) + thanatos (death) + logia (word).

German poet and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is most famous for making the statement “God is dead” in the Nineteenth Century. Nietzsche, influenced by both Greek philosophy and the theory of evolution, wrote, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? . . . Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?” (Nietzsche, The Gay Science, §125).

Nietzsche’s purpose was to abolish “traditional” morality-Christianity, in particular-because, in his mind, it represented an attempt of self-serving religious leaders to control the weak and unthinking masses. Nietzsche believed that the “idea” of God was no longer necessary; in fact, God was irrelevant because man was evolving to a place where he could create a deeper and more satisfying “master morality” of his own.

Nietzsche’s “God is dead” philosophy has been used to advance the theories of existentialism, nihilism, and socialism. Radical theologians such as Thomas J. J. Altizer and Paul van Buren advocated the “God is dead” idea in the 1960s and 1970s.

The belief that God is dead and religion is irrelevant naturally leads to the following ideas:

1) If God is dead, there are no moral absolutes and no universal standard to which all men should conform.

2) If God is dead, there is no purpose or rational order in life.

3) If God is dead, any design seen in the universe is projected by men who are desperate to find meaning in life.

4) If God is dead, man is independent and totally free to create his own values.

5) If God is dead, the “real” world (as opposed to a heaven and hell) is man’s only concern.

The idea that “God is dead” is primarily a challenge to God’s authority over our lives. The notion that we can safely create our own rules was the lie that the serpent told Eve: “ye shall be as gods” (Genesis 3:5). Peter warns us that “there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1).

The “God is dead” argument is usually presented as a rational, empowering philosophy for artists and intellectuals. But scripture calls it foolish. “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Ironically, those who hold to the “God is dead” philosophy will discover the fatal error in the philosophy when they themselves are dead.