 |
|
The Case Against Atheism
|
This is a transcript of the lecture I presented at the University of North Florida in 1999.
Definition of Atheism
Problem of Evil Objective Ethical Values Geivett's Argument Laws of Logic Uniformity of Nature Cosmological Argument The Resurrection
OPENING REMARKS Good evening. Let me begin by expressing my most sincere
appreciation to Campus Crusade for Christ for inviting me to present this very
important lecture tonight, and I am honored that you’ve decided to take some
time off your schedule in order to participate in tonight’s event. I look forward with high spirits to a
friendly interaction with you after the lecture.
DEFINITION OF ATHEISM Before I commence my case
against atheism, I think it is critical that we deal with the issue of
definitions. What is it that we mean
when we use the word “atheism”? There
are atheists who believe that a good case can be made for the non-existence of
God. But also there are those who do not
hold any belief in God simply because they see no good reasons for thinking
that God exists. My definition of
atheism tonight will capture both of these versions of the atheistic world view. I will take atheism to be the view first,
that there are good reasons to think that God does not exist and second, that
there are no good reasons to think that God exists. With that definition in mind, allow me then
to commence my case against atheism. My
case against atheism tonight will consist of two basic contentions. First of all, that there are no good reasons
to think that God does not exists.
Secondly, that there are good reasons to think that God exists.
PROBLEM OF EVIL Let’s look now at that first
basic contention. Are there good reasons
to think that God does not exist?
Throughout my studies, I’ve encountered numerous arguments for the
non-existence of God, but because of time constraints, I will only be able to
deal with what I think is the most serious objection to belief in God, namely
the problem of evil. At the end of this
lecture, you will have the opportunity to bring out other arguments aside from
the problem of evil that may be used against God’s existence. But for now, allow me to deal with this
argument from evil. Have
you ever wondered, if there is an all-loving and all-powerful God, why is there
evil in the world? Doesn’t God care
about the welfare of His creation? Isn’t
God powerful enough to prohibit the occurrence of evil in the world? Throughout the history of philosophy and
theology, the problem of evil of evil has served to confound even the most
brilliant of minds. Tonight,
although I do not consider myself one of those having brilliant minds, I will,
nevertheless, not hesitate to present two points which I think will solve the problem
of evil. Point #1. God has bestowed free will upon human
beings. Authentic free will requires
that man be given the choice between accepting God or rejecting God. When man freely chooses to rebel against the
will of God, evil is actualized. Given
this authentic freedom of the will, God cannot force His own will upon humans,
since it is logically impossible to make
someone freely do something. So the
actualization of moral evil comes not from God, but from the free choices
people make everyday of their lives. Point # 2. God has morally sufficient reasons for
allowing evil in the world. Now this
point, I think, is the fatal blow to the problem of evil. When something evil takes place, say a child
dying of cancer, we as finite beings may not see any sense in such an
event. But, you see, from the
perspective of an all-knowing and all-good God, such an event may not be
nonsensical. In the Christian view,
there is a definite purpose to our existence.
Therefore, the occurrence of pain and suffering may actually achieve
something very purposeful, for example, a greater knowledge of God or a greater
dependence upon God’s mercy. These
constitute plausible reasons for why an all-loving and all-powerful God would
allow evil. Now it could be objected
that we do not know whether or not God does have such morally sufficient
reasons for allowing evil. But notice
now that the burden here does not belong to the believer. The atheist, who is the one trying to make a
case against God, it is he who bears the burden of having to show that God
cannot possibly have any morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil in the
world. If the atheist cannot show this,
then the entire logical problem from evil is defeated. Unfortunately for the atheist, such an
attempt will only be limited to pure speculation. Peter Van Inwagen, a
philosopher from So the problem of evil is
really not a problem for the person who believes in the Christian God. Well then, to whom is the problem of evil a
problem? In my second basic contention,
I will argue that evil is actually a problem for the atheist. And afterwards, I will argue that evil is
actually strong evidence for the existence of God. So let’s move on then to
that second basic contention. Are there
good reasons to think that God does in fact exist? Tonight, I will present six reasons for why I
think theism is much more reasonable than atheism.
OBJECTIVE ETHICAL VALUES #1. The evidence points to God as the source of objective
ethical values. Objective ethical
values are standards that tell us what is right and what is wrong independent
of human judgments and preferences. For,
example, I’m confident that we can all agree that actions such as murder, rape,
torture, and child molestation are moral abominations whether or not these
actions add happiness to the life of the perpetrator. Now,
in the world view of Christian theism, Objective ethical values are the
reflection of the perfect, unchanging nature of God. God’s perfect, unchanging nature is the
definition of good, and anything which deviates from God’s nature is evil, and
must therefore be avoided. Therefore, as
a Christian, I have every reason to believe that I have the obligation to do
that which is right and to avoid that which is evil. Now, I would like for you
assume the contrary. Assume that atheism
is true. If there is no God, is it
possible for objective ethical values to exist?
I would say no. In a Godless
universe, right and wrong are solely determined by human beings. But notice that this immediately leads to
moral subjectivism. What’s right for you
may not be right for someone else. You
have a group here that says that the annihilation of the Jewish people is evil and
you have a group here that says that the annihilation of the Jewish people is
actually a wonderful thing. Now without
God, which group is right? I don’t think
anyone here tonight would be bold enough to say that what the Nazis did to the
Jewish people in World War II was just a morally neutral act. I don't think so. What the Nazis did to the Jews in World War
II was really wrong – it was a moral abomination. However, as rational individuals, let us ask
ourselves, what is it about the holocaust that drives our conscience to label
it as evil? We know there is right and
wrong in this world and that the holocaust was really wrong. But why
was it wrong? The problem with the atheistic world view is
that it cannot give us an objective basis for right and wrong. In a Godless universe, we must ask, why is it
wrong for one bag of biological stuff to order the destruction of 6 million
other bags of biological stuff? Why
should we not murder or rape one another?
Because that would lead to a decrease of happiness? But then why should we strive for
happiness? Is the attainment of happiness
the right thing to do? How do you
know? And besides, if there is no God,
then what's so special about human beings?
In the atheistic view, we are just the accidental collocation of atoms
which have evolved from an ancient pre-biotic soup in a minuscule speck of dust
called the planet earth floating in a mindless and chaotic universe. The
atheist simply cannot account for the existence of objective ethical values
which we all hold dear in our hearts.
And here, even the late atheist philosopher John Mackie of Now
I want to make it as clear as I can, that I'm not claiming that atheists cannot
live moral lives. I think that they
certainly can. Both atheists and theists
alike know that it is better to love than to eat your neighbor! But the question is not whether people can be
moral without believing in God. The
question is how do you account for the existence of those objective ethical
values that we all know to be true, even if atheists can conform to those
values? That is the question which the
atheistic world view cannot answer, and I think that the Christian response is
eminently more plausible. The
argument can be summarized as follows:
GEIVETT'S ARGUMENT #2. The existence of evil points
to the existence of a Designer. I think
we can all agree that evil is a departure from the way things ought to be. However, there is no such thing as a
departure from the way things ought to be unless there is a way things ought to
be. And there cannot be a way things
ought to be unless there is a design plan that says, “Here’s how things ought
to be.” But then, there can’t be a
design plan that says, “Here’s how things ought to be,” unless there is a
Designer who put forth that design plan.
The point of this argument is that evil actually points to a Designer of
the universe. Deny the existence of this
Designer, and you're left without a prescriptive course of nature by which you
can point to and say, "Here's how things ought to be." Without that prescriptive course of nature,
it would make no sense to talk about evil because there would be no such thing
as a departure from the way things ought to be. So, you see, even though evil at first might superficially call God’s
existence into question, the very fact that evil exists is powerful evidence
not only for a God who is the source of objective ethical values, but also for
a God who is the Designer of our universe.
LAWS OF LOGIC #3. The evidence points to God as the
precondition of the laws of logic. The laws
of logic are standards of reason which are absolutely necessary for rational
thinking to be possible. Without the laws
of logic, it would be impossible to engage in any rational endeavor, such as
tonight’s event. These laws of thought
are universal, invariant, and immaterial entities. Universal because they hold true anytime and
anyplace in the world. Invariant because
they never change. And immaterial because
they exist beyond the realm of space and time.
In other words, the laws of logic do not extend in space; they do not
have a location in space; nor do they have a duration in time. An example of a law of
logic is the Law of Non-Contradiction.
The Law of Non-Contradiction tells us that nothing can be and not be at
the same time and in the same respect.
It’s a very simple law, but without it, reasoning would be impossible. Without the Law of Non-Contradiction,
contradictory propositions would have equal values. If you have a person here asserting that
Ronald Reagan was the Now it will not suffice
to say that the laws of logic are simply invented by human beings. If the laws of logic are the inventions of
humans, then contradictory systems would have to be deemed equally valid. A group of people, who do not want to be
bound by the Law of Non-Contradiction in their reasoning, may not be labeled as
irrational, since all they’re doing is rejecting a rule invented by other
people. For example, a thief might say,
"That car does not belong to me.
But that car does belong to me!
So therefore, I think I'll break in and drive it away!" Surely, no one would accept such
non-sense. But, you see, this is
non-sense only because of the universality of the Law of Non-Contradiction. So, as rational human
beings, let us ask how universal, invariant, immaterial entities such as the Law
of Non-Contradiction and other laws of logic can be accounted for. In
the world view of Christian theism, we can account for these universal,
invariant, immaterial entities. The laws
of logic are the reflection of the thinking of an unchanging and omniscient
God. Therefore, in the Christian world
view, the laws of logic are perfectly accounted for. But some of you might
hastily conclude that this is just utter non-sense. Well, that’s fine. But I challenge you to examine the contrary
and see the philosophical price you have to pay if you deny God’s
existence. Assume for a moment that
atheism is true. Can atheism account for
the laws of logic? Again, I would say
no. The existence of universal,
invariant, immaterial entities does not comport with a world view of a godless
chance universe which is nothing more than matter and energy in motion. Think about it. A reality that is nothing more than matter
and energy in motion is particular, variant, and concrete. But how in the world can universal,
invariant, immaterial entities exist in a reality that is only particular,
variant, and concrete? If it is the case
that time and chance acting on matter and energy is all we’ve got as the world
view of atheism indicates, then there’s no way to make sense of the laws of
logic. Why? Because the characteristics of the laws of
logic and the characteristics of the material universe stand over and against
each other in an unreconcilable fashion.
Thus, if atheism was true, there cannot be universal, invariant,
immaterial entities such as the laws of logic.
If atheism was true, proper reasoning would be impossible. So the person who engages in rational
interchange and yet professes to be an atheist is again a living contradiction. The
argument can be summarized as follows:
UNIFORMITY OF NATURE #4. The evidence points to God sovereignly
imposing uniformity upon nature. For
science to be possible, we must be able to know that nature is uniform. To know that nature is uniform is to know
that future events will be similar to past events. If we cannot know that future events will be
similar to past events, the validity of science would be totally
undermined. We would not be able to make
sense of physics, chemistry, biology, and all other fields of scholarship which
all rely critically on the knowledge that nature is uniform. For example, if we do not
know that nature is uniform, we cannot use the equation E=mc2 to
calculate the conversion of mass into energy.
Without the knowledge that future events will be similar to past events,
we would have no basis for believing that E=mc2 will hold true for
the next 5 minutes. Now in the world view of
Christian theism, God created the universe, and this universe reflects the
uniformity which God imposes upon it through His governing. Therefore, as I Christian, I have every
reason to believe that future events will be similar to past events. Now, once again, I would
like for you to assume the contrary.
Assume that atheism is true. If
it is the case that there is no God which imposes uniformity to the universe,
what then is our basis for believing that future events will be similar to past
events? In the absence of God, all we
would have is time and chance acting on matter and energy. But, you see, time and chance acting on
matter and energy cannot tell you how future events will behave. Hence, if God does not exist, we would have
no reason for believing that E will equal mc2 in the next 5
minutes. Now at first glance this
might seem incredible because you may be thinking that you know E will equal mc2
in the next 5 minutes because it has always been that way in the past. But we have to keep in mind here that what
has happened in the past has nothing to do with what will happen in the future
unless you already assume that future events will be similar to past events. But, of course, you can’t assume that because
that’s the very thing you have to prove.
And I suggest that the only way to justify the claim to know that future
events will be similar to past events is within the theistic world view. Deny the existence of the God, who imposes
uniformity upon nature, and you're left unable to make sense of any scientific
endeavor. So the person who denies
God’s existence is left without any rational foundation for believing in the uniformity
of nature, that future events will be similar to past events. Therefore, if atheism was true, the validity
of the scientific endeavor would be totally undermined. So I conclude then that the person who tries
to understand nature by doing science and yet professes to be an atheist is
again a living contradiction. The argument can be
summarized as follows:
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT #5. The evidence points to God as the Creator of
the universe. Many atheists in the
history of philosophy have simply assumed that the universe is just eternal, meaning it never had a beginning. If the universe never had a beginning, then
there’s no need for a Beginner. Thus, we
can avoid the conclusion that God created the universe. But I’d like to point out
that this is not a reasonable assumption.
If the universe never began to exist, then that means that the number of
past events in the history of the universe is infinite. If the number of past events in the history
of the universe is infinite, that would mean that it has taken an infinite
amount of time or forever to reach the present.
Now if it takes forever to reach the present, the present can never be reached! But since the present has obviously been
reached, it cannot, therefore, be the case that the universe is infinitely
old. The universe must have begun to
exist. Now if this philosophical argument does not persuade you, let me
present to you the scientific basis for the origin of the universe. The
conclusion that the universe began to exist has been verified by remarkable
discoveries in modern physics and astronomy.
The field equations of Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity
tell us that the universe is both expanding and decelerating. Now the only phenomenon that can account for
simultaneous expansion and deceleration is an initial explosion. This suggests that the universe began as a
massive explosion in the finite past. In addition to this, we
have the String Theories that tell us that not only were all the matter and
energy created at that initial explosion, but also that space and time came
into existence at that event. Finally, the discovery of
the Cosmic Background Radiation tells us that the universe began as a massive
fireball which is presently cooling off. This proposition that the
matter, energy, space, and time that make up the universe began to exist in a
massive explosion is what is known as the Big Bang Theory. Cambridge Astronomer Fred Hoyle, who is an
ardent opponent of Christianity, points out that the Big Bang Theory requires
the creation of the universe from nothing. This is because as you go back in time you
reach a point at which the universe was “shrunk down to nothing at all.” Therefore, the Big Bang Theory requires that
the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing. Now
this poses a major problem for the atheist.
If the universe began to exist out of nothing, we must ask, “What caused
the universe to begin to exist?” Think
about it. Out of nothing, nothing
comes. Something cannot come out of
nothing. So there must have been a Cause
which brought the universe into being. The argument, thus far,
can be summarized as follows:
Now, from this argument,
we can actually discover some of the attributes of the Cause of the
universe. First of all, since this Cause
is the Originator of matter and space, this Cause is immaterial in nature. Moreover, since this Cause is the Originator
of time, it also has a timeless nature outside of creation and is therefore,
eternal. And more importantly, this
immaterial and eternal Cause is also personal, due to the very fact that the
universe is not eternal. Just think
about it for a moment. Ask yourself,
"If the Cause is eternal, then why isn’t the effect also eternal?" The only way for the Cause to be eternal, and
for the effect to begin to exist, is if the Cause is a personal Agent that
freely and willfully chose to create an effect in time. If this cause is just an impersonal
mechanical ensemble of necessary and sufficient conditions, it would not have
had the capability nor the power to freely and willfully choose to create the
universe in time. Let me give you an
analogy. If the cause of the freezing of
water is the temperature being below 0° C, then if the temperature has been
below 0° C from eternity, any water around would also be frozen from
eternity. It would be impossible for the
temperature to be below 0° C from eternity and for the water to just begin to
freeze a finite time ago. Do you see the
force of this argument? The only way you
can get a temporal effect from an eternal cause is if the cause is a personal
agent who has the power to will the temporal occurrence of that effect. So the Cause of the universe had to be a
personal Agent. Now
isn’t it amazing, friends, that both the General Theory of Relativity and the Big
Bang Theory, two of the most reliable theories in all of science, point to what
the Christian theist has always believed, that in the beginning, God created
the universe?
THE RESURRECTION #6.
The evidence points to God decisively revealing Himself in the
resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Jesus
of Nazareth did, in fact, rise from the dead, then we would have a supremely
divine miracle on our hands, and thus powerful evidence for God’s existence and
the falsity of atheism. So far, I have argued for
a God who is the Creator of the universe, the Designer of the universe, the
Sustainer of the universe, the source of Objective ethical values, and the very
basis for the laws of logic. This
argument from the resurrection indicates to us that there’s so much more to
this God. Not only has this God been
willing to create and sustain us, but He has also shown His great love to each
and every one of us. In the midst of our
troubles and shortcomings, this God is not distant from us. He is right there beside us going through our
tribulations. In the cross of Christ, we
do not see a King who is complacently sitting on His throne, but a Friend who
is there to suffer along with us through our times of trouble. He loved us so much that He was willing to
die for our sins and to conquer death and iniquity through His resurrection
from the dead. Many
people think that a purported event such as the resurrection is just something
you either accept by blind faith, or reject as mythology. But I want to argue tonight that the
historical basis for accepting the resurrection as a fact of history is
actually very good. Tonight I will present four
main historical facts agreed upon by the majority of New Testament scholars
that give us powerful inductive grounds for inferring the resurrection of
Jesus. Fact #1. After His death by crucifixion, Jesus’ dead
body was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in the tomb. Though at first this fact may seem irrelevant,
it is actually highly significant in the sense that it shows that the location
of Jesus’ dead body was known. Now if
the location of Jesus’ dead body was known, the disciples could not have
preached the resurrection in the same city where the body laid if the tomb of
Jesus had not been empty. This particular fact is
accepted by the majority of NT scholars for the following reasons:
The late John A.T.
Robinson of
Fact #2. On the 3rd day of His death, Jesus’ tomb was found empty. Let me give you five reasons why the empty
tomb is accepted as a historical fact by the majority of New Testament
scholars: Resurrection scholar
Jacob Kremer captures the consensus of the majority of New Testament scholars
on this issue with the following statement:
“By far, most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the Biblical
statements about the empty tomb.” Fact #3. On many
occasions and under numerous circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances
of the risen Jesus. This fact is almost
universally acknowledged by contemporary New Testament scholars for the
following reasons: German New Testament critic
Gert Ludemann admits “It may be taken as
historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’
death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” Fact #4. The original
disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead even though they had
every reason not to. Just put yourselves
in the situation faced by the disciples following the crucifixion. New
Testament scholar N.T. Wright makes the following conclusion: “That is why, as a historian, I cannot
explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an
empty tomb behind Him.” These
four historical facts taken together in a cumulative case give us very strong
inductive grounds for inferring the truth of Jesus’ resurrection. Now objections against
the resurrection such as “Jesus didn’t really die on the cross,” or “the
disciples stole Jesus’ dead body,” or “the disciples went to the wrong tomb,”
have been universally rejected by contemporary New Testament scholarship. The fact of the matter is that no
naturalistic explanation can make sense of these four established historical
facts. The
important question at this point would be, “Well, how do non-Christian scholars
explain the facts of the burial, the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances,
and the origin of the disciples’ belief in the resurrection?” According to resurrection scholar William
Lane Craig, “Modern scholarship recognizes no plausible explanatory alternative
to the resurrection of Jesus. Those who
refuse to accept the resurrection as a fact of history are simply…left without
an explanation.” Now Professor Craig was
a bit short-sighted when he made this statement. There are actually some people that have
stretched their imaginations to account for these four facts. To
illustrate this point, let me relate to you what happened in a public debate
over the resurrection between Professor Craig and a non-Christian philosopher
named Greg Cavin which took place in Needless
to say, it really wasn't too difficult for Professor Craig to refute Cavin
point by point during that debate. Craig
pointed out that the twin theory suffered tremendously from a poor explanatory
scope, poor explanatory power, it was highly implausible given the historical
data, it was completely contrived from start to finish, and it was disconfirmed
by accepted beliefs, such as Mary being the mother of Jesus. Craig also showed how the resurrection theory
succeeds with flying colors in meeting each and every one of these
historiographical criteria. What
this illustration, I think, shows is the length to which skeptics have to go if
they are unwilling to accept the resurrection of Jesus. If I have to stretch my imagination to the
breaking point just so I can deny the resurrection, I would be very bashful to
call myself a rational individual. So it’s clear to me that
the Christian is in a very strong position in believing that Jesus did, in
fact, rise from the dead and was, therefore, who He claimed to be, the divine
revelation of God Himself to mankind, in whom grace and salvation may be found.
CONCLUSION These,
my friends, are the six reasons why I think that God, particularly the
Christian God, exists. These are the
reasons why I am a Christian and why I am not an atheist. I am convinced with all of my mind that the
Christian world view is so much more reasonable than the atheistic world view. But there may be a lot of you here
tonight who are more concerned about the existential or personal aspect of all
of this rather than just the intellectual aspect. Let me emphasize as strongly as I can that
there is indeed an existential aspect to all of this, an aspect which cannot be
neglected. To bring this to light,
allow me now to conclude this lecture by relating to you a marvelous novel
written by the literary genius Oscar Wilde.
It is a story of a very fine-looking young man named Durian Gray. Durian Gray is a very sensuous young boy with
a very handsome face. An artist named
Basil Halward took a great fascination upon the face of this young boy and one
day even painted a very beautiful representation of the boy’s face. Upon seeing this beautiful painting, Durian
Gray is just enamored by it. But he says
to Basil Halward., “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all the wrongdoings I ever
commit from this day forth will not destroy me personally, but only mar the
beauty of this painting." It was a
daring gamble, and Durian got his wish. As the story goes on, we see this young boy indulge
himself in sensual pleasure and sheer hedonism.
One day Durian Gray goes up to the attic. And when he fixes his eyes upon what is
supposed to be a beautiful representation of himself, he is horrified by what
he sees. What once was a beautiful
painting of his handsome face is now a picture of a man torn by the hideous
marks of sin. The sight of that ugly man
within that painting is very revolting to Durian Gray. Eventually, the painter Basil Halward gets to
see the painting. Upon realizing the
situation, he says, “Durian, what have you done?! How have you been living you life? Durian, get down on your knees before God and
ask for forgiveness.” But Durian Gray
wouldn't do it. His excuse was that he
may have gone too far astray. But Basil
Halward reminds him, “Durian, isn’t there a verse somewhere which says, 'Though
your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow. Though they be as crimson, they shall be as
wool.' Durian, get down on your knees
and repent before God.” In desperation, Durian Gray runs to the back, picks
up a knife, and stabs Basil Halward to death.
A few days later, he comes back to that same
painting, and now there’s a crimson flow coming out of the hands going all
throughout the countenance of the man in that painting. Durian is caught in sheer desperation. He does not know what to do. He thinks to himself, “Maybe if I just get
rid of the painting, no one will ever know about the debauched life I’ve
lived.” So he picks up that same knife
he used to kill Basil Halward, goes up to the attic, takes one last look at the
painting, and plunges the knife into the heart of that man in the painting. The story ends with a terrifying scream. The servants run to the attic to find an old
and terribly ugly man lying on the floor with a knife through his heart. And right beside him, they see the beautiful
face of Durian Gray within that painting.
Durian Gray tried to silence that voice within him
telling him to get right with God. He
tried his very best to make it seem as though he was a saint even though
knowing deep down he was a sinner before a holy God. In his attempt to conceal his debauched life,
Durian Gray ended up separating himself from the salvation of God forever. Friends, if it is the case that there exist a God,
as I have argued tonight, it is not enough to simply give a philosophical
accent to the truth of theism. We are
all in the shoes of Durian Gray, sinners before a holy and perfect God. Sin has caused a gap between us and God, but
the good news is that God knows about this gap and is aware of our inability to
bridge this gap. That is why I thank Him
for giving us Jesus, His Son, to die for our sins, to rise from the dead, and
to bridge that separation between man and God the Father. I want to remind each and every one of you here
tonight of the verse that says, “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be
white as snow. Though they be as
crimson, they shall be as wool.” After 17 years of denying, like Durian Gray, the
reality of my debauched life, I went down on my knees, asked God for His
forgiveness, and experienced the saving power of Jesus, the One who died for my
sins and the One who conquered death and iniquity through His resurrection from
the dead. Since then, God has become a
reality in my life, a reality which has never left me as I walk with Him day by
day for the last three years. When I
accepted Christ into my life, God became the Fulfiller of that existential
yearning within me, which no other fix was able to fulfill in the past. For me God is not just a proposition to which
I give assent to. He is an intimate
Friend whom I commune with, whom I serve, and whom I love with all my heart and
soul. Friends, if you’ve never experienced the saving
power of Jesus, I earnestly ask you to seriously consider becoming a Christian
theist yourself. If you really are an
honest seeker of truth, then you must seriously consider the arguments which
I’ve presented tonight. In your search for truth, let me challenge you to
pick up a New Testament, and start reading it for yourself, and see whether or
not this Jesus really was who He claimed to be.
I believe that if you honestly seek God, He will revolutionize your life
in the same way He has revolutionized mine.
Friends, it is my sincere prayer that if we never
see each other again after tonight’s event, that you and I may stand before our
Creator one day and glorify Him together.
Good night. |
| Contact My Company |