There are many people who believe we must choose between logic and faith, that atheism is a sign of objective thought while theism is a sign of subjective belief. To their credit, they rightly point out that appealing to sacred texts or subjective experiences to “prove” the existence of a deity is not by itself a valid argument and is completely unhelpful to anyone who doesn’t believe in those texts or hasn’t had the same experiences. However, it is not difficult to support the existence of a deity, even a specific one, without such appeals and only with the use of logic. This allows the exploration of truth to be evaluated on grounds acceptable to both those who wouldn’t call themselves religious and those who would. The following is a solely logical argument for the existence of the Christian God as the one, authoritative creator deity. It is not meant to be exhaustive, but it’s non-dependent on scripture or subjective experience, and it should be thorough enough to independently arrive at a rational and practical conclusion.
Both require faith!
To start, no one can undeniably prove through logic, empirical evidence, or experimentation that his god (his ultimate explanation of origins and truth) exists as a legitimate, authoritative god. This means that upholding any explanation of origins and truth requires faith. The naturalist’s worldview requires non-empirical, unscientific faith in the unprovable god “Everything has a natural cause”. The atheist’s worldview requires non-empirical, unscientific faith in the unprovable (and self-contradictory) god “There is no god”. Those who uphold an ultimate ideal (e.g. love) or a personal deity (e.g. Yahweh) must likewise do so by faith in that god’s unprovable legitimacy and authority. Therefore, our goal should not be to prove a god but rather to honestly and objectively use all the information available to assess which god is most likely. I believe that to be the Christian God, primarily per the logical progression below, but for many more subjective reasons also.
The universe (or I, at the very least) exists and must have ultimately arisen from an uncaused cause, for which there are only four general possibilities: a self-created supernatural creator, a self-created natural universe, an eternal (always-existing) supernatural creator, or an eternal natural universe. Since it’s obvious that nothing can’t create something and that self can’t create self, the eternal options are more likely. Neither eternal option can be empirically or experimentally proven to be an eternal entity, so we are limited to asking which would be more likely to possess the ability to transcend physical time? Nothing we know about the physical universe suggests it can exist apart from physical time; contrarily, the vast majority of scientific knowledge suggests the universe had a definite beginning and that spacetime (not space without time) is a fundamental aspect of its nature. And while I know the physical universe exists (at least in my mind, if not in truth), the fact that something exists does not in any way offer evidence that it created itself. So the known existence of the physical universe does not in any way make it more likely to be its creator than a non-physical god who might exist. Moreover, science is limited to exploration by physical means, so there are no scientific grounds at all for rejecting the existence of a non-physical creator. And everything that would be necessary for a non-physical creator to exist would suggest it can exist apart from physical time. Therefore, the more likely uncaused cause to be eternal is a supernatural creator. In summary, god is more likely than not god.
And since the existence of more than one eternal god is less likely and less necessary than one, a monotheism is more likely than a polytheism. And any created lesser “gods” wouldn’t truly be gods and would be much more likely than not to be created with significantly less power than the creator deity.
And since this deity desired to create something, it is more likely that the deity would interact with its creation than not, especially sentient creation. So the Deistic god who is unrevealing and uninvolved in its creation, while certainly possible, is less likely than a deity who makes itself known to its creation. That, and Deism is completely useless and impractical to believe in, as it doesn’t influence one’s life in any way.
And since a deity who wants to make itself known would be more likely to preserve its creation’s belief in itself than not, those deities that have persisted throughout human history are more likely than those who haven’t, especially those who left sentient creation with a fixed body of information (a stable sacred text) by which they consistently make themselves known. The above progression leads us to Yahweh or Allah being the most likely deities, with Yahweh more likely, being known throughout much more human history and with a much more longstanding sacred text.
And the Yahweh in Judaism requires a human-dependent works-based solution to the fundamental and universal problem religion seeks to solve: human imperfection. This “obey some rules to achieve paradise” mantra is indistinct from nearly all other religions, echoes the very human-derived tendency toward self-help, and doesn’t even solve the problem, attempting to outnumber sins with good deeds instead of offering a method by which perfection is legitimately achieved. The deity of a truly divine worldview would more likely distinguish himself from all others, create a salvation process where he is involved and necessary, and require a solution that actually fixes the problem. In Christianity, the problem of human imperfection (i.e. sin) is choosing to know evil, culminating in death. The Christian Yahweh becomes the innocent human Jesus to suffer and die so that, as the offended party, he can legitimately forgive you by substituting his undeserved punishment of knowing evil unto death for your same deserved punishment. He can logically and legally consider your imperfection atoned for, not just diluted by performing one of many lists of good deeds. The Christian God is unique, necessary, and legitimate in solving the problem his creation poses, all as a true deity would most likely be (Click to tweet). Therefore, he is the most likely deity.
Finally, because the solutions offered by all other gods are non-functional in solving human imperfection and are irreconcilably incompatible with Christianity, its God doesn’t accept these multiple paths as valid and wouldn’t have endured the humiliation and suffering he did as Jesus if they were (Click to tweet). Therefore, using nothing but logic, the Christian Yahweh seems the most likely deity, and the deity of no other path besides Christianity.
Again, none of this proves that the Christian God exists or is the only God, but no one can prove that her explanation of origins and truth (i.e. her god) exists as the legitimate and authoritative god either. She can only try to demonstrate why her faith-requiring god is more likely than others, as I have above. I hope it’s been thought-provoking.
To explore more rational and refreshing answers to many other difficult questions related to faith, read whatever part you choose of the free ebook series Healing Hereafter, just two clicks away right here!
