1. There Is A God


Is there a God? If so, what is he like? Does he care about us?

The answers which we give to these questions will determine our philosophy of life. No man can pass over them as if they were of no importance.


The Bible does not attempt to prove the existence of God. It assumes it and states, “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” Psalm 14:1. This lack of scriptural proof strikes us as unusual since the entire Bible is based on the premise that there is a God.

Two possible reasons may be given for this lack of proof.

1. The idea of God was universal when the Bible was written and hence such proof was not needed.

2. The evidence in the world around us for the existence of God is so strong that only a fool would deny his existence and the Bible was not written for fools.

However, in this age of scepticism it has become necessary to demonstrate that there is a God. The atheist, who denies the existence of God, will not accept the Bible as proof, so we must resort to other evidence. Let us consider a few reasons for believing in a supreme being.


It is evident that man and the world about him exists. Even the atheist cannot deny reality. But how did things come to be? Human reason will allow two possible explanations. Either 1. something has always existed, or 2. there was a time when absolutely nothing existed.

Since we cannot conceive something coming out of nothing, our minds refuse to accept the second possibility. To suppose that in the complete absence of power and volition, nothing became something is too preposterous to be argued.

Has matter always existed and has it been transformed into its present state by the process of organic evolution? Or is that which is eternal a Mind, which we call God, who brought all things into being by his creation?

The theory of organic evolution supposes that there is no God and that life came into being by chance. Hence, one cannot believe in organic evolution and still consistently believe in God.

However, it is axiomatic that for every effect there must be a cause. The world itself is the effect. What is the cause? Is it matter or is it God? We know that inert matter can cause nothing unless it is acted upon by some other agency. A ball upon a level surface will not roll unless something causes it to roll.

However, the nature of that which has been caused is such that we may be certain that the first cause is Mind, or God. This we conclude from our next argument based on the evidence that we have of a supreme intelligence.


“For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.” Hebrews 3:4. When we see a house, we know that there was an architect.

When we see a painting, we know that there was an artist. When we see a newspaper we know that there was a printer. We draw these conclusions because we know that wherever there is a design there must have been a designer.

We cannot conceive, for example, of a watch’s “just happening”, with its hundreds of parts working together in perfect precision. There had to be a maker. For exactly the same reason we know that there is a God.

That which has been caused in the universe bears unmistakable evidence of intelligence or Mind. When we see the heavenly bodies move with such precision that astronomers can predict hundreds of years in advance where a given celestial body will be at a given time, we know that there has to be a supreme intelligence.

When we consider how the balance in nature between the plant and animal world is sustained from one generation to another, we know that there is a God because mere chance cannot offer an explanation. Or when we think of the marvellous reproductive systems found in every form of life, we know that there first had to be a supreme designer.

Someone has written, “If the word ‘God’ were written upon every blowing leaf, embossed on every passing cloud, engraved on every granite rock, the inductive evidence that God is in the world would be no stronger than it is.

When the human intellect thinks in terms of finality with the world as its premise, the ‘therefore’ of every syllogism will be ‘God.’ The universe is a big advertising poster spelling ‘God’.”


Man is distinguished from the beasts of the field by a sense of morality. He is capable, when properly educated, of distinguishing between right and wrong.

In short, he possesses a conscience. “Blind, irrational matter and force cannot have these characteristics. They cannot give rise to them.” (Braden, The Problem of Problems, p. 281.)

Only a God who is himself good could impart this characteristic to his creation.


Man, intuitively has a desire to worship a supreme being. Even the most barbarian savages have this trait. Actually, there are few true atheists. The very fact that man is a religious being is evidence that the characteristic was placed within him by his designer, God.


The world has many religions, but it is doubtful that a race of people can be found which does not have any religion. The history of these religions shows that if they are traced back far enough there was a time when all were monotheistic, that is, they worshipped only one God.

Thus, we have evidence that at one time there was but one supreme being who was worshipped, and this in turn clearly points out that for all men to worship the same God, it was first necessary for that God to reveal himself to man. But if there is no God, no reasonable explanation for this history can be presented.


Set against this reasoning is the theory of organic evolution. It is widely taught in our schools, even to children in elementary grades. It teaches that millions of years ago by pure chance the first amoeba came into being, possibly as a result of chemical action.

From it there have involved the various plants and animals in the world. To substantiate their theory, evolutionists point to the similarities of the various species. They contend that this proves that one has evolved from another.

There are some tremendous difficulties in the theory. Consider them.


Scientific principles affirm that living matter cannot be produced from dead matter. Scientists can make a kernel of corn with the same chemical properties and appearance of a real kernel, but they cannot give it the germ of life. Organic evolution, however, requires us to believe that by pure chance the living came out of the dead.

Some evolutionists answer by contending that evolution is a “science” of development rather than of origins, and that they are not required to explain how life began. This will not suffice. A house is no stronger than its foundation. The house of the organic evolutionist who denies the first cause, God, is built upon the sand and will fall.

Others attempt to reconcile God with evolution. The resulting theory is theistic evolution. It grants the existence of a God who created life, but from that point on it follows the general pattern of other evolutionary theories. In calling the Genesis account of creation a legend, it denies the inspiration of the Bible.

While it thus circumvents the problem of spontaneous generation, it fails to answer the other objections against evolution. It is just as anti-Biblical as other evolutionary theories, although it is embraced by many professed Christians.


If all living beings originated from a single amoeba millions of years ago, it follows that all characteristics of all organisms came from that one amoeba, or else that acquired characteristics can be transmitted. Genetics denies the second alternative.

A carpenter’s skill acquired by long years of training can never be inherited by his son. On the other hand, it would be preposterous to assume that the first amoeba possessed the ability to produce the scales of a fish, the wings of a bird, the tail of a horse, and the pouch of a kangaroo. Yet, it is just as easy to accept this ridiculous conclusion as to accept as scientific the idea of acquired characteristics.


The intelligence and morality of man is not only a splendid proof of the existence of God but also an insurmountable difficulty for the evolutionist, since, as already mentioned, he can present no explanation for these things.


A chain is no stronger than its weakest link. There are many links completely missing in the evolutionary theory. There is no living evidence of one species evolving into another. True, changes occur within a given species and breeds of animals may be improved by selective breeding. But when all is done, a dog is still a dog and a cat is still a cat. If evolution is true, there should be living evidence of creatures in the process of evolution.

Most people have been led to believe that missing links between the ape and man have been found. Evolutionists inform us that all other members of the family, genus and species of which man is a part are now extinct, but that their existence in ages past can be proved by skeletal remains. This is altogether too convenient an answer to explain the complete absence of any creatures clearly resembling man.

But what of the so-called missing links that have been found? The Heidelberg man discovered at Heidelberg, Germany, in 1907, consisted of one jaw. The Java man was put together from a cranial cap, a thigh bone, and some teeth found scattered in a Java riverbed. It cannot be proved that the bones even came from the same creature.

The original Peking man consisted of one tooth. The Piltdown man, portrayed in textbooks and museums, was proved in 1954 to be a hoax. Yet on the basis of such “evidence,” evolutionists supply the “few” missing bones and create missing links.

The evolutionist asks how the similarity of species can be explained except on the basis of his theory. Very simply. Just as two paintings of similar nature denote a common artist, so two creatures with similar characteristics are evidence of the same creator.

Both creation and evolution require faith. The Christian “by faith ….. understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Hebrews 11:3. The Christian has but one thing to believe, “In the beginning, God …” Genesis 1:1.

The evolutionist, on the other hand, must accept by faith the various unscientific premises discussed in this lesson. In fleeing from an eternal God, he has become lost in a maze of unscientific impossibilities which are infinitely more difficult to believe than to believe that God has always existed.

In our next lesson, we will discuss the nature of this eternal God.


Please proceed and fill in the evaluation sheet below with your answers.  Thank you and God bless your studies.

Go To Lesson 2