Existentialism is a school of thought that appeals to both atheists and theists. Wikipedia defines it as “a form of philosophical inquiry that explores the problem of human existence and centers on the experience of thinking, feeling, and acting.” Thus, historically, famous philosophers and theologians alike have belonged to this intellectual movement. But who was the very first existential thinker and writer in history?

If you’ve studied modern philosophy you know that existentialism was one of the most influential philosophical theories during the middle of the twentieth century. There are many important names associated with this European philosophical and cultural movement.¹ Nineteenth-century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard is often called the father of existentialism, while Friedrich Nietzsche is considered a critical forerunner. Twentieth-century counterparts Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus are usually identified as key secular existentialist philosophers.

But Christian philosopher James K. A. Smith, author of On the Road with Saint Augustine: A Real-World Spirituality for Restless Hearts, has suggested that St. Augustine (354–430) may have been the world’s first existentialist philosopher.² Not only were Christian thinkers Blaise Pascal and Søren Kierkegaard serious students of Augustine, but secular thinkers such as Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, and Jacques Derrida paid careful attention to Augustine’s writings as well.³

Existentialism as an approach to philosophy has appealed to prominent theists (Karl Barth, Gabriel Marcel, Jacques Maritain, Nikolai Berdyaevu, Martin Buber) and prominent atheists (Simone de Beauvoir, Maurice Merleau-Ponty). Both religious and nonreligious people resonate with its key features, including:

• an emphasis on finding meaning, purpose, and significance in life especially for the individual,
• a focus on why people have inner longings and experience angst and estrangement with life and within themselves,
• a reaction to the overemphasis on the strictly rational areas of life and thus an appreciation for the subjective areas (the arts, imagination, passions, emotion).

Taking these three themes as important aspects of existentialism, it’s easy to see why Augustine would be popular among existential philosophers.

But Gordon Lewis, a Christian and an Augustine scholar, thought it better to describe St. Augustine as having an existential attitude rather than as being an actual existentialist. In Lewis’s mind, Augustine’s Christian views about ontology (the study of being) set him apart from the secular elements that traditionally define existentialism.

Lewis notes:

“Augustine has an existentialist standpoint of human fallenness, an emphasis on the existing individual, and an existential attitude of involvement. . . . Augustine, then, had striking similarities to the existentialist standpoint and attitude, but was not an existentialist in the ordinary use of the word.”⁴

Augustine’s biography Confessions appeals to a wide variety of individuals when it comes to reflecting on life’s meaning. His writing in very personal and subjective terms about his life and thought attracts people and causes them to reflect upon their own lives. Pope Benedict XVI, himself an Augustine scholar, has said that he is more attracted to Augustinianism than Thomism (the school of thought based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas).⁵

Augustine, though not formally trained in philosophy, may have been the most influential philosopher ever.⁶ His writings provide a worthwhile avenue for exploration of the human condition that all people can appreciate.

Resources

• Although there are many translations of Confessions available, I recommend these: Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York: Penguin, 1961); The Confessions: Saint Augustine of Hippo, ed. David Vincent Meconi, trans. Maria Boulding (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2012); Confessions, 2nd ed., ed. Michael P. Foley, trans. F. J. Sheed (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2006).
• For an introduction to Augustine’s life and key ideas, see chapter three of my book Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction.
• For more about St. Augustine and existentialism, see Michial Farmer, “A Primer on Religious Existentialism, Pt. 4: Augustine,” July 6, 2010.
• For an interview with a leading Christian scholar of existentialism, see Paul Pardi, “Interview with C. Stephen Evans: Kierkegaard, Natural Signs and Knowledge of God,” March 4, 2011.

Reflections: Your Turn

Have you read an existential writer? If so, who? Visit Reflections on WordPress to comment with your response.

Endnotes

1. L. Mastin, “Existentialism,” The Basics of Philosophy, accessed July 8, 2021.

2. Church Times, “The 20th Century Was Augustinian,” October 11, 2019.

3. Church Times, “The 20th Century Was Augustinian.”

4. Gordon R. Lewis, “Augustine and Existentialism,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society (1965), 13–22.

5. Timothy George, “Benedict XVI, the Great Augustinian,” First Things, February 19, 2013.

6. Kenneth Samples, “Contemporary Criticism of Augustine’s Thought, Part 10,” Reflections (blog), September 5, 2012.

The post St. Augustine and the <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Philosophy</em> of Existentialism appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post Catching the Spirit of <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Philosophy</em> appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post Top Ten Things Augustine Contributed to <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Philosophy</em>, Part I appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post Revisiting Aquinas’s Fifth Way: The Enduring Relevance of Teleological Arguments in <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Philosophy</em> and Science appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post Reassessing Aquinas’s Second Way: The Relevance of Efficient Causality in <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Philosophy</em> and Contemporary Science appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post AI Investigations: <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Philosophy</em> Is Not Dead appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Summary of the Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument is a family of arguments that look at the universe and ask: Why does it exist? What caused it? When we trace causes backward, we eventually need a first cause that wasn’t caused by anything else — and many philosophers identify this first cause as God. This argument has been refined over centuries by thinkers from all three great monotheistic religions and connects with scientific discoveries about how our universe began.

What Is the Cosmological Argument?

The cosmological argument is a family of the most enduring philosophical arguments for God’s existence. One version of the argument looks at the existence of the universe and asks, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” The answer, according to this argument, points to a necessary Being — one that exists by its own nature and couldn’t fail to exist — which this argument identifies as God.

The word “cosmological” comes from the Greek word kosmos, which means “world” or “universe.” So the cosmological argument is an argument about the origin and existence of the universe. This version is sometimes called the “first cause argument” or the “argument from contingency.”

Here’s the basic flow of the cosmological argument:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence (either in itself or in something else).
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore, the universe has an explanation.
4. This explanation can’t be the universe itself or anything within the universe.
5. Therefore, the explanation must be something beyond the universe — an uncaused cause, which many identify as God.

Who Constructed the Cosmological Argument?

The family of cosmological arguments has a rich history stretching back thousands of years. They weren’t invented by a single person but developed through the contributions of many minds across different cultures and time periods.

The earliest forms of the argument appear in the works of Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece (around the fourth century BC). Aristotle’s concept of the unmoved mover — a being that causes movement while itself remaining unmoved — laid groundwork for later versions of the cosmological argument.

The argument took a more familiar shape in the medieval period, particularly in the Islamic world. Muslim philosophers and theologians like Al-Kindi (ninth century) and Al-Ghazali (eleventh century) developed sophisticated versions of the cosmological argument that influenced later Western thinkers.

Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century) presented five “ways” to prove God’s existence in his masterwork Summa Theologica. Three of these ways are versions of the cosmological argument:

• The argument from motion
• The argument from causation
• The argument from contingency

Later, the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (seventeenth to eighteenth century) developed another version focused on the “principle of sufficient reason” — the idea that everything must have an explanation.

In the twentieth century, philosopher William Lane Craig revived and reformulated the Kalam cosmological argument, drawing on both medieval Islamic philosophy and modern scientific discoveries about the beginning of the universe.

So, the cosmological argument has matured over millennia, with each subsequent person refining and adapting it based on the philosophical and scientific understanding of their time. The core idea has proved remarkably durable — spanning cultures, religions, and centuries while remaining recognizable.

What Are the Key Components of Cosmological Arguments?

The cosmological arguments have several common elements that form their foundation. Let’s break down these key components to better understand how the arguments work.

Cause & Effect (aka Causation)

At the heart of many cosmological arguments is the principle of causation — the idea that things don’t just happen or come into being without a cause. If you hear a noise in your kitchen, you assume something caused it.

The causation version of the cosmological argument applies this principle to the universe itself:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This cause-and-effect relationship is essential to how we understand the world around us. Science itself depends on the reliability of cause and effect. When cosmological arguments apply this principle to the universe as a whole, they lead us to consider what might have caused everything we see.

Dependence (aka Contingency)

Another key component of cosmological arguments focuses on contingency — the idea that things in our universe don’t have to exist; they depend on other things for their existence.

Think about yourself. You exist because your parents existed, who existed because their parents existed, and so on. You’re contingent — your existence depends on many factors outside yourself. The same applies to everything in the universe — trees, planets, stars, galaxies.

The contingency version of the cosmological argument reasons:

1. Everything in the universe is contingent (dependent on something else).
2. A chain of contingent things cannot explain itself.
3. Therefore, there must be a necessary being (not contingent) that explains everything else.

This necessary being would exist by its own nature rather than depending on anything else — a concept that aligns with traditional notions of God.

Infinite Regression

Some cosmological arguments — particularly the Kalam version — deal with the problem of infinite regression: the idea of an endless chain of causes stretching back forever with no beginning.

Is it possible to have an infinite chain of physical causes with no first cause? Many philosophers argue this is problematic. Here’s why:

1. If the past were actually infinite, an infinite number of events would have to have occurred before reaching the present moment.
2. But you can’t complete an infinite series by adding one event after another — you’d never reach the end.
3. Since we have arrived at the present, the past cannot be actually infinite.
4. Therefore, there must be a beginning — a first cause that isn’t itself caused by anything else.

Sufficient Reason

Some versions of the cosmological argument (particularly Leibniz’s) employ the principle of sufficient reason — the idea that everything must have an adequate explanation or sufficient reason for why it exists and why it is the way it is.

According to this principle:

1. Everything that exists has a sufficient reason for its existence.
2. The universe exists.
3. The sufficient reason for the universe’s existence cannot be found within the universe itself (because the universe and everything in it is contingent — it could have not existed).
4. Therefore, the sufficient reason must be outside the universe.

This component asks us to consider what would constitute a sufficient explanation for the existence of everything.

Necessity and Contingency

The distinction between necessary and contingent beings is central to the cosmological argument:

• A necessary being exists by its own nature and cannot not exist.
• A contingent being could have not existed and depends on something else for its existence (like you or the physical universe).

Cosmological arguments often conclude that a necessary being must exist to explain the existence of all contingent beings — providing the ultimate foundation for everything else.

These components work together in various combinations to form different versions of the cosmological argument, each emphasizing different aspects of the relationship between God and the universe. What they share is the conviction that the existence of the universe points beyond itself to a transcendent cause — one that exists beyond and independent of the physical universe.

Cosmological Arguments

Now that we understand the key components, let’s explore some of the most influential versions of the cosmological argument throughout history. These different approaches all aim to demonstrate God’s existence based on the reality of the universe, but they take different routes to get there.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam cosmological argument is one of the most discussed versions in contemporary philosophy. The word Kalam comes from Islamic philosophy and refers to a tradition of defending theological positions through structured argument and counterargument that flourished in the medieval Islamic world. This argument was developed by Muslim philosophers like Al-Ghazali and has been revived in recent decades by philosopher William Lane Craig.

The Kalam cosmological argument is simple:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

What makes this version distinctive is its focus on the universe having a beginning. The argument draws on two lines of support for the premise that the universe began to exist.

The first is historical and philosophical. Some philosophers have argued that actual infinities cannot exist in the physical world. If the universe never began, an infinite number of events would have already elapsed before today — and many thinkers argue that’s not possible in a world where events happen one after another in sequence. This line of reasoning goes back centuries, but it remains debated. (We’ll return to this in the objections section below.)

The second line of support — and the one we at Reasons to Believe find decisive — is scientific. Modern cosmology converges on a clear conclusion: our universe began about 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang. Evidence from cosmic expansion, background radiation (the faint afterglow of the Big Bang still detectable today), and the laws of thermodynamics all point to a definite beginning. Because things that begin to exist require a cause, this scientific evidence gives the Kalam argument its most compelling support — grounded in what we can observe and measure.

Aristotle: Cosmological Argument

Aristotle’s version of the cosmological argument is one of the earliest and focuses on motion or change. He observed that everything in the universe is in motion or undergoing change, and he reasoned that all motion must be caused by something else.

His argument can be summarized as follows:

1. Everything in motion is moved by something else.
2. This chain of movers cannot go back infinitely.
3. Therefore, there must be a first mover (what he called the unmoved mover) that causes motion without itself being moved.

Aristotle’s unmoved mover isn’t exactly the personal God of Christianity — it’s more like a perfect, unchanging being that other things are drawn toward. Still, his reasoning laid groundwork for later arguments for God’s existence.

Aristotle wasn’t trying to prove God in a religious sense. He was simply following the logic of causation to its ultimate conclusion — that there must be something that initiates change without itself changing.

Thomas Aquinas: Cosmological Argument

Thomas Aquinas developed five “ways” to demonstrate God’s existence. Three of these are versions of the cosmological argument:

Aquinas integrated Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology, showing how reason could support faith. Unlike modern versions that often rely on scientific evidence for the universe’s beginning, Aquinas’s arguments work even if the universe were eternal — they focus on the dependent and contingent nature of everything in the universe rather than its origin in time.

Leibniz: Cosmological Argument

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who co-invented calculus, developed a version of the cosmological argument based on what he called the principle of sufficient reason.

This principle states that everything must have a sufficient or adequate reason or explanation for why it exists and why it is the way it is. Leibniz’s argument is:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in itself or in something else).
2. If the universe has an explanation, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation.
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is God.

Like Aquinas, Leibniz distinguished between contingent beings (like us), which depend on something else and could have not existed, and necessary beings, which exist by their own nature and couldn’t possibly not exist.

For Leibniz, the entire universe — even if it were eternal — requires an explanation. Since nothing within the universe can explain the universe itself (that would be an inadequate reason, since it too would need explaining), he reasoned that a sufficient explanation must be a necessary being outside the universe.

What distinguishes Leibniz’s version is its scope. It doesn’t just ask why things began but why they exist at all. Even if the universe had always existed, Leibniz would still ask: Why does anything exist rather than nothing? The answer, he concluded, must be found in a necessary being — one that doesn’t just happen to exist but that could not fail to exist.

Each of these versions of the cosmological argument — Kalam, Aristotelian, Thomistic, and Leibnizian — approaches the question of God’s existence from a slightly different angle. And when their insights are taken together, a striking picture emerges: the universe points compellingly to a transcendent source, the one Christianity identifies as God.

Arguments Against the Cosmological Argument & Responses

No philosophical argument is without its critics, and the cosmological argument has faced many thoughtful objections over the centuries. Let’s explore some of the strongest challenges to the argument and how proponents respond to them.

Argument: “There’s no evidence of an ‘uncaused cause’ or God.”

Some critics argue that we’ve never observed anything that’s truly “uncaused,” so proposing God as an uncaused cause amounts to special pleading — granting God an exemption that nothing else gets.

Response: There actually is evidence for an uncaused cause when we look at the universe itself. By the weight of the evidence, modern cosmology converges on a universe with a beginning. That means something had to cause it. But that cause couldn’t be part of space, time, energy, or matter — it had to exist beyond them. The best explanation is a Creator who is powerful, transcendent, eternal, and personal to bring the universe into existence without needing a cause himself.

The cosmological argument doesn’t arbitrarily exempt God from needing a cause. The key principle is this: whatever begins to exist needs a cause. God, by definition, is eternal — he never began to exist. So he doesn’t need a cause, not because we’re making an exception, but because he doesn’t fall into the category of things that require causes in the first place.

Argument: “If everything needs a cause, then what caused God?”

This is perhaps the most common objection to the cosmological argument. If everything needs a cause, and God exists, then God must need a cause too — leading to an infinite regress of causes.

Response: This objection misunderstands the premise of the argument. The cosmological argument doesn’t claim that “everything needs a cause;” it claims that “everything that begins to exist needs a cause” or “everything contingent needs a cause why it exists.”

God, as conceived in historic Christian theology, doesn’t begin to exist — he is eternal. He isn’t contingent but necessary — his existence depends on nothing else.

Argument: “The universe could be self-caused or eternal.”

Some critics suggest that the universe might not need an external cause — perhaps it’s eternal or somehow caused itself.

Response: The scientific evidence is clear that our universe isn’t eternal but began about 13.8 billion years ago. The expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation, and the second law of thermodynamics — which says that usable energy in a closed system always decreases over time — all point to a definite beginning.

As for the universe causing itself in the ordinary sense, this leads to a logical contradiction — something would have to exist before it existed in order to cause itself.

While some propose models like quantum fluctuations to explain how the universe might emerge from “nothing,” these models don’t start with nothing in the way we’d normally mean the word. They start with quantum fields, physical laws, and spacetime structures already in place. That’s not nothing — that’s a rich physical environment that itself needs explaining.

The real question isn’t how the universe emerged from some pre-existing physical state. It’s why that physical state exists in the first place. Quantum fluctuation models don’t answer that.

Argument: “The mathematical basis of the original Kalam argument (no infinities) was removed by Cantor.”

In the late nineteenth century, mathematician Georg Cantor developed set theory, which demonstrates that infinite sets are mathematically coherent. Some argue this undermines the Kalam argument’s claim that an infinite past is impossible.

Response: This is a genuine area of ongoing debate. Cantor showed that infinities work in mathematics — no serious philosopher disputes that. The question is whether a physically real infinite series of past events is possible, and here opinions differ.

Some philosophers maintain that an actual infinite in the physical world leads to conclusions that don’t make sense — like completing a task that by definition can never be completed — even if the math is sound. Others find these objections unpersuasive. Anyone advancing the infinity form of the Kalam argument should be aware that this remains contested ground.

That said, the modern Kalam argument does not depend on the infinity question alone. At Reasons to Believe, we emphasize the scientific evidence — the Big Bang, cosmic expansion, background radiation, and thermodynamic constraints — all of which point to a universe with a definite beginning. This scientific case for the universe’s origin stands on its own, independent of whether actual infinities are possible.

Argument: “The first cause might not be God as traditionally understood.”

Some critics grant that there might be a first cause but argue that it needn’t have the attributes traditionally ascribed to God (intelligence, consciousness, goodness, etc.).

Response: While the basic cosmological argument establishes a first cause, further analysis of what properties this cause must possess points strongly toward the God described in Scripture.

Since the cause created space and time, it must transcend the physical universe — existing independently of the dimensions it brought into being. Since it created matter and energy, it must be immaterial and possess tremendous power. And since it produced a universe governed by rational laws and capable of supporting conscious life, intelligence is a reasonable inference.

Furthermore, the cause must be personal — a free agent capable of choice. Here’s why: an impersonal force can’t decide to do something. If an impersonal cause had existed forever, its effect — the universe — would also have existed forever. But the universe hasn’t existed forever; it had a beginning. That beginning implies a choice, a decision to create. And decisions require a personal being — someone with a will, not merely a force.

Argument: “Quantum physics shows that things can happen without causes.”

Some critics point to phenomena in quantum physics — like virtual particles appearing to pop into existence from nothing or the apparent randomness in quantum events — as evidence against the principle that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Response: Quantum events aren’t truly uncaused. They happen within an environment that already exists — quantum fields, physical laws, and energy. That environment isn’t “nothing.” It’s a rich physical structure, and the events couldn’t happen without it.

As philosopher William Lane Craig has pointed out, the fact that quantum outcomes are unpredictable doesn’t mean they’re uncaused. Think of it this way: a coin flip is unpredictable, but it still has causes — someone flips the coin, gravity pulls it down, it bounces off a surface. In the same way, quantum events have real conditions that must be in place for them to occur, even if we can’t predict the exact outcome. Unpredictable isn’t the same as uncaused.

God Is the Uncaused Cause

Now that we’ve explored various versions of the cosmological argument and addressed key objections, let’s consider why many philosophers and theologians identify the uncaused cause with God.

The cosmological argument leads us to a being with remarkable attributes that align with the God described in Scripture.

Beyond Space and Time

The cause of the universe must transcend physical space and time since it brought space and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, there was no “before” in the way we normally think of time — time itself began with the universe. The cause must therefore exist outside the space and time dimensions of this universe, either timelessly or in a divine time independent of cosmic time.

This aligns with the biblical description of God as eternal: “Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God” (Psalm 90:2).

Immensely Powerful

Creating an entire universe from nothing would require power beyond our comprehension. The cause must possess sufficient power to bring all matter, energy, space, and time into existence.

The cosmological argument thus points to an all-powerful or omnipotent being, consistent with God’s description in Scripture. “Ah, Sovereign Lord, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you” (Jeremiah 32:17).

Immaterial

Since the cause created all matter, it cannot itself be material — it must be immaterial or spiritual in nature. This aligns with the understanding of God as spirit. “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

Necessary Rather Than Contingent

The uncaused cause must exist by necessity of its own nature rather than contingently depending on anything else. If it were contingent, it would require its own originating and sustaining cause, leading back to the problem of infinite regress.

This necessity aligns with the God revealed in Scripture, who identifies himself to Moses as “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14) — a statement of God’s self-existence and independence from anything else.

Personal Rather Than Impersonal

For an eternal cause existing independently of cosmic time to produce an effect in time (the beginning of the universe), this cause must involve a personal choice. The cause freely chose to create, implying will and agency — characteristics of a personal being, not an impersonal force.

Intelligence and Rationality

The universe displays a remarkable degree of order and mathematical structure. This points to a cause possessing not only creative power but intelligence — one capable of producing a cosmos governed by precise physical laws.

The book of Proverbs reflects this understanding: “By wisdom the Lord laid the earth’s foundations, by understanding he set the heavens in place” (Proverbs 3:19).

The Cosmological Argument Points to a Creator

When we put these attributes together — transcendence, power, immateriality, necessity, personality, and intelligence — we find attributes that match the God of Scripture, and that thinkers across Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have recognized for centuries.

The cosmological argument doesn’t just lead us to some abstract force or principle but to a being with the core attributes traditionally ascribed to God. While it alone doesn’t establish all aspects of Christian theology (like the Trinity), it is a powerful case for the Christian understanding of God as Creator.

As the apostle Paul wrote, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made” (Romans 1:20). The cosmological argument is one way these invisible qualities become “clearly seen” — through careful reasoning about why the universe exists at all.

Cosmological Argument — Summary

We’ve covered a lot of ground exploring the cosmological argument, so let’s take a step back and summarize the key points.

The cosmological argument is a family of philosophical arguments that reason from the existence of the universe to the existence of God as its cause or explanation. At its core, it recognizes that the universe requires an explanation beyond itself.

While there are several versions of the argument, they all share a common structure:

1. The universe exists and has certain features (it began to exist, is contingent, undergoes change, etc.).
2. These features require an explanation outside the universe itself.
3. This explanation has attributes that align with the traditional concept of God.

The major versions we explored include:

• The Kalam cosmological argument, which focuses on the universe’s beginning
• Aristotle’s argument from motion to an unmoved mover
• Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways, three of which are versions of the cosmological argument
• Leibniz’s argument from contingency and the principle of sufficient reason

Each approach takes a slightly different angle, but they all point to a transcendent cause with attributes like necessity, eternal existence, immateriality, power, intelligence, and personal agency — attributes traditionally associated with God.

Critics have raised thoughtful objections to the cosmological argument, such as whether everything really needs an explanation, whether causal reasoning applies to the universe as a whole, whether it’s fair to stop with a necessary being instead of a “brute fact,” and whether the argument stretches causation beyond its proper bounds. Still, many philosophers have offered careful replies that keep the argument compelling.

What makes the cosmological argument compelling is its basis in principles that seem fundamental to human reasoning — that things don’t come from nothing, that contingent things require explanation, and that chains of dependence can’t go on forever. These principles aren’t philosophical abstractions but reflect how we naturally understand reality.

While the cosmological argument doesn’t prove every aspect of the Christian conception of God, it provides a rational foundation for belief in a Creator who transcends the universe — a foundation that complements other philosophical arguments, divine revelation in Scripture, and the decisive scientific evidence for the universe’s beginning.

As we reflect on the vast, intricate universe around us, the cosmological argument invites us to see it not as a brute fact without explanation but as the creation of a necessary, personal, and powerful being — the God whom Christians worship and Scripture reveals as Creator.

FAQ: Quick Answers

What’s the difference between the Thomistic and Kalam cosmological arguments for the existence of God?

The main difference between the Thomistic and the Kalam cosmological arguments lies in their focus on a particular feature or aspect of the universe (contingent vs. finite and has a beginning).

Aquinas’s versions (like his Five Ways) focus on the current existence and contingency of the universe, not necessarily its beginning in time. His arguments would work even if the universe were eternal — he’s concerned with what sustains existence here and now.

The Kalam cosmological argument, on the other hand, specifically argues that the universe had a beginning and therefore needs a cause for that beginning. It relies heavily on the impossibility of an infinite physical past and/or scientific evidence for the universe’s beginning.

In simple terms, Aquinas’s argument asks “Why does the universe exist right now?”, while the Kalam asks “What caused the universe to start existing?”

What Is an Argument from Cause?

An argument from cause is a type of cosmological argument that focuses specifically on causal relationships — the idea that effects require causes. It reasons that:

1. Every effect must have a cause.
2. The universe is an effect (it began to exist).
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause outside itself.

The argument from cause emphasizes that causes precede their effects and must be sufficient to produce their effects. Since the universe is the largest effect imaginable (including all space, time, matter, and energy), its cause must be unimaginably powerful and transcendent.

This approach is most prominently featured in the Kalam cosmological argument and in Thomas Aquinas’s Second Way.

What Is an Argument from Contingency?

The argument from contingency is another type of cosmological argument that focuses on the dependent nature of everything in the universe. It argues:

1. Everything we observe in the universe is contingent — it exists but doesn’t have to exist.
2. Contingent things require an explanation for why they exist rather than not exist.
3. The universe as a whole is contingent (it could have not existed).
4. The explanation for contingent existence cannot itself be contingent, or we’d need another explanation.
5. Therefore, there must be a necessary being — something that exists by its own nature and explains all contingent existence. This being is God.

This approach is featured in Aquinas’s Third Way and more thoroughly developed in Leibniz’s version of the cosmological argument. It deals not with how things began but with why they continue to exist at all, given that their existence isn’t necessary.

Imagine a book on a table. The book depends on the table, which depends on the floor, which depends on the foundation, and so on. The argument from contingency suggests that this chain of dependency can’t go on forever or in a circle — it must terminate in something that exists necessarily, by its own nature.

Does the Universe Need a Cause?

This question gets to the heart of the cosmological argument. Proponents argue that yes, the universe does need a cause, for several compelling reasons.

1. The universe began about 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang. Things that begin to exist require causes.
2. The universe is contingent — it doesn’t exist by necessity. Its physical parameters could have been different, or it might not have existed at all. This contingency suggests it depends on something beyond itself.
3. The principle of causality — that effects require causes — is foundational to both science and everyday reasoning. To claim the universe is an exception to this principle without sufficient reason would be applying a double standard — requiring causes for everything within the universe but not for the universe itself.

Conclusion

The cosmological argument invites us to see the universe not as a brute fact but as the work of a necessary, personal, and powerful Creator — the God whom Scripture reveals and whom Christians worship. As we consider the vastness and order of all that exists, we find reason and faith pointing in the same direction: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

The post Cosmological Argument in Simple Terms appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Questions like Does God exist? and How can we know if God is real? are fundamental to how we view life, ourselves, others, and the universe around us. And yet, too often, these are given only surface treatments or explanations.

We at RTB believe this question has a clear and confident answer: God is real.

He’s not a distant force or a forgotten name. He is a living, just, and loving presence—active in our world and eager to be known.

Moreover, he has given us observable evidence in the physical universe, in human life, in Scripture, in history, and even in our personal experience that allows us to live with great confidence and proof that God exists (even without certainty).

Let’s explore God‘s creation and what it is that leads us to believe he exists and why it matters more than we think.

God Is Real

God Exists

There are plenty of strong reasons to believe God exists—scientific, philosophical, and theological arguments all point to him. But at the end of the day, no single argument can 100% prove that the God of the Bible is the one true God. Why not? Because God exists beyond space and time, so we can’t put him under a microscope or run an experiment to “prove” he’s real.

But that doesn’t mean we’re left guessing. Just like astronomers study distant galaxies by analyzing the light they give off, we can look at the clues God has left us in nature—the fine-tuning of the universe, the mind-blowing precision of physical laws, and the perfect conditions that make life possible. Science gives us hints, but to truly know who God is, he needs to tell us.

That’s where the Bible comes in.

Scripture is God’s way of making himself known. It gives us a foundation to understand the evidence we see in creation and how it all points back to him. And we don’t have to take it at face value. God invites us to test his Word, examine the evidence, and seek truth for ourselves. As 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (ESV) says, “Test everything; hold fast to what is good.”

Thus, we can say with confidence that God exists, even if people overlook the evidence and how he’s revealed himself to us. He is not silent, far, or hidden.

He’s been speaking all along, tenderly and persistently, through what could be considered two great “books.”

The first is the book of nature.

Waves roll in with steady grace, mountains stand with quiet authority, and every petal of every flower tells a story of design, not disorder.

The chirp of a bird. The laughter of a child. The thunder of a summer storm. They all say the same thing: We are not here by accident.

As Romans 1 explains, “his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20, ESV).

It’s as if creation is a canvas, and every brushstroke points to the Artist.

And yet, many turn away.

Not because the evidence is lacking, but because foolish hearts resist what the soul knows is true. The truth gets suppressed. The signs get ignored.

Fortunately, God doesn’t give up.

He also speaks through the second book—the book of Scripture.

This one tells a love story. And make no mistake, this is no fairy tale.

Scripture reveals a gritty, grace-soaked, blood-written narrative of how a holy God pursues a wayward people. Through the covenant with Israel, the words of the prophets, and the life of Jesus.

We see his patience in the wilderness, his mercy with kings and judges, and his face in the person of Jesus Christ.

He came to meet us. He walked among us. And even then, we turned away.

As John 1 tells us, “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him” (John 1:11, ESV).

But still, the invitation remains. Come and see. Come and believe.

And for those who do? He gives them the right to be called children of God.

This God, the Author of creation and Scripture, is not distant or indifferent. He is not a clockmaker who wound up the universe and walked away. He is near. He is involved. And the more we come to know him, the more we discover the richness of who he is.

He is not solitary, but relational. Not fragmented, but whole.

God is triune—three persons, one God—perfectly unified and perfectly loving and just.

Let’s examine what that means. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each truly God, working together in perfect harmony and inviting us into a relationship with him.

God Is Triune

1. God the Father

The Father is the Maker of heaven and Earth. He painted the galaxies with his words and formed us with his hands.

He knows every star by name and every tear you shed. He is just and holy, yes. But he is also tender and full of grace. He is the Father who runs to the prodigal, lifts the broken, and never stops loving.

2. God the Son

The Son is Jesus—God wrapped in skin and laid in a manger. He ate with sinners, healed the outcast, and touched the untouchable. He stepped into our dust to bring us back to the Father.

On the cross, he carried our sin. In the tomb, he bore our death. And in his resurrection, he gave us life. He is the image of the invisible God, full of grace and truth.

3. God the Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is not an idea or a force—he is the very presence of God alive in every Christian. He comforts when hearts break. He convicts when paths wander. He empowers when strength fails. He breathes life into Scripture and lights the way back to Christ.

Through him, God is not just near—he is within us.

God Is Active

God is triune, and he’s also wonderfully present.

God is active, not just in history, but in our stories right now.

He’s orchestrating unexpected opportunities, stirring hearts during a quiet drive, and reminding us of a passage from his Word at just the right moment.

He’s in the details. In the waiting. In the wondering.

God Is Personal

God is also personal. He’s not a far-off deity watching from the clouds or an abstract idea tucked away in philosophy books. He’s a Father who listens, a Savior who understands, and a Spirit who renews.

He knows our names. He knows our stories.

Not one sigh, tear, or hope goes unnoticed. He hears the prayers that can’t quite be put into words and understands the questions we’re still afraid to ask.

This is not a God who keeps his distance. This is a God who draws near.

God loves us. Completely. Eternally. Just as we are, and too much to leave us alone in doubt, fear, or pain. His love is not earned. It’s offered. Freely. Fully. Faithfully.

He’s not just real. He’s here. And more than that, he’s inviting us into something deeper.

Not just to believe in him from afar, but to know him. To walk with him, talk with him, and live our lives as people who truly know and are truly loved by the God who made the stars . . . and us.

But sometimes wonder creeps in. Can we really know? Can we be sure?

God has not left us without answers.

He offers many ways for us to know he exists—not to force belief but to invite trust. He doesn’t silence every question but gives us a solid foundation built on reason, revelation, and relationship.

Let’s look closer at the evidence that points us toward the God who is real and longs to be known.

Proof of God’s Existence

Faith is not blind.

That’s worth saying again, maybe even engraving on your heart.

Faith is not pretending in the dark—it’s trusting in the light we’ve been given. And the light is everywhere. In creation. In Scripture. In the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And in the quiet ways God still moves today.

The Bible doesn’t ask for blind acceptance. In fact, it encourages honest investigation: “Test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21, ESV). God welcomes honest questions, thoughtful seeking, and hearts willing to wrestle with truth.

Faith and reason are not the enemies we sometimes think they are; instead, they work together.

How so?

Reason is the mind’s God-given tool for discovery. It asks, What’s true?

It explores, considers arguments and scientific evidence, and weighs probabilities. It can show that belief in God is rational and that the evidence for Christ is sufficient.

Faith responds to what God has revealed—in creation, in Scripture, in Christ. It’s not a leap into the unknown—it’s a step onto solid ground. It trusts not despite evidence, but because the evidence points to Someone trustworthy.

Biblical faith is confident trust in a Person who has proven himself reliable, reasonable, and eternally good. It’s not wishful thinking. It’s taking God at his Word.

Put simply: reason clears the path and faith walks it. Or better yet, reason shows us the bridge is real; faith trusts the One who built it.

And when the two walk together—heart and mind, will and intellect—we come to know with full conviction that God is real.

The powerful ways of knowing can take shape in several key ways:

Biblical Evidence—Creation Reflects the Creator

The Bible invites us to use our minds—to think deeply, to seek truth, and to recognize God’s fingerprints in the world around us. Psalm 19:1 (ESV) says, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.”

From the vastness of the galaxies to the intricate design of a single cell, Scripture affirms what we see with our eyes and sense with our hearts: This world is no accident.

The precision of Earth’s orbit, the language of DNA, the logic behind natural laws—it all reveals the mind of a Creator. Philosophers may call this the argument from design, but even a child can sense it. There is order, purpose, and beauty that points beyond themselves.

Our minds were created by God to recognize his glory. The more we understand about the world rightly, the more we’re drawn toward the One who made it. When God opens our eyes, the mind doesn’t stumble in the dark—it recognizes the Light that’s always been there.

Physical Evidence—Creation Speaks of Its Creator

Then we have matter. The physical world. It speaks. The psalmist says the heavens declare the glory of God, and day after day they pour forth speech (Psalm 19:1).

Have you ever stood at the edge of the Grand Canyon or walked through a redwood forest and felt something rise in your chest—wonder, awe, a sense that Someone is behind all of this?

That’s creation preaching a sermon.

As Romans 1 reminds us, God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, understood from what has been made. The created world doesn’t just suggest a Creator. It reveals him.

Logical Evidence—God’s Hand in History

For all the majesty of the created world, God didn’t stop with stars and seasons. He stepped into history.

Miracles aren’t just tales for Sunday school—they’re recorded events witnessed and passed down. Jesus of Nazareth walked dusty roads, healed the sick, fed the hungry, and raised the dead. His resurrection isn’t symbolic—it’s the central event of Christianity, affirmed by over 500 eyewitnesses. The Bible, written over centuries by prophets, kings, fishermen, and scholars, tells one seamless story: creation, fall, and redemption.

Even now, the Holy Spirit continues to work—transforming hearts, renewing minds, answering prayers. He leads, speaks, comforts, and makes Christ known. In quiet hospital rooms and bustling homes, he brings dead hearts to life.

God’s power isn’t locked in the past. It’s present, personal, and still at work.

Miracles are not just ancient stories. They are present realities.

Personal Evidence—The Change Within

And finally, there’s us.

The longing in the heart. The way the soul leans toward something more. The moment when you felt peace that made no sense. The time you prayed and knew Someone was listening. When God moves in your life, it’s not abstract—it’s personal.

Our lives may not be perfect. But the fingerprints of God are all over them. When he forgives us, there’s relief. When he calls us his own, there’s belonging. When he changes us from the inside out, there’s joy. These things are real—and they’re proof.

The change in us is a testimony only God could write.

These signs—mind, matter, miracles, and ourselves—are like stained-glass windows.

They’re beautiful on their own. But together, with the light of God shining through, they reveal a breathtaking picture: God exists.

He is not distant.
He is not silent.
He is not absent.

God is real. And he is revealing himself to anyone willing to look and listen.

We’ve seen the signs. We’ve heard the whispers in creation, felt the stirrings in our hearts, and traced his fingerprints through history and Scripture.

Reason has walked the path. Faith has opened the door. And all the evidence points in one clear direction: There is Someone behind it all.

Which leads us to the question that echoes through every generation, every searching soul, every long night of wondering . . .

Is there a God?

We can answer that—simply, honestly, and with the confidence of those who’ve seen his light break through the clouds.

Is There a God?

Yes, there is a God who exists and who has always existed—even before the universe began—and will always exist. Absolutely, undeniably—yes.

There is a God who formed the stars and knows your name. A God who speaks through the roar of oceans and the quiet of Scripture. A God who stepped into history through Jesus Christ and still steps into hearts today. This is not a guess. It’s not wishful thinking. It’s not a blind leap into the dark.

It’s a step toward the light.

We know God exists because he’s revealed himself through the two great books—creation and Scripture. The world around us proclaims his power and precision. The Bible tells the story of his love, justice, mercy, and relentless pursuit of us. And in Jesus, we see that story fulfilled—God with us, God for us, God victorious over death.

We know God exists because he’s not only real in history, he’s real in us. In the transformation we’ve experienced, in the peace that surpasses understanding, and in the quiet conviction of the Holy Spirit, who lives within every Christian. He is active and he is personal. God is real and he’s closer than we think.

So, if we’re still wondering, questioning, and hoping for a reason to believe let’s consider this our invitation.

Look at creation.
Open his Word.
Remember the cross.
Listen to our hearts. And hear him say, “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me” (Revelation 3:20).

And if there is a God—and there is—then that truth changes everything.

It means we were created on purpose, that our lives matter, and we’re not alone, forgotten, or left to figure things out ourselves.

But even more than that, it means God is not just real—he is involved. He sees us. He knows us and has something to say about our lives, purpose, and future.

So, what does the existence of God really mean for us?

What the Existence of God Means for Your Life

The truth of God’s existence means we are not random sparks in a vast, indifferent universe. We are not the sum of our failures, pain, or unanswered questions. We are the handiwork of a Creator who formed us with care, knit us together with purpose, and calls us by name.

We were made by him, for him, and with him in mind.

And because God exists, he is not only the foundation of truth, but the source of grace. He is the giver of hope, and the One who gives meaning to the beauty and the brokenness in our lives.

This is more than abstract theology. This is personal. Because God is real, his promises are real. And so are the life-changing gifts he offers to those who trust him.

We Are Forgiven

The cross of Christ wasn’t a symbolic gesture—it was a real moment in history where sin met mercy and lost.

Because God exists, so does forgiveness—real, complete, offered freely to all who turn to Christ. No past is too heavy. No failure is too great. In Christ, we’re not defined by what we’ve done—we’re redeemed by what he did.

We Are Made New

Through God’s gift of regeneration, he doesn’t just clean up our old selves—he gives us a new heart. A new spirit. A new beginning. This is not merely behavior modification. It’s a soul transformation that leads to good works. As 2 Corinthians 5:17 (ESV) attests, “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.”

We Are Adopted

We don’t just get salvation—we get a Father. Through adoption, God brings us into his family, not as a guest, but as his children, with full access to his presence, promises, and love. We are no longer orphans of the world—we are sons and daughters of the King.

We Are Being Changed

God doesn’t stop at forgiveness. Through the ongoing work of sanctification, the Holy Spirit shapes us into the likeness of Jesus—bit by bit, day by day, sometimes through joy, often through struggle, and always through love. We may not be where we want to be yet, but praise God, we’re not where we used to be.

Maybe you’ve felt it already—that quiet shift.

That stirring in your spirit when you read Scripture or when grace felt more real than guilt. Maybe, like Larry Crabb wrote in The Safest Place on Earth, you’ve glimpsed the community that reflects heaven’s love on Earth.

Where the presence of God isn’t just talked about—it’s felt. Lived. Shared.

That’s what happens when we stop suppressing the truth and start trusting the God who’s been reaching out all along.

So, what does the existence of God mean for your life?

It means you’re seen.

It means you’re loved.

It means you have a future—and a Father—who will never leave you.

Where Do We Go from Here?

Maybe hearts are saying yes, but the mind still has questions. That’s okay. God welcomes every one of them. He thought of them long before we did.

We don’t have to have all the answers. But we can keep walking. Keep seeking. Keep asking.

Whether you’re just starting to seek him or you’ve walked with him for years, there’s more to discover.

And we’re here to help.

Check out our other resources to explore faith, ask the hard questions, and grow your relationship with God.

FAQs

Does God Exist?

Yes, God exists—without a doubt. God has made himself known through the beauty of creation and the truth of Scripture, through history and personal experience. He is not an idea. He is real, and he is present.

How Do We Know God Is Real?

We know God is real because he shows us. Not only through the “two books”—nature and the Bible—but also through the real, ongoing work he does in our lives. When God forgives, restores, adopts, and transforms, the evidence isn’t just theological—it’s deeply personal. And it changes us.

Who Created God?

No one. God was not created; he has always existed. He is eternal—outside of time, above all things. Our minds struggle with that mystery, but it’s part of what makes him God. (We unpack this more in a full post—click here to read.)

Is It a Sin to Question God’s Existence?

No. Asking questions isn’t a sin—it’s part of being human. God welcomes your questions. Your wonder or your doubt does not threaten him. In fact, he gave us minds and hearts made to seek him. “He rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).

Scripture cautions against something different—not honest seeking, but hardening our hearts against what God has already shown us. Ask your questions. Just don’t turn away when he answers.

The Real Question

So, is God real?

Yes.

Not because we say so, but because he’s shown himself. In the sweep of the galaxies and the cells that form our bodies. In the pages of Scripture and the person of Jesus. In the transformation that happens when a hard heart softens and a wandering soul comes home.

God is real—and suddenly the pieces fit.

It means the universe has meaning. It means your life has purpose. It means the loneliness ends, the searching finds its answer, and the longing in your heart finally makes sense.

Because you were made for this. For him. For relationship with the God who stepped out of eternity to meet you right where you are.

He’s not waiting for you to have all the answers or clean up every mess first. He’s simply waiting. Standing at the door. Knocking.

The question was never really “Is God real?”

The question is: Will you respond to his call?

The post Is God Real? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

How often has a skeptic made that definitive statement or something similar? It often comes near the end of a discussion about God and science, as a final statement that places you in an awkward spot. It’s known as scientism—the idea that the hard sciences provide the only true knowledge of reality. The professional philosopher can readily respond to this claim, but as a layperson or even a scientist you may not know quite how to answer it. 

What if we take the introductory statement, reverse it, and make the following statement: “Science is about values and faith is about facts.” Is this true? Well, not completely, but partially. But what about the original statement, “Science is about facts and faith is about values.” Is this true? Well, not completely, but partially.

How do we distinguish between values and facts? And what are some of the values of science?

Polanyi on Justifying Science
I’ve found the work of Michael Polanyi to be helpful in this regard.¹ Though not formally trained as a philosopher, Michael Polanyi was a physical chemist and a polymath of the highest order. Many people argue that were it not for his later shift to the humanities, he would have won the Nobel prize for his scientific work. Polanyi knew science and how it worked, which makes his comments so incisive. Consider this quote:

The quickest impression on the scientific world may be made not by publishing the whole truth and nothing but the truth but rather by serving up an interesting and plausible story composed of parts of the truth with a little straight invention admixed to it. . . . If each scientist set to work every morning with the intention of doing the best bit of safe charlatanry which would just help him into a good post, there would soon exist no effective standards by which such deception could be detected. A community of scientists in which each would act only with an eye to please scientific opinion would find no scientific opinion to please. Only if scientists remain loyal to scientific ideals rather than try to achieve success with their fellow scientists can they form a community which will uphold these ideals.²

No scientist worth their salt would ever stoop to such lying to advance their career. And that is the point; without this value (of upholding truth) the institution of science would soon sink into a morass of lies and deception. It’s obvious, but where does this value come from? You can’t prove it scientifically. The value of honesty in reporting observations is such a given that if you want to advance your civilization you better have this value. Only by telling the truth about your scientific, historical, literary, and engineering work, will you advance your discipline. The journals of any discipline are dedicated to that fact. If not, we are in deep trouble.

But how do you scientifically justify this obvious tenet of science? You don’t—you just accept it and move on if you wish to become a serious practitioner of science. This is an example of “tradition,” the past collective wisdom of others that has been passed down to us.

Another tradition of science holds that any given set of numeric physical data can be modeled by an infinite number of functions. For example, the positions of the planets can be modeled in Newtonian space by a simple inverse squared distance relationship or an infinitely long Fourier series, etc. But the scientist Isaac Newton chose the inverse squared relationship over many others. Why? Because it was simpler and more mentally satisfying. Consider this quote by Werner Heisenberg in a conversation with Albert Einstein.

You may object that by speaking of simplicity and beauty I am introducing aesthetic criteria of truth, and I frankly admit that I am strongly attracted to the simplicity and beauty of mathematical schemes which nature presents us. You must have felt this too: the almost frightening simplicity and wholeness of the relationship, which nature suddenly spreads out before us . . .³

Simplicity, beauty, wholeness? How do you scientifically justify these values? Since they were recognized by scientific giants such as Einstein and Heisenberg, we must take them seriously. But where did the values come from? Another scientific value affirms that a theory should have predictive success. It should be internally clear and coherent in all of its explanations. There are others. Experiments with controls are better than experiments without them. Double blind experiments are better than single blind experiments. Two-point calibrations of instruments are much better than single-point calibrations. If your data points differ from the average by three standard deviations, consider throwing them out.

How do you empirically or rationally justify such values? Can you scientifically prove them to be the best values to base science on? No, and no one even tries. You just assimilate these values as a budding scientist and move on.

Seeking a Foundation for Universal Values
Science is full of such values and they reflect how science should be practiced. But few scientists discuss or see them, or realize where they came from. They’re built into the teaching of science to such a degree that few people question it. But wait—most disciplines are based on these values and facts! That’s my point—science is no different. It needs these values like everyone else. Do such values emanate from the mind of a Creator who instilled them in human beings so that civilization would flourish?

Christianity likewise depends on these values. Consider this New Testament quote:

For we did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty (2 Peter 1:16). 

Yet Christianity also depends on facts. “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17). Thus our faith depends crucially on observed facts that are historically accurate. And science depends on values that cannot be proven—we just accept them as part of our reasonable and justifiable scientific faith. Perhaps now we can see why the statement, “Science is about facts and faith is about values,” is so badly misspoken. In this way, the parallels between Christianity and the institution of science seem satisfyingly and surprisingly consistent.

A few years ago my wife and I were standing on the floor of the great theatre of Ephesus in the nation of Turkey. It was a “bucket list” moment standing where the apostle Paul stood when the great riot over Paul’s teaching took place. Paul was preaching a different God than Artemis—the god of the Ephesians. As I read aloud the 1,900-year-old New Testament incident (Acts 19:23–41), a listening secular Jewish biologist tour companion exclaimed, “This really happened!”

As a Christian I often fail to realize how “factual” my Bible really is. If you are a scientist and are unsure about the Bible’s truthfulness, I invite you to study the Bible from this perspective. Do the facts expressed really match up with accurate historical narrative?⁴ As a scientist you owe it to yourself to read through the Bible with that perspective and see what it shows. 

Endnotes

1. Michael Polanyi, Science, Faith, and Society: A Searching Examination of the Meaning and Nature of Scientific Inquiry (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964). Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958). Michael Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1983).
2. Polanyi, Science, Faith, and Society, 54.
3. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), 220–21. Davies is citing Heisenberg.
4. The Reasons to Believe website offers a wealth of resources to help determine whether the Bible is based on cleverly devised stories or facts.

The post An Antidote for Scientism—Why Science Needs God appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Many people claim to have had religious experiences with God—a phenomenon that has been true since time immemorial. How can a person think through this numinous topic? What are the right questions to ask?

In this brief article I’ll answer some basic questions about religious experiences from a historic Christian perspective. I hope my thoughts will be helpful to both Christians and non-Christians as they seek answers to this challenging topic.

Addressing Six Questions about Religious Experiences

1. How can one possibly define a religious experience? 

This is a good question because the field of discovery is wide and deep. Yet the study of the philosophy of religion can be helpful. Part of the purpose of the philosophy of religion is to define key terms relative to the field of religion. Veteran philosopher and theologian Ed L. Miller, who has studied many religions of the world, offers this definition:

A religious experience is “an immediate, direct, and personal confrontation with the divine.”¹

2. Don’t the world’s religions recognize different types of encounters with the divine?

I have taught college-level courses on the world’s religions for over thirty years. I think there are three general types of religious experiences within the various religions of the world:

(A) Experiences rooted in revealed religions such as personal encounters with God, as reflected in the religious or the revelatory writings of especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Bible, Qur’an).

(B) Mystic religious experiences such as becoming ontologically one with God, as reflected in Hinduism and other Eastern religions. However, Hinduism has various views of the divine as well as various accompanying types of religious experiences.²

(C) The universal sense of a supernatural presence of God reported by people everywhere. Protestant theologian John Calvin described this type as the sensus divinitatis³ (“sense of the divine”), as discussed in the biblical book of Romans (see chapters 1 and 2).

In terms of conflicting religious experiences, the Bible recognizes that not all religious-like experiences are authentically divine. Counterfeit spiritual encounters are also a reality (2 Corinthians 11:13–15; Ephesians 6:10–13; 1 Peter 5:8–9).

3. Are there ways to test whether a religious experience is spiritually authentic?

From a historic Christian perspective, religious experiences would be expected to correspond to the biblical revelation about God (theistic, monotheistic, trinitarian), Christ (Lord, God-man, only Savior), and salvation (grace-oriented).

During the First Great Awakening (1740s) when many thousands of people in the American colonies claimed to have had religious experiences within the context of Christian revivalist preaching, philosophical theologian Jonathan Edwards identified several authentic characteristics, including: transformation in holiness, sincerity in seeking God, deep-seated conviction, humility, willingness to forgive, and true faith works.⁴

4. Are there ways to test whether a religious experience is genuinely and objectively true?

Religious experiences are challenging to validate on the basis of reasoning alone (though they can’t be illogical). These alleged encounters are usually, though not exclusively, private, personal, and subjective in nature. Nevertheless, they may fit well within the context of the Christian worldview.⁵

Some philosophical theologians would describe religious experiences as being analogous to sense experience.⁶ However, secular scholars look for natural explanations to such experiences—especially in the form of psychological theories.⁷

5. Who are some of the famous biblical and Christian leaders who have claimed profound religious experiences?

The biblical figures would include, among others: Abraham, Moses, and the apostle Paul. Within church history St. Augustine, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Blaise Pascal—to name a few—claimed to have had religious experiences.⁸

6. Can you tell us about your apparent religious experience?

I write about a religious experience I had as a young man that changed my life. See my blog post Are Religious Experiences Evidence for God? and tell me what you think.

Takeaway
Scripture tells us as Christians to test all things because there is much false doctrine that’s often connected to alleged or counterfeit religious experiences (1 Thessalonians 5:19–22; 1 John 4:1–3). In the Western world, spiritual warfare typically comes in the form of false teaching.

Reflections: Your Turn
Have you had a religious experience? If so, how would you describe it? Visit Reflections to comment.

Endnotes

1. Ed L. Miller, God and Reason: An Invitation to Philosophical Theology, 2nd. ed (Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995), 107. For more on the topic of religious experience, read Miller’s entire chapter 6.
2. Hinduism may be defined as a collection of religions where religious experience reflects henotheism, monolatrism, polytheism, and pantheism. For a discussion of the religious diversity within Hinduism, see my book God among Sages, chapter 5.
3. See my discussion of Calvin’s sense of the divine in Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction, chapter 7.
4. See Edwards specialist Gerald McDermott’s lectures on Edwards’s attempt to define authentic religious experiences at the time of the Great Awakening: “Jonathan Edwards Lecture 1 of 4,” YouTube, April 16, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWYyMswT8wM.
5. See Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004), chapter 13.
6. Mark Webb, “Religious Experience,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 edition), Edward N. Zalta ed., https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religious-experience/.
7. Webb, “Religious Experience.”
8. For the lives and divine encounters of some of these Christian leaders, I invite you to read my book Classic Christian Thinkers: An Introduction.

The post How to Evaluate Religious Experiences appeared first on Reasons to Believe.