God
Does God exist?
The short answer
No single argument forces belief, but several independent lines of evidence — the beginning of the universe, its fine-tuning, the reality of moral obligation, and the resurrection of Jesus — point the same direction.
Why is there anything at all?
The cosmological argument runs: whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause. Modern cosmology's near-consensus that space, time and matter had a beginning made this argument sharper, not weaker.
A cause of space and time cannot itself be spatial or temporal — it would have to be immaterial, timeless, immensely powerful, and (since it chose to act rather than always producing) personal. That is not yet the God of the Bible, but it is not nothing either.
Why is the universe set up for life?
The constants of physics sit in extraordinarily narrow ranges. Change the strength of gravity or the cosmological constant by a fraction and no stars, no chemistry, no observers. Three explanations are on offer: necessity, chance (usually via a multiverse), or design.
Fine-tuning does not prove God — a multiverse is a coherent alternative — but 'a vast unobservable ensemble of universes' is not obviously the more modest hypothesis.
Why does right and wrong feel binding?
Almost everyone believes torturing children for fun is really wrong, not merely unpopular. If morality is only evolved preference, that conviction is a useful illusion. If there is a God whose character is good, moral obligation is exactly what you would expect.
And then the specific claim
Arguments can get you to theism. Christianity rests on something more testable: a first-century execution and a claim that the man walked out of the tomb, made publicly by people who died rather than retract it.
"But what about…"
Who made God?
The argument is not 'everything has a cause' but 'everything that begins to exist has a cause'. An eternal, uncaused being is not an exception smuggled in; it is what the argument concludes must exist.
God is just a god-of-the-gaps.
Gap-filling would be claiming God for things science hasn't explained yet. These arguments run the other way: they start from what science has established — a beginning, fine-tuning — and ask what best explains it.
You can't prove God scientifically.
Science tests repeatable physical processes. It cannot prove historical events, moral truths, mathematical axioms or that other minds exist either. Demanding scientific proof for everything is a standard science itself cannot meet.
Scripture
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world.
Romans 1:20
The heavens declare the glory of God.
Psalm 19:1
Go deeper
- —Read the resurrection page next — that is where the argument becomes specific.
- —Notice which objection is actually yours, and sit with that one.
Where this came from
We're not experts — these are the sources we used while researching this page. Read them yourself, keep digging, and hold us to them.
- [1]Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — Cosmological, Teleological, Moral and Evil entries
Peer-reviewed statements of the arguments and their strongest objections.
- [2]Gary Habermas — minimal facts research on the resurrection
The survey of critical scholarship behind the resurrection material.
- [3]Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, and Daniel Wallace, Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
Both sides of the manuscript-reliability debate; the skeptical case is read directly.
- [4]Tacitus, Annals 15.44; Josephus, Antiquities 18.63 and 20.200 — Perseus / Loeb texts
The non-Christian ancient references to Jesus and the early church.