Episode 1: Is God Real? Part 1 - The Philosophical Case

Welcome to Practical Apologetics, where we give clear answers to everyday Christians with real questions. I'm Kenneth Willis. Today, we're asking what may be the most important question this podcast will ever answer. Is God real? Before we ask if Christianity is true, before we ask if the Bible is reliable, before we ask if Jesus really rose from the dead, we've got to ask something more basic. Does God exist at all? Today, we're not opening a Bible. We don't need it yet. We're not assuming that Christianity is true. We're just asking, what does reason tell us? We're going to look at two arguments, one from the universe and one from morality. If you can remember those two things, you can remember this episode. Let's start with the universe. There's a simple argument that's been around for centuries and has been strongly defended in modern times by Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. It goes like this, whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. That's it. That's the argument. And let's walk through it slowly. First, whatever begins to exist has a cause. That sounds obvious, but think about it carefully. Have you ever seen something come into existence from absolutely nothing? Not rearranged matter, not recycled energy. Nothing. No space, no time, no matter, no laws of physics. If someone told you a fully built truck appeared in their driveway out of nowhere. No materials, no manufacturer, no cause. You wouldn't call that science. You'd call that irrational. We instinctively know this. Nothing doesn't do anything. Out of nothing, nothing comes. Science depends on that assumption. Everyday reasoning depends on that assumption. If things could just pop into existence uncaused, you couldn't trust cause and effect. And if you can't trust cause and effect, you can't trust science. So the first premise isn't controversial. It's foundational. If something begins, something caused it. Now step two, the universe began to exist. For a long time, some thought the universe might be eternal. But modern cosmology changed that discussion. The universe is expanding. Galaxies are moving away from each other. If you rewind that expansion backward, you don't get an infinite past. You get a beginning. This is what scientists call the big bang. And this isn't just a Christian talking point. Even many secular scientists agree that the universe is not eternal. Philosophically, an infinite past also creates serious problems. If the past were actually infinite, we would never arrive at today. You can't complete an infinite sequence one step at a time. Imagine trying to count down from infinity to zero. You never get there because infinity has no beginning and no end. If it did, it wouldn't be infinite. Yet here we are. That's the chest the past is finite. So both science and philosophy point in the same direction. The universe had a beginning. Now here's the conclusion. If the universe began to exist and whatever begins to exist has a cause, then the universe has a cause. That's not a leap. That's following the logic. Now ask the same question. What would that cause have to be like? If time began with the universe, the cause can't be in time. If space began with the universe, the cause can't be in space. It's matter began with the universe, the cause can't be material. So it must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, incredibly powerful. But there's something even more important here. If the cause were just a set of mechanical conditions like dominoes falling, then the effect would have to be eternal too. If the cause was always there and the conditions were always there, the result should always be there. But the universe is an eternal. It had a beginning. So how do you get a beginning from something timeless? The best explanation is choice. A personal agent can exist timelessly and then choose to create. That's how you get a finite effect from a timeless cause. That means the cause isn't just a force. It's personal, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, personal. To me, that sounds an awful lot like what people mean when they say God. Let me repeat the argument so you can remember it. Beginnings require causes, so the universe has a cause. That cause being God. That's the first reason. Now let's move from the universe to something closer. Your own conscience. Here's the question, is it really wrong to torture a child for fun? Not just socially unacceptable, not just personally distasteful, actually wrong. Most people don't hesitate. They say yes, that's evil. That's wrong for me, not wrong for my culture, wrong. That brings us to the moral argument. If a standard for morality doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist. Objective moral values do exist, therefore that standard, aka God, exists. Now what do we mean by objective? We mean moral truths that are binding whether we like them or not. If morality is just personal preference, then when two cultures disagree, there is no right answer, there's only power. If one society says something is acceptable and another says it's evil, there's no higher standard to appeal to. But we don't actually live that way. We say slavery was wrong, even when it was legal. We say genocide is wrong, even when governments approve it and execute it. We use language like evil. Evil implies a real standard. Now here's the key issue. If there's no God, what grounds that standard? What is that standard based upon? Evolution can explain why certain behaviors might help a species to survive, but evolution describes what is. It doesn't tell you what ought to be. Money can create laws, but laws reflect consensus, not moral authority. Many laws have existed and still exist that go against what most would call objectively the right thing to do, as we have already referenced with slavery. If moral laws are real and binding, they point to a moral law giver, not a chemical reaction, not a social contract, a personal source of moral obligation. And let me be clear. This argument isn't about whether atheists can behave morally. Of course they can. The question isn't behavior, it's foundation. If real moral right and wrong exists, what explains them? The best explanation is a transcendent moral God. Let me repeat that one. Real moral right and wrong exists. Real moral laws require a moral law giver. So God exists. Two arguments. One from the beginning of the universe. One from the reality of morality. Some say science explains everything, but science explains mechanisms. It doesn't explain why there's something rather than nothing. It assumes laws of nature. It doesn't explain where those laws come from. Others say you don't need God to be good. That's true in a sense, but again, the question isn't behavior, it's grounding. Where does moral obligation come from? Let's bring it together. Beginnings require causes. So the universe has a cause. Objective moral right and wrong exists. Objective moral laws require a moral law giver. So God exists as that law giver. Meaning God isn't a blind leap. It's reasonable conclusion based on the world around us and the moral awareness within us. Next time, in part two, we'll move from philosophy to scientific evidence and broader historical consideration. Does reality itself confirm what reasons suggest? Until then, remember, faith isn't believing without evidence. It's trusting where the evidence leads. Join us next time on Practical Apologetics.