In a world where everyone is surrounded by voices telling them what to think, Impact 360 is an amazing reprieve. Even with Impact being deeply rooted in Christianity, they encourage you to think for yourself and never believe what they tell you on blind faith. Here, doubt is considered natural, and faith is defined as belief in something you have good reason to believe. This has never been more evident than in the lesson material this week, where we went over just four arguments for God’s existence. The Contingency Argument, Kalam Cosmological Argument, Fine-tuning, and the Moral Argument are all presented to the Fellows scientifically and logically. Ed Bort, this week’s speaker, did a phenomenal job of not only going over the material but also providing strong, convincing evidence.
As we explore the arguments for God’s Existence, many Fellows have been surprised by the fact that scientific laws and discoveries are on our side. Those who do not believe in Christianity will say that science proves God isn’t real, and Christians live in blind faith. Blind faith means to believe in something with no evidence, but this idea is unbiblical. In Isaiah 1:18, God invites the people of Israel to reason with him, in Matthew 22:37, Jesus invites you to engage your mind with him, and Proverbs 14:15, “The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.” The Bible doesn’t tell us to live in blind faith; it commands us to think. When we think about it, we can see that science doesn’t disprove God’s existence but actually points to his reality. In fact, most atheists have stopped trying to disprove God and now just say we don’t need God. There is a very good reason for this. 
The Contingency and Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Contingency Argument argues that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence and that the only logical explanation for the universe is God. The Kalam Cosmological Argument argues that everything that begins to exist has a cause and that the universe’s cause is God. Both ideas hit on the idea of an eternal God. The scientific community is in agreement that the universe isn’t eternal and that something must have started it all. What they can’t answer is that if the thing that started it all isn’t eternal, then we are back at the same problem all over again. An eternal something had to create all that is, and thanks to the other two arguments, the logical answer is God.
The Fine-Tuning Argument
The Fine-tuning argument is based on the 26 fundamental constants of the universe and the 30+ constants of the Earth. If any one of these laws of nature or characteristics of earth were just a little different, life would not be possible. The odds of this happening randomly are 1 in 10 to the 10th to the 123rd power. That number is bigger than the number of particles in the universe. This is considered to be mathematically impossible without a creator. This creator would have to be eternal, impossibly intelligent, and incredibly powerful.
The Moral Argument
The moral argument takes us from physics to philosophy. Most would agree that there are objective truths in this world. Murder is wrong, and most would agree that if you disagree, you are objectively wrong. But where does this idea come from, and why does this matter? God has written a moral law on everyone’s hearts, and we all have a moral compass within us that helps guide our decisions. Science has no answer for where these objective moral truths come from. No backing for morality means no reason to follow its rules. To be put bluntly, God is goodness, and without him there is no good.
These are very quick explanations of very complex ideas. But I highly encourage you to ask a Fellow about them if you ever get the chance, because we were taught how to think well through these ideas.
Webb McGregor – Class 20 Fellow