Question
Does God exist?
A cumulative case—beginning, design, and moral law—makes a personal God far more plausible than a brute, accidental cosmos.
No single argument has to do all the work. The cosmological argument gives you a cause of the universe; the teleological argument gives that cause a mind; the moral argument gives that mind a character. Together they describe what Christians mean by God: a necessary, intelligent, good Creator.
This is not a demand that you ‘just have faith.’ It is an invitation to explain the data you already live with: that anything exists, that it is calibrated for life, and that some things are really wrong.
See it
Shorts, slide decks, and infographics that belong with this page.
Talking points
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began; therefore it has a cause.
- The life-permitting calibration of the cosmos is too tight to shrug off as luck.
- Objective moral duties make more sense if they are grounded in a good God than in consensus or evolution.
Say this
I’m not asking you to switch off your mind. I’m asking what best explains a universe that began, looks set up for life, and comes with a moral law we cannot get rid of. A personal God is not the wildest answer to that set. It is the most economical.
If they say…
“You can’t prove God in a lab.”
You also cannot prove that the past was real, that other minds exist, or that moral outrage is more than chemistry. We prove different kinds of things in different ways. Historical and philosophical inference is how we try cases, not how we weigh chemicals.
“The heavens declare the glory of God.”
“His invisible attributes… have been clearly perceived… in the things that have been made.”
“The God who made the world and everything in it… is not served by human hands, as though he needed anything.”