"Is God Real?" How to make the case with 3 questions

In my line of work, students occasionally ask me whether God is real. Even at a Christian university, it’s a recurring question. The problems of the world, or the problems in their lives, or sometimes the problems posed by their Bible professors can engender a haunting agnosticism. So I’m grateful that they come to me.

For the students who are seeking an intellectual response (rather than emotional support), I’ve found the best answer is not to answer, at least not directly. Instead, the better way has been to ask a few questions of my own—three in particular—that gradually show it’s far more reasonable to believe in God than to disbelieve.

Perhaps these questions can speak to your doubts as well, or to those of someone you know. They’re as luminous as they are linear: “Where did we come from?” “How should we live?” and “What happens after we die?” See if you (or your skeptical friend) can answer them without acknowledging that there must be a God.

Where Did We Come From?

“You ask whether God is real. Can I get your perspective about something? Where do you think everything came from—the universe, the earth, people, plants, animals, you and me?”

No one can answer that, of course, without identifying a “first cause.” And the consensus opinion in the modern day seems to be that it all started with what we call “The Big Bang.” Cosmologists have developed a pretty robust theory that the universe has always expanded from a single point in time about 14 billion years ago, and continues to expand.

Let’s assume that’s true. The question still remains: What caused this “big bang”? Where did the matter or energy or whatever it was come from to set off this massive explosion?

It seems there are two options: This explosive material (or pre-material) existed for infinity years, or it was created by a Supreme Being who always existed. So the issue reduces to which of those two options is more reasonable to believe, right?

This explosive material (or pre-material) existed for infinity years, or it was created by a Supreme Being who always existed. Which is more reasonable to believe?

Even if Option 2 seems implausible to you, as it does to some of my beleaguered students, Option 1 is more implausible—completely absurd, in fact. Either way, we can benefit from another clue regarding “where we came from.” And we get that clue from the abundant scientific evidence that the universe was specifically designed for life.

The argument is intricate, of course, so let me defer to some of the experts. First, there’s Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, who summarizes the scientific findings this way:

“There are 15 constants … that have precise values. If any one of those constants was off by one part in a million, or in some cases, one part in a million million … matter would not have been able to coalesce. There would have been no galaxy, stars or people.”

What Collins is talking about here are constants like the strength of gravity, the weight of an electron, how fast the universe expands, and so on. Heady stuff that’s beyond most of us, but these are the conditions for life. If any of them were different by the tiniest fraction, life would not exist anywhere.

Next expert: Paul Davies, internationally-acclaimed physicist and cosmologist. This guy’s so famous in the field that they even named an asteroid after him. Davies builds on Collins’s point:

“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth: The universe looks suspiciously like a fix. … For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all-too-convenient ‘coincidences’ … that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal.”

Then there’s Fred Hoyle of Cambridge University in England, and the originator of the term “Big Bang.” He put it this way:

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

That is, the conclusion that there’s “a super-intellect” behind it all. Even Hoyle’s more-famous Cambridge colleague, physicist Stephen Hawking, an atheist, acknowledged:

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

The point is this: The likelihood of this perfect storm of parameters coming together by chance is as close to zero as a number can get. The more reasonable explanation seems to be that it all came together by design—and a design requires a Designer.

If you want to look it up, this is called “the fine-tuning of the universe” argument. As you’ll see, a critical mass in the scientific community affirms that we’re the result of “all-too-convenient coincidences.”

How Should We Live?

The claim so far is that the logic of the “first-cause” argument and the science of the “fine-tuning” argument support the reasonableness of believing in God. That will be true for this second question as well. Let me ask it this way:

“From your perspective, are there people in the world doing things that are wrong and that they should definitely stop doing?”

Careful how you answer this. No matter what egregious behavior you cite—genocide, terrorism, human trafficking, racism, whatever it is—it can’t be objectively wrong (i.e., wrong for all people at all times across all cultures) unless a Supreme Lawgiver exists. No God, no moral absolutes and no objective basis for right and wrong.

The logic here is actually airtight. Immanuel Kant, possibly the most revered philosopher in the past thousand years, made the argument cogently. And C.S. Lewis later popularized it in his classic, Mere Christianity:

“The moment you say that one set of moral ideals can be better than another, you are in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. … You are in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think.”

His point: We can’t claim that something is moral or immoral, right or wrong for all people at all times across all cultures, unless we recognize there’s a Higher Authority than “what people think.”

And frankly, true atheists fully recognize the validity of this argument. To be consistent, they have to contend that there is no transcendent right and wrong in the world. Richard Dawkins, maybe the most famous atheist on the planet today, said it quite directly in River Out of Eden:

“The universe that we observe has … no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

It’s an echo of Friedrich Nietzsche of “God is dead” fame 140 years ago. Nietzsche insisted that without God—in other words, if God is dead—then the idea of morality is completely baseless. There’s no reason to be kind or even civil, no reason to care about others, no reason to work for justice, and in fact no basis for any human rights.

According to Nietzsche, if God is dead then the idea of morality is completely baseless

That’s horrifying, isn’t it? I heard a news story recently about parents who are on trial for starving their children. When the police found the seven-year-old boy, he was in critical condition. His six-year-old brother had just passed away. The six-year-old weighed only 18 pounds. They had been locked in a closet for 16 hours a day for stealing food from the kitchen while their parents were asleep.

Why am I telling you this ghastly story?

Notice, an atheist can’t even call that behavior wrong because there’s “no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference” in the world. I suspect that many people who think of themselves as atheists may have no idea of the monstrous implications of that worldview.

For the record, this is called the “moral standards” argument for the existence of God, or “the argument from morality.” The upshot: Any claim that there are moral standards applicable to everyone (like “it’s wrong to starve children”) must be founded on a Supreme Lawgiver who determines ultimate right and wrong. Every other claim has two feet planted firmly in mid-air.

What Happens After We Die?

As sometimes happens with my students, perhaps you’re not all that impressed by fancy philosophical arguments or large numbers and probabilities. Is there another way to look at the question of God’s existence that goes beyond philosophy and physics?

I think the answer is “yes” if we consider this third question that can lead to belief in God: “What happens to us after we die?”

Now, the theories are endless. From the ancient Greeks and Egyptians (our deeds yield reward or punishment), to Eastern traditions (reincarnation), to atheism (game over), to the Abrahamic faiths (a final destination based on grace or works), to dozens of others (Wicca, Universalism, Norse, Native American…), envisioning eternity—and often a Supreme Being in charge of it all—has always been part of the human condition.

But to savvy skeptics, some of whom are my students, all this theorizing comes across as mere conjecture. Wishful thinking. Where’s the real evidence for any of it?

It’s a legitimate objection. This side of the Enlightenment, we prefer data to dogma.

Did you know, though, that among all these theories there is indeed one that is data-driven, in other words, evidence-based? During the past half century, a surprisingly-credible case has emerged from people who claim to be actual eyewitnesses to this afterlife, and eyewitnesses to the God they claim to have met there—people whose heart stopped and whose brainwaves flattened, but who later returned to life.

A surprisingly-credible case has emerged from people who claim to be actual eyewitnesses to the afterlife and to the God they claim to have met there

It’s a case from so-called “near-death experiences” (NDEs), and before you parrot that it’s just the natural result of a dying brain, or dismiss it as akin to alien abductions, consider that there may be more substantiation than you realize.

The more complete case, with all of its peer-reviewed rigor, is available here and here and here , among many other places (see “for further study” below). It generally includes three lines of evidence: (1) the prevalence and consistent pattern of NDEs—that is, the plethora of reports worldwide that include similar core elements, (2) the radically-changed lives of those who experience an NDE, and (3) most probatively, the corroborated claims of those returning from an NDE—that is, people returning with accurate information they should not have known. You can find some of the best-known corroborated stories at the first link above.

Data, not dogma. Emerging is an evidence-based theory of life after death.

And the implications of these data—the mounting NDE reports—are profound: a supernatural realm; an afterlife with multiple destinations; and most germane to this article, a Supreme Being whose essence is light and unconditional love. In fact, this latter implication is one of the most consistent elements of near-death reports from the earliest studies to the present day.

It's worth setting aside your presuppositions and examining the evidence for yourself. It's surely not "beyond a reasonable doubt," but it's becoming "more likely than not." Indeed, if the trajectory continues, NDEs may eventually spell the END of atheism.

The Reasonableness of Belief

So “is God real?” In earnest, wrestle with those three questions. The answers from philosophy, from science, and from the eyewitness testimony indicate, at the very least, the reasonableness of belief in God and, frankly, the abject unreasonableness of disbelief.

Bottom line: The atheistic position has become the weaker position, relative to theism, and that’s without even referencing a holy book. I try to shepherd my struggling students to see that for themselves. I hope you’ll see that, too.

----------------------

Michael Zigarelli is a professor at Messiah University in Pennsylvania and the author of several books. You can reach him at [email protected]

----------------------

For Further Study

Video messages from which this article was adapted: “Can You Prove That God Exists?” (Part 1 , Part 2 )

General Resources on the Existence of God

·?????? Reasonable Faith (William Lane Craig): www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/does-god-exist

·?????? Got Questions: www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html

·?????? The Gospel Coalition: www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-existence-of-god/

·?????? Tim Keller making the argument for God at Harvard www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXkrw1VpwRI and at Google www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxup3OS5ZhQ ? See also Keller’s book on which these talks are based, The Reason for God.

·?????? A lengthy resource list: existenceofgod.org/christian-apologetics/existenceofgod-apologetic-resources

·?????? A classic: The Existence of God, Richard Swinburne (Oxford University Press)

Resources on the “First Cause” Argument

·?????? Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry: carm.org/defending-the-faith/the-cosmological-argument/

·?????? A plain English explanation: www.gotquestions.org/cosmological-argument.html

Resources on the “Fine-Tuning” Argument

·?????? A brief and clear video on the topic: www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/other-videos/the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

·?????? “A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God” (A deeper treatment of the topic from Professor Robin Collins): andrewmbailey.com/religion/readings/Collins4.pdf ?

Resources on the “Moral Standards” Argument

·?????? “Can You Be Good without God?” (William Lane Craig): www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

·?????? The Moral Argument: A History by David Baggett and Jerry Walls. See also the a synopsis of this book in Christianity Today: www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/april/apologetics-moral-order-of-world-points-to-god.html

Resources on “Near-Death Experiences”

Popular Press

·?????? Raymond Moody, Life After Life: An Investigation of a Phenomenon—Survival of Bodily Death (Mockingbird Books, 1975).

·?????? Jeffrey Long with Paul Perry, Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences (HarperOne, 2010).

·?????? John Burke, Imagine Heaven: Near-Death Experiences, God’s Promises, and the Exhilarating Future That Awaits You (Baker Books, 2015).

·?????? Titus Rivas et al., The Self Does Not Die (IANDS Publications, 2016).

·?????? Jeffrey Long with Paul Perry, God and the Afterlife: The Groundbreaking Evidence for God and Near-Death Experience (HarperOne, 2016).

·?????? Bruce Greyson, After: A Doctor Explores What Near-Death Experiences Reveal about Life and Beyond (St. Martin’s Press, 2021).

Academic

·?????? Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland, Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality (Wipf & Stock, 2004).

·?????? Janice Holden et al., The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation (Praeger, 2009).

·?????? John Hagan, ed., The Science of Near Death Experiences (University of Missouri Press, 2017).

·?????? Michael Zigarelli, “Near-Death Experiences and the Emerging Implications for Christian Theology” (Christian Scholar’s Review, 2024): christianscholars.com/near-death-experiences-and-the-emerging-implications-for-christian-theology