Does God Exist? The Evidence for an Intelligent Creator

Does God exist? That’s a question asked over and over. Yet there are many people with different answers to that question. I want to do what I can to help you come to the only logical answer that I believe is available. But before I get into the subject, I think we need to define some terms up front.

First and foremost, when I use the term God right now, I am not including everything that you may think comes with it. I am defining God, for now, as something or someone that is eternal, without need of a first cause, and is intelligent. I am also defining God in this sense as the first cause itself of everything that needs a cause. In other words, the eternal Creator. God in this sense is the very fabric of reality, in which and by which all things consist.

I am not yet trying to prove who God is, which God is the real one, or anything else. I am only addressing the reality that there is an eternal, intelligent God that created all things which have a beginning. We will talk about the rest in later studies.

The term “atheist” is a combination of “a-” — a prefix meaning “without” or “not” — and “theist” — someone who believes in God (from the Greek theos, meaning “God”). So, atheist literally means “without belief in God” or “not a theist.”

In its strictest sense, it means a person does not believe in God.

However, many people say that atheism is not someone who does not believe in God, but rather someone who simply does not know if there is or is not a God. They define it as “a lack of belief” rather than “a certainty that there is no God.”

This is actually called agnostic. The word agnostic also comes from breaking it into parts as well. The letter “a-” — meaning “without” or “not” and “gnostic” — from the Greek gnōsis, meaning “knowledge”. So, agnostic literally means “without knowledge.”

It should also be pointed out that it isn’t just “a lack of belief,” either. If you do not believe an intelligent creator exists, you still interpret the world through some kind of belief system.

Many atheists adopt what is commonly called naturalism—the view that reality is ultimately explained by natural causes. Others may lean toward positions like scientism or even agnosticism, which say the origin of everything cannot be known. But regardless of the label, everyone approaches reality with some kind of assumptions about how it works and how we come to know things. The difference is not between having beliefs and having none, but between different kinds of belief systems used for understanding reality.

So the issue is not that one side has beliefs while the other has none. The issue is which set of assumptions best explains the world we observe.

That gives us three different belief systems.

• A Theist believes God exists.
• An Atheist believes God does not exist.
• An Agnostic does not claim to know if God exists.

It has also been said that atheism is actually a spectrum, and that not all atheists are certain there is no God; for example, they may label themselves “agnostic atheists.” This means they are not certain that God does not exist, but lean toward that idea.

But it doesn’t matter if you call yourself an atheist, an agnostic atheist, or even a gnostic atheist. The question remains and the answer exists. I hope to guide others to the right answer—and I’m not even going to need the Bible to do it.

What Atheists and Christians Agree On

The difference between many atheists and Christians is not really about belief in what I have defined as God. Except for the intelligence part of that definition, the rest of it is almost a given.

While a very few may reject the idea, most people recognize the logical necessity of something eternal and uncaused: either everything that exists is self-existing, or everything that exists was created by something else that has existed from eternity past. In the end the conclusion that there must be something uncaused is the most widely accepted one.

That’s the part of the definition I gave of God that gets the least pushback. Ask any atheist how everything came to be, and they will ask you why the universe itself can’t just exist eternally. So both sides seem to mostly agree there is something eternal.

The real question is what is that which is eternal, and is it intelligent or not.

Only Two Logical Options

Since this question was first asked, only two logical and coherent answers have ever been presented:

1. Something non-intelligent has always existed — matter, energy, laws of physics, the multiverse, quantum fields, cycles, or whatever form you want to describe it.
2. Something intelligent has always existed — what we call God.

That’s it. Every possible theory anyone comes up with will fit under one of these two umbrellas. The details may differ, but at the core, we’re left with the same fork in the road.

This isn’t a false choice; it’s simply the reality of the situation. We can either believe that blind, non-intelligent processes have formed everything we see, or that an eternal, intelligent Creator was behind it all. Those are the only two categories that are really available.

Even saying “We don’t know” is not a third option. It’s just refusing to acknowledge the reality while pretending to answer the question with a non-answer. It withholds an answer; it doesn’t provide one.

Even if a person wants to deny that something must be eternal, there is no way to do so while maintaining intellectual integrity. Some appeal to the hope that a third option could exist in which something can be both existent and non-existent in the same way at the same time. But that is not a logical possibility. The reality is that something either is or is not. It’s a binary choice with no logical third option.

The Cosmological Argument

The real question is not where everything came from. The real question is what does and does not require a first cause. What can and cannot be eternal?

This is where the cosmological argument comes in. The cosmological argument is simply this:

1. Everything that is contingent upon, or subject to, something else cannot be self-existent.
2. The universe and everything in it is governed by the laws of nature and subject to cause and effect.
3. Therefore, the universe cannot be self-existent.

Or some simplify the argument as:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The argument is that the universe itself cannot be eternal. Nothing governed by the laws of nature—cause and effect—can be eternal. Therefore, something else must exist eternally from which the universe came into being.

This is where the typical accusation from atheists of special pleading comes into play. Special pleading is what occurs when you apply rules to one thing but not to another without justification for not doing so. They say this argument applies rules to the universe but not to God without justification.

But in reality, this is a subtle change and misrepresentation of the argument. That altered version is attacked rather than the real one. The revised argument commits the fallacy of special pleading, not the original.

The actual argument is that whatever begins to exist has a cause. But it is changed when read back as being whatever exists has a cause. That’s not the same argument.

Remember, we all typically agree that something must be eternal. Something must have no cause. That’s not the question. That’s what many try to rephrase the argument to be about. But it’s not the argument. The argument isn’t whether something is eternal; it’s about what is and is not eternal. Those are two different categories.

The subtle misrepresentation is made in order to merge the two categories together, as if the same rules apply to both of them when they do not. This is called a category mistake. It’s a mistake to apply rules about contingent, physical things to something defined as non-contingent or eternal to begin with.

When you point this out, the natural response is that you must first prove that the different category actually exists. In other words, you must prove that something eternal must exist, or that the universe is contingent and has a beginning.

But again, that really isn’t even in question. We already share the common ground that there must be something that is eternal. We also agree that cause and effect is real. So why do we need to prove those two categories exist again?

This isn’t a logical argument; it’s a loop pattern. At first, we accept these things, and then when the logical result is reached, people back up and pretend we don’t know these things. That’s called circular reasoning, and it is a psychological defense mechanism we use to protect ourselves from having to give up one or more beliefs that contradict other beliefs we hold.

The only way to break that pattern is by being honest with ourselves. We should not know the truth and not acknowledge it. Doing so is what the Bible calls being willfully ignorant.

Why the Universe Cannot Be Self-Existent

If we honestly approach the question, we are forced to see that, yes, there is something that must be eternal, and no, it cannot be anything that operates under the laws of cause and effect, which the universe operates under.

These are some of the reasons a self existing universe is actually impossible:

Laws of Thermodynamics:

Without going into detail, these are laws the universe operates under. They are the laws that prevent perpetual motion machines and bring everything to an equilibrium. If the universe itself was eternal, these laws would cause it to be static (no movement).

Currently, it is known that the universe is slowing down. If it were self-contained (eternal), it would have already done so by now.

Even if a continual expansion and contraction of the universe is suggested, like a rubber band, it would have stopped by now just like a rubber band stops. There would be no movement.

If the universe were eternal, we also would not see the imbalances of temperature anywhere. It would be the same temperature all over the universe. But there is still heat that hasn’t cooled. Again, this indicates a self-contained universe is impossible.

The only solution is that there is something that these laws do not apply to.

Evidence the Universe Had a Beginning

Stephen Hawking became as well known as he is because of his 1966 PhD thesis titled Properties of Expanding Universes. In this thesis, he argued that the universe began as what we now call a singularity. In other words, he argued that the universe had a beginning that we know as the Big Bang.

But, while his theory has been a great success, he wasn’t happy with it. In fact, he spent the rest of his life trying to disprove his own theory. Why would he do that? I believe he knew if this were true, then there had to be a creator.

In his book A Brief History of Time (1988), he said, “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” He could have stopped there. But he then said, “But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be.”

He was trying to propose that the universe, which he had already argued had a beginning, did not in fact have a beginning. These are two beliefs that don’t align with each other. This was more than a scientific question; this was a personal conflict of convictions.

Take note that right before he flipped his stance he mentioned a creator. Suddenly his theory didn’t sound too appealing to him anymore. As soon as a creator came into view he changed directions. Sadly, he died having never been able to prove his first theory was wrong and never accepting the creator.

For the rest of his life, he tried to develop other theories which I believe was specifically to remove the need for a creator. It wasn’t about truth or science, which I realize is a harsh thing to say. But my view of it is based on his own words.

One of the greatest minds of our time not only showed that the universe had a beginning, but also knew that if there was a beginning, there could be a creator. Why, then, do atheists often mock Christians for believing this?

Everything we know about the universe points to a beginning, a boundary, an edge, and the lack of self-containment.

The universe is ruled by certain laws that make it impossible for it to exist on its own showing a lack of self-containment. It has been shown to be expanding which means it has a beginning point of expansion, if it has a beginning then it also has a boundary, an edge. Everything which Hawking hoped to find was not really the case.

While many people point to theories such as quantum vacuums, string theory, the multiverse, and so on, none of those theories actually solve the problem of needing something eternal without being contingent upon or subject to anything else.

Even if it is asserted that those rules didn’t apply at the beginning, that has not proven that the universe could be self-existent. It would only have shown that something other than the universe as we know it could exist eternally, not bound by those laws. In which case, we simply arrive at something eternal again; an atheist just doesn’t accept that it is intelligent.

Why the First Cause Must Be Intelligent

This is where the real question is. It isn’t about whether something is eternal; it is about whether that which is eternal is also intelligent.

Some argue that the laws of nature themselves are able to produce everything without the need for intelligence. But laws are not forces or entities — they don’t do anything on their own. They merely describe how things behave once those things already exist. A description cannot create the thing it describes.

For example, one of the theories often presented is gravity being the cause of the universe (as Hawking later proposed). But gravity requires something to already exist for it to act upon. Without something having mass there is nothing to produce the force of gravity.

So the idea that the laws of nature, math, or logic themselves could produce anything on their own fails miserably. They are all concepts, not forces. What we need is something that can act even without anything else to act upon—something that can motivate itself, control itself, and something that can form the universe from itself.

That means we need two things. First, something eternal that can produce matter. Second, intelligence that can arrange itself without prompting.

I want to point out something important here. I’m not saying God created the universe out of nothing. I’m saying it was made from that which already existed—Himself. So the skeptics’ reply that their theories don’t start from nothing while God supposedly makes everything out of nothing is false. Both of us start with something eternal.

The Bible calls God a spirit. Some consider that to be a form of energy. And we have discovered that energy can produce matter from being rearranged. So whether you say that which is eternal was spirit or energy you are talking about the same kind of thing. A force to itself.

But again, is it intelligent?

If you consider that we ourselves are intelligent, it makes sense to say that whatever has always existed has the ability to produce intelligence or possess it. Otherwise, it would not exist. So it is not a leap to say that what is eternal could be intelligent. And if it is eternal, that potential is not temporary or accidental.

As many atheists like to say, given enough time, randomness can produce anything. By their own standard, it is not only possible—it is to be expected.

On top of that, it would not have anything other than itself to motivate it to act. If something is the very foundation of reality, then there cannot be anything else beside it—not even another alternate reality.

Reality cannot be shared with another reality, because that would make them the same reality. And they could not be separate from each other, because that would require some kind of law preventing them from merging. That would mean they are subject to an even more foundational reality.

No, it must be self-motivated. If not, then it would be static. And if it were static, nothing would ever change.

If we are intelligent and have our own desires, it should not be a huge leap to recognize that God would as well. Intelligence is what allows an agent to initiate action without being prompted. Without intelligence, there is no choice, no intention, and no self-directed action.

If the foundation of reality is self-existent, then there is nothing outside of it to force action. A purely non-intelligent foundation can only produce randomness, not explain meaningful order or purpose as seen in the universe.

Therefore, the cause of the universe must be intelligent.

Now we have arrived at something that is eternal, that governs everything within the universe, and that is intelligent. By following logic and reason, we arrive not at myth, but at the simplest and most coherent explanation: there is a God.

All of this gives us the information we need to prove that there is a God. In fact, there is no other possible answer we could come to. It also gives us a good foundation to discover who this God is.

And something you may not be aware of is that science actually supports the Bible. The very first chapter of the Bible gives a description of the process of creation that science is only now beginning to catch up with. In the next study, I will show you why the Big Bang theory is actually closer to what the Bible says than many people realize.

Continue To Unit 1:3 – Does the Big Bang Reveal God? OR

Return To Christianity 101 Unit 1 – The Bible and Faith in God