For many, Easter is just another holiday, but for Christians like myself, Easter is much more: the celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus and the triumph of life over death. But am I justified in my belief? Many dismiss religion and God as backward, unintelligible superstition. What is often overlooked, however, is that religion has an extensive and rich intellectual history. I used to be an atheist, but I have come to believe that faith in God is indeed rational, as there are good cumulative reasons to believe in God, of which just two of these reasons, I would like to share as Easter is approaching. These arguments do not aim to outright prove God's existence but instead aim to show that God's existence is at least more probable than not, and I hope you will engage them with an open mind.
One argument I find convincing is the Kalam Cosmological Argument which goes as follows:
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause. (God)
This is what philosophers call a ‘deductive’ argument, which means if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This argument is essentially asking – what caused the Big Bang?
The first premise is based on the fundamental principle that something cannot come from nothing without a cause. If things can come into being out of nothing without a cause, then why don't things just come into existence all the time? It would be absurd to say that things like planes or bouncy castles could just pop into existence out of thin air without a cause. In fact, something coming from nothing without a cause is worse than magic, because at least with magic you have a magician! Science also relies on this assumption. Without it, science would entirely break down as we could not make predictions. Someone may say that quantum fluctuations show us that things really can come from nothing. However, what scientists mean by ‘nothing’ in this context is not really nothing, but instead a field of energy with structure and physical laws.
The second premise is supported by Big Bang Cosmology, which tells us that time and space simultaneously came into existence at a singularity about 13.8 billion years ago in the past. This is the most widely accepted view among scientists. Some might argue that the Big Bang was just one of many, with the universe collapsing in a Big Crunch and then re-bouncing into another Big Bang, with this cycle going on infinitely as an oscillating model. However, this theory is pure speculation without any evidence. Furthermore, the concept of an infinite series of past events is philosophically absurd.
Some might accept this argument but say that the cause of the universe is not God. However, I think God is the best explanation when we consider the properties this cause must have had. It must be transcendent-beyond space and time since it created space and time. It must be enormously powerful to bring the entire universe into existence. It must be personal, because it chose to will the universe into being. Therefore, God provides the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe. Now, someone may ask ‘What caused God?’ This question, however, misunderstands the first premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Unlike the universe, God did not have a beginning as he is outside of time and space and therefore does not have a cause.
Another argument I find convincing comes from the historicity of Jesus which goes as follows:
Premise 1: The best explanation of the historical facts surrounding the life of Jesus is that God raised Jesus from the dead.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
This is what philosophers call an ‘inductive’ argument, which means if the premises are true the conclusion is likely true.
It is a consensus among most secular historians that:
1: Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure who was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
2: Jesus’ followers claimed to have seen him alive after his death.
3: Jesus’ followers were willing to die horrific deaths for the claim that they had seen Jesus alive after his death.
Now the question is, what is the best explanation of the facts; did Jesus' disciples see Jesus alive, or did they make it up? This question continues to puzzle historians to this day. For context, in Jesus' time, Jewish people believed in the coming of a Messiah (which was who Jesus claimed to be) who would be a powerful political leader. For Jesus’s followers to claim that they had seen their Messiah alive, after he had been killed in the most humiliating way, and then be willing to face horrific persecution and death all for a lie seems highly implausible to me. Not only would they be committing blasphemy and misleading others, but they would have gained nothing in return. Psychology also shows us that people don't die for what they known to be a lie.
Some might argue that it was a group hallucination, but even if group hallucinations do happen, they surely do not happen to this extent. Jesus’ followers spent many days and nights with him, eating and drinking together. Moreover, such a hallucination seems highly implausible given their Jewish worldview. Some might argue that people in cults often make odd claims and do bizarre things. But that argument fundamentally misunderstands the historical context. The resurrection was incredibly contrary to what they believed at the time, and they had every reason and disposition not to invent such a story. Given these facts, and the support of the Kalam argument, the best explanation is that God raised Jesus from the dead.
Thank you for reading. So, is belief in God rational? Well, I think so! What do you think? If you're interested in these arguments, or others, you can find more out at https://www.reasonablefaith.org/.