Christian Theism

The God of Theism is the foundation of Christian Theology. If Theism proves to be flawed, the entire theological framework collapses. Therefore, it is essential that the God of Theism is real. If Theism is true, then all non-theistic worldviews are necessarily false.

Theism is the metaphysical presupposition of Christian Theology. Metaphysics is the study of what lies beyond matter. As Norman Geisler states: “Evangelical theology implies a specific understanding of reality, and there are many worldviews that are incompatible with the claims of evangelical thought.”

Let us now consider the arguments in favor of Theism.

Theism presents a personal, eternal, unlimited God who created the universe and exists beyond His creation, yet also acts within it. Thus, this theistic God is both “out there” (transcendent) and “in here” (immanent within the universe).

According to Theism, God created the universe and did not abandon it—He intervenes in our world supernaturally.

Theism also asserts that God differs from His creatures, as He is absolutely simple, while His creatures are composite beings. God is pure actuality (God is), whereas His creatures possess both actuality and potentiality (created beings are becoming).

God differs from His creatures: He is infinite, they are finite; He has no beginning or end, they had a beginning and will have an end in this world; He is all-powerful, His creatures are either powerful (angels) or powerless (human beings).

God is both the initiator and sustainer of the universe—therefore, He is the Original Cause of all existence and the Current Cause of all existence.

Argument for the Existence of an Original Cause of the Universe

Below are the considerations presented by Norman Geisler.

The Argument from an Original Cause

The essence of this argument is as follows:

1. Everything that had a beginning also had a cause.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The First Premise (“Everything that had a beginning also had a cause”) is generally considered self-evident, since accepting anything else would be equivalent to arguing the absurd claim that nothing can produce something. Even David Hume (1711–1776), a famously skeptical philosopher, admitted: “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause.” (LHD, 1:187)

The Second Premise (“The universe had a beginning”) is supported both philosophically and scientifically. Philosophically, the argument goes:

1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.

2. If there were an infinite number of moments before today, then today would never have arrived, since an infinite sequence cannot be completed.

3. But today has arrived.

4. Therefore, there were only a finite number of moments before today (i.e., a beginning of time). And everything that has a beginning must necessarily have a beginner. Therefore, the temporal world had a Beginner (Cause).

Scientific evidence for a universe with a beginning comes from the so-called Big Bang Theory, supported by most contemporary astronomers. There are several converging lines of evidence that the space-time universe had a beginning:

• First, the universe is losing usable energy (Second Law of Thermodynamics), and anything that is losing energy cannot be eternal—otherwise, it would have already collapsed. An entity cannot lose an infinite amount of energy.

• Second, the universe is expanding. Therefore, when the motion of the universe is reversed—both logically and mathematically—we arrive at a point where it becomes “nothing” (i.e., a point where there is no space, time, or matter). Thus, the universe literally came into existence from nothing. But nothing is incapable of producing anything.

• Third, the radiation echo returned by the universe, discovered by Nobel Prize-winning scientists Arno Allan Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson (see Jastrow, GA, 14–15), has a wavelength identical to that released by a massive explosion.

• Fourth, the massive energy predicted by Big Bang proponents was actually discovered by the Hubble Space Telescope in 1992.

• Fifth, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity required a beginning for time—a view he resisted for years and even tried to avoid by introducing a “cosmological constant” into his equations, which he later regretted (see Heeren and Smoot, SMG, 109).

The cumulative philosophical and scientific evidence for the origin of the material universe provides strong reason to conclude that there must be a non-physical Cause for the origin of the physical universe. Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow admits this conclusion clearly favors Theism (“SCBTF”, in: CR, 17). After reviewing the evidence that the cosmos had a beginning, British physicist Edmund Whittaker agreed: “It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo—divine will constituting nature from nothing.” (quoted by Jastrow, GA, 111). Jastrow concludes: “That there are what I or anyone else would call supernatural forces at work is, at this moment, in my view, a scientifically proven fact.” (“SCBTF”, in: CT, 15, 18)

The Biblical Perspective

Genesis 1:1 declares: “In the beginning (Bereshit), God (Elohim) created (Barah) the heavens (ve hashamaym) and the earth (ve haaretz).” The Hebrew verb Barah means that God created from nothing! Yes, He created the heavens and the earth from no pre-existing material. The Bible loudly proclaims that God is the Original Cause of the universe.

Hebrews 1:10–12 says: “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.”

Hebrews 11:3 adds: “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”

There is no doubt that the universe had an Originating Cause for all existence. And if the universe is expending energy it cannot produce, then where is all this energy coming from that is currently sustaining the universe?

Hebrews 1:3 declares: “The Son [Jesus] is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word (...).” Thus, God is the Current Cause sustaining the universe.

The Argument for a Necessary and Sustaining Cause

Quoting Norman Geisler, “The argument from contingency begins with the fact that at least one contingent being exists—that is, a being that exists but could possibly not exist. A Necessary Being is one that exists and cannot not exist.” The argument unfolds as follows:

1. Anything that exists but could possibly not exist must have a cause for its existence, since mere possibility does not explain actual existence.

2. But nothingness cannot produce anything.

3. Therefore, something necessarily exists as the foundation for everything that exists but could possibly not exist. In short, it violates the principle of causality to say that a contingent being can explain its own existence.

Another way to frame this argument:

1. If everything were accidental, there would be the possibility that nothing had ever existed.

2. But some things do exist (e.g., I exist), and their existence is undeniable, since I must exist to even claim that I don’t.

3. Therefore, if any contingent (accidental) being exists now, a Necessary Being must also exist—otherwise, there would be no foundation for the existence of that contingent being.

The Argument from Change

Another form of the argument begins with the fact that mutable beings exist:

1. Everything that changes moves from a state of potentiality to actuality. That is, all mutable beings have both actuality and potentiality in their essence. Otherwise, every change would involve annihilation and recreation—which is impossible without a Cause, since nothingness cannot produce anything.

2. But no potentiality can actualize itself—just as cement cannot shape itself into a skyscraper.

3. And if no potential can actualize itself, yet we know that at least one being has been actualized (e.g., myself), then ultimately there must be something that is Pure Actuality (with no potentiality—unchanging). Otherwise, there would be no basis to explain how something that had no potential to exist is now existing.

The Argument from Present Dependence

Another form of the argument begins with the present dependence of every part of the universe:

1. Every part of the universe is, at this very moment, dependent on another part for its existence.

2. If every part is currently dependent on another, then the entire universe must also be dependent for the maintenance of its existence.

3. Therefore, the whole universe, at this very moment, depends on some Independent Being for its existence—one that transcends the universe itself.

There are many other arguments in favor of the existence of God as proclaimed by Christian Theism, but I believe the presentation of the arguments above is sufficient to satisfy those who seek evidence for God’s existence beyond the Holy Bible.

As the psalmist declared, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” Just look at creation—and you’ll hear a loud cry proclaiming: Divine Design!