Apologetics is defined as “reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.” 1 Peter 3:15 reminds us, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” As ambassadors of Christ we must accept the challenge of the battle for truth whenever we encounter it.
Those who wish to diminish God to a simple and comprehensible persona, or even deny his existence entirely, have often relied upon complicated and exaggerated efforts to rationalize a secular worldview. The ensuing debates over God have occupied the minds of philosophers, intellectuals and people from all segments of society and elicit apologetic responses from passionate defenders of the faith who stand ready to engage on behalf of their Rock and Redeemer.
Occam’s razor or the law of parsimony, is a principle stated by the philosopher William of Ockham, that “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” Simplicity is given precedence when two competing theories are considered, and the simpler of the two is the preferred explanation. When applied to the philosophical study of ontology and specifically metaphysical theories such as those of the soul, of bodies, or of God, this principle is often used by those wishing to discredit God and dispute the very nature of his existence. Antirealists insist that only basic irreducible constituents of reality are acceptable in our comprehension of our environment and the concept of a Creator is far too complex to consider in our perception of causality and epistemology.
Philosophers can become bogged down in their existential rationalization when variables such as essentialism become a component of their efforts to explain the cosmos in the simplest hypothesis, resulting in implacable disputes that are perpetual and inconclusive. The impact of these discussions permeates academia, our schools and universities, resulting in anything but simplicity, convoluting the law of parsimony through self restricting and self defeating circular reasoning. This becomes a significant barrier to perceiving God as he has revealed himself in the pages of the Bible.
The Moral Perspective
Additionally, morality inevitably must be considered in the discourse. Hastings Rashdall argues, that because moral objectivity alone is evidence of an objective moral standard; an absolutely perfect moral law can exist only if there is an absolutely perfect mind. Since ideas can exist only if there are minds (thoughts depend on thinkers) and absolute ideas depend on an absolute mind (not a finite mind).
If an absolute moral law exists independent of individual minds, then it must ultimately come from a mind that exists independently of finite minds. Since this moral law exists independent of human consciousness of it and in spite of the lack of human conformity to it, there must be a supreme mind from which the moral law was conceived. This supreme mind can only be construed as God.
W.R. Sorley points out that there is a distinction between a natural law and the moral law. While a natural law is descriptive of the universe, the moral law is prescriptive of human behavior. Therefore, the moral law cannot be part of the natural world.
C.S. Lewis builds on these assertions by adding that without a moral law, moral disagreements are nonsensical, moral criticisms are meaningless, it is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties and that we would not make excuses for breaking the moral law. Since a universal moral law requires a universal moral law giver that gives moral commands and is interested in our behavior, this universal law giver must be absolutely good. Otherwise all moral effort would be futile, since our lives would be wasted in pursuit of what is not ultimately right. Therefore, the source of all good must be absolutely good, since the standard of all good must be completely good. Hence there must be an absolutely good moral law giver.
Furthermore, the moral law cannot be the result of social convention because not everything learned in society is based on social convention. The same basic moral laws are prevalent in virtually every society, past and present. Further, judgments about social progress would not be possible if society were the source of the judgments.
The main objection to an absolutely perfect law giver is that of evil and injustice in the world. The truth is that we live in an imperfect world. Lewis points out that the only way the world could possibly be imperfect is if there is an absolutely perfect standard by which it can be judged to be imperfect. Injustice makes sense only if there is a standard of justice by which something is known to be unjust.
Finite vs Infinite
Ultimately, our finite minds cannot fathom an infinite God. As Creator, God is not restricted by the laws that govern his creation. He is outside of time, space and matter, therefore they have no effect upon him, yet he has immense impact upon them. The prophet Isaiah wrote, “’For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’” Isaiah 55:8-9.
Occam’s theories are simply philosophical explanations for mankind’s inability to fathom its Creator. Ontological arguments are reduced to man’s perspective of wrestling with the idea of God while ignoring the fact that God transcends the metaphysical and impacts the physical world in profound ways. God himself applied the law of parsimony in order to bridge the chasm between an incapacitated comprehension of his eternal qualities by humanity and his holy character.
Jesus Christ as the incarnation of God exemplifies this. Without compromising his omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence or eternal nature, God manifested himself as a man in order to physically accomplish what the human mind, body and soul could not. Jesus broke the paradigm that perceived God as a distant impersonal force and put a face on the deeply personal living and eternal Creator that despite his omnipotence, has honored his creation with the freedom of choice that allows those who come to know him to love him freely and without coercion.
Historical Credibility
Given the overwhelming evidence of his life, death and resurrection, to remain in denial of Christ’s historical impact is simple and persistent obstinacy. Jesus has impacted human history infinitely more than any other human being in the history of human beings. This occurred against all odds. The Jewish religious leaders went to great extremes to silence him and his followers. The Romans severely punished anyone associated with his name and yet the Christian movement flourished and endures today, two thousand years later. Civilization has been greatly effected by Jesus. This is an undeniable truth.
When we examine what he said, taught and illustrated by his example we find a line drawn in the sand that separates Christ from all other religious entities in that his truth claims command we take a position either for him or against him. He said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6. He also said, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” Matthew 12:30.
We all have a choice. We have the option to restrict ourselves to a physical and rational interpretation of our mortality, or we can choose to recognize there is something more, something supernatural, that cannot be explained in human terms. Paranormal activity is acknowledged in the present yet we struggle to rationalize that God entered our physical realm as a man. Jesus provided a simple and irreducible testimony that connected all the dots.
Rather than complicating the argument for God, Jesus fulfilled the law of parsimony by teaching that all of the Law and the Prophets are summed up in loving God and loving each other. 1 Corinthians 1:27 tells us, “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.”
To say that God exists simply requires that one has some knowledge of his existence or has a personal relationship with him. To say that one is unsure of the existence of God is self-admittedly recognizing that one does not possess all knowledge of his existence. But to assert that God doesn’t exist – to impose a universal negative – one must possess all knowledge both for and against his existence and have determined without error that he does not exist. Does anyone possess all knowledge? Or are those who deny the existence of God simply making noise based upon their limited comprehension of the cosmos? If Jesus danced in the rain would they accuse him of kicking up dust?
