Many Christians throughout history have argued for the existence of God in various ways and using various methods. For example, there’s the moral argument for God. The argument goes something like this: there are objective morals in the world that transcend local communities. These morals didn’t just arise out of thin air and they can’t well be defended by the theory of evolution. The best explanation for these objective morals is the existence of God. Of course this argument takes various forms. There are also other arguments for God’s existence like the argument from order or the “first cause” argument.
I appreciate how Tim Keller briefly explains these kinds of arguments for God’s existence:
Many people point out that the arguments for God not only do not prove God’s existence but also give us only an ‘unmoved mover’ or some other abstract being, not the holy, loving, all-powerful God of the Bible.
But the purpose of the so-called theistic arguments is not to give us a specific description of God. The main work they do is to help us ‘see the inadequacies of [secular] naturalism’ and bring us to see that there is probably something transcendent outside of nature. These ‘cases for God’ have been around for centuries, but in today’s world our goals for their use should be targeted but modest. They primarily provide a means for ‘shaking up the dogmatic confidence…that naturalism and materialism are the default rational views of the universe.’
Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Hammond, WI, 54015