English
Português
Español
Français
Answer
There is no doubt that the multitude of religions worldwide presents a challenge when determining which one is accurate. Let’s first explore some perspectives on this overarching subject and then examine how one could approach it in a way that leads to a correct understanding of God. The issue of differing responses to a specific question is not exclusive to religion. For instance, if you were to task 100 math students with solving a complex problem, it is probable that many would provide an incorrect answer. However, does this imply that there is no correct solution? Absolutely not. Those who err in their answers simply need guidance to recognize their mistakes and learn the necessary techniques to arrive at the right solution.
How can we ascertain the truth about God? We employ a systematic methodology crafted to distinguish truth from falsehood by employing various truth tests, ultimately resulting in accurate conclusions. Consider the outcome a scientist would achieve by randomly mixing substances in a lab without any methodical approach. Similarly, imagine a physician administering random medications to a patient in the hopes of aiding their recovery. Neither the scientist nor the physician adopts such an approach; instead, they utilize systematic, methodical, logical, evidential methods that are proven to yield correct outcomes.
Given this scenario, why should theology—the study of God—be treated differently? Why assume it can be approached in a careless and undisciplined manner yet still lead to accurate conclusions? Regrettably, this is the approach many individuals take, contributing to the existence of numerous religions. With that in mind, let’s revisit the question of how to arrive at truthful conclusions about God. What systematic approach should be employed? Initially, we must establish a framework for evaluating various truth assertions and then follow a structured path to reach accurate concIllusion. Here is a good framework to use:
1. Logical consistency—the claims of a belief system must logically cohere with each other and not contradict in any way. For instance, the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires. However, one must have a desire to rid oneself of all desires, which is a contradictory and illogical principle.
2. Empirical adequacy—is there evidence to support the belief system (whether the evidence is rational, externally evidential, etc.)? Naturally, it is only right to seek proof for significant claims being made so that the assertions can be verified. For instance, Mormons teach that Jesus visited North America. Yet, there is absolutely no archaeological or other evidence to support such a claim.
3. Existential relevancy—the belief system should address the fundamental questions of life described below, and the teachings should be accurately reflected in the world in which we live. Christianity, for example, provides satisfactory answers to life’s big questions, but is sometimes questioned due to its claim of an all-good and powerful God coexisting with a world filled with very real evil. Critics argue that this violates the criteria of existential relevancy, although many good answers have been provided to address the issue.
The above framework, when applied to the topic of religion, will help guide one to a correct understanding of God and will address the four significant questions of life:
1. Origin – where did we come from?
2. Ethics – how should we live?
3. Meaning – what is the purpose of life?
4. Destiny – where is mankind heading?
But how does one go about applying this framework in the pursuit of God? A step-by-step question/answer approach is one of the best tactics to use. Narrowing the list of potential questions down results in the following:
1. Does absolute truth exist?
2. Do reason and religion mix?
3. Does God exist?
4. Can God be known?
5. Is Jesus God?
6. Does God care about
First, we need to determine the existence of absolute truth. If it does not exist, then we cannot truly be certain about anything (whether spiritual or not), leading us to either agnosticism, where we are unsure about our knowledge, or pluralism, where we accept all positions due to uncertainty about which, if any, is correct.
Absolute truth is described as that which aligns with reality, corresponding accurately to its object, presenting things as they are. Some argue against the existence of absolute truth, but holding such a stance ultimately contradicts itself. For instance, a relativist claims, “All truth is relative,” prompting the question: is that statement absolutely true? If it is, then absolute truth exists; if not, then why assert it? Postmodernism denies truth, yet it asserts at least one absolute truth: the truth of postmodernism. Ultimately, the existence of absolute truth is indisputable.
Moreover, absolute truth inherently has a narrow scope and excludes its opposite. The sum of two plus two is unequivocally four, with no other valid answer. This becomes crucial when comparing different belief systems and worldviews. If one belief system contains elements that are proven true, any competing belief system with contradictory assertions must be false. It is essential to recognize that absolute truth remains unaffected by sincerity and desire. Regardless of how sincerely someone embraces a falsehood, it remains false. No amount of desire can transform a falsehood into truth.
The conclusion to the first question is that absolute truth does indeed exist. Consequently, agnosticism, postmodernism, relativism, and skepticism are all erroneous positions.
This brings us to the subsequent question of whether reason and logic can be applied to religious matters. Some argue against this possibility, but why should it be dismissed? In reality, logic plays a crucial role in evaluating spiritual assertions as it aids in discerning which claims should be rejected and which should be accepted. Logic is indispensable in dismantling pluralism, which asserts that all truth claims, even conflicting ones, hold equal validity.
For example,
Le, Islam, and Judaism assert that Jesus is not God, while Christianity asserts that He is. One of the fundamental laws of logic is the law of non-contradiction, which states that something cannot be both “A” and “non-A” simultaneously and in the same manner. Applying this law to the assertions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity implies that one assertion is correct while the others are incorrect. Jesus cannot simultaneously be God and not God. When utilized correctly, logic serves as a powerful tool against pluralism as it clearly illustrates that conflicting truth claims cannot both be valid. This realization dismantles the entire “true for you but not for me” mentality.
Logic also debunks the “all roads lead to the top of the mountain” analogy often used by pluralists. It demonstrates that each belief system has its unique indicators pointing to vastly different destinations in the end. Logic reveals that the appropriate depiction of the quest for spiritual truth is more akin to a maze—where one path leads to truth while all others lead to dead ends. While all faiths may share some superficial similarities, they diverge significantly in their core tenets.
The conclusion is that reason and logic can be applied to matters of religion. Consequently, pluralism (the notion that all truth claims hold equal truth and validity) is invalidated because it is irrational and contradictory to believe that diametrically opposed truth claims can both be accurate.
The next significant question arises: does God exist? Atheists and naturalists (who do not acknowledge anything beyond this physical world and universe) answer “no.” Despite the extensive literature and historical debates on this topic, answering this question is not particularly challenging. To address it adequately, one must first pose this question: Why does something exist rather than nothing at all? In essence, how did you and everything surrounding you come into existence? The argument for God can be succinctly presented as follows:
Something exists.
You cannot derive something from nothing.
Therefore, a necessary and eternal Being must exist.
Being exists.
You cannot deny your existence because you must exist to deny your own existence (which is self-defeating), so the first premise above is true. No one has ever demonstrated that something can come from nothing unless they redefine what ‘nothing’ is, so the second premise holds true. Therefore, the conclusion naturally follows—an eternal Being is responsible for everything that exists.
This is a position no thinking atheist denies; they simply claim that the universe is that eternal being. However, the issue with that stance is that all scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe had a beginning (the ‘big bang’). And everything that has a beginning must have a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause and is not eternal. Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (denied by all current empirical evidence) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Affirming the existence of God rules out atheism as a valid belief system.
Now, this conclusion does not specify what kind of God exists, but remarkably, it does eliminate all pantheistic religions. All pantheistic worldviews claim that the universe is God and is eternal. And this claim is false. Therefore, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and all other pantheistic religions are invalidated as valid belief systems.
Furthermore, we discover some intriguing attributes about this God who created the universe. He is:
• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)
• Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known)
• Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space)
• Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)
• Timeless and changeless (He created time)
• Immaterial (because He transcends space)
• Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality)
• Necessary (as everything else depends on Him)
• Infinite and sin
• Regular (as you cannot have two infinites)
• Diverse yet unified (as all multiplicity implies a prior singularity)
• Intelligent (supremely, to create everything)
• Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything)
• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)
• Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)
This Being displays characteristics very akin to the God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, which, interestingly enough, are the only core faiths remaining after atheism and pantheism have been eliminated. It is also noteworthy that one of life’s significant questions (origins) has been answered: we now know where we came from.
This raises the subsequent question: can we comprehend God? At this juncture, the necessity for religion is superseded by something more crucial—the necessity for revelation. If humanity is to understand this God thoroughly, it is incumbent upon God to reveal Himself to His creation. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all assert to possess a book that is God’s revelation to humankind, but the query remains as to which (if any) is genuinely accurate? Setting aside minor discrepancies, the two primary areas of contention are 1) the New Testament of the Bible and 2) the person of Jesus Christ. Islam and Judaism both contend that the New Testament of the Bible is false in its assertions, and both repudiate that Jesus is God incarnate, whereas Christianity upholds both as truths.
There is no faith globally that can rival the abundance of evidence supporting Christianity. From the copious ancient manuscripts, to the remarkably early dating of the documents scribed during the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses (some a mere 15 years after Christ’s demise), to the multitude of accounts (nine authors in 27 books of the New Testament), to the archaeological evidence—none of which has ever refuted a single assertion made in the New Testament—to the fact that the apostles met their demise professing they had witnessed Jesus in action and His resurrection, Christianity establishes the standard in terms of furnishing the evidence.
To support its claims, the New Testament’s historical authenticity – that it presents an accurate account of the real events as they happened – is the only correct conclusion to draw once all the evidence has been examined.
When it comes to Jesus, one discovers a remarkable aspect about Him – He asserted to be God in human form. Jesus’ own statements (for example, “Before Abraham was born I AM”), His deeds (such as forgiving sins, receiving worship), His flawless and extraordinary life (which He utilized to validate His truth claims against opposing claims), and His resurrection all substantiate His assertions of being God. The writers of the New Testament repeatedly confirm this reality in their writings.
Now, if Jesus is God, then what He states must be accurate. And if Jesus declared that the written Word of God is flawless and accurate in all it conveys (which He did), this implies that the Bible is truthful in its proclamations. As we have previously understood, two conflicting truth claims cannot both be correct. Therefore, anything in the Islamic Quran or Jewish writings that contradicts the Bible cannot be accurate. Indeed, both Islam and Judaism fall short since they both assert that Jesus is not God in human form, whereas the evidence suggests otherwise. And because we can truly know God (as He has revealed Himself in His written Word and in Christ), all forms of agnosticism are disproved. Lastly, another significant question of life is addressed – that of ethics – as the Bible provides clear guidance on how humanity should live.
This same Bible declares that God deeply cares for humanity and desires everyone to have a close relationship with Him. In reality, He cares so deeply that He became a man to reveal to His creation exactly what He is like. Many individuals have aspired to be God, but only one God endeavored to be human so He could rescue those He profoundly loves from an eternity separated from Him. This fact illustrates the existential relevance of Christianity and also resolves the last two significant questions of life – purpose and destiny. Each individual has been intentionally created by God for a specific purpose, and each person has the potential to know Him personally.
As a destiny that awaits him—one of eternal life with God or eternal separation from Him. This deduction (and the point of God becoming a man in Christ) also refutes Deism, which says God is not interested in the affairs of mankind.
In the end, we see that the ultimate truth about God can be found, and the worldview maze successfully navigated by testing various truth claims and systematically pushing aside falsehoods so that only the truth remains. Using the tests of logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and existential relevancy, coupled with asking the right questions, yields truthful and reasonable conclusions about religion and God. Everyone should agree that the only reason to believe something is that it is true—nothing more. Sadly, true belief is a matter of the will, and no matter how much logical evidence is presented, some will still choose to deny the God who is there and miss the one true path to harmony with Him.
