Come, let us reason together.

Before I begin to explore doctrines of the Christian faith I want to spend some more time exploring the reasons why I am a Christian. Skeptics may say I am naive, easily persuaded, or perhaps superstitious. They may question my reasons for claiming that out of all the world religions I believe Christianity to the the one true faith. They might label me intolerant or perhaps misguided. This post is written for them. I challenge skeptics to honestly explore the reasons for my faith, and to consider them. I invite discussion and questions. As I have said in a previous post Christianity does not have to be a blind faith, there are good reasons to believe. Just like the Apostle Paul reasoned for the faith in Acts 17, I too desire to reason for the same faith. I want to give credit to Dr. Norman Geisler for the teachings that I am presenting here. I am blessed to have read and learned these truths from him.
Lets begin again with truth. Truth about reality is knowable. There is absolute truth which corresponds to the way things are, to the facts. Absolute truth is possible, and absolutes are undeniable. How can I make such a claim in today's world where it is popular to hold to the idea of relative truth? What is my evidence? Two points help me believe in the absolute nature of truth. The first has to do with moral comparisons. For example, if we compare Mother Teresa to Adolf Hitler who will be considered a better person? There really is no comparison. Mother Teresa is considered to be a moral person, while Hitler is considered evil. But how can we make such a statement if truth is relative. We cannot. We cannot even understand what morality is unless there is a set standard to guide us. Another example deals with progress and regress. True progress or regress demands an absolute standard. How can we know that the world is getting better or worse unless we have some understanding of what is best? C.S. Lewis once wrote,

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But
how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked
unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe
with when I called it unjust?" - Mere Christianity.

We can be absolutely sure of some things. Take this argument for example:

I am sure I exist. This is undeniable.

I must exist to make the statement "I don't exist".

I am sure I cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

If I could exist and not exist that would break the law of non-contradiction. This law is foundational to knowledge, an example of a first principle. Without first principles nothing can be known. According to this law opposite ideas cannot both be true at the same time, and in the same place. Therefore, God cannot both exist and not exist. I doubt there will be little disagreement about that point! The question becomes why do I believe he exists?
Let me begin this section by saying that if this law is agreed upon then we can safely say that all religions cannot be true because they teach opposites. I do believe however, that a theistic God exists, and now I will present some arguments for His existence.
First:

What had a beginning had a beginner. (Like a set of dominions lined up and knocked over).

The universe had a beginning.

The universe had a beginner.

How can I say that the universe had a beginning? I was not there to see it. I will present a scientific argument for the beginning of the universe:

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed, isolated system the amount of usable energy always decreases. Our universe has not run out of energy, so therefore it cannot be said to be eternal. If we liken a closed, isolated system to an hourglass then we can understand if the sand had an eternal time to funnel down then it would have finished an eternity ago. If our universe was eternal the amount of usable energy would have been used up an eternity ago. We can conclude then that our universe is not eternal. If it is not then it must have had a beginning. If it had a beginning, then it must have had a beginner. Why must that which has a beginning have a beginner? I will answer that question with an argument from astronomy:

Anticipatory design shows an intelligent designer.

Human life shows anticipatory design.

So, human life shows an intelligent designer.

Another argument from Micro biology says:

Irreducible complexity has an intelligent designer.

First life had irreducible complexity.

So, first life had an intelligent designer.

I will conclude these arguments by once again addressing morality. A moral argument:

Every law has a law giver.

There is an absolute law.

There must be an absolute moral, law giver.

We do not invent this moral law any more than we invent physical laws, or mathematical laws. They are discovered. Universal guilt proves there is a moral law. People all over the world find the same types of things evil, genocide, racism, and bigotry for example. If we combined what these arguments tell us about God we could conclude that there is a powerful, intelligent, absolutely perfect God who is unique. There cannot be two infinite beings. If God exists then miracles are possible. And that is what we will explore in my next post.