So very many people keep asking me why I believe that there is a God, or why I don't think that one religion is just as good as another, or why I think that Christianity is true and other religions are false, and so on. So I finally just decided to save myself some time by putting all of that information into a page here at my Web site.

There are a number of reasons why I believe that atheism is inadequate as a rational world view. First, atheism cannot adequately explain the existence of the world. Like all things, the world in which we live cries out for an explanation. The atheist, however, is unable to provide a consistent one. If he argues that the world is eternal, then he is going against modern science which states that the universe had a beginning and is gradually running down. If the atheist affirms that the universe had a beginning, then he must account for what caused it. Either way, the atheist cannot adequately explain the world.

Second, the atheistic world view is irrational and cannot provide an adequate basis for intelligible experience. You see, an atheistic world is ultimately random, disorderly, transitory, and volatile. It is therefore incapable of providing the necessary preconditions to account for the laws of science, the universal laws of logic, and the human need for absolute moral standards. In short, it cannot account for the meaningful realities we encounter in life.

Therefore, I believe that there must be a God.

Now, the law of non-contradiction is the foundation for all logical thinking. It is known by a couple different names: the law of contradiction, and the law of non-contradiction. No matter what you call it, this law is absolutely inviolable. The law may be defined as follows: a statement cannot be true and not true at the same time and in the same respect. For example: It cannot be both raining and not raining at the same time and in the same respect. It could have been raining yesterday, but not today. Or, it could be raining where I live but not where you live. But it cannot be both raining and not raining at the same time and in the same place.

For those familiar with the conflicting doctrines of the major world religions, it is rather apparent that they cannot ALL be true. Some are pantheistic, some are polytheistic, and still others are monotheistic. Some teach a personal God, while others teach an impersonal one. Now it follows that if there is only ONE God -- if monotheism is true -- then all religions that teach polytheism and pantheism must necessarily then be false. And if it is true that God is a personal God, then all religions that teach an impersonal God must be false. It's like turning left and right at the same time. It can't be done. Christianity teaches that when you die, you will go to heaven or to hell. Eastern religions say you will be reincarnated. Maybe there is some third option. Now you could go to hell or heaven, or be reincarnated, but one thing I know for sure, you are not going to heaven or hell AND be reincarnated at the same time. One view must be wrong. We could say the same about each of the doctrines of the various religions.

So it follows that either A) all of the major world religions are false, or B) only one religion is true. Now I will show you why I believe B), and why I believe that Christianity is that one true religion.

There are things that I believe every person already knows deep down inside -- the idea that human beings are special, valuable, made in the image of God and have transcendent value; that there's purpose in life; that man is not only valuable, but twisted, sinful, and guilty and deserves to be punished; that God is real, eternal, all-powerful, all-good, all-loving, all-knowing, and fully just and has made an orderly universe and designed it for a purpose. Even if a person denies these things are true, I know he's lying to himself. In his heart of hearts he knows it, and in unguarded moments the truth comes out from his own lips. How does he know it? Through intuition. 

When I say "intuition," I mean a way of knowing which is immediate and direct. It's knowledge you start with, knowledge that's already built in, knowledge that God wrote on our hearts. Our founding fathers called it "self-evident" truth. 

This kind of truth isn't a result of reasoning to a conclusion, so intuitional knowledge doesn't require a defense. Philosopher J.P. Moreland has pointed out, though, that if you can't know some things without knowing why you know them--if you don't have some things in place to begin with--you can't know anything at all. You can't even begin the task of discovery. Aristotle said that some things can't be proved, but without them you can't prove anything. 

Now the question you must ask yourself is this: "What religious view makes sense out of these things that we know by intuition? Maybe a handful of them do, and then you have to go further to decide between them. But some religious views don't seem to make any sense out of life at all, and those must be false, because they don't explain the world as it really is. 

A religious view that says that man is fundamentally good fails because it contradicts what we know about history, human nature, and what we read in the newspaper every day (especially right now). A religious view that saves everybody, regardless of their hatred of God contradicts both God's justice (sin is punished, goodness is rewarded) and God's mercy (He's too kind to force anyone who permanently hates Him to spend eternity in His loving presence). A religious view that says that one gets multiple lifetimes to work off one's own transgressions violates God's standard of holiness, which is perfect, NOT perfect-minus-one. A religious view that includes all contradictory and mutually exclusive religious views is illogical, and it denies God's ability and desire to communicate with us consistently and unambiguously. 

Let's take a look at some of the major world religions and their world views.

For Hindus, the highest of all truths is believed to be the truth of all religions. I have already stated above, in the paragraphs about the law of non-contradiction, why I believe that this teaching cannot possibly be true. This is why I reject Hinduism. Also, Hinduism teaches that our individual identities are part of a large, divine illusion called Maya. In other words, we don't really exist as individuals. Now it strikes me as incoherent that we could know such a thing. How could you know if you were part of a dream? It's like two characters in your dream asking the question, Do I exist? How would they test such a thing? Everything that they would measure to find out if they were real is not real itself either, only part of the dream. How could they have true knowledge of this? To put it most simply, does Charlie Brown know he is a cartoon character? Of course not. It is a ludicrous, incoherent kind of concept. That is why in my view Hinduism is disqualified on its face. It's obviously false that individual people can have true knowledge that they don't really exist and are just an illusion. This is a contradiction and therefore Hinduism must be false. That is why I have no temptation nor feel a rational obligation to even consider Hinduism.

Now let's compare Jesus and His teachings to that of Muhammad. Jesus’ birth was foretold in hundreds of prophecies. Muhammad has no prophecies foretelling his birth or mission. Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin. Muhammad, however, was born of the natural union of a human father and mother. Jesus lived a sinless life (2 Cor 5:21) and is considered sinless by the Qur’an (called an all-Righteous one). Muhammad, however was someone who needed forgiveness for his faults (sura 40:55,41:19). Jesus performed many miracles to substantiate His claim (Luke 7:22), but nowhere in the Qur’an does it state that Muhammad performed any miracles. None of Jesus’ enemies could find any fault with Him, but even the Qur’an states that Muhammad took his son Zaid’s wife from him (sura 33:36-38). Finally, Muhammad is dead today. His grave is in Medina. Jesus is alive forever. He ascended to the right hand of the Father.

Buddha also fulfilled no prophecies, was born of the natural union of a human father and mother, lived a less than perfectly moral life, and is dead today. Plus, Buddhism teaches that the question of God's existence is meaningless. Buddha believed in reincarnation. He taught that every evil thing we do ties us more tightly to the cycle of rebirth. Buddha taught that a person can escape the cycle of reincarnation and enter nirvana only by following the "Noble Eight-fold Path", a strict ethical system. Buddhist teachings include dedication to meditation. To the classical Buddhist, to attain nirvana is simply to be out of existence. Buddhism offers no personal salvation. It stands against sin and immorality, but it ignores the issue of God's existence and our need for redemption. At its root, Buddhism is a form of agnosticism or at least practical atheism. It provides no answers about the ultimate meaning of existence. Although its answers may be better than no answers at all, by denying the ultimate meaningfulness of life Buddhism provides its followers with little motivation to conquer evil or to work for justice. Jesus Christ, in contrast, confronts us with the need to become right with God and to introduce a new order into the world, an order He called "the kingdom of God."

Modern Taoism is a religion of witchcraft, superstition, and polytheism, but it was originally a system of philosophy, and that is how it is being presented to Western culture today. Lao Tse built this system around one principle which explained everything in the universe and guided it all. That principle is called the Tao. There is no simple way to explain the Tao. The world is full of conflicting opposites -- good and evil, male and female, light and dark, yes and no. All oppositions are manifestations of the conflict between Yin and Yang . But in ultimate reality Yin and Yang are completely intertwined and perfectly balanced. That balance is the mystery called the Tao. To understand the Tao is to realize that all opposites are one and that truth lies in contradiction, not in resolution.

Taoism engages in the claim that "Reason does not apply to reality." That statement itself is self-defeating, for it is a reasonable statement about reality. It is either true or false about the way things really are, and not contradictory, yet it claims that ultimately truth lies in contradiction.

Probably the oldest religious tradition is that of Animism, found mostly among the so-called "primitive" peoples of the world such as the Native American cultures. Animism teaches that the world is populated by a myriad of spirit beings that can be appeased and manipulated through ritual and magic. Animism is often a large part of the Wiccan belief system and occurs commonly in occult and spiritism circles. It is also a large factor in the belief in "luck." The major weakness of animistic religion is that it is basically non-ethical. The goal in this religion is primarily to procure the best advantage in the power struggle of the spirit world. There are no ultimate absolutes other than what the spirits of a clan prefer. These are the mores of the tribe. The spirits are finite and experience the same failures as humans. Animism also is ultimately subjective and irrational. Animists are not generally open to a rational examination of their beliefs. It is the experience that counts. The authority comes from tradition. "My ancestors did this for hundreds of years!" Animism leads to fatalism and despair because it provides no answers to the questions of life's meaning and significance, or purpose in history. There is no basis for human dignity in animism. Humans are on the same level as all other forms of life. It is essentially a religion of demons (idolatry). Missionaries who work on reservations in the American west often speak of the oppressive atmosphere as a result of spirit bondage. It is a religion of fear. Alcoholism and suicide are major problems in most animistic cultures.

Now about Neo-Paganism: Neo-Paganism (Goddess Worship, Wicca, and other forms of witchcraft) prides itself in being a diverse movement. It has little central authority, and practitioners do not all have the same views, beliefs and practices. Even among Goddess Worshippers, the term "Goddess" can mean anything from a specific personal deity to an abstract concept simply referring to a power or force within one's self.  Witches even disagree among themselves as to what constitutes a witch! 

This "create your own religion" approach contributes to the movement's popularity, and it also makes Neo-Paganism so diverse and eclectic that it is extremely difficult to accurately identify and define. In fact, I know from my own experience that it is almost impossible to state that all Neo-Pagans believe "this or that." No sooner will this be uttered than someone will speak up and assert that they are a Neo-Pagan and "do NOT believe what you just stated."

I certainly grant that Neo-Pagans have the right to believe whatever they choose, as much as I might disagree with their views. However, as I have said before, I reject ANY religion that teaches that logic and reason should be ignored when I encounter two different views that are obviously incompatible. The idea that each world view is like one more flower in the garden of life is a nice sentiment, but it does NOT fit the real world. In fact, it is nothing short of madness!

In addition, I would like to present a little more of a critique of the Wiccan world view and practices. It is important to keep in mind that the following statements do NOT necessarily apply to ALL Wiccans, but are commonalities shared by MANY who appropriate the word "Wiccan" for themselves. 

Witches follow a principle of ethics known as the Wiccan Rede: "That ye harm none, do what ye will." Whether witches realize it or not, their views raise some very problematic issues: (1) Where does the Wiccan Rede derive from? It must derive from someone or something external to or independent of the universe or Goddess/God or Life Force itself. But how can this be? In the Wiccan world view, nothing is outside or independent of the Goddess, and even death and evil are an integral and necessary part of reality.  The witches' ethical code is therefore inconsistent with their metaphysical world view. (2) If there is "no one right religion, way, or truth for all," then why is this rule (the Wiccan Rede) universal? (3) Since witches do not accept the Christian duality between good and evil, how do they account for the origin and existence of evil and suffering? I don't have the time or space to delve into each one of these points, but I think you get the idea.

Since I believe that Jesus is indeed the promised Messiah of the Old Testament, as I will show below, then automatically I must reject Rabbinic/traditional Judaism since they reject Jesus as the Messiah.

The only other great religious tradition that I know about is Shintoism in Japan. Shintoism is pantheistic like Hinduism, but also has a number of animistic characteristics. I think that I have adequately covered these teachings above.

Thus, if we were to test each religious worldview, all would fail except Christianity. But to test each religious view would be incredibly inefficient. It would be like having five thousand cars in a parking lot, only one of which has an engine, and trying every single one to find the one that worked. You could try 4,999 unsuccessfully and know without even turning the key that car 5,000 works. However, if the person who put the cars in the parking lot and chose the one with the engine were to tell you where that car is, pointed it out, led you to it, sat you in the seat, and even turned the key for you, people would call you a fool to insist, "You're too narrow-minded and intolerant. I'd rather try a few other cars first. I have my own ideas about where the engine is." 

Christianity is the car with the engine. It fits the facts, makes sense, perfectly reflects God's nature and character, and tells the truth about human nature and our predicament separated from God by sin. If we are created in the image of the God described in the Bible, if we are separated from Him by our own sin, and if He loves us so much that He would provide Himself a sacrifice for human sin that reconciles His justice and mercy, wouldn't it make sense for Him to come Himself, demonstrate His identity and authority through His words and works, and then point us to the only way? 

The tenets of Christian beliefs are not based on some kind of blind faith -- as some people have claimed. In fact, we depend very much on the testimony of eye-witnesses. A large portion of the Bible is just that: the eye-witness accounts of people who were actually there. We don't depend on a single individual's revelation of the truth (as, for example, Islam and Buddhism do); in fact, Jesus Christ, the object of our devotion and the focal point of all scripture, didn't write a single word of the Bible! The Bible consists of 66 books written by some 40 different men spanning a period of over 4,000 years. It contains three distinct languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic). The writers were from a wide variety of nationalities; and their professions ranged from kings to fishermen to tent makers.

We believe that the Biblical text in the original languages, as it was given contains no errors. There are ample reasons for this, but let me summarize a few points:

1. The Bible is true historically. In spite of comments to the contrary, archeology has verified the Bible over and over.
2. The Bible is true scientifically. Nothing in scripture has been invalidated by science. In fact, many scientific principles are found in the Bible. A sampling of these would include the roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22), the almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9), the law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7), the hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7), the vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22), the equivalence of matter and energy (Hebrews 1:3), the law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27), the paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11), the atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6), the gravitational field (Job 26:7), and many others. These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of the basic world of man's everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts.
3. The Bible is true prophetically. Click here to read the article, "The Bible: Proof Of Its Supernatural Origin." For a detailed discussion of this area, also see the book, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by Josh McDowell. Jesus was the precise fulfillment of virtually hundreds of messianic prophecies! A few examples are Messiah's humanity (Genesis 3:15); Messiah's Jewishness (Genesis 12:1-3; 28:10-15); Messiah's tribe (Genesis 49:10); Messiah's family (2 Samuel 7:16; Jeremiah 23:5-6); Messiah's birthplace (Micah 5:2); Messiah's life, reception, suffering, work at the cross, death, and resurrection (Isaiah 52:13; 53); and the details of Messiah's crucifixion (Psalm 22).

The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability. Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, ‘we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in ten to the 17th power." That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take ten to the seventeenth power silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."

Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in ten to the 157th power, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000."

(This information was taken from the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.)

The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around ten to the seventy-ninth power. It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident. He was who He said He was: the only way (John 14:6).