Faith Made Reasonable (Part I)
A Defense of God, Christ, and the Bible in a Doubting World
We live in a skeptical, post-Christian world. Faith, once viewed as a virtue, is now often mocked as ignorance. The Bible is dismissed as myth. The very existence of God is questioned, ridiculed, or even hated. We are told that reason and science have replaced belief, that morality is subjective, and that truth is whatever we want it to be. And yet, even amidst this chaos, the same timeless questions persist: Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Is there a God, and if so, has He spoken?
This apologetics series is written not merely to engage in intellectual sparring, but to show that faith in the God of the Bible is both reasonable and necessary. The Christian worldview is not a leap in the dark but a step into the light, a light that reveals the deepest truths about reality, morality, meaning, and destiny.
In this defense of the Christian faith, we will begin with the rational arguments for the existence of God: the ontological, cosmological, and teleological pillars that point unmistakably to a transcendent Creator. From there, we will show that this Creator is not distant or silent, but has entered our world in the person of Jesus Christ. We will examine the evidence for His life, death, and resurrection, and demonstrate that Christ is not merely a religious figure, but the very Logos: the reason and meaning behind all things.
We will also explore the nature and trustworthiness of the Bible. Unlike any other religious text, the Bible stands alone in its historical reliability, prophetic fulfillment, internal consistency, and life-changing power. It is not a collection of human opinions about God, but the revealed Word of God about humanity and His plan to save it.
Of course, no apologetic is complete without grappling with the hard questions. What about evil and suffering? Why does God feel distant? How can Christianity claim to be true among so many religions? These questions will be addressed honestly, not dismissed or sugar-coated. Christianity does not fear hard questions; it invites them. The God of the Bible is not afraid of scrutiny, because truth need not hide.
I have been deeply shaped by the writings of men like C.S. Lewis, whose clarity and imagination bridged the heart and the mind; Norman Geisler, whose philosophical precision built firm foundations; William Lane Craig, whose debates show the intellectual rigor of Christian theism; and Lee Strobel, who walked the journey from skepticism to faith using evidence as his guide. I do not pretend to improve upon them, but I do wish to follow in their footsteps; to join the chorus of those “contending for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.”
This series is not written exclusively for those in academia interested in religion, nor is it merely devotional. It is for anyone: believer, skeptic, or seeker, who dares to ask, “Is Christianity true?” And more importantly, “If it is, what does that mean for me?”
May this series strengthen your faith, challenge your assumptions, and above all, point you to the One in whom all truth, reason, and hope converge: Jesus Christ.
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
—C.S. Lewis
The Ontological Argument — The God Who Must Exist
A God Who Exists in the Mind Cannot Be Greater Than One Who Exists in Reality
The ontological argument is perhaps the most abstract—and misunderstood—argument for God’s existence. Yet its power lies not in its complexity, but in its logic. First formulated by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century, the argument seeks to demonstrate that the very concept of God implies His necessary existence.
Anselm’s definition was simple yet profound: God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. If such a being exists only in the mind, then a greater being—one who exists in reality—can be conceived. Therefore, God must exist in reality. If He didn’t, He wouldn’t be the greatest conceivable being.
A Thought Experiment with Eternal Consequences
Imagine the idea of a perfect island. Now imagine that same island existing in reality, not just in your imagination. An actual perfect island is greater than a merely imagined one. Now take that thought experiment and apply it to God; not a finite, changeable being, but a being of absolute perfection, power, knowledge, goodness, and existence itself.
If we can conceive of such a being as even possibly existing, then His non-existence becomes logically incoherent. A maximally great being must exist in every possible world; otherwise, He is not maximally great. This is the core of the modal ontological argument, advanced by Alvin Plantinga in modern times.
Plantinga’s Modal Version in Simple Terms
- It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
- If it is possible, then He exists in some possible world.
- If He exists in some possible world, then He exists in every possible world (as necessity is part of maximal greatness).
- If He exists in every possible world, then He exists in the actual world.
- Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
This argument, while philosophically tight, leaves many people scratching their heads. It does not rely on physical evidence but on the implications of logic, necessity, and the nature of existence. Some find it unsatisfying, but not because it’s flawed. Often it is rejected because it’s too airtight.
Objections and Replies
Objection: “You can define anything into existence with that logic!”
Response: Not so. The argument applies uniquely to a necessary being, not a contingent object. You cannot define a unicorn or a perfect pizza into existence, because their nature does not include necessity. God, as defined, does.
Objection: “Existence is not a predicate.”
This was famously argued by Immanuel Kant, who claimed that saying something exists does not add to the concept of the thing. But this misses the point. The ontological argument doesn’t treat existence as a property like color or size; it treats it as a mode of being. A God who necessarily exists is fundamentally different from a God who hypothetically exists only in thought.
Objection: “It’s too abstract and detached from reality.”
On the contrary, reason and reality are not divorced. If reality is rooted in logic, and we believe that it is, then arguments based on logical necessity must be taken seriously. Just as mathematics can describe the contours of physical space, philosophical logic can reveal the contours of metaphysical truth.
Why It Matters
The ontological argument, while not always the most accessible, serves as a philosophical high ground. It demonstrates that belief in God is not merely emotional or mythological; it can also be shown to be necessary by pure reason. It shows that God is not simply possible or probable—He is inevitable. As C.S. Lewis often argued, the Christian faith is not merely wish fulfillment or moral philosophy; it is grounded in truth that shapes the entire fabric of reality.
When paired with the cosmological and teleological arguments in the next post, the ontological argument becomes part of a powerful trinity of reason that compels belief in a transcendent, personal, and necessary God. And once such a God is acknowledged, the question naturally follows: Has this God revealed Himself? And He has.