James d. Bales Argues the Case for the Existence of God

    James D. Bales Argues the Case for the Existence of God....

  On the nights of October 6, 7, 8, 9, in the year 1947, James D. Bales, head of the Bible Department at Harding College in Searcy, Arkansas, debated Woolsey Teller, one of the founders of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism. This discussion was conducted in the Harding College Auditorium.

  James Bales’ affirmative proposition was quite simply, “Resolved: God Is.” He proceeded to make the case that the existence of God could be deduced or logically inferred from the physical properties of the universe. This equates to the contemporary arguments for “Intelligent Design.”

  Our brethren let the atheists come onto the campus of a Bible college and argue their infidelity, but government today, and government supported educators dare not allow a Christian to speak on a college campus to explain the reasons for believing in a divine creator.

  James Bales advanced ten arguments in the first speech of his affirmative proposition:

I.    The Christian Cannot Lose!  Even if we are wrong we have lost nothing except our hope; and we have enjoyed that hope, the happiness that attends it, and we have enjoyed a quality of life based upon our standards which exist on a level that no atheist could possibly understand or enjoy.

  The atheist, on the other hand, if wrong, loses everything with no hope of reclaiming it!

II.    Belief in God may be established by default.  Theism versus atheism leaves only two opposing choices. There can be no other alternatives. It is not possible to demonstrate that everything we see and enjoy resulted by accidents of fate and parented by matter. All things had a beginning; they either originated from mind or matter! Atheists have postulated, but they have not demonstrated, that we were parented by non-living matter. No observable law can demonstrate how we could have originated from dead matter.

III.    It Cannot Be Proved That God Does Not Exist!  In order to prove that God does not exist it would be necessary to know everything there is to know. And it would be necessary to be everywhere in the universe at the same time. If there were anything that one did not know, that one thing might be the fact that God exists! If one could not be everywhere in the universe at the same time, the one place where he had not been might be the place where God could be found!

  But, if one could know everything and be everywhere, he would be omniscient and omnipresent.  If he were omniscient and omnipresent, he would be God!

IV.  Of necessity, something has existed eternally!  There are only two possibilities: either mind or matter has existed eternally. It is contrary to all known science to believe that life has come from non-life. Even with intelligent men striving toward that goal – spontaneous generation has never been demonstrated. Life does not come from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligence, morality from amorality, consciousness from unconsciousness, nor order from disorder.

  In the beginning everything came either from God, mind, life, or it came from non-living matter. It is irrational and not demonstrable to believe or argue that life and order came from non-living matter and disorder.

V.   Faith in God or some kind of higher power has been universally shown by students of anthropology.  The atheist is an aberration among men; virtually all civilizations believe in the existence of a higher power – God. The Bible reveals that all men have a common parentage in father Adam, and again in father Noah. Both of these men and their families were believers in God. Their knowledge, faith and experience has been passed along to succeeding generations. While men have apostatized in many particulars, common faith in the existence of God has prevailed.

VI.     Evolution could not disprove the idea or existence of God.  Even evolution would demand some kind of explanation. Sixty years ago Bales cited a number of evolutionists who believed in the existence of God or, at the weakest, did not think that evolution could disprove the existence of God.

W. H. Turton in The Truth of Christianity, argued that “even evolution would demand God for its explanation.” Lecomte du Nouy, in Human Destiny, showed that evolution could not work without an overruling power, God. Charles Darwin in London, in the sixth edition of the “Origin of Species”, page 504, still spoke of the creator breathing life into a few forms, or into one, at the beginning.

  T. H. Huxley, in his Glasgow address, stated that evolution does not destroy the argument from design for the existence of God. John Tyndall in Fragments of Science, Volume II, “Essay on Spontaneous Generation,” knew that spontaneous generation had not been proved. He was “filled with awe by the starry heavens above and by a sense of man’s moral responsibility” (ibid, Vol. II, page 229). He granted that evolution could not be proved by experimental demonstration (Vol. II, page 194). Professor Tyndall, at Manchester, England, asked, “Can it be that there is no being in nature that knows no more about these things than I do? Do I, in my ignorance, represent the highest knowledge of these things existing in the universe? Ladies and gentlemen, the man that puts that question fairly to himself, if he be not a shallow man, if he be a man capable of being penetrated by profound thought, will never answer the question by professing that creed of atheism which has been so lightly attributed to me” (ibid, Vol. XXIII, page 135). Charles Darwin said that when we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed; and that we could not prove that the supposed changes are beneficial – which is the groundwork of the theory (Life and Letters of Darwin, 1898, Appleton Edition, Volume II, page 210).

  (Editor’s Note: Darwin once confided in a friend that when he thought about the human eye, it made him feel sick. He feared his theory was on very shaky ground. “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6thed., London: John Murray, 1859, page 182.  “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by

natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in

 the highest degree.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1909 Harvard Classics edition), page 190.

---Cited from Science vs. Evolution, by Vance Ferrell, page 1007. Published by Evolution Facts, Inc. Altamonte, Tennessee. 2006.

  This article will be continued in Part II — Thomas C. Hickey, Editor).

 

 

Factoid – 160,000 copies of the book, Science vs. Evolution, had been distributed by 2006. It contains “over 3,000 scientific facts which annihilate evolutionary theory”, including 1,350 scientific quotations or references, 260 illustrations, a research guide, and 3 complete indexes. “The book is based on extensive research and is highly recommended by scientists and educators.”

 

 

You are viewing the text version of this site.

To view the full version please install the Adobe Flash Player and ensure your web browser has JavaScript enabled.

Need help? check the requirements page.


Get Flash Player