Saturday, 11 April 2026

If God Exists, Why Is There Evil?

If God Exists, Why Is There Evil?

If God Exists, Why Is There Evil?

Evil surrounds us and sooner or later always kills us. Earthquakes, fires, cancers, strokes, dementias, rapes, tortures, murder, and countless other tragedies happen all over the earth every single day. The monotony and inescapable effects of evil weigh heavily on all of us, causing people to ask this crucial question: If God exists, why is there evil?


There are four big-picture points we need to keep in mind if we are going to understand why God allows evil.

First, we need to understand the origin of natural evil.

Second, we need to comprehend the origin and extent of human evil.

Third, we need to grasp the nature and value of free will.

Fourth, we need to be aware of how God will resolve evil in eternity.

Of course, all of these issues merit greater explanation, and it needs to be explain with very insightful thoughts.[1]

The Origin of Natural Evil

To understand the origin of natural evil, we must take the book of Genesis seriously. In Genesis 1, we are told that God created the first man and the first woman and placed them in a garden. Genesis 2:16-17 says that “the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die’” (NIV). Here, Adam and Eve, our first and original parents, were given the option to obey or disobey God, and the penalty for disobedience was clear: death. Adam and Eve rebelled against God and ate from that tree anyway, and we’ve been attending funerals ever since. In response to their rebellion, the Lord did the following:

First, to the woman God said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16). So there were two consequences: The first was that childbearing would be very painful (that probably includes everything related to childbearing, such as female reproductive problems). The second was that the husband would now rule the woman. A husband ruling over his wife was not a part of God’s original plan, and the world has since witnessed many men treating women harshly and unjustly.

Second, in verse 17, the Lord told the man, “Cursed is the ground because of you.” Romans 8:20-21 explains that creation was “subjected to futility” and is now in “bondage to corruption.” Thus, natural evil entered the world because God cursed the earth in response to Adam’s sin. In fact, what harmful mold, decay, disease, and so on and on, cannot have ensued from God looking at planet Earth and saying, “I curse you”? There is something desperately wrong with our world, and that is because God cursed it.

Third, in Genesis 3:22-24, the Lord banished the man and his wife from the Garden of Eden, thus removing them from the rejuvenating power of the tree of life, and so all humans began to die. Taken together, these things are the origin of natural evil, which was the result of Adam and Eve’s free choice to sin. All natural evil, therefore, is in one way or another related to sin.[2]

Sometimes people object that God should have created someone else who would not have sinned. That is exactly what God did: Jesus was born in the likeness of human flesh yet kept all of God’s commands perfectly, including death on the cross. And by trusting in Jesus’s giving His life for us, we can be saved from our sinful condition. First Corinthians 15:22,45 says that “for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive…‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” And what kind of life does Jesus give? Eternal life!

The Origin and Extent of Human Evil

Adam and Eve used their free will to disobey God, thus plunging us into a world of sorrow, sickness, and death. But that is not all that resulted: They also lost their proper relationship with God and their natures were corrupted. We read in Genesis 3:8 that after they sinned, they “hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God.” And then in that fallen state, they had children. Thus Adam and Eve, our first and original parents, passed on to us their corrupted natures. In other words, we are the sexual reproductions of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve could not reproduce beings greater than themselves. They could only give birth to fallen humans estranged from God.

Hence Jesus said in John 3:6, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” Therefore, all of us are born, in a very real sense, Adams and Eves. We inherited their natures. In fact, we received our souls from Adam and Eve. Further, we received our consciousness from Adam and Eve. Consequently, until a human is born again, he or she is Adamic flesh that needs to be born from above (John 3:3,7; 1 Peter 1:23). This is called the doctrine of original sin, and it explains why people do so many evil things. There is something terribly wrong with humankind that is best explained by the fact that our natures were corrupted by the sin of Adam and Eve—the original sin. The human propensity for evil could be illustrated in many ways, but I will use only one example—genocide. Every genocide researcher I have ever read (and I have read a lot of them)—and even every genocide survivor I have ever read—agrees that it is the average member of a population that commits genocide.

In Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland, genocide researcher Christopher Browning concluded, “I could have been the killer or the evader—both were humans.”[3] Similarly, sociologist Harald Welzer wrote,

"We are left then with the most discomforting of all realities— ordinary, “normal” people committing acts of extraordinary evil. This reality is difficult to admit, to understand, to absorb…As we look at the perpetrators of genocide and mass killing, we need no longer ask who these people are. We know who they are. They are you and I."[4] Hannah Arendt concluded of Auschwitz administrator Adolf Eichmann that the trouble with him was that “so many were like him, neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal.”[5]

Even Auschwitz survivor Elie Wiesel concluded, “Deep down…man is not only executioner, not only victim, not only spectator; he is all three at once.”[6]

Like it or not, we were all born Auschwitz-enabled. As Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga put it, “The doctrine of original sin has been verified in the wars, cruelty, and general hatefulness that have characterized human history from its very inception to the present.”[7] Even atheist Michael Ruse agrees: “I think Christianity is spot on about original sin—how could one think otherwise, when the world’s most civilized and advanced people (the people of Beethoven, Goethe, Kant) embraced that slime-ball Hitler and participated in the Holocaust?”[8]

With these truths in view, perhaps Scripture makes more sense when it says in Romans 3, “There is no one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open graves…Their mouths are full of cursing…Their feet are swift to shed blood.” Indeed, nothing illustrates humanity’s “feet” being “swift to shed blood” like genocide. This is all a horrifying revelation, and indeed, without Christ, I do not know how one could find an affirmative meaning in life. Once we truly understand the depths of human evil, then the question changes from “Why does God allow evil?” to “Why does God allow humans?” Or, “Why does God allow humans with free will?”

Free Will and Its Value

Free will is the ability to do other than what you do. For example, people can choose between the mundane (such as whether they are going to have Neapolitan ice cream or chocolate) or the morally significant (such as whether or not they are going to remain an alcoholic). If you are going to let your daughter exercise her free will, you cannot give her permission to go out with the boy down the street and then chain her to a heavy kitchen appliance. Similarly, for God to give Adam and Eve free will required that God give them the ability to rebel against Him. This is as logical as it gets.

Some have argued, however, that if this evil is the price of free will, then God should not have given us free will in the first place. But would you want to be around only things without free will—call them robots or androids or whatever—things that are no more than lifelike, life-size Chatty Cathy dolls that are programmed to say “I love you”? The Lord desires relationship with real beings who can make real decisions and have real desires—and so do we! But that means, for all their flaws, that we must endure the good and the bad from real humans.

In this tragedy of human death and sin, God is doing something wonderful. Both our present knowledge of the horrors of human sinfulness and our further education at the judgment will prepare us to inherit God’s kingdom, where we will regard sin as beneath us. This knowledge prepares us for when God sets us free in His kingdom to do what we want to do. We will not want to sin because we have already learned the knowledge of good and evil here and we will be further informed on the horror of sin at the judgment. Also, in heaven, there will be no world or devil to tempt us. Our lustful, Adamic flesh will be transformed, hell will be an eternal reminder to free beings of the horror of rebellion, and we will live by sight. Again, however, the key point is that we are learning here on earth the horror of rebellion against God.

How God Will Resolve Evil in Eternity

Eternity relates to our suffering here because eternity will dwarf our suffering to insignificance. Our sufferings here will be diminished by the eternal glory that awaits us for three reasons.

First, we Christians will get it all, as in we will get everything. Consider 1 Corinthians 3:21-23: “So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God” (NIV). “All things” are ours! Similarly, Jesus said in Luke 12:32: “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” He’s going to “give” us the kingdom—not just let us visit it.

Second, not only do we get it all, we get it all forever. Remember, God’s promise to the Christian is “eternal life.” In fact, the most famous verse in the Bible, John 3:16, ends with “should not perish but have eternal life.”(See also Matthew 25:46; John 3:36; 5:24; 6:40; Acts 13:48; Romans 2:7; 6:23; 1 John 5:13.)

Third, forever we will enjoy the Creator of the universe—the King of kings and Lord of lords—and forever we will enjoy other Christians. The Lord is supremely accomplished, supremely beautiful, supremely knowledgeable (in fact, by definition He is omniscient), and supremely powerful (by definition He is omnipotent). And we are told, “God is love” (1 John 4:8). It is not that love is a character quality that God possesses, but that love is God’s very nature. Contrary to the popular image of heaven being about sitting on a cloud, sporting flightless wings, and forever strumming a harp, the afterlife is most often compared to a banquet (Isaiah 25:6; Mark 14:25; Revelation 19:9), and we are going to feast like that with each other forever!

Consider 2 Corinthians 4:16-18: “We do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.” When Paul wrote “beyond all comparison,” he was not speaking metaphorically. Even a full human lifetime of suffering here is dwarfed to insignificance by eternity. The Lord is giving all things to those who trust Him, and He is giving them all things forever and ever!



[1] Clay Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil? Compelling Answers for Life’s Toughest Questions (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2017).

[2] Some might wonder about John 9:1 and the man born blind, of whom Jesus said, “‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned…but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him’” (NIV). But would the man have been born blind if Adam and Eve had never sinned?

[3] Christopher R. Browning, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (New York: HarperCollins, 1992), xx.

[4] Harald Welzer, “On Killing and Morality: How Normal People Become Mass Murderers,” Ordinary People as Mass Murderers: Perpetrators in Comparative Perspective, eds. Olaf Jensen and Claus-Christian W. Szejnmann (New York: Macmillan, 2008), 148-149.

[5] Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (New York: Penguin, 1994, reprint 1963), 277.

[6] Elie Wiesel, The Town Beyond the Wall, trans. Stephen Barker (New York, NY: Avon, 1970), 174.

[7] Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford, UK: Oxford University, 2000), 207.

[8] Michael Ruse, “Darwinism and Christianity Redux: A Response to My Critics,” Philosophia Christi 4 (2002), 192.

Bible le Iran

Bible le Iran

Bible le Iran

Iran hming umzie le an sakhuo

Iran hming hmasa chu Persia a nih. Thlaṭau (March) 1935 in rambung pakhat angin a hung ngir ṭana. 1979 in ‘Islamic Republic of Iran’ tia thlâk a hung ni tah.

Iran ramah hin ṭawng chi tum tum a uma, ṭawng an hmang tlanglâwn tak chu Persian ṭawng 'Farsi' a nih. Iran hming hi “Aryan” tia lâksuok ‘Aryanhai ram’ tina a nih.’ Persia ti hi ‘Parsa’ ti ânthawka laksuok tuta Iran Simthlang (Southwest) tieng dep Persian Empire inṭanna bulṭhut hming chawia phuok a nih. Greek haiin ‘Persia’ ti hi an hung suklangsar ṭan a, khaw tlang ram chenin inlar tak a ni ta pei a nih.

Kum 2000 chuong zet el ‘Shahs’ hai awpdena hnuoia um a nih. Anni hi Muslim sakhuo a khawm ‘Shia Muslim’ ei tihai an nih.

Muslim hi hlawm lien tak tak pahnia ṭhe an nia- Shia le Sunni ti an nih. 632 AD khan Muslim sakhuo ṭhuoitu chungchanga an inṭhea, Prophet Muhammad thlaktu ding thua ngaidân an phir leiin an in the tawp el a nih. Sunni hai hin an ṭhuoitu ding chu mipui hai thlang Abu Bakr (elected leadership) an dita, Shia hai ruok chun an pathien (Allah) namdet ngei, inthlasawng ṭhuoitu-prophet’s family- ‘Ali’ (Levi chihai ang) (hereditary leadership) an dit lem. Muslim tamtakhai hi Sunnis Muslim an nih (85-90%), Shia ruok chu 10-15% chau an ni thung. Shia hai hi Islam sakhuoa an khir lema, sakhuona anlâk ursun a, ram ṭhuoitua khawm hienga sakhuo ṭhuoitu anni deu hlak. Sunni hai hin Sahih Al-Bukhari (lekhabu parukhai) an fepui bîk a, Shia ruok chun Imam thuhril le inchuktirna (Imams tradition) an fepui. Shunni hai hi Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc hai an ni a. Shia hai ruok chu Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, etc an nih.

Iran ram hi Shia Muslim a khawm Twelver Shi'ism (Ithnā ʿAshariyya) niin Shia Muslim a khawm Twelver Shi'ism  85% antling a nih. Prophet Muhammad a inthawka ṭhuoitu 12 pathienin (Allah) a namdet (imams) zuitu untak an nih. Imam hmasatak (1st Imam) kha Ali ibn Abi Talib a nia, the 12th Imam ruok chu Muhammad al-Mahdi niin khawvêla hung kir nâwka, indik taka rorêltu ni dingin an nghâk a nih.

An thlatu bul suizauna

Thuthlung Hlui ah Iran (Persia) mi

Sui mihai chun Iran mihai hi Noah thla Madai le Elam thlaa mi niin an hril hlak. Bible-a Daniel le Esther chanchin ropuitak hai hi tuta Iran ei hril huoi huoi ram sûnga thiltlung an nih. Persian lal iemani zât Ezra le Nehemiah haiin an suklang bawk.

Medes (Madai)

Japheth naupasalhai chu: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Mesek le Tiras an nih (Gen.2:10) le 1 Chron.1:5a chun, Japheth naupasalhai chu; Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Mesek le Tira an nih’ ti ei hmu. Medes (Madai) thlatu bul chu Noah niin Japheth a nau pasal pathumna a nih. Madai (Medes) hi 2 Lalhai, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, Isai, Jeremia le Daniel a hai ei hmu pei a nih.

Media ram (The Land of Media) ti hi Iran hmarthlang (northwest) tieng Kurdistan, Azerbaijan le Kermanshah biel hai hi an nih.

Elamites (Elam)

‘Sem naupasalhai chu: Elam, Assur, Arpaksad, Lud le Aram an nih’ (Gen.10:22) le 1 Chron.1:17a, ‘Sem naupasalhai chu: Elam, Assur, Arpaksad, Lud, Aram, Uz, Hul, Gether le Mesek an nih’ ti ei hmu. Elam ram hi Tigris vadung saktienga um, Gen.14a Abrahamin Lota a sansuoknaa “Ellam lal Kedorlaomer’ tia ei hmu ṭeu kha Elam ei sui mêk an lal a nih. Elam ram le Elam mihai hi Ezra le Isai lekhabu haia ei hmu bawk. Tuhin Iran simthlang (southwestern) tienga umin Khuzestan le Ilam anti biel ahai cheng mêkhai hi an nih. Nehemia in ‘Hakalia naupa Nehemia thuhai chu: Hieng ang hi a hung na, kum sâwmhnina, Kisleu thlaa, Susa khawpuia ka um laiin’ (Neh.1:1) ti leh Esther lekhabua chanchin inzieka um hi Susa khawpuia tlung a nih. Susa khawpui hi  Persia lal Xerxes I in 479 BC-a Greece laka a tlâwm khan hi khawpuia hung kîrin, thlasik khawpui (winter capital) in a hmang a nih. Xerxes hi Greekhai kona hming a nia, Hebraihai chun Ahaseur an tih. Akkadian hai chun Ahsiarsu anti a, Persia hai chun Khshayarsha tiin an ko hlak.  Susa khawpui ei hril tak hi tuta Iran rama Khuzestan biela um a nih.

Susa hi a hma chun Mesopatamia khawpui niin 3900 BC lai vêla khawpui siema um nia hriet a nih. Sargon lal Akkad khan (Empire of Sargon of Akkad) 2350 BC khan Sumerian hai a inthawkin a lâka, a lalram hi Elamites hai (Persia mihai) in an hluolân nâwk a nih. Elamites hai hi Assyrians hai in BC kum zabi pasarina lai khan lâkpêk nâwk a nih. Hi khawpui hi Persiahai lal Kura (Cyrus the Great) in 539 BC-a Babylon a lâk hun chen khan Assyria haiin khawpui pawimawa annei zing a nih.

Daniel 8:2a Daniel in hmulâwkna a hmuh a, “Elam rama lal in, Susaa chun ka lo um a; thil hmulâwka chun ka hmuh a; Ulai vadung kâwlah ka lo um a” ti kha tuta Susa ei hril mêk le hin anzûl pei a nih. Susa hi ‘Shushan’ tia khawvêl chanchina hriet a ni a, lal Daria (Darius) le khawm chanchin tamtak nei a nih. Tuhin UNESCO hai chun Archaeological Site pawimaw taka puongin lal Daria in thlasika a umna bîk dinga a buotsai ‘the Apadana’ hi humhim zing a nih.

Media ah Israelhai

Iran (Persia) hmartieng panga hin Juda hnam tamtak an um a nih. 730-720 BC lai khan Assuria lal Shalmaneser V le Sargon II haiin Hmartieng lalram an hung rûn khan tamtak sala an ṭhuoia (2 Lalhai 18),  ‘Media mihai khuoa dâm ân umtir tah a’ (v.11) ti ei hmu kher hi a pawimaw hlê. Iran (Persia) ram a ni ti a sukchieng.

Elam ah Judahai

Babylon hai lal Nebuchadnezzar II in 597 BC a Jerusalem a rûn khan, Jeremiah chu zawlnei a nih. Judah chu lâkin a uma, Jerusalem khawm 586 BC vêlin  suksietin a uma, Juda tamtak el chu salin a ṭhuoia a laram hmun hrang hranga an umtir a, chuhai laia Elam a khawm an umtir ti hi hriet thei a nih (2 Kings 24-25, 2 Chron. 36:20).

Lal Kura (Cyrus)

Babulon lal Belsazzar (Neo-Babylonian Empire a lal nuhnungtak) chanchin mak danglam el chu Daniel 5naa banga kutziek kha a nih. A thuziek khawm ‘MENE, MENE, TEKEL UPHARSIN’ ti a nih. Mene chu ‘Bûknahaia chun bûkin i um a, tling loa hmu i nih,’ peres (upharsin singular form a nih)  chu  ‘I ram chu ṭhe a ni tah a, Media le Persia mihai kuoma chun pêk a ni tah.’ Chuongchun, October 12, 539 BC in lal Kura [Cyrus the Great (Cyrus II)] in a hnebân a Neo-Babylonian Empire chu a tawp der el. Lal Kura kha Persia lal, (tuta Iran) niin Medo-Persia lalram ropui tak Achaemenid Persian Empire a hung pieng a, Elam khawm la in, Shushan (Susa) chu a khawpui pakhatin a hmang ta a nih.

Ramdang a inthawk an kirnâwkna

Isai 45:1 ‘LALPA chun a hriek nâl, Kura’ ti hi a mak in a danglam khawp el. Hriet nâl chu ‘Messie/Meshiach’ tina a nih. Persia lal, lal Kura chau hi Juda mi lo hnam dang hieng ang Pathienin title ropui a pêk umsun a nih. Pathienin a hmangruo ni dingin a hranin a sie tum (set him apart) ve tlat a nih. Babulon sal an’thawk ṭhuoisuoktu ding le Jerusalem Temple siemṭhatu/indinthar nâwkna dinga Pathien hrillâwkna sukdiktu a ni tlat. 538 BC khan lal Kura chun an ramah kir dingin thu a pêk a nih. “Persia lal Kura chun hieng ang hin a tih, Vâna Pathien LALPA chun hnuoi chunga ram po po chu a mi pêk a; Juda rama Jerusalema chun in bâwlpêk dingin a mi ruot tah a. Nangni laia ama mihai taphawt kuoma chun LALPA a Pathien chu um sienla, hang fe raw se,” tiin (2 Chorn.36-22-23)

Lal Daria

Lal kura chu a mâkpa Daria in a hung thlaka. Daria nuhmei hi lal Kura naunu Atossa a nih. Daria pu Arsames le Kura pu Cyrus I hai kha unau (Teïspes nauhai) an ni bawk. Lal kura in lalram andin kha lal Daria in a sukhrâta, a suknghet sau sau a nih. “Tuhin, aw lalpa, chu dân chu sukdet la, Media le Persia mihai dâna sukdanglam a ni nâwk nawna dingin i hming ziek rawh,” (Dan.6:8) ti ei hmu kha lal Daria chanchin le inzawm a nih. Ez.6:2a, “Chun, Media biela lal inah Akmethaa chun lekha zuol hmu suok a ni tah a; chutaka chun hriet zingna dingin hieng anga ziek hi a na” ti hi lal Kura in thupêk (decree) a siem, lal Daria in ‘Akmetha ah (Ecbatana) lalhai thil sieṭhatna (royal archives) hmunah’ a hmu le inzawmin Jerusalem Temple bâwl zo le inhlânna nei thu a nih. ‘Israel Pathien thupêk ang le Persia lal Artazerzia le Daria le Kura thupêk ang ngei chun an bâwl a, an zo tah a’ (Ez.614b) tiin Persia(Iran) lal vawng a hung ziek a nih. Lal Daria thi hnungin a naupa lal Xerxes a hung ni ta a nih.

Lalnu Esther

Esther chanchin ngainuom um tak hi Persia (Iran) lal Xerxes (Ahasuerus) (‘Media le Persia lal’ ti kher hi hmang hlak a nih) inthlungzawm a nih. Elam ramah Shushan (Susa) khawpuia a lalram lalthungphaa a ṭhung a nih (Es.1:2). Ahasuer hi India a inthawka Ethiopia chena, rambung za sâwmhni pasari chunga rorêltu a nih (Es.1:1). Lalnu Vasti in lal thu a awinaw leiin hieng hin ei hmu: ‘lal Ahasuer hmaa hin Vasti hi hung ta ngai hrim hrim naw raw se,’ tiin Media le Persia dân thleng nâwk ngai ta lohai ang chun ziek ni raw seh; chun, lal hin a lalnu nina hi ama nêka ṭha lem mi dang kuomah pe bawk raw se’ (Es.1:19). Vasti thlâktu dingin Susa khawpuia nuhmeihai inah chun nunghâk tleirawl hmêl ṭhahai po po ṭhuoi khâwm an nia, chuhai laia Esther a ṭhang ve a nih. Chun Esther chun lal Ahasuer chu a suklâwm a, a lungsietna chu a hlaw tah a; lal chun incheimawina hmangruohai le a fâk ding chanpuol chu lal ina mi nunghâk thlang suok pasari leh inhmawtakin a pêk a; nuhmeihai in hmun ṭhatna taka chun ama le a nunghâkhai chu a sie tah a (Es.2:9).

Haman lungril ṭhatnaw leiin Judahai sukbohmang tumin hieng ang hin lekha insuoin lal kutsebi ngeiin a namdet a nih; ‘Juda mi po po, naupang le upa, nuhmei le, naupangtehai khawm, sukchimit vawng ding le, sukhlum ding le sukbohmang vawng ding’ (Es.3:13b). Esther huoisenna le remhrietna in Haman thiltum chu suksietin a uma, ama chu khai hlumin a um lem ta a nih. Judahai chu an hmêlmahai dodâl phal an hung ni lema, an hmelmahai an sukbohmang ta lema, hnena an changna chu hrietzingna dingin ruoithe pawimaw ‘Purim Ruoiṭhe’ an hung nei taa. Hi ruoithe hi ‘Festival of Lots’ tia hriet khawm a nih. Hi ruoiṭhe hi Persia (Iran) rama inṭan, Purim hming hi Akkadian ṭawng ‘pur’ an’thawka lâksuok ‘lot (ṭhumvâwr)’ tina a nih. ‘Ṭhumvâwra (lot) chanvo hmuna’ a nih. Haman in thina  a hmua, Judahai in hnena le himna an hmuna hrietzingna a nih. Purim Ruoithe (Feast of Purim) hi Judahai in an ngaipawi em em a nih. Es.9:27-28 a chun, hieng hin ei hmu, “Judahai chun, anni le an thlahai le anni hung sûngkhattuhai po po chunga chun belin, an namdet tah a; kum tinin chutaka a ni ruot ang tak le, chutaka ziek ang taka chu ni hni hai chu insera bâwpel ngai hlek lo dingin khaw tina le rambung tina le sûngkaw tinah, suon po po chenin hi nihai hi hriet zinga inser ding a na; hieng Purim nihai hi Juda mihai laia chun bâwpel a ni ngai ding a ni nawh a, an thlahai laia chun hriet zing an nina hi a bohmang bawk naw ding a nih”. Hi Purim Ruiothe hi Iran (Persia) le inzawm a ni a, 2026 khawm khan Iran ramah ursun takin March 2 khan hmang a nih.

Artazerzia (Artaxerxes)

Lal Ahasuer (Ahasuerus/Xerxes) hi Artaxerxes I in a thlâka, ama hi Ezra le Nehemia lekhabua tamtak hmu a nih. Ezra 7-8 a Babulon-a inthawk Jerusalem-a kîr dinga phalna thu insuotu kha Artazerzia a nih. Ezra Reforms (Siemṭhatna) tamtak a tlung pha a nih.  Nehemia kha lal Artazerzia no inhlântu (cupbearer) (Neh.1:11) ‘lal ringzo le mi indik, mi ringum’ a nih. Kha khawm kha Shushan (Susa) khawpui Elamah thiltlung a nih. Jerusalem indinthar nâwkna, siemṭhatna thaw dinga tirsuoktu kha lal Artazerzia Persian (Iran) lal a nih.

Khawsak mivarhai

Bible-a chiengfawkin zieklang ni naw sienkhawm mithiemhai chun khawsak tienga mivarhai kha Persia mi ni dingin an hril hlak. ‘Magi’ ti hi Persia le inzawm thumal a nih. Ṭhenkhar chun, Medes (achungah ei ziek tah) rama Partha thiempu vântieng hrietna nei mi (astronomy and astrology) ni dingin sui mihai chun an hril hlak. Petra (Jordan), Arabia le Mesopotamia tieng bêk ni hrim hrim dinga ngai an nih.

Pentecost ni a Persia mihai

Ṭhenkhat Parthai hnam dâm, Medai hnam dâm, Elamatai hnam dâm, ei ni sih a; Mesopotamia rama um dâm, Judai rama um dâm, Kappadoki rama um dâm, Ponto rama um dâm, Asia rama um dâm (Tt.2:9). Ei tinzawn bîk ei sukdum (bold) hai hi ei lo hrilfie deu vawng tah. Persia rama Juda indara umhai, (Diaspora), ringtuhai a hung hril chat chat el. Partha chu Iran hmarsak (Iran northeast) a um, Medai (Medes) chu Iran hmarthlang (Iran northwest) a um, Elamhai chu Elam biel, Iran simthlang (southwest) a nih. Hienghai hi Persia (Iran) rama kîr nawk ngeiin Kristien tamtak an hung ni ta pei a nih. Tuhin Iran rama hin 1 million chuong kristien an uma, ringtu tamtak tuhin an pung mêk a nih.

Apostle hai Persia rama an fe

Kohran hmasa kha nasataka indar zauin an ṭhanga, tirkohai ngei khawm hmun dang danga chanchinṭha an hrildar-a. Kohran puipa Origen chun, “Tirko Thoma le Bartholomai hai kha Parthia rama an fe a, Thoma lem kha chu ‘Apostle to the Parthians’ ti hiel a nih. India ramah a fe hmain Parthia (Iran) rama tirko ropuitak a nih” a tih. Iraq, Iran le India rama kristien tamtak hai hi Saint Thomas ngaisangtu an tam em em leiin Mar Thomas Church ti an nih. ‘Mar’ hi Aramaic ṭawng  ‘mi theinghlim’ (saint) ‘ka Lalpa’ (My Lord) tina a ni a, chuleiin Saint Thomas Church tina a nih. Inzana le ngaisangna title ropuitak niin Syriac Church Tradition a chun Kohran ṭhuoituhai ‘Mar’ an ti hlak.

Iran Sawrkar

Supreme Leader of Iran

Iran rama hin an President nêka thu nei lem le insânglem chu Supreme Leader of Iran hi a nih. ‘Supreme Leadership Authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran’ ti a ni kher hlak.  Hi nina cheltuhai hi sakhuona tienga khawm a lûtak an nih. The armed forces, judiciary, state radio and television, le sâwrkar thuneina hieng Guardian Council, Expediency Discernment Council po po hi a thuneina hnuoia um a nih.

Hi nina insângtak hi 1979 kum a ‘The Constitution of Iran in Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist’ a vawnghim tlat theina dingin ‘Ayatollah’ title siem in hi Supreme Leader of Iran hi a lo siem a nih. Iran chanchin a hin mi pahni chauin hi nina title ‘Ayatollah’ hi an la chel. Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini kha a hmasatak a ni a, 3 December 1979 – 3 June 1989 inkâr kha a chel a nih. 3 June, 1989 a thi khan, a thlâktu Ali Hosseini Khamenei hi 6 August, 1989 a inthawk 28 Feb.2026 a thi chen khan a ni zing a nih.


1979 a Islamic Revolution khan Islamic rambung tamtak a chiehnip a, ram dang dang a kângkai pei bawk a. Hi helna chikhat, hartharna hin Islamic rambung tamtak hai a keikhâwm bawk a nih. 1982 khan Israel in Lebanon a rûn a. Kha Indona kha 1982 Lebanon War, (the Second Israeli invasion of Lebanon ti a hriet) a nih. Lebanon hai ṭhangpuina ding le Israelhai dolêt na dingin Iran ṭhangpuina le Iran Supreme Leader hmasatak Ruhollah Khomeini remruotna in Shia Muslims ta ding bîk deu a ‘Hezbollah’ hi indin a nih. Hezbollah (Islamic Resistance in Lebanon) firfiek pâwl hai hi ‘Party of God’ tia hrietlâr an nih. [1]

Israel-Iran Indona

Israel le Iran buoina hi Iran-Israel Conflict ti a ni hlak. A hma chun Iran-Israel Proxy War amanih Iran-Israel Cold War ti a hriet a ni hlak a. Rambung anga Israel leh a rûka inremnawna hi 1985 lai daia lo nei dai anni tah. 1990s laia Soviet Union a tluksiet lai a inthawk le Gulf War a Iraq hnea a um lai khan boruok a suklum ṭan a. Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin sawrkâr lai khan Iran hi a theida thu a lo hril rawp tah. Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad khawmin Israel chungah inṭhiṭhaina ṭawngkam le tukdei anni thei zing thuhai kha a lo hril rawp hlak bawk.

Iran hin Nuclear râlthuom  siem a, a ram humhim a ni theina ding leh, Israel le America hai khawm do ngam thei ding khawpa râlthuom ṭha siem hi a lo tum ngar ngar a nih. Iran ramah Nuclear siemna (facilities) langsar pasari umhai chu:[2]

Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center (INTC): Iran a Nuclear research centre lientak a nih. Kum 1984 in China hai ṭhangpuina in a bul an lo ṭan a, 2006 khan sukburipna nasatak a nei a, July 2022 khan nuclear reactor siemna thar an nei thu an lo puong ta a nih. Hi centre hnuoia hin Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility, Isfahan Nuclear Fuel Research and Production Center hai neiin Iran sawrkâr in hrâttakin a fe pui mup mup a nih.

Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC): Arak Heavy-Water Research Reactor: 2000 lai bâwr vêla an siem ṭan a nih. Plutonium hmanga râlthuom  an siemna a nih.

Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant:  Electric meivar pêksuokna dinga Russia ṭhangpuina in 2010 a an lo ṭan a nih. IAEA (The International Atomic Energy Agency) hrietpuina in Russia in a hmangruo a pêk hlak.

Natanz Enrichment Facility: Shahid Ahmadi Roshan Nuclear Facilities ti a hrietlâr a nih. January 11, 2012 a Iranian Nuclear Scientist ropui Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan an that hrietzingna dinga February, 2012 a anṭan a nih. Hi Project hi US Dollar 2-3 trillion manhu a siem a nih.

Bandar Abbas Uranium Production Plant: 2006 a an lo indin ṭan ta, kumtin Uranium tons 21 siemsuok theina dinga induong a nih. 2016 khan hi Plant hi suktâwp niin suklang hlak ni sienkhawm, a rûkin an la hmang zing ni dingin mi tamtakin an ring a nih.

Fordo Uranium Enrichment Plant: November 2013, khan Sharif University of Technology a inchûklai tamtak le AEOI (Atomic Energy Organization of Iran) a lûtak (head) Ali Akbar Salehi hai in an indin ṭan a nih.

US, Israel le Iran Indona

Achungah Nuclear Program/Plant siem le inzawma buoina/indona hi suok a ni tak. An bomb mitnei ballistic missile hai suksiet tuma, sipai thahratna thethluka, mipui sawrkar inumtir hi US le Israelhai thiltum tak chu a nih.

Israel le US ṭhangkawpin 28 February 2026 khan Iran an beihrawna. Thlakhat le kar hni a lo ni der el tah. April 8, 2026 a inthawk inkapchawl (temporary ceasefire) neiin an um deu char a nih. Iran tieng hin Hezbollah, Houthis, Popular Mobilization Force, Islamic Resistance in Iraq, Amal Movement hai an thawtlang zing. US sipai mi 15 an thi taa, 538 in hliemna an tuok ta bawk. Middle East ah US hmunpui 17 an suksiet taa, Israel sipai 13 thi ta in, civil mi 27 in hringna anchân taa, mi 7451 an hliem taa, Israel sipai 418 zet an hliem ta a nih. Iran tieng ruok chu an tuor nasa ta hle. Iran thusuokin a hril dânin, civil mi 2076 in an thipuia, mi 26, 500 an hliem taa, US le Israel thupuongtuhai hril dânin sipai 6000 chuong an thi taa, 15, 000 chuongin hliemna an tuoka, Hezbolla hai mi 1400 chuong thiin, Popular Mobilization Forces hai mi 85 that anni tah niin an hril. Iran ram ṭhuoitu a lulawk tamtak el langsar tak tak Ali Khamenei el ni lovin thatin an um ta bawk.


Bible le Iran chungchanga Tlipna

Iran hi Bible-a Persia tia ei hrietlâr kha an nih. Bible-a Persia chungchâng tamtak hmu ding a um. Isai, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemia, Chronicles le Esther a hai khawm Persia hi zieklang a ni rawp hlak. Bible a Persia lal langsâr tak chu lal Kura kha a nih. Kura hi Bible a vawi 30 nêka tam a hrillang a nih. Cyrus the Great (amanih Cyrus II or Cyrus the Elder) tia hrietlâr hin Persia hi BC 539—530 inkâr a lo awp a.  Ama bâka hin lal Daria, lal Artazerzia, lal Ahasuer (Xerxes) hai khawm kha Persia lal an lo nih. Lal Ahasuer lem kha chu Esther lekhabu a ei hmu dân in India a inthawka Ethiopia chena rambung za sâwmhni pasari (127) chunga rorêltu a ni thu ei hmu.

Ez.6:14b a chun, ‘Israel Pathien thupêk ang le Persia lal Artazerzia le Daria le Kura thupêk ang ngei chun an bâwl a, an zo tah a’ ti ei hmu. Persia (Iran hming hmasa lem) le Bible hi chanchin tamtak a nei zie chu hriet thei a nih.

Persia a hin Israel mi tamtak lo um in, ṭha taka in enkawlna nei le Persia rorêltuhai hriet hlaw tak el anni zie khawm hriet thei a nih. Assuria lal Shalmaneser V in BC 722 lai bâwr a Hmartieng lalram (Israel) a rûn khan Juda mi tamtak tuta Iran ram Khuzestan province a hin sal in a ṭhuoi ni a hriet a nih. Persia (Iran) rama Judahai chanchin hi kum 2700 nêk a upa a ni tah. Shalmaneser chau ni lovin Tiglath-Pileser III le Sargon II hai khawmin Israel hi an lo rûn rawp hlak a, Juda mi tamtak sala an man a nih.

Juda mi (Jewish community) hi Iran ramah hieng Tehran, Shiraz le Isfahan ah haia hin an la chêng zinga, a tamlem chun Persia ṭawng an hmang tah. An tam vânglai tak khan mi 100,000 chuong an um ni a hriet a nih. Tuhin mi 9,000 vêl an la châmbâng zing nia hriet a ni bawk.[3] 

Hun tâwpa thiltlung ding ei Bible in a hrillâwk Ezekiel 38-39a Gog le Magog chungchang a ruok hin chu Iran (Persia) hi Israel dotu ding laia pawimawtak a ni ding thu a hril. Armageddon indona chungchânga John F Walvoord chun, ‘Middle East buoina hi khawvêl buoina No.1 a ni a ngai’ a lo ti kha a la hung indik pei ding a nih. Armageddon Indona hi hun tâwp Rapture zoa tlung ding a ni a, chu tlung theina dingin khawvêl hi a’n rem indik tung pei a ṭul hrim. Zuk tlung tawp/thut thei a ni naw leiin, chu tlung theina dingin damte te’a lo inremtung pei a ṭul a nih.[4]



[1] “Who are Hezbollah?”  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4314423.stm

[3] https://www.jns.org/why-do-jews-still-live-in-iran/, accessed on 17 June, 2025 at 4:05 pm.

[4] John F Walvoord, Armageddon, Oil and Middle East Crisis…., 27.

Share on WhatsApp

Friday, 10 April 2026

What Are Some Other Arguments for God’s Existence?

What Are Some Other Arguments for God’s Existence?

What Are Some Other Arguments for God’s Existence?

From the early church onward, Christians have produced many rational and philosophical arguments for God’s existence as they reflected upon the world. This should not be surprising given the testimony of Romans 1:20, which reads, “His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

We will review some additional arguments that bear a strong witness to God. They will come primarily from Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274), who was not only one of the most prolific Christian authors in history, but someone who gave an abundance of arguments for God. In the previous post we looked at the classical forms of the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments; in this chapter, the goal is to present three additional arguments that may not be as familiar.

Arguments for God’s Existence Argument from Motion

While several have provided an argument from motion for a first unmoved mover, perhaps the best of these is found in Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae, popularly known as the first of his Five Ways and discussed in more length in his Summa contra Gentiles.[1] The argument is summarized as follows:

1. It is evident to our senses that in the world some things are in motion.

2. Everything put in motion is put in motion by a mover.

3. There cannot be an infinite regress of movers going backward. If there is no first mover, there can be no subsequent motion.

4. Therefore, there is a first unmoved mover; this is God.

Let us take a closer look at each part of the argument.

1. It is evident to our senses that in the world some things are in motion.

Aquinas strategically started from motion observed in the world all around us. Local physical motion is the most obvious, as when you move from place to place, but motion can also apply to quantities or qualities, as when a plant grows larger or an apple becomes more red.

2. Everything put in motion is put in motion by a mover. This should not be surprising, for every change needs a changer, and every effect needs a cause. When some potential to move is put into motion, then that potential has been actualized. Prior to this, it only had the potential (what can be) and needed another mover to bring about the change in motion. Something cannot be potentially moving and actually moving in the same respect. It is either one or the other. The consequences are that a potential cannot actualize itself. There has to be something outside that potential, a mover that is already actualized—that is, already existing. Even with created composite self-movers such as animals and humans, one part moves another, for no part can move itself. For example, the will moves the nerves, the nerves fire the muscles, which moves the leg, which moves the body, etc. Even the cognitive and volitional faculties of thinking or willing have not always existed, for something prior to them needed to bring those faculties from mere potentiality to actuality.

In addition, the potential of something limits what kind of change is possible. For example, a block of stone has the potential to be a statue, but not the potential to be an actual person. A gallon-sized jug has the potential to hold one gallon of liquid, and once that jug is full, then that potential has been actualized and no more potential remains for additional liquid. Things in the natural world vary in their mixture of potentiality and actuality. Some things have more potential for motion or change than other things.

3. There cannot be an infinite regress of movers going backward. If there is no first mover, there can be no subsequent motion. If every potential to move or change needed something actual, and if what was actual at one time was in potential, then it also needed something prior that was actual, and so on. Aquinas reasons that this cannot go on infinitely backward (infinite regress). Each potential that has been actualized required something prior to bring about the change. If something went infinitely backward, then it would not have a beginning, as you cannot reach the edge of an infinite. Aquinas emphasized that there has to be a first mover to get the motion started. If there is no first actualizer, there can be no subsequent motion.

Some have been confused on how this might relate to Newton’s first law, which says, “Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed.”[2] That is, a body that is at rest or in motion tends to stay in that state unless acted on by another. However, this does not negatively affect the basic principle of Aquinas’s first way. For whatever is moved is moved by another, and whatever is changed needs a changer, just as every effect needs a cause. Newton’s law in fact supports that there needs to be something to cause the body to change from a state of rest to a state of motion or vice versa. Aquinas’s argument does not conflict with this, as his argument was interested in what brought about the first motion. The alternative is that there is eternal motion, but that cannot be, as there cannot be an infinite regress of prior changes. Nor can there be some reciprocal or cyclical eternal causality, such as one thing, B1, causes another, B2, which in turn causes a change back on B1 infinitely backward.

There still needs to be an accounting of the first movement, since motion, as a series of changes, cannot go back infinitely. If it did, then the infinite number of changes could not be crossed to arrive at the present and current change. Hence, an infinite regress is impossible.

4. Therefore, there is a first unmoved mover; this is God. Tracing the motion to its source, Aquinas arrived at a first unmoved mover that is needed to account for all subsequent motion. This is God. God has no beginning, and nothing else actualized Him. God has always existed (Psalm 90:2). Neither can God change, for He has no potential to change (Malachi 3:6). Therefore, God is pure actuality and the first unmoved mover. God is the great “I am” (Exodus 3:14), who gave motion to everything else.

Argument from Contingency

Another argument provided by Aquinas in Summa Theologiae Ia.2.3 is known as his third way. It was an argument from contingency to necessity.

1. Contingent (dependent) beings exist (e.g., I am a contingent being).

2. A contingent being needs a cause for its existence.

3. An infinite regress (going backward infinitely) of contingent causes is impossible.

4. Neither can one contingent being cause another contingent being.

5. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being that is the cause of every contingent being. This is God.

This is a shortened and slightly reformulated form of the argument. To understand the connection further, let us go through each part of the argument.

1. Contingent beings exist (e.g., I am a contingent being). In nature we find beings that begin and cease to exist; these are known as possible or contingent beings. These are not self-existent beings. In other words, they do not have existence by nature, for if they did, then they would have always existed. Human beings are an example of a contingent being. We do not have existence by nature and have not always existed. Our existence is dependent upon another, and this cannot be our parents. Our parents are only the instrumental cause (i.e., the instrument through which) of our becoming, but not the cause sustaining us in existence. Why? Every effect needs a cause, and if you remove the cause, then the effect does not follow.

If our parents were the primary single cause, then when they died, we (the effect) would cease also. But when parents die, their children remain. The same is true of the blacksmith with his hammer, for he is only the cause of the becoming of horseshoes. When the blacksmith passes away, the horseshoes remain. This is because there is another cause sustaining them in their being.

2. A contingent being needs a cause for its existence. A contingent

(dependent) being is a being that came to be, and can cease to be. Whatever begins to exist does so only through what already exists. Consequently, a contingent being needs a cause for its existence. It cannot cause itself, for then it would be prior to itself, which is absurd. Something else had to bring it into existence.

3. An infinite regress of contingent causes is impossible. There cannot be an infinite regress, because an infinite cannot be crossed—that is, you cannot get to the other side of it. Moreover, adding more contingent beings to the series does not get rid of the contingency, because the whole thing is still contingent, and needs a cause for its existence.

4. Neither can one contingent being cause another contingent being. Consequently, a contingent being cannot be the primary cause of another contingent being to exist, for a being cannot give what it does not have essentially. If a being is contingent, then it does not have its own existence to give. Imagine several people lined up to pay for admission tickets at the entrance of a movie theatre. When the cashier asks the first person for money, that person—and all the others—points to the person behind him and says, “My friend will pay.” Then the last person in line becomes exasperated and says, “I don’t have any money.” None of the people earlier in line have money to give, just as none of the prior contingent beings have existence of their own to give. Here’s another way to think about this: I only contingent beings existed, then there would be nothing to explain or be the ground of their existence. Simply adding more contingent beings never provides the basis for existence.

5. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being that is the cause of every contingent being. This is God. The fact that some contingent beings exist means that something must have always existed, for if there ever was a time when there was absolutely nothing, then there would have always bee nothing. Consequently, there must be a Necessary Being whose essence it is to exist and is the primary cause of existence for all contingent beings. This is God. The question for the atheist is this: Why is there something in existence rather than nothing at all? The reason is that there is a God who brought all things into being. Stated in terms of dependency for the

universe, the sequence would look something like this:[3]

1. Every part of the universe is dependent.

2. If every part is dependent, then the whole universe must also be

dependent.

3. Therefore, the whole universe is dependent for existence right now on some independent being—namely, God.

Adding more dependent (or contingent) beings can never remove the dependency. You have to continue back to something that is necessary, something whose nature it is to exist. This is God. In theology proper (the study of God’s attributes), the term aseity (Latin, “of oneself”) is used to denote this most amazing truth that God is self-existent (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 3:14; Psalm 90:2; John 1:1; Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:17).

Argument from Perfection

In his fourth way, Aquinas provided an argument from the gradations of things to a most perfect being (Summa Theologiae Ia.2.3), as did an earlier theologian by the name of Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) in his Monologium.[4]Taking the best of these both produces the following argument for God’s perfection:

1. We observe that some beings are more nearly perfect than others.

2. The cause of this perfection is either one or many.

3. If there were many, there would be no way to compare their perfection, but some things are more perfect than others.

4. Moreover, things cannot be more or less perfect unless there is one wholly perfect source and standard for comparison.

5. Therefore, there must be a most perfect being who is the source of all perfections. This is God.

Several points can be made about each premise.

1. We observe that some beings are more nearly perfect than others. As we live, we make comparisons every day with regard to the objects around us to determine what to buy or sell, whom to marry, and so on. And when we do, we find that some things are more or less perfect, noble, true, or good than others.

2. The cause of this perfection is either one or many. When thinking

about what causes these perfections, it seems natural to inquire whether one or more things cause them. The other option is to say there were no causes, which is impossible given that an effect cannot arise without a cause (the law of causality). All perfections in contingent beings need a cause, a source from which they came.

3. If there were many, there would be no way to compare their

perfection, but some things are more perfect than others. When we are unable to easily compare things in a practical way, we say, “It is like comparing apples and oranges.” Yet Aquinas was not referring to practical or utilitarian comparisons. As we compare things, especially across categories, we may begin to realize that we are comparing them at a more fundamental level. Aquinas was referring to a comparison of their quality of being because trueness, nobility, goodness, beauty, and perfection transcend physical and material categories.

For example, a man approaches these qualities of being more than a stone, and a being that has intelligence is better than a being that does not. So regardless of type, the thing that approaches perfection will exhibit more of these transcendent qualities. Another way to think about this is to imagine the result if perfections were removed. If you remove all the perfections from something, what are you left with? You would be left with nothing (nonbeing). If you have a totally moth-eaten shirt, you have no shirt at all. However, if you remove all the imperfections of something, what are you left with? You are left with something perfect (being). Therefore, when a thing is more perfect, it approaches the perfection of the pureness of being itself (pure actuality).

4. Moreover, things cannot be more or less perfect unless there is one wholly perfect source and standard for comparison. Observing that some things are better than others requires an objective standard by which to make the comparison—just as that which is hotter than another more nearly approaches that which is hottest. In terms of causation, an effect derives its perfection from its cause, for an effect cannot be greater than its cause. A cause cannot give what it does not have, but what it does have can be given to the effect. Hence, if some effects are more perfect than others, then they must be caused by a source of perfection.

5. Therefore, there must be a most perfect being who is the source of all perfections. This is God. As Aquinas eloquently stated in his fourth way, there needs to be a perfect being who is the source of all perfections (Matthew 5:48):

So that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being…Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other

perfection; and this we call God.[5]

The Value of Knowing the Arguments for God’s Existence

There are many arguments for God available in the sources written across the ages of church history. This brief treatment is only a tiny fraction of what has been written on the subject. It is strongly encourage you to explore the other arguments more fully, as they can be edifying and can contribute to strengthening your faith. They can also be strategically used when you share your faith, as you are likely to encounter questions or alternative viewpoints regarding God’s existence. By becoming familiar with the various rational arguments, you can use them to remove objections others

may have toward the gospel. This does not necessarily mean quoting the arguments mechanically in their raw form. Instead, it means knowing the essence and truth of the arguments, then utilizing them strategically in conversational language.



[1] Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Notre Dame, IN: Christian Classics, 1981), Ia.2.3. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London, UK: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1924), I.13.

[2] Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy: The Authoritative Translation, trans. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, assisted by Julia Budenz (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 1999), Kindle loc. 76.

[3] Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 30.

[4] Anselm, Basic Writings, ed. and trans. Thomas Williams (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2007).

[5] Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Ia.2.3