Internal Consistency

One of the things that convinces me that the Christian worldview is actually true is the internal consistency of what it teaches. If we’re really honest with ourselves, we should take this perspective with everything we believe. Another way of putting this is: Does what we believe about the world really line up with how the world really is?

When we look at the evidence around us in the world, do our inferences (or believes) line up consistently with the rest of what we believe about the world?

Here are a couple of examples:

The Beginning of the Universe

The prevailing scientific evidence shows that the universe had a beginning. To answer the question, “Where did the universe come from?” there really are only two possible answers to this question: Something caused the universe to come into existence, or nothing caused the universe to come into existence.

It seems a logical impossibility that nothing caused the universe to come into being, or it just “popped” into existence uncaused by nothing (or no one). So logically, something caused the universe to come into existence.

Now, is the cause of the universe impersonal or personal? Since the universe was the beginning of space, time, and matter, logically, the cause of the universe can’t be made of space, time, or matter. It must have been spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. This rules out some sort of impersonal force because (1) any sort of “force” like gravity, magnetism, and other similar physical forces require a physical universe in which to operate and (2) an impersonal force cannot decide to do anything. Therefore, we’re left with only one logical possibility: someone caused the universe to come into existence.

Theism (and by extension Christianity) is internally consistent with the inferences formed based on the scientific and philosophical evidence we have regarding the cause of the universe.


Our atheist friends will assert that there is no God. But they like to complain about (moral) issues. So-and-so was wrong to do such-and-such. Or my favorite Dawkins quote, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully” (The God Delusion, p.36).

If there really are objectively immoral things, such as jealousy, pride, unjustness, and bullying, by what external standard does the atheist use to justify such beliefs? If there is no God, there can be no truly objective standard of right and wrong. These moral judgments are simply one person’s opinion over another’s. Morality dissolves into a debate similar to which flavor of ice cream is the best. But Dawkins, and other atheists, really do think people (including God it would seem) do “bad” things. I argue that they’re inconsistent in their worldview. They want to have their moral cake and eat it too.

The real measure of the cohesiveness of your worldview is, does it line up with how things really are and is internally consistent?