God. Real. Right.

This post is intended to point to and explain the significance of the page “on God.”
There are strong, rational arguments in favor of God’s existence. However, the cause for which people do not believe in God (or do not commit to Him, as is more often the case) is not at its root rational. Rather, it is volitional. That is, whether a person’s mind tells him to believe in God is not the biggest question for his faith. It is, instead, whether he is willing to believe in God which is primary.
That said, the grounds, reasoning, and evidence for believing in God are still hugely important. It is arguably impossible for a person to be authentic and will to believe in what he knows rationally to be false.
Therefore, apologetics (the discipline of arguing rationally in favor of God) can be remarkably significant even when the apologist acknowledges the primacy of will over reason. Arguments for God generally claim either that arguments against God are insufficient to preclude faith, that it is not irrational to believe in God, or even that it is irrational not to believe in God. Fideist arguments (like Blaise Pascal’s Wager and William James’ The Will to Believe) take the first approach exclusively. Today’s most significant response (apologetic) to the most significant rational assault on God is a perfect example of the first two kinds–that arguments against God are insufficient, and that it is not irrational to believe in God. That is, the free will defense in response to the problem of evil is not proof that God exists, not proof even that there is free will, but simply proof that it is not irrational to believe that God and evil exist at the same time. (Until I can write a bit on the free will defense, you can find some information about it starting here.) But there are also arguments of the third kind, demonstrating the irrationality of not believing in God.
Though people often speak critically of arguments that attempt to demonstrate the existence of God, they are, at the end of the day, still arguments which must be dealt with. And they can make a case for why people cannot pretend there is no God. Christian faith is admittedly more than knowledge that there is a certain God. Christians commit in faith. And Christians know a person, not just a set of facts of theoretical constructs. But Christians also know certain propositional truths about the One to Whom they have committed. Some of those truths are historical and known from testimony.
But some of those truths are rationally inescapable, evidence of what God has made known to everyone everywhere, even among those who choose not to embrace it.
Two arguments addressing those inescapable truths about God are on the page “on God.” One is the flow of three arguments which lead inevitably to the existence of only one, perfect God. It is based on the cosmological argument. The other is a statement of the ontological argument leading (less directly than might be assumed) to the conclusion that it is not possible that God does not exist.
What do these arguments actually accomplish? At a minimum they demonstrate that it is not irrational to believe in God. But more importantly, they reveal (at least to believers) that what stands between a non-believer and faith is not reason, but will.