believe that there is a God, or believe that the very root of our
nature is a lie.

f) The Argument from Congruity.

If we have a key which fits all the wards of the lock, we know that
it is the right key. If we have a theory which fits all the facts
in the case, we know then that we have the right theory. "Belief
in a self-existent, personal God is in harmony with all the facts
of our mental and moral nature, as well as with all the phenomena
of the natural world. If God exists, a universal belief in his
existence is natural enough; the irresistible impulse to ask for
a first cause is accounted for; or religious nature has an object;
the uniformity of natural law finds an adequate explanation, and
human history is vindlcated from the charge of being a vast imposture.
Atheism leaves all these matters without an explanation, and makes,
not history alone, but our moral and intellectual nature itself,
an imposture and a lie."--_Patton_.

g) The Argument from Scripture.

A great deal of our knowledge rests upon the testimony of others.
Now the Bible is competent testimony. If the testimony of travelers
is enough to satisfy us as to the habits, customs, and manners of
the peoples of the countries they visit, and which we have never
seen, why is not the Bible, if it is authentic history, be enough
to satisfy us with its evidence as to the existence of God?

Some facts need more evidence than others, we know. This is true
of the fact of the existence of God. But the Bible history is