The Bible does not try to prove the existence of God. It simply presupposes it. The existence of God is not dependent upon our belief. God either exists, or He does not. You can neither prove, nor disprove the existence of God.
Whether or not we believe in God depends upon our response to the evidence we have been given. Romans 1 tells us that God has given us ALL the information we need to believe that God exists from the created universe (General Revelation).
So why then do people reject the idea of God? The problem is NOT that they don’t have enough evidence, the problem is that their hearts are hard and they do not want to submit to God’s rule and authority in their lives. This is the main problem with the skeptic. He is not unconvinced primarily because of his mind, but rather his will is in rebellion.
Moving someone from the position of Hard Atheist, to Strong Agnostic is useful because it essentially removes an element of stubbornness, and puts the conversation on a more humble footing, where it belongs. The decision to accept the existence of God is not based on Omniscient knowledge, but rather on reasonable certainty, based on the evidence God has provided.
Israel Wayne is an Author and Conference Speaker and Director of Family Renewal, LLC. He is the Site Editor of www.ChristianWorldview.net
This is so true! The problem with most atheists (or agnostics) I have talked with does not seem to be whether God exists or not, but that accepting the existence of God (and even more particularly the existence of the Biblical God) requires them to reevaluate their moral values and change their lifestyles… How sad would be the day when they realize how close to salvation they were and how easily and thoughtlessly dismissed it.
It may also be worth mentioning that in places like the UK, in school, God and the Bible are hardly discussed.
My kids tell me that in science, every once and awhile some kid will pipe up and say “How can people believe in God these days, they are so stupid”. Teachers don’t seem to correct this behaviour and explain that myths and superstitions are hard to get rid of.
Atheism is the default here these days. My nephew knows nothing of God and the Bible other than what I have discussed with him. All he knows about religion is that “it is the cause of wars and a lot of suffering”. Scary!
Atheism seems concentrated most in the younger generations, 30 yrs old and under. It seems to be worse with each generation.
So, with regards to your comment, ” You can neither prove, nor disprove the existence of God.” – before accepting or denying God, a child must first be exposed to religion and be given a chance to decide for themselves.
This isn’t happening here nowadays. If parents don’t bother, kids never learn of, or are introduced to God. Instead they are brainwashed with secular philosophy.
Although I generally agree with your argument, there seems to be an inconsistency. You argue that you cannot prove the existence of God, and neither can the atheist prove the non- existence of God. You then conclude that he is not really an atheist, but an agnostic.
Surely, though, your position of theist, using the same logic, must necessarily also move to agnostic, for the same reason that the atheist becomes agnostic. This may not be such a bad thing as you can both stand as agnostics and search for the truth together.
Nevertheless, how can you say to the strong agnostic “Let me show you how you can find out for sure if there is a God”. How can you do that when you’ve just said you can’t prove God exists either? Couldn’t the atheist say the same thing to you and say let me show you the evidence that there is no God?
It seems to me that this strategy could be just as effective for the atheist as he convinces you to move from theist to agnostic and then proceed to show you the evidence for the non-existence of God. After all, wouldn’t you like to know for sure?
I think what you have really done is show the atheist that he is choosing to be an atheist based on faith, not perfect knowledge. Once you have done this then you can go on and show how his faith is “self referentially contradictory” and belief in the God of the Bible is not.
In truth we can say that we can prove the existence of God. We do this by saying that God tells us in His Word that he exists. This, of course, sounds like circular reasoning but, as you said at the start of the video, there is no other foundational truth other than the existence of God. So our presupposition is that the Bible is the Word of God and it is only on this reality can anything be proved.
I’m sure you would get some success using your strategy, but only with those who don’t see your sleight of hand.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond.
Gary, thanks for your comment. This clip is obviously taken from a larger conversation. However, to address your question, the issue of God’s existence is a binary question. He either does, or He does not.
You can not prove the existence of God from evidence (just as you cannot prove anything using the method of Inductive Reasoning), but given ample opportunity, you can demonstrate the certainty of the existence of God because of the impossibility of the contrary.
By examining the evolutionary argument for the emergence of matter from non-matter, biological life from non-biological matter, the emergency of DNA from simple-celled organisms, and the supposed evolution of the entire Metaphysical world from inorganic matter, is far more of a leap of faith than believing in an intelligent and personal Creator. The Reducto Absurdum factor (reducing the argument to the level of absurdity) is very obvious at that point for anyone who truly cares about truth.
Macro Evolution is self-referentially contradictory because it claims to have done things that it posits cannot occur Scientifically (and have certainly never been observed).
Theism is not self-referentially contradictory.
Given a choice between these two options, I can choose Theism with reasonable certainty.