By Faith And Faith Alone - The Existence of God

[Diggin Deep]

I didn't want to derail any other threads. I've read a lot of debate lately about the existence of God. Words such as proof and faith and how they differ have been thrown around a lot. I've wrote a lot about why I believe and what brought me back to my relationship with the God that I serve. I just want to sum up some misconception of proof and faith...

The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. “Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed’” (John 20:29).

That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God’s existence, at least for those who are looking for something to believe in. The Bible states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, “…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God’s presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God’s existence: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.

In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments. This isn't to say that these arguments prove the existence of God; they just provide food for thought and a different way of viewing things. They provide a way to strengthen the faith of those who choose to believe in God.

First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.

A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?

Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject God. Romans 1:25 declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

People claim to reject God’s existence because it is “not scientific” or “because there is no proof.” The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.

How do we know God exists? As Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence, we feel His leading, we know His love, we desire His grace. Things have occurred in our lives that have no possible explanation, in our opinion, other than God. God has so miraculously saved us and changed our lives that we cannot help but acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments can persuade anyone who hasn't been drawn to God, by God. And even then, one will not come to God unless they choose to by their own free will. In the end, God’s existence must be and can only be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is safe step into a well-lit room where the vast majority of people are already standing.

 

[Panacea]

I agree that proof and evidence are different, and proof is not the only thing I seek when considering the possible existence of some sort of supreme being or creator of the universe. Evidence has merit, I just have not personally seen any that convince me any of the religions are "on to something" in regards to the meaning and creation of life.

The existence of a god to me is like a scale, where some arguments may fall on one side, I find far too many arguments weigh out of its favor.

The four logical arguments you have presented are often cited in serious religious debates, but I have seen their logic proven invalid (technically, not just a "I don't agree!!" which doesn't count of course) so many times, I cannot accept them as sound. A great deal of leaps in logic are made in these arguments.

I mean, certainly at the end of the day people throw out logic in favor of what works for them.

 

[Diggin Deep]

I agree that proof and evidence are different, and proof is not the only thing I seek when considering the possible existence of some sort of supreme being or creator of the universe. Evidence has merit, I just have not personally seen any that convince me any of the religions are "on to something" in regards to the meaning and creation of life.

The existence of a god to me is like a scale, where some arguments may fall on one side, I find far too many arguments weigh out of its favor.

The four logical arguments you have presented are often cited in serious religious debates, but I have seen their logic proven invalid (technically, not just a "I don't agree!!" which doesn't count of course) so many times, I cannot accept them as sound. A great deal of leaps in logic are made in these arguments.

I mean, certainly at the end of the day people throw out logic in favor of what works for them.

I agree...the arguments that I presented are the typical and most common ones brought up by Christians and non-believers. That's why I said that they are ones that can help people's faith who are seeking God. However, they are just as easily disputed and explained by other means. It is very true that regardless of what someone is defending or of their belief, people will use whatever logic that supports their view and belief.

The main purpose of this post is to show that I agree that there is no actual proof that the God I believe in exists. The evidence given can only be attributed to God by faith. In a way, I'm agreeing with the non-believers that argue the point..."There is no proof...show me proof...where is your proof?"

My faith is based completely on my personal experiences and things in my life that I can't explain other than by attributing it to God. Regardless of how much time I spent away from God and how long I studied and search for proof that there is or isn't a God, at the end of the day...it still comes to faith and where choose to put that faith.

 

[Pet Sounds]

All human knowledge and belief can be reduced to "self evident" axioms. In other words, universal truths that don't require evidence. Everything from math and logic to politics and morality. I mean, show me evidence that I should believe in freedom of speech or not raping women. There is no evidential reason not to do those things. Belief in not raping women and free speech is unjustifiable faith. It is self evident to me. I could never prove or provide evidence for it, and nobody would ever ask me to. And they could never be justified through those means anyway. Everyone on this forum has hundreds of things they don't believe in without evidence. They just turn into pseudoskeptics when it comes to religion.

 

[Panacea]

You're reaching for shit.

 

[Pet Sounds]

You're reaching for shit.

Explain where the reaching is.

 

[Panacea]

Explain where the reaching is.

Unless you are debating the use and legitimacy of the entire human system of language, there can be physical evidence for math, for instance. Little kids do it all the time with blocks in kindergarten.

 

[Pet Sounds]

Unless you are debating the use and legitimacy of the entire human system of language, there can be physical evidence for math, for instance. Little kids do it all the time with blocks in kindergarten.

Nope. Math is not empirical. It doesn't have to prove itself in the real wold.

This is the difference between inductive and deductive methods. Math and logic are like a religion in that they are infallible. The rules of math and logic are not debatable, they are certain, and are as true today, and will be as true in 1,000 years, as they were a thousand years ago. They are never changed or debated. But in induction, like science, the premise of the question is always held up to the light of evidence. Nothing is taken to be a universal and infinite truth. The premise is always changing, being replaced, corrected, etc.. based on new information. Math and logic are immune to new information. They will always be true. With induction, if the obersvation doesn't match the theory, then it is the theory that is changed. Observation and evidence have a final say. In deduction, the theory is king and can never be changed, or even tested.

 

[Panacea]

More importantly, I feel there is a huge difference between societies coming up with generally agreed upon rules/laws/morals for conduct and saying they are things we should have faith in (even religious ones, wherever they may come from) and saying a physical being with no physical evidence exists at all, whatever it may be.

 

[Panacea]

Nope. Math is not empirical. It doesn't have to prove itself in the real wold.

This is the difference between inductive and deductive methods. Math and logic are like a religion in that they are infallible. The rules of math and logic are not debatable, they are certain, and are as true today, and will be as true in 1,000 years, as they were a thousand years ago. They are never changed or debated. But in induction, like science, the premise of the question is always held up to the light of evidence. Nothing is taken to be a universal and infinite truth. The premise is always changing, being replaced, corrected, etc.. based on new information. Math and logic are immune to new information. They will always be true. With induction, if the obersvation doesn't match the theory, then it is the theory that is changed. Observation and evidence have a final say. In deduction, the theory is king and can never be changed, or even tested.

One cannot physically reproduce a simple mathematical equation and see it is valid?

 

[Pet Sounds]

This is why logical and mathematical theories about the universe, like string theory, don't mean jack squat until observational evidence backs them up. They are fine within the realm/rules of mathematics, but they don't cut it scientificallly, even though they are acceptable and proven mathematically.

 

[Pet Sounds]

One cannot physically reproduce a simple mathematical equation and see it is valid?

How can mathematics or logic be falsified? They have their own internal set of rules, and as long as they abide by them, they don't need the outside world. And how do you explain mathematical objects, like geometry and certain kinds of numbers, that don't exist in the real world?

 

[Pet Sounds]

An idea can be perfectly consistent within mathematics, but not consistent in the real world. That is difference. Penrose tiles are perfectly mathetmatical objects, but they have no match in the real world. They aren't reality. They don't exist. Only within mathematics do they exist. Math allows them to exist.

 

[Panacea]

This is why logical and mathematical theories about the universe, like string theory, don't mean jack squat until observational evidence backs them up. They are fine within the realm/rules of mathematics, but they don't cut it scientificallly, even though they are acceptable and proven mathematically.

Makes sense

 

[Panacea]

How can mathematics or logic be falsified? They have their own internal set of rules, and as long as they abide by them, they don't need the outside world. And how do you explain mathematical objects, like geometry and certain kinds of numbers, that don't exist in the real world?

My example was just one of a simple one orange plus two oranges equals three oranges type thing.

 

[Pet Sounds]

More importantly, I feel there is a huge difference between societies coming up with generally agreed upon rules/laws/morals for conduct and saying they are things we should have faith in (even religious ones, wherever they may come from) and saying a physical being with no physical evidence exists at all, whatever it may be.

Religion is based on the same concept! Generally unquestioned truths that we were brought up with and are subscribed to by the majority. Because they were passed down to us, and just seem "right". I'm sure we are all capitalists here. Why? When did you make that decision? Did you actually carefulyl weigh the evidence between communism, capitalism, and other systems? I doubt it. You just go with them.

 

[Peter Parka]

I disagree with the OP as it still hasn't provided any proof but it's good to see someone religious argue their point kind of intelligently and without getting stupid and insulting. :thumbup

 

[Panacea]

Religion is based on the same concept! Generally unquestioned truths that we were brought up with and are subscribed to by the majority. Because they were passed down to us, and just seem "right". I'm sure we are all capitalists here. Why? When did you make that decision? Did you actually carefulyl weigh the evidence between communism, capitalism, and other systems? I doubt it. You just go with them.

I question these things all the time. I question why we consider certain things moral and certain things immoral. I question laws, social norms, taboos, theories. Couldn't live with myself if I blindly accepted things. Hypocrisy is human nature, and I know I am guilty of it, but I honestly give as much thought to the validity of passed down social systems as I do to the possibility of a spiritual plane.

 

[Panacea]

I disagree with the OP as it still hasn't provided any proof but it's good to see someone religious argue their point kind of intelligently and without getting stupid and insulting. :thumbup

Diggin Deep is someone who gets neither stupid nor insulting, I appreciate it as well. :nod:

 

[Pet Sounds]

And what turns these things into a religion is your shaking off of facts and causing pain and suffering in order to further them. Take alcohol for an example. Alcohol is linked to almost one hundred thousand deaths in the US alone each year. It is a major health problem. It is involved in a signficant amount of diseases, violent crimes, sex crimes, etc.. Something like half or more of all rapes or violent crime are done by people under the influence. Not to mention all the cancers, organ and organ system destruction it causes, the drain on resources...And these deaths can be linked to alcohol scientifically. In things like epidemiology reports and medical examinations. People always say things like "religion caused this or that horrible thing or atrocity". But the fact is, not a single death in human history can be scientifcally linked to religion. You will never find a single medical or health study that shows the cause, link, or mechanism or death as religion. But I can show thousands that alcohol can claim scientifically.

So the logical question is, do you think alcohol should be banned? I bet you would say no. But what is your justification? Your justificiation is merely your own pet superstitions, things like freedom and self determination. Only through such invented and entrenched ideology coudl you ever deem alcohol acceptable. That is simply the only way somebody could possibly support avaiablity of alcohol to people. Only an ideology could totally blind them to the hard facts on the ground.

Of course, another main reason aggressive atheists want to eradicate religion instead of alcohol is becuse of another simple concept: They don't want to appear uncool. Because we all know that anybody railing against the evils of alcohol on this foruum, like they do with religion, would look like the absolute biggest prude and and close minded person in the world. Hating religion is hip. Hating alcohol, which is far worse, is not hip. I really can't respect people who prioritize issues on how much they would effect their cool, contrarian, against anything traditional image. Alcohol simply does not fit with that image. Alcohol is cool. Religion is not. I mean, can you imagine people creating a thread on here every day about how evil alcohol is and how it needs to go away? They would be the laughingstock of the forum. But when you rail against religion in the same way, you are speaking truth to power and being a free thinker. I am sorry, but I just can't back that kind of juvenile mindset.