Was Richard Dawkins right in his book The God Delusion that claims belief in God is like a "virus that the naive catch"? You cannot prove God to the unwilling (neither can you disprove God to the willing), belief is a choice we make. ("If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know....") If I could prove God, then I would be equal to God intellectually. There is just enough evidence to believe in God if you want to, and enough darkness to not believe if you don't. "God's chief quarrel with man is that he doesn't SEEK Him," says John Stott.
The Bible presupposes the existence of God and doesn't try to prove His existence, but says, "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." I hope the following "proof's"shows the probability of God's existence to the objective searcher, and will silence the unbeliever who thinks believers are ignorant (actually agnostic means ignoramus). John R. W. Stott is quoted as saying, "We must not pander to a man's intellectual arrogance, but we must cater to his intellectual integrity." The problem is this: Man has the INCONVENIENT truth of believing in God because as Aldous Huxley said, disbelief liberates us sexually. We are going against the tide.
Blaise Pascal has said there is a "God-shaped" vacuum in our souls. St. Aurelius Augustine, bishop of Hippo, said that our souls are restless till they find their rest in God. Eccles. 3:11 says that God "has set eternity in the hearts of men." God cannot be proved because He is not measurable by scientific means; you cannot have 3 feet of love or 5 pounds of justice and likewise, God is not tangible, visible, nor audible--but you cannot deny their reality. In sum, These things cannot be verified by science.
History is another area of the fact that, since it is nonrepeatable, it is not verifiable scientifically. The evolutionist who denies God actually believes in infinite time plus sheer chance. Paul Little calls this the "junkyard mentality," where one believes that the cosmos or the earth just happened like a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a jet plane, (or like throwing a 6 on a die 5 million times in a row). Even if the whole cosmos were filled with junkyards, it still would not happen. Chance is also compared to a blind man trying to solve Rubik's Cube, which would take 1.35 trillion years if he moved one time per second (according to Sir Fred Hoyle). Believing that life happened by chance is not even accepted by many scientists today. Instead, they believe in "Directed Panspermia," which is that life was somehow planted here from outer space! (This is called the principle of infinite regression, thought of by Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA.)
As for the complexity of life, one human cell contains more information in it than an entire volume of an encyclopedia. Chance is truly stretching it--there must be a designer for this design. Doesn't a building have an architect? "Every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God" (cf. Heb. 3:4).
Several arguments for the existence of God have made a foothold into Christian theology. They are as follows:
The ontological proof (God exists because we have an idea of Him, like justice must exist because we have thought of it, for example, where did we get the idea of justice if it doesn't exist?--the greatest thought man can have is of God, for instance--there is a tug towards God like the moon's tides); the cosmological proof (every effect must have a cause, nothing happens by itself, God must be the uncaused cause, first cause, or unmoved Mover of the Universe, not that they have discovered the cosmos had a beginning, there must be a Beginner by deduction--therefore, that begins to exist has a cause);
the teleological proof (the purpose [atheists avoid this word because it implies there is purpose to life--existentialist philosophy denies any purpose for man], order, design, harmony and beauty, and intelligence in creation means someone must be behind it who has great taste or organized skill and is not haphazard--we are not a fluke; for instance, the Anthropic Principle says that the earth was designed perfectly for man, thus indicating ID or intelligent design (implying a Supreme Mind);
the moral argument says that God must care a lot about right and wrong--he is seen as a judge or arbiter, we all have a sense of right and wrong and appeal to a higher standard, a moral compass or higher law, that we assume everyone accepts, and the laws of nature are known to everyone innately ("They show that the requirements of the law are written in their hearts...their conscience either accusing them or excusing them.") and we all violate them, there must be a judge to mete out justice in the end or life would be a joke ("Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?"), there are things universally accepted as wrong, and this is not a matter of social evolution or a matter of taste, like saying I don't like broccoli and you do; so one of us is wrong--examples would be incest or rape, which would be okay if there was no God--if there is no God, everything is up for grabs);
and finally, the ethnological argument (virtually every tribe known to man, no matter how primitive, has an awareness of God in some form--so it must be natural for us to believe in God that you have to teach a child NOT to believe in God, it is so inborn)--no one is BORN an atheist!--but note that there are two kinds of atheists: practical, who live as if there were no God; and theoretical, who have rational arguments they have thought out, which are usually more from bad experiences than philosophy.
There is no easy answer to evil, though, but faith sees things in a new light. They say: "How come bad things happen to good people?" Well, how come good things happen to bad people? Are we not all "bad" in God's eyes? Remember, no religion has the complete answer to evil. God's relation to evil and sin is a mystery; however, God is holy and can have no contact with evil (like matter and antimatter) and cannot approve of it (cf. Hab. 1:13).
Napoleon, who called Jesus "The Emperor of Love," was once asked if he believed in God: He said, "But, monsieur, who made all that?" (pointing to the Heavens, which "declare the glory of God"). Kant said that two things inspired him to believe in God: The Heavens above and the conscience within. Mortimer Adler says that almost all of the great thinkers have strongly believed in God. More than 90 percent of astronomers today believe in God (don't forget the first major ones: Kepler, Copernicus, and Galileo). There certainly is more evidence for God than against Him.
Pascal offered his famous "wager," whereby he asked someone if they would want to be on the losing side of a bet where the ante is upped and the outcome is an eternity. If he were wrong in believing in God, nothing lost, but if the unbeliever was wrong, he would spend eternity in hell--not worth the risk, indeed! It is said that ninety-nine percent of all the great thinkers have believed in God! Bertrand Russell was asked, according to D. James Kennedy, what he would say if it turned out that there was a God; he would ask Him, "Why didn't you give us more evidence?" Carl Sagan didn't want to say there was no God, but that there just wasn't any evidence for Him--there's never enough for the skeptic.
To the open mind, there is plenty of evidence (there is just enough light to see Him if you will, and just enough darkness to deny Him if you will). But God has left the matter an open question, and will not force Himself on anyone who doesn't want to believe. Someone has said that not believing in God frees one sexually--well, that about sums it up--they don't want to believe because they don't WANT to, and it would interfere with their sexual mores.
Needless to say, philosophers have debated the existence of God through the ages. Plato called Him the Supreme Good. But without revelation from God himself, we would never figure out what God is like. "Canst thou by searching find out God..." "And even though Jesus did many miracles...they WOULD not [not "could not"] believe in Him" (cf. John 12:37).
It is not for lack of evidence that one does not believe--but out of experiences in life that hardened one, or the condition of one's heart. Jesus said, "If any man wills to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of God...." We really don't have an intellectual problem, but a moral one. When they say, "What about the Pygmy in Africa?" they are just making a smokescreen. The real issue is "Jesus Christ" and who He is. Christianity is based on objective historical facts--the resurrection of Christ from the dead--which is arguably the most attested fact of antiquity. To the unwilling heart, there is never enough evidence, but to the willing, there is more than enough. We do not have blind faith, but faith based on evidence.
The problem with believers is having "blind unbelief" (which is not believing and not knowing why or looking at the evidence either way). People suppress their natural belief in God, because of moral considerations. Atheism is a universal negative, and you cannot prove a universal negative--how could you be everywhere in the cosmos at one time to prove that there were no little green men, for example? (To say that there is no God would require omniscience and/or omnipresence like God Himself.) So, atheism is irrational and presumptuous.
The Christian doesn't need philosophical "proof" to believe, because the Holy Spirit bears witness to him and convicts him of the truth. But the "proof's" show the reasonableness of Christianity, and that one isn't ignorant to believe. The "proof" of the pudding is in the eating, as they say ("Taste and see that the Lord is good." (Ps. 34:8) Lee Strobel calls this "properly basic belief." We experience Christ in the here and now as the Holy Spirit bears witness; all philosophical proofs just reinforce and validate our faith as being reasonable.
Pascal is quoted by D. James Kennedy as saying that we do not have what appears to be the absence of God, nor His manifest presence, but the presence of a "hidden God" ("Oh, that I might know where I might find Him"). The point is that God desires to be found by those who seek Him. "He is the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." "Seek and you shall find." "You shall seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." It seems like if we have to prove God, the skeptic should have to disprove Him: there's no smoking-gun evidence for either position, both require faith. However, it takes more faith to disbelieve in God.
Do not let anyone get your focus off the issue and the main thing: The gospel of Jesus Christ, the facts of which are based on objective historical proof and the experience would not happen if the facts weren't true. If there was no God, the cosmos would have no meaning, but we wouldn't know it. This is like a deaf man being aware of music by himself. Another question would be "Why do I feel gratitude if there is no one to be grateful to?" Where did we get the idea of justice? We must believe that He exists from all the fingerprints of His hand in all creation. Soli Deo Gloria!
The Bible presupposes the existence of God and doesn't try to prove His existence, but says, "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." I hope the following "proof's"shows the probability of God's existence to the objective searcher, and will silence the unbeliever who thinks believers are ignorant (actually agnostic means ignoramus). John R. W. Stott is quoted as saying, "We must not pander to a man's intellectual arrogance, but we must cater to his intellectual integrity." The problem is this: Man has the INCONVENIENT truth of believing in God because as Aldous Huxley said, disbelief liberates us sexually. We are going against the tide.
Blaise Pascal has said there is a "God-shaped" vacuum in our souls. St. Aurelius Augustine, bishop of Hippo, said that our souls are restless till they find their rest in God. Eccles. 3:11 says that God "has set eternity in the hearts of men." God cannot be proved because He is not measurable by scientific means; you cannot have 3 feet of love or 5 pounds of justice and likewise, God is not tangible, visible, nor audible--but you cannot deny their reality. In sum, These things cannot be verified by science.
History is another area of the fact that, since it is nonrepeatable, it is not verifiable scientifically. The evolutionist who denies God actually believes in infinite time plus sheer chance. Paul Little calls this the "junkyard mentality," where one believes that the cosmos or the earth just happened like a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a jet plane, (or like throwing a 6 on a die 5 million times in a row). Even if the whole cosmos were filled with junkyards, it still would not happen. Chance is also compared to a blind man trying to solve Rubik's Cube, which would take 1.35 trillion years if he moved one time per second (according to Sir Fred Hoyle). Believing that life happened by chance is not even accepted by many scientists today. Instead, they believe in "Directed Panspermia," which is that life was somehow planted here from outer space! (This is called the principle of infinite regression, thought of by Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA.)
As for the complexity of life, one human cell contains more information in it than an entire volume of an encyclopedia. Chance is truly stretching it--there must be a designer for this design. Doesn't a building have an architect? "Every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God" (cf. Heb. 3:4).
Several arguments for the existence of God have made a foothold into Christian theology. They are as follows:
The ontological proof (God exists because we have an idea of Him, like justice must exist because we have thought of it, for example, where did we get the idea of justice if it doesn't exist?--the greatest thought man can have is of God, for instance--there is a tug towards God like the moon's tides); the cosmological proof (every effect must have a cause, nothing happens by itself, God must be the uncaused cause, first cause, or unmoved Mover of the Universe, not that they have discovered the cosmos had a beginning, there must be a Beginner by deduction--therefore, that begins to exist has a cause);
the teleological proof (the purpose [atheists avoid this word because it implies there is purpose to life--existentialist philosophy denies any purpose for man], order, design, harmony and beauty, and intelligence in creation means someone must be behind it who has great taste or organized skill and is not haphazard--we are not a fluke; for instance, the Anthropic Principle says that the earth was designed perfectly for man, thus indicating ID or intelligent design (implying a Supreme Mind);
the moral argument says that God must care a lot about right and wrong--he is seen as a judge or arbiter, we all have a sense of right and wrong and appeal to a higher standard, a moral compass or higher law, that we assume everyone accepts, and the laws of nature are known to everyone innately ("They show that the requirements of the law are written in their hearts...their conscience either accusing them or excusing them.") and we all violate them, there must be a judge to mete out justice in the end or life would be a joke ("Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?"), there are things universally accepted as wrong, and this is not a matter of social evolution or a matter of taste, like saying I don't like broccoli and you do; so one of us is wrong--examples would be incest or rape, which would be okay if there was no God--if there is no God, everything is up for grabs);
and finally, the ethnological argument (virtually every tribe known to man, no matter how primitive, has an awareness of God in some form--so it must be natural for us to believe in God that you have to teach a child NOT to believe in God, it is so inborn)--no one is BORN an atheist!--but note that there are two kinds of atheists: practical, who live as if there were no God; and theoretical, who have rational arguments they have thought out, which are usually more from bad experiences than philosophy.
There is no easy answer to evil, though, but faith sees things in a new light. They say: "How come bad things happen to good people?" Well, how come good things happen to bad people? Are we not all "bad" in God's eyes? Remember, no religion has the complete answer to evil. God's relation to evil and sin is a mystery; however, God is holy and can have no contact with evil (like matter and antimatter) and cannot approve of it (cf. Hab. 1:13).
Napoleon, who called Jesus "The Emperor of Love," was once asked if he believed in God: He said, "But, monsieur, who made all that?" (pointing to the Heavens, which "declare the glory of God"). Kant said that two things inspired him to believe in God: The Heavens above and the conscience within. Mortimer Adler says that almost all of the great thinkers have strongly believed in God. More than 90 percent of astronomers today believe in God (don't forget the first major ones: Kepler, Copernicus, and Galileo). There certainly is more evidence for God than against Him.
Pascal offered his famous "wager," whereby he asked someone if they would want to be on the losing side of a bet where the ante is upped and the outcome is an eternity. If he were wrong in believing in God, nothing lost, but if the unbeliever was wrong, he would spend eternity in hell--not worth the risk, indeed! It is said that ninety-nine percent of all the great thinkers have believed in God! Bertrand Russell was asked, according to D. James Kennedy, what he would say if it turned out that there was a God; he would ask Him, "Why didn't you give us more evidence?" Carl Sagan didn't want to say there was no God, but that there just wasn't any evidence for Him--there's never enough for the skeptic.
To the open mind, there is plenty of evidence (there is just enough light to see Him if you will, and just enough darkness to deny Him if you will). But God has left the matter an open question, and will not force Himself on anyone who doesn't want to believe. Someone has said that not believing in God frees one sexually--well, that about sums it up--they don't want to believe because they don't WANT to, and it would interfere with their sexual mores.
Needless to say, philosophers have debated the existence of God through the ages. Plato called Him the Supreme Good. But without revelation from God himself, we would never figure out what God is like. "Canst thou by searching find out God..." "And even though Jesus did many miracles...they WOULD not [not "could not"] believe in Him" (cf. John 12:37).
It is not for lack of evidence that one does not believe--but out of experiences in life that hardened one, or the condition of one's heart. Jesus said, "If any man wills to do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of God...." We really don't have an intellectual problem, but a moral one. When they say, "What about the Pygmy in Africa?" they are just making a smokescreen. The real issue is "Jesus Christ" and who He is. Christianity is based on objective historical facts--the resurrection of Christ from the dead--which is arguably the most attested fact of antiquity. To the unwilling heart, there is never enough evidence, but to the willing, there is more than enough. We do not have blind faith, but faith based on evidence.
The problem with believers is having "blind unbelief" (which is not believing and not knowing why or looking at the evidence either way). People suppress their natural belief in God, because of moral considerations. Atheism is a universal negative, and you cannot prove a universal negative--how could you be everywhere in the cosmos at one time to prove that there were no little green men, for example? (To say that there is no God would require omniscience and/or omnipresence like God Himself.) So, atheism is irrational and presumptuous.
The Christian doesn't need philosophical "proof" to believe, because the Holy Spirit bears witness to him and convicts him of the truth. But the "proof's" show the reasonableness of Christianity, and that one isn't ignorant to believe. The "proof" of the pudding is in the eating, as they say ("Taste and see that the Lord is good." (Ps. 34:8) Lee Strobel calls this "properly basic belief." We experience Christ in the here and now as the Holy Spirit bears witness; all philosophical proofs just reinforce and validate our faith as being reasonable.
Pascal is quoted by D. James Kennedy as saying that we do not have what appears to be the absence of God, nor His manifest presence, but the presence of a "hidden God" ("Oh, that I might know where I might find Him"). The point is that God desires to be found by those who seek Him. "He is the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." "Seek and you shall find." "You shall seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." It seems like if we have to prove God, the skeptic should have to disprove Him: there's no smoking-gun evidence for either position, both require faith. However, it takes more faith to disbelieve in God.
Do not let anyone get your focus off the issue and the main thing: The gospel of Jesus Christ, the facts of which are based on objective historical proof and the experience would not happen if the facts weren't true. If there was no God, the cosmos would have no meaning, but we wouldn't know it. This is like a deaf man being aware of music by himself. Another question would be "Why do I feel gratitude if there is no one to be grateful to?" Where did we get the idea of justice? We must believe that He exists from all the fingerprints of His hand in all creation. Soli Deo Gloria!