Proof Of God To An Atheist
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God.
I was reading an atheist blog post. While I don’t generally have anything to say on those blogs , I do read them from time to time. On this particular blog, something the blogger said stood out. The blogger was arguing that atheism is not a religion and does not require faith to disbelieve. What caught my attention was the statement that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those that believe in God to prove there is a God. I thought about that statement.
Normally, if I to make a statement, the burden of proof is upon me to prove that my statement is valid. For instance, just today I listened to the raw milk dairy farmer, whose milk I purchase, claim that there have been more illnesses due to pathogens in pasteurized milk than in raw unpasteurized milk. Most people would disbelieve that claim. But he had data to back up his claim. The burden of proof was upon him to prove his claim and that he did.
Are we Christians required to prove there is a God to atheists? Is the burden of proof upon us to do so? No, it is not. First, the proof they desire is to produce God so that He can be seen and touched – something tangible that will satisfy them. Obviously, we cannot do that for that is not how God operates with this creation. God has stated that He has revealed Himself through His creation so that no man has an excuse.
-
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20 (ESV)
God has provided all the proof that is necessary. There is no burden upon us to prove His existence. God has also declared that those that say there is no God is a fool.
- The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good. (Psalm 53:1)
-
The stupid man cannot know;
the fool cannot understand this:
that though the wicked sprout like grass
and all evildoers flourish,
they are doomed to destruction forever; Psalm 92:6-7 (ESV)
We have no sign to give. An adulterous and evil generation seeks for a sign but there is none to give.
-
But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. Matthew 12:39 (ESV)
There is ample proof of the existence of God and that proof God has already provided. According to scripture, it is the fool that says there is no God. We will not be able to provide more than what God has already provided. We are under no obligation to prove His existence for He has taken care of that. The burden of proof does not lay on our shoulders.
It is an exercise in futility to attempt to prove beyond what God has already provided. And for this reason, I do not argue with atheists nor try and provide them proof. Certainly I share the Good News but I stop at proving the existence of God. I can share the evidence of the bible and what God has provided but I do not debate His existence with someone that denies His existence. I cannot do better than what God has already done.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=fc8af366-c556-4d08-9e6c-7cffc5177ba8)
Nope. Where does that say they were not given in the bible and why would it matter one bit to me if you didn’t accept the Talmud? Levitical law was not directed at anyone other than Jews.
Well, no, there’s nothing in the Bible that tells us we must “prove God’s existence”, He certainly doesn’t need that from us nor requires. Only to share the gospel, the hope that lies within us (1 Peter). After all, the world attests to Him (Romans 1).
But I can never resist when someone brings up Logic and God in the same sentence.
Option 1: The cosmos is an illusion; it doesn’t exist.
Option 2: The cosmos is self-existent (and eternal).
Option 3: The cosmos is self-created.
Option 4: The cosmos is created by something that is self-existent.
Are there any other options that cannot be fit into the four above? Bertrand Russell’s infinite series of first causes may be submitted, but this is only a not very well disguised version of option 3: self-creation carried out to infinity. The answer is ‘No’. We are faced with four options.
Trimming out the possibilities we can immediately eliminate two of them.
Option 1 is easy. In order for there to be an illusion there must be someone having the illusion. If someone is having the illusion then they must be self-created, self-existent, or created (caused) by something that is self-existent. Further, if the illusion is absolute in that nothing exists then we are done.
Option 3 is formally false. For something (or someone) to be self-created they must be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. This includes spontaneous generation “by chance”. Chance is nothing. Formally, chance is not. Chance is powerless, it can influence nothing. It is a probability in mathematics; not a force. If you flip a coin what are the chances (or probability) that it will come up heads? Fifty percent. What influence does chance have on the coin coming up heads? None at all; in fact even the question is nonsensical.
So now we are left with 2 and 4. If something exists then whatever exists is either self-existent or created by something that is self-existent. The concept of self-existent reality is not only logically possible, it is logically necessary. If there ever was a time when there was nothing there would be nothing now, unless something can come from nothing, which puts us back at the logically impossible concept of self-creation.
If something must be self-existent then what or who is it?
Is the cosmos is the what that is self-existent? Is it all of the cosmos? If it’s all then I am self-existent and so is this community. Being contingent, dependent, derived entities this cannot be the case, so if it is the cosmos that is self-existent it is not the whole cosmos. We may argue that the cosmos is self-existent in part, and so creates or generates these other realities. That would place the self-existent portion of the cosmos in a higher order than the created portions of the cosmos. In other words, we have given the self-existent portion of the cosmos same transcendent attributes of God.
This is fatal to the self-existent cosmos as we attempt to locate a transcendent self-existent being within the universe while attempting to avoid linguistic confusion; mistaking ontological status for geographic or spatial relationships. Which brings us back to the preceding paragraph.
If the only way we can be here is via a self-existent reality and that reality must be transcendent then we are faced with the inevitable conclusion that there is a God and this God is transcendant and self-existing.
That there is a God is not only logically possible; it is logically necessary.
________________________________________________________________
Source: NOT A CHANCE The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology, by Dr. R.C. Sproul
Argument condensed and summarized, quite astoundingly and originally I might add, by Harlequin!
_______________________________________________________________
Further Discussion
The above should in no way be construed as an attempt to make a logical argument for God as described in the Bible, nor is intended to dismiss or minimize faith in any way, and certainly not the work of the Holy Spirit. What is intended is to establish there is, indeed must be, a God and to show what kind of God He must be; specifically, transcendent and self-existing.
I have known this intuitively ever since I can remember thinking of these things and it had caused me philosophical difficulties to no end. In my later years prior to being saved I ‘resolved’ this pesky problem by ceasing to think about it.
As I said, this is not a logical proof of the Biblical God as understood and known by Christians. But one should be prompted to ask: How would this God let us know what He desires of us? What does He desire of us? Why does He desire it? What are His attributes? The only answer to the first is Scripture and the rest are answered by Scripture.
People are religious. We are hard wired to be religious. Some will say that this hardwiring is ‘proof’ that religious ideas in total must be false. I will not labor the absurdity, even silliness, of such a conclusion. Suffice it to say that there is something in everyone that seeks after God in some form; or better put, a void in all of us that gives us an awareness which promts us to fill it attempting to make us us whole. We know this from experience.
But do any of these “gods” make sense from those vaying experiences?
Religions such as Hinduism where there are warring deities and mythological athropomorphic/animalistic entities protecting their particular part of the universe and vying for the attentions of the people do not fit our logical conclusion of a Transcendent Self Existent Being who brought all into existence. Modern Hinduism may have attempted to fix these problems after the fact, but the baggage remains. Much the same can be said of other religions, from New Agers to Scientologists to Buddhists. Additionally, we can add to this list “Alien Hope”, my own term for those who look to outer space for some superior beingsthat will save us.
Islam is unique in that it is not mythic in the sense of anthropomorphism or animalist tribal legends. However, besides the obvious problems that come about in light of the gospel there are certain problems we can readily see without reference to anything else other than the preceding article and its (Islam’s) own framework.
The ‘god’ described in the Koran (and it is barely described; there is no real theology within its pages) is not a personal god, but rather an impersonal one. It is not a god of love who cares for its creation, inclusive of people, in any implicit or explicit way. It cannot, being impersonal. Ceratinly, it demands some variety of obedience, which in itself is problematic when speaking of an impersonal god because it begs the question: Why would an impersonal god care about obedience?
But there are two more devistating questions.
First, why would an impersonal god bother to bring about creation? For what purpose? Or rather, for what purpose that it would care about? The only answer I can imagine is entertainment but that leaves me unsatisfied.
Second, the Muslim believes he will be rewarded for his works by being admitted to Paradise. Let us not trouble ourselves to define what works the Muslim is supposed to perform. Whether these works are giving to charity or murdering people is irrelevant. The salient issue is this:
Why would an impersonal god care or desire to reward anything? Why would an impersonal god care to give anything – even if it is earned – to anyone. Let us assume for one moment that an impersonal god could desire obedience: There will always be someone else to obey and who is to know whether there are people going to Paradise or merely being annihilated at death?
This (rewarding) is not a question of motivation, because motivation is not an issue with an impersonal god.
We cannot know God through reason alone. Though I would caution all not to discount reason as somehow contrary or opposed to faith. Reason is another aspect of God, a communicable attribute He shares with us. Just as I would not discount science as that is one way we can explore His creation.
What I am saying is that we can know that God exists logically, and that He is transcendent and Self-Existing, because we can know we exist and this universe exists. From there we can look at all the implications of this necessarily logical conclusion and. From there we look after the fact from our data experience and we may conclude the only thing that makes sense of our experience is the Personal God who surpasses all understanding.
And He tells us just that in the pages of His Scripture.
Et al,
Prior to Feb 1999 I too was an atheist.
I didn’t convert by being more intelligent (although I must say… ) or being a more moral person (no one is). Neither of these things saves anyone. Only God can do that.
In Christ,
Kent
Tishrei,
Getting back on topic just let me clarify on thing. In my blog which you refer to I said the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of theists (since they are making the positive claim). I did not say it rests on the shoulders of Christians, Muslims, Hindus or any other numerous religions. Why did you assume it was only applicable to Christianity?
I did not take your post to mean only being applicable to Christianity. However, my post was from a Christian point of view.
Hope all is well. I think we’ve talked this subject to death and there’s not much else to say.
I would argue that if someone suggests that something exists, then the burden of proof would be on that person to show that the something does in fact exist.
If an atheist says that God doesn’t exist, he is refuting the proposition made by a person before him that God exists which is still not a proven fact, and therefore needs to be proven.
Hi,
Well, that makes sense except that I don’t have to prove to you God exists because He has taken the steps that He wishes to reveal. That was the whole point of my post. There are many things testify to His existence. I’m not going to go through it all simply because I am confident that you will not find it acceptable.
I understand that you refute His existence. And honestly, there’s nothing I can do about that. Let me share this. As we know, during WWII, the Jews experienced the most horrific of atrocities against them, the holocaust. There are many that deny that this took place. They do not believe it took place despite the overwhelming evidence. Doesn’t matter what you show them, the come up with some excuse as to why it was manufactured.
I can show you evidence that what is written in the bible is true — that no human could have concocted and pulled it off to the letter from being born in the right family, the right city, all the way down to haggling over His clothes — to archeological finds that testify to what was written in the bible is fact. Like the muslims that deny the evidence of the holocaust, as an atheist, you deny the evidence that I can produce.
But I don’t have to prove His existence to you. I don’t have to prove to a muslim that the holocaust took place (try talking to one of them, you’ll see what I mean. I know, I have done that). It’s there for those that want to see it. I can’t give you more evidence of His existence than what God has provided. If what He has provided is not acceptable to you, I am under no obligation to you or anyone to provide more.
Lastly, in the Bible, no one is going around preaching His existence. They start off with the fact of His existence and preach repentance. God has been gracious enough to provide evidence of His existence.