Proving God's Existence

[siliconwafer]

I heard about two people who were talking to each other at church yesterday. One of them asked the other person, "Is there any scientific evidence for God's existence? I have a non-Christian friend who would like to know." The other person replied, "You don't need to show your friend the scientific evidence that is in favor of God's existence. We know that God exists by faith. We know that God exists because the Bible tells us that God exists and that we need to submit to its authority. The Bible is our highest authority so we know that God exists because the Bible says so. There is scientific evidence for God's existence, but our reason for believing that God exists is not based on science." How would you respond to this conversation?

[RBerman]

I go with the second guy's response, though you will find Christians who came to faith through some sort of attempted "proof" that God exists. The problems are (1) Science defines its inquiries in such a way as to specifically avoid appeals to the supernatural, and (2) Even if Science somehow found evidence that could only be explained by appealing to the existence of a divine being, would that divine being be uniquely the God of the Bible?

[Tanakh Keeper]

Science doesn't answer every question and a true scientist will be the first to admit that fact. For example, science can't be used to prove love or morality, but we know those exist.

[ttruscott]

Tanakh Keeper has it right, science can't prove spiritual things.

Then there is the fact God hides HIS doctrine from the ungodly..., sigh.

Peace, Ted

[Tanakh Keeper]

Then there is the fact God hides HIS doctrine from the ungodly..., sigh.

The bible doesn't support that. For example, the people of Ninveh knew what they were supposed to do and they did it.

My tagline tells how G-d wants people to choose.

[ttruscott]

The bible doesn't support that. For example, the people of Ninveh knew what they were supposed to do and they did it.

My tagline tells how G-d wants people to choose.

Just thinking of verses like:

Deuteronomy 29:29
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

1 Cor. 2:6-10,16b
No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written: 'No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him - but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God... But we have the mind of Christ".

"To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna..." (Revelation 2:17a)

Mark 4:11.
And He said to them, To you has been entrusted the mystery of the kingdom of God, [that is, the secret counsels of God which are hidden from the ungodly; but for those outside [of our circle] everything becomes a parable,

2 Corinthians 12:1-7 It is necessary to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows. 3 And I know that such a person -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows -- 4 was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat.


that's all.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

You know what I mean by hidden because this is the way some of our favourite doctrines were not taught but were hidden for centuries:
- the Deity of the Messiah,
- the teaching that the OT was NOT the end of all scripture, (as per Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.),
- that God would incarnate as a man,
- that the Messiah would be an intermediary for prayer,
- nor any hint of Adamic sin before the NT.

Peace, Ted

[The Remonstrant]

Paul & the Knowledge of God

I heard about two people who were talking to each other at church yesterday. One of them asked the other person, "Is there any scientific evidence for God's existence? I have a non-Christian friend who would like to know." The other person replied, "You don't need to show your friend the scientific evidence that is in favor of God's existence. We know that God exists by faith. We know that God exists because the Bible tells us that God exists and that we need to submit to its authority. The Bible is our highest authority so we know that God exists because the Bible says so. There is scientific evidence for God's existence, but our reason for believing that God exists is not based on science." How would you respond to this conversation?

I believe Romans 1:18-22 is the best response. God is known, or generally revealed, to all humanity through nature and creation (i.e., general or natural revelation). But, as humanity is universally tainted by sinful thoughts, attitudes and actions (i.e., personal sin), and is lacking the glory of God (3:23*) as his image-bearers, this general revelation is not sufficient in itself** for salvation. Special (or supernatural) revelation is required to bring us to a fuller knowledge of both our plight of sin and condemnation*** and the gracious offer of salvation through Christ's propitiation for sin and resurrection (3:21-26; 4:24-25).

What is significant here is that the concept of natural or general revelation is thoroughly Pauline and not just some specious distinction invented by one or two medieval theologians. So every mentally able/morally responsible person has a knowledge of God the creator, however imperfect, suppressed, perverted or distorted by sin that knowledge is.


* I'll forgo the debate over the concept of original sin in this place.
** Which is why one ought not too readily embrace the inclusivistic notion of salvation. We do not have biblical warrant to dogmatically assert the possibility of mentally able persons (i.e., sinners) being saved apart from an explicit proclamation of the gospel and faith response in Jesus. Personally, I remain agnostic on the matter. Perhaps I'll write of this at a later point.
*** Portions of Romans 2, 3 and 7 especially speak to this issue (3:19-20 and 7:7-12 being excellent examples).

[Tanakh Keeper]

You know what I mean by hidden because this is the way some of our favourite doctrines were not taught but were hidden for centuries:
- the Deity of the Messiah,
- the teaching that the OT was NOT the end of all scripture, (as per Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.),
- that God would incarnate as a man,
- that the Messiah would be an intermediary for prayer,
- nor any hint of Adamic sin before the NT.

Peace, Ted

Oh by "hidden", you are referring to Christian doctrine then.

In Judaism, none of those points exist. We are to use the plain meaning of the words that G-d relayed to us. There are no types and shadows, it is all plain spoken. In Deut 30, G-d says His Law isn't up in Heaven or across the sea, but it is right in front of us. And able to be done by anyone.

[ttruscott]

Paul & the Knowledge of God
...
I believe Romans 1:18-22 is the best response. God is known, or generally revealed, to all humanity through nature and creation (i.e., general or natural revelation). ...

I cannot accept this interpretation:

1. It contradicts the position that we are enslaved to sin and are spiritually blind and can't see the truth without the gracious saving light of the gospel.

2. It makes a mockery our of our great call to preach to the nations as anyone can find GOD by merely looking at nature.

3. It does not account for the theological ignorance of children that die young, nor does it work for the sensually incapacitated, viz., the blind, dumb, retarded, et cetera.

4. It is also contradicted by the vanity of so many Hindus and Buddhists, that spend years meditating on creation and come up with the witness that they are (could be / will be) god: hardly a witness to YHWH and HIS judgement.

5. AND it is discredited by the universal witness to its being the worst failure in GOD's doctrinal history as never has anyone without Christian teaching ever claimed to have come to a full understanding of Jehovahs righteousness in judging HIS enemies so that they were without excuse before the judgment seat.

Surely if this understanding from HIS creation was so ubiquitous, at least one convert in all history would have told us about his learning about GOD from creation. And if everyone did so learn about HIM, how can we believe they have actually kept that secret all the generations of the world?

MUCH BETTER, to my mind, is the theology that suggests that after our true free will choices were finished in our pre-earth existence, and GOD had no more need to hide HIS glory,

HE created the physical universe in front of us all and every knee did bow and every voice did sing HIS praises. THIS CREATION was the universal witness to every created being that HE was GOD and righteous and just with HIS enemies. When we are born on earth, we forget all this, but it happened and no one can pretend ignorance because they did not hear the gospel here on earth.

Peace, Ted

[siliconwafer]

I cannot accept this interpretation:

1. It contradicts the position that we are enslaved to sin and are spiritually blind and can't see the truth without the gracious saving light of the gospel.

2. It makes a mockery our of our great call to preach to the nations as anyone can find GOD by merely looking at nature.

3. It does not account for the theological ignorance of children that die young, nor does it work for the sensually incapacitated, viz., the blind, dumb, retarded, et cetera.

4. It is also contradicted by the vanity of so many Hindus and Buddhists, that spend years meditating on creation and come up with the witness that they are (could be / will be) god: hardly a witness to YHWH and HIS judgement.

5. AND it is discredited by the universal witness to its being the worst failure in GOD's doctrinal history as never has anyone without Christian teaching ever claimed to have come to a full understanding of Jehovahs righteousness in judging HIS enemies so that they were without excuse before the judgment seat.

Surely if this understanding from HIS creation was so ubiquitous, at least one convert in all history would have told us about his learning about GOD from creation. And if everyone did so learn about HIM, how can we believe they have actually kept that secret all the generations of the world?

MUCH BETTER, to my mind, is the theology that suggests that after our true free will choices were finished in our pre-earth existence, and GOD had no more need to hide HIS glory,

HE created the physical universe in front of us all and every knee did bow and every voice did sing HIS praises. THIS CREATION was the universal witness to every created being that HE was GOD and righteous and just with HIS enemies. When we are born on earth, we forget all this, but it happened and no one can pretend ignorance because they did not hear the gospel here on earth.

Peace, Ted

People know God through God's creation in the sense that people have an awareness of His existence. It does not mean that people can have a knowledge of God's plan of salvation and be saved just by observing God's creation.

[ttruscott]

People know God through God's creation in the sense that people have an awareness of His existence. It does not mean that people can have a knowledge of God's plan of salvation and be saved just by observing God's creation.

But it is supposed to mean that they are aware enough of HIS hidden qualities, 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, (in the context of HIS righteousness and justice) so they are without excuse at the judgment seat of HIS wrath!

Peace, Ted

[Phat8594]

I heard about two people who were talking to each other at church yesterday. One of them asked the other person, "Is there any scientific evidence for God's existence? I have a non-Christian friend who would like to know." The other person replied, "You don't need to show your friend the scientific evidence that is in favor of God's existence. We know that God exists by faith. We know that God exists because the Bible tells us that God exists and that we need to submit to its authority. The Bible is our highest authority so we know that God exists because the Bible says so. There is scientific evidence for God's existence, but our reason for believing that God exists is not based on science." How would you respond to this conversation?

There is clearly proof of God's existence. Of course, knowing that He exists, and actually knowing Him are two entirely different things.

[Soyeong]

I heard about two people who were talking to each other at church yesterday. One of them asked the other person, "Is there any scientific evidence for God's existence? I have a non-Christian friend who would like to know."

There is evidence that has can be gathered in a scientific manner, and there can be various methods for interpreting evidence, but there is no scientific method of interpreting scientific evidence. I can look a the wonders of a cell and interpret that as scientific evidence in favor of the existence of a being with godlike abilities.

However, if you're asking about scientific proof for God's existence, then that's like asking if there is any mathematical proof that an elephant exists. It's simply the wrong tool for the job, so we shouldn't even expect there to be scientific proof in the first place. As with mathematical proofs, these tools only allow us get out what we put in. If we can observe/repeat/verify it, then the tool is useless for gathering information about it, and we can't make any conclusions about information that we don't have. If you're looking for the right tool, then I suggest a metaphysical approach, such as Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways.

We know that God exists by faith.

We can have faith that God will act, but trusting God to exist makes no sense. There are many ways that someone can come to believe that God exists, such as having faith in our parents that they know that God exists, but then our faith is in our parents, and not in the existence of God.

[siliconwafer]

I go with the second guy's response, though you will find Christians who came to faith through some sort of attempted "proof" that God exists. The problems are (1) Science defines its inquiries in such a way as to specifically avoid appeals to the supernatural, and (2) Even if Science somehow found evidence that could only be explained by appealing to the existence of a divine being, would that divine being be uniquely the God of the Bible?

Suppose an unregenerate person were to look at the findings of science and at the same time have a mindset that rejects the God of Bible. If he were to draw the conclusion that God exists, then he would not believe in the God of the Bible. He would believe in some other god. If a Christian were to look at the same findings of science, he would surely see that this natural world came from the hand of the God of the Bible.