Proof of God’s Existence

Despite the mountains of proof we have that God exists, there are those who claim there is still not enough evidence. Some even deny that there is any proof at all.

I have heard the argument many times that the Christian cannot accept that they don’t know how the universe began, so they “make up a God.” The Atheist, on the other hand, is willing to simply say, “I don’t know.”

This often gives them the idea of superiority, believing that the Christian is dishonest, while they are humble and honest enough to admit their ignorance. They say that they simply don’t know what could have been in the beginning, and that’s okay because they hope that one day they will find out.

Ironically, this is actually arrogant and dishonest because they have more than enough evidence for a God, but they choose to ignore it. This is what the Bible calls being willingly ignorant.

Oddly, the creation of the universe is the only subject they are okay with not having a theory for. For everything else, they come up with a hypothesis to examine. But they have no hypothesis for the creation of the universe without a creator. They have nothing that they are examining. They are fine with “We just don’t know.”

In reality, the Atheist is only admitting to being ignorant. “It’s okay to not know something. Christianity was made up because people couldn’t accept not knowing.” This is what they say when all other arguments have failed them. Their only defense is total and complete ignorance.

But they try to make it sound like Christians have come up with this worldwide conspiracy, one that has lasted several thousand years. One that somehow helped the government control people while also helping the people rebel against the government. All just because not knowing something annoyed them.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson once said, “Conspiracy theorists are those who claim coverups whenever insufficient data exists to support what they’re sure is true.” In this case, the Atheist is sure there is no God, but all of the data says otherwise.

But do they have a better theory? Doctors treat people based on the best information they have at the time. This is how we use science. We go with what we have until we find something better. But if this is the best information we have, why are they not willing to act accordingly, like anything else?

It’s because they refuse to accept the only answer they can find. So they are in a continual search for a different “truth.” They prove the Bible is correct, that they are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The Great Intellectual Trap

On the surface, just accepting that we are ignorant doesn’t seem harmful. But let me ask you something. Do you fully understand gravity? Did you know that gravity is still considered a theory? Would you have to fully understand it before you believe in it? How long will you have to keep gathering evidence?

Would you choose not to accept gravity because you don’t fully understand it? Would you be willing to jump off of a building in defiance of the idea that gravity will pull you down?

Even though you don’t fully understand it, you have seen it work. You know that what goes up must come down, simply because it always has. Because of this, you have faith in gravity and will not leap to your death.

Now, do you have to fully understand God before you can accept Him? Or are you willing to ignore Him in defiance of the idea that He is in charge? If your two answers are different, then perhaps you are not using the same logic for both questions. If so, why not?

This is the great intellectual trap. It keeps you searching and looking for more evidence. It is like a cage you lock yourself into. You can never break free from the skepticism until you can accept what you already know.

In the last study, we spoke of Stephen Hawking. He had first come to the conclusion that the universe requires a creator. But because he did not like that idea, he spent the rest of his life trying to disprove his own theory. His research changed into a quest to disprove the need for a God.

He managed to convince himself that it was not possible for God to exist. But he never managed to find a better theory for the existence of the universe. And what he convinced himself of about God not being possible required the universe to also be impossible.

He eventually claimed there was no need for a God because gravity could have brought the universe into existence. But then that ignores two things. The first is that gravity would have to have something already there to act upon. So you still have need of a creator.

The second is that gravity is dependent and subject to mass and other laws of nature, including the laws of thermodynamics. As we said in our last study, anything subject to the laws of nature cannot be self-existent.

Hawking knew this when he wrote his thesis on the nature of the universe. But in the end, he seemed to simply “forget” it. Since the quest to deny God is what brought him to this final theory, it would appear his forgetfulness was willful ignorance.

Fact vs. Theory

We can accept God the same way we accept gravity. We have examples and evidence. We don’t need to keep trying to find something other than gravity that we like better. We don’t need to keep trying to find something better than God either. Science isn’t about disproving something; it’s about learning.

In science, you always go with the best theory you have at the time until it is proven to be untrue. Then you look for another. You don’t look for another for the express purpose of proving the current one to be untrue. And you certainly don’t ignore it until you can prove it to be untrue.

An eternal creator is the best theory right now. There is no other, and this has never been proven to be untrue. So why ignore it in hopes that you will find something else that you like better?

What Proof Do You Need?

“If you could prove to me that God exists, I would believe. We all would believe.” It’s a simple statement. No doubt it is even believed to be a true statement. But, the problem is NOTHING has ever truly been “proven” in science. I know, that’s a bold statement. Let me explain.

The process we go through before we say something has been proven to be a fact is quite lengthy. There are tests and experiments performed by multiple people. Evidence is gathered. Eventually, enough tests and evidence have been gathered for the majority to start accepting the theory as a fact. That is when we call something proven.

The problem is that while we can be certain of the results our tests gave before, we cannot be certain of future test results. We take it on faith that because something always has worked a certain way, it always will. It isn’t “proven.” It is trusted.

I want you to notice that in the process, evidence is gathered. But, there is no set amount of evidence required before something can be considered “proven.” There is no set number of tests that must be run, no amount of evidence that must be found, and no point at which something no longer needs more proof.

Instead, something is proven when we ACCEPT that it has been. It is only when we ACCEPT that there is enough evidence to convince us. This is why no matter how much proof an Atheist is given, they will still say, “There is not enough proof.” Or, in some cases, they will deny there is any evidence at all. It isn’t because they lack proof. It’s because they have to be willing to ACCEPT the conclusion. They have to be willing to ACCEPT that there is a God.

Let’s give a few examples. I can show that the universe is not self-existent and has a beginning through a multitude of evidence. Scientists have known this for a long time. The theory is called the Big Bang. This means it must have something that began it. Cause and effect are well established. The only way this could happen is if whatever caused it was eternal itself and not limited by the known laws of nature.

Stephen Hawking knew this. He knew the Big Bang theory was evidence in itself that there was a God. BUT, rather than ACCEPT his own theory, he chose to keep looking for another one. He never ACCEPTED the proof he himself presented. So he would say there is no proof for God.

Richard Dawkins, a well-known Atheist, was once asked what evidence could convince him there is a God. He replied that while he used to give lip service to science, he doesn’t believe there is anything that could convince him. In other words, his view on the existence of God is not based on science or lack of proof.

If Jesus came back right this moment, the Atheist would think that they may be insane. If God spoke in a loud, booming voice, they would think they were hearing hallucinations. So why bother to ask for proof if it wouldn’t be accepted anyway?

I can tell you many Atheists have said they even HOPE to find proof. They may even proclaim that they HOPE there is a God. But the reality is that they will never find enough proof unless they are willing to accept what they already have.

No one can ever prove something to you if you are determined to find a reason to deny the proof. Because even if you can’t think of a reason now, you will just say you don’t know a reason, but one day you will find one.

So, if you still think there is no evidence for God, ask yourself if it may be because you want something else. Are you thinking that one day we will have a “better” answer? Maybe it’s because you aren’t seeing the results you expected in your “tests” if there was a God? But how well controlled is your experiment? Are there variables you haven’t considered? You don’t need more proof. You just need to accept the proof you already have.

Unit 1:2 – Why The Christian God OR

Return To Christianity 101 Unit 1 – The Bible and Faith in God

September 7, 2024 at 9:08 pm | | No comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.