It is most unfortunate that we as Christians, being in opposition to worldly philosophies and doctrines, quite frequently find ourselves in often heated and intense debates with non-believers. I can not count the times I’ve been forced to argue the rational integrity of a particular Christian belief, whether it was face to face, a web forum or email. And depending on the person one is debating, the flavor can be a light friendly conversation or just plain mean and hateful. Though in the course of discussing practices one disagrees with more fundamental issues are raised. Does this person believe in Christ as God’s son? Or even more, does this person believe in God at all? And so, should the discourse stop right there? For many see it like this; you either believe in God or you do not. As to questions of Heaven, Hell, Forgiveness, and the like, there is common agreement on the supernatural. But, what of those who deny the chief of all supernatural questions; God? Is there little to say to one such as this, or not? Must one experience God on a relationally level before a theoretical belief develops rationally? Let us examine these thoughts about the existence of God by exploring the subject of proving God’s existence, what Scripture has to say on the issue and some contemporary and classical arguments that have been posed.

One method typically employed by Christians in response to this, often embraced for lack of a rebuttal, is avoidance. For them, an appeal of a limited agnosticism is attractive and satisfies any concerns of their commitment to evangelism. After all, doesn’t the Bible say that ‘the ways of God are foolishness to man’ and vice-versa? This would imply that obedience precludes knowledge of God and to try to prove God’s existence is unproductive. And not only is it unproductive on this assumption, it is impossible to do. Consider the words of God to Job (Job 38:4) when He said, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding.� So, how could a finite mind even begin to unravel the infinite wrappings of God’s essence? This is a position echoed in Fideism, those who hold that facts can not be representative of, or explanatory of God.

On the flip side, though not as ambitious to presume that God can be proven to exist to all people at all times, given one is open to rational debate, there are those who feel that giving proofs for God’s existence to be effective. They would even argue that there is a basis for this not only practically, but scripturally. As to the latter, there are numerous passages in scripture that encourage such intellectual encounters. I am reminded of when on one of Paul’s visits to Athens he was not persuaded to avoid the issue of God, but rather attacked it with complete intellectual tenacity. Paul was not, that day, interested in delivering a series of general platitudes that were universally accepted by all. No, he argued for not only God’s existence, but Christ as God’s son; and for Father and Spirit. And we shouldn’t be surprised when in Hebrews 11:6, it says “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.� This means that the first condition for having faith in God is to believe in His existence.

Proofs for God’s existence are numerous and come in a variety of forms. But, we will just look at the most popular ones. Probably the most popular argument for God’s existence is one posed by Aristotle, in the fourth century B. C., which was then adapted to Christianity some 1500 years later by St. Thomas Aquinas. To summarize, the thesis goes like this. There is no doubt that in our universe, all things move from one space into another, moving this way and that. This necessitates that one thing in the universe must cause another to be in motion. However, that thing which caused another’s motion, itself must have been caused by yet another thing, and on and on, ad infinitum. This whole process, then, can not account for ‘the whole’ of moving things, since all these moving bodies rely on one another. This suggests that one must posit a being that itself moves, or has moved, things in the universe without itself being moved in order to move other entities. Therefore, there must have been a first mover, or an unmoved mover that caused all of these contingent beings to be in motion. And, this is God.

Another less popular argument is known as the Ontological Argument. Conceived by St. Anselm in the eleventh century A. D., it goes like this. God is the greatest being one can think of. But, if God existed only in the mind, then He would not be the greatest being one could think of, since a greater being would exist in the mind and reality as well. Yet, this is inconceivable, in that, there is no greater being one can think of. Therefore, God exists in reality as well as the mind; ergo God exists.

As to whether any of these proofs are convincing to someone is yet another issue. Although they are interesting, mind provoking and faith building, they are no substitute for ‘living’ the life God has called us to live. After all, that is the ‘greatest’ proof of all; right?

Send This To A Friend