6 Proofs That God Exists

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think you have named the reason for those who leave religion. It is inconvenient for them,

Or not.

The reason can be as simple as realizing the fact that the religion is false.

 

[Hollie]

But then making stuff up isn't going to help, is it?

Shrug. I'm not the one making things up. Nor am I trying to change anyone's mind. Impart a little understanding maybe, for those who do not believe about those who do believe. It's not imaginary. That's the excuse non-believer might offer themselves why they do not need to believe, but those who do believe have reason, logic, and sometimes knowledge.

The issue here is that some said there's 6 "proof" or evidence that God exists.

So far I've seen none. And so far all we've got is people believing, making things up and deciding it is so without any evidence at all.

This is the topic of conversation.

Faith and Facts​

Greg Koukl

About the Author​

Greg Koukl is the founder and President of Stand to Reason (www.str.org). He has written a number of books, including 'Tactics' and 'Relativism', and hosts a radio talk show.
View all resources by Greg Koukl
I don’t like the word ‘faith.’ Not because faith isn’t valuable, but because it’s often deeply misunderstood. ‘Faith’ in this twisted sense is what you use when all reason is against you. It’s religious wishful thinking, in which one squeezes out spiritual hope by intense acts of sheer will. People of ‘faith’ believe the impossible. People of ‘faith’ believe that which is contrary to fact. People of ‘faith’ believe that which is contrary to evidence. People of ‘faith’ ignore reality.

Some suggest we cannot find facts to support our faith, nor is it preferable to try. This is silly. We’re enjoined to have faith in part because we have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

I think part of the confusion is because Christians are often told to ignore circumstances, meaning that we’re not to get overwhelmed or discouraged by them because God is bigger than our troubles. ‘Have faith in God,’ we’re told. I think that’s good counsel as far as it goes, but sometimes it breeds misunderstanding, implying that faith is a blind leap that has no relationship to fact.

Some suggest we cannot find facts to support our faith, nor is it preferable to try. Faith is not the kind of thing that has anything to do with facts, they say. If we have evidence to prove what we believe, then that takes away from real faith.

Somehow these people think that genuine faith is eviscerated by knowledge and evidence. We’ve made a virtue out of believing against the evidence, as if that’s what God has in mind for us. This is all wrong.

Think about it for a moment. J.P. Moreland has suggested that if this is really the Christian view of faith, the best thing that could happen to Christianity is for the bones of Jesus to be discovered. Finding His bones would prove He didn’t rise from the dead. When Christians continue to believe that He did, then, they would be demonstrating the most laudable faith, believing something that all the evidence proved was false.

This is silly. We’re enjoined to have faith in part because we have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. If we’re encouraged to believe because of the resurrection, then that proves this other view of faith is false. It may be the view Christians hold in many cases, but it is not the view of the Bible. It is not the view of Christianity.

Frankly, if religion is merely an exercise in wishful thinking for me, I wouldn’t wish up Christianity. It’s far too inconvenient. Indeed, it seems that’s part of the reason people hold many of the ludicrous religious views they do. They’re appealing. They wish God was impersonal, because an impersonal God can’t make the kind of demands on them that a holy God can. An impersonal divine force doesn’t cramp their style on Saturday night. Eastern religions are high on individual liberty and low on individual responsibility. That’s appealing.

Biblical faith isn’t believing against the evidence. Instead, faith is a kind of knowing that results in action
No, biblical faith isn’t believing against the evidence. Instead, faith is a kind of knowing that results in action. Let me explain what I mean.

If we want to exercise biblical faith--Christian faith--then we ought first to find out how the Bible defines faith. The clearest definition comes from Hebrews 11:1. This verse says, “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Now, there’s something very important in these words. We see the word ‘hope,’ we see the word ‘assurance,’ and we see the word ‘conviction’--that is, confidence. Now, what gives us confidence?

If you buy a lottery ticket, do you hope you’ll win the lottery? Yes, of course you do. Do you have any assurance you’ll win the lottery? Absolutely not. You have no way of knowing that your ticket is any better than the millions of other lottery tickets out there competing for the same pot.

But what if you had x-ray vision, and you could see through the grey scratch-off coating on the lottery tickets you buy at the supermarket? You’d know if you had a £100, £200 or a £1,000 winner, wouldn’t you? In that case, would you merely hope you’d win? No, you’d have assurance , wouldn’t you? You’d have assurance of those things you previously only hoped for. It would be hope with conviction, not a mere hoped, but a hope buttressed by facts and evidence.

That’s why the Christian faith cares about the evidence, friends. For the biblical Christian, the facts matter. You can’t have assurance for something you don’t know you’re going to get. You can only hope for it.

This is why the resurrection of Jesus is so important. It gives assurance to the hope. Because of a Christian view of faith, Paul is able to say in 1 Corinthians 15 that when it comes to the resurrection, if we have only hope, but no assurance--if Jesus didn’t indeed rise from the dead in time/space history--then we are of most men to be pitied. That’s what he says: We are of most men to be pitied.

This confidence Paul is talking about is not a confidence in a mere ‘faith’ resurrection, a mythical resurrection, a story-telling resurrection. Instead, it’s a belief in a real resurrection. If the real resurrection didn’t happen, then we’re in trouble.

The Bible knows nothing of a bold leap-in-the-dark faith, a hope-against-hope faith, a faith with no evidence. Rather, if the evidence doesn’t correspond to the hope, then the faith is in vain, as even Paul has said.

So, faith is knowing, and that knowledge is based on evidence leading to confidence or conviction. But biblical faith is more than that. There’s another element. Faith is not just knowing. Faith is also acting. Biblical faith is a confidence so strong that it results in action. You’re willing to act based on that belief, that faith.

Many of you know that my engineer, Bobby the Bouncer, got married today. Bobby has believed in marriage for a long time, but Bobby never exercised faith in marriage until he walked down the aisle and said “I do” to Jennifer. That’s when he put his life on the line for what he believed to be true. He exercised faith.

Friends, Christianity is not denying reality. Biblical Christians don’t deny reality, they discover reality. And once they’ve discovered it, they act on what they’ve learned.

It’s the same way with biblical faith. It’s not just intellectual assent. It’s not just acknowledging that certain facts about Jesus, the Bible, the resurrection, or whatever, happen to be true. It’s taking your life and putting it on the line based on your confidence in those facts.

Consider a guy who pushes a wheelbarrow across Niagara Falls on a tightrope every day. You’ve seen him do it so many times it doesn’t even occur to you he won’t make it. You believe with all your heart he can do it.

One day he comes up to you and asks, “Do you believe I can push this wheelbarrow across the tightrope without falling?” And you say, “Of course I do. I’ve seen you do it hundreds of times.” “All right,” he says, “get in the wheelbarrow.”

Well, now we’re talking about a whole different kind of thing, aren’t we? The first is an intellectual belief, an acknowledgment of certain facts. The second is active faith, converting your knowledge to action. When you climb into the wheelbarrow, your belief in facts is converted into active trust.

Faith is knowledge in action. It is active trust in the truth. You go to the airport. You say, “This plane goes to New York. I believe it. I’ll get on the plane. I’ll invest myself in the things I believe to be true.” That is biblical faith.

So, when someone asks me the question, “Are faith and science compatible?”, I’m going to immediately ask for a clarification. “What do you mean by faith?” If you think faith is mere fantasy and science is complete fact, well then, fantasy conflicts with fact, doesn’t it? If faith is a blind leap in the dark, if faith has no concern for the facts, you’re in trouble.

If, however, your faith is an intelligent trust in what can’t be seen that’s inferred from evidence that can be seen--if your faith is a commitment to reality, to acting on what you have good reason to believe is true - well then, there doesn’t need to be any conflict at all.

Friends, Christianity is not denying reality. Some people think it is. I’m sympathetic to them because some Christians act as if faith is a kind of sanctified denial. But that isn’t what biblical Christianity is about. Biblical Christians don’t deny reality, they discover reality. And once they’ve discovered it, they act on what they’ve learned.

Indeed, if Christianity is true, in the deepest sense of the word, then it must fit the facts of the real world. So, when we discover the facts of the real world, they can only support Christianity--if Christianity is true--given that you’ve interpreted the facts of the world correctly and you’ve interpreted the scriptural teaching correctly.

Christianity does comport with the facts. If science and religion both have truth as their ultimate goal, then there’s no inherent conflict between the two.

Greg Koukl. Used by the kind permission of www.str.org.

The Newer Anti-Evolutionists: Introducing Greg Koukl | National Center for Science Education

There have been a number of articles published recently by the National Center for Science Education which explore "Design Theory" as a replacement for old-style, young-earth creationism as the reigning paradigm of anti-evolution apologetics (see, for example, "Origins & Design: A Journal, not Just

ncse.ngo

In a radio commentary called "God and Evolution" delivered on February 26 1995 Koukl said

If you are an evolutionist, you are not a theist in the sense that your theism has anything to do with the real world. Your belief about the real world is evolution, and that means time and chance. If you believe that God has something to do with the real world, then you can't be an evolutionist because evolution is run by chance, not by God, by definition.

Koukl holds that evolution and Christianity are in direct opposition to one another. This is a common, perhaps even universal, position among those at the forefront of this movement as well as among those listening to them. This view has become the linch-pin of the log jam that is preventing honest discussion of the science of evolution (that's not a mixed metaphor, but a compound metaphor). As a committed, thoughtful and sincere Christian, Koukl says that the most important thing in life is his relationship with God. If accepting the reality of evolution means abandoning that relationship with God, no conceivable scientific evidence will move him. That is understandable, even expected. Before we can hope to make progress with Koukl and his numerous allies, we must address the compatibility of their profoundly held religious beliefs with the idea of biological evolution. This is where it gets dicey. We should be arguing evidence. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a philosophy. But that is pointless until we get past this philosophical/religious question.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If everything just happened, then there can be no eternality of anything and no rational reason for what exists to exist unless it's always been. And science has proven that this is not the case. And philosophy rationalizes that this isn't the case. And mathematics reveals that this cannot be the case. But GOD isn't a material being. HE reveals that HE is in fact SPIRIT. Unlike all the gods of the ancients, and all the things "moderns" desire ---- which are material. SPIRIT has no beginning.

To be clear, when you refer to “god” you are speaking of some unknown and undefined thing that has always been, is that correct? You are not speaking about the god as defined by the Bible or any other organized religion. Is that right?

The Bible never defines God. That would be like a ant defining a human.

The Bible does not attempt to prove God exists or give any definition of God. Yet it does describe His nature in four ways: God is spirit - His nature is not flesh and blood. God is also light - there is no darkness in Him at all. God is also love. Finally, God's nature can be compared to a consuming fire. These four descriptions provide some insights into God's nature and character rather than giving us a definition of Him.

How Does the Bible Describe God?

There is nothing that anyone can know about God's nature unless He reveals it to humankind. Without divine revelation humanity will be in darkness.

www.blueletterbible.org

The Bible says plenty about God. Perhaps not a detailed description of exactly what God is but it speaks of his creations, his commands, his laws, and his actions.

Very true. Still we have no detailed description as you mention probably because it is impossible for us to describe God adequately.

We know that religion and ‘god’ are creations of man, a human contrivance in an attempt to understand the natural world, and as a means of political and social control.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gay unions are a political view, not a religious one. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with whether or not a person embraces religion

Or whether or not a person is moral.

And unfortunately far too many theists make their religious views political.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But I am not wrong in stating God Is, or that God loves and cares for all of us.

A statement that is subjective belief.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm not the one making things up.

But you believe things others have made up.

 

[Colin norris]

If everything just happened, then there can be no eternality of anything and no rational reason for what exists to exist unless it's always been. And science has proven that this is not the case. And philosophy rationalizes that this isn't the case. And mathematics reveals that this cannot be the case. But GOD isn't a material being. HE reveals that HE is in fact SPIRIT. Unlike all the gods of the ancients, and all the things "moderns" desire ---- which are material. SPIRIT has no beginning.

To be clear, when you refer to “god” you are speaking of some unknown and undefined thing that has always been, is that correct? You are not speaking about the god as defined by the Bible or any other organized religion. Is that right?

The Bible never defines God. That would be like a ant defining a human.

The Bible does not attempt to prove God exists or give any definition of God. Yet it does describe His nature in four ways: God is spirit - His nature is not flesh and blood. God is also light - there is no darkness in Him at all. God is also love. Finally, God's nature can be compared to a consuming fire. These four descriptions provide some insights into God's nature and character rather than giving us a definition of Him.

How Does the Bible Describe God?

There is nothing that anyone can know about God's nature unless He reveals it to humankind. Without divine revelation humanity will be in darkness.

www.blueletterbible.org

The bible does not describe God because God does and never did exist. You can twist and manipulate it's interpretation forever but, like every religious book and religion on earth, cannot prove without doubt God exists.
So all the debates between godbotherers is basically testing each others knowledge of a fairy tale.
Myths and fairy tales are for kids. Isn't it about time you shook off that childish rubbish and grew up?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If religion is dwindling, it is not because schools teach math, science, language, etc. It is because it has dropped teaching religion. People are becoming less educated about that.

And appropriately so – it’s neither the role nor responsibility of public education to teach religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

About the only proof of the existence of 'God' is personal knowledge. Otherwise, it's hearsay or assumptions.
If you know, that's enough. If you don't know, trying to convince others is trying to convince yourself.

Does the counter to that apply as well? Is trying to convince others that God doesn't exist them trying to convince themselves?

There is a fundamental difference. If one knows 'God' exists, being convinced to the contrary is not possible. What is more, by definition, someone who does not think 'God' exists cannot know 'God' does not exist; he can only hypothesize, infer, conclude.
Of course, the concept of 'God' could evolve to a point where the word and term could be liberated and understood enough to reveal a more mature vision. Then, perhaps, the dichotomy would dissipate like the fog under a warm, beaming sun.

I agree with that. But doesn't that imply that since they cannot know that they are really trying to convince themselves?

Perhaps their intellect is picked by the maudlin sentimentality so many bring to the debate.

No no no, their faith is VERY strong! That's why they need proofs. Heh.

The last thing a theist wants is proof of ‘god’ – that would destroy the purpose of religion, replacing faith with fear, and eliminating ‘justification’ to exclude, to condemn, and discriminate against non-believers.

 

[Meriweather]

But you believe things others have made up.

I do? Who? And what do I think they made up?

 

[Meriweather]

And appropriately so – it’s neither the role nor responsibility of public education to teach religion.

It is. The reason we teach anything is so that students gain a proper understanding. Do you see proper understanding of religion in this religion forum?

 

[Meriweather]

The last thing a theist wants is proof of ‘god’

Sigh. See what I mean about "proper understanding"? Proof requires physical existence, physical matter that can be measured by at least one of five senses. The spirit does not have a physical existence, is not made of matter, cannot be measured. There.is.no.proof. There.can.be.no.proof. And this is the first thing that should be taught and learned. The problem with atheists is not that they do not understand God--It is that they do not even understand elementary science.

If we cannot teach them proof via teaching science, perhaps we can teach it via religion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If religion is dwindling, it is not because schools teach math, science, language, etc. It is because it has dropped teaching religion. People are becoming less educated about that.

And appropriately so – it’s neither the role nor responsibility of public education to teach religion.

Religion teaching should be ABOUT religion. Not religion.

Learning equally about Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc etc

 

[frigidweirdo]

The last thing a theist wants is proof of ‘god’

Sigh. See what I mean about "proper understanding"? Proof requires physical existence, physical matter that can be measured by at least one of five senses. The spirit does not have a physical existence, is not made of matter, cannot be measured. There.is.no.proof. There.can.be.no.proof. And this is the first thing that should be taught and learned. The problem with atheists is not that they do not understand God--It is that they do not even understand elementary science.

If we cannot teach them proof via teaching science, perhaps we can teach it via religion.

If the spirit is not physical, then how can the spirit have any impact on the physical?

How can God have made the universe if God isn't physical?

 

[LittleNipper]

About the only proof of the existence of 'God' is personal knowledge. Otherwise, it's hearsay or assumptions.
If you know, that's enough. If you don't know, trying to convince others is trying to convince yourself.

Does the counter to that apply as well? Is trying to convince others that God doesn't exist them trying to convince themselves?

There is a fundamental difference. If one knows 'God' exists, being convinced to the contrary is not possible. What is more, by definition, someone who does not think 'God' exists cannot know 'God' does not exist; he can only hypothesize, infer, conclude.
Of course, the concept of 'God' could evolve to a point where the word and term could be liberated and understood enough to reveal a more mature vision. Then, perhaps, the dichotomy would dissipate like the fog under a warm, beaming sun.

I agree with that. But doesn't that imply that since they cannot know that they are really trying to convince themselves?

Perhaps their intellect is picked by the maudlin sentimentality so many bring to the debate.

No no no, their faith is VERY strong! That's why they need proofs. Heh.

The last thing a theist wants is proof of ‘god’ – that would destroy the purpose of religion, replacing faith with fear, and eliminating ‘justification’ to exclude, to condemn, and discriminate against non-believers.

We heard what you say, but this is what the Bible has to say:

​

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

​

​

 

[LittleNipper]

The last thing a theist wants is proof of ‘god’

Sigh. See what I mean about "proper understanding"? Proof requires physical existence, physical matter that can be measured by at least one of five senses. The spirit does not have a physical existence, is not made of matter, cannot be measured. There.is.no.proof. There.can.be.no.proof. And this is the first thing that should be taught and learned. The problem with atheists is not that they do not understand God--It is that they do not even understand elementary science.

If we cannot teach them proof via teaching science, perhaps we can teach it via religion.

If the spirit is not physical, then how can the spirit have any impact on the physical?

How can God have made the universe if God isn't physical?

The physical didn't exist until GOD created it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The last thing a theist wants is proof of ‘god’

Sigh. See what I mean about "proper understanding"? Proof requires physical existence, physical matter that can be measured by at least one of five senses. The spirit does not have a physical existence, is not made of matter, cannot be measured. There.is.no.proof. There.can.be.no.proof. And this is the first thing that should be taught and learned. The problem with atheists is not that they do not understand God--It is that they do not even understand elementary science.

If we cannot teach them proof via teaching science, perhaps we can teach it via religion.

If the spirit is not physical, then how can the spirit have any impact on the physical?

How can God have made the universe if God isn't physical?

The physical didn't exist until GOD created it.

But how could God create the physical if God NOW has nothing to do with the physical?

It makes NO SENSE.

 

[Meriweather]

If the spirit is not physical, then how can the spirit have any impact on the physical?

Can attitude make a difference on the physical?

 

[Meriweather]

How can God have made the universe if God isn't physical?

Do you consider intelligence physical?

 

[LittleNipper]

The last thing a theist wants is proof of ‘god’

Sigh. See what I mean about "proper understanding"? Proof requires physical existence, physical matter that can be measured by at least one of five senses. The spirit does not have a physical existence, is not made of matter, cannot be measured. There.is.no.proof. There.can.be.no.proof. And this is the first thing that should be taught and learned. The problem with atheists is not that they do not understand God--It is that they do not even understand elementary science.

If we cannot teach them proof via teaching science, perhaps we can teach it via religion.

If the spirit is not physical, then how can the spirit have any impact on the physical?

How can God have made the universe if God isn't physical?

The physical didn't exist until GOD created it.

But how could God create the physical if God NOW has nothing to do with the physical?

It makes NO SENSE.

Psalm 33:6​

By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.