Written by Nathan Amerson (Instructor at NHCC)
Demonstrating a proof for the existence of God has been a much-debated tool of apologists for centuries. Many arguments against Christian belief and against universal moral values based on the Scriptures begin with questioning the existence of God Himself. Thus many church scholars over the last 1000 years have wanted to develop irrefutable proofs for the existence and necessity of God in order to begin these debates from a solid footing.
However, despite a millennium of great minds mulling the problem, it remains a good bit more nebulous than most Christian apologists would prefer. Arne Vester, in an excellent 2021 article, describes the effect of this lack of fidelity in conversation: “When we’re questioned about the evidence for God’s existence, it’s crucial to understand that this inquiry cannot be approached in the same manner as other factual investigations. The quest for proof of God’s existence is akin to a fish questioning the presence of water.”1 He goes on to note the transcendent nature of God’s character and being places Him in an almost unrecognizable plane of reality, one which is only hinted at by the revelations, both general and specific, that God has made of Himself.
In the 11th century, Anselm of Canterbury was the first of the “Schoolmen” (as scholars were referred to at the time) to design an effective proof in his Proslogion produced in 1078. Today it is called the “Ontological Proof” for God’s existence and rests on the following consideration: to exist in the mind is greater than not to exist, and to exist in reality is greater than merely in the mind, and to exist in reality and in perfection is greater than to exist with limitations, therefore God is the being greater than which cannot be conceived. Later in the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas would refute the Ontological Argument by stating that God’s nature is actually the very thing that makes Him not understandable therefore only God Himself could suppose that He is the greatest conceivable thing. Rather Aquinas proposed five proofs of His won, most of which only argue for the necessity of God based upon Aristotelian argumentation for “First Cause” or “First Mover”. However, this “cosmological” argument may be countered by simply stating only a believer would infer that God Himself is the first cause of Aristotle’s conception of the universe, thereby implying a circular logic.
Later various considerations would be brought to bear which in some ways strengthened both of these arguments and in some ways demonstrated weaknesses. Rene Descartes indicated that the existence of a benevolent Creator was necessary for the human senses to be meaningful. John Calvin argued that an innate sense of God’s reality resides in each person, which is a strong argument for this aspect of general revelation. Bringing these differing interpretations into the modern era, The Danish writer Soren Kierkegaard argued that God may not be proven by a posteriori means, that is from the cosmos, as the universe is incomplete until the end of time, and therefore we would always be waiting for the answer in the future.
The development of apologetics in the 20th century led to a basic concept that convincing an atheist must be predicated upon proving the existence of God. Thus a great deal of effort has been put into these forms of argumentation. One of the great Christian philosophers of our time, William Lane Craig, has propounded a development of a 13th-century concept called the Kalam Cosmological Argument which starts with showing God as the personal creator of the universe. In his very strong and well-rounded philosophical presentation, Craig has demonstrated that the Christian apologist may present God as the creator and remain in perfect alignment with atheistic arguments for the existence of the universe. He says: “Given the metaphysical impossibility of the universe’s coming into being from nothing, belief in a supernatural Creator is eminently reasonable. At the very least we can say confidently that the person who believes in the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo will not find himself contradicted by the empirical evidence of Big Bang cosmology but on the contrary fully in accord with it.”2 While this is not specifically a proof for God’s existence (which Craig does attempt in other writings using an argument similar to Aquinas) it is a counterpoint to the atheist who simply cannot admit the creation of the universe
by a personal God.
Despite the genius of Craig and other philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga, it seems to this writer that we actually cannot demonstrate irrefutable evidence for the existence of God. All the “proofs” have some logical failure point. We can demonstrate reasonable evidence for a personal creator God, which may be a starting point for further discussion with unbelievers. Simultaneously, to answer the second of the titular questions, no requirement exists either to demonstrate the proof of God’s existence. The reason for this is found in the book of Hebrews where the writer tells us this: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Heb 11.6, NIV). We can clearly see the starting point to relationship and blessing from God is believing He exists. We can argue with an atheist until we are both exhausted, but for that person to receive anything from God they must begin from a position of faith and belief. Then God can bless their lives and bring them to salvation. This must be the prayer of the apologist, that first God will reveal His existence to the other person, so that starting from that point they may learn more of Him and begin the sanctification process. General revelation may be the best starting point for this discussion, but God’s reality must still be the foundational element for anyone to receive His rewards.
3 Comments on “Can We Prove the Existence of God? Do We Need To?”
The comparison of the quest for God’s existence to a fish questioning the presence of water is a powerful metaphor that highlights the unique nature of theological inquiry
It’s interesting to see how thinkers like William Lane Craig and others have built on classical arguments, yet the article suggests that even these modern developments cannot offer irrefutable proof.
so interesting to think about! thanks for sharing 🥰