It has been said, and generally accepted, that the existence of God cannot be proven. I disagree.
It is true that the existence of God cannot be scientifically proven. Since scientific proof requires observation, nothing unobserved can be scientifically proven. Of course, this means that no historical event predating photography can be reliably proven. Yet we confidently teach thousands of years of history. For this we rely on historical proof, based upon a preponderance of evidence. Incidentally, no historical figure has stronger historical documentation than Jesus, and no historical book even comes close to the reliability of the Bible. But there is an even better proof.
A simple rational proof considers observation, evidence, and clear rules of logic to reach a conclusion through reason. This is the kind of proof lawyers rely on. Ironically, Christians are accused of abandoning reason for blind faith when the existence of a Creator God is the most reasonable conclusion, requiring the least faith. Here we go.
When you see chairs lined up in a row, you conclude someone put them in order. A skyscraper implies both a designer and builder. A painting must have an artist behind it. It would be unreasonable to think these things happen randomly. Order, design, structure and beauty are proof of an orderer, designer, builder, creator. Even science teaches us that in the absence of intelligent direction, entropy rules. Consider that we have yet to design anything that approaches the order and complexity found in nature. The world screams “intelligent creator”. The proof is everywhere.
(Rom 1:19-20) because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
Hey Pastor Tony.
ReplyDeleteUsing the evidence that a building has a builder therefore God exist is a futile way to prove that God exist. Believer or unbeliever have the same evidence, however the believer uses the God of the Bible to interpret the
evidence and the unbeliever interpret the evidence by using an evolution world view,
or empirical world view or a natural world view. An evolutionist will argue that the
builder was created through evolutionary process to a point where the builder is intelligent enough to make the building; you will always have a stalement. The evolutionist is using a helping mechanism(evolution) to explain the same evidence.
Presuppositional Apologetics should be use to first lay down the ground rule for interpreting the evidence with an unbeliever. The unbeliever needs to know that without the God of the Bible, they can't prove anything.
Here is an example of Presuppositional Apologetics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKwsZKMrsY8
Here is also a good book on Presuppositional Apologetics
http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Proof-Creation-Jason-Lisle/dp/0890515689/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311965418&sr=8-1
Wasn't trying to prove the God of the Bible (I may deal with that later), just the concept that there must be a Creator/God. Intelligent design. The reason I love this approach is that if someone plays the evolution card, I get to ask them what evidence they base their belief on, and what mechanism produced complex life (since natural selection only comes into play after we have reproduction).
ReplyDelete