who else wants indisputable evidence that God exists

Who Else Wants Indisputable Evidence That God Exists?

Peter Guirguis Apologetics 28 Comments


Do you or someone you know have doubts that God exists?

Are you skeptical that there is a Supreme Being who created our planet, and our universe?

I know it can be tough to believe in God sometimes.

I used to believe in God when I was a kid.

But then when I was in high school, some bad things happened to my family and me.

I prayed to God that He would fix those bad things that happened ASAP.

And when I felt that God didn’t respond, I ended up believing that everything I was taught about God was wrong.

I ended up thinking He was just a figment of people’s imagination.

So I became an atheist for eight years.

That was until 2006 when some dramatic things happened in my life that changed things around.

If You Don’t Settle the God Question Quickly, Then Your Problem Gets Worse

If you’re searching for purpose, meaning, and whether there is an afterlife, then answering the God question is crucial.

That’s why I always encourage skeptics who visit my blog to spend as much time as they can to search for their own evidence about the divine.

Trusting God is more than what you can see. Ask God to remove your doubt and add to your faith. Click To Tweet

But Wait, Don’t Mistake Evidence for Proof

As you’re reading this blog post, I want you to be aware that there is no proof that God exists. However, there is plenty of evidence.

Many of the skeptics that I speak with want proof that God exists, like as in a scientific experiment that can produce results.

However, the problem is that science can only measure things in the natural realm; things that science can observe.

But God doesn’t inhabit a space that is visible, and that scientists can measure.

READ  The Trustworthy Argument For The Existence of God That You Probably Never Heard Of

In fact, God (the Christian God, or God the Father) exists outside of our universe.

So that’s why using science to measure God is like using a thermometer to measure the wind.

It’s just not the right tool for the job.

but will God really dwell on the earth – King Solomon

While there isn’t any proof that God exists, there is plenty of evidence.

And there is even plenty of scientific evidence and philosophical evidence as well.

What’s the Difference Between Evidence and Proof of God’s Existence?

Think of it like being a juror in a trial (if you live in the US).

When you’re part of a jury, you are presented with evidence from both the plaintiff and the defendant.

It’s up to you which side you believe…

You’ll end up making a decision based on the evidence that’s presented to you by both sides.

Does that make sense?

The Man Interviewed in this Video is an Expert With Decades of Experience

Below is a video interview with Doctor William Lane Craig.

If you’re not familiar with Dr. Craig, he is a renowned author, speaker, and professor.

Here are Dr. Craig’s credentials as he is one of the authorities in the intersections of philosophy, science, and theology.

  • Master’s Degree From Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
  • Ph.D. From the Univerisity of Birmingham England
  • Doctorate of Theology from the University of Munich in Germany
  • Currently Professor at Talbot

You can learn more about Dr. Craig by visiting his about page on his website.

He is well known for debating atheists, Muslims, and people from other religious beliefs.

YouTube is flooded with Dr. Craig’s videos if you’re interested in this subject.

Here Are Some of the Extraordinary Things You’re Going to Learn in This Video

  • One of the most common mistakes people make when it comes to viewing the Big Bang theory and how you can correct it
  • How some people try to mislead you by trying to re-define what a quantum vacuum is which can keep you from believing in God
  • How some physicists are trying to convince you that it’s possible for a universe to create itself from nothing but in reality, that is just a big fat lie
  • What is the ballon-button illustration that explains how matter, space, and time came into existence so you can simply understand all the facts
  • And many more fascinating facts about why a transcendent cause is the best explanation for the origin of the universe
READ  3 Reasons Why an Awesome God Exists

 

For part 2 of Dr. Craig’s video about how God can be personally known and experienced, click here.

So Are You Disappointed With the Video, or Did You Like it?

There’s no way that a video like this is going to be received by everyone the same way.

Some skeptics will still not be convinced.

For some people, this video will put their doubts to rest.

And yet for others, this will just be a confirmation of something that they’ve already known for years.

 

About the Author

Peter Guirguis

Facebook Twitter Google+

I'm the Technology and Social Media Manager of Calvary Chapel South Bay, a church in Gardena, California. My passion is to see people give their life to Christ both online and offline. I've created the free guide to getting thousands of Twitter followers to show ordinary people how to get extraordinary results on Twitter.

 

Comments 28

  1. Hi Peter. Lucas here. Have you ever seen the debate between William Craig and Sean Carroll? The upshot is the Sean Carroll gives a technical and easy to understand explanation of the factors at play during a big bang. Essentially, he agrees with Craig on what’s happening but then explains how before space and time exist, it’s not a logical proposition to say things like “cause” and “exists” as these things are necessarily tied to a temporal state. No universe, no time, no “before” and no “cause”.

    Carroll explains how these quantum particles pop into existence in a quantum vacuum in just the very mechanical way Craig says can’t happen. However, I think none of that matters. Since we weren’t there, it’s hard to say exactly what did happen nor could we determine the actual cause (even if we have a plausible, physical hypothesis). I think Craig’s jump to a transcendent, personal entity, no matter how comforting that may be, is just a failure of the imagination. Because we don’t know what the mechanism is, nor does the hypothesis substitute for the data, we can imagine any mechanism we want in place of the transcendent entity. It’s equally realistic to claim that a quantum, toaster looking, universe o’matic machine simply creates universes whenever there is room for one. There’s no love in that but there’s equal evidence to Craig’s hypothesis, none.

    It’s a false dichotomy to propose either god or total “random accident” as Craig seems to believe. There are a billion more possibilities that may explain our universe and god just happens to be expeditious. So, as always, I’m left with the same question; if physicists came up with a detailed model of the creation of the universe and it was widely accepted and proven to your satisfaction, would you still believe in God? If the answer is yes, then this isn’t a reason to believe for you, nor is it likely to convince me. What is the main reason you believe there is a god, you know his name, have a relationship with his son and know what he wants from us?

    1. Hi Lucas, sorry, I didn’t see the debate between William Craig and Sean Carroll.

      As far as a quantum toaster looking universe o’matic machine that simply creates universes whenever there is room for one, are you assuming that this machine has always existed (is eternal)?

      As for the billions of more possibilities that explain our universe, you are absolutely right. However, I’d like to point out that Dr. Craig didn’t say that it was God but that it was a transcendent being. I think we need to have a completely different conversation to go from transcendent being to God.

      Additionally, he was saying that it is the most probable conclusion and better than all of the other billions of explanations like aliens, other life forms, or something of the like.

      As for answers to your last questions, it boils down to what we talked about in our one-on-one conversations on Twitter and on our Skype call. It has to do with my own personal story which I shared with you.

  2. Pingback: Who Else Wants Indisputable Evidence That God Exists? – Site Title

  3. The point isn’t that God can be 100% absolutely proven by the Cosmological argument, but that is has the best philosophical explanatory power… in other words, God as the cause of the universe makes the most sense. I doubt we’ll ever be able to “prove” God exists until the Second Coming of Christ when time is up for arguments about His existence. There must be an element of faith that is exercised here, and that keeps us humble.

    1. Post
      Author

      Yes, you make a good point Lisa. That’s why I wrote the part in the article that explains the difference between evidence and proof. I believe that there is no proof for God but there is plenty of evidence. And just like you’re saying, the evidence for God is the best explanation.

      But when you have a relationship with God and you’ve been walking with Him for years and you experience Him, then you don’t really need all of that evidence.

  4. Thanks for sharing! I’ve read/watched this guy for several years. Personally, Craig’s arguments made complete sense to me – until they didn’t.

    By that I mean that Craig is exceptional at debating and arguing, but when I stopped to really drill into the content, suddenly his arguments seemed weak.

    Why? Primarily because they’re just that, arguments. I think we do ourselves a huge disservice viewing religion as a court of law or election. In an election, if I convince enough people to maintain my perspective, I “create” reality because my candidate wins. But this doesn’t work with religion. If we all become Muslim, Mormon, Atheist, or Baptist, it won’t change reality.

    God either exists or he doesn’t, regardless of how many people we convince one way or another.

    Which brings up this very difficult to answer question: If God is real, and personal, why does he make believing in him a maze? A loving parent wouldn’t throw their kid out in an Alaskan winter with a box full of keys and say “One of those will get you in the house, good luck”. No! A loving parent would give their kid the exact key to get in so that they don’t freeze to death.

    However, God gives us a few “evidences” that he is real and says “Good luck! You better believe in (the right version) of me if you want to live eternally!” He then gives us a book that can be used to condone dozens of opposing philosophies and leaves us at that.

    It’s interesting how religion has evolved over the years, and God is continually used to explain what we can’t explain elsewhere (until we can).

    Really, here’s my biggest challenge. Christianity (and most modern religions) don’t require faith in God – they require faith in a select few people who had one off “experiences” and very strong political agendas.

    Reading through the Old Testament while tracking “how” people experienced God (usually just 1-2 people “saw” him at a time, and we have to take their word), and asking yourself “did they have a political incentive for God’s answer?” leads to a very revealing revolution that much of our Bible may be exaggerated.

    This isn’t a conclusion a like, but it really seems to make sense. It appears that our religion is based on faith in men, not God.

    1. Post
      Author
    2. 1 John 5 :
      4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

      13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

  5. Thanks for the reply Peter. The universe’o-matic is just a thought experiment. It could be a perfectly natural process that makes universes or maybe it’s an entity that only makes universes. In any event, don’t hang up on the universe needing an “eternal” agent. If there is no universe, then time is not something we can even discuss. It’s a fully understood part of Einsteinian Relativity. The point I was trying to make was that without evidence, Craig’s hypothesis is as valid as any other totally wild guess. Claiming that it was god that did it and that is the best explanation is a failure of the imagination. It’s much simpler to explain the universe with a universe’o-matic.

    Craig does say that he hypothesises it’s a transcendent being, then says it’s a personal, transcendent being, you’re right but He’s talking about god, don’t you think? You’re also right about him connecting those dots, he knows he’s got no external basis to connect that universe building entity (god) with Christianity. This is why you never see him (in any debate, article, blog or radio show) try to connect his cosmological argument to his Christian faith. The most I’ve heard him say was “… The god of the Bible”. Pure assertion.

    My problem with the cosmological argument is that it is just an argument. There’s no evidence to examine. Mainly though, it violates Occam’s razor. In every other natural process we can observe, from childbirth to gardening, we can get a product out of virtually nothing. No Gods required.

    I notice you’re pretty invested in this belief of yours, you are totally surrounded by it’s trappings and earn your living from it. I know you couldn’t answer this question directly, but do you ever have doubts about the factual basis of what you believe? Are you in a position to investigate the questions those doubts raise? (I don’t mean about the theology, I mean much more fundamental than that, it’s truth) If you were mistaken about this, would you want to know?

    1. Lucas – you said “In every other natural process we can observe, from childbirth to gardening, we can get a product out of virtually nothing. No Gods required.” Childbirth and gardens are not produced out of nothing, so your logic is illogical.

      Perhaps the Cosmological argument is not stated with clarity. What Dr. Craig intends is to show that nothing produces nothing, thus, everything has a cause. This cause must be transcendent, in other words, outside of known space and time since the Big Bang was the starting point for all things including our dimensions. This transcendent cause also must be intelligent, not some random universe creating machine that spits out other universes. If you believe the Mulit-Verse Theory, then you have faith in this theory. You are exhibiting FAITH, which believe in something unseen.

      Finally, arguments from science are good and getting better with the Intelligent Design Theory, but the best argument by far is the one from changed lives. There are literally millions in history whose lives have been transformed by the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is highly suspect to conclude millions of reasonable people are deluded.

      From a reasonable believer.

      1. Hi Lisa,

        Wondering how one would start from WLC’s favorite Kalām cosmological argument (keeping in mind that arguments are not proof of anything, btw):

        Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
        The Universe began to exist.
        Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

        And conclude Jesus Christ?

        R

        1. R,

          In your comment you have two conclusions that are a result of one premise:

          1. “therefore the universe had a cause”
          2. “Conclude Jesus Christ”

          I think there is a big gap between the two. Once it’s been proven that the universe had a cause, then WLC provides more arguments as to why he thinks that cause is Jesus Christ. Those arguments of where he goes from the universe had a cause to concluding it’s the Christian God is not in this video but in another video.

          1. Exactly my point. The Kalām cosmological argument never includes a deity or anything supernatural in its premises. Nor does it prove that the universe has a cause.

        2. Hey guys,

          One of my favorite Christian Philosophers, J.P. Moreland, says you can’t conclude Jesus Christ is the Creator for the conclusion to the Kalam Cosmological argument. He says this argument simply points to a Theistic worldview as making the best possible explanation for why anything exists at all. Moreland suggests if you are dealing with an atheist, you must first just get him to see the credibility of a theistic explanation for the universe. Once you do that, then you can discuss why this Creator is personal.

          Lastly, you can bring up the point of what religion has the best answers to the human problem of sin (or call it something else since “sin” is a taboo word in our culture). Christianity explains why things are not perfect, and provides the solution through the person of Jesus. That is a very simplistic answer to your question, but I hope it helps a bit.

          1. Post
            Author

            Lisa, both you, and J.P. are correct. That’s why I was trying to say that the conclusion to the Kalam isn’t that the Christian God exists, but that a transcendent being exists.

            Thanks for your thoughts on the subject. You are quite knowledgeable in the subject and you have a nice manner of writing your replies in the comments. It’s always a pleasure reading what you have to say 🙂

    2. You know something, Lucas, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to your questions and to question from others that come from atheists. After several years of having my blog up and running, I realized a very interesting thing. These arguments about God’s existence don’t do really very much for atheists. If I was an atheist and I came across this stuff, honestly, I wouldn’t find it very compelling. I’m just being very blunt, honest, and as sincere and genuine as I can be.

      However, there is a certain type of people that do find this information helpful. And those are people that are either more on the agnostic side, or that believe in God but are going through a season of doubt. They write to me and ask me questions. And almost always, they say that the articles that they read have been helpful, or that our conversation has helped to answer their question in some kind of way.

      So that got me to thinking about why is it that atheists don’t really respond well to this kind of information? And I suppose that really one can come up with several different answers. The same biases that people accuse me of are exactly the same biases that you and other atheists are also guilty of (confirmation bias etc). So we are all biased in some kind of way.

      However, what I did find recently is that the reason there is such a big gap between me and other atheists is because we operate by reading different manuals. You guys are reading the scientific manual and are looking for either things that confirm your position, or for evidence that confirm the opposite position. You want evidence from the scientific realm.

      I’ve tried to give as much evidence as possible on this blog from the scientific realm but it will always be limited because a transcendent supremem being exists in the super-natural world. Of course, you don’t believe that a supernatural world exists. And if one were to exist, you wouldn’t be able to discover through scientific tools either.

      As for me, I don’t operate from the scientific manual that you and atheists operate from. I operate from a faith-based manual. I left atheism and became a Christian in 2006 not because of the scientific evidence that I talk about on this blog. But because of something that God did personally for me. I had a personal encounter with God. Which is why I was talking with you on twitter that I found that most people who convert don’t convert because of the evidence but convert because of a personal experience.

      So does that mean if you don’t have a personal experience, then you’re out of luck? I don’t think so. I think the first step is to start searching for that personal experience. I think if you continue searching, then one day you will look and find what you’re looking for all along.

      Sorry, I don’t think I got to answering all of your questions in the comment. But it was just something that I got inspired by when I read your comment.

      1. Peter,

        I read this comment a couple of time last night and have been thinking about it ever since. I’d like to thank you for your sincere and honest thoughts. You are exactly correct – those of us who have earnestly tried to find truth in religion and haven’t will doubtfully be convinced by the existing “evidences” or arguments. For the most part these things are what caused us to question what we believed to begin with.

        What I sense is that some people have what they feel to be a supernatural experience attributed to a god and make the decision to believe – no matter if the natural, rational evidence points to a different, non supernatural conclusion. Once you’re invested in that decision its VERY hard to be self critical. Hey I get it! I was in the same boat for most of my life!

        My challenge to you and your readers is to examine your beliefs with logic, reason and skepticism to see what you’ll find. It never hurts to look at things from a different perspective. It may even confirm that you’re correct and have found actual truth!

        As always thanks for the forum and the chance to have the discussion.

        R

        1. Post
          Author
  6. Well dang….. I was going to reply but Lucas and Rob got it covered! Great work guys! I couldn’t add any better thoughts or questions if I tried. Happy to see you guys involved in the conversation!

    Hopefully Peter’s readers will digest what you guys have said and truly embrace the logic involved. Trust me, I know its uncomfortable to question a belief system once you been indoctrinated. BUT, I think believers (no matter what deity they ascribe to) owe it to themselves and their God(s) to take an honest look at what they believe and why. The Christian God would certainly want his creations to put the massive processing power in their brains to good use. If you’re so certain you’ve found the absolute truth then what could it hurt??

    R

  7. Hi Peter,

    Again, great site and I look forward to seeing clearer evidences for God develop over time (hopefully). But to answer your question: why does believing in God seem like a maze?

    Ultimately, what I mean by this is that Christians have historically responded to atheists differently from other religions.

    For example, I’ve been raised a Protestant. Anytime I would speak with a Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, etc., I would tell them to look at the evidence.

    Meanwhile, when speaking with an atheist, many arguments I see come down to “have faith”. We use Pascal’s wager – which doesn’t take into account the chance that, if God is real but he’s not my religions God, then I’m still going to hell. So we demand evidence from others, but not from ourselves (for the most part).

    Even Craig’s arguments don’t really reveal new truths, they simply use logical arguments to eliminate the competition (watch Thank You for Smoking sometime). Saying, “if your argument is wrong, mine must be right” isn’t solid.

    Hence the maze. If God is real (and let’s assume, the Bible is our source of truth), then it should be easy to have clear, Biblically based answers to questions like:

    Is killing ever ok? (How about gun ownership for self defense, or abortion to save a mother, or missile attacks on Isis).

    Should Christians stand up against persecution, even when it is against someone other than ourselves (current political situation in the US).

    Is slavery and/or racism acceptable?

    Are women equal to men?

    The four questions above are just a few examples of issues that have been defended and opposed by biblical scholars in the past (and sadly, again in the present). How can we claim God’s word as the source of truth when devout students of the Good Book can come up with completely opposing views of what “truth” is?

    In other words, not only does God need us to have faith that he is real. We must also be lucky enough to be born into the ideology that “has the truth” because there are so many opposing views that all state you must follow their doctrine to be saved.

    There’s the maze. 🙂

    1. Post
      Author

      I see your point, Rob. It seems to me that the answers to those types of questions are more subjective rather than objective. That’s why so many people have different interpretations.

      So let’s just assume that there is a maze out there when it comes to those questions that you asked. How would you like for God to wipe the maze away?

      1. Good points Rob. I agree that per the Christian view of what’s at stake, the evidence needed and the path required to salvation should be the most obvious thing in the universe. Unfortunately even Christians can’t agree on points of doctrine and dogma. Having to use arguments to define a deity into existence does very little to inspire confidence for me.

        I like the stance Matt Dillahunty takes – I’m not sure what it would take to convince me that God exists, but He would know. So, if He truly exists and cares that I’m aware of Him, He could make it happen.

        R

  8. Hi Peter,
    You’re totally right about me and other naturalists being biased. Jumping to the supernatural is the last resort in my view. If there is any way to get there from a natural cause, I’m going to believe that first. Doesn’t matter what the question is, I’d believe the natural before the supernatural.

    I think the reason is that we all live by induction and inference. Since I’ve never had a supernatural experience, it’s not something I even consider as a possibility, that’s just my default. That said, I think it’s reasonable to exclude the supernatural because it’s either a natural event that’s been misunderstood, or a previously unknown natural event. The very last possibility is that it’s a genuinely supernatural event -which says nothing about a god at all. In short, even if supernatural things happen, they don’t point to entities nor personal relationships.

    I don’t accept arguments well because if a person wants to prove something, they might need to argue for the value of the evidence but never for the thing itself. If Einstein had only arguments for relativity, you’d have never heard the name. Yet, as abstract as the idea is, there’s proof that it works as described. If I want to argue how a mountain formed, I’d not be allowed to point at it and say “it exists, therefore god”. God is a non sequitur in that case. Apropos of nothing, I named him as the cause on no basis. Just like Craig does. Arguments for god only seem to help those who already believe God did it. It’s rare to find someone convinced due to the Kalam or other arguments.

    The most vital point of your response, in my mind, was your admission that you believe based on faith. You know how I feel about faith. Can you think of anything that I couldn’t believe in if I use faith as the foundation of my epistemology? I can’t think of a single thing. I think it’s fine to continue to believe in something based on faith as long as you admit that you don’t care about the truth of it. I’m sure many people have been comforted by their belief and that’s great. If it’s enough for them, fine. Who am I to say otherwise? If they care about whether it’s true or not, then faith cannot be enough.

    Hindus believe in Shiva because of faith. Muslims believe Jesus escaped death on faith. Lisa said that we should believe in Jesus because belief has changed lives. I don’t disagree there are good things about religion, but belief in a thing doesn’t make it true. Muslims have done wonderful things for the world and their communities. Muslims have stopped drinking and drugging and had their lives changed based on their belief. You think they’re wrong about God, so obviously it wasn’t their god that did those things.

      1. Post
        Author
    1. Post
      Author

      That’s really cool Lucas, I super-appreciate your candor. I know that you said that you haven’t had a supernatural experience yet. I’m looking forward to the day that you come back and say, “Pete, you’ll never guess what happened to me!” 🙂

Leave a Reply