In the first part of this discussion about the existence of God, I summarized many of the arguments from both sides, and found all of them unconvincing. I concluded that the only way to prove God’s existence was by observing miraculous events: events where his influence is manifest. Miracles that are difficult to explain without assuming God’s involvement would serve as the strongest evidence for his existence.
In the second part, I briefly summarized much of the evidence that exists. It was divided into three categories. The first was the common evidence, common to all or most religions, consisting of the personal testimonies of billions of believers who witnessed the influence of a higher power in their lives. This also includes those who claimed to have seen God and were willing to give their lives rather than deny it. The second was the Christian evidence, which is based on the well-recorded magnificent legacy of Jesus, who claimed to be the Son of God, sent to save us from sin in fulfillment of ancient prophecies. The third was the Latter-day evidence, which consists of the extremely well-recorded and miraculous history of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, which cannot be explained convincingly in any nonmiraculous way. It tells of Christ’s visit to Ancient America after his resurrection, and together with the Bible, these records from two independent nations provide strong evidence of the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Rather than go into detail on these subjects, I’ve presented a summary to give an idea of what is out there to research. If you are interested, I encourage you to research further. If the evidence I have presented is not enough, or if all the evidence in the world is not enough for you to put your faith in God, then I still have more to say to you.
We cannot disprove God
To be fair, if you require irrefutable proof to believe that God exists, you should require equally irrefutable proof to discount his existence. Let’s think about how one would go about disproving the existence of God. In the past, atheists believed that God’s existence was disproved by science. Many people held the erroneous belief that God constantly controlled everything and made everything happen. But scientific discoveries repeatedly explained observed phenomena and limited the influence of God to ever smaller regions of the unknown. People who take this view refer to him as a “God of the gaps,” who is nothing more than an assumption, based in ignorance, to explain the gaps that remain in our understanding of the universe.
But this proves nothing, because the scope of scientific observations is too limited. At most, it refines our understanding of God and how he works. We understand that a tree can grow naturally without human influence, but that doesn’t mean that all trees are grown without human influence. If you want to prove that a tree was not cared for by a human, you would have to observe it constantly from the time the seed fell from the parent tree until it was fully grown.
The same principle holds for proving that God does not influence our world. There is no way to go back in time and observe every recorded miracle from every possible angle to ensure that God did not have a hand in causing the events. We can come up with plausible nonmiraculous explanations, but they will always be only plausible, and never certain. We don’t have the necessary data to rule out God’s hand.
Even if we do manage to record every angle of a modern miracle, such that all possible avenues of interference that we know of are monitored, it would not be enough to disprove God’s influence. For example, suppose someone claims that a certain rainstorm was sent by God. A meteorologist might counter this and claim that God had no hand in it, explaining that it followed from a natural and expected chain of events based on the conditions observed in the environment in the days preceding the storm. The believer can counter again by claiming that God set up the conditions that led to the rainstorm. The meteorologist can push further, but not very far. We can only trace the causes of an event back so far before we run into the problems of high uncertainty and chaos. There’s a reason why precise weather forecasts are only somewhat reliable on a timeframe of a couple of days. Beyond that, we just can’t record a sufficient amount of data with sufficient accuracy to predict everything that will happen.
This is not just an instrumental limit that can be eliminated with better technology and more detectors. The uncertainty of nature is built in at the quantum level. This means that measurements with absolute precision are impossible. No matter how hard we try, we cannot make any scientific observations with zero uncertainty. It follows that there will always be room for God’s influence. I’m not saying that God actually works that way, I’m only saying that it is impossible to disprove him with science.
If science cannot disprove God, perhaps logic can. If we agree that God must have certain attributes, and find that it leads to a contradiction, then we must conclude that this particular concept of God cannot exist. This has already been attempted many times. A common approach is to bring up what is called “the problem of evil.” The best presentation of the argument that I have seen is found here and goes like this:
- If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
- If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
- If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
- If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
- Evil exists.
- If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
- Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
If statements 1 through 6 are true, then we must conclude statement 7. However, the strength of this argument, or any logical argument, is immediately eliminated by denying one of the premises. For example, I disagree with the definitions of omnipotence, omniscience, and morally perfect that are used in statements 2 through 4, and thus we cannot conclude statement 7. Any logical argument that we come up with can be countered in the same way. It follows that logic cannot disprove God; it can only refine our understanding of his attributes.
You can find God
We have shown that, whether or not God exists, it is impossible to disprove his existence. On the other hand, if God exists, proving his existence is actually possible. All that has to happen is for him to reveal himself to us. I’ve summarized these conclusions in the chart below.
If you need to decide whether you want to believe in God or not, and you require absolute proof, then there is only one direction you can go that would actually be worth your time: try and find God yourself. If you try to disprove him, you are just wasting your time. It is impossible to disprove him, even if he really doesn’t exist. Look for him, and if you manage to find him, then you will know he exists. It’s the only way to solve this problem.
As Jesus once said, “if any man will do my will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak for myself.” He also said “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” So my advice is to do this experiment. Follow all the rules that are supposed to bring you closer to God. Get as close to God as you can, pray to him, read his words, follow his commandments, learn his doctrine, and then ask him if he is there. If he answers, in the way he said he would, then it’s settled. If he doesn’t answer, then study more, learn more, and try again. It may be that you just haven’t learned how to hear him yet. Others have found him in this way, and you can too.
Pascal’s Wager
Many years ago, there was a time when I became really unsure if God existed. It was a time of overwhelming stress, and I desperately needed to make a decision about my beliefs. I considered my options and the possible consequences. I imagined four possible scenarios, which I’ve illustrated below.
In the first scenario, God was real and I chose to believe in him. In this case, I would live a happy and meaningful life with the surety that my beliefs would eventually be confirmed. In the end, I would receive all of the promised blessings, including eternal life and never-ending happiness in the God’s kingdom.
In the second scenario, God didn’t exist and yet I chose to believe in him. In this case, I would still live a happy and hopeful life, completely unaware that my faith was misplaced and nothing would await me after death. But when I died, I wouldn’t exist and therefore wouldn’t have to face the disappointment of realizing that I was wrong.
In the third scenario, God was real and I chose not to believe in him. I would live a normal life, but it would probably not be as good as it could have been, due to a paucity of hope and meaning. I would be an enemy of the truth and would eventually bring upon myself the justice of God. In the end, my beliefs would be contradicted and I would be consigned to eternal regret and misery due to the guilt and shame of my decision.
In the fourth scenario, God didn’t exist and I chose not to believe in him. Exactly like scenario 3, I would live a normal life, with a paucity of hope and meaning. But there would be no eternal consequences for my actions. I would die and that would be the end of it.
Considering the possibilities, it was certainly in my favor to believe in God, or at least act like I believed in him. If he really existed, then the benefits and blessings would be incomparable. There was no downside to a life of belief except for possible persecution from non-believers and denying myself of some pleasurable experiences which would have brought me long-term misery anyway. On the other hand, the possible downsides to unbelief were infinitely painful and eternal. The only possible benefit was that a few atheists might think a little more highly of me during my life, which was hardly a prize worth pursuing.
It was a simple choice between a happy life with the possibility of infinite eternal blessings or a life devoid of meaning with the possibility of eternal damnation. My path became clear, even if I didn’t have a firm conviction that God was real, I would still act as if I believed in him. I would keep his commandments and live my life the way he would want me to. It was my best bet. I had nothing to lose.
Years later I came across the writings of another man who had the same thoughts centuries ago. A brilliant scientist by the name of Blaise Pascal wrote about this fateful wager in an attempt to convince the atheists of his day to return to God. For this reason, it is often referred to as “Pascal’s Wager.” It saved him, and it saved me, and it can save you too.
Conclusion
After making my wager, time has confirmed the rightness of my decision. I no longer doubt that God exists and takes interest in our lives. All the evidence points to him. All of my experience points to him. Truth and Goodness point to him. Everything about him is consistent, good, and perfect. Everything now makes sense. Life is meaningful. Hope is overflowing, and I know without a doubt that good will overcome evil, truth will overcome lies, and life will overcome death.
I have sought God, and I have found him. I have learned for myself that he is real, and no one can take this knowledge from me. I know that God loves us and wants what is best for us. He sent his son Jesus Christ to save us from sin and death. He paid a heavy price for it because he loves us and knows our limitless potential for goodness. But he will not force us to follow him. He shouldn’t have to. It is in our best interest to follow him. He invites you to come and enjoy the endless love, happiness, freedom, and peace that he enjoys, but the choice is ultimately yours.
Truth Reconciled 