If you have ever had a conversation with a skeptic regarding matters of faith, they will likely ask something like, “what proof do you have that God exists?” Christian apologists are asked this frequently at a popular level, but hardly ever at an academic level.
I once encountered a skeptic online who I thought desired to have an intellectual conversation, but after a few responses, I quickly realized that he only desired to get under the skin of religious people. He demanded that I prove that Jesus of Nazareth existed. I gave him an accounting of early reliable sources, including extrabiblical, and explained how the evidence for Jesus as well as aspects of his ministry are unprecedently attested when compared to other ancient figures. Apparently for this individual, the evidence I provided did not warrant “proof” in his eyes. To no avail, I asked him to provide a single relevant scholar who does not believe Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. Even skeptics like Bart Ehrman affirm the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. As Christian apologists we must learn to recognize when a person is seriously inquiring about the Christian faith.
Nevertheless it does raise an important issue, what does it mean to say that we can prove the existence of God? I won’t exhaust this question here, but let me say a few words.
Proof can mean different things according to various disciplines. Consider historical proof. Historians make inductive probability judgments, not statements of absolute certainty. When historians speak of historical certainty, they mean something to the effect of 90% - 99.99% likelihood (depending on which historian you talk to). In the same sense, historians do not deal in absolute impossibilities. For the historian can never go back in time to validate or invalidate the event with 100% certainty.
When we speak of theological or philosophical disciplines, frankly, to avoid confusion, it is best not to use the term "proof." Most agree that we cannot prove the existence of God as one would in mathematics (that is, that somehow saying 2+2=4 is on par with saying God exists). But what we can do is provide arguments for the existence of God to argue that (1) the concept of God is coherent, (2) we are rational to believe in God, and (3) theism is more plausible than atheism.
The arguments for God’s existence are to be taken cumulatively. Meaning the arguments together, although not adding up to 100% certainty, may rightly lead to the conclusion that either (a) God’s existence is more probable than not or (b) God’s existence is highly plausible.
This lack of 100% certainty is exactly what we should expect if Christianity is true. For the goal is not to be certain of God’s existence, but to know him personally and intimately. The most important question when talk about “proof” of God is this: has God provided sufficient evidence for his existence? Based on the evidence we have (not explicated in this essay), we can confidently answer affirmatively.
Comments