1. Arguments & Proof

by Blake

There is a prevailing view among atheists that since you cannot prove God’s existence, you would be irrational to believe in God.  Here in the scientific age, they say, we operate on proof and without proof, belief in the existence of God is equivalent to belief in the existence of unicorns.  After all, society used to believe in things like witches and fairies but now we follow a process called the scientific method whereby we use testing and observation to find truth.  The hypothesis that God exists has never been confirmed with the scientific method and so one would be irrational to believe in God.  The thought is that since a belief in God lies outside the process of the scientific method, it lies in the realm of illegitimate belief along with psychics, tarot cards and astrology.

But there are many rationally held beliefs we all hold which cannot be proven in the mathematical sense of the word.  Metaphysical beliefs you rationally hold such as the belief that the past really exists cannot be proven.  It would be impossible to prove the world was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age.  And yet you believe it.  The same is true for the belief that the external world is real.  Maybe you are just a brain in the matrix – you can’t prove otherwise because this matrix would be designed to make the external world appear real.  And yet you believe it.  In fact, the foundation of science itself requires a measure of faith since it is based upon the Copernican Principle which states that the laws of science are the same in all parts of the universe.  We can’t prove this but we accept it as true.

Many Theists respond by acknowledging that we don’t have proof of God, but they claim that that is why they have faith.  Many claim they possess not just any kind of faith, but blind faith.  They wear this term, “blind faith” as a kind of badge of honor.  If we had reasons, they say, then there would be no need for faith.

But if blind faith is the cause for our belief in God, couldn’t we have that same blind faith in a unicorn or any invented idol for example?  There must be some modicum of evidence that guides us one way rather than another, even if this evidence falls short of “proof.”

It seems then, that neither scientific proof nor blind faith are reasonable grounds for a belief in God.  There is a more reasonable path in between these two extremes that considers the evidence to arrive at the best explanation.  The question you must ask yourself isn’t whether or not you can prove God’s existence (since so few beliefs can be proven anyway), but whether or not God’s existence is more likely than not, given the evidence.

And is there evidence for God?  It turns out that there is.