“There’s no proof for God.” “Science proves there’s no God.” “I feel like maybe there’s a God, but there’s no proof.”
Have you ever noticed that “proof” is a silly-sounding word? It sounds like a kind of fish. But it’s a big deal to a lot of people. Empiricism is feeling smug of late. When people ask Christians to prove that there’s a God, I think they mean something like a mathematical proof. We want to see proof of a God who is predictable, who works according to certain formulas. The response is that God isn’t predictable. “Have faith,” we say. But I think Christmas shows us otherwise. There is proof, it’s just not the kind of proof we want.
I often wonder what it must’ve been like for Jesus when he was in Hebrew school. Did he know right away he was the Son of God, or did he have to figure it out? At some point, he realized that the words of Isaiah were about him. No pressure, right? The coming of Christ had been predicted for hundreds of years. He was gonna be born, pierced, and rule. It took 500 years, but Jesus came just as expected. His life wasn’t what Israel had planned, but God didn’t give them any more or less than He had promised.
If my interpretation is correct, we’re actually ruled by a very formulaic God. He’s a God who works in covenants; that’s a straightforward approach. Even when God sent down seemingly bizarre plagues on Egypt, it wasn’t random. He’d given plenty of warning and the plagues themselves were strategic. This is a predictable God. He tells you everything He’s gonna do before He does it – God would suck at poker!
So the babe in the manger is all the proof you need. There’s God, he’s laying right there.
Except it’s not the proof people want.
Two reasons. The first is that we can’t hold baby Jesus for ourselves. We can’t touch him, we can’t smell the stable. Empiricism says that if we can’t experience it firsthand, it’s not real. I experience gravity as evidenced by me falling down a lot, so that’s cleared. I never saw an angel, so it might as well not have happened. (Set aside the logical fallacy here for a moment.)
Reason Dos: we’ve got the born and pierced part down. But I don’t see Jesus on a golden throne ruling over the universe. We want the whole enchilada – now. If it hasn’t happened yet, it won’t happen. What is God waiting around for? If Christ is going to come back, why hasn’t he come back yet? He should come back now if he loves us.
I think the Jews would’ve been asking the same questions. They waited 500 years. I bet not all of them were content with waiting around for a messiah. The world is in pain, people, it’s bleeding. God needs to hurry up and make things right.
The return of Christ seems anything but formulaic. Every generation has said, if ever there was a time for God, this is it. But Christmas gives us some solace. He will come back when we least expect him. The shepherds were sitting around one night, a night that wasn’t different from any other. Maybe not comforting, but predictable.
Of course, we all know this rethinking won’t silence any critics. Luckily, it doesn’t need to. Christians can play by empiricism’s rules. We are the proof. What we experience and say, how we act, is the proof of God in our world. We are so far from God Himself, but we are not trying to be God. We’re only pointing toward God. A God who is not playing Russian Roulette with His people. Rather, a God who keeps all promises.
Two lines I really liked.
1. …it’s just not the proof they want.
2. God would suck at poker!
Those lines made it worth reading the post.
I used to teach science. As I worked on the scientific method I had a lesson I did on fact and theory. A scientific fact requires three things, it must me measurable, observable, repeatable. By this definition both evolution and creation are theories, not facts. By this measurement many truths don’t qualify such as the existence of love. Proof is wonderful but it demands a willingness to accept what you find.
I guess I don’t need to give that lecture today.
Grace and Peace.
Thank you very much for your compliments. Truth be told, I didn’t know the definition of a scientific fact – only the falsifiable part. I think you sum up the entire post in one line: a willingness to accept what you find. Many (even most) of the people I know who make the no-proof argument would probably never accept any proof. Jesus, after all, was God saying “see! I’m here! I exist and I love you!” but it isn’t enough. They want something more.
Peace of Christ.
re: scientific method and evolution and creationism: you cite 3 criteria “measurable, observable, repeatable.” Neither evolution or creation are in any way ‘repeatable’. both accounts are of the history of the cosmos, one: darwinian evolution studies the history of species and provides an explanation for observed facts, and offers a mechanism to explain the facts. random variation is a fact, ‘survival of the fittest’ is Huxley’s phrase, and not exactly the best phrase, but it has stuck. The concepts in Darwin are testable, but the history of life is embedded in time, and we cannot repeat and see if it comes out the same way. nor is Creation repeatable. i don’t think i need to break that down.
Most Americans report some belief in a Higher Power, and few people find the idea of a Creative Intelligence in the Cosmos far-fetched. as T-Bone Burnett writes “In seven days God created evolution” which is a stance that the average person might agree w/ in principle, but that the official dogma of the Protestant Church tends to deny, however Catholic doctrine accepts a limited account of evolution, w/ God introducing his spirit into hominid animals in an unique (not repeatable, in the terms we are using) Creative Act, allowing for a reading of the Book of Genesis that is neither Literal nor Secular, but somewhere in between. But Creationists are often Bible Literalists, and will have nothing to do w/ that manner of interpreting Scripture. I seem to be saying that according to “measurable, observable, repeatable.” that neither Evolution and Creationism are fully in accord w/ that definition of Science. As a person who believes that the Cosmos is a living conscious being worthy of our respect and adoration, and has little patience w/ gods and such that come from outside that Cosmos, I at very least a heretic in your book, and possibly worse. As a person who considers our planet to also be a living conscious being worthy of our respect and adoration, it alarms me that that strand of Christian belief our former Secretary of the Interior James Watt held, that the Earth is ours to use up and the Rapture is coming soon, so any attempt to mitigate ecological catastrophe is placing one firmly against God’s will is a pernicious doctrine. I hope as our environment continues to degrade under the mismanagement of profiteers that the Stewardship movement captures the hearts and minds of good hearted people everywhere. here’s a link to an Evangelical Environmental page.
http://creationcare.org/
as a seeker after Truth and having a scientific world view I often want to chime in on these things.
first: proof as falsibility is a recent doctrine in the scientific method, proposed by Popper.
second: empiricism is mostly discredited and in fact demolished by Gödel’s theorem. the work Gödel did is subtle but boils down to a demonstration that any logically consistent system is incapable of generating every possible true statement. as William Blake wrote: “Rose, thou art sick”… a worm is at work in the core.
contemporary science is at a crossroads. non-locality and acausal effects in quantum mechanics demonstrate that there is consciousness imbedded in Cosmos. Prominent biologist and famous atheist Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion give a pretty accurate account of the evils that religion has been responsible for over the centuries. and i agree w/ many of his conclusions. a more obscure book, The Impossibility of God does have several chapters where logicians demonstrate the contradictions inherent in the God of the medieval theologians. I read these books and others, and feel like everyone needs a crash course in physics. Newton’s Universe is dead. a modern understanding of reality demands perceiving the living inter-relatedness of all being.
the proof of the living God – Jesus – is tested in judging the fruits of his followers. in that regard Christians have a lot to answer for, and the truth is painful.
Many people reject Christianity out of a sense of the sacredness of this world. The growth of Paganism in all it’s forms is a reflection of a deep desire for connexion. Every now and then Christians attempt to purge Christianity of it’s pagan elements – like Christmas, for instance. The Puritans did not celebrate Christmas, they considered the holiday entirely Pagan. One aspect of the appeal of the Pagan in the modern world is a yearning to reconnect to the natural rhythms of the seasons. To rejoin the web of life and take up the song that nature sings.
I have just come across your blog and am interested in your thought, and yearn for a resurrection of the teachings of Jesus in the church. if Christians can reject the hatred of women and the justifications for genocide woven deeply in your Holy Book, and embrace the social justice taught by the Prophets, just as deeply woven in your Book, then i will fear Christians less and have more hope for humanity.
be blessed, in these Winter Holy Days. i.e. Happy Christmas.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Just to be clear, I have taken a quantum physics class, under a professor who works at CERN.
As to your comments about Dawkins’ book, it is, frankly, absurd to me that the church’s poor representation of God means there is no God. That’s like saying that a bad commercial for Sprite means that Sprite doesn’t exist. Yes, the church has a lot to answer for. There has been mass murder in the name of God, but those people were simply not Christians. Saying you’re a Christian doesn’t make you one; you have to live it the best that you can. When you don’t, you have to ask forgiveness.
As for hatred of women, the Bible does not advocate hatred toward women. As a feminist, I have just as many objections to 2 Timothy as the next girl, but I do not believe in an inerrant Bible. The Bible is yet another representation of God, not God Himself, and it too can be flawed. Just because something is a little tarnished doesn’t mean that I discard it wholesale.
I am deeply saddened that you “fear” Christians. When I said that Christians are the proof of God in the world, I meant that we are called to be so. But we are sinners, which means we will always fall far short. But Christians have also brought so much light into this world. From Martin Luther King to Desmond Tutu, from Mother Theresa to Charles Darwin.
I don’t think I know what you mean by “sacredness of the world.” Do you mean the trees and oceans, or the energy of life?
Blessings to you, too, in the New Year.
Lee Strobel, in “The Case for Christ” differentiates between the methods used in determining the veracity and accurate understanding of historical events in human history on the one hand (e. g. findings in a court of law, or the study of history), and those methods used in the physical sciences that seek to reach a coherent understanding of the physical world.
I find it useful to keep this in mind when I discuss these important issues you all have raised.
Happy New Year,
T. M.
Proof That There Is A God
Or
Proof that God has not kept Himself hidden
A, Properties of a Whole Thing
If at the beginning there was something at all, and if that something was the whole thing, then it can be shown that by logical necessity that something will have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. This is by virtue of that something being the whole thing. Something is the whole thing means there cannot be anything at all outside of that something; neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor anything else. It is the alpha and omega of existence. But, if it is the whole thing, then it must have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. Otherwise it will be merely a part of a bigger whole thing. Now let us denote this something by a big X. Now, can this X be in any space? No, it cannot be. If it is, then where is that space itself located? It must have to be in another world outside of X. But by definition there cannot be anything outside of X. Therefore X cannot be in any space. Again, can this X have any space? No, it cannot have. If we say that it can have, then we will again be in a logical contradiction. Because if X can have any space, then that space must have to be outside of it. Therefore when we consider X as a whole, then we will have to say that neither can it be in any space, nor can it have any space. In every respect it will be spaceless. For something to have space it must already have to be in some space. Even a prisoner has some space, although this space is confined within the four walls of his prison cell. But the whole thing, if it is really the whole thing, cannot have any space. If it can have, then it no longer remains the whole thing. It will be self-contradictory for a whole thing to have any space. Similarly it can be shown that this X can neither be in time, nor have any time. For a whole thing there cannot be any ‘before’, any ‘after’. For it there can be only an eternal ‘present’. It will be in a timeless state. If the whole thing is in time, then it is already placed in a world where there is a past, a present, and a future, and therefore it is no longer the whole thing. Now, if X as a whole is spaceless, timeless, then that X as a whole will also be changeless. There might always be some changes going on inside X, but when the question comes as to whether X itself is changing as a whole, then we are in a dilemma. How will we measure that change? In which time-scale shall we have to put that X in order for us to be able to measure that change? That time-scale must necessarily have to be outside of X. But there cannot be any such time-scale. So it is better not to say anything about its change as a whole. For the same reason X as a whole can never cease to be. It cannot die, because death is also a change. Therefore we see that if X is the first thing and the whole thing, then X will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness by virtue of its being the whole thing. It is a logical necessity. Now, this X may be anything; it may be light, it may be sound, or it may be any other thing. Whatever it may be, it will have the above four properties of X. Now, if we find that there is nothing in this universe that possesses the above four properties of X, then we can safely conclude that at the beginning there was nothing at all, and that therefore scientists are absolutely correct in asserting that the entire universe has simply originated out of nothing. But if we find that there is at least one thing in the universe that possesses these properties, then we will be forced to conclude that that thing was the first thing, and that therefore scientists are wrong in their assertion that at the beginning there was nothing. This is only because a thing can have the above four properties by virtue of its being the first thing and by virtue of this first thing being the whole thing, and not for any other reason. Scientists have shown that in this universe light, and light only, is having the above four properties. They have shown that for light time, as well as distance, become unreal. I have already shown elsewhere that a timeless world is a deathless, changeless world. For light even infinite distance becomes zero, and therefore volume of an infinite space also becomes zero. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
Another very strong reason can be given in support of our belief that at the beginning there was light. The whole thing will have another very crucial and important property: immobility. Whole thing as a whole thing cannot move at all, because it has nowhere to go. Movement means going from one place to another place, movement means changing of position with respect to something else. But if the whole thing is really the whole thing, then there cannot be anything else other than the whole thing. Therefore if the whole thing moves at all, then with respect to which other thing is it changing its position? And therefore it cannot have any movement, it is immobile. Now, if light is the whole thing, then light will also have this property of immobility. Now let us suppose that the whole thing occupies an infinite space, and that light is the whole thing. As light is the whole thing, and as space is also infinite here, then within this infinite space light can have the property of immobility if, and only if, for light even the infinite distance is reduced to zero. Scientists have shown that this is just the case. From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light even infinite distance becomes zero, and that therefore it cannot have any movement, because it has nowhere to go. It simply becomes immobile. This gives us another reason to believe that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
I know very well that an objection will be raised here, and that it will be a very severe objection. I also know what will be the content of that objection: can a whole thing beget another whole thing? I have said that at the beginning there was light, and that light was the whole thing. Again I am saying that the created light is also the whole thing, that is why it has all the properties of the whole thing. So the whole matter comes to this: a whole thing has given birth to another whole thing, which is logically impossible. If the first thing is the whole thing, then there cannot be a second whole thing, but within the whole thing there can be many other created things, none of which will be a whole thing. So the created light can in no way be a whole thing, it is logically impossible. But is it logically impossible for the created light to have all the properties of the whole thing? So what I intend to say here is this: created light is not the original light, but created light has been given all the properties of the original light, so that through the created light we can have a glimpse of the original light. If the created light was not having all these properties, then who would have believed that in this universe it is quite possible to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless? If nobody believes in Scriptures, and if no one has any faith in personal revelation or mystical experience, and if no one wants to depend on any kind of authority here, and if no one even tries to know Him through meditation, then how can the presence of God be made known to man, if not through a created thing only? So, not through Vedas, nor through Bible, nor through Koran, nor through any other religious books, but through light and light only, God has revealed himself to man. That is why we find in created light all the most essential properties of God: spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness.
Footnote: If the universe is treated as one whole unit, then it can be said to be spaceless, timeless. I first got this idea from an article by Dr. Lee Smolin read in the internet. Rest things I have developed. This is as an acknowledgement.
B. CLIMAX
I think we need no further proof for the existence of God. That light has all the five properties of the whole thing is sufficient. I will have to explain.
Scientists are trying to establish that our universe has started from nothing. We want to contradict it by saying that it has started from something. When we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that there was something. We are not saying that there was some other thing also other than that something. Therefore when we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that at the beginning there was a whole thing. Therefore we are contradicting the statement that our universe has started from nothing by the statement that our universe has started from a whole thing.
I have already shown that a whole thing will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness, immobility (STCDI). This is by logical necessity alone. It is logically contradictory to say that a whole thing can have space. Let us suppose that the whole thing is having space. Then the so-called whole thing along with the space that it is having will constitute the real whole thing. If my arguments that I have offered so far to show that the whole thing will always have the above five properties by virtue of its being the whole thing are sound, and if they cannot be faulted from any angle, then I can make the following statements:
1. In this universe only a whole thing can have the properties of STCDI by logical necessity alone.
2. If the universe has started from nothing, then nothing in this universe will have the properties of STCDI.
3. If the universe has started from a whole thing, then also nothing other than the initial whole thing will have the properties of STCDI. This is only because a whole thing cannot beget another whole thing.
4. But in this universe we find that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, is still having the properties of STCDI.
5. This can only happen if, and only if, the initial whole thing itself has purposefully given its own properties to light, in order to make its presence known to us through light.
6. But for that the initial whole thing must have to have consciousness.
7. So, from above we can come to the following conclusion: the fact that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, still possesses the properties of STCDI, is itself a sufficient proof for the fact that the universe has started from a conscious whole thing, and that this conscious whole thing is none other than God.