"On Proving God"

On Proving God

The skeptic demanded, “Prove to me that your God exists!”

What does “prove” mean?  Does it mean show a formal proof?  Does it mean to set up a control experiment?  Does it mean to gather a body of evidence, examine it closely, and then form some conclusion? 

Just what does it mean to “prove” that there is God?

Many Things Cannot Be Proven

Think about it.  There are many, many things that one cannot prove.   A person cannot touch, taste, feel, hear, see, or smell “love” yet who would argue that such does not exist?  The same is true of “gravity.”  Has anyone touched gravity?  Can you see it?  What does it taste like? Yet like love we know that it is very real.

The point is that there are many, many things that a person cannot experience with the five physical senses or prove with some theoretical calculation, and yet in the common body of knowledge we know that such things exist.  

How About One’s Thoughts?

If one applies the “experience criterion” to thoughts, they too are unprovable.  One’s thoughts though very real cannot be experienced by any of the five senses and yet who can legitimately argue that such are not real. 

Well sure, one certainly can measure electrical impulses and chemical reactions in the brain but are those thoughts?  Of course they are not!  They are simply electrons and molecules in relationship with one another etc.  That being so one would be hard pressed to prove the existence of consciousness by the existence of those physical observations.

So Can You Know For Sure?

Materialism is the notion that all is physical or as they say, "material" in some form or another.  This idea is the substance of arguments among philosophers but has little validity in the real world of most people.   

Most rational people know that there is much in life that cannot be known and experienced through the five senses.  Most know that there are elements in reality that are not indeed cannot be governed by the physical laws with which man is acquainted.  Even without the senses there is an inner awareness that there is more than the physical. 

In short there are many things that cannot be rationally explained without the existence of non-material and alternate realities.  So here are a few questions...

Questions

If one can agree that there is a non-material reality then there comes a question.  It is this.  What are the limits of that non-material world?   

Is it limited to that which functions in the mental processes of man?  The example referenced above is that of love.  There are others such as joy, fear, hope, kindness, etc.

Or…

Is it limited to that which functions in the mental process of man and as well that which functions in the physical world?  An example here is the aforementioned gravity.

Or…

Is there more?

In Summary

In sum, here are the points…

If you can accept that there is something beyond the material world…

If you can accept that there is something beyond the non-material part of man…

If you can accept that there is something beyond the non-material parts of the physical world

Then is it possible that existing in that non-material reality is God?

Jesus certainly said so when He said,

  “God is spirit and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:24, NASU

"Christianity - Is it Egocentric?"

Egocentricity or the notion that the self is the center of all in one’s world is an argument some attempt to make against the validity of Christianity.  The criticism is presented by some to be a logical reason to discount if not abandon Christianity.  In the following few comments you will notice that again and again it is a matter of what one presupposes to be reality.

The Origin of the Standard

The first problem in the argument is in the field of values.  The premise underlying the argument is that egocentricity is wrong.  So that occasions a question.  “Wrong by whose standards?”  If it is some standard based upon one’s own morality, does that not say the individual postulating the argument is egocentric?  Then too, the secularist’s notion of the survival of the fittest is also based upon a very egocentric supposition about the origins of life.  Without any deep examination it seems that the underlying proposition, the assumptions necessary for the argument are in trouble. 

Egocentric Christianity is Impossible

In the ego-centric argument there is another problem.  Does it not seem a bit strange that it is offered at once as a central tenant of Christian belief and also as a reason to abandon it?  The idea being that if it is the ego need construct that makes Christianity function, would it not draw people to the construct, and yet it should be one of the reasons to abandon it.   Upon what presumption can the notion even be proposed?

However here we arrive at another problem with the assumption.  If such is a central tenant of Christian faith, it would be the only exception to the destructive nature of selfishness.  Selfishly egocentric and sociopathic people do not form the kinds of bonds that allow for groups to function.  Therefore the bonding and connection that characterizes true Christianity would not exist and the system would deconstruct into nothing but an historical movement.

Egocentric Christianity is Illogical

Okay assume for a moment that such egocentricity in Christianity is so.  Somehow the logic of the argument is lost as it seems that if one is egocentric and if Christianity is as represented such would only drive one deeper into the belief system.  Such would answer the mantra of the egocentric “What is in it for me?”  It would validate Christianity.  Problem is as previously noted, egocentricity works against the social fabric of a group or a culture.

Limited God View

Another issue in the argument is based in the notion that egocentric Christians pray but because God suffers under some anthropomorphic limitation or another any perceived answer is invalid.  It is speculated that God cannot possibly answer all of the prayers of these egocentric Christians.  The reality is that God is exponentially greater than any one man or group of men can possibly fathom.  Then take it a step further.  Add into the equation that the creation reflects the creator but is never greater than the creator!  Thus again the one who proposes this criticism has elevated himself to a very egocentric position.

To accept a limited view of God is to create a finite god that does not exist.  Then as in other arguments such is an attempt to use the limited god to prove that the infinite God does not exist.  Somehow the logic of the argument suffers under a problem—it is illogical.  It is tantamount to saying little green men do not exist so big white men can’t possibly exist.  The argument is illogical, flawed, and indefensible.

Misplace Egocentricity

However, there is another issue of egocentricity evident here.  How is it that the one who claims that there is no God can do so? 

The Universe:  Has such a person examined every inch of the universe, every one of the thousands upon thousands of solar-systems?  Has he looked into every subatomic particle throughout that universe? 

Dimensions:  Has such a person examined completely and thoroughly the four dimensions of which we know?  What about additional dimensions, the seven more that may exist (theoretical mathematicians/physicists are working on this one)?

Mathematics and Physics:  Has he examined every single mathematical probability and discovered it is far more likely that reality came by chance than by design.  Has such a person examined in intimate detail every truth paradigm and all of the attendant arguments? 

First Causes:  Maybe it is just that he has not shared his work in his discovery of first causes?  Does he know what led up to the “big bang” and scientifically validated his discovery?   Has he unlocked the key as to why evolution is the one and only exception to the multiplicity of systems which are unraveling into chaos and entropy?  Oh, let us not forget time.  Has such a person examined every moment of every second for as long as he postulates there has been time?

If someone makes such a claim without having done all of these investigations and more, has he not set himself up as an authority?  In that is he not demonstrating the very egocentricity that he decries and claims invalidates Christianity?  Therefore, if you accept the processes by which he validates his argument, then if you accept Christianity as invalid based upon egocentricity then he invalids his own argument!   

Lost Logic

Again, the logic of the argument is lost somewhere along the way but then that is not to be of any great surprise for it is those who value truth that require there to be sound logic.  It is the egocentric who claim special truth as in the argument against the veracity of Christianity.  Either tacitly or directly such special truth provides a license for such argument as is necessary and if sound logic is sacrificed for the sake of an argument that ultimately leads to chaos, so be it.

The De-anthropomorphize God

Of course there is another choice and that is to de-anthropomorphize God.  It is then possible to accept the existence and benevolent intervention of an infinite God in the affairs of mankind in general and a man in particular.  That makes some other impossibilities very possible. 

For example a limitless God can answer prayers for parking places and at the same time for miracles.  A limitless God can in fact have a plan for each and every man, woman, boy, and girl without disenfranchising others. 

A limitless God can take what appears to be catastrophic failure and weave it into the life of the victim and turn it to great good for that person and for others.  A limitless God can give victory when all seems lost.  It is possible to understand that such plans as God has for man and mankind are not ego-centric but altruistic.   So too the people who follow that God (e.g. genuine Christians) are also not egocentric but altruistic.

Background

To see the list of subjects to be discussed in this series see blog (Christianity – Is it a Faith Driven by Fear?) in that blog is a reference and in that reference is a list which is the springboard from which this subject has been discussed.