To the "Crucible" index E-Mail BACK
Proving the Existence of God

There's a sense in which Paul had it easy on Mars Hill (Acts 17). We all no doubt remember the story of how he took on the Greeks in Athens, propos­ing the claims of the 'Unknown God', to whom they had raised a statue just in case they had missed one out. It was a very smart move on Paul's part because he went from where they were to where they should be, and some went all the way along the journey with him.

What was different about Paul's approach here was that he did not have the base of Judaism on which to build his case for presenting Jesus as the Christ. Consequently he could not turn to the proph­ets of the Old Testament and bring to mind all the proof texts which showed that Jesus was the fulfil­ment of their long-expected messianic dreams. Nor could he talk about the Jesus who was known to them as a man of good works come from God. Nei­ther, of course, could he accuse them of having cru­cified the Saviour.

All of these approaches were used to try to reach the Jews (see Peter's sermons: Acts 2 and Acts 3, and Paul in Pisidian Antioch, Acts 13) but with the Greeks it had to be different. They had no natural built-in respect for the Old Testament, if they even knew it existed, and of course they probably knew nothing, or next to nothing about Jesus the man. As for being responsible for crucifying Him, there is a somewhat esoteric argument that everybody who ever sinned is responsible for His death, and that is correct on a highly spirit-charged plain, but it would have cut no ice in Athens in Paul's day. The only thing presented to all au­diences, both Jewish and Greek, was the resurrec­tion, which proclaimed Jesus to be King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

On Mars Hill, Paul went back to creation and the God of the universe who made everything. That was the foundation he was able to build on. Though the Greeks were pagan, they were not atheists who neither be­lieved in deity or cared if there was one. Indeed so profound was their belief in supernatural beings, they had a multiplicity of idols dedicated to all of those they 'knew', plus, as we know, the one to 'The Unknown God', just to be on the safe side.

Today would that we could build on some sort of belief in a God, or gods, and preach to a peo­ple who actually cared about their god's reactions to them, rather than the rampant apathy and disbelief we face all around us. Not that I'm saying that Paul had it easier than we do. On the contrary he faced dangers and difficulties that like of which most of us will probably never encounter but he did not have to lay a foundation of belief in the existence of a deity before he could teach them about Jesus. Paul went back to creation; we have to go back even before creation to a rationale for accepting belief in God.

In the Daily Mail (30th January 2002) some­body had earlier posed the question: 'Who has come up with the best proof that God does, or does not, exist?' That day there were three responses printed: two arguing for God's existence and one against. The one against is worthy of being repeated in full since it represents the sort of slick arguments which defenders of the faith sometimes en­counter.

'God is all-powerful and all- knowing, and when He created the universe, God knew everything that was going to happen in the future, including everything that God Him­self would do. This removed God's free will, and so God cannot be all-powerful and therefore does not ex­ist.'

How knowing everything that would happen and how He would re­spond in every case, somehow removes God's free­dom of will, defeats me completely. It would only be true if there were only one way that God could inevi­tably respond to every situation. If He had a clear choice of how He could respond, knowing how He would respond in advance in no way eliminates His free will. As the hymn-writer, Dora Greenwell wrote in the hymn, 'I am not skilled to under­stand' (number 56 in Favourite Hymns):

'And was there then no other way
For God to take? I cannot say;
I only bless Him day by day
Who saved me through my Saviour.'

There is no doubt that God could have saved us in a multiplicity of ways. He was the offended party when sin came along. He alone decided the terms under which He would renew His gift of grace on to fallen mankind. He stated the terms and the price and He determined how that price could and would be paid. But to restrict Him to zero choice in this, with no other options in 'eternity past', is ri­diculous. We only know the way He chose, however, we might like to muse on the words of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane: "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will but as you will." Had there been absolutely no other option there would have been no point in Jesus ask­ing the Father to consider one for Him. It was an act of will on the part of the Father which brought Him to that point and kept Him on the course He was fol­lowing. An act of will presupposes choice. Also what would have happened to our salvation wrought on the Cross if Jesus had actually called on the 12 legions of angels to rescue Him—which He could have done (Matthew 26:53)? His act of will was not to call on them so that the Father's act of will would be done. Amazing choices concerning our salvation were being made all the time in Gethsemane.

Trying to prove the existence of God is the one exercise all philosophers, or would-be philoso­phers, cut their teeth on. It has occupied the minds of men down the previous millennium at least, from Anselm (1033-1109), through Aquinas (1225-74) to Descartes (1596-1650) and on to today. One respon­dent in the Daily Mail very neatly summarized the traditional arguments for the existence of God, namely: the Cosmological (cause and effect), the Teleological (design), the Ontological (God is that than which nothing greater can be thought), and the Moral. We have not the space to develop any of them here, save to say that the closest the Bible comes to supporting any one is the Teleologi­cal?hat God can be seen in creation through design (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:18-20). Descartes devel­oped his version of the Ontological Argument, which is the most difficult to explain in simple terms.

Another respondent made a mathematical point when he wrote that, 'The simple calculation 'one divided by zero' cannot be quantified by any mind or computer. Mathematicians do not doubt that a result exists, but call the result 'infinity'. This may not prove that God exists, but it does prove the exis­tence of concepts that are beyond our comprehen­sion and cannot be measured scientifically.'

The respondent who gave the succinct outline of the traditional arguments gave as her conclusion a quotation from Kierkegaard: "There can be no faith without risk' - meaning the existence of God cannot be proved, only believed.' This conclusion is some­ times called the 'leap of faith'. That somehow we have to let go, put our minds into neutral, and jump with our eyes shut and our hearts open, and then we 'prove' God.

I think that this is a wrong approach to faith since God has not left us bereft of clear, unequivocal proof of His existence; and it has nothing to do with philosophy at all, however well intentioned. To prove the existence of God all we have to do is prove the reality of the resurrection of Jesus.

If we can satisfy ourselves that the evidence points clearly to the amazing creedal statement that 'on the third day He rose from the dead', we have proved God's existence. This is an historical investi­gation which can be assessed with as much rigour as we would use to investigate the existence of Julius Caesar (and, incidentally there is more credible, his­torical proof for Jesus than there is for the existence of Julius!). If the resurrection occurred, there is life after death, Jesus was not simply a remarkable hu­man being but was somehow divine. That He con­quered death and that what He said about God the Father, heaven, hell, the soul, and all the other issues with which we have to contend, is true.

The resurrection of Jesus was the one element all the apostles and evangelists used to try to con­vince and convert the world of their day and it still must be central to ours today. Prove the resurrection and you've proved the existence of God!

Graham A. Fisher

Copied with permission from the editorial in the 'Christian Worker' - Volume 35 Number 6 - June 2002.

To the "Crucible" index E-Mail BACK