Prove the Existence of God without the Bible?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Lunar

New Member
Nov 23, 2007
358
3
0
38
(waynemlj;35794)
The argument doesn't "empirically" prove the existence of God. It logically proves the eternal existence of a Being who is transcendent -- of a much higher order than we are, infinitely higher -- because this Being is SELF-EXISTENT. He does not begin or end, is above and outside of time and very "other" to us.
What it proves is the existence of something which we don't understand. A different theory of causality, time, or existence, for example. Why is it inconceivable that the universe be eternal, and that its timespan is cyclical? Why is this more outrageous than God being eternal? Well, our intuition is to say that we can't understand the transcendent nature of God. He can do things that natural science can't, but we don't understand why. But that's not very informative - we've "solved the problem" by positing something we don't understand. How is that different from "solving the problem" by saying there's something in science that explains it, but we don't understand that either? It doesn't have any more explanatory power. In fact, since the cosmological argument doesn't prove that this transcendent being is intelligent or sentient, or that resembles any God that we know, the two are exactly the same thing - something we don't understand. Something not bound by the rules of science as we know it. An unknown scientific discovery fits this criterion just as God does.Richard Dawkins - though I almost hesitate to quote him for his relentless criticism of religion - made an interesting point concering our ability to comprehend the origins of the universe. He notes that creatures evolve to comprehend the world in certain ways. Most objects, for example, are about 90% empty space, but we view them as being solid, because we have evolved to see them this way because it is useful. There are certain basic and unescapable empirical categories by which we make sense of the world that are rooted in our very biology. Something like the universe's origins, then, may be stranger than we can even suppose. There are limitations on what we can understand as human beings. Perhaps we can never fully understand God, if we believe he exists. Or perhaps we can never fully understand other things about the universe. It doesn't seem quite right to substitute God as an explainer for what may well simply be the limits of our own cognitive capacities.Those are my thoughts on the cosmological argument, anyways. I'm sure you can find other objections if you look them up, but most of them segue into theories in quantum physics, which I think misses the point of a lot of what is wrong with the argument. The cosmological argument fails regardless of what insights quantum physics can supply.Also, I'm curious as to the form of the ontological argument you are using. Of all of the proofs of God's existence, I find the ontological ones to be the least convincing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WaterSong

Mighty Bear

New Member
Oct 20, 2007
450
3
0
If life is still bearable then that proves to me the existence of God, but if life becomes unbearablethen check to see if you are materialistic.
 

waynemlj

New Member
Feb 8, 2008
158
6
0
84
Hi Lunar,In order for anything to exist now, there simply has to be "something" or "someone" who has always existed . . . never had a beginning. Do you see that logic?This Being must be completely transcendent of all matter in the universe. AND this Being must be the first cause of all other beings.A lump of physical matter could not qualify here. Why? Because you have to account for where it came from, when it began to be. It could not have just popped into existence from NOTHINGNESS one Tuesday afternoon about 2:00 p.m. This Being shows a beautiful and very, very high sense of purpose and design when you look at the vastness of the universe of stars and planets following prescribed rules of beautiful order.If you walked through a forest and suddenly came upon a clearing where the sunlight could stream through and where there was a garden planted . . . with onions, beans, tomatoes, corn, etc. all in neat rows and where there were no weeds or wild grasses growing, you would have to conclude that there must be a gardener around somewhere. Even though you don't see one, common sense tells you that a gardener with an ordered sense of purpose and design did all this planting!Those vegetables can never be given credit for planting themselves and tending to the weeding of that garden, can they?That's why you can know that a Being exists who made the marvelous body you inhabit as well as the many lower creatures with their own kind of seed within them for reproduction ...and so with plants . . . waynemlj
 

Ek Pyros

New Member
Feb 6, 2008
51
0
0
35
(waynemlj;35790)
Hi EK Pyros,I listen to Dr. Sproul's teachings every morning on the Internet, have several of his books, and am a partner in his ministry.I am very glad to know that you have followed his teachings and seem to know them well. So then, you can see where I'm going with my philosophical approach to the discussion of the existence of God.Yes, the Ontological argument is the point here, and you can add the Teleological one, as well. In addition, I would want to include the Law of Contradiction (Non-Contradiction) that a thing cannot NOT BE and BE at the SAME TIME and in the SAME RELATIONSHIP.These theories or arguments are so logical that they make a nice fit with Theology and the study of the Bible in order for a person to have a solid and accurate world view.Thanks for you interesting response!waynemlj
That's great, man. I love Dr. Sproul--hopefully I can sit in one of his services sometime since I live 30 minutes from Ligonier's base in Sanford.
Why is it inconceivable that the universe be eternal, and that its timespan is cyclical?
The density of the universe does not allow for an eternal cycle of expansion/collapse.
He notes that creatures evolve to comprehend the world in certain ways. Most objects, for example, are about 90% empty space, but we view them as being solid, because we have evolved to see them this way because it is useful.
That argument is lame. You should hesitate to quote him. That is mere psychology and has very little basis on the theory of evolution. Children learn the concept of continual existence despite lack of direct observation(which is a good analogy here since the two concepts are so closely linked). The key is that they learn it. They see mommy, then mommy walks around the corner and disappears. At first, the mind says mommy no longer exists. Then the child eventually learns that mommy exists, just out of sight. There are plenty of studies about related concepts in the typical psychology 101 book. This is hardly evolutionary. The material world appears solid to the eye regardless of talk of atoms and whatnot. We do not learn something contrary to our experience because we never start with the experience of 90% empty space. We learn that later as an addendum to our confirmed knowledge.
It doesn't seem quite right to substitute God as an explainer for what may well simply be the limits of our own cognitive capacities.
Yeah, the God hypothesis does have certain moral implications. But once the evidence becomes conclusive, we grow up and accept Him.
The cosmological argument fails regardless of what insights quantum physics can supply.
Something does not fail because people can theorize against it with no rational grounds. That's the weakest form of refutation. "We simply cannot know _____" in no way refutes the plausibility or rationality of ____ unless you show that we literally cannot know ____ (not just supposed that _____ MIGHT be too complicated). For instance, if we did not have the technology to see it, we could not know what was on the other side of the moon. But the cosmological argument does not rely on or even suppose a crossing of limitations.I might add that the Cosmological argument has nothing to do with concepts beyond our rational capacities:1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore the universe has a cause.Nothing in there is too difficult. The question then becomes "What was the cause?" The Big Bang by itself is not a valid hypothesis because something would have to exist for something to bang. What caused the material which banged? etc. are the applicable questions. For the answer, we turn to the Teleological argument.This is entirely rational. Denying it on the basis of cognitive limitations is ironically contradictory because you must cognitively assess it to claim that it is cognitively impossible to conceive. Of course, your outlet is that you said "might be" cognitively impossible. We don't have to fully understand God (indeed, we cannot) to know that He created this universe. We understand the concept of creation. We understand the necessity of it given our existence. And we understand that God fits the necessity of a self-existent (that is, non-created) entity. We know the Creator was intelligent and purposeful thanks to the Teleological argument. But we know He created because of the cosmological.
 

stlizzy

New Member
Feb 6, 2008
110
0
0
39
Have you ever heard this:1. If you don't believe in God and there is a God: you lose.2. If you don't believe in God and there is no God: you lose. (because no one can prove there is no god so the risk is too great).3. If you believe in God and there is no God: You win.4. If you believe in God and there is a God: You win.Therefore, logically speaking it would be best to believe in God to cover all of your bases... so to speak. I heard this last week during a conference in defense of the Bible.
 

Maveric

New Member
Feb 26, 2008
16
0
0
49
"Come now, let us reason together..." -Isaiah 1:18 "...be transformed by the renewing of your mind." -Romans 12:4 "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things." -Colossians 3:2. In light of these passages from the Word of God, I don't think he expects us to have a blind faith. The gospel of Jesus Christ is reasonable. It seems to me that the logic and reason are themselves aspects of the image of God we bear and he is well pleased for us to offer a logical defense of the truth. I can't rely on a faith based upon feelings. There are days in which I do not feel the presence of God, yet he says, "...for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you." -Deuteronomy 31:6.
 

Ek Pyros

New Member
Feb 6, 2008
51
0
0
35
Hosea 4:6My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.
 

Michael1985

Active Member
Sep 30, 2020
228
220
43
39
British Columbia
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Can you prove the existence of God without referring to the Bible?Of course, it's easy through simple logic. Could there ever have been a time when there was nothing . . . ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?If you answer this question correctly, you have a solid premise to begin a proof for the existence of God.Anyone interested in philosophy discussions like this?waynemlj

Nope. If God could be proven through either logic or scientific discovery, He would cease to be a matter of faith, and instead be fact. Everyone would accept His existence, and we all know that is never going to happen.
 

ReChoired

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2019
2,679
633
113
Region
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Can you prove the existence of God without referring to the Bible?Of course, it's easy through simple logic. Could there ever have been a time when there was nothing . . . ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?If you answer this question correctly, you have a solid premise to begin a proof for the existence of God.Anyone interested in philosophy discussions like this?waynemlj
I find that philosophical arguments rarely bring salvation to anyone (in other words, rarely win souls).

However. When you say "prove" the "existence of God", by what standard are we to measure by as foundation in order to determine whether 'proof' was indeed given? That ought to take precedence before presenting 'proof', no?

Secondly, when one asks for 'proof', or to 'prove' anything's existence, one must begin with aprioric assumptions, all assumed as true/valid, or at least agreed upon by all involved, and at least one of those assumptions is that there is an actual 'order' and 'logic' or 'consistency' by which we are all looking at said presented 'proof'. This assumes logic, order, consistency, even reality are immutable ontological (actual) things that are not chaotic happenstance or altering from moment to moment, or merely imagined (assuming one accepts that one mind, among those present, exists and is capable of actually judging, and not merely imagining they are judging).

Thirdly, assuming logical and orderly consistency, along with the foundational measure by which to measure the proof offered, the test is simple, [1] All books (created effect) have authors (original cause). (Show me one book written, in any known Library, that did not have an author, and this point is falsified.)

[2] All genomes involve individual 'letters', 'numbers' and 'words' which 'code' to make a living organism, being in an exact and orderly sequence, even with redundancies, double and triple coding, correcting agencies, self-replication (including yourself). In actuality, D.N.A. or R.N.A. (micro organic machines), etc is a book/blueprint which codes for the organism, even as the orderly written words in a book, make up its content to convey information. Just as books have letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, syntax, pages, chapters, so too in the genomic sense, having D.N.A./R.N.A., chromosomes, amino acids, proteins, cells, organelles, organs, etc. Even if we reduce to the basic element of 0/1, off/on, it is the matter of intelligently given order and consistency in which something is 0/1, off/on, which makes all the difference between that which is functional, and that which is not.

Which is greater in information conveyed, the books in Libraries all over the world, or one simple human genome?
 
Last edited:

Behold

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2020
15,224
6,249
113
Netanya or Pensacola
Faith
Christian
Country
Israel
Can you prove the existence of God without referring to the Bible?Of course, it's easy through simple logic. Could there ever have been a time when there was nothing . . . ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?If you answer this question correctly, you have a solid premise to begin a proof for the existence of God.Anyone interested in philosophy discussions like this?waynemlj

For those of you who might have to deal with an atheist..
They will always ask you to prove that God exists..
Sometimes its fun to remind them, that being against what isn't there, is actually proving that it is...
Atheists are like that...

So, 1.) you can point them to the Rose. This beautiful Flower.
Point out that Science cannot create one from nothing, but someone already did.

Also, 2) you can simply say, i'll prove it, if you prove this first....
-Prove that God does not exist.-
This can't be proven tho many will yell.
Yelling is not proof.
So..
You win, and they do also, as sometimes, both of those ideas.....The Rose from "nothing", and "you can't prove that God does not exist".. make a mental mark with some, and this is a seed, and God waters the seeds.....and regarding them, thats a win.
 

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
8,382
6,295
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Nope. If God could be proven through either logic or scientific discovery, He would cease to be a matter of faith, and instead be fact. Everyone would accept His existence, and we all know that is never going to happen.
While we may believe that not everyone will accept the existence of God, there is a point in the individuals life where faith ceases to be the basis for accepting the existence of God. Very early in our Christian walk, God reveals Himself to each individual, in different ways and at different stages of growth, but there should come a time when we can categorically state, without any doubt or equivocation, God is absolutely real and He loves us. We don't then need the Word to inform us of this, we know it experientially. However, there will come circumstances in life when we doubt how much He loves us...and that is when faith steps in, and where the scriptures come in to play. Our faith is not something we need to believe He exists, our faith is something we need to believe He loves us fully, completely, without reservation and condition, always. As one writer so eloquently put it, when we can stand over a pit of burning babies and still believe that God is Love, then, we can trust Him. That is the type of faith God is searching for. That is the kind of faith the last days church will be known for...even in the pit of extremity and crisis, they will believe and obey His Word. "Here are they who keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus". Note the faith of Jesus. The same faith He had in His crisis..."not My will, but Thine be done".
 

WaterSong

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2020
2,245
2,277
113
Kansas City
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Prove the existence of the Creator without using the Bible.
Given all of creation, simple enough. Lets look to science, evolutionary science and just for fun.
First Cause, (a supposed ultimate cause of all events, which does not itself have a cause, identified with God.) is unable to be explained by science. First cause is precisely as stated. The beginning, or cause behind all that exists.
Further, science is unable to explain the Cambrian Explosion. Not even Darwin was able to do this and that fact vexed him to the day he died.

Therefore, what's the answer to both? First Cause and The Cambrian Explosion ?
God.
 

farouk

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2009
30,790
19,230
113
North America
Hebrews 11.6: "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
 
  • Like
Reactions: WaterSong

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,082
5,276
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Don't count science out for proving God exist in general. There is a humorous side to it. There are Christians that do not believe in science and there are scientists that do not believe in Christianity....But lot of Christians have Smart Phones and there are some that discuss Christianity on international forums that bounce the signals off satellites 20,000 miles in space. Then again there are scientists that have Bibles in there homes and when they look at their children, they would like to believe there is eternal life.
 

Yan

Active Member
Jun 15, 2020
410
143
43
City of David
the-land-of-hope.blogspot.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Indonesia
It's simple, if God never existed why did we lived in the world that full of tasty fruit and fish to eat or breathful air ?
If the science told that the sea was made from the ice of the comet that hit the earth in the past, then from where did the fish came from ?
If this world was only a place that every living thing born and die, what does it means of being alive then ?
Why did human are different than animals ?
Why did human are more intelligent than animals ?
Why did mankind knew that God exist, where did this taught came from ?
 

theefaith

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2020
20,070
1,354
113
63
Dallas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The heavens declared the glory of God!

so revelation is not limited to the false doctrine of the Bible alone!

justice demands there be a just God!

the order of the universe demands a God!
 

Michael1985

Active Member
Sep 30, 2020
228
220
43
39
British Columbia
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Prove the existence of the Creator without using the Bible.
Given all of creation, simple enough. Lets look to science, evolutionary science and just for fun.
First Cause, (a supposed ultimate cause of all events, which does not itself have a cause, identified with God.) is unable to be explained by science. First cause is precisely as stated. The beginning, or cause behind all that exists.
Further, science is unable to explain the Cambrian Explosion. Not even Darwin was able to do this and that fact vexed him to the day he died.

Therefore, what's the answer to both? First Cause and The Cambrian Explosion ?
God.

Sorry, but it's a huge leap of logical to assume that the First Cause would not only be a divine being, but that the divine being must necessarily be the Judeo-Christian God. It seems reasonable to those of us with a certain religious persuasion, but it's hardly absolute proof.