Monday, 2 November 2009


ne of the most basic, and most fundamental, issues that can be considered by the human
mind is the question, “Does God exist?” In the field of logic, there are principles—or as they
are called more often, laws—that govern human thought processes and that are accepted as
analytically true. One of these is the law of the excluded middle. When applied to objects, this law states
that an object cannot both possess and not possess a certain trait or characteristic at the same time and in
the same fashion. When applied to propositions, this law states that all precisely stated propositions are
either true or false; they cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same fashion.
The statement, “God exists,” is a precisely stated proposition. Thus, it is either true or false. The
simple fact is, either God exists or He does not. There is no middle ground. One cannot affirm logically
both the existence and nonexistence of God. The atheist boldly states that God does not exist; the theist
affirms just as boldly that God does exist; the agnostic laments that there is not enough evidence to make
a decision on the matter; and the skeptic doubts that God’s existence can be proven with certainty. Who is
correct? Does God exist or not? The only way to answer this question, of course, is to seek out and examine
the evidence. It is certainly reasonable to suggest that if there is a God, He would make available to
us evidence adequate to the task of establishing His existence. But does such evidence exist? And if it
does, what is the nature of that evidence?
The theist advocates the view that evidence is available to prove conclusively that God does exist,
and that this evidence is adequate to establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of God. However,
when we employ the word “prove,” we do not mean that God’s existence can be demonstrated scientifically
in the same fashion that one might prove that a sack of potatoes weighs ten pounds, or that a human
heart has four distinct chambers within it. Such matters as the weight of a sack of vegetables, or the divisions
within a muscle, are matters that may be verified empirically using the five senses. While empirical
evidence often is quite useful in establishing the validity of a case, it is not the sole means of arriving at
proof. For example, legal authorities recognize the validity of a prima facie case, which is acknowledged
to exist when adequate evidence is available to establish the presumption of a fact that, unless such fact
can be refuted, legally stands proven. It is the contention of the theist that there is a vast body of evidence
that makes an impregnable prima facie case for the existence of God—a case that simply cannot be refuted.
We would like to present here the prima facie case for the existence of God, and a portion of the
evidence upon which that case is based.

1 comment:

  1. God cannot be proven, especially to a closed atheistic mind. He does not expect us to prove Him. We that have a personal relationship with Him know that He exists. He does reveal His designs to all in nature, yet at the same time he chooses to not reveal Himself to all. He chooses to blind many for His own purposes, at the same time, His sheep hear His voice and no other voice will they follow. John 10:27