Overview

Does God exist? Is an age old question. It's as old as humanity itself. And yet till today the question is being asked?

And if God exists, which God is the true one? the Christian God? the Muslim God? the Mormon God? Who is right and who is wrong?

This opens an labyrinth of questions with no end.

In order to make sense of this, we will attempt to think through the following points:

• What prerequisites should we attempt to achieve before entering into discussions with others regarding this topic?
• What approach should we take with regards to answering this age old question?
• What should our attitude be towards others of opposing views?
• What's the purpose of entering into these discussions?

Expectations

I'll get it out of the way now, I will not be going through a detailed breakdown of the evidence for the Existence of God. I'll do a quick overview, however.

Instead I'll provide you resources which will help you gain some knowledge.

• C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity (Book 1, Book 2, Book 3, Book 4)
• The Case for Christ
• Article from the Curriculum 

Discussion Flow

Thesis

Why is it important to be convinced of the Existence of God?

It is primarily for us personally. It's not to prove it for other people. It is to be secure in the reality that God loves us and cares for us. Or else:

It follows that when we are convinced of the good news, then we can share it with others with the intent of them being grafted into the Olive Tree, which is Christ.

I put forward as my thesis then that learning about evidence of the existence of God, is not to get into arguments and prove others are wrong, but to be secure in the reality of a loving God and to share the good news with others with love and care.

Evidence vs Proof

Before we start learning about Evidence we have to define what Evidence and Proof actually mean.

Can we prove the existence of God beyond the shadow of doubt?

First we need to learn a new term: "Burden of Proof"

If  you get in an argument with an atheist, IE someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God, if he is academic, he'll say something like this:

"I'm starting with the null theorem. Meaning there is no God. You want to prove to me that God actually exists, so the burden of proof is on you"

In this context "Burden of Proof" is the requirement to provide evidence. It is always on the person seeking to prove a claim or change the status quo.

The burden of proof would change depending which time period you're at and where you are in the world. For example if you are in Egypt, the null theorem is that there is a God. And therefore, the burden of proof is on the person trying to disprove the existence of God.

However, for the sake of this argument, let's assume the burden of proof is on us; the people trying to prove the existence of God.

Back to the idea of Evidence vs Proof:

Evidence can be thought of as a set of facts or material which suggest something. For example: If you're investigating a murder, evidence can be things like finding the murder weapon in the suspect's apartment, or finding the victim's blood on the suspects shoes.

However as they stand, this is just evidence and does not prove that the suspect is the murderer. For example the murder weapon could've been planted.

Proof is something like video evidence of someone committing the murder. It proves the guilt of the suspect beyond the shadow of doubt 

When it comes to proof, if we want to be lawyers about it, we can apply three different standards:

• Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
  • This means that, if any rational person would be left with some sort of doubt about whether or not the defendant committed the crime, then the defendant cannot be found guilty
• Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Less strict than the above. Enough evidence to prove an argument
• Preponderance of Evidence

  • As the lowest standard of proof for conviction, this essentially just means that the judge or jury has to be slightly more convinced than not that the defendant is guilty.

The question that we should now ask is, which category does the evidence for the Existence of God fall in?

You'll always have contentions about this. The atheist will say that there isn't sufficient evidence, while the Christian will say that there is.

Moral Argument

This is outlined quiet well in "Mere Christianity".

It basically argues the existence of God from the existence of a Moral Standard.

If two people argue with each other regarding the right for someone to a seat on the bus, as an example, for their argument they are both appealing to a moral standard. Each one of them tries to prove how his position is closer to that Moral Standard.

The logical question is: Where does the Moral Standard come from?

It can not be man made. It has to be a standard independent of man.

And since it's is a "Moral Standard", the entity which established it, must be intelligent and moral. Therefore, God.

Historical Argument

It's covered in part in "Mere Christianity", but also it is covered more extensively in "The Case for Christ".

There is ample historical evidence which point to the existence of a person named Jesus Christ, who claimed to be God.

There is ample historical evidence which point to his death and resurrection.

Therefore, Christian God.

This is by far the most solid argument. It is even referenced in the Bible:

There are eye witnesses, IE absolute proof, of Jesus Christ's resurrection. And if we can ascertain the validity of these historical accounts, then we have proven Jesus Christ is God.

Cause and Effect

This is probably the weakest argument in my opinion.

It states that every cause must have an effect. And if you track it backwards the very first event must have a cause. What is it?

How did the universe come to be? Was it self-create? Eternal? Created?

It can not be self-created, because for something to create itself, it must first exist before it exists, which is a logical falacy.

Science has proven that the universe is not Eternal.

Logically, then it must be created. Therefore God.

The problem with this argument is it argues the metaphysical from the physical. The physical is in the realm of observations, experimentation and science. The metaphysical is not.

Preconceived ideas and Conclusions

When we enter any discussion in general, but especially when we are discussing the existence of God, we have to be aware that people come in with preconceived ideas and conclusions, including us.

We've already concluded that God exists. We're not trying to work through the evidence. We are stating facts. And this is a problem when talking to someone because it gives the notion that you're speaking down at them. "You are unlearned, listen to me so I can impart some wisdom upon you". This is a bad discussion strategy and it stems from our lack of awareness of our Biases.

There is nothing wrong with having a bias. We're all humans, we all have biases. The problem is not being aware of these biases.

Being aware of our biases helps us with the next point.

Listening

How many times do we go into an argument with already a prepared list of responses.

I was watching some parliamentary debates and I was thinking to myself, boy these guys are not even talking to each other. One asks a question, and then the opposing party responds to a completely different point. It's extremely frustrating listening to those people.

In an discussion, we have to emphasise listening and empathy. 

If I'm coming in with a list of my own prepared responses, then I will not even bother listening to the other side. The other side will perceive me as simply wanting to prove I'm right, and will shutoff as well.

This will lead to a fruitless discussion, academic maybe, but lacking in love and empathy.

Dialogue

Dialogue is the action of exchanging ideas and giving them serious thought and consideration, even if I disagree with them.

Dialogue is also important in clarifying one's own thoughts.

For example, lots of time we hear about a concept, but if we don't discuss it out loud and work through the details of these concepts, the concept remains vague in our minds.

Dialogue plays an important role in our mental development.

It also plays an important role in understanding where the opposing point of view is coming from. What is their mental state, etc.

For example, lots of people might have a problem with God because of some hard time they went through or because of some injustice they witnessed. If there is a God, then why do all these bad things happen. Bad things happen, therefore, there is no God.

Addressing God's existence from this angle is drastically different from addressing it from a historic angle.

But you wouldn't know that without real dialogue.

Unfortunately, we live in an environment where name calling and labelling is much easier than honest to God Dialogue. If someone doesn't agree with us, it's so much easier to call him some name to completely dismiss their point of view. We see that around quiet a bit. How people are called homophobes when they disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, or they are called anti-vaxx when they have legitimate questions about the efficacy of the vaccines, or called terrorists, when they protest against the vaccine mandates etc.

And we fall into that same trap in our church. It so much easier to call someone a heretic when he espouses a different point of view. This allows us to dismiss his argument and lump him in this category we call heresy, which we don't even have to listen to nor entertain.

Unfortunately, this attitude drives away many from the church.

It is, therefore, important to ensure we have honest and thoughtful dialogue, where we listen, empathise and understand the other point of view even if we disagree with it.

This helps us avoid the "strawman argument" trap.

A strawman is a fallacious argument that distorts an opposing stance in order to make it easier to attack. Essentially, the person using the strawman pretends to attack their opponent’s stance, while in reality they are actually attacking a distorted version of that stance, which their opponent doesn’t necessarily support.

For example, if someone says “I think that we should give better study guides to students”, a person using a strawman might reply by saying “I think that your idea is bad, because we shouldn’t just give out easy A’s to everyone”.

Respect & Understanding

This follows from the point above. Without listening we can not have dialogue. Without Dialogue we can not truly respect and understand.

I'll tell you an example, when they decided to check vaccine passports in the church I was and still am strongly against it. I think it creates a segregation in the church which is anti-thesis to what the church stands for. God calls us to unity, not to keep a group out because of personal health choices.

I was expressing my opinion to someone and their response was, "I respect your opinion. I know lots of people are affected by the media". I'm like, dude, I didn't form my opinion because I was affected by the media. I actually gave this some serious thought.

This example highlights the lack of respect and understanding to the opposing point of view, which is a natural evolution of lack of dialogue. You don't have to agree with me, but at the same time do not belittle someone's argument even if you disagree with it.

Avoid Grand Posturing & Virtue Signalling

We all fall into this to some extent. We all love to be right. We all love to feel other's respect. But this is problematic, because if you always want to be right in a discussion, what you end up doing is trying to put down the other person's point of view. In effect making him feel dumb.

And the harder we go after the "always right" syndrome, the more we start using strawman arguments to make ourselves look better, "grand posturing", and show how good we are and how much we understand and how virtuous we are, "Virtue Signalling".

This spirit goes completely against the thesis I stated above. If our goal in discussing the Existence of God with others is to bring them to God, then we are definitely not achieving our goal.

Knowledge Puffs Up

Grand Posturing and Virtue signalling is tied at the hip to the concept of "Knowledge Puffs Up".

St. Paul emphasises this thought well.

We can be very highly educated and well read about the Existence of God, but knowledge by itself puffs up. The idea is not to show off how much we know, it is to care about the other person's spirituality and well being.

Devices not to u

Before we embark on examining the answer

I will not be going into a lot of details about the different evidence we have 

Can we prove beyond the shadow of doubt that God exists? Historic evidence (Case for Christ), Moral evidence (Mere Christianity)

Preconceived ideas and conclusions/Bias

Two sides to the argument

Incarnation

Evidence vs Proof

Mlpzaq (Answers, n.d.) states that the difference between evidence and proof is that the former infers and the latter concludes. A fact is observed and how it is inferred determines what it is evidencing. A proof is a “situation that removes all doubt” (Answers, n.d., ¶1). For example, red marking on a white collar is an observable fact. While it might be the residual blood spatter from a shaving mishap, a suspicious spouse might infer it as evidence of infidelity. Proof of the infidelity would require evidence that sexually inks the spouse with a third party, such as video or audio recordings.

Miracles

Dialogue

Listening

Grand Posturing

Respect & Understanding

Virtue signalling

Goal

Realise that arguments do not induce faith

Knowledge puffs up

Authority and Blind Obedience - We can not obey Immoral laws just cause it's the law