Why I Don't Need to Prove God Exists

I've been challenged to prove that God exists. I won't try. It's not because I believe God doesn't exist. I very much believe that God exists, that the Bible reveals him, that Jesus is his son, and that God, through the Spirit, dwells with me.

But I can't prove it. I have experience, but no evidence.

There are many, many arguments for the existence of God. I've studied most of them. I like some of them. But I don't really want to use any of them.

Here's why:

• Incontrovertible truth is based on observation. 
• God cannot be observed, therefore God cannot be proved incontrovertibly. 
• Therefore any attempt to prove God's existence will be rejected by those who are predisposed to reject the existence of the unobserved. 
• So, proofs for the existence of God are mental exercise that reinforces beliefs already held by those already predisposed to believe in God. 

To put it another way, I don't need to prove God exists to people who already believe he exists; I can't prove God exists to those who refuse to believe that God exists. 

Working on proofs for the existence of God may help to strengthen the faith of believers, but it doesn't do anything to affect the non-believer. 

Those who flatly deny the existence of God do so (most often) from the perspective of observation. God cannot be observed, therefore God must not exist (or God's existence is meaningless to the observer).

This, however, presupposes the reliability of the observer and the ability of that observer to reason from his or her observation to the reality of the observed world. The existence of synesthetes shows that our observation isn't tied to the reality of the world we observe. 

Synesthesia is the condition where senses are crossed in some way. Synesthetes may see color when they hear a sound or they might perceive numbers as always having the same shape or connect smells with a touch-like feeling. The synesthete's brain crosses signals from the different senses and conflates the information. The letter 'A' isn't actually red, but a synesthete will perceive it that way. 

The existence of synesthesia goes to prove that the human brain doesn't deal with reality, but the filtered version of reality interpreted by the senses. Your observation may or may not relate to reality. 

Because of this, a strictly empirical worldview (one that rejects any a priori assumptions) is functionally impossible since the most basic assumption of Empiricism is that observation provides a reliable window into the world.

So, me proving that God exists is akin to proving that the world exists. I can't do it, but I can live like it's true. 

Gracious Online Debate

So my book came out on Tuesday, I blogged about it on Wednesday and so did a friend of mine, Matt Dabbs. By Thursday night, there was a comment on Matt's blog about how the first chapter of my book doesn't interpret scripture correctly.

This brings up the issue of how we should debate online. The internet is a world unto itself. There are different levels of debate that exist online from what would normally take place in person. A large part of that is due to the lack of tone available in online communication. Spoken communication is all about the tone. Yet when we type things out, the tone doesn't go with the words. We may have a tone in our own head that accompanies the words, but there's no way to be sure that the same tone is interpreted by the people reading the words. But a tone will always be applied to the words we read.

My wife and I have developed a tool to use when we're disagreeing with people online. We read back through our words, out loud, with the worst possible tone we can muster. If the tone can fit the words, then we need to rewrite the words. It's only when we get the words refined to the point where they can't be interpreted as offensive or abusive that we're allowed to post them online.

I have to confess that I've learned this rule the hard way. I've said things online that have been interpreted as offensive. I've even been upset and said things that were intended to be offensive. That's the danger of the internet, you can type something in a heated moment and it's now online forever. I'm working and learning about how to be gracious online. Please don't hesitate to help me, just be gracious when you do it.

iPhone Apps for Religious Debate

The New York Times reports that there are a growing number of smart phone apps to help Christians debate Atheists and vice versa.

In a dozen new phone applications, whether faith-based or faith-bashing, the prospective debater is given a primer on the basic rules of engagement — how to parry the circular argument, the false dichotomy, the ad hominem attack, the straw man — and then coached on all the likely flashpoints of contention. Why Darwinism is scientifically sound, or not. The differences between intelligent design and creationism, and whether either theory has any merit. The proof that America was, or was not, founded on Christian principles.

I guess it's the inevitable trajectory of our society to reduce such conversations to quips loaded into our phones. But is this really an effective method of debate (or is debate effective at all)? I've debated many atheists, and while most of the time we come away with respect for each other, it has never changed anyone's mind on the topic. I appreciate their perspective because I take the time to listen to their frustration with faith and Christianity.

The problem with these apps is the problem with debate in our society. It has become little more than an exercise in offering pithy sound-bites. The Presidential debates were not, in any classic sense, debates, but rather opportunities for the candidates to restate their rigid point of view. The same is true of these apps, they give everyone the chance to sound smart, but no one has to actually think about what they're saying or why.

What do you think?