# Why do people try to *prove* the existence of God?



## Arch2k (Oct 28, 2005)

The Bible tells us that all believe that God exists. This is one of the reasons that they are held accountable on the day of judgment.

What all the fuss about "proving" the exitence of God? Why not just tell them they are liars, and they DO believe that there is a God?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 28, 2005)

For me, I just want to know what the evidences are when God said He made His existence and attributes "evident" to them through what has been made.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...





> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Because my faith is true and I can demostrate it.



Demonstrate it by what? An appeal to reason, senses or Scripture?

The first two only end up in fallacious reasoning and the last is circular. If you appeal to the Scripture for your premises (as in TAG), then you are assuming Scripture is true and that assumes God exists.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Why did Paul not do what you say? Why did he argue in Acts 17? Why did he debate everyone and refute them so he could say, "where is the DEBATER of this agre?" Just telling someone that they are liars isn't *debate."



There is no evidense that Paul appealed to anything other than the scriptures to argue against the Romans. He "reasoned with them from the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2). He was convincing people that assumed God that Christ fulfilled the the O.T. prophesies.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Also, we are commanded to give a *reason* for the hope, not an assertion.



I think you are misunderstanding that verse. I agree with Gill on this one:



> Now, a "reason" of this is to be given; not that they are to account for the Gospel, upon the foot of carnal reason; for that is not of men, nor according to the carnal reason of men; nor is it to be thought that every Christian should be capable of defending the Gospel, either in whole, or in part, by arguments and reasons, in a disputatious way, or to give a reason and argument for every particular truth; but that he should be well acquainted with the ground and foundation of the Christian religion; at least, with the first principles of the oracles of God, and be conversant with the Scriptures, and be able to point out that in them, which is the reason of his holding this and the other truth, though he is not able to give a gainsayer satisfaction, or to stop his mouth: and this is to be done with meekness and fear;



We appeal to scripture and scripture alone.

Hebrews 6:13: For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself.

God couldn't appeal to a higher court than his own word, and we as well, are not to appeal to anything else.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> But, you can do that if you wish, I'll continue to fight in the battle.



I agree that we must fight the battle. I am just suggesting that the battle is fought primarily by destroying their worldview (showing how it leads to absurdity) and presenting the gospel (showing from Scripture how Christ is the messiah). Nowhere are we called to *prove* the existence of God, or even that the bible is true. Even the Bible doesn't try to prove God to be true, but rather (with the WSC) assumes it: "In the beginning, God..."



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Also, God may have ordained our answers as means to saving people. .



God doesn't reason people into heaven by proofs. He does so by the gospel. If you meant the gospel here, forgive me.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> And, lasltly, just telling them that they are liars does not sound like my idea of "contending earnestly for the faith."



Hopefully I explained my position more fully above. We MUST contend for the faith, but that does not mean trying to *prove* to them that God exists.


----------



## Vytautas (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Demonstrate it by what? An appeal to reason, senses or Scripture?
> 
> The first two only end up in fallacious reasoning and the last is circular. If you appeal to the Scripture for your premises (as in TAG), then you are assuming Scripture is true and that assumes God exists.
> ...


----------



## Vytautas (Oct 28, 2005)

_Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
Demonstrate it by what? An appeal to reason, senses or Scripture?

The first two only end up in fallacious reasoning and the last is circular. If you appeal to the Scripture for your premises (as in TAG), then you are assuming Scripture is true and that assumes God exists.


What you are saying here is that if we were to "œprove" God, and if we would use Scripture to do so, this is circular because you´re using the Bible to "œprove" something in the Bible. But if you start with the proposition that the Bible is true without knowing (for the sake of argument, all men know God) that God exists or not. Then demonstrate that God exists because of Scriptural evidence. Is this fallaciously circular? 

[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Vytautas]

[Edited on 10-28-2005 by Vytautas]


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Demonstrate it by what? An appeal to reason, senses or Scripture?
> 
> ...



Maybe not fallaciously, but circular in the sense that a certain epistemology is circular. There is no need to prove God exists if one accepts the Bible is true. I guess I don't see it any different than saying:

1. The Bible is correct.
2. The Bible says God exists.
Therefore God exists.

Valid. Sound. But it doesn't do much for what is commonly called "proof" for the existence of God. It is an axiom...you take it for granted. People are not looking for this when they ask for "proof" for the existence of God.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 28, 2005)




----------



## Vytautas (Oct 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Correct, people usually mean that they want to be _persuaded_. So, you can persuade them by calling them a liar and I'll try it by ripping off his autonomous mask and showing him that to even ask for proof presupposes my worldview. I'll show him that the proof of my worldview is that if it were not true then one could not prove anything.



Couldn´t a man still autonomously reason that sense your worldview is not true that it is the case that he could not prove anything? All he would have to demonstrate is his ignorance because that worldview is not true. But wait isn´t that affirming the consequent?
1.	If your worldview is not true, then I can´t prove anything.
2.	I can´t prove anything.
3.	Your worldview is false.
It is fallacious so the man would try a different tactic.
1.	If your worldview is not true, then I can´t prove anything.
2.	I can prove something.
3.	Your worldview is true.
Denying the consequent works but doesn´t yield the results he wants. Either way the argument of the impossibility of the contrary is sound.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 29, 2005)

Richard:

What if you show him that he just proved that he can't prove anything, thereby showing that he can prove something; therefore he has eliminated his own argument? And not only that, but that he has shown the impossibility of the contrary, namely that all he can prove from his worldview is that the Christian worldview is not false?

[Edited on 10-29-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Vytautas (Oct 29, 2005)

John:

I don't think you can prove a negative. Where would you start by disproving the lost city of Atlantis? You would have to search the entire earth and in the sea and then conclude that Atlantis is not on earth. No one has got the time, money, and resources to do it.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> John:
> 
> I don't think you can prove a negative. Where would you start by disproving the lost city of Atlantis? You would have to search the entire earth and in the sea and then conclude that Atlantis is not on earth. No one has got the time, money, and resources to do it.



That's at least part of the point. The atheist just takes the stand on the non-existence of God; he does not take that stand from proof of any kind, but just as an assertion. His grounding, for him, is that you as a Christian are taking the same stand, not on proof but on assertion, but instead taking it on the view that God does exist. 

We can tell him all we like that this is not the case, but he will not accept it unless he has proof, he claims. But we know from Scripture and from observation that all the proof that is needed will not do it. It is not that the proof is not there, for it certainly is and is overwhelming; it is that they will not acknowledge it: they refuse it.

But the other point is that to a large extent I am in the same boat as he. Sure, I'll accept that God exists, and even that Jesus died for me, and even all the tenets of the Reformed faith, and yet will absolutely not accept those things that I do not want to accept, such as the lodrship of Christ in my mind and heart. I will stand on my religion rather than acknowledge that I too am under the bondage of limited understanding and discernment. In the area of defending the truth, I too have to give way to truth whenever it discovers my falseness. 

In other words, we often refuse the sanctification of the Spirit in our lives, letting our pride and our achievements overrule the lessons the Spirit is teaching us, sometimes teaching us through these unbelievers. If you're trying to teach wisdom, then the most prominent attribute ought to be humility, and that before unbelievers as well as fellow servants. 

My worldview is up for correction as much as the unbeliever's, and often more so. His rebellion is deliberate, but he is an unbeliever who is not insincere about that; but mine is often deliberate, and I am being insincere about my faith if I don't acknowledge my own need for understanding. 

Most often, in the battles of worldviews, this is the deciding factor, the sincerity and humility of the believer. The unbeliever does not change because you've out argued him, or because you've destroyed his edifice of straw; he changes because the Spirit draws him to Christ. He sees that, if he sees you too kneeling before the Christ in your understanding. The unbelievers that most require the destruction of edifices of straw are the ones masquerading as Christ's servants, preaching their doctrines in the churches, doctrines which the King and Head of the Church did not command them to preach, but which these people believe to be prerequisite to rightly understanding Christ's message in the Word.


----------



## August (Oct 30, 2005)

John, thanks for that reminder. It is a valuable reminder to all of us who debate atheists on a regular basis. It is ever so easy and human to claim God's wisdom as our wisdom, and become arrogant.

As for not being able to prove a negative, I would be a little careful with that. How do we know that the statement "You cannot prove a negative" is true, because if we prove that to be true, we have proven a negative.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 30, 2005)

Well, I don't think I was trying to prove a negative, but rather referring to the atheists lack of ability to prove anything without "borrowing" from a system that presupposes certainty and sureness of knowledge of truth. All attempts to set up another set of truths, or another system of knowledge, has its foundations ten feet off the ground, hanging in mid air. 

If we have our roots planted firmly on solid rock, its not because of ourselves. So as soon as we call attention to ourselves instead of to God, then we are lifting our foundations from off that solid hold and onto something that more closely resembles the unbeliever's system. And that is what he is also trying to get us to do when he challenges us to confront his ideas and ideals with ours: he'll approach our views with an appraisal that includes the same lack of proof that he has.

So my point was not that we can prove a negative, but rather that we are always called upon to "prove" God, both His existence and His words of truth, because the antagonist to the gospel is always bending things so that we approach our witness to him from his perspective, as in "me against you", "them against us", etc. Once he has us there, or even gets us started there, he will always hark back to it. If, however, we begin with "God against both of us", as to our mutual weakness in worldviews, then he is forced to face God, not just us. Otherwise, that's all we are left with: proving negatives.


----------



## August (Oct 30, 2005)

Sorry John, I was responding to Vytautas, not you. I fully agree with your last statement.


----------



## Apologist4Him (Oct 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> The Bible tells us that all believe that God exists. This is one of the reasons that they are held accountable on the day of judgment.
> 
> What all the fuss about "proving" the exitence of God? Why not just tell them they are liars, and they DO believe that there is a God?



Where does the Bible tell us that all believe that God exists? The Bible clearly states in 2 Th 3:2 "and that we will be rescued from perverse and evil men; *for not all have faith*." 

I think you've misunderstood Romans 1:20.

It's like this... out of total depravity, those who do _not_ have faith are self-deceived into truly believing they do not believe. And we have all lied, as Paul proclaimed; "let God be found true, though every man be found a liar."

And according to 1 John 1:6 "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us."

In general, I agree with you about "proving" God, our starting point in our knowledge begins with the fear of the LORD with presupposing the God of the Christian Scriptures. We cannot "prove" God through autonomous means, we have to start with Theonomy, with the Lordship of Christ, and show the non-believer the utter epistemological bankruptcy of their autonomy...in principal.

[Edited on 10-31-2005 by Apologist4Him]


----------



## JohnV (Oct 31, 2005)

It is for the sake of the person that we begin with presupposing the God of the Scriptures. For ourselves it is not a presupposition. I would assume that God is not merely presupposed, but is a real presence in our lives, a real person declaring His own character to us both through Scripture and through His providence and revelation in creation. It would be our duty, then, to try to introduce that person for whom we are presupposing the God of the Scriptures to that God, not because we open the door to him, but because God is opening the door to him through the Spirit's work through us. 

I would agree that no one is without at least a rudimentary knowledge of God' character, at least the necessity of His existence, and at least the witness of Him in general revelation. Notice that when people deny God they seem to know exactly what to deny about Him: they do not deny the idea of God, nor the limited notions of God that other religions propound, not a God of the imagination of men, nor false gods, nor any other facades which men put forward in the name of religion. It is clearly the God of Scripture that they seem to know enough about when they deny Him intellectually, but deny to know when put to the test on that knowledge. If we just sit back for a moment and listen to them carefully, they are full of knowledge of God, it would seem; but only so that they can deny Him. Put them to the test to affirm these attributes, that these things are the ones that need to be denied to deny God's existence, and they claim ignorance. They often betray more than they claim to know.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Apologist4Him_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Actually, I was referring to Romans 1:21, not verse 20.



> Romans 1:21: because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.



John Calvin:



> 21. For when they knew God, etc. He plainly testifies here, that God has presented to the minds of all the means of knowing him, having so manifested himself by his works, that they must necessarily see what of themselves they seek not to know -- that there is some God; for the world does not by chance exist, nor could it have proceeded from itself. But we must ever bear in mind the degree of knowledge in which they continued; and this appears from what follows.



John Gill:



> Ver. 21. Because that when they knew God,.... Though they had such a knowledge of the being and perfections of God, yet



Robert Haldane:



> Knew God. "” Besides the manifestation of God in the works of creation, the heathens had still some internal lights, some principles and natural notions, which are spoken of, ch. <450212>2:12, 15, from which they had, in a measure, the knowledge of the existence and authority of God. There may be here, besides, a reference to the knowledge of God which He communicated in the first promise after the fall, and again after the flood, but which, not liking to retain God in their knowledge, and being "˜haters of God,´ mankind had lost. Elsewhere, Paul says that the Gentiles were without God in the world, <490212>Ephesians 2:12; yet here he says they knew God. On this it may be observed, that they had very confused ideas of the Godhead, but that they further corrupted them by an almost infinite number of errors. Respecting their general notions of deity, these represented the true God; but respecting their erroneous notions, these only represented the phantoms of their imagination. In this way they knew God, yet nevertheless they were without God. They knew his existence and some of His perfections; but they had so entirely bewildered their minds, and added so many errors to the truth, that they were in reality living without God. They might be said to know God when they confessed Him as the Creator of the world, and had some conception of His unity, wisdom, and power. The Apostle may particularly refer to the wise men among the heathen, but the same truth applies to all.


----------



## Apologist4Him (Oct 31, 2005)

Oh, I thought your point might have been that because all are without excuse (v.20), there is no need to try to "prove" the existence of God. They know Him (in a non-saving way), because through creation (general revelation) He has made Himself known to them (v.19).


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Apologist4Him_
> Oh, I thought your point might have been that because all are without excuse (v.20), there is no need to try to "prove" the existence of God. They know Him (in a non-saving way), because through creation (general revelation) He has made Himself known to them (v.19).



Exactly.


----------



## Apologist4Him (Oct 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> It is for the sake of the person that we begin with presupposing the God of the Scriptures. For ourselves it is not a presupposition. I would assume that God is not merely presupposed, but is a real presence in our lives, a real person declaring His own character to us both through Scripture and through His providence and revelation in creation. It would be our duty, then, to try to introduce that person for whom we are presupposing the God of the Scriptures to that God, not because we open the door to him, but because God is opening the door to him through the Spirit's work through us.
> 
> I would agree that no one is without at least a rudimentary knowledge of God' character, at least the necessity of His existence, and at least the witness of Him in general revelation. Notice that when people deny God they seem to know exactly what to deny about Him: they do not deny the idea of God, nor the limited notions of God that other religions propound, not a God of the imagination of men, nor false gods, nor any other facades which men put forward in the name of religion. It is clearly the God of Scripture that they seem to know enough about when they deny Him intellectually, but deny to know when put to the test on that knowledge. If we just sit back for a moment and listen to them carefully, they are full of knowledge of God, it would seem; but only so that they can deny Him. Put them to the test to affirm these attributes, that these things are the ones that need to be denied to deny God's existence, and they claim ignorance. They often betray more than they claim to know.



Oh, but it is a presupposition for us, everyone has presuppositions. However, faith precedes a presupposition, so faith precedes an epistemology. Assuming there are different faiths, I am using the term "faith" in the generic sense, in the sense that everyone puts their trust in someone or something. In this way, we can distinguish between saving faith in Christ, and non-saving faith not in Christ. Similarly we can distinguish between epistemology which begins with the fear of the Lord, and epistemology which does not begin with the fear of the Lord.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 31, 2005)

I don't think it is proper, though, to say that, in actuality, we are beginning with fear in a presupposition of the Lord. Real fear of the real Lord is first, then it becomes the framework of our faith. It may be true that everyone may have presuppositions, that is more than I know; but these presuppositions must be based upon something if they are anything at all. So there must be something farther back, intellectually, than presuppositons. Only those who have their intellectual houses built on the solid rock of God Himself have more than their presuppositions to start with, which otherwise must just hang in mid air. 

God is first and foremost not a figment of my imagination. He is not something which I presuppose, but rather I am something He has presupposed, if anything. Either I believe or I don't, but I don't stand on *my* presupposition of Him: heaven forbid that I should do that. That would put me beyond correction, which is not what submission to His Word is about. Rather I would place, and submit, all my presuppositions unto His correction. My own presuppositions would be of little value, if any at all, as they would tend more to opposing truth than upholding it if I did not suppress them by submitting myself, presuppositions and all, to His leading and guiding. I too am a creature of pride and self-importance, unless I daily submit to Christ's lordship over me by His grace. 

In this way facts are real facts, not just my interpretations of facts. It is not one interpretation against others, but interpretations against reality, against the revealed truth of God. Mine included. 

The Bible is not merely a mine from which we dig out preconceptions to justify our notions. It is a door to a relationship to God. It is His letter to us, in person. It is not just a book of propositions, but a heart speaking to another heart. It is His personal letters to us, telling us who He is and who we are, and how we may come into His presence. This is a real relationship, every bit as real as any relationship we have with any other person, only in a more personal way and to a greater depth. But very real. 

If we have faith, then it is not a mere presupposition that He is the foundation of truth for us. It had better be deeper than that or we tend to justify ourselves rather than God. Are we claiming the superiority of our own worldview or claim to truth when we face opposing intellectual forces? Or are we claiming God's superiority, even submitting our own to God's correction along with the unbeliever? Do we show a willingness to submit every bit as much, and more, than those whom we wish to convert to Christianity? We ought to, for that is the humble spirit that the Spirit supports in His work. It is sometimes a thin line between humility and pride, but we must recognize it, for the Spirit does. And He is not interested in supporting the spreading of anothers' gospel; He is interested in spreading the true gospel. And that ought to our aim too, if we expect His blessing. 

In the end, it is not *our* presupposition that is our base, but God's presupposition that is our standard for truth. And we get to know that by being in relationship with the Author of the Bible, not just reading and colating propositions to form our own. Submission to truth is a casting aside of our own in order to adopt His, incorporating His treatise to us in our way of thinking. In that we we truly are thinking God's thoughts after Him, not conforming God's thoughts to the limitations of our present mindset. We will be spending all of our lives submitting more and more to His truth. In the end we too will confess with all the great men of God how little of it we really understood, and how much we fell short of that knowledge we ought to have aspired to. God's revelation was sufficient; it was our own effort that was deficient.

Yes, faith is before presuppositions. But faith is not before introduction to God. You cannot put faith in something you do not know. A mere belief system as a foundation is quite insufficient for the task. And that is what Christians are facing when defending the gospel: mere systems devoid of concrete foundation. It is to no purpose to defend against a belief system with another belief system, if we are trying to introduce an unbeliever into a relationship we ourselves do not have. It is true that these other systems don't compare, in that the Christian's system is more wholesome; but if that is all it is, then it is no more satisfying than the unbeliever's system. For is must culminate in a true relationship to God or it is empty of any value. What good is a system that is consistent in all its detail if it still does not bring one into a true relationship with God?

For the Christian, the man of faith, presuppositions are not the foundation of understanding. He must submit even them to understanding as well. They will be the indicators of whether he understands, but are not the foundation of understanding.


----------



## Apologist4Him (Oct 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_I don't think it is proper, though, to say that, in actuality, we are beginning with fear in a presupposition of the Lord. Real fear of the real Lord is first, then it becomes the framework of our faith. It may be true that everyone may have presuppositions, that is more than I know; but these presuppositions must be based upon something if they are anything at all. So there must be something farther back, intellectually, than presuppositons. Only those who have their intellectual houses built on the solid rock of God Himself have more than their presuppositions to start with, which otherwise must just hang in mid air.
> 
> God is first and foremost not a figment of my imagination. He is not something which I presuppose, but rather I am something He has presupposed, if anything. Either I believe or I don't, but I don't stand on *my* presupposition of Him: heaven forbid that I should do that. That would put me beyond correction, which is not what submission to His Word is about. Rather I would place, and submit, all my presuppositions unto His correction. My own presuppositions would be of little value, if any at all, as they would tend more to opposing truth than upholding it if I did not suppress them by submitting myself, presuppositions and all, to His leading and guiding. I too am a creature of pride and self-importance, unless I daily submit to Christ's lordship over me by His grace.
> 
> ...



John, I am sorry you've misunderstood my position, but even more sorry that apparently you do not understand biblical presuppositionalism teamed up with revelational epistemology. The strange thing is, you come off as a really intelligent man. I could explain my observations if I had the time and motivation, but I think greater men than me have tried and not been able to get through. *shrug*

[Edited on 11-1-2005 by Apologist4Him]


----------



## JohnV (Nov 1, 2005)

[quuote]John, I am sorry you've misunderstood my position, but even more sorry that apparently you do not understand biblical presuppositionalism teamed up with revelational epistemology. The strange thing is, you come off as a really intelligent man. I could explain my observations if I had the time and motivation, but I think greater men than me have tried and not been able to get through. [/quote]
Indeed, Andrew. I know I am not a Presuppositionalist, at least not in the sense of some. I believe I have undestood that sense, and I have rejected it. And it is true that I have sat and talked with at least one of the best of them, as well as many others. It is also true that I am not an intellectual, but just an ordinary carpenter. Whether I would be the greatest of thinkers or the least of them, the truth remains the same for me as for anyone else. It does not revolve around me; and if I were to present it to others I would not pretend that it does. 

The disadvantage of this is that most often rejection of God's truth, when I speak of it to others, centres upon _ad hominem_ attack upon myself, making me look like a silly oaf. And it is true that this is what I am. But silly as I look, the truth simply remains aloof to their sarcasm and ridicule. And sometimes that gets through, by God's grace. 

That has been my experience. People are cut to the heart by the way they rejected God's appeal to them through His servants. They know well how to abase others in order to appear the better men. That is how the heart deceives men of intellect as well as men given to passions and lusts. And that is what the Spirit breaks in a man when He brings about repentance and conversion in the heart as well as the mind. 

And that too is how my heart would deceive me if I gave in to pride of my own station, my own "betterness" than others, as if I had any. 

No, I dare not let my presuppositions preside over my understanding of truth, but rather submit and conform them that I may know truth all the better. That is what presuppositionalism really is, or should be. Is that not why your presuppositions are presented to others, so that they too can conform their mindset to the paradigms of truth itself, as you have?

But the point of this thread is about the need to present a living God before men, the seeming need to prove His existence before others. And that, I believe is most necessary. And one does that mostly by showing in life and doctrine that one has a relationship with such a Being, personally submitting to His word of truth and grace. Just as one shows tokens of personal relationship with famous men, such as perhaps Michael Jordan or George Bush Sr., tokens such as personal items or knowledge that only those close to these men would have or know; so one displays personal knowledge of God to others by the tokens that only those who know Him would have. Tokens such as true humility, love, submission to authority, and respect. Usually these are the first things that go out the window for unbelievers who strut their stuff, in order to show their superiority in knowledge and understanding to people of faith. 

But proofs such as these are incontrovertible. And I don't believe that this at all undermines a proper presuppositionalism, but rather upholds it. But more importantly, proofs such as these benefit those to whom we speak of our faith, supplementing any proofs of argument we may present to them, demonstrating the reality of argued proofs in our own selves, showing the character that we claim to profess to them, showing the same willingness of submission in ourselves that would lead to life for them, showing the reality of God that they refuse to acknowledge.


----------

