How would you prove the God of the Bible exists?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
If you were asked by a Christian to prove that the God of the Bible exists in a short manner, how would you go about it?
 
History. Prophecy seems to confer.

Joh 14:29 And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe.

Joh 16:4 But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you. "I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you.
 
Andrew,

I don't know if I would even try to prove that God exists. Instead, I would share with the skeptic or doubter what Paul wrote in Romans 1.

Romans 1:20 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

The complexity of nature testifies that there was a creator.

The author of Hebrews wrote:

Hebrews 11:6 6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek him.

I would challenge the skeptic or doubter to consider what the bible says about the nature of God and the nature of man. Allow the Word to convict of God's existence and the reader's sinfulness. A back and forth argument using philosophy, science or rational thought usually doesn't sway unbelievers. Perhaps it's just my simple mind, but I prefer to allow God to confront them through the scriptures.
 
I'd say that there's no better explainer for the world around us. Nothing comes close to giving as sufficient an answer for man's questions about life, origins, and purpose.
 
If you were asked by a Christian to prove that the God of the Bible exists in a short manner, how would you go about it?

I wouldn't. The Bible never sets out to prove that God exists. It starts with the fact of His existence.

Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
 
I wouldn't. The Bible never sets out to prove that God exists. It starts with the fact of His existence.

Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Are you saying you would refuse to discuss the existence of God?
 
Hi Romans922,

Since you said that the person is a Christian, it becomes easier that trying to prove God to a lost person. One of the things I do is to prove the historical reliability of the Scriptures. Hank Hanegraaff has a great acronym "MAPS" that I like to use. Although I change Statistics to Science, and debunk evolution.

Here's a link to his work - http://www.friedenschurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/MAPS.pdf

That the Bible is written by God is one of the things that "proved" the existence Of God to me.

I wouldn't get bogged down with the modern philosophical rabbit trails of "you can't prove anything" or the certainty rationalizations. Since the person asked about proving the God of the Bible, start from there.

Enjoy!
 
Perhaps start by trying to prove the God of the Bible does NOT exist. This would necessarily lead to the study of the Bible itself which would be the most edifying possibility.
 
I'm not sure that I would. Obviously, you wouldn't need to prove the God of the Bible to a Christian, right? But if you meant to a non-Christian, I wouldn't do that either. For Calvin, apologetics had two major purposes: to answer the foolishness of the unbeliever who attempts to disprove Christianity, and to protect the Christian from such assaults. I don't recall in the early Reformed traditions "proofs" of the existence of God by which unbelievers are forced to yield to the rational necessity of the truth of the Bible.

The point is that there is no way to demonstrate rationally and unambiguously the truth of the Bible. If there were, there would be no need for the Holy Spirit. Also notice that never in the Bible is there any attempt "prove" the resurrection of Christ, for instance. The resurrection is declared and certain counter-arguments are discredited, but the reason to believe in the resurrection is that God calls us to do so. I did not become a Christian because I was convinced of the rational necessity of the resurrection. I believe in the resurrection because I have been called by the resurrected Christ.
 
I didn't read the OP correctly, and I thought it said a "non-Christian" instead of "Christian" so I had to erase my comments.

I'm kind of confused on someone being a Christian and not believing in God. How does that work out? Maybe I'm missing something.
 
Presuppositionally:
1. Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality)
2. If there is no god, knowledge is not possible
3. Therefore God exists.

We must point out to [our opponents] that [non-theistic] reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well... It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions. —(A Survey of Christian Epistemology [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969], p. 204).

Classically:
"If anything exists . . . God exists." (R.C. Sproul)
 
Presuppositionally:
1. Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality)
2. If there is no god, knowledge is not possible
3. Therefore God exists.

We must point out to [our opponents] that [non-theistic] reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well... It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions. —(A Survey of Christian Epistemology [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969], p. 204).

Classically:
"If anything exists . . . God exists." (R.C. Sproul)

Amen.
 
Depends . . .

The ontological argument is a good one to use, but a bit difficult to explain (though most philosophers today would accept its validity, albeit grudgingly).

We have to remember that while an argument (like the OA) may be sound in theory, it will not convince one whose heart is hard. The apologist may argue and argue well, but in the end, the Holy Spirit must convince. I think that there are probably ways of rationally and unambiguously demonstrating the truth of the Gospel--and I do not think for a minute that these could be successful unless the Holy Spirit were working in the heart of the listener. Reason is just as fallen as our other cognitive equipment.
 
When the average Christian goes to great lengths to prove to a skeptic intellectually what the Bible assumes from square one as fact (Gen. 1:1 - in the beginning God...), it does not typically result in anything other than an intellectual conversation taking place.

As a pastor, I immediately turn the question back to the person asking. If you are able to somehow prove God, what is it you will prove? And once you have proved whatever that is, what will be the result?

The goal of gospel has never been to prove God's existence, that is simply something that has taken place over time as Christians have pushed intellectual engagement. Interestingly there are not any examples in Scripture of someone who does not believe in God becoming a Christian. Even the Mars Hill pagans believed in gods.

I am not saying don't be renewing your mind. i am saying you will never prove God's existence, and many such conversations are nothing more than an intellectual exercise that leaves an even smugger person making excuses for what their conscience is telling them is true. We must clearly speak and live the gospel, and those who reject it may use the excuse of not believing in God's existence but I don't really see anywhere in Scripture that compels us to engage at that particular level.
 
Since you want to specifically prove the God of the Bible, and not God in general, I would say to use the Bible.

Fulfilled prophecy is a great way to show that the bible is the Word of God, for only God is omniscient. Sine biblical prophecy has been fulfilled, the God of the Bible must be the true God. As an example...

Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed: (Isa 45:1)
 
1. Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality)
2. If there is no god, knowledge is not possible
3. Therefore God exists.
This is Ontological, not presuppositional. The latter (and arguably the reformed approach) would be to presuppose that God exists and that he has spoken the truth in the scriptures.

Turn the question around: if God doesn't exist, what do you believe? Then lead them with your questions to their logical conclusion.
 
All presuppositional arguments can be turned into direct ones: each one is the reverse of the other. In theory, it can work both ways.
 
I wouldn't. The Bible never sets out to prove that God exists. It starts with the fact of His existence.

Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Are you saying you would refuse to discuss the existence of God?

No. I don't have a problem discussing the existence of God. What I am saying is that the Bible does not even attempt to "prove" the existence of God. It is taken as fact. I am not going to get into an argument with someone trying to "prove" that God exists. It is clear that God exists. We believe in God by faith plus there is something in human nature that makes us realize when we look out on creation that there is a God. Setting out trying to "prove" He exists is silly in my opinion. There is a lot of ink wasted (see Lee Strobel) trying to "prove" things that we are never asked to prove but are to believe by faith. I believe God exists because He has told me that He exists through the Scriptures. I don't need human arguments or someone's idea of evidence. We either believe the Scriptures or we do not. :2cents:
 
I wouldn't. The Bible never sets out to prove that God exists. It starts with the fact of His existence.

Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Are you saying you would refuse to discuss the existence of God?

No. I don't have a problem discussing the existence of God. What I am saying is that the Bible does not even attempt to "prove" the existence of God. It is taken as fact. I am not going to get into an argument with someone trying to "prove" that God exists. It is clear that God exists. We believe in God by faith plus there is something in human nature that makes us realize when we look out on creation that there is a God. Setting out trying to "prove" He exists is silly in my opinion. There is a lot of ink wasted (see Lee Strobel) trying to "prove" things that we are never asked to prove but are to believe by faith. I believe God exists because He has told me that He exists through the Scriptures. I don't need human arguments or someone's idea of evidence. We either believe the Scriptures or we do not. :2cents:

Could we say, then, that an argument is not needed because we see clearly the existence of God in much the same way as we see that 2+2=4 or that there is a tree outside? We know that God is there because of the Sensus divinitatus (which the unbeliever suppresses in unrighteousness) and because of the work of the Holy Spirit regenerating us and pointing us to the Scriptures.

I don't think that it is necessarily a negation of any of this to argue for the existence of God. Arguments for the existence of God are, in the words of Anselm, "faith in search of understanding." Anselm's ontological argument, for instance, appears in the midst of a prayer--the whole proslogion is a long prayer. So while, like you, I believe in God for reasons other than argument, I do not think it necessary to say that all arguments are futile or wasted.
 
I agree with P. F. Pugh, great post brother. I would employ Bahnsen and Van Til types of arguments to hopefully show the futility of not beleiving in God, I would evidences if the job called for it and also versions of the classical arguments if necessary. My only scruple about the question is this I am not so sure we can prove the exsistance of the God of the bible without also proving the whole christian worldview. It is not a god we are talking about it is the God of scripture and it is not some nuetral view of theism we are proving either. It is the whole christian worldview on the docks not a piece of it.
 
I heard of someone who was asked for a one-word proof of*the truth of the Bible (not quite what you were asking, but still)
...his answer was, "Israel".
It's a good one - their continued existence through all the ages defies explanation in human terms
 
I heard of someone who was asked for a one-word proof of*the truth of the Bible (not quite what you were asking, but still)
...his answer was, "Israel".
It's a good one - their continued existence through all the ages defies explanation in human terms

I hear dispensationalists use this one.
 
I heard of someone who was asked for a one-word proof of*the truth of the Bible (not quite what you were asking, but still)
...his answer was, "Israel".
It's a good one - their continued existence through all the ages defies explanation in human terms


I hear dispensationalists use this one.
I'm hazy on all those isms......is that bad?
 
I don't think it is possible to "prove" God exists.

That said, I think asking a skeptic if they believe the Resurrection took place is a good way to start. If they say no, then point out the almost incontrovertible historical evidence that it did. If someone believes the Resurrection then they must believe the existence of God, and really the whole of the Bible for that matter. If they still refuse to believe in the Resurrection, I'm not sure what else one can do to persuade them at that point in time.
 
If you were asked by a Christian to prove that the God of the Bible exists in a short manner, how would you go about it?

The internal witness of the Holy Spirit usually suffices for Christians.

If the Christian was asking how he could prove to an unbeliever that the God of the Bible exists, that's a little different question. There really is no "short" answer, but the shortest and best one I have found is that the Christian worldview, unlike any others, provides a logically, morally, and philosophically consistent worldview.
 
What I am saying is that the Bible does not even attempt to "prove" the existence of God. It is taken as fact.

There are various places where "demonstration" is provided even where "proof" in the empirical sense has not been offered. For example, we have the polemic against idolatry in the second section of Isaiah. God undertakes to prove Himself as true and trustworthy in comparison to the gods of the nations. One fact in particular, fulfilled prophecy, is given as an argument for believing He is God and there is none other.
 
I wouldn't try to "prove" that He exists. I would just affirm what the WLC says

"The very light of nature in man and the works of God declare plainly that there is a God, but His Word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal Him unto men for their salvation."

The light of nature is knowledge which reason provides. If the knowledge which reason provides declares plainly that God exists, then the belief in "reasons" for God's existence is presupposed in the statement of the Larger Catechism.
 
1. Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality)
2. If there is no god, knowledge is not possible
3. Therefore God exists.
This is Ontological, not presuppositional. The latter (and arguably the reformed approach) would be to presuppose that God exists and that he has spoken the truth in the scriptures.

Turn the question around: if God doesn't exist, what do you believe? Then lead them with your questions to their logical conclusion.

Really? I thought that the transcendental argument (of which this was a simplified form) tries to prove that God is the "precondition off all human knowledge and experience," hence the quote from Van Til. Not being much of a philosopher, it was my opinion that such arguments were pretty common in Reformed apologetics of a presuppositional variety. Am I missing something? Doesn't the demonstration of the impossibility of the contrary function pretty commonly in presuppositional apologetics?
 
If you were asked by a Christian to prove that the God of the Bible exists in a short manner, how would you go about it?

I would maintain that the very request for proof presupposes the God of the Bible. Why? Proof requires the existence of absolute fact made known. The existence of absolute fact made known requires the existence of absolute intellect making known absolute fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top