How do we even know God exists?

Questions from Teens continues

 

     This is a great question.  First let me take this from the exact opposite angle: How do we know God or a god DOESN"T exist?  Is there any proof for the non-existence of God or a god?  Quick answer: No there isn't ANY proof for the non-existence of God.  Christopher Hitchens, one of the 4 horsemen of the 'New Atheism' - he's deceased now, God rest his soul - said as much in his debate with Dr. William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist who specializes in debating atheists.  Mr. Hitchens did not present one single argument for atheism.  He said that Christians behave badly - yes, I behave against God's Will usually daily.  He said that the universe would be destroyed in several billion years - yes, all Christians believe in the End of the World, some day.  He said that evil exists and a God that's all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful would want to do something about evil, would know that evil exists and would be able to do something about it.  But evil exists therefore there is no 'god'. 
     However, the most this can show - and I mean the absolute most - is not that a god doesn't exist, but that God is either not all-knowing, not all-powerful or not all-good.  On the other hand, this argument is also a 'false dichotomy', meaning, it presents two choices and pretends those are the only two choices available.  The two choices are: either evil exists or God does.  But there is at least one more choice:  That God exists and has good reasons for allowing, temporarily, evil to exist in our world.

     Near the end of the debate, after being asked several times by Dr. Craig for a single argument for the non-existence of God, Mr. Hitchens stated, "I don't have to give any."  He then went on to say that everyone is born an atheist so it is up to the theist to convince us, but he just hasn't found any of the arguments compelling.

     Several things here: 1) Note that he agrees that he did not present ANY arguments for atheism.  In saying, "I don't need to give any [reasons]."  Mr. Hitchens is also saying, "I didn't give any." 

2) The idea that everyone is 'born' an atheist assumes atheism is the norm.  This is entirely false.  I believe the last I saw it, atheism comprises about 1 to 2 percent of the population - I think it would be reasonable that if atheism were true, we'd see a higher percentage of atheism. 
      Also, if everyone is born an atheist, how did we go from 0 to 1?   In other words, how did the first person begin to believe in God or a god?  Some would argue that a cave man saw lightning and couldn't explain it so he assumed some powerful being in the sky made it.

     This is also problematic.  Why would early man make up an explanation for something that was a regular, natural occurrence in his experience?  Lightning isn't a one-in-a-lifetime thing that is so shocking - pun intended - that demands a unique, radical, crazy, never-been-thought-of-before answer.  You might as well say rain was so shocking it needed someone to make up a god to explain it. 
      In addition, if there is no idea of God, why would someone make it up?  And it had to be so convincing that 90+% of people he told believed him - who all held the opposite opinion to begin with.  I might as well make up, right now, that some sort of invisible pen is writing these letters on my screen as I press the corresponding key on the key board.  Who's going to believe that?
      But, Mr. Defensor, we have modern science.  Primitive Man could not have been able to understand such things and therefore needed to make up a god to explain it...  Says who?  Primitive Man had their five senses and a brain.  If someone were to start telling Primitive Man about some source of all being that was an invisible, intelligent source of all existence... they'd tell that person to go take a long half-erect walk off a short stone pier... Unless it reflected a truth engrained in us. 

3) I highly doubt Mr. Hitchens had read all the full arguments for the existence of God, with an open mind evaluating both sides for what is true.  In some of his other writings, as quoted by other Christian apologists, he seems to have many misunderstandings of the arguments and especially of what Christians mean by "God."

 

Ok then how do we know God or 'a god' exists?

     You may have noticed that both Mr. Hitchens and Dr. Craig talk about the arguments FOR God's existence.  In the book, Handbook of Catholic Apologetics Dr. Peter Kreeft lists 20 arguments.  I'm only going to detail out one.

 

The Cosmological Argument

    Premise #1:  Nothing that has a beginning, began itself.

Ok what?  Well let's think about it.  Look out your window and look at a tree.  Did that tree have a beginning?  Yes.  Did that tree decide when it was going to begin?  No.  Another example would be yourself.  Did you have a beginning?  Yes.  Did you, in your non-existent state, decide when you were going to exist?  No.  Everything that has a beginning needs something else to cause it to begin.

 

     Premise #2:  The Universe had a beginning.

Science shows that the Universe indeed began about 13.7 billion years ago.  Interestingly, even though today many atheistic scientists assume that the Big Bang theory disproves the existence of God - and many Christians reject the science (and science in general) believing that to be true - the theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, Fr. George Lematre (also a friend of Albert Einstein's).  Atheistic scientists at first opposed the theory vehemently realizing it sounded way too much like Genesis.

     Back on topic: a simple definition of the Universe is all time, energy, space and matter.

 

Conclusion:  Something outside of time, matter, energy and space began the Universe.

 

Think about how astounding this is, for a minute.  What, outside of time, matter, energy and space, began the Universe?  Aliens?  Nope they'd be inside of time, matter, energy and space.  The only thing that fits the bill is a timeless (eternal), spirit (non-material).  The Spirit would have to be the source of all existence, energy, and be able to create something from nothing.   That's a tall order... unless it's God.

 

There are objections and the counter points to those objections that could be detailed out.  There are also dozens more arguments for the existence of God that could be made too.  But let me challenge you to think about something:  If someone said, "There's a treasure chest in that cave full of amazing gold, jewels and art."  But someone else says, "No there's not."  When you ask why each believes what they believe, the second person says, "I don't have any reasons; I don't need any reasons."  But the first person says, "I have an old treasure map which shows this is the spot.  The locals have many stories of treasure being hid in this cave.  Several locals have gone into the cave and come out with treasure, and they say there's treasure in there."

Are you going to explore that cave or not?

 

The atheist says, "I don't have to give you any reasons to not believe in God."  The theist says, "Here's twenty based on logic, science and philosophy."  No evidence on one side and evidence on the other.  Even if it's weak evidence, shouldn't you side with the evidence?  That's what we do in courts, the scientific method, and all other rational deduction.

 

But this would mean changing your life, and the way you live... that might be the REAL issue.