Is It Possible to Prove the Existence of God?

The Nature of Proof

It is universally recognized that proof demands an objective system of criteria by which the thing to be proved is evaluated, and which is external to that object of proof. A thing cannot prove itself, because, before it can be a standard of proof, it must first be solidly established, or proved itself; and if it already be thus established, the need for proof is thereby precluded. In other words, a thing can only be proved by something that is true prior to itself, whether a system of laws, a body of evidence, or any other thing: the system of criteria for evaluation must be established before its object, and must therefore be more fundamental than its object. So before we can answer the question, “Is it possible to prove the existence of God?” we must first determine whether we have any objective criterion that is more fundamentally true than God; furthermore, we have to determine how this criterion was established as true; and so on, ad infinitum: or at least until we have discovered a standard for truth that is self-generating and perpetuating.

The Nature of Knowledge

But there remains a more fundamental issue to be considered before we can determine the method by which we can affirm or deny the trueness of a thing: that is, how do we arrive at the stuff of knowledge per se? For we must have some proposition before we can decide if it is true; knowledge, or at least a supposition of knowledge must come before proof: there has to be something to prove or disprove. So then, the self-generating standard for which we are searching must be adaptable enough to facilitate, first the apprehension, and second the validation of knowledge. The approach that many apologists have taken is that either the logical or empirical system, or both simultaneously, is that fundamental and self-generating reality which enables both the acquisition and the validation of knowledge. There is no more fundamental criterion by which it is determined to be true; therefore it is an unvalidated, self-generating truth, and as such, is accepted, or presupposed, by these apologists, without authentication. If we follow this classical presupposition, God is only true insofar as he accords with these fundamental systems of reason and evidence; these systems both validate and necessitate his existence; and therefore, God is not the Creator either of pure reason or the correspondence of receptivity in a subject to the object of its sensuous awareness (no matter what else he may be considered the Creator of); instead he is himself, in a sense, created by fundamental truth and necessity (the rational and empirical systems), from which all things ultimately derive: God is just the first of these effects of fundamental reality.

The Necessity of a Presuppositional Epistemology

The classical presupposition logically forces us to a heretical position, and a position which is ultimately unstable: heretical because God himself is only true if logic or evidence confirms his trueness; unstable because logic and evidence have no outside measurement of objectivity; and without a more fundamental, validating standard, they can only be substantiated in some outside intellect, and are, in effect, mere predicates of personal consciousness. Before truth can be derived from this presupposition, therefore, another presupposition must be made: namely, that other individuals perceive the same laws of logic and body of evidence; as there is no objective measurement for this presupposition, either, truth becomes individualistic and relative, and, in effect, the discussion of knowledge outside of the individual — any outside conversation at all — becomes impossible. There must be a starting point for the acquisition of knowledge, that is, a presupposition; but the pagan epistemologies of rationalism and empiricism, which classical apologists have long made use of, are unstable presuppositional approaches; the only self-supporting presupposition, and the only presupposition whereby knowledge is made possible, is that God is, and God has spoken to man.

The Certainty of Knowledge Derived from a Legitimate Presupposition

For the Christian, then, to extend knowledge, he must first receive the initial truth that God is the source of all knowledge, and that God is the source of every method whereby knowledge may be attained; that is, God is the ultimate source, not only of truth, but also of logic and perception, or the systems by which all truths are recognized and interrelated. When we approach the acquisition of knowledge from this foundation, knowledge can be arrived at certainly: we know that pure reason is reliable, because it derives from the orderly and immutable character of God; we know that empirical evidence is authentic because it has its origin in the creative energy of God. Our only possibility for error lies in our distortion of true logic and sensuous perception. But this confidence can only come by the presupposition that God is, and that he has spoken to us through his Word, which we have as the infallible, written scriptures. In summary, God is not authentic because reason supports his existence, but reason is authentic because it comes from God. God cannot be proved true, because he fundamentally is true.

If we believe that God is, and that the Bible is his word to man, then we have a solid foundation for the extension of knowledge, and a firm basis for the authority of knowledge: the Bible is as authoritative as God himself; to attempt to support the Bible through reason and evidence actually weakens its authority, for it places its reliability in our weak ability to perceive and cognize. Reason and evidence, therefore, should not be used to validate the claims of Scripture concerning God. Furthermore, if one be won over to belief in God through evidence, his “faith” is only as strong as his understanding of that evidence: he is subject to vacillation when encountered with an argument which he cannot defend; and, in strictest truth, his fundamental problem might be that he has no true faith, which is necessary to come to God, but only sight, which is focused on things which are temporal, and not on the spiritual things of God.

Faith therefore is prerequisite for knowledge: faith in reason or evidence is self-defeating and unstable, but faith in God, as he shows himself in Scripture is a solid foundation for the extension of knowledge. That faith cannot be arrived at through reason or evidence, but is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8,9). It comes through the hearing of the word of God (Romans 10:17). Therefore, all of our attempts to win others to Christ should be based on the Word of God as fundamentally true, and not the Word of God as proven true.

The Consistency and Reliability of the Biblical Epistemology

The Biblical epistemology, as any other epistemology, is presuppositional; however, it is not circular. If we presuppose the inerrancy of the word of God, then we can build solidly upon that foundation: we have no need to be circular, for we merely synthesize and extend knowledge out from the starting presupposition. Our apologetic only becomes circular if we take that knowledge which we have synthesized, and use it to attempt to support the proposition from which we derived the synthesis. For example, “The Bible is the word of God, therefore it is scientifically true” is not a circular proposition if it remains incontrovertible: but if we invert the statement and propose that “The Bible is scientifically true, therefore it is the word of God,” we have used derived evidence to establish our presupposition, and become circular: this is the fundamental error of all empirically-based or rationally-based apologetics. An epistemology based on a biblical presupposition is consistent and reliable; but all other epistemologies are either rendered meaningless by their lack of ability to support themselves, or are inconsistent with themselves, and able through these inconsistencies to apprehend real being (that is, to know — for knowledge is only the intellectual apprehension of real being). Even to exercise a rational or empirical epistemology is to deny its legitimacy: if one propose to extend knowledge by reason, he must accept the priority of knowledge to reason, because he is presupposing the knowledge that reason is reliable; and he must accept the priority of reason to knowledge, because he is presupposing the legitimacy of reason to establish that knowledge. He must necessarily arrive at an impossible situation in which the one is proving the other which has already proved the one. Therefore, the tacit supposition must be that one or the other has its established existence in some outside reality that originates and authenticates — which is, of course, the biblical presupposition. Therefore, as other epistemologies borrow from the true epistemology which derives from God, they are able to extend knowledge; but proportionately they become inconsistent with themselves. If all pagan epistemologies have to borrow from the one true epistemology to sustain themselves, why then do Christian apologists feel that they have to borrow from these bankrupt pagan epistemologies instead of relying on the truth that knowledge is only possible if God has spoken to man?

Biblical Substantiation Adduced

Thus far I have given a summary of the intellectual necessity of a presuppositional biblical apologetic; I will endeavor now to demonstrate that this proposition does not contradict scriptural teaching, but is fully evinced in the Biblical approach. First, at no time in scripture is evidence adduced to substantiate the existence of God: that God exists is presupposed from the first, and it is always on the basis of this presupposition that revelation is given. This is true from the very first verse, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The existence of God is a necessary presupposed truth that is foundational to his creative act. Even the name by which God chooses to be known in the Old Testament, Yahweh, the self-existing one, supports the presuppositional epistemology that the self-existence of God is the foundation for all knowledge. Also, we have the same approach time and time again throughout the Old Testament, when “Thus saith the Lord” forms the basis for the validity of a message, and presupposes in so doing that there is a Lord who speaks. We have the same situation repeatedly in the New Testament: the writer of Hebrews, in establishing the deity and superiority of Christ begins with the presuppositional statement, “God, who…spake in times past…hath in these last days spoken” (Hebrews 1:1). Even Luke, perhaps the most rationally-minded author of scripture, in the beginning of his gospel proposes “to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us”, for the purpose of knowing certainly that system of beliefs (Luke 1:1-4): He therefore accepts the validity of those things which are believed as foundational to their systematization, which is, of course, a presuppositional apologetic. Paul, in the epistle to the Romans, his great systematization of theology, begins with the promises of the written word of God (Romans 1:2). And in his famous Mars’ hill dialogue, he begins with the presuppositional subject, “God that made the world and all things therein” (Acts 17:24). The whole approach of scripture is very consistently presuppositional: the Bible consistently posits certain truth on the basis of the speaking of God, without first attempting to prove the existence of God. That God has spoken is sufficient grounds for certainty: God is, God has spoken, and therefore we can know; to attempt to prove God is self-defeating, for it is only as we first believe God that we are able to approach God. “Without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Hebrews 11:6. emphasis mine). In conclusion, a presuppositional epistemology is requisite for the certain extension of knowledge, it is the epistemology that is consistently presented in scripture, and it is given in scripture as a necessary basis to come to God and to please him.

Leave a Reply