Finding Truth Matters, home > articles > apologetics > Five Proofs for the Existence of God
Can God’s existence be proven?
by Dr Andrew Corbett, 9th January 2009
Is there an intellectual basis for believing in God? Or is being religious just a matter of faith? Christianity invites scrutiny into its claims and its reasons for having faith and these deserve examination. And what’s at stake is the entire credibility of the Bible!
In December 2004 it was announced that long time British Professor and Philosopher, Anthony Flew, regarded by many as “the world’s most acclaimed atheist” had renounced his atheism in favour of theism. This dramatic conversion has been likened by astrophysicist and cosmologist, Dr Hugh Ross, as having the same impact on the academic world as an announcement that Billy Graham had renounced Christianity would have on the Church!
One of the reasons cited by Prof. Flew was ‘the evidence.’ He admitted that for a long time the growing problem of Darwin’s evolution theory was its inability to explain how life began—or for that matter—how anything began, led him to the inevitable conclusion that it was an inadequate answer in the face of the evidence. Then when the DNA Genome code was unraveled the evidence for Design became ‘undeniable.’ These two pieces of evidence: 1.) the existence of life demanding a Life-Source; and, 2.) the scientific evidence of an extremely complex code in the make-up of that life (DNA) were enough for Prof. Flew to renounce atheism.
CAN GOD’S EXISTENCE BE PROVEN?
Some people feel that acceptance of God is entirely a matter of faith. But the Scriptures actually claim that it is the truth which is the basis for this faith (Rom. 10:17). This kind of truth is only demonstrable truth if it is objective. That is, it is verifiably true for everyone regardless of time or circumstances. Thus, God is either true – because there can be objective proofs to support this, or, He is not true and is only a subjective truth which cannot be objectively proven.
Some ancient philosophers have argued for God’s existence on the basis of ontology (most famously Anselm, 1033-1109). Ontology comes from the Greek word ontos which means “being” which might also be thought of as is. When we ask, “What is this?” we are asking an ontological question. The answer to such a question can either be a concrete answer since what is in question occupies space and time such as an atom; or, the answer could be a conception answer since what is in question can only exist in the mind or imagination such as a number. When philosophers ask, “Is there a God?” They begin by determining whether the question is about a being which occupies some kind of space and some kind of time, or, is this about a being which is only an idea or mental concept. This then leads to the question of possibility: Is it possible that a supreme being could exist? Is it possible that such a supreme being could possess supreme power, and knowledge? If the answer is yes to both of the questions, then philosophers move to next phase of their enquiry: probability. If it is possible that a supreme being possessing supreme power and knowledge could exist, is it probable that he could exist? If it is probable that He could exist is it also probable that He would be the supreme example of moral goodness? Anselm concluded that it was not only possible, it was also probable.
BELIEFS AND TRUTH
It is correct that some people believe things even though they cannot be proven to be true. It is often mis-reported that Tertullian (c. A.D. 160–225) once bragged that the main reason he so readily accepted Christianity was that it was fundamentally absurd. What Tertullian actually said was in relation to the incarnation (God becoming a human) of Jesus Christ in which human logic would find this concept as beyond comprehension. His use of the word occurs in his On the Flesh of Christ (De Carne Christi), in which he states: “The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because it is shameful. The Son of God died; it is credible because it is absurd. He was buried and rose again; it is certain because it is impossible.” In this way he was alluding to First Corinthians 1-2 which talks about the limit of human wisdom compared with divine wisdom. Referring to Anselm’s later ontological reasoning then, we would have to assume that the mind of a supremely intelligent being was indeed greater than any human mind. Therefore, Tertullian’s use of absurd in this context is an accurate description of the limits of a human mind compared with the supreme mind of God manifested in the incarnation, conquering death, and resurrection of Christ.
Yet some people are so committed to their beliefs that despite the evidence which counters what they believe to be true, they still refuse to change their beliefs. This is often the charge levelled against theists by atheists because it is assumed that they are the rational ones who are basing their beliefs on scientific facts. While it is true that some theists are irrational and reluctant to accept certain scientific facts, could it also be possible that some atheists appealing to science are actually being scientistic (from scientism which is an irrational belief that the hard-sciences can explain all natural phenomena) rather than scientific? Is it possible, perhaps even probable, that some atheists are blindly appealing to scientism rather than actual scientific evidence? But why would any atheist with a high regard for science refuse to accept possibility of scientific evidences for the origin of life being best explained by the existence of a supreme designer and originator (such as those presented by Rice University Professor, James Tour)?
We have to applaud those atheists who do consider such evidence, such as Professor Antony Flew for having the courage to consider and then accept what he found to be compelling evidence for the existence of God.
THE TYPE OF PROOF REQUIRED DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF CLAIM BEING MADE
Proof determined according to the type of claim being made. The type of proof needed to substantiate a claim involving chemistry is different to the type of proof needed to substantiate a claim made about history. Proof in physiology is different to the type of proof needed for psychology. Proof in philosophy is different to the proof required for philology. Proof required for biology is different to the type of proof required for theology. To demand that ‘hard’ science (physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy) proof tests be the only acceptable means for testing a ‘soft’ science claim (psychology, history, philosophy, literature) is unreasonable. Thus, imposing natural proof tests on supernatural claims is also an unreasonable measure to use. Yet where supernatural claims are made which have natural implications, such as “an invisible God ultimately originated all that we can see or touch or taste” (as Romans 1:20 claims) ‘proof’ takes on the garb of supporting evidence when looking at the natural evidence to support this supernatural claim. This also an apophatic test. That is, if the claim that an invisible (invisible to us because we did not see it) God created everything ex-nihilo (out of nothing) then an apophatic proof (proof deduced by a negation) that God was not necessary to originate all matter would be simply to negate this claim by proving that matter could be originated by some other means other than God. Failing the apophatic test to disprove the need for a creator/God, then the proof claim becomes a cataphatic test (knowledge obtained by affirming evidence). This is where we now consider the cataphatic evidence for the existence of God.
THE EVIDENCE AS THE PROOFS
In the early 2000’s there was a rash of very articulate and high-profile atheists such as Richard Dawkins (1949-), Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011), Sam Harris (1967-), Daniel Dennett III (1942-2024), who have attacked theism by attacking religious fundamentalism (the poor behaviour of those claiming to believe in God and yet they use religious rules to oppress people). The type of God these religious fundamentalists promote is not the God I am presenting cataphatic arguments for—but to some who have been hurt by such religious fundamentalists, it may sound like it is.
C. S. Lewis artfully pointed out in The Magician’s Nephew (Book 1 in the Chronicles of Narnia septet), that there can be several people simultaneously confronted with the same evidence for God yet interpret that evidence quite differently. Lewis describes Uncle Andrew’s direct encounter with Aslan where he vehemently denied what he was seeing and hearing as making himself “look stupid.” Lewis, a former atheist himself, continues, “Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. Uncle Andrew did.” When it comes to proof for God, the evidence is abductive and cumulative. This evidence, or proofs, for the existence of God, invites sceptics to consider it and acknowledge that there are the least some evidences for the existence of God even though they may not be persuaded by them. The following table presents the five classical evidences (proofs) for the existence of the God as described in the Bible-
| PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD | |
|
1. CAUSE |
Everything has a cause It is illogical to suggest that something had no cause. This is where the theory of evolution becomes inadequate. It can not explain how anything began, let alone life. When we consider the evidence (that there are things which exist) it logically demands that either something or someone caused it. We can then rule out “something” as the solution since we would be returning to the original problem (what made the something?). This demands that there must be someone who has always existed (eternal) and is in themselves therefore uncreated. We don’t have to understand this in order for it to be so. |
|
2. DESIGN |
There is evidence for design The unraveling of the Human Genome Code was announced to the world as the discovery of the language of the Creator by then President, Bill Clinton. What scientists discovered was an extremely sophisticated genetic language necessary for even the simplest life forms to exist. To believe that this level of apparent design happened either randomly or by chance is a mathematical equation of probability with more zeros than I care to type (plus I don’t know what the word is for numbers which are thousands of trillions!). The universe displays an amazingly complex level of interdependency which logically leads to the conclusion that it was designed that way. There are just too many coincidences of such “just rightness” for it too be a random haphazard coincidence. The earth is “just the right” distance from the Sun; it contains “just the right” mixture of chemicals and gases to sustain life; humans have “just the right” ability to breath these gases; the human body has “just the right” synergy of internal organs in order to function, and so on. Its important to note that the Bible does not give a date for the commencement of creation of the universe, or the date for the creation of mankind. The universe may well be 10,000,000,000 years old, and mankind’s origins may well be as recent as 50,000 – 30,000 years ago. These numbers are in no way counter to the Biblical record, and extremely compatible with the evidence. |
|
3. MORALITY |
There is intrinsic morality which needs a point of reference How do we know what “evil” is? How do we know what “good” is? These concepts demand either the existence of a standard to make such evaluations, or an understanding what these concepts mean. Each of us are born with an innate sense of morality. We each fundamentally know what is right and wrong. It is incredible to consider that no matter time, culture, geographic location, or people, the Moral Law has been universally acknowledged. This tends to confirm that all of creation bears the finger-prints of a Creator who is fundamentally good and right. That is, we each share a knowledge of what is right and wrong not just because we are taught or conditioned to accept these values, but because we are born with them. |
|
4. RESURRECTION |
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Skeptics may dispute this historical claim that Jesus Christ rose again from the dead but they do so perilously. This is because there is enough evidence to validate it and it is the point at which all of the history of Christ and Christianity rests. This means that if anything of Christ and Christianity is true then the Physical Resurrection of Christ is also true. The opposite is also true. If Christ did not literally rise from the dead then none of his history or teachings have any credence. But if the resurrection of Christ can be seen as a reasonable historic fact (based on over 500 eye-witnesses, the preparedness of all of those witnesses to defend their testimonies even at the point of losing their lives, the resultant baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues- still available today) then this is perhaps the most overwhelming piece of proof for the existence of God. |
|
5. EXPERIENCE
|
The claims of Christ can be experienced Jesus Christ made some seemingly outrageous claims about the benefits of following Him. He offered “rest” for the weary, “nourishment” for the hungry, “water” for the thirsty, “resurrection” for the dead, “direction” for aimless, “liberty” for the oppressed, “protection” for the vulnerable, “healing” for the hurting, and “salvation” for the lost. I was 15 years of age when I accepted Christ. Never have I ever regretted it. It has been a journey for me that has seen me grow and change. I have felt the Lord guiding me. I can honestly say that I have heard Him speak to me (even though it hasn’t been audibly). He has answered my prayers so often that I now almost take it for granted that my prayers will be answered. He has given my life direction and purpose that I otherwise would never have had. Today He extends to you the invitation to experience for yourself the claims which He has made. |
The above table demonstrates that the evidence for the existence of God exists. Even if a sceptic does not find these evidences convincing, they may consider identifying themselves as an agnostic rather than the adamant declaration of being an atheist. Like Professor Flew they may also consider accepting the identity ‘theist’ (God believer) without adopting any particular religious framework. And if so, the next question to explore might be: “Is religion necessary or even helpful in discovering God?”
BUT HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE GOD OF CHRISTIANS IS THE CREATOR THAT THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO?
The scientific method has become synonymous with methodological naturalism. This is the idea that the only way knowledge can be apprehended is if it can be observed. But this is a fairly recent hijacking of what the scientific method means. If we could allow the scientific method to lead to certain to certain deductions, whether they be physical or metaphysical, we may be removing the restrictions which might hold us back from the truth – especially if we employ the scientific method in examining any theories involving metaphysical claims.
Since there is sufficient evidence to show that the universe began and therefore must have had a beginning, we must also include the dimensions of time and space as part of that beginning. Therefore the “Beginning Cause” must have been outside of time and space. This is one of the central claims of the Bible about God: He is eternal and dwells ‘above the heavens’ (Heb. 7:26) – that is, God is outside of time and space. At this point, we could apply these deductions using the scientific method to dismiss the claims of certain religions which present their “God” as being a part of time and space (pantheism). This includes Buddhism and Hinduism.
Within time and space there is moral-evil, corruption, and decay. Since the Creator is outside of this He must be holy, immutable, and impeccable. This then excludes the concepts of “God” put forward by Islam and Mormonism. But it fits perfectly with the concept of God as portrayed in the Christian Bible.
Perhaps the simplest test for discovering the identity of the Creator-God is to employ the scientific method to Psalm 34:8 and Matthew 7:7.
Dr. Andrew Corbett
9th January 2009, updated 21st July 2025
www.findingtruthmatters.org
Sources
“Anselm: Ontological Argument for God’s Existence”, Kenneth Einar Himma, Seattle Pacific University. Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Accessed 21st July 2025. https://iep.utm.edu/anselm-ontological-argument/
“The Attitude of Tertullian Towards Greek Philosophy”, The Tertullian Project, Epworth Press, 14th July 2001. R. E. Roberts. Accessed 21st July 2025. https://www.tertullian.org/articles/roberts_theology/roberts_04.htm
Prof. James Tour. “Origin of Life, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creation and Faith”, Updated August 2019. https://jmtour.com/evolution-creation/
0 Comments