Why Do Proof God Exist

Recognizing God’s existence has never been an easy task. From century to century, people continue to search for ways to find proof God does exist. In consulting with Foreman’s (2016) presentation, “Approaching the Question of God’s Existence” the use of proof to illustrate that God does exist is not a virtuous practice and the word “proof” should be avoided when wanting to claim God is real. He makes an effective point that there are some things in the world that have no complete explanation for their existence. Perhaps a better word to choose when declaring God’s being is witnessing. This term is very appropriate and commonly used by Christians when they want to express to others what they have “witnessed”. In other words, what they have seen …show more content…
63). This argument is an example of things that have no complete proof or reason to be. Thus, best if accepted because of the things that are seen, historical experiences, or on obvious things that have reason to exist, but not because of what is believed by assumptions. Foreman (2016) positions that there are many things that are not able to be proven completely, but “in the absence of defeaters” there are historical details and explanations to show God is our creator and real (Video file). Following Evans and Manis’ (2009) cosmological discussion of the “non-temporal form of argument,” they suggest that there are many arguments regarding the beginning of creation or as they mention “the universe” that provide a good explanation of God’s existence (pp. 69-77). A solid example of …show more content…
If God exists, then the spiritual realm exists, it is mentally logical, and poses no intellectual contradictions. For those who witness what has been seen, God is all-powerful and can and does have a place in the universe—which He created. Another explanation made by Evans and Manis (2009) is that God does exist based on the “contingency of the universe” (p. 69). In other words, the existence of the substances or their effects around the universe are based on the odds or likelihood of truly remaining--an absolute. In contrast, McCloskey (n.d.) claims that the cosmological argument is centered on the “first cause” and the effect of the cause of existence of an all-powerful being (p.63). Additionally, he states that “If we use the causal argument at all, all we are entitled to infer is the existence of a cause commensurate with the effect to be explained, the universe, and does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause” (McCloskey, n.d., p. 63). Moreover, it is important to understand what it means to prove or not to prove God is real. By scientific methods or reasoning, we can never have proof of God, but it does not mean that this argument is completely misplaced. Besides, scientifically attempting to verify God’s existence has limitations in measuring aspects of reality. Scientifically speaking, there is not a way to measure love, hate, or in this case impartiality. And there are good reasons to