Why Should Anyone Believe God Exists?

Arguments and evidence for and against the existence of God.

(This is chapter two of my systematic theology in progress. As the title suggests, I explore reasons for and against believing God exists. I’m especially interested in what kind of God exists. Paid subscribers have access to the entire chapter, so consider upgrading to “paid” status.)

The question of God’s existence is central to theology.^[1] If God is an illusion, believers have been fooled, and theology is merely psychology, anthropology, or sociology.^[2] People in the past may have simply assumed God exists, but most today demand evidence, experiences, and/or arguments. We want reasons to believe.^[3]

The question of God’s existence is intimately tied to beliefs about God’s attributes and actions. When asking whether God exists, we implicitly wonder what kind of God exists. Most thoughtful believers reject the deity rejected by atheists. “Describe the God you don’t believe in,” they say, “and I probably don’t believe in Him either.” Although I explore divine attributes in later chapters, they are relevant when we consider reasons to believe or doubt.

Believers use a number of strategies to justify faith in God. They often employ those strategies when trying to persuade nonbelievers, too. Some are weak. But others are strong, in the sense of being more plausible.

Arguments from Revelation

Biblical Witness

One way to justify belief in God starts with the assumption God has self-revealed in a sacred book. For most Christians, that’s the Bible. For Muslims, it’s the Qur’an. But it could be another text or set of writings. Some people think multiple religious texts reveal God’s existence, because God is present to and communicating with everyone.

This strategy for arguing God’s existence demands reasons to think scripture is truthful. Some systematic theologians, therefore, begin with lengthy arguments for the Bible’s trustworthiness. They might claim scripture is inerrant, clear, and sufficient for demonstrating the reality of deity. The Bible functions in this way, goes the thinking, because God is, in some way, its author or source. This argument seems circular: we know God exists because God tells us in a text God guarantees to be true.

Take the influential work of Wayne Grudem as an example. To begin part one of his systematic theology, Grudem has five chapters under the heading “The Doctrine of the Word of God.” In them, he argues for biblical inerrancy and says, “all the words of scripture are God’s words.” Because God cannot speak falsely, scripture proves there is a God.^[4]

Other theologians say we should trust what scripture says about God because those who follow its teachings bear good fruit. The Bible inspires positive transformation. While this argument has some weight, readers of scripture also use the Bible to justify immense harm. Some advocate slavery, genocide, sexual abuse, and intolerance, for instance. The so-called “fruit of scripture” prompts some readers to deny full status and dignity to women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+. In addition, some who never or seldom read scripture — and some who doubt God exists — act in loving ways.

This systematic theology of love does not claim scripture proves God’s existence or even that it’s God’s Word. The Bible has errors; it’s not clear; it is not sufficient for proving God.^[5] In fact, biblical writers sometimes describe deity in contradictory ways, and various authors promote opposing ideas. This should not surprise us, because diverse and inconsistent humans wrote the Bible. God didn’t.

Despite its flaws, I will draw from the Bible and the wisdom I find in it. Scripture doesn’t have to be infallible, perfectly consistent, or “the Word” to be a valuable resource for systematic theology. But to answer well whether God exists, we cannot rely solely on a book.

Tradition

Another strategy to establish God’s existence draws from religious tradition. This argument says the witness of saints and sages — this includes the church but extends beyond it — demonstrates the existence of God. Billions of believers can’t be wrong.

This strategy can expand to include widespread religious experiences across religions and outside them. Belief in God is innate, say some, and we know God exists if we listen to our hearts.^[6] Fools and sinners think otherwise.^[7]

To rely upon religious traditions or widespread spiritual experiences to justify belief requires demonstrating why we should trust these traditions and experiences. The diversity of traditions, spiritual encounters, and claims about God, however, raises questions about the veracity of any. The variety is staggering!

Those in one tradition claim God wants violence, for instance, but others say God is nonviolent. Some think God always controls creatures; others say God sometimes controls; still others say God never controls. One tradition says God dwells with the ancestors but not with us, another says God is omnipresent. One tradition says God has a localized body, but others say God is bodiless. Some believers claim God puts politicians into power, others disagree. Huge numbers of people describe God as love and light, while others say deity is indescribable.

Who’s right?

We must also take seriously those who don’t have profound experiences of God. Many people say they don’t sense God or have dramatic encounters with the Holy. Instead of dismissing the earnest but disappointed seeker as a fool or unfaithful, we should ask why they lack religious experiences.

This systematic theology of love draws from various voices and traditions. Although it arises primarily from Christianity, it does not rely exclusively upon the Christian tradition or its members. In fact, I will criticize some Christians theologians strongly, even prominent ones. And I do not rely upon any tradition as proof of God’s existence. Billions of believers might be wrong.

Personal Experience

Instead of relying upon outside sources, some believers trust their own experiences to justify belief in God. Many say they’ve had a mystical experience that divine activity can only explain. This approach to establishing God’s existence draws from private knowledge.

It’s hard to argue against personal experience. But this approach to proving God has distinct disadvantages. First, personal experience is not easily, if at all, transferable to others. Unique events that assure one person of God are rarely, if ever, duplicated. Many who enjoy dramatic experiences of the divine say they cannot articulate the truth of the encounters. The utterly ineffable fails to support apologetics and missions.

Taking private experience as proof of God faces another disadvantage. The passage of time can undermine a person’s confidence in a past encounter. The believer may be certain in one moment, but uncertain later. Doubts arise. Additional experiences (or lack thereof) affect how the person interprets what happened previously. This erosion of confidence is especially noticeable among those exploring new ideas, fresh evidence, and receiving advanced education.

While personal experience matters, it does not function well as proof of God’s existence.

General Revelation

I turn now to what some theologians call “general revelation” or “natural theology.” Theologians use these terms to differentiate knowledge of God based on a sacred text, tradition, or dramatic experience from knowledge derived from science and the natural world.

The Apostle Paul appeals to general revelation to argue for God’s existence. “What can be known about God is plain,” he says in a letter to Romans, “because God has shown it. Since the creation of the world, God’s eternal power and divine nature, although invisible, have been understood and seen through the things God has made” (Rom 1:19-20).

The animals, other creatures, and plants point to a Creator, says natural theology. So do the smallest molecules and the grandest galaxies. “The heavens declare the glory of God,” writes the Psalmist, “and the firmament proclaims God’s handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge” (Ps. 19:1-2). In short, nonhuman creatures and wider creation give reasons to believe.

Sharp distinctions between special and general revelation or between revealed and natural theologies confuse. Those distinctions fade when we realize that humans — their books, traditions, and experiences — are part of nature rather than separate from it. Humans are animals too. Calling some books “special” undermines the significance of revelation in creation. And distinguishing between “revealed” and “natural” theologies implies that nature doesn’t reveal God.

As important as arguments based on creation are for God’s existence, general revelation does not prove God. Natural theology doesn’t prove it either. Although all theology is natural and all revelation general, neither proves there is a God.

Scientific research and theories are important for theology, however, and science has been at the heart of my own writings.^[8] But science neither proves nor disproves God. Insofar as science relies upon the five senses and insofar as deity cannot be perceived by those senses, scientists cannot detect God. Insofar as science aims to be value neutral, it cannot adjudicate claims about a loving God.^[9] What is the case scientifically doesn’t determine how we ought to live. While it’s possible to infer God’s existence from nature, that’s not proof.

Traditional Proofs of God’s Existence

Believers have traditionally looked to various arguments to prove God’s existence. Each argument has sophisticated forms and receives sophisticated criticisms. I’ll not wade through the details, but I encourage curious readers to explore literature on the subject.^[10] Below, I outline the primary arguments, however, and offer criticisms.^[11]