Why should God prove himself? Is it really true that God is under some kind of obligation to make himself known? In what ways might a person be satisfied? Jesus pointed out that we have accurate accounts of Moses and the prophets, but many in Israel only gave verbal assent to God whilst really continuing in unbelief. The Bible offers us the book of John as an account “written so that you may believe.”
A friend of mine sent me an entry from H_loves_C blog where he posted a gravestone which read,
He goes on to say how it is up to religious people to provide proof for their belief. He knows that we have many proofs that we use, the biblical accounts, design, etc. but dismisses them all. H_loves_C rails that Christians are mindless and afraid. We don’t engage with Nietzsche, he accuses, all the arguments with God are long since exploded and so Christians have no reason to believe. I have read Nihilistic authors, Naturalistic authors, Pluralistic authors …
I have argued a lot with people who discard the Bible as a flawed book, full of contradictions and errors. There are some manuscript difficulties, we do not actually have the original autographs, it’s possible some people have added a word or two here or there over the years. It contains accounts of some pretty strange things, but that is why it was written. In its entirety it is an amazing historical document. It reveals the works of a creator in sustaining and shaping the life of a living planet. The understanding of the human authors is evidence of an inspiration beyond themselves. I know that there are arguments against this. They are largely inductive, stating something along the lines that ‘miracles don’t happen, so these stories are myth or plain fabrication.” Rejecting the books of the Bible makes sense, but it just means that you don’t believe the evidence that God has chosen to reveal. Why are people so proud that they insist God do miracles just for them? The very idea of a miracle is that it is an uncommon sign from God. If miracles happened with regularity and we all witnessed them, they would not be miracles. They would cease to be indicators discernable as a special work of God. They would just be indicators of His daily provision.
Nature does talk of a God. The irreducable complexity of the eye is a hard one. The order of the universe at large requires a cause that is not chaotic. If we have a bang at the beginning, it must have been a very orderly bang. As Moreland says, a Big Bang needs a Big Banger.
Then H_loves_C goes on to say how dull the argument for the uncaused cause is. I am sure that I would pause a little before accusing minds such as Aristotle of being dull. You can have infinite regression in a material universe. You can have no first cause – why then does the universe expand? We believe in a God who flung stars into space … we see a purpose in the motion. Objections through the centuries have been many – ‘why not a council of Gods?’ There is a unity in design that comes from a mind that has diversity and unity. Yes, Christians do not think this deeply, and they should. I know that we could go deeper again.
However, H_loves_C will not be swayed by a judicial presentation by God of reasons to believe. God does not force the issue. He is under no obligation. It is a damned human being who shakes his fist at God and says,”You must show yourself to me. You must reveal yourself in a way that science can accept.” Of course, God has shown himself in and through the arena of science. It is just that the godless say, “Ah! There, it’s just science.” We say, “Ah! There, it’s all theology.”