Does God Exist? - Part 1

Article Sections

• The Definition of Proof
• Black Holes
• Application to God

The Definition of Proof

What does the word proof mean? The common understanding of the word proof means absolute proof. When you ask someone to give you proof, you expect them to provide such a good argument that you are left with no choice but to agree. That is an incorrect understanding of the word proof. Proof comes from the word prove, which means to provide evidence supporting a particular conclusion. When you ask for proof of something, you are really only asking for evidence of something. There is no such thing as absolute proof because by nature proofs are based on logic, and every argument has opposing logical arguments. Everything is measured by ideas. It is true that opposing arguments range in number and strength, but as long as somebody can argue the opposite of your point, you cannot have access to absolute proof. There will always remain that little portion of doubt. As long as you rely on logic, there is always room to see something in a different way.

However, we should understand this doubt for what it really is. The little portion of doubt that remains as a result of opposing arguments should be of no concern. All that matters when you make a decision about anything is that you have enough evidence, as stated in the previous paragraph. You are not frozen in indecision until you have absolute proof, because it is unattainable. The remaining doubt is simply a function of the inability to provide evidence in every single area and under every single set of circumstances. Therefore, although having sufficient evidence to support a conclusion is not identical to absolute proof, it still justifies making a decision based on the available information. It is perfectly justified to be satisfied with belief regardless of the presence of unknowns. Because absolute proof does not exist, the presence of unknowns do not mean that your reasoning is wrong.

Back to Top

Black Holes

This is also why it's a fallacy to criticize somebody for relying on faith in the absence of absolute proof. There is no absolute proof for anything. For example, on many topics scientists hold fundamentally different views with each other, such as black holes. Black holes are relevant because according to the Black Holes website, it "... is now thought that almost every galaxy has a giant black hole at its center... If this is true, then black holes may play a pivotal role in the formation of conditions in the universe that are necessary for life." Further, according to Astronomy Cafe, they indirectly "...tell us that our relativistic theory of gravity and space-time provided by Einstein's general relativity is fundamentally correct. When we use these same equations to study cosmology we have some confidence that they may be correct and give us answers that make sense." Notice that the author of this site said that "we have some confidence [my emphasis] that they may be correct..." Even though they only have "some confidence" that theories based on the existence of black holes are correct, most "... physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that 'there are no black holes' — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks."

Despite their importance to physics and cosmology, there is fundamental disagreement as to their nature. One of the common opinions regarding black holes is that because "no light can get out, people can't see black holes. They are invisible... But scientists can see how the strong gravity affects the stars and gas around the black hole." According to According to National Geographic, in an as of yet unreviewed paper, Stephen Hawkings suggests the relatively radical idea that black holes are not "perfectly 'black.'" "Instead," he says, "they emit radiation just beyond their event horizons..." This means that it is possible to observe black holes without solely relying on observing their surroundings.This implies a change in the understanding of black holes indicating that many accepted theories on the mechanics of the universe will have to be rewritten. According to Space.com, Hawking's proposal, dating back to 1974, "violates a basic piece of quantum theory, the idea that information cannot be destroyed."

Back to Top

Application to God

This type of thinking is also applicable when determining if God exists, although in a slightly different way. The existence of black holes is absolutely fundamental to both theoretical and practical matters, and scientists are willing to accept their existence even though they are invisible. Their decision to do so is justified because there is ample evidence of their existence. The existence of God, Who is invisible, can as well be "detected." The important thing to understand here is that no two detections are created equal. The type of evidence you can have for any given thing depends completely on what you are trying to prove. For example, you can't measure heat with a barometer, and you can't measure air pressure with a thermometer. Trying to measure each of these things with the wrong device would yield no results. This should not lead you to the conclusion that heat does not exist! This is an important principle to keep in mind when requiring proof. Giving up on trying to prove something because you expect the wrong kind proof is your own fault.

Detecting God is similar; you can only do so if you use the right tools and the right type of evidence. Some people mistakenly claim that it should be impossible to not believe in God if He really Exists. There should be overwhelming evidence of His Existence. Yet from a logical perspective it is hard to understand why this should be the case at all. Could God not conceal His Existence if He sought to? After all, we accept the existence of invisible black holes and, according to one of the common opinions, "people can't see black holes. They are invisible... But scientists can see how the strong gravity affects the stars and gas around the black hole," as cited earlier (NASA.gov). People cannot see God, but they can observe the effects of God's Existence on a variety of things described in part 2 of this post.

Back to Top

Comment below.


Next Post
Does God Exist? (Part 2 - What Kind of Evidence is There for God's Existence?)

Related Post
What Kind of Evidence Exists for the Sinai Event?