#STRask - What Is Your Best Answer When Asked to Prove God Exists?

Episode Date: April 30, 2026

Questions about our best answer when an atheist asks us to prove God exists, how God can be merciful and forgiving without the existence of fallen humanity, and why, if God is complete in himself and already receives glory from the angels, he would create us to witness his glory.   What is your best answer when an atheist asks you to “prove God exists”? Since God is a Trinity, he can be love without needing creation, but how can he be, by nature, merciful and forgiving without fallen humanity, and wouldn’t that make us necessary? If God is complete in himself, he didn’t need to create us, and if his angels are there, he already receives glory, so why is it to the benefit of an uncreated creation that they should be created and witness the glory of God?

Welcome to hashtag S-Earask. Greg. Amy. Here's the first question. It comes from Richard. What is your best answer when an atheist asks you to, quote, prove God exists? I ask them what kind of proof would be adequate for them. The problem with this challenge is that the word prove has not been qualified.

and you will never win with an atheist who raises this issue. When I say win, I don't mean in a combative sense. You will never be able to provide an answer that satisfies them. And the reason is is because in their mind, I've just seen this over and over again, in their mind, the standard of proof that they apply to anything that has to do with God or Jesus, the Bible, or anything, is much higher than the standard of proof that they have for any other piece of knowledge they have. Look at evolution, which they are die-hard proponents of,

cannot satisfy anything like the kind of proof that they demand for God's existence. In fact, on the merits, the evidence is so... What I'm trying to think of the best word without being, you know... It's just... It's so... the paucity of evidence. It's so shallow for Darwinian evolution.

The evidence against it are so, the arguments against it are so strong. How could anybody hold this view? I won't get into the details now, but every single precise piece of mysterious stuff in the human body, every single one has to be accounted for through a Darwinian mess. method on Darwinian fundamentalism. It's just ludicrous. In any event, well, they believe that. Well, why? Because that view supports their atheism. But if I were to give them evidence that worked against their atheism, they changed the standard. And now it's, you can go all day long giving all kinds of arguments, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral

argument, the argument from desire, I mean, on and on and on and on, all the argument, Jesus and resurrection, all that, and no matter how well you lay this out, the skeptic, which these people are characteristically are not skeptics, they're atheists. They're not uncertain and skeptical and just need to be persuaded. They are died in the wall in their view. And they're just going to say to you, oh, that's interesting, but it's not proof. It's not proof. It's not proof.

It's not proof. So the way to avoid that is just get rid of that word. And I actually had a conversation with someone like this in a Q&A, and they raised the issue, proved to me that God exists. And I said, I don't know what you accept as proof, what kind of evidence would qualify as proof. Plus, you said, prove to me. So I've got to also overcome your psychological resistance.

So can you reword your request to maybe remove some of those inherent obstacles to me offering a good answer? And he said, okay, can you give me any evidence that God exists? Oh, sure. I can do that. And then I essentially played out the cosmological argument. And I actually have this conversation is in the Street Smart's book. If people want to refer to that in one of the chapters on atheism, but that's how I would deal with it.

We can provide evidence and they have to do, but we're not going to claim it's proof, simply because the word proof is subject to so many different definitions. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt proof? Is it preponderance of evidence? That's 51%, not 70 or 80%, is it apodictic truth? like the square root of force two. There's no possible way that could be mistaken.

So all these different characterizations of proof, you know, are potentially in play. Which proof do you have in mind? And what they have in mind is the proof that can't – a standard of proof that can never be satisfied by anything the theist would offer. What I'm looking for is an inference to the best explanation. This is a way of reasoning where you look at – a set of evidences regarding an issue, and you ask what best explains these evidences. And I'm not trying to prove God.

I'm asking for the odds on favorite. Now, I think some kind of proofs sometimes can be offered, and an argument can be formed in a syllogistic way, so you could say, if there is no God, there's no objective morality, but there is objective morality, therefore there is a God. Now, that's a modus talons form of argument, and as long as the premises are true, the conclusion follows, and you just have to show the premises are true. And I think that can be done, although some people don't accept that particular argument, but I'm just saying the wordproof is the problem. Let's just get rid of that word and say, where's the smart money go? You know, if you're trying to be reasonable, you're trying to be thoughtful, and you follow the evidence where it leads, if that's what you're interested in is finding the truth of the matter, then we don't ask for proof because we don't ask for proof for almost anything that's important in life.

We ask for the best explanation for the way things are. And that's explanatory power kind of stuff. We do that in science, and we do that in just about every other area. life. So that's the way I would respond. It's important to help them understand that different kinds of things require different kinds of evidence. So let's say you're trying to figure out which kind of drug cures this disease. Well, obviously then you're going to do empirical science to figure out what's true. But what if you say, what happened to Abraham Lincoln? Well, now you can't do empirical science.

Right. There's no way to test. Or let's say you've been. said, what did Lincoln say on this day? There's no way to do an empirical test to find that out. That's a historical question, and that requires different types of evidence. So there are various kinds of evidence you can use for God. There's philosophical evidence. There's historical evidence, since we're talking about God acting in history. So there's archaeology. There's evidence for the resurrection. There's eyewitness testimony like you would have with many historical events. So there's a lot of different philosophical ways to argue.

Greg, what are some of the specific arguments? I mean, you mentioned a couple there, but there's the argument from morality. Yeah, but that was a syllogism I offered. Go ahead. There's a cosmological argument. Which is the origin of the universe. Why is something here rather than nothing? Right.

The contingency argument, which is very similar to that one. Right. But doesn't even require there be a beginning to the universe. Right, in that case, right. That's another type of cosmological argument. You have a design argument, and you look at the world. I mean, even Richard Dawkins says the biological realm, this is the way he starts his book, The Blind Watchmaker, something to the effect of the biological realm was a complex world in which gives the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Now, he thinks he can explain away the appearance of design with Darwinian evolution. But the point here is that even Richard Dawkins, the atheist, acknowledges, that things, look design. Now, that's got to play in his evidence, it seems to me, unless you are very, very successful in being able to explain away the appearance of design in everything, not just in biology. And he is not successful at all with his Darwinian model. But there's all kinds of other evidence is for design. So these are all, what is the inference from this material that explains the material best? That's the way science works, inference to the best explanation, and these kinds of arguments serve that purpose. Now, people have come up with counter arguments,

the teleological or design argument. Well, the multiverse explains that. Well, it only explains it if there's good reason to believe in the multiverse. And I was just, listening to Stephen Meyer last night as I was driving home from our broadcast then. And he was saying even these alternative ways to explain away the design inference from the universe also themselves contain design features that point to a designer. So they don't help. It's out of the frying pan and into the fire. Now, there's a lot of these. And I think that it's, I'm glad you brought them up because what it does is it invites people to actually look at the evidence. that are available. Now, if they don't think they're adequate, fine. But don't reject them because they don't satisfy some outlandish standard of proof that you've applied to this issue that you would never apply to anything else. Right. So it's the standard and the type. So the standard, ultimate, like perfect proof or there's no possibility that you're wrong. And the type of proof where you demand a certain kind of proof that doesn't apply to what you're trying to have evidence for.

Another one I thought of is the evidence of scripture. Just the idea that we have this unified book that was written over thousands of years and by many different authors and yet creates this unified picture of God. And it has it has predictive prophecy and it has all sorts of things that also acts as evidence. So there's all kinds of evidence that you could bring up for God. But you just have to understand that you to have a reasonable standard of the level of proof and also have a reasonable application of the type of proof that you're using. Yeah, excellent. Yeah. Good summary. Okay. Here is a question from Gary. God is love is perfectly answered by the Trinity without the necessity of creation.

But how can God be, by nature, merciful, forgiving, and long-suffering? It seems to me those would be finite qualities dependent upon God, creating a fallen humanity, and thus making us necessary. Just curious. Right. I've asked the same question of myself, and I think a way to think about this is that the necessary quality of God, in this case is goodness, moral perfection. and moral perfection is expressed in different ways at different times under different circumstances. So God's long suffering will be an expression of his moral perfection, but it is only manifest in a circumstance where he has to put up with someone for a long time like us. His mercy as an aspect of his goodness is only manifest when mercy is required and someone is guilty or do justice instead.

And those require the created realm and fallen people and all of that. I think of maybe there's an analog here or a parallel with human capacities. So when a child is born, he's got a full set of human capacities. But the capacities themselves are not realized until there is a physical development to a stage when those capacities can be manifest. So we all have a capacity to understand language, but kids don't understand language. They have a capacity to know the language. They learn language as time goes on. I'm only using this analogically in the sense that sometimes there are things in place that don't have opportunity for expression.

So now the issue. of God being love as a core issue and his moral perfections core issue, I think those, it helps to have the Trinity to make sense of those in eternity past before the fall. But there are other manifestations or iterations of God's goodness. I mean, arguably, I'm reflecting on this, thinking out loud as it were, there are other iterations of God's goodness that don't get manifest except for in certain circumstances. And in one of those circumstances is a fallen world. Yeah, I think I agree with you on this, Greg, that, I mean, I think I need to think about

this some more, but I do agree that the goodness is the base of all of these things. So the important thing to remember is that the creation, of the world doesn't create those qualities, it just gives an example for or an opportunity for him to express it in those particular ways. So, as within the persons of the Trinity, they obviously know the depths of their own goodness. But if they want to, I mean, I guess this goes, well, we have another question if we have time to get to it, about God expressing himself and expressing his glory for other people to enjoy. But it doesn't increase those things.

It just gives them a chance to express. I don't know how many times I guess I've made that say too many times. But the illustration I always use is the people on Flight 93. Just give some context, sir. So the Flight 90. I know what you're talking about. Flight 93 was one of the flights that was a 9-11 that was a high- hijacked, and the people on the plane brought the plane down rather than have it fly into some

major landmark. Like the Capitol building is where it's probably headed, but it crashed in a field of Pennsylvania. Yeah. So what you have there, you have people who had a certain depth of courage and self-sacrifice that was invisible to everyone else. That was already within them. This didn't create that in them.

It actually just gave an opportunity for their expression. So when this happened and we saw what they did, now we know more about their character than we would have known in any other opportunity. But it didn't create those things in them. It just revealed them. And I think that's what's happening. Of course, then the question is, well, why does he need to reveal them? And that's a different question. But I think you're right that these are all aspects of his goodness.

And it's one thing to say someone is good and all you ever see is them being. good to someone who's good. It's another thing to see them being good to someone who hates them. But again, this is all revealing to us. This is not the persons of the Trinity know the depths of their own goodness. I don't want to, I don't want that to come across like they didn't know. So anyway, let's go on to the next question because I think it'll play into this. This one comes from Andrew. Why did God make us? The Bible tells us it's for his glory, a little vague. If God is complete in himself, he doesn't need to create us. If his angels are there, he already receives glory.

So why is it to the benefit of an uncreated creation that they should be created and witness the glory of God? Well, it's interesting that he used the word benefit and not need because we wouldn't acknowledge that God needs anything. He didn't need anything. But that doesn't mean that there isn't something else that could, in a sense, bring him pleasure. and I don't even know the best way to completely understand that this is, again, probably one of those things that's analogical. There's something going on there. And we do see references in the scripture to God being pleased with different things, all right?

And so there's a whole new range of things that he could be pleased with and show his glory and manifest his own virtues regarding in light of a creation and especially in light of a fall. that would not be available for manifestation or expression apart from a creation and a fall. So there's a certain sense that we could say in answer to the why question here, why would God do that? Well, we could always answer everyone for his glory. But that's kind of a formal category. And we're looking for more material details, right? And those are sometimes harder to come by because so much of this kind of stuff, once again, another why question.

is reflective and we're taking a shot at it. We're doing the best we can, but we don't always know entirely. And maybe we get a little closer to it. We get a little help from Scripture, a reference to something that gives us a little insight. But these are the kinds of things that's going to be very difficult to kind of plumb the depths of. Why does God do it? Well, because of his, for his glory, for himself. And now, I want folks to think about another aspect here, and that is a category of loving and a category of morality.

Both, this would apply to both categories. And let's just say that there are certain things that follow naturally from goodness and that, and naturally from loving, okay? And God is going to do all of those things because he is naturally that way. He is perfect goodness. He is love by nature. But then they're also kind of going the extra mile, so to speak, above and beyond what is required. Now, in philosophy, they call that a supererogatory act. That's, it's morally praiseworthy, but it's not morally required.

Okay. Now, in my view, God's act of love that he rescued those he rescues is not required. It doesn't diminish his love at all if he doesn't choose to rescue anybody. If he chooses not to rescue anybody, he didn't rescue any angels that fell, but we don't see that as somehow a lack of love on God's part. love doesn't require that he give grace that is not deserved. If he does give grace that is not deserved as an activist love, it's above and beyond the requirement.

So I'm making the point that God can be loving and that establishes a certain set of behavior. And then there can be other things that God could do that go above and beyond. And so God may want to do these other things with a created world as a richer, fuller, overflowing expression of his love. Again, conjecture. But that seems to make sense to me. And the idea that he doesn't, he's not obliged to give the same love to everybody. He can distribute his love and his mercy and his kindness as he wishes.

Seems to be consistent with that reflection. there. Jesus seems to speak of that when he talks about the parable of the man he owns the field and sends out workers at different times of the day into the field, and then pays them all the same, which has caused the guy who went out and worked the whole day to complain that everybody else got paid as much as he did. They didn't work as much. And Jesus said, look, why are you mad at me? Because I'm gracious to them. I gave you what we agreed on between us. If I want to be gracious to others, that's up to me. I can do what I want with what is my. is kind of a paraphrase of that lesson.

And I think that applies to this question. So it's important to remember, and I'm just going to reiterate here, that glorifying God does not create anything that's lacking. What it does, it celebrates and it enjoys what's there. So when you say he already receives glory if he has angels, well, the receiving the glory is for the sake of, of those he's sharing the glory with. And in terms of the angels, the Bible says that his eternal purpose was to have Jesus die on the cross. So this was always going to be the pinnacle of his revelation of his grace, and this is what he was going to do with human beings. But when you ask, why is it to the benefit of an uncreated creation that they should be created and witness the glory of God?

because those are wonderful things. Why is it to the benefit of me to know God and enjoy Him and witness His glory? That, I mean, that seems obvious to me. I'm much better off existing and enjoying God's glory than never existing. And the beauty of everything has increased because we are now enjoying God's beauty. Just think about, like, haven't you ever brought someone to see something? you love, either a concert or a painting or a museum or something, you bring someone else to that because you also enjoy their enjoyment of that thing.

Oh, that's a good way of putting it, right? So I think this is a beautiful thing. I think we understand this and I think we do this all the time. So I don't think it's a crazy kind of out-of-the-box idea here. We know that enjoying something is a beautiful thing, and we all. always tend to bring other people into that enjoyment because that also gives us enjoyment. Right, right. Good. All right. That's it for today. Thank you so much, Richard and Gary and Andrew.

And we look forward to hearing your question also. This is Amy Hall and Greg Cocoa for Stand to Reason.