On Proof and the Existence of God

Statements of personal experience by witnesses are admissible in most of the world’s courts as proof: exceptions are few.

The proof may either be attested to in person or it may consist of material evidence. Both are weighed by a judge when making a decision.

There are those who would claim that, where God is concerned, existence must be proved. But there are many who would be willing to provide such proof, either in the form of oral, or material, evidence, or both – and, if the number of witnesses is significantly high, it may be that the weight of these witnesses’ attestations should also be considered.

A secular scientist would, perhaps, claim that a person’s experience of God is caused by chemical changes in the brain or changes to the body; and that that person’s material proof is explicable by reference to, coincidence – ie, that good physical and mental health is the antidote to spiritual experience; and that coincidence explains material evidence.

Coincidence is not, however, itself explicable.

The scientist who believes in God would, perhaps, be willing to agree that evidence is admissible by way of personal experience and the presentation of material proof.

Materiality of the inexplicable may be acknowledged by them.

Law, science and last, though in this case least because philosophers’ proofs of God’s existence have been proved to be wrong by their peers – law, science and philosophy all demand that the burden of proof is on the claimant rather than defendant.

It is, however, evident that no-one – no lawyer, no scientist, no thinker in any field of expertise, has ever been able to prove that God does not exist.

So it’s a yes, the witness’s experience is admissible for those who specialise in the field of law and a no and a maybe for those in the field of science.

As for theologians, there is no question for them that God exists. Their theories are not concerned with whether He is – at least not as far as the writer knows. For them, God’s existence is a given.

Rather, they are concerned with the questions of who, what, where, when and why God is.

So it’s a yes for those in the field of theology.

The writer, having studied the theories of these theologians, contends that the concept and the word existence are both human creations – creations that are not necessarily applicable, unless God Himself is a concept created by man – unless those who created the concept had political and non-political agendas.