Why does god have to prove his existence?
To open a discussion on this article, please use the contact page to provide your comments.
Understandably, the reply I sent to David Harris (which formed the basis of Meditation 182) did not satisfy him. He responded at length, writing among any other things:
Why does God have to prove anything to you? He is not in existence to prove anything to you, me or anyone else.
The answer is "elementary justice."
The god in which David Harris believes, along with millions of other Christians, supposedly judges us on whether or not we believe in him. If that is the basis of judgement, then this god has a clear moral requirement to provide unequivocal evidence of his existence. To do otherwise would be unjust.
Yet we have no reason to consider the biblical evidence for this particular god superior to the holy writings or oral histories of any other religion.
So, given there is no clear and unequivocal evidence of the existence of David Harris's god, we are left with several possible conclusions:
- Perhaps, there is no god.
- Perhaps, there is a god other than the one in which David Harris believes.
- Perhaps there is a god who judges us on our beliefs, and that god is inherently unjust.
- Perhaps there is a god who really does not care what we believe or what religion we follow and thus does not consider it necessary to prove its existence to us.
I am unwilling to accept the third conclusion. I do not want such a god to exist. I would not be a follower even if I did believe such a god existed for such a deity seems truly evil.
So I am left with the first two and the fourth options, and no sign as to which I should pick. Good enough reason to call myself an Apathetic Agnostic.