LanaPodesta
Member
- Aug 2, 2024
- 191
- 31
One of the most common atheist arguments goes something like this: "If God exists, where’s the evidence?"—usually meaning material evidence, something tangible that can be tested in a lab. But this expectation is based on a category error.
God, by definition, is not a material being. He is supernatural, transcendent, beyond space and time. Demanding material proof for an immaterial being is like demanding to see gravity with your eyes or insisting that love be weighed on a scale. You’re asking the wrong kind of question.
We accept many truths without direct material proof—consciousness, morality, logic itself—because they are known through experience and inference, not physical measurement. The same applies to God. His existence is understood through reason, revelation, and direct experience.
And here’s the kicker: the very demand for empirical proof assumes materialism is true—which is the very thing under debate. It’s like saying, "Only things science can test are real," while ignoring that science itself relies on unprovable assumptions (e.g., logic, uniformity of nature).
If you want to know whether God exists, you have to seek Him the way you would seek anything non-material: through prayer, contemplation, and genuine openness to truth. Many who do so receive an answer.
But if you refuse to even try, then let’s be honest—you’re not actually looking for God. You’re just looking for reasons to reject Him.
God, by definition, is not a material being. He is supernatural, transcendent, beyond space and time. Demanding material proof for an immaterial being is like demanding to see gravity with your eyes or insisting that love be weighed on a scale. You’re asking the wrong kind of question.
We accept many truths without direct material proof—consciousness, morality, logic itself—because they are known through experience and inference, not physical measurement. The same applies to God. His existence is understood through reason, revelation, and direct experience.
And here’s the kicker: the very demand for empirical proof assumes materialism is true—which is the very thing under debate. It’s like saying, "Only things science can test are real," while ignoring that science itself relies on unprovable assumptions (e.g., logic, uniformity of nature).
If you want to know whether God exists, you have to seek Him the way you would seek anything non-material: through prayer, contemplation, and genuine openness to truth. Many who do so receive an answer.
But if you refuse to even try, then let’s be honest—you’re not actually looking for God. You’re just looking for reasons to reject Him.
