God’s existence is not postulated as an explanation for anything by the biblical writers. His existence is simply assu
med, and he is then described by his actions.
Despite this, those who believe in God for many years have used God as the reason for why things happen: for why there is a universe, for how human beings come to be, or even, more recently by some fundamentalists, for how such things as eyes can exist. Those who believe in God use that which people don’t understand or can’t explain as proofs that there must be a God.
The Bible, however, never does this. Perhaps that’s an important clue.
Moreover, consider this pattern of behavior from the backside, from those who reject God: we who believe in God do not fully understand why the righteous suffer, why sin exists, or why God doesn’t stop it. And yet, such ignorance of that which is sad is often used as proof by skeptics that there can be no God. They argue that if God existed, then surely there would be no suffering.
Is that really any more valid than using ignorance of how the universe began as proof that God is?
I don’t think so. Consider:
I’m walking along one morning and slip. I look at the floor and notice a pile of green goo. I don’t know why there is green goo on the floor. I don’t know where it ca
me from. So of course I im mediately conclude that God must have made it, thereby proving his existence.
The skeptic will wonder about how hard I must have banged my head on the floor. My conclusion is nonsense, he avers. If there was a God, then there would be no green goo at all, since the green goo is obviously bad. A good and loving God would never allow green goo to exist. Therefore, there must be no God.
Is either of us making reasonable argu
ments? Does either of us make sense? Does either of our conclusions follow logically from our premises?
I don’t think so. Arguing that God must exist because of something in the universe that we have no explanation for is just as ludicrous as arguing he doesn’t exist because of something we have no explanation for.