AIG Offers Proof of God’s Existence

This is powerful stuff, dear reader. If you’ve been a skeptic, this is likely to change your thinking — and your life. It’s written by Ian McNaughton. That’s his bio page at the website of Answers in Genesis (ol’ Hambo’s online ministry), where we’re told:

Rev. Ian McNaughton is Chairman of Answers in Genesis (UK/Europe) and has been a board member since 1993. He is a Bible teacher and preacher, and he holds a ThM degree from Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. He is fully resolved in his belief that the Bible is the Word of God being true from the very first verse in Genesis chapter 1, which is fully reliable in fact as well as doctrine. He delights to speak about the authority, accuracy, and authenticity of the Holy Scriptures as being totally trustworthy, dependable, and inerrant.

Rev McNaughton is clearly qualified to deal with what his title promises: Three Popular Proofs For God. But although he’s AIG’s man in the UK and Europe, and what he says can be considered to be on their behalf, this isn’t posted at the AIG website. Instead, it appears at a British site we’ve never visited before — Cross Rhythms. They have a write-up in Wikipedia which says:

Cross Rhythms is a Christian media organisation based in Stoke-on-Trent, England. It operates an FM and online radio station, produces radio shows sent internationally, and its website has resources on contemporary Christian music.

We know you’re eager to learn what the rev has to tell us, so here are some excerpts from his article, with bold font added by us:

There are three popular proofs for God. Together they form a strong case of His existence:

1. Creation
2. Conscience
3. Christ Jesus

This is exciting! Let’s read on, as the rev explains each proof:

Creation is what we see and experience through our five senses and thus we are without excuse if we reject God.

Conscience is a God given sense of right and wrong that calls on each of us to do what is right at all times.

Christ Jesus came into the world through the incarnation to live and die so that the justice and wrath of God on sinners as law breakers would be satisfied in his work of atonement on the cross.

That summarizes the rev’s strong case. He continues:

Creationists when arguing about God and creation, take as their starting point, the proposition that God exists and speaks to humanity through the Bible as well as thorough creation around us.

Yes, Creationists always seem to do that. Hey, this is interesting:

The Bible, for instance does not go out of its way to try to prove God exists but simply accepts it.

Perfectly understandable. Here’s more:

Creationists also accept that because man is made in God’s image all Adam’s posterity possess an innate sense of God (i.e. an inborn sense) which cannot be honestly denied. So in the origins debate we sometimes appeal to this inborn capacity to reason with our opponents.

We’ve noticed that too. Moving along:

Our consciences are a witness to God’s existence and to refuse this as valid proof is to refuse to stand in the debate with the Bible in our hands. It is very important that that ground is not given up.

Well, dear reader, you do have a conscience, don’t you. Okay, there’s your proof! Another excerpt:

One either starts with belief in God or not. The atheist comes to the debate with his presupposition that there is no God. To deny the creationist his ground is to give the atheist an unjust advantage.

No one should have an unjust advantage! On with the rev’s article:

Evidential Apologetics is also useful in the Origins Debate as it enhances the depth of argument but the science contribution can only assist the testimony of the Word of God as it relies on evidence that may change and/or be superseded by new laws of Physics, Biology etc. It cannot, nor does it, have the authority of the infallible Word of God.

Did you follow that? Scientific evidence can sometimes be helpful, but it may change, so it can never be authoritative. You’re better off relying on the rev’s proof. And now we come to the end:

As Christians it should be the Bible and not what scientists say that is most important when considering our origins. Science cannot become a substitute for faith.

He’s right about that. Science is no substitute for faith. So there you are, dear reader. You wanted proof? Now you have it. Case closed!

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “AIG Offers Proof of God’s Existence

  1. Holey Babble, indeed! Revver McNaughton wouldn’t know a proof if a premise kicked him in the syllogism and thereby concluded an induction.

    What is it with these people that they firmly believe a book cobbled together from disparate sources by an act of ballot 17 centuries ago holds infinitely more weight than knowledge carefully winnowed from nature by painstaking observations?

  2. The rev should keep to his day job, preaching, In offering his proofs for god, he fails badly

  3. Ah yes – a theologian pontificating about how unreliable scientific knowledge is …

  4. Well, that’s that then. Indeed, case closed.

  5. “Science cannot become a substitute for faith.”

    Not sure about that, but the converse is certainly true. Thus, religion has no place in the science classroom, in any school — public or private.

    Can I have an “Amen” on that?

  6. Amen! to retiredsciguy!

  7. I understand the reverend to say, in effect, that science is likely to contradict a belief in god, so “it should be the Bible and not what scientists say“. In other words, the reverend is giving up any hope of defending Genesis on scientific grounds. Perhaps this is his reaction to the Nye-Ham debate.

    No wonder the article doesn’t appear on the AIG website.

  8. Lewis Thomasonn

    Fantastic stuff,but where is the proof,might as well say that the wind blowing is proof OH wait it most likely according to him.

  9. Charles Deetz ;)

    Creationists also accept that because man is made in God’s image all Adam’s posterity possess an innate sense of God (i.e. an inborn sense) which cannot be honestly denied.

    So the proof is an innate sense? Really, that’s all you’ve got? Sheesh.

  10. I thought I read it thoroughly but somehow I missed the part with the logic and the proofs.

    I wonder if the folks at AIG have much experience in logical proofs in general?

  11. Robert Landbeck

    The problem with all ‘proofs of God’ and the religious apologists that have made them throughout history, is that their wannabe ‘proofs’ are no more then the pretensions of intellectual vanity. Any authentic ‘proof of God’ if one ever existed, would be able to demonstrate itself as not of human origins. And would probably blow the purely human theological construct of AIG and the rest of Christianity right out of the water. Now that would make for an amusing last judgement!

  12. I only need to lower my standards for what constitutes proof a bit above McLaughlin’s miserable level to call myself pastafarian.