'If God existed we would have evidence to prove it'. Do you agree.

Authors Avatar by vdshjffjdhgdfh (student)
“If God existed we would have evidence to prove it.” Do you agree?

These days, the issue of the existence of God is a very prominent one, especially as fewer and fewer people are religious and our society is becoming increasingly secularised. This might cause one to question their faith, and therefore look for evidence for the existence God. This raises the question whether God should give us a sign of his existence or not.

Christians would argue that ultimately, as with all religions, Christianity is a faith. There is no reason to believe as it is a matter of faith. Whether God exists or not is not necessarily important as Christianity has given many people comfort and support. Following argument of Pascal’s Wager, there is little or no risk for a believer if it turns out that God doesn’t exist but if you do not believe in God and he does exist, you would run the risk of eternal damnation is wrong. I think that this is quite a compelling reason as ultimately, Christianity is a faith and therefore it is not necessary to have evidence or proof as belief is a fundamental part of religion. Also, there are very few disadvantages for living a Christian life and so, it makes sense to believe in God, whether he exists or not, just in case.
Join now!

Other Christians would say that miracles are evidence for God’s existence. Conservatives believe that miracles demonstrate higher truths about Jesus and God’s, and in particular his power and love. Miracles are God’s intervention in the world and therefore healing miracles, such as those found at Lourdes, are proof of God’s existence. Pentecostal churches go as far as saying that miracles are only possible through the Holy Spirit and that healing is one of the ‘spiritual gifts’. However, as some Liberals conclude, miracles may have been exaggerated or distorted through time. For this reason, I think that miracles are ...

This is a preview of the whole essay