Can we prove or disprove God's existence?

I encourage any student of religion to question the idea that the arguments for and against the existence of God can prove (or disprove) God's existence. My basic reasoning for this is as follows: If any of the arguments for God's existence worked as a conclusive proof of God's existence, then (logically) it would provide a sound reason for believing God existed and as such there would be no denying God's existence. In short, everyone would be theists. Likewise, if any of the arguments against God's existence worked to conclusively disprove God's existence, then (logically) no-one would believe God existed and (in theory) everyone would be atheists. However, the fact that the matter of God's existence is still widely debated, and that we have people all around the world who believe in God's existence and do not believe God exists, suggests the issue is far from resolved. As such, we must reject the simplistic notion that any of the arguments (either for or against God's existence) are the final word on the matter.

Rodin's "The Thinker"
(Copyright Stephen A Richards)

In light of this, it's important to approach the question of God's existence with a degree of humility. The issue has been hotly debated, and often by the finest minds, throughout much of human existence. Thus to think we can easily prove or disprove the question of God's existence beyond all doubt is rather naive.

So why do people regularly engage with others over the issue of God's existence in a simplistic and knee-jerk fashion? I would suggest that many find it hard to see anything positive in another person's point-of-view for fear that in doing so it would undermine their own beliefs. For example, atheists would be afraid that if they see any value in an argument for God's existence, that they would then have to start believing in God; with theists worrying that conceding any ground to atheists would undermine their belief in God. So quickly dismissing another person's belief is the easier option, and simply a matter of self-preservation.

The author walking on ice
(Copyright Stephen A Richards)

Yet this is a very oversimplified view of who we are and the beliefs we hold. We do not change our fundamental beliefs about things on a whim. Anytime our beliefs do radically change, this tends to happen over a period of time. If a theist or atheist is going to change their belief in God this will have taken place after many months, or even years of thinking and reflection.

Religious Studies/Philosophy of Religion is first and foremost an academic subject. It is not an attempt to convert students to either atheism or theism. Thus in order to do well in the subject, one must be prepared to engage critically, yet also respectfully, with other people's beliefs and opinions. At the end of the day, no-one has all the answers. We are all born into a particular family, society, and place in the world which has a profound influence on who we are, what we think of other people and the way we experience the world. The value in taking a subject like Religious Studies/Philosophy of Religion is that it gives us a chance to experience the world as other's do, and to critically reflect on our own place and beliefs in the grand scheme of things.

Atheists and the Problem of Evil

If God exists then why is there evil in the world? If God exists why do people suffer? If God exists why do bad things happen? Many atheists use this kind of argument as a basis for rejecting belief in God, the point being that if there is an all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-good (benevolent) Deity, then why do bad things happen?

In Christian theology this is known as The Problem of Evil. The classic statement of this "problem" was set out by Epicurus circa. 300BCE, and later rehashed by David Hume in "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" (1779):

Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then [God] is impotent. Is [God] able, but not willing? then [God] is malevolent. Is [God] both able and willing? then where does evil come from?

Murder in the House by Jakub Schikaneder (1890)
(Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jakub_Schikaneder_-_Murder_in_the_House.JPG)

The argument assumes that if God exists then God could, would and should do something about the presence of evil in the world. That there is evil and suffering in the world must mean God does not exist. The argument seems decisive, and believers have largely bought into the paradox, leading to all manner of theological gymnastics being performed across the years in the attempt to resolve this so-called "problem".

Yet for any atheist who uses this as a basis for arguing against God's existence I think the question begs: What exactly do you expect God to do about evil and suffering? Let me phrase this another way. If the claim is being made that were God to exist then God should, could and would do something about the presence of evil in the world, then what does God acting in the world essentially boil down to? In the end we are essentially talking about miracles.

Christ Appearing to His Disciples After the Resurrection by William Blake (1795)
(Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christ_Appearing_to_His_Apostles_Blake.jpg)

In suggesting that God should, could and would address the problem of evil and suffering, what an atheist is basically asking God to do is nothing short of a miracle! Yet atheists do not believe God does miracles... or do they? If atheists want to ground belief in God's non-existence on the assumption that if God exists then God would do something about evil, then they are essentially making the case that God does miracles. Yet if we are suggesting that God can do a miracle to end evil and suffering, why not go all the way and say that God could also raise Jesus from the dead, this being the miracle par excellence for Christians as it not only proves God's existence but justifies the profession of Jesus Christ as our Saviour:

For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins (1 Corinthians 15:16-17)

I doubt any atheist would go this far. In fact somewhat paradoxically in "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" (1748) David Hume actually rejects the logical probability of miracles and the resurrection occurring, which seems to undermine his suggestion thirty years later in the "Dialogues" that were God to exist, then God should be doing something about evil and suffering. In the end, Hume cannot have his theological cake (why doesn't God do a miracle to stop evil and suffering) and eat it (miracles don't happen).

All this appears to leave the atheist having to restate the "problem" of evil in the following manner: Either God exists and can do a miracle to stop evil and suffering, which leaves the question begging as to why someone would then logically reject Jesus' resurrection, or God does not do miracles, which means the existence of evil and suffering in the world is not God's problem to solve, but ours!