Recently, I got into a Twitter battle with an atheist who had somehow gotten hold of a statement about God that I had tweeted. She immediately objected to my perspective, challenging me to prove that God even exists. With my mind racing, and realizing I was limited to 140 characters on Twitter, I replied back with what I thought to be a witty and insightful response. I said, “I’ll prove that God exists when someone proves that he doesn’t.” It didn’t work. She wasn’t impressed. And we went at it for over an hour on Twitter. 140 characters versus 140 characters. It was epic.
After giving that situation some thought, I started to ask myself, “What is the best way to prove the existence of God?” Usually when the question, “Can you prove God exists?”, is asked, people go the scientific route. They start with the Cosmological Argument (every effect has a beginning cause), then maybe the Teliological Argument (Intelligent Design) and/or the Ontological Argument (“a priori” – if one can conceive of God then he must exist).
On many levels these are good, but again they don’t get to the heart of the issue. So then, what answer gets us to the heart of the issue when someone asks, “Can you prove that God exists?” The answer should almost always be this: “I believe that God exists because he has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ.” Bam!
Why is this the best way? Because ultimately (missionally), we are not trying to get people to believe in a deistic God, or some metaphysical being who is intelligent enough to create everything from nothing. To be honest, most of us shouldn’t even try to prove that God exists from areas that we can’t explain very well (like the arguments stated above). But we can prove that God exists in the way that he wants us to: By his self-revelation in Jesus Christ. In doing this, we get to the heart of the matter of what, or better who, people must believe in. In other words, if we’re going to use a method that ends with “ological,” more often than not, it should be Christological.