I believe, with a high degree of certainty that God exists. I do not arrive at this certainty with scientific proof; however, I believe this because it is the most logical explanation to the existence of the universe, morality, and my desire to know and understand the nature of reality. God is the most logical answer to the intricate details of life. God is the most logical answer to my desire to live after I die. God is the most logical answer to a desire for a better life and a desire to see all of the injustices of this world made right. God is the most logical answer to the question of why there is change and motion in the universe. God is the most logical answer to why something exists rather than nothing at all.

     I believe that there is merit in the traditional apologetic arguments for God’s existence. These have strengthened my faith and increased my level of certainty about God. Yet, I do not fool myself into thinking that these philosophical proofs can provide the airtight arguments that some skeptics are looking for.

     If one takes the approach that nothing is worth believing if is not scientifically provable, then there is too much room for doubt. First of all, when one looks at the historical perspective, it is clear that scientific knowledge has greatly increased over the centuries. Because of advances in technology and knowledge, there are things that are provable today that were not a hundred years ago. One wonders how much knowledge about the physical universe future generations of earth dwellers might have if the earth keeps spinning long enough. Now that we know more today, it is clear that if one had lived two hundred years ago and only believed in things that were provable by the scientific method or experience, that one might have thought that things like computers, air travel, and genetic engineering would be impossible. Yet, it took philosophical dreamers like Aldous Huxley to write about some of these things generations before thought were “impossible.” Leonardo Da Vinci was also a dreamer. He foresaw possibilities because he was open to ideas beyond his current scientific understanding.

     There were “scientific” assumptions during the time of Galileo that have since been debunked. Even the scientific method has been practiced more consistently, especially in the areas of physics and medicine. Science, at its best is going to accurately reflect reality, but it has never done so fully or without some margin of error. There are certainly things that seem impossible today that will be possible in a few generations. Knowledge will be increased. The philosophical realm of metaphysics may be untenable by today’s scientific methods; however, this does not make theories about God or being false or impossible. Science falls short of proving or disproving God because science is never complete. Science is an incomplete, ongoing, finite study of reality. God, as Western philosophy proposes, is infinite. There are points of connection between science and philosophy, but until science permits anything other than a naturalistic view of reality, it will continue to fall short of explaning or even discussing metaphysical possibilities.

     Perhaps a better example of the limit of science is seen in the area of logic.  Logical proofs are not exactly the same as scientific proofs. Science is based on experience and the predictability of future experience. Experiments can be done to prove the validity of scientific ideas. Logic, at least western logic, is based on certain “first” principle ideas that are undeniable. The law of non-contradiction, that the opposite of what is true is false, is one of the most recognizable and understood of these first principles. The law of contradiction cannot be proven wrong without using the law itself. (e.g., there is no such thing as truth) The philosophical arguments for God’s existence are based on logic.

     I have done my best to keep my mind open. I’ve read and studied the arguments of ancient philosophers, medieval philosophers and theologians, and modern and contemporary philosophers. I’ve immersed myself into the writings of what many consider to be some of the brightest minds of both the eastern and western philosophical traditions. I question reality all the time. In the end, I truly believe that the evidence for the theistic God makes the most sense. I know that there is a chance that I could be wrong. When doubts creep in, I read more. I pray more.

     Blaise Pascal had an interesting approach in handling doubts about God. He thought that it would be better to believe in God and be wrong than to not believe in God and be wrong. In other words, if there is no God or life after death and yet a person believes that there is, it is of little personal significance once that person dies. The body returns to the earth and that person ceases to exist. (If pantheism is true, then that person becomes something else, yet with no conscious memory of the previous life). On the other hand, if God is real and will hold people accountable for their actions on earth, to not believe in this God could have serious consequences.

     So why does God not make his existence clear to us all? I think that he has. Some will insist that God should have revealed himself in such a way that no one could refuse his existence. But then where would faith fit in? Would there be true freedom? Where would be the character gained by the intellectual and spiritual struggles that result from our uncertainties about reality? Perhaps it is this struggle to know truth, this quest for God (whatever name or title this quest is given) that pleases God the most. Perhaps the quest is even more important than the doctrinal facts to which some adhere. This is not to belittle the importance of the facts. The facts ARE reality. But they are not always clear. Many people who think the facts are clear are probably mistaken about at least some of them. Perhaps God is keeping things somewhat hidden so that we will pray, struggle, and wrestle with him. After we have wrestled with God in darkness, God will reward us with the break of day. Sometimes this spiritual breakthrough happens rather quickly; however, for most struggles, these will take more than a single night.

     To some extent, faith is beyond our control. A valid faith is based on truth and good reasons. Yet, people typically believe things that they are taught. The majority of those raised in Islamic cultures, grow up to be Muslims. The majority of those raised in the Church, grow up and adhere to the Christian faith.  The same is true of every faith system. Therefore, not all faith is based on logic or truth.

     Belief is a choice we make, with or without good reason. I can believe in Santa Clause, but I do not have good reason for doing so. Not all of the religions can be right about all of their truth claims, if those claims contradict each other. This is one of the reasons that people are drawn towards agnosticism.

     I believe that all agnostics have a little bit of theism in their beliefs. An agnostic is looking at reality much more realistically and honestly than an atheist. An atheist claims to have knowledge that no mere mortal could have—to know with certainty that God does not exist. However, in order to know this, he would have to be everywhere present in the universe, including any higher dimensions that may exist; or, he would have to be omniscient. You get the point.

     On the other hand, some agnostics will honestly admit that there is no proof for God’s existence (or that one cannot know for sure). This doubt places them on a sliding scale. After all, they could be wrong, which they readily admit. If there is any possibility of being wrong, they are just one step away, especially considering Pascal’s Wager, to more openly considering God’s existence. Some agnostics may even waver a bit in their commitment to agnosticism.

     On the other side of the scale is the theist. He claims to have belief in God. He may have a very high degree of certainty, or just a moderate degree of certainty. Either way, his knowledge is not complete. If he thinks at all on a level deeper than a TV sitcom, he sometimes questions the nature of reality. In doing so, he has doubts. Many Christians are well trained to ignore these doubts or to blame them on Satan. On the other hand, there are those of us who welcome these doubts as opportunities to do more thinking, more praying, and more study.

     Then there is that group that claims to have absolute certainty about God’s existence. Two types fit in this category: the logicians and the experientialists. The logicians cite philosophical or apologetic proofs. I’ve done this myself, even in my first book. The experientialists claim to have a knowledge that is based on feelings, or an event that took place, like a salvation experience. Neither of these reasons for faith should be discounted. Logic and experiences have both helped many souls on their life journey with God. These are good reasons on which to base one’s personal faith. However, these are not the kind of proofs that the skeptic or the agnostic is looking for. These are not tangible, scientific, or concrete evidences. It is possible that our reasoning could be wrong. It is possible that our mind is playing tricks on us. It is possible that we are so brainwashed, that we cannot think objectively. People of every faith claim experiences that they “know” are real.

     My point is this: I believe in God for many reasons that include logic and experience. I have my doubts at times, but these doubts soon flee. I believe in the God of the Bible because I believe that the Bible is true. I have a high degree of certainty, based on proofs that include fulfilled prophecies, historical accuracies, and the power of the traditional philosophical proofs for God. On an experiential level, I believe in God because I commune with Him. I experience His presence in my life through prayer, meditation, the natural world, and the Bible. It’s as if I have an innate sense of His existence and presence in my life. I have accepted Pascal’s Wager, not merely because I think it is a good bet, but because I truly believe.

     There are areas of theology that I am agnostic about. There are things that I do not understand and do not expect to ever understand, at least not on this side of death. Instead of trying to cover these doubts or hide them in shame, I try to be honest about them. I discuss them with friends that will not be too quick to judge. When I do, I usually hear that others have many of the same doubts. I do not judge their doubts either, but listen intently and encourage them to share more. By a mutual sharing of these doubts I am drawn closer to people, comforted, and motivated to keep searching—a search that I believe pleases God.

     This is no compromise of truth. One compromises truth by pretending to have it all figured out. One compromises honesty when he covers up his doubts and flaunts a strong, but disingenuous faith. I think that Jesus had a good word for this: hypocrisy. I want a real faith. I want an honest faith. I want to know more about God and get closer to God. I do not want a pretend faith any more than I want to follow a pretend God. I doubt that God wants pretend followers.