There is an ideological war being prosecuted on the streets of London, with opposing causes championed on the sides and backs of lumbering red buses. It is bloodless in principle, but not without casualties in practice. This is a contest for rights; the right to faith, the right to believe, the right to disbelieve and the right to disagree. This is a battle about the existence of the entity generally known simply as God. On the one hand are the atheists, whose position can be condensed into the statement; “There is no God”. On the other hand are the theists, whose position can be broadly summarized in the following sentence; “God exists, and he created the universe”. These descriptions are oversimplifications, of course. Many people do not fall into either of these two extremes, but take positions that range from “I do not know for certain, but I strongly believe in God” to “I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very improbable”. The worldview represented by the latter statement is encapsulated in the following words printed on a placard at the side of a red London bus: “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”.

As a first step towards clarifying my position in this controversy, I will attempt to define God. In the most traditional and monotheistic sense, God is an infinite, unlimited entity that possesses infinite knowledge. This definition immediately poses a contextual problem. What exactly is infinity? In an anthropological setting, expressions such as “infinite” and “limitless” have no meaning. The mathematical concept of infinity is abstract; but what does it mean in a real, material, finite world? Consider the following quantities: two drops of water, four hundred sheep, a million dollars, and an infinite amount of water. While it is possible to conceptualise the first three examples, it is impossible to do the same for the last. Even if it were possible to conceptualise an infinite amount of water, it would occupy an infinite amount of space, which is impossible in a finite world. My point is this: it is impossible to define an infinite God in a complete and exhaustive sense within a finite context. It may nonetheless be possible to partially characterize certain aspects of God using finite expressions of the human experience, provided that such an entity interfaces with the human consciousness. In addition to this, any definition of God inherently implies the existence of such an entity, otherwise one gets trapped in a logical impasse. How does one describe something that does not exist?

This difficulty with defining God highlights another conceptual issue. Lack of belief in the supernatural denies the existence of God. In its most extreme form, atheism says “there is no God”. Such an assertion is not sustainable for the following reason: an absolute assertion must be predicated on either possession of infinite knowledge, or access to such knowledge. Therefore, to say “there is no God” is to say “I possess infinite knowledge, and I know so”. This is a rather precarious position to take, and it is no surprise that few well-informed people make such an assertion. It is far more sensible to adopt a position that is based on the balance of probabilities. Such a position says that “within the limits of my finite human experience, I have seen no evidence that objectively, conclusively and consistently proves the existence of God. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, God does not exist”. In other words, there is probably no God.

In contrast, theism in general asserts that God exists, and Christianity in particular insists that God is personal and interfaces with the finite human experience. Let us consider the Christian position for a moment. Is this a sustainable position? By the previous definition, absolute statements require infinite knowledge, or access to such knowledge. Man obviously does not possess infinite knowledge, so the answer must lie in access to such knowledge. The atheist cannot claim access to infinite knowledge since atheism denies the existence of God, who possesses such knowledge by definition. But the Christian, who believes in a God that interfaces with the human experience, can claim to have obtained such knowledge by access. Based on such a premise, the assertion that “God exists” is sustainable. But this raises the question of validity. How can such a claim be verified? If such a claim cannot be verified, then it has no real value. Christianity claims that this assertion is verified in both personal and collective experiences. It is practically impossible to subject personal experiences to the criteria of reproducibility and objectivity for two reasons. Firstly, if God is infinite, then the human experience of God will be potentially different for every person, even if there were an infinite number of people in existence. This will make it potentially impossible to reproduce such an experience consistently. Secondly, if the experience of God is personal, then inherent subjectivity is implied. The human psyche is complicated, and such experiences are bound to be communicated differently. So where does that leave us?

The Christian position is this: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The one proof of the existence of God was in the collective experience of one man, Jesus Christ, who claimed he was God; an infinite God in finite human form. This was an extraordinary claim. The extraordinary proof in this case was that of his resurrection - literal and not merely figurative resurrection, according to history. In addition to providing evidence to support Jesus’ claim of the existence of God, this event also provided evidence to support another claim of his; that there is an existence beyond the present. In this existence, the finite becomes enveloped by the infinite, and man is held accountable by God. This remarkable combination of events has not been replicated since then, thus the entire Christian worldview of God hinges on a single piece of evidence. However, because this evidence is sufficiently extraordinary, was experienced historically in a collective sense, and is being validated presently in a personal sense, it is my position that it is adequate. If I am wrong, and this is someday proven to be false by contrary evidence of equal weight, then it will ultimately not matter. But what if I am right, and this is true?

The buses in London are like mobile billboards. Their sides are replete with signs advertising all sorts of companies, products, events and ideological standpoints. Recently, one of such signs attracted my attention, and I will conclude by quoting from it. “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life. And pray that you are not wrong.”

_{©2009 by Genial}