It is essential to have a reliable and consistent method of understanding. One of three methods for reasoning are typically utilized for investigation: 1) the inductive method, 2) the deductive method, and 3) the verificational or abductive method.

Induction is the process of discovering God from the effects of his creation. It assumes the only way one obtains knowledge is via objective sensory experience. In other words, knowledge of anything is the product of experience. In the inductive method God is not self-authenticating – he is derived from experience. While inductive reasoning is reliable for gleaning some things about God, it is not entirely dependable. First, it relies too heavily upon the senses or a posteriori knowledge. A person may see evidence of God in creation, but that evidence is filtered through the senses that may very well deceive, as Copernicus was painfully made aware.

Second, unless cause/effect relationships exist, one cannot possibly get from the effects of the universe to the cause of the universe. The best any person can do is remain within the boundaries of sensory experience – and this may or may not include God! [There is another realm of existence I would describe as the hypothetical world whereby one conceptualizes possibilities that either will not or cannot actualize. Whether or not God is discovered here is questionable and, therefore, will not be addressed. It is mentioned here only to acknowledge its subsistence within human experience.]

Third, induction alone is unreliable because God is reduced to a mere inference from experience. That is, discovering God is the best conclusion of the evidence. This suggests that experience of sensory input is a reliable means of discovering God’s existence. As most can attest, human senses do deceive from time to time.

Deduction is the process of discovering God by assuming he is there to be discovered. Deductive reasoning would maintain that everything known must fit into some broad principle or classification. The particulars of knowledge and experience do not exist apart from innate categories within which to place them. For example, one could not know what a horse is unless there is some broad idea of “horseness” that exists prior to any experience of a particular horse. Similarly, one could not discover God from his/her experience of creation unless there is first some idea of God. The deductive method of understanding implies the notion that God is somehow self-authenticating. God’s existence is assumed a priori to be true apart from experience.

The verificational method of reasoning is perhaps the most adequate for discovering God. It begins with an hypothesis that may or may not prove true. This method avoids the pitfalls of deduction in that God’s existence is not assumed, it is proposed. And, unlike induction, the verificational method provides an interpretive schema that includes the facts of experience but is not limited by them.

In the verificational method the criteria for discovering God involves all the elements of human existence: the existential world (viz., the rational, moral, empirical and practical) and (2) the phenomenal world, consisting of historical evidence of space-time events. The verificational method must be logically consistent (rational); provide sufficient grounds for explaining the sense of “oughtness” in every person (moral); and account for the experience of sense data in accordance with the other elements of human existence (empirical). Also, it must provide the means of living consistently with the truths discovered about God (practical) and adequately explain evidence from space-time events in human history (phenomenal).

In order to promote consistency, it should be observed that no hypothesis exists in a vacuum. Rather, hypotheses exist in a world view sustained by certain assumptions. The verificational method of discovering God must identify and continually challenge assumptions and adjust any hypothesis regarding the nature, existence, and revelation of God. However, certain issues must be held true or else all hypotheses will suffer the skeptic’s death of a thousand qualifications (the result being that no one could have reasonable certainty about anything). Some of these issues include: (1) the laws of logic [laws of identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction]; (2) language and thought are meaningful; (3) the phenomenal world is real and not illusory; (4) relative truth is self-refuting ; and (5) absolute truth transcends all time and culture and is, therefore, absolutely true for everyone, everywhere, and at all times.

Finally, the discovery of God must have checks and balances. The Bible is the primary source for this. Principles of interpretation that account for historical, cultural, political, social, economical, literary, et al. settings of biblical times must be utilized for discovering God through Scripture. Moreover, it is prudent to consult the historical writings of the Church. In so doing one will avoid erroneous or inconsistent understandings and interpretations that have promoted division and even heresy.

Discovering God is possible. Within the effects of creation and the affections of the human heart, God is “there” to be found (general revelation). He has graciously chosen to disclose more of himself through specially selected prophets and apostles, their writings, and ultimately in his Son Jesus Christ (special revelation). The verificational method, as outlined above, provides a comprehensive means of discovering God within these two revelational designs.

 General Revelation: God's Communication to All