Discourses upon the Existence and Attributes of God

Since most have had one time or other, some risings of doubt, whether there be a God, tho few do in expressions deny his being, it may not be unnecessary to propose somethings for the further impressing this truth, and guarding themselves against such temptations.

1. Tis utterly impossible to demonstrate there is no God. He can choose no Medium, ⟨p. 42⟩but will fall in as a proof for his Existence, and a manifestation of his excellency, rather than against it. The pretences of the Atheist are so ridiculous, that they are not worth the mentioning.

They never saw God, and therefore know not how to believe such a Being; they cannot comprehend him. He would not be God, if he could fall within the narrow Model of an humane Understanding: He would not be infinite, if he were comprehensible, or to be terminated by our sight. How small a thing must that be which is seen by a bodily Eye, or grasped by a weak Mind? If God were visible or comprehensible, he would be limited: Shall it be a sufficient Demonstration from a blind man, that there is no fire in the Room, because he sees it not, though he feel the warmth of it? The knowledge of the effect is sufficient to conclude the existence of the cause. Who ever saw his own Life? Is it sufficient to deny a man lives, because he beholds not his Life, and only knows it by his motion? He never saw his own Soul, but knows he hath one by his thinking power: The Air renders it self sensible to Men in its Operations, yet was never seen by the eye.

They never saw God, and therefore know not how to believe such a Being; they cannot comprehend him. He would not be God, if he could fall within the narrow Model of an humane Understanding: He would not be infinite, if he were comprehensible, or to be terminated by our sight. How small a thing must that be which is seen by a bodily Eye, or graspt by a weak Mind? If God were visible or comprehensible, he would be limited: Shall it be a sufficient Demonstration from a blind man, that there is no fire in the Room, because he sees it not, though he feel the warmth of it? The knowledge of the effect is sufficient to conclude the existence of the cause. Who ever saw his own Life? Is it sufficient to deny a man lives, because he beholds not his Life, and only knows it by his motion? He never saw his own Soul, but knows he hath one by his thinking power: The Air renders it self sensible to Men in its Operations, yet was never seen by the eye.