God does not lose any who would come have to him

While some of the specifics about our judgment day remain a mystery, there are some things we can be assured of. One of those things is that God will not lose any who would come to Jesus. God’s judgment is not arbitrary but instead is based on wisdom and certainty. And so we can be certain that there is no scenario where God knows given a certain circumstance, a person would have believed, but he condemns them anyway. Paul affirms this when he writes,

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:28–30, ESV)

God knows every scenario we might encounter and how we would respond

The scripture assures us that as we stand before God’s throne, we will be “naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13, ESV). This should bring us comfort, knowing that if there is a circumstance where we would believe, he knows it. The scripture is clear God prefers mercy to judgment and seeks to provide a way for us to come to him. He who knows all things is able to sustain anyone who would come to him given another circumstance other than the one they lived. Because of God’s love, we need not fear missing his grace due to a fleeting moment or dying right before we would have believed or even the circumstances of our life. We can have confidence that no one who would have come to God under different circumstances will be cast out. God knows the heart of all of us, understands all our circumstances, and will judge faithfully in righteousness and equity. No one will be able to bring charges against God and accuse him of being unloving or unfair. But because God takes all circumstances and scenarios into account when he judges, his judgment once rendered, is final. The door is shut.

Steadfast love and faithfulness go before the throne of judgment

The scripture tells us of God that “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before you” (Psalm 89:14, ESV). God’s judgments are neither malicious nor arbitrary; they are rooted in righteousness and justice and on this strong foundation steadfast love and faithfulness go before him as he judges. Pause on this: in ALL God’s judgments even condemnation, steadfast love and faithfulness go before his verdict. This means that before any judgment is made, one must encounter and get through the flood of His steadfast love and faithfulness. On the day of judgment, those who are condemned will know that their condemnation was preceded by God’s steadfast and exhaustive pursuit. Their mouths will be shut knowing that their fate is all their own. They have rejected the love that has gone before them. The Gospel which comes first offered them reconciliation, but instead “They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved” (2 Thessalonians 2:10b, NIV).

This is why their condemnation is so sure: They have been given every opportunity to leave the kingdom of darkness and come into the light, but because they love the darkness more than the light they have chosen darkness.

Who are those who are condemned

God does not condemn the innocent. But of course, none of us are innocent. So let us rephrase this. God does not condemn those who come to him in repentance and faith. I am not aware of anywhere in scripture that says this is only a temporal truth that stops. However, the scripture does warn that our hearts can become so hardened that we will choose to never repent regardless of how much God pursues us. Gehenna is described as a place of “gnashing of teeth”, a term symbolizing hostility and anger. And this hostility is directed at God. Those who reject Jesus do so because they love their deeds more than the desire to come to God. God opposes the kingdoms they have made (more here). Those who are condemned are described as those who chose to persist in their wickedness, despite being offered hope through repentance and faith in the work and worth of Jesus. Here are some scriptures that describe this:

and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. (2 Thessalonians 2:10, ESV)

In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, “There is no God.” (Psalm 10:4, ESV)

If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the LORD. (Isaiah 26:10, ESV)

She listens to no voice; she accepts no correction. She does not trust in the LORD; she does not draw near to her God. (Zephaniah 3:2, ESV)

But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears that they might not hear. They made their hearts diamond-hard lest they should hear the law and the words that the LORD of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great anger came from the LORD of hosts. (Zechariah 7:11-12, ESV)

But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward. (Jeremiah 7:24, ESV)

O LORD, do not your eyes look for truth? You have struck them down, but they felt no anguish; you have consumed them, but they refused to take correction. They have made their faces harder than rock; they have refused to repent. (Jeremiah 5:3, ESV)

For they are a rebellious people, lying children, children unwilling to hear the instruction of the LORD; (Isaiah 30:9, ESV)

The pride of Israel testifies to his face; yet they do not return to the LORD their God, nor seek him, for all this. (Hosea 7:10, ESV)

Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:8, ESV)

And those who are in Gehenna remain there because they continue to love darkness and continue to refuse to turn to the light.

Daniel is told, “Many will be purified, made spotless, and refined, but the wicked will continue to act wickedly. None of the wicked will understand, but the wise will understand” (Daniel 12:10, BSB)

Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.” (Revelation 22:11, ESV)

No one who is condemned desires to repent and come to God. If you continue to reject God, the only source of love, beauty, and goodness, what do you have left? Many of us have suffered the agony of lost or unrequited love. How much more is the agony of those who have rejected the very source of love and are hostile to it. The weight of their own rejection of goodness, beauty, and love is unimaginable. It is hell.

In Jesus’s discussion with Nicodemus, he confirms these things, when he states, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18, ESV). But this in of itself does not tell us the full story, for we already know that belief in Jesus is what distinguishes those who are saved from those who are condemned. But who is preventing those who are condemned from believing? Is it life events, circumstances, or others? None of these external factors keep the condemned from God. Instead, as our hearts stand naked before God, it is our hearts that condemn us. Jesus goes on to say that it is our own stubbornness that keeps us from the love of God.

Jesus describes those who are found guilty before the throne of God, “And this is the verdict: Light has come into the world but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” (John 3:19, NIV). Why are people condemned? It is because they love the darkness so much that they refuse to come to the light. There are no circumstances under which those who are in Gehenna would have or will turn to God. For them to do so would be to go against everything they love and treasure as good. They do not want God to be near because he is a threat to all they hold dear (more here).

Though they are at enmity with and reject God, those who are condemned will long for the goodness that those in the light have and so there will be “weeping” at this loss alongside their “gnashing of teeth” as there was with Esau. But this weeping is not accompanied by repentance or turning to God. Paul warns us, “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death” (2 Corinthians 7:10, NIV). They will long for the light, but not at the price of relinquishing the darkness they cherish so dearly. They are so ensnared and enslaved by their own desires that their love for the “drug” surpasses their desire to be healed.

And so the scriptures teach that it is those who both continue to walk in unrighteousness and refuse to come to God that are condemned. Those who repent and come to God are freely welcomed into the love of God. God does not keep those in Gehenna from repenting and coming to him, they are stuck there by the chains they have forged for themselves. We can have confidence that those in Gehenna would not have repented under any circumstances. Part of what makes Gehena so devastating is this: those who go there do not abandon their wickedness, but continually choose to separate themselves from God. They continue to choose to walk in wickedness continuing to incur further wrath. Gehena is not for the hypothetical person in Alex O’Conner’s imaginary scenario who if only given a few more moments would have believed, but died just before that. Gehena is for those who stubbornly and eternally continue in disbelief.

This is why the scripture urges us not to harden our hearts, for it is not death that will seal our condemnation, but rather a hardened and unrepentant heart. And this state can come long before we die, leaving us without hope both in this age and the age to come. This is why the scripture says, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts” (Psalm 95:7-8, Hebrews 3:7-8,15; 4:7). The scripture warns that we should not assume that we will one day in the future change and have a repentant heart. Today is our opportunity. Again it is not death that finalizes our state, but a hard and unrepentant heart of unbelief. This can happen now at this moment, before death, so do not linger to come to God when you hear the call of the Gospel.

God exhausts his pursuit

Earlier, I mentioned that Alex O’Conner did not ask an appropriate question. The reason is that there will never be anyone in Gehenna who would have repented under other circumstances. However one might ask if the steadfast love and faithfulness that go before God’s throne is exhaustive. Has God done everything possible to bring this person to repentance? The scripture would support an affirmative answer. God’s readiness to forgive is an inherent part of God’s nature. When God’s glory came near to Moses, “The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, ‘The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Exodus 34:6). God was declaring this is who he is. Peter writes, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” Other verses support this as well.

Therefore the LORD waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the LORD is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him. (Isaiah 30:18, ESV)

Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. (Luke 15:7, ESV)

Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” (Luke 15:10, ESV)

Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love. He will again have compassion on us; He will vanquish our iniquities. You will cast out all our sins into the depths of the sea. (Micah 7:18-19, ESV)

the LORD appeared to him from far away. I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you. (Jeremiah 31:3, ESV)

The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. (Psalm 103:8, ESV)

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34, ESV)

“How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? If you turn at my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you. Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded, because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof, (Proverbs 1:22-25, ESV)

God is eager to embrace the rebel

Not only is God slow to anger and patient, but he is also ready and eager to forgive the rebellious.

“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? (Ezekiel 18:21-23, ESV)

“Yet even now,” declares the LORD, “return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; and rend your hearts and not your garments.” Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love; and he relents over disaster. (Joel 2:12-13, ESV)

“Son of man, give the people of Israel this message: You are saying, ‘Our sins are heavy upon us; we are wasting away! How can we survive?’ Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 33:10-11, ESV)

“Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. (Isaiah 55:6-8,ESV)

“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool. (Isaiah 1:18, ESV)

To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against him. (Daniel 9:9, ESV)

who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4, ESV)

They refused to obey and did not remember the miracles you had done for them. Instead, they became stubborn and appointed a leader to take them back to their slavery in Egypt. But you are a God of forgiveness, gracious and merciful, slow to become angry, and rich in unfailing love. You did not abandon them, (Nehemiah 9:17, ESV)

Our death does not change God’s character

It is foolish for us to think that something like our death would change the nature of God. Death does not separate us from God. Not even our sin and rebellion alone separate us from God. It is a hard, unrepentant heart who refuses to come to God under any circumstances that ultimately seals the fate of those in Gehenna.

Yet the LORD warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer, saying, “Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the Law that I commanded your fathers, and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets.” But they would not listen, but were stubborn, as their fathers had been, who did not believe in the LORD their God. (2 Kings 17:13-14, ESV)

Yet the LORD, the God of their fathers, sent word to them again and again by His messengers, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place; but they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD rose against His people, until there was no remedy. (1 Chronicles 36:15-16,ESV)

O LORD, do not your eyes look for truth? You have struck them down, but they felt no anguish; you have consumed them, but they refused to take correction. They have made their faces harder than rock; they have refused to repent. (Jeremiah 5:3, ESV)

You have neither listened nor inclined your ears to hear, although the LORD persistently sent to you all his servants the prophets, saying, ‘Turn now, every one of you, from his evil way and evil deeds, and dwell upon the land that the LORD has given to you and your fathers from of old and forever. Do not go after other gods to serve and worship them, or provoke me to anger with the work of your hands. Then I will do you no harm.’ Yet you have not listened to me, declares the LORD, that you might provoke me to anger with the work of your hands to your own harm. (Jeremiah 25:4-7, ESV)

But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.” (Romans 10:21, ESV)

He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’” (Luke 16:31, ESV)

What about Sodom?

In Matthew 11:24, Jesus states, “And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day” (ESV). Does this mean that people who are in hell would have repented if they were given a different circumstance? No, this verse is not about the individual, but about a city and a temporal situation not about the age to come. Even though this Sodom would have responded to the works of Jesus, this does not mean that individual hearts would have changed or that it would be more than an outward change. In the Gospels many times scripture refers to those who believed outwardly in Jesus but did not have saving faith. We see this with Ahab who is described in these words, “(There was none who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the LORD like Ahab, whom Jezebel his wife incited. He acted very abominably in going after idols, as the Amorites had done, whom the LORD cast out before the people of Israel.)” 1 Kings 21:25-26, ESV). But after Elijah spoke and warned Ahab of God’s wrath, “when Ahab heard those words, he tore his clothes and put sackcloth on his flesh and fasted and lay in sackcloth and went about dejectedly. And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, “Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days; but in his son’s days I will bring the disaster upon his house” (1 Kings 21:27–29, ESV). Despite Ahab’s superficial repentance, God readily relented putting Ahab to death, demonstrating his eagerness to show grace even to one of the worst kings of Israel. Sadly, it does not appear that Ahab responded to this act of grace. Jesus words about Sodom shows the eagerness God has to show kindness despite our hardened hearts. God extends love even to his enemies who reject him. To this kind of heart Paul aptly writes, “Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because you are stubborn and refuse to turn from your sin, you are storing up terrible punishment for yourself. For a day of anger is coming when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Romans 2:4-5, ESV).

But not everyone has the same knowledge of who God is

But you might say, “But not everyone has the same revelation”. And I would agree this is the case. However, this does not mean that God does not exhaustively pursue us or take all this into account as he judges us. Those with less knowledge will not be held to the same accountability of someone who has extensive knowledge of God. They will be judged based on their obedience to the knowledge of God they have been given. Paul states, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30, ESV). God knows our hearts and he will judge us by what we do know, not by what we do not know. But he has made himself known to us all, and so we are without excuse if we are not obedient to the revelation we do have. It is also clear that God is found by all who seek him with sincerity and that God is quick to bring us to himself. Paul in his address, “standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said:

“Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription: ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for

“ ‘In him we live and move and have our being’;

as even some of your own poets have said,

“ ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:22–31, ESV)

Also consider this: God is loving even toward his enemies. He will not vindictively pile on judgment. For those who have already hardened their heart, more revelation would only bring more judgment. In the Gospels, there are occasions when it is clear that the hearts of those around Jesus were hard and he simply walks away, refusing to give himself to them. In some cases, this is the most loving thing for God to do. God in his wisdom knows how to give enough revelation so that those who are condemned are left without excuse, but then backing away when that revelation would only cause more condemnation. No one will stand before God and be judged by what they do not know. And no one who is condemned will accuse God of not pursuing them exhaustively. Their mouths will be shut and no accusation will be brought before God because they will acknowledge that his judgments are just and fair.

before the LORD, for he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with equity. (Psalm 98:9)

before the LORD, for he comes, for he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness, and the peoples in his faithfulness. (Psalm 96:13, ESV)

then a throne will be established in steadfast love, and on it will sit in faithfulness in the tent of David one who judges and seeks justice and is swift to do righteousness.” (Isaiah 16:5, ESV)

God is patient and slow to anger, never quick to condemn. Those who face condemnation have first had to come through the flood of the unwavering steadfast love and faithfulness of God that go before his throne and precede his judgment. The only ones in Gehenna are those who have rejected God’s love.

A word of warning about bad questions

In the case above, Alex O’Conner posed a poorly framed question. Sadly, this is common among “atheist apologists”. It is easy to be skeptical and to phrase questions in a way that gives the appearance of wisdom on the surface, but upon closer examination only reveals our foolishness. I wrote more on this here. But my word of caution is this: If you find yourself asking these kinds of questions, take a moment to examine your heart. Persisting on asking foolish questions, even though there are good answers out there, suggests a deeper issue. Contrary to what some atheists will try to make you believe, there are good answers out there for these questions.

As Christians when dealing with these kinds of foolish questions, we must be aware we cannot know the hearts of those asking them. Those asking these questions may be sincere and we should to be patient with them. But we also should encourage them to examine their motives behind the questions as well, while addressing any genuine inquiries with gentleness and respect.

FURTHER SCRIPTURE READING: Luke 14:12-35 & 15

As we explore science, there are some things we can know with a high level of confidence. Many scientists (and yes, atheist scientists) are concluding that neo-Darwinism (DNA mutation via survival of the fittest) may not fully explain all the data we have. The probabilities of evolution occurring through this method alone are staggeringly low, to the point of bordering on impossible. Additionally, the fossil record shows instances of significant changes occurring abruptly, rather than gradually over time. As a result, scientists are exploring additional factors in the evolutionary process that will coincide with the data. Obviously, atheists are not abandoning evolution (after all they have no other option), but are instead saying other processes participated in the evolution process working together with neo-Darwinism. The exact nature of these mechanisms is currently uncertain, and there is no adequate naturalistic explanation. The data can more strongly be associated with intelligent design rather than a random process. Not because of a god-in-the-gaps argument, but because the data ever increasingly supports fine-tuning and design, which also continues to lower the probabilities for neo-Darwinism alone to explain the data. There are two ways atheists overcome these increasingly low probabilities. They either look at the directive power of science or rely on the multi-verse.

Many proposals have been presented to explain this discrepancy with the data and rely on the directive power of the scientific laws to address the challenges posed by the increasingly lowering probabilities. Basically for evolution to occur, it appears that science is inherently structured to make evolution an inevitable consequence. This notion raises foundational questions. Does the ever-increasing evidence for something directive in evolution point more toward atheism or intelligent design? And why is it that the more we grow in our understanding of science, the more evidence for fine-tuning? This ever-increasing evidence for fine-tuning is increasing the need for the directive force of science to account for these probabilities.

And this is the conundrum: how can we reconcile the probabilities and disparities between the data and theories while maintaining a completely random process? Atheists are left scrambling for an explanation. Though not established to explain this problem, the multiverse hypothesis is becoming an ever-increasing necessity to overcome this paradox, to account for fine-tuning and still allow for random chance.

In science, when there are differing explanations of the data, we do not throw them out in favor for our pet explanation or dogma. The differing explanations are held on to till the data can prove which ones to throw. The atheist, rather than being open to different explanations, rejects intelligent design outright, and holds onto the faith that though we currently do not have an explanation, science which has and continues to explain unknown things will provide these missing puzzle pieces in the future. And I am not saying this is wrong, maybe science will one day explain the ever-increasing fine-tuning and design we find. In fact, I expect it to be the case. Christianity does not hinge on whether or not there are scientific explanations or not. I assume that God, who is not chaotic, made the universe with science. Christianity has the freedom to be neutral and unbiased in any future endeavors to provide a scientific explanation for our universe. This allows Christians to truly be free to appreciate science without conflict. Science does not diminish our sense of wonder and awe of God. Unlike the atheists, we do not have only one necessary conclusion when it comes to the origin of life. But what has been clear is that atheists are forced to ignore the consistent, repeatable, and ever-growing evidence of fine-tuning and design that points to the possibility of intelligent design.

We must be careful in our language. I am not saying there is 100% proof, but that there is consistent evidence, nonetheless, that should not be ignored for intelligent design. It should be noted that as our scientific knowledge expands the stronger and stronger the case for intelligent design becomes. This is the opposite of what we would expect if intelligent design were a “god of the gaps” argument. Atheists would expect that the more we know about science, that science would fill in these gaps (the “science in the gaps” argument). The gaps in the science of evolution are increasing, not diminishing the more we know. And that pattern increases not diminishes even with the introduction of a possible multiverse.

When atheists say there is no evidence for intelligent design, they are putting on blinders and relying on blind faith that science will one day solve this dilemma, despite the evidence to the contrary. They are putting dogma before the data when they do not allow this possibility. They do not have to agree with it, but to say there is no evidence for intelligent design is ignoring the data. It is an irony that they are stunned by doing the very thing they accuse others of. But this kind of hypocrisy is common in atheist arguments. Science does not let go of a possibility, simply because they do not like it, but it allows for different explanations of the data, till more evidence allows for a more definitive direction. Blind faith however is ignoring a possibility despite the mounting evidence. Granted atheists may believe that one day evidence will go more their way and this consistent and repeatable pattern of increasing improbability will be overcome. But this stance is one of faith and relying on the science of the gaps. Science on the other hand is neutral. Science does not draw those conclusions, people with their biases do. Do we have 100% proof intelligent design is true? No. Does science say we won’t have an explanation? No. But the evidence for intelligent design is stronger than the atheist would lead others to believe.

Regardless of one’s position, whether atheist or theist, what neither of us can say is that the puzzle pieces that make our specific universe what it is don’t intricately come together in a fine-tuned dance that allows all that we know to exist. Even if there is an infinite multiverse with all probabilities playing out, in our specific universe this is clearly the case. Science does not provide alternatives to this, nor will further scientific discoveries diminish this intricate dance. Based on consistent and repeatable evidence, we can have confidence that the evidence for this will only get stronger the more we know about our universe. Nor does a multiverse diminish this. The criteria required for a multiverse generator remain complex and awe-inspiring. It advances the argument for fine-tuning rather than diminishing it. While there may be differing opinions regarding whether this suggests the existence of a deity, science compels us to appreciate the intricate fine-tuned nature of the universe. Science does not allow us to ignore this intricate beautiful and awe-inspiring dance. If the world was filled with unicorns or magic, we would lose our wonder of these things. I would argue science is more wondrous and miraculous than unicorns or magic.

Because of this evidence and data, atheists can’t say with integrity that a Christian does not follow the evidence or that the Christian is anti-science or that the Christian bases their beliefs on blind faith or that the Christian puts dogma over data. The Christian position has a robust foundation based on scientific principles. The Christian faith allows us to embrace the data rather than ignore it. God using science does not take away from our wonder and awe of who he is. Despite what atheists would like us to believe, science does not pose a threat to the Christian faith and the Christian faith is not blind.

“And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3).

Is God all-loving? 

Many people read the verse above and question: How can God be perfectly loving? If knowing God is required for eternal life, why has God not made himself more evident?  Why does God hide himself? Indeed, if all it takes to save us is for us to know God, it would be easy to save the world. All God would have to do is show up. After all, if God revealed himself to me distinctly and unmistakably, I would believe. I would acknowledge that he is God. I would even acknowledge that he was sovereign. An all-powerful God could make himself known if he wanted to. Why would God send so many to eternal damnation if all he had to do is show up and say, “I am here”? And if he does not want to make himself known in this way, how can he be all-loving?

And so these kinds of questions make us question the existence of a perfectly-loving God. For although it is within his compacity, he has not revealed himself in a manner we believe would be appropriate. We reason; a God of love would make his existence unquestionable. Therefore, either God is not perfectly-loving or God does not exist.

Square peg into a round hole 

Questions like these punch us in the gut, searing their way to our very heart and soul. It grinds against our concepts of love, goodness, justice, and beauty. There is a struggle to reconcile these inner longings for love with what we are told about the God of the Bible. We have a tough time wrapping our brain around it. And it seems that these things are incompatible. Is there any way to reconcile these things?

Have you ever watched a child sort shapes with differently shaped pegs that are associated with shaped holes? A child will spend a lot of time and effort trying to get a square peg into a round hole. Sometimes, the child will quit in frustration because they deem it impossible. We are like this child. Sometimes, when we can’t figure out how to get the puzzle to come together.  We are determined to get a square peg into the circle shaped hole. We are so focused and resolute to accomplish this that we fail to see our error and often quit in frustration. And yet, when we step back and see things from a proper perspective, the puzzle easily falls into place. 

Faulty Foundation 

Sometimes, our questions can lead us down the wrong path. There are many things in life where if your foundation is faulty, it cascades, and everything you build on it becomes skewed. Often, this happens when we question God. An honest investigation into many questions atheists or skeptics have will find that their beliefs are based on faulty presumptions and that their arguments topple as soon as the cracks in their foundation are exposed. They base their criteria of evidence for God on their own imaginations of what they think God would be like. They challenge a god in their own image. They have a closed view of what god, if he exists, would be like. And yes, I would agree a god or gods as they frame it do not exist. But God is more than the gods they have debunked. And is this not what we ought to expect. If there is a God, would he be able to be confined or boxed in by our imagination? When we approach God in this way, are we not just like a child trying to get a square peg into a round hole and giving up in frustration when there is a much wider picture?

What does it mean to know God? 

One of the things implied by the questions people have about the hiddenness of God is the idea that all we need to have eternal life is to know that God exists. The proposal that God ought to make his existence absolutely clear and evident to all humanity, through miracles or by simply saying “Hi” or by some other means, presumes that having knowledge or acknowledging the existence of God is enough to save us. But is this true? Is believing God exists all it takes? Some might clarify and say – Well, not just believing; we must also acknowledge God’s authority over us. Again, is this true? Or are we trying to get a square peg into a round hole? Are we being like the person who asks foolish questions of a friend because of faulty presumptions, only to embarrass themselves, when their questions only show their lack of understanding of the situation and the person?

We have to ask ourselves the question, if knowing God is required for eternal life, what does it mean to “know” God? The word “know” can mean many things. We can bring our own definition into the conversation. But a good listener does not assume definitions but inquires to understand the intent of the one who is speaking to them. Understanding comes from laying down our presumptions. If “knowing” God is needed to keep us from eternal damnation, then we ought to be very clear on what the word “know” means according to the scripture. We ought to be cautious about coming up with our own definition.

Love does not submit to a child’s demands

Yes, God could show up, and if it would work, if it was an effective means for bringing humanity to himself, because he is perfectly-loving, he would. We have seen that God is willing to take upon himself shame to bring people to himself (read more here). God is not pridefully keeping himself away from us, but does so to protect us (read more here). We have also seen that it would only be to our detriment if he listened to us. We are like children who think they know what is best for them but are unaware of the dangers of their desires. If their parent succumbed to their demands, knowing it would cause serious and permanent harm, are they being loving? It sounds like a good and noble request to ask God to show up and say, “Hi”, but in the end, we would be left empty and hollow, and eternally without hope. Sure, God breaking open the sky and showing up might convince us that he exists, we might even acknowledge his sovereignty over us, but it would not save us . . . quite the opposite. We would be condemned in our unbelief. We have seen (read here and hear), that God hides himself for our protection, not his. For the Bible is clear that believing in the existence of God and even acknowledging his sovereignty is not enough to change the corruption and pride in our hearts. No, this would not be enough. James writes, “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” (2:19). James’ words ought to cause us to pause and caution us in our presumptions.

A child trying to get the square peg into a round hole has a better chance if they stop and step back and relax, and allow themselves to be open to other possibilities and get a better handle on the whole picture. We should do the same. If the demons believe and acknowledge God’s authority over them and shudder, we ought to pause, sit down and be willing to listen, for there is more to the story . . . 

Part of this written dialogue is below:

At this point, I think it would be helpful to clarify where our approaches agree and disagree, so I will summarize from my perspective, and you can comment on anything you think I got wrong. This will be a long post, so I have broken it up. Here is the outline

1. WHAT IF QUETZALCOATL WROTE, “I AM GOD IN THE STARS”?
   1. Summary: God showing up would not be enough. “Empiricism” alone will not tell you whether or not God exists.
2. WHAT DOES SCIENCE TELL US?
   1. Summary: We agree that there is an all-powerful, all-creative, infinite non-contingent cause
3. WHAT WOULD WE EXPECT IF THE CAUSE WAS PERSONAL?
   1. Summary: A personal non-contingent cause must also be relational for us to know him.
4. SHOULD WE BRING OUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS
   1. Summary: Because we have flawed brains, we should not bring our assumptions into the question of God’s existence.
5. WE CANNOT ASSUME GOD’S GOAL IS FOR US TO BELIEVE HE EXISTS
   1. Summary: God’s goal is not for us to believe, but instead to have a relationship with him through the Gospel.
6. GOD IS RELATIONAL AND SPEAKS
   1. Summary: God has given us a means to test the veracity of his existence – the Bible. And this is the pivotal point where we disagree.
7. WHAT ARE THE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS FOR GOD FOR ME
   1. Summary: At the moment, atheist arguments are the strongest proof for me that God exists
8. YOU MUST PROVE GOD EXISTS
   1. Summary: Blind skepticism will not accept evidence, but seeks a way to not have to deal with the evidence. Christian scholars because of the eternal consequences work hard to face the strongman arguments atheists have.
9. BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EVIDENCE
   1. Summary: The Christian God is the best explanation given the evidence that when all are added together approaches 100%.

WHAT IF QUETZALCOATL WROTE, “I AM GOD IN THE STARS”?

I appreciate your understanding that we cannot trust our brains alone. Although I do not hold to solipsism, where we agree is that our brains are severely flawed and that we are often faulty interpreters of the world around us. I think this is why you hold “empiricism” in such a high esteem. The scientific method is something outside of ourselves though not independent of the brain that helps to hold us accountable and helps to mitigate these flaws. Though not perfect it provides checks and balances and helps us to get a better foundation on what is true. Because of this we both believe that the scientific method is a reliable means of finding truth. But “empiricism” alone has its limits. You asked, “What if the stars read, ‘I am Quetzalcoatl, the flying serpent, creator of all’? would you accept this?” No, I would not. I have told you that I understand this skepticism that atheists have. My point in presenting this example of atheists saying that even if God showed up they would not believe was not to show that a certain amount of skepticism here is inappropriate, but that “empiricism” alone could not tell you the difference between whether or not this being was God or just a vastly superior being with greater technology or whether you have gone mad or not (although mass hallucinations like this don’t happen, so this really is not possible). The “Three Body Problem” fictional story even posits that a sufficiently advanced civilization would be able to alter our ability to do science. So, regardless of what “miracles” were performed or what great physical feats were presented “empiricism” will always allow for a means to not believe in God. Or in other words the “science in the gaps” will always allow for another possible explanation. If you have the perspective that as long as one can provide a “science in the gaps” argument, that that one should not believe in God, then “empiricism” will always lead to atheism. This kind of criterion is not an open-minded query, nor does it allow for the best explanation based on the data. We have both demonstrated this weakness of “empiricism”. Given this fact, it would be unwise to hold onto only “empiricism”, for it can only lead to one closed conclusion. It is clear that we need to look to more than “empiricism” to fully explore this question. In order to explore a question, one must allow for the full range of possibilities. I do believe that science provides evidence that is consistent with and points to the Christian God. But I would also argue that scholarly arguments outside of science but are well established and accepted lines of inquiry and evidence in academia provide sound evidence that the Christian God exists and give us a fuller picture of what that might mean and is a fuller explanation of the data we find, without having to appeal to an “in the gaps”.

WHAT DOES SCIENCE TELL US?

What can we know with science? I think it would be helpful to qualify what we both agree we can know through science about the creation or eternal existence of our universe. The more we learn about our universe, the more we discover that our universe has fine-tuning and design. Despite that this has been used to bolster the argument for God, an argument that has its beginnings long before we knew what we know today in science, but has grown stronger the more and more we do learn about science, because of the repeatable and measurable evidence for fine-tuning it is something that is generally agreed on within the scientific community, though the terminology may be different. This growing evidence for fine-tuning has forced atheists to address this issue and grapple with what it means. Saying fine-tuning exists doesn’t establish a cause and obviously the atheist and theist have come to different conclusions.  But both atheists and theists would agree that there must either be an eternal non-contingent cause or an eternal cyclical cause and effect. And this is where the atheists and theists look to try to explain fine-tuning. Another condition that must be met is that this non-contingent cause must be able to explain the probability that we see within the fine-tuning and design within our universe without falling into the gambler’s fallacy. This gets into a more complicated argument than we have room for here, but all this is without calculating the probabilities needed for evolution to occur or for the information found within the universe, which from what we can tell most likely cannot be preloaded into the universe at the beginning and so would be outside of the physics and cosmological constants that existed at the beginning of the universe. Here is a summary of the probabilities that must be overcome:

• Must be able to explain fine-tuning at every step.
• Must be able to overcome the gambler’s fallacy.
• Must be able to explain the directive nature of evolution and information, which from what we can tell cannot be pre-loaded into the universe at the beginning.
• Must be able to explain the information found in our universe.
• Must be able to explain design or apparent design at every step.
• Must be able to explain either the beginning or eternal aspect of nature

But to put it simply there are a lot of odds to overcome that go beyond the beginning of our universe without falling into the gambler’s fallacy. But here we come to another point where both atheists and theists agree. In order to overcome this, the non-contingent cause must be all-powerful, capable of creating infinite universes, but not only infinite universes but be able to generate a full spectrum of universes in sufficient amounts to overcome the probabilities. This can be done by either having a full spectrum infinite multi-universe generator or using a process that weeds out all other possibilities but our own before creating our universe. Currently with what we know the first option could be both impersonal or personal. The second option is most likely personal. But let’s pause on where we do agree for a moment. We both agree that our universe was created by an invisible, eternal, all-powerful force. Interestingly, this conclusion reminds me of a quote from the agnostic Robert Jastrow, “He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. God and the Astronomers” (1978), p. 116; (p. 107 in 1992 edition). What we can agree on and what we know to be true reminds me of the verse that says, “By faith we understand that the world has been created by the word of God so that what is seen has not been made out of things that are visible” (Hebrews 11:3). Neither the atheists nor theologians have specific 100% proof within science for their positions here. We just don’t know enough about science yet. But despite not having 100% proof both the scientist and the theologian believe or have faith that something eternal, all-powerful, and invisible created our universe. We agree that our universe “has not been made out things that are visible”. And we both believe that our universe was made out of something eternal and infinite. Science shows us that there is an all-powerful, eternal, invisible cause to our universe, but we still have to ask ourselves whether or not there is a personal cause behind this. Atheists believe that evidence will come to show that a self-existing multi-universe generator is possible. A directive force or a specific beginning is not something that atheists at this time support. Theists are open to either a self-existing multi-universe generator or a directive force behind our universe. I do think there are good arguments that show that science does point to God and has stronger explanatory power than that the atheist’s position, but I feel that I am not yet equipped to argue these points yet. I am still in the middle of my research, so I would rather leave the argument here, where I feel like we both have agreement. Regardless, the question remains whether or not the initial non-contingent cause of our universe is impersonal or personal. We cannot prove a non-personal or a non-relational personal cause, but if the cause is not only personal, but is also relational, we would suspect that this non-contingent cause could be found and known. But then we must ask how would this personal and relational non-contingent cause reveal himself?

WHAT WOULD WE EXPECT IF THERE IS A PERSONAL GOD?

If the non-contingent cause is personal, we would only know this if that non-contingent cause chose to reveal himself. An all-powerful being could make a universe purely using science. Therefore, for us to know God, one of the things we could expect is that this God is both personal and relational. If this personal non-contingent cause were not relational, it would also probably be a moot point, since neither the atheist nor theist could have a relationship with this kind of god. So, I would argue that if there is a God, for us to have a relationship with this god, it would be important that this god be relational. And if the cause of the universe is relational, we have to ask ourselves, how would we come to know this creator? Afterall, we have both concluded that if God showed up “empiricism” would invalidate such an attempt. Though showing up would be a means of revealing himself, we would want more, since we are dealing with our flawed brains. So how would we come to know God given our flawed brains?

SHOULD WE BRING OUR OWN PRESUMPTIONS?

One certain way to not know this God is to trust our flawed brains. Since a non-contingent cause is powerful enough to create a universe that is so far beyond us, that we are just getting started in exploring its depths, we cannot assume we can fully understand this God on our own power with our flawed brains. We would need this God to condescend and reveal to us who he is. One of the flaws of the atheist is that they bring in their own presumptions to this question. They trust their flawed brains and determine for themselves what this God ought to be like. You will often here questions phrased in the format of

1. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving etc., then he would . . . (fill in the blank)
2. Since God has not done . . . (fill in the blank), God does not exist.

Some examples are (fill in the blank) God would . . .:

• not be hidden.
• God would be clear in his revelation of himself
• would reveal himself in such and such a way.
• want me to believe.
• find a way to get me to believe.
• Prove himself 100% through empirical means.
• provide one definitive argument for God.
• not allow . . .
• not allow for suffering or evil
• not have done this.
• has not made the church I believe he said he would.
• have perfect church without disagreements on theology.
• conform to my interpretation of scripture.
• fit my expectations of what a god ought to be.
• Etc.

Like “empiricism” this approach presumes or forces a conclusion rather than performing an objective and open query. God must meet these made-up arbitrary requirements in order to exist. This is a deeply troubling approach for a group that states that they have a scientific approach and who state that we cannot trust our brains because they are flawed. These presumptions are flawed because they start with what our flawed brains assume God would be like. In my communication on the topic of the hiddenness of God I demonstrated that these presumptions are flawed and cannot stand up to scrutiny (for more go here). A scientific approach would not presume that we could bring our presumptions into this query. An all-powerful, all-creative, infinite relational being is not a “one-dimensional” being that we can presume to understand either what he is like or how this being would reveal himself. We are having enough difficulty understanding the physical universe or relationships in our lives. These are flawed arguments from flawed brains. As in science we can’t start with pre-conceived criteria or have an unmovable conclusion and expect to get anywhere. Because we have such flawed brains in order to know God, we would need something outside ourselves which like the scientific method would allow for accountability, evaluation, and testing.

WE CANNOT ASSUME GOD’S GOAL IS FOR US TO BELIEVE HE EXISTS

We will get back to the question on how God has revealed himself, but first we need to address one of the errors atheists make first. They assume the goal God has for humanity is for them to believe that he exists. Or that there ought to be some definitive absolute evidence they can look to. This is a fallacious assumption. Atheists argue that God would know how to prove that he exists, with no effort. I agree, but that is not his goal. Atheists also argue that the Bible ought to be clearer. Again, you assume God’s purpose is to be clear. It is not. His goal is not for us to believe he exists or for the church to have perfect doctrine. His goal is to bring a people into relationship with himself through the power of the gospel. In our dialogue earlier on the “hiddenness of God”, I demonstrated that these assumptions atheists make would not be the goal of a perfectly loving God. I won’t go into it and rehash those arguments here. You can reread what I sent you (or go here). But for God to be both perfectly loving to those who come to him and to those who reject him, he must be “hidden”. And this fact in itself, his “hiddenness”, is evidence for God’s existence, for only a perfectly loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God could accomplish this.

 GOD IS RELATIONAL AND SPEAKS

If God is relational, we can assume he would reveal himself. And I would argue he has in many sundry ways, some of which includes science, logic, philosophy, beauty, and personal experience. And for many this revelation is so extraordinary that it is enough for them to believe. But though he has revealed himself in these ways, these things alone can only tell us so much. For us to know God in a relational way, God must reveal himself in a relational way and in a way that does not violate his “hiddenness” which protects us. We intuitively know this in our own relationships with others. “Empiricism” is not relational. Even though we would not expect science to be inconsistent with God, if God were to reveal himself, certainly it would not be through “empiricism”, for as shown earlier “empiricism” would not be an effective means. We have both agreed that just showing up and even writing in the stars would not work. But we have also agreed that because of our flawed brains, we would want something outside of ourselves, something that can be evaluated, scrutinized, and tested. I have talked with my children on how personal experiences or hearing a “voice from heaven” would not be a valid means in of itself for God to reveal himself, since it is limited in the ways it could be evaluated or tested. People are flawed. There are conditions where people here voices that are not real. Many have “heard god”, only for it to be clear that they had not, whether from madness, selfishness manipulation, or from other voices. And our feelings and experiences as well can skew our thinking. And from these experiences there are many religions in the world. How do we know which one is true?

We must be careful not to take this too far and on the other side to say things like science and experience are not useful in coming to know God. Like science, experiences can point us to God, and we would expect these things to be consistent with God, but also like science because of our flawed brains we would need to be cautious. For example, the fine-tuning, design, and information arguments are extremely powerful arguments for God that have only grown stronger the more we have learned about science. But I think for the both of us, we would like to something more, we want something that takes into account our flawed brains, something that is subject to scrutiny and rigorous analysis and evaluation, after all how would we distinguish it from all the other religions as the true religion. Thankfully, God does not intend for us to rely on our flawed brains. The most powerful means by which God has revealed himself to us is through the Bible. The Bible is something that can be scrutinized, evaluated, and tested to see if its claims hold up and are true. It can be evaluated against other religions. It can be evaluated against science, logic, philosophy, and academia. It is something that can be evaluated outside our flawed brains. The reason I would not believe in Quetzalcoatl in the scenario above is because there is no such evidence. If Jesus showed up on the other hand I would already have enough vast and extraordinary evidence to believe.

And here is the pivotal point where we disagree. You do not believe that the Bible holds up to scrutiny. I believe it does. You don’t believe that the Bible conforms with the world you see around you, with science, or even is consistent with itself. I on the other hand do believe that the Bible is consistent with the world I see around me, with science, and is consistent with itself.

WHAT IS MY STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR GOD – ATHIEST ARGUMENTS

You asked me what my strongest argument for God is. For me it is the integrity of the Bible. A follow up question might be what for me is the strongest argument for the integrity of the Bible. At this moment, for me, the strongest argument for the integrity of the Bible are atheist arguments. I have mentioned to you before that I believe in putting the strong men in the ring and letting them fight to the death. Atheist arguments rather than doing this stick a strawman in the ring and fight against that. Within this group though I have not read everything posted, from what I have read, I have not seen one argument that actually attacks the Christian faith or the Bible. We have both determined that the brain is flawed and is often not a reliable interpreter of the data. There are both atheists and theists who believe in a “flat earth” and they claim to have science to back them up. You will say that they are not using science correctly. Bingo! This is my point. When atheists make claims against the veracity of the Bible, they fail to use the Bible correctly, just as flat earthers fail to use science correctly. This is why when coming to the scriptures we must rely on proper hermeneutics and rigorous scholarship and an open mind. It is clear when atheists talk about the Bible, they have no clue what they are talking about, nor does it seem that they are willing to do the arduous work to understand. You state that there are 1000s of inconsistencies in the Bible. Let’s be honest, we both know that there are only a handful worth talking about, and of those none of them touch doctrine or faith. What I have found in atheists’ arguments is a very narrow understanding of the Christian faith and a lack of engagement with the robust scholarship within Christian community to the point where most of the arguments I have come across can only be described as slander. Sure, perusing the internet or social media you will find poor Christian answers, but I am talking about the well-studied, professionally researched, scholastic work that has been done. The stuff that requires more than a casual engagement and requires years and years of challenging work. When I sent you a link to videos, you said there were a lot. The reality is you will probably not do the hard work. And I understand the challenge and the difficulty of what I ask, you are a busy person. And what I sent was basic stuff, it would only begin to touch the work done to answer atheists’ questions. But this is the type of scholastic work that atheists fail to address against the Christian faith, because they don’t have the inclination to do this kind of work. Because you have not done the work, you have not been able to present a legitimate argument against the Bible or the Christian faith.

And this is why I believe the Bible; it has been tested. It has been tested by the harshest critics, the strongest strongmen atheists have to offer, and it has stood up to that test. You have not been able to provide not even one valid argument against the Christian faith but insist on believing that you do have a good argument. On the other hand, Atheist arguments have consistently demonstrated errors in logic and scholarship. Here are a few.

Places where Atheists violate proper literary textual analysis

• Authorial intent errors
• Cultural
• Wooden literalism
• Assumption of presentism
• Genre Fallacy
• Contextual analysis error
• Etymology error
• Synchronic meaning error
• Syntactic Fallacy
• Symantec range Fallacy
• Argument of Silence Fallacy
• Description is not prescription
• Assume a different definition
• Assume a static scene
• False dilemma
• Fallacy of false equivocation
• Elephant hurling
• Species fallacy
• Sweeping generalization fallacy
• Subset fallacy
• Genetic Fallacy

YOU MUST PROVE GOD EXISTS

You will say, “Well it is on you to prove to me that God exists. I have a lack of belief, It should not be hard to prove your case”. Have you ever tried to reason with someone who believes in a “flat earth”? The reason people believe in the “flat earth” is not because they are stupid. The problem is actually the opposite. The problem is that our flawed brains are quite intelligent and able to come up with arguments to support what we believe. Despite the evidence you give “flat earthers”, and despite the fact that it is common sense evidence, they are smart enough are able to come up with an answer to why that evidence is irrelevant, without having to actually address the evidence itself. And this is often how blind skepticism works. Most of the arguments you have given me are reasons why you don’t have to evaluate the evidence. If skepticism is your foundation, evidence becomes a lot less relevant in the discussion. Whatever evidence is produced, blind skepticism can explain it away or ignore it, without facing and addressing the actual arguments or evidence.

You might ask, “How do I know that I have not done the same with my arguments for God?” Because I and other Christian scholars work hard to try to understand the depths of atheists’ arguments and represent them fairly. If I have misunderstood one of your arguments, I want to know. Remember we have stronger eternal motives in wanting to convince atheists to believe in God. We cannot do this well if we don’t understand what atheists believe and actually address the questions they are having. Good Christian scholars work hard to put the strongest man for the atheists in the ring. Not only do they try to fully address atheist strong man arguments, but they also try to make atheist arguments even stronger. Christian scholars work hard to allow atheists to put the strong man into the ring. I don’t see the same rigor among atheists. Again, I have not seen one post in this group that actually attacks the Christian faith. After seeing the Bible time and time again put these strongman arguments to death, you start to develop a trust in its veracity. When time and time again you see atheists putting strawman and fallacious reasoning into the ring, the less and less you feel like you can take their arguments seriously. I believe the Bible because there are objective means outside my brain that allow me to test its veracity. Christianity is probably the most scrutinized religion and the Bible the most scrutinized book. Both have held against that scrutiny. And I am not talking about the fact that Christianity still exists. I am talking about the fact that Christianity actually addresses strong man arguments put up against it. Take our conversations, I have been able to demonstrate several points of fallacious reasoning within your arguments. I don’t think my arguments are perfect either, but you have not been able to do the same with my arguments.

BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EVIDENCE

Why do I believe in God. I believe in God because given the evidence in the science, in philosophy, in psychology, in history, in art, the presence of evil, morality, ethics, personal experience and the experience of others, and in the Bible, the Christian God has the fullest and best explanatory power for what I see in this world. I can’t give you one definitive proof that God exists, but all these things put together the probability that God exists approaches 100%.

How would I convince you that there is a God? I don’t know. I am not naive, just as “flat earthers” have their answers to evidence presented to them, so too atheists have their answers. The reality is I am not going to be able to provide you a one fits all definitive argument to suddenly convince you that God exists. This is not how our flawed brains work. This is not how you would convince a “flat earther” even though we both know that the evidence for the globe is overwhelming and is absolutely right. I think these things just happen over time as we dialogue.  But I suppose this is not surprising if God cares more about relationship than belief.

In reality all of us live in the real world not an imaginary one. And we all observe and experience things in this real world. As we observe and experience these things we gain data about this world that we live in. And from this data we come to assertions about what this world is like. Both the atheist and the theists are evaluating the data and coming to separate positions about that data means. Saying you have a lack of belief that there is a god or even saying you are agnostic is a position, and a conclusion based on one’s evaluation of the data. In academia when one evaluates data and comes to a conclusion, one must defend that position regardless of what that position is. Not only must they defend their position, it expected that they understand their methodology on how and why they have come to those conclusions and the strengths and weaknesses of their approach. You have highly intelligent people looking at the data and coming to starkly different conclusions. Academia cares not only with the conclusions but the epistemology – the “why and how” these conclusions were made. Academia cares about the process that led to the conclusions. It cares about why intelligent people are coming to different conclusions on this issue. This is why in academia atheists don’t get a “get out of jail free card”, they must both defend their position but also their epistemology, methodologies, and approach and demonstrate that they understand both the strengths and weaknesses of their position. This is just basic academia stuff and if atheists want to be taken seriously in the academic world they need to stop avoiding this with slogans like “I don’t have a belief, I have a lack of belief”. And the academic world needs to call them out for this. We must call both sides to rigorously evaluate and defend their conclusions with academic rigor.

If you pay attention to the arguments of atheists, particularly the “new atheists”, it is evident that many of their responses such as the assertion that they “lack belief”, are crafted to provide an escape from not having to defend their stance academically. Instead their arguments are lean more towards rhetoric and propaganda. With the rise of social media, sensationalism and the desire to cater to social media algorithms this has become more prominent. Consequently, arguments that resonate emotionally or consist of catchy slogans tend to overshadow intellectual dialogue. Sadly this approach along with cultural influence, frequently impedes any meaningful dialogue on the subject.

There are two possibilities for existence – an eternal cyclic/cause & effect system or something that is beyond matter or time or quantum physics and all that we know, that is eternal and self-existent. We don’t see any evidence for a cyclic/cause & effect system, as far as we know the universe will petter out. But we do see strong evidence of a universe that is created with fine tuning, and we don’t have an adequate eternal cyclic explanation. Things like the multi-verse only increase the fine-tuning needed and leave us empty with an eternal cyclic construct. And so, the irony is that atheists’ scientific explanations like multi-verse and evolution only increase the need for the fine-tuning of the universe in order to occur. If we want to stand where the current evidence is strongest, one that points to fine-tuning, believing in God, is not appealing to “the God of the gaps”, but following what is supported by the current evidence we have in science. Atheists on the other hand instead of acknowledging this evidence, because of their unbelief, are forced to appeal to the fact that it only “appears” to be fine-tuned and that the “science of the gaps” will someday switch from providing more and more evidence for fine-tuning to finally just explaining it away. How long will it take for this argument to be proven or for the atheists to decide that it is futility. I suppose we will see.

I was talking with my child the other day. She was telling me of a situation where she was told by someone that not everyone believes in Jesus. I let her know that she can be assured that I will not conceal this information or these kind of views from her or minimize what others say against the Christian faith. I also let her know it is ok to have questions about the Christian faith. I let her know that unlike those who will say things like this, who are only able to see one side, I will not hide things from her, not only that, I expect her to see both sides (for I have yet to see an atheist or agnostic, even former Christians or Christian leaders or pastors, that are able to articulate the Christian faith and present both sides or something that I recognize as the Christian faith, and they certainly will not teach their children the Christian faith). Nor do I want her to run away or hide in the sand. Unlike the opposition I expect her to have an open mind. I want her to fully understand the strongest arguments against the Christian faith, because we don’t have to fear them. Truth stands when buffeted. I want these ideas to be fully exposed so she can see them for what they are. Unlike those who oppose the Christian faith, it is also important as Christians that we endeavor to listen to the questions people have and understand them so that we can fully address them. We want to talk with people not past them. Atheist only present one side, while Christians by the nature of their call seek to understand both sides so they can clearly present the Gospel to others, meeting them where they are at. Because Truth is a person, it is relational. And because Truth holds us, we don’t have to be afraid of hearing people out and fully understanding their views. And yes, there is Truth, . . . and we know this instinctively as we try to make sense of this world.

But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. (1 Peter 3:14–16, ESV)

For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, (2 Corinthians 10:3–5, ESV)

Be careful what you wish for . . .

Some will ask if God exists, why doesn’t he make himself completely obvious so that there is no doubt that he exists. They say that this is what they want in order for them to believe. If they had it they would believe in God. But is believing in God’s existence what they need? They foolishly make this claim because they do not understand the dangers of what they are asking. The saying is true, we must be careful what we wish for. . ..  

The demons believe and are condemned for it

You want God to reveal himself definitively and clearly in order for you to believe. But is this kind of belief enough? The scriptures tell us that the demons believe in God, and yet they are left shuddering and without hope (James 2:19). Why is this so? The answer is that they have no hope because of the fact that they believe and know that God exists. And it is their knowing God that condemns them and has left them without hope, for their rejection of God came after God made himself known to them. Therefore, there is no more that God can do for the demons, no more evidence that God can provide to convince them to change their hearts. What in you would make your response any different than the demons?  

Signs and wonders do not produce faith

We see this warning in other places throughout the Bible of people hardening their hearts despite being given signs and wonders and direct proofs of God’s existence. We see this specifically during the Exodus. Pharaoh continually hardened his heart against the signs and wonders God gave. But not only Pharaoh, but more significantly, the Israelites who had been delivered also hardened their heart and went astray, and were left without hope. After the Israelites had been given many manifold and direct proofs of God and had experienced God’s love and faithfulness and his tender care for them in the wilderness, they still lacked faith in God and failed to trust in his word. Because of this, God says of that generation that they shall never enter his rest. There was no more hope for them. Israel once again rejected God, despite all the signs and wonders Jesus performed. Despite all they had seen, they, too, hardened their hearts. This is a common pattern when God reveals himself with signs and wonders. 

An interesting note: when Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, comes to Jesus, he states, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Don’t miss that this man who was “a ruler of the Jews” doesn’t say “I believe” but he says “we believe”. Could he be speaking of the other leaders as well? It is not clear who the “we” are, but it is clear that the leadership understood that Jesus had come to destroy their world and that instead of embracing Jesus and acknowledging that his works were from God, they publicly attributed his works to Beelzebub. Jesus had come to destroy what they had known and their privilege. In the parable of the vineyard Jesus describes the leaders as ones who were willing to kill the son to protect what they had in the hopes that the vineyard would remain in their possession. There was a stubborn rejection of the signs and wonders given to them in order to protect what they had. 

Revelation only brings judgement

It is clear that the more revelation God gives us of himself, the more judgment we will incur if we continue to reject him, and if we continue to harden our hearts, there will come a day when it will be declared that we shall never enter God’s rest. 

“Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.’ Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, ‘Are we also blind?’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.’” (John 9:39–41) 

So, we must be careful how much we want to see because the more we see, the more we are hastening the day of our final judgment if we continue to harden our hearts. Those who claim they want a sign in order to believe are like these Pharisees: if you will not hear the gospel, you will also not be convinced by a powerful sign. We will later see that it is only the gospel that can make one believe.

God will reveal himself 

There will be a day when God makes himself fully known to humanity in a definitive and decisive way as atheists have asked, where no one can deny who he is. They won’t doubt his existence or attribute it to the failings of their mind. All eyes will see him. They will know that he is God. Atheists will confess that he is God with no doubt in their minds. But on that day, our fate will be sealed. On that day, every knee will bow down and confess that he is Yahweh. But for many, like the demons, this bowing and confession will be to their judgment. For having knowledge and acknowledging who God is and his sovereignty is not enough.  

If like the Jewish leaders, we believe that God owes you an extraordinary sign to prove his existence, even if your request was granted, like the Jewish leaders who contributed the miracles to the work of Beelzebub, we too, would find some other explanation other than being willing to hear the call of God. We are not much different than the Israelites in the wilderness or the Jewish leaders who saw the works of God.  

Those who ask God to reveal himself in this way do not understand what they are asking. If God made himself known, as many atheists have asked, then that day would be their judgment day. They would perish without hope. We cannot presume that we would repent, even if we saw the most ardent proof of God. And so again, we need to be careful what we ask for, for just as the demons determined their own fate despite such evidence, if God gave us what we asked for, God could do nothing more after that to rescue us. 

But I would repent 

Some may say, “But my heart would change, I would repent if I saw that kind of evidence!” I know many believe this, but would it be enough? Just as belief is not enough, so repentance is not enough to rescue us from ourselves. It is unlikely we would change, but even if we did and let’s say lived a perfect life, the Christian faith requires something more profound than living a moral life. It requires dying to ourselves and losing our lives, not a frantic attempt to save it by changing our outward behavior in order to be rescued from judgment. Blaise Pascal wrote, “God has given evidence sufficient for those with an open and an open heart, but it is sufficiently vague as not to compel those whose hearts are closed”. God is not interested in “compelled hearts”. 

No, God has given enough evidence for us to believe; we are just really good at suppressing his call. We are like children playing on the playground who don’t want to listen to their parent calling to them from afar off to come home. Because they want to continue to play, they suppress that call. And like these children, we want to continue in our own way, and so we suppress the call of God to come home. And just because the parent leaves their home and no longer yells from afar, but shows up on the playground and makes it clear that their child is to return home, and the child yields to their parents demand and walks with them home, this does not mean that the child’s heart values their parent’s voice in that moment more than the playground. Given the chance, if not compelled, they would rush back to the playground without hesitation.  

Of course, the analogy would be more fitting if instead of playing in the playground, the kids were playing on a busy highway. For though the pleasures of this world are intoxicating, they are fleeting and in the end, cause us harm. Peter describes our love for the things of this world as vomit and mire, 

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.” (2 Peter 2:20–22) 

Yes, if God showed up, we might submit, but our hearts would still be attached to this world. Know one who is attached to this world can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Pride is destructive both to the person and those around them, and it has no place in the Kingdom of God.  

Was Esau able to find hope in this kind of repentance? His weeping and tears were those of bitterness, loss, and sorrow but not of a broken heart or of a man who had died to himself. We do not realize how much sin and pride have infected our hearts. Just as one gets used to a horrid rotting smell after a while, we have gotten used to the depths of our sin and see them as light. We are used to the smell of death that sin brings. But Jesus made it clear that if we say a harsh word to another that we are far more infected by sin and pride than we realize. If we look at another with lust, we are subject to eternal judgment. Jesus made it clear that none of us are as good as we think we are and justly deserve judgment. Our passions and desires are at war with one another and with God.  

We would not embrace God 

Do not think that if God gave us direct revelation that you would embrace him or want to be near him. Apart from Christ, just as Adam fled and hid from God, so we, too, will shrink back and flee from God’s presence. Those who love darkness do not want to be in the light. Gehenna is described as a place of darkness; and it is described with qualities that are in opposition to God. This is one of the ironies of the fate of those who reject God, 

     Woe to those who draw iniquity 
       with cords of falsehood,  
          who draw sin as with cart ropes,  
     who say: “Let him be quick,  
          let him speed his work  
          that we may see it;  
     let the counsel of the Holy One
      of Israel draw near,  
          and let it come, 
           that we may know it!”  
     Woe to those who call evil good  
          and good evil,  
     who put darkness for light  
          and light for darkness,  
     who put bitter for sweet  
          and sweet for bitter!  
     Woe to those who are wise 
       in their own eyes,  
          and shrewd in their own sight! 
                (Isaiah 5:18–21) 

We reject God because we think our way of doing things is good and God’s way of doing things is evil. The irony is that because we love the darkness, we will abandon God, and in doing so, we will abandon the source of life, light, love, joy, goodness, etc., and flee to dwell in a place that has none of these things to be free of God’s presence. It would not matter if God showed up because we would not want to come to him if he did. 

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. (John 3:19–20) 

Let’s suppose I dwelt in a dark cave for a long time, and all of a sudden, I found myself in a bright open field. What would my response to the light be? For those who only have knowledge of God, this light is unbearable. They cover their eyes and shrink back. They do not want to be near God. They will not be able to bear standing before God. 

     Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord?
         And who shall stand in his holy place? 
            (Psalm 24:3)    

Only those found in Jesus and who are a completely new creation can stand in the light and embrace it. Without Jesus, no one can approach God. But for those apart from Christ, they are unable to stand and do not want to be in his presence. This response to rejecting God and fleeing his presence is deeper and more ingrained in us than someone in a cave being exposed to light. If God showed up, we would not embrace him; instead, like roaches fleeing when the light is turned on, we would frantically flee to a place of darkness. The same light that opens a world of beauty for those who love the light is torment for those who love darkness. Our hearts must change if we are to be able to be near God. No amount of evidence would change this. We are no better than the demons, Pharoh, the Israelites, or the Pharisees. Thankfully, God has presented himself through Jesus in human flesh, breaking the veil that kept God separated and hidden so that we might be able to stand before God on the day he is fully revealed, clothed in the righteousness of Jesus. Those who have come to the Lion of Judah and embrace him in love will not flee like the wicked,  

The wicked flee when no one pursues,  but the righteous are bold as a lion. (Proverbs 28:1) 

the lion, which is mightiest among beasts, and does not turn back before any (Proverbs 30:30)

But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls. (Hebrews 10:39) 

When dealing with someone who is struggling with the idea of Christianity and asking the question of why they should believe in the God of the Bible, we must realize that the struggle is rarely merely an intellectual one. And this is the case whether the person is an atheist, agnostic, going through deconstruction, or having doubt. As I have talked with people this is often the core issue. Even after giving what they agree to be a solid answer, they still don’t want to give up what they believe. They are often dealing with what they believe to be right and good, for without the King, every man does what is right in their own eyes. Sin often entangles us because we believe it is good. Psychologically we are often more persuaded by a good story than we are by facts. This is why slogans of those who attack Christianity often appeal to this condition and speak to the heart rather than the intellect. We hear things like, “Love wins” or “Love always”. After all who can argue with love, is not love the supreme good. Our responses though to these kinds of questions often deal with the intellect rather than the heart. I’ve seen many times where someone asks a genuine heart felt question where they are struggling only for the depth of their questions to be ignored by some intellectual response. The Bible though solid in its intellectual compacity does not ignore this flaw of human nature and how we often follow our hearts. In dealing with these kinds of questions we must follow the scriptures example. It is the word of God and the beautiful story of the Gospel that changes hearts. If we are patient and willing to listen to the depth of the questions that the person is having, we can have no fear, for the word of God is perfectly capable of handling a rowdy, struggling, sinful human heart. It sets the captives free. So instead of giving a solely intellectual answer that satisfies our own questions, we must dig deeper in our conversation with others and deeper into the word of God and let God’s words speak. The story of the Gospel is intriguing, compelling, beautiful, and awe inspiring. In the light of God’s beauty, the slogans of this world become a pale whisper and are exposed for the foolishness they are. The Gospel is far better than the silly slogans the world provides. It attacks both mind and heart. We need to be get better about not just giving an answer to the questions but entrancing people with wonder of the story. A story that unlike the slogans of this world stands on a firm and solid foundation. Unlike the fickle hearted ruled slogans of this world, thankfully there is not just beauty but also solid scholarship and intellect to back it up the Gospel, for only things in Christ can stand.

We often ignore the heart of the questions people are having because an unruly heart is so difficult to tame. It takes time, patience, struggle, and a willingness to get close and wrestle. We must keep in mind that the sword described in Hebrews 4 is not a long sword, but one meant for close combat and wrestling. It meant for this kind of struggle. So, we should not be surprised at this kind of warfare and be ready for close combat and wrestling with the enemy. We can stand against the enemy without fear, for it is easy to be brave when facing a foe, when there is a lion backing you up. As Augustine said, we need to uncage the lion and let the word of God roam free and stop holding it back. So don’t be afraid to intently and purposefully listen to the questions of those challenging Christianity, they are only whimper and pale in comparison to the lion. But also, do not attack them in your own strength or with what is right and wise in your own eyes. We do not depend on Egypt to win our battles. That glory goes to the Lord alone. Be patient and listen to their question and wait on the Lord and allow his word to conquer not your intellect. Let us gather around the fire of God’s word and experience the light and heat of the Gospel as we listen to the story and let it envelope us and sink into our hearts, breath, blood, flesh and bones.

Posts in the series The Hidden God in an Evil World:

1. Bump in the night

2. The Father does not despise the shame

3. The day before the throne

4. Hides to be approachable

5. Our belief in God would destroy us

6. How dare you show up, God!

7. The Sound

8. The Wind

9. Trying to get a square peg into a round hole

Coming Soon . . .

10. Belief is not enough

11. What is “knowing”?

12. We must be born again

13. The Covenant

14. God reveals himself

15. The Word

16. Love for his enemies

17. Black and White

18. Wondering in the desert

19. We are not as good . . .

20. Sin brings hell

21. Futile suffering

22. What is the source of Evil

23. Objection: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

24. Objection: Using the Bible is a circular argument

To be alerted of new posts, click here

Atheists often ask for Christians to provide evidence for God. It is a fair request, because despite their slurs, Christianity is not based on blind faith. But in order to look at the evidence, we must first look at both what evidence is and discuss what kind of evidence for God we ought to expect. For it is clear that we have two different approaches when it comes to what is counted as evidence for God. And so if we are not going to talk past each other, it is important to understand what the differences are. Understanding this will help us understand each other’s arguments and communicate more effectively. We must also come to understand how our epistemologies and framework affect our perspectives on this subject and what biases come from those approaches. And we must also examine these approaches and ascertain which approach better deals with the evidence and come to grips with what kind of evidence we can expect.

One popular saying of the atheist community is, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This statement seems to sum up the epistemology of many atheists on how they believe they can know whether there is a god or not. In other words, they are often looking for indisputable proof of God’s existence or at least evidence that would fall within same confidence level of science. Gravity for example is unseen, but measurable, observable, repeatable, and follows predictable formulas so despite not seeing it, we know it exists. Also, because the presence of God is not something that we experience in our everyday lives or in the lives of those around us, it would take more for one to believe in God’s existence. For example, we don’t tend to believe that unicorns exist because in our experience and in the experience of those around us, they don’t. Because of this for me to believe there is a unicorn, you would have to provide extraordinary evidence. And on the surface, this makes sense. Why believe in something unless you have demonstratable proof of its existence?

This approach, however, relies on underlying unproven assumptions. For example, this approach assumes the type of evidence that will be found and then rejects any evidence that does not fit within these preconceived parameters. This creates a self-confirming bias. If it is not extraordinary or indisputable evidence, we can toss it out and not dwell on it. “Come talk with me when you have discovered something indisputable”. In this way, a plethora of evidence can be ignored.

Here is the deal. For one science doesn’t work that way and if God exists, we should not be quick to assume what those parameters are or what type of evidence we should find. Even with as much as we do know, we barely understand the universe and what we understand today did not come about by telling the universe what its parameters of evidence ought to be and then reject any data that does not fit within those parameters. By no means, for we know this kind of thinking to be foolish. How much more when studying something much more complex than the universe, must we be careful not to be blinded by our assumptions by placing artificial parameters on what that evidence might be. Instead, we observe and collect data as it is and come up with theories that best explain what that data is. But instead of using a scientific method atheist have told God how he must reveal himself and what kind of data and evidence must present to prove his existence. That is ridiculous. How are we to know? For a group that claims to love science, they are quick to throw out the scientific method on this question. If you only accept extraordinary evidence, then you have become blind to other forms of evidence. Evidence doesn’t have to be extraordinary or indisputable to be evidence. If God exists, we cannot presume the means or the type of evidence by which he might reveal himself. We must also keep in mind scientific evidence is not the only kind of evidence. And the scientific method is not the only means by which we come to know things. Not everything is testable. When we study history for example, we can’t do experiments. But this does not mean we can’t take a rigorous scholarly approach when we are approaching this subject. I believe the Bible demands it, I am not to just accept things on so called, “blind faith”.

One of those assumptions atheists have is the Schellenberg argument. It assumes that if perfectly-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God exists, that he would reveal himself in an extraordinary way or by whatever means necessary to provide irrevocable proof of his existence. And since we don’t find this proof, therefore atheists conclude that God does not exist. In other words, this approach assumes that there will be a specific kind of evidence for God, that everyone can look to and undeniably know that there is a God. I have shown elswhere that the Schellenberg argument is not tenable and that there is another possibility, one in which God would not reveal himself in this way. Since this approach relies on the Schellenberg argument, this approach like the Schellenberg argument is flawed. Because of this we cannot assume that God will reveal himself through extraordinary means. That would be entering an unproven bias into our query. It is possible that God has chosen to reveal himself by very ordinary means. After all, if pride is the ultimate sin, would it not make sense for God to reveal himself through humble means and in a way that is loving both toward those who come to love him and to those who are his enemies. We have to ask ourselves, by what scientific method have the atheists determined that extraordinary evidence is needed to prove the existence of God? It is not the purview of science to approach a subject with the baggage of assumptions. Although at times, it is not without warrant to provide a predictive model of what you believe you might expect, so you can test it. It however is not scientific or scholarly to hold on to that model staunchly in the presence of evidence that shows that that model is indefensible. The statement, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is indefensible and therefore should be thrown out. Evidence doesn’t have to be grand or extraordinary to be reasonable.

Another problem with this approach is that it is very subjective. What kind of evidence is considered extraordinary? After all, if unicorns or magic were everywhere, we would find them ordinary, instead of extraordinary. It is not so much extraordinary evidence that we need, but reasonable evidence. If you have a subjective standard by which you look at the evidence, since we are creatures that are really good at confirmation bias and conforming the evidence to fit our preconceived standard, we will not believe. We know this and both sides are not immune to this. But one thing that is clear the statement, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is faulty at best. But the atheists would argue, God would know what kind of evidence it would take for me to believe. After all, how can I know God exists if he does not provide sufficient proof for me to believe. Well, many atheists have made it clear that not even this would be enough for them to believe. Because their standard for evidence is subjective, and there is no definable means to deal with the evidence that is there, it is easy when presented with evidence to just shrug it off and say, “Well, that still is not sufficient evidence for me to believe.” This is a standard based on emotion rather than objective reasoning. Here is the thing, when we presume a perspective of God that is subjective, limiting, and narrow, we cease to analyze the data as a scientist, and we close our minds to the possibilities outside our restricted parameters. We no longer really listen and hear the evidence that is out there, because it doesn’t meet the artificial criteria we have made. This kind approach only works if the assumption is that God would reveal himself by extraordinary means. But since we cannot rely on the Schellenberg argument and we cannot assume that God will reveal himself in extraordinary means, we must look to another approach when addressing the question of whether there is a God or not.

The most problematic assumption of this approach is that it assumes that God’s main goal in revealing himself is for us to believe in his existence and therefore God ought to use the most efficient and effective means to make his existence known to as many people as possible. I have argued that this is not the case. God is not trying to get people to believe in his existence, but instead is using the most effective means to call people who are at enmity with him to himself and bring them into a loving covenant relationship. These are two very separate and distinct objectives that require different means to accomplish. Extraordinary evidence is not the most effective means for this to occur, therefore we should not assume that it would be the means by which God would reveal himself. A scientific approach does not assume foundational premises without evidence. The irony is that though atheists demand scientific evidence, they do not rely on evidence for their foundational premises, nor do they feel the need to provide such evidence. Why do they believe the Schellenberg argument is true? Who knows? Atheists have become irrational demanding God to speak only in the way they have chosen, but when he speaks using humility and speaks in a different Way, instead of listening, they get angry at him for not speaking in the way they have chosen. This is not science, nor is this how any relationship works. These kinds of arguments are not founded on rational thinking.

Again, it really doesn’t matter if you believe the Bible or not, these approaches are not an effective means for determining whether or not there is a God because it relies on unproven assumptions. If you have a premise, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, you have to prove that God must reveal himself this way. You have provided no proof of this. Therefore, there is no scientific, philosophical, or scholarly reason why we ought to limit God to this criterion. Why could he not reveal himself in the ordinary and with humble means? Because the premise “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” falls apart when examined with scrutiny, and God could very well reveal himself in the ordinary, we need to look to some other means to answer these questions.

Thankfully, this is not the only approach when dealing with the evidence that there is a God or not. We can use another approach that fits more in line with the scientific and scholarly approach, one that is not full of baggage and unproven assumptions. Even though, we cannot assume that a perfectly-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God would not hide himself, we can assume that he would reveal himself in some way. However, even though we can assume that he would reveal himself, we cannot assume by what means he would do so. If having an understanding of the universe is beyond our grasp, how much more the creator of the universe, if he exists. We should be careful about bringing our assumptions into this question. We don’t know that God would provide extraordinary evidence for his existence. And I have shown that this approach would be harmful. This being the case, we should not expect there to be extraordinary evidence. So instead of assuming the criterion for how God must reveal himself, we ought to ask the question is there any reasonable evidence that God has revealed himself. Instead of trying to push the data into our preconceived ideas as is done by the atheist, we can allow the data to speak for itself and form our theory based on the data instead of vice versa. When we do this, we can test these theories against the data to see if those theories hold up. After all this is the more scientific approach because it does not assume the nature God or how he might reveal itself, but instead attempts to objectively look at the data we have for or against the existence of God. This is a far more scientific approach than stating this is the only type of data I will accept. And, as we look at the data, we can ask if there any reasonable evidence that would point towards the existence of God. Again, we are not asking if there is any definitive evidence for the existence of God, for that kind approach has been shown to be invalid, since we cannot assume that there will be definitive evidence.

And there is reasonable evidence for God, for example, the fine-tuning argument. Though this argument is not direct proof, the concept of God would be reasonable to explain this, because even if we have an absolute scientific explanation for the creation of the universe and how it has evolved, this fact does not go away. We should not be surprised that the universe is ordered by science. And even if we have an explanation for this occurring scientifically, that explanation would contribute to the argument rather than detracting from it. And the more we explore science the more this seems to be the case. Just like unicorns and magic can become mundane, we should not lose our wonder and awe. We are stuck with this, and so the argument is not whether fine-tuning exists, but whether it points to God or not. And though this evidence alone cannot prove the existence of God, it is data that is one piece of the puzzle. And it is reasonable especially given the many other evidences to see this as possible evidence for God. And some would say not only is this reasonable evidence but extraordinary evidence. And here is the thing . . . it doesn’t stand alone. This is only one piece of evidence. There are many other arguments and evidence that reasonably point to God. Here is my point, you may not believe in God, you may throw the evidence out because it does not fit your criterion, but you cannot say it is unreasonable for me to believe in God, when there is a plethora of such evidence that support my belief. Nor is it reasonable to claim that there is no evidence for God. No, I may not have the evidence you want, but I don’t think the evidence you want is reasonable, scientific, or scholarly. The fault is with your criterion, not the evidence.

And here we come to another factor in looking at the evidence. Do we determine how God must reveal himself? Or does he determine how he reveals himself? Is it possible if there is a God that he would choose to reveal himself through writings. Yes, it is possible. We cannot just arbitrarily rule this out. And there is a lot of evidence that point to the trustworthiness of the Bible, enough to say that it is reasonable to trust it. And here we come to another aspect that we must address in order to evaluate evidence for God or any religion. As with all that we understand with science we are asking what a reasonable explanation for the evidence is, we have and asking is there any reasonable evidence to nullify the explanation we currently have for the evidence. So, not only do we need to ask, “Is it reasonable?” but we also have to ask, “Is there any reasonable arguments against the validity of the evidence or the proposed explanation for the evidence?”. And this is something atheists have failed to do. For example, you claim that there are thousands of contradictions in the Bible and yet I have not found one atheist that can back up the claim for even one. So, I have a position where I can provide evidence that is reasonable with no valid opposition showing it is wrong. If you want to take a more scientific approach, then this is pretty good evidence. And if that is so then it is a theory that must be on the table. You cannot take it off, till you have evidence to support taking it off. There is a difference between you not believing or disagreeing with a proposition, then you proving it to be false. One is emotional, the other is scientific or academic. I understand that this is not the kind of evidence you want and that you might say that in the absence of extraordinary evidence it is reasonable for me to not believe in God. But I have given evidence to show that this is not a reasonable position, which ought to force you to deal with the evidence that is there instead of ignoring it and quickly tossing it away because it doesn’t fit your agenda. Why should you base your view of the world on logical fallacies and faulty scholarship? You might say, “Ok, well let’s take your proposition and data, which is what I have a problem with. I have thousands of reasons to believe that the proposition of the Christian faith is unreasonable”. Ok, you are doing a little better because if you can show that the Bible or Christian faith is unreasonable by the approach I am proposing, you are right. But this has not been done. We must keep in mind that the Bible is probably the most scrutinized writing ever. The Christian religion is probably the most scrutinized religion. The fact that there are reasonable and objective answers based on solid scholarship to the challenges brought against it is evidence that it is a trustworthy document. And the fact that the charges against the Bible and Christianity rely on a false understanding of the Bible or Christianity says a lot about the atheist arguments. It does not impress me when atheists only fight against an imaginary foe. If you say you have a strong position, then stop being afraid and stand up and fight against the real thing and bring real arguments to the table instead of fluff. If all atheists can do is fight and imaginary foe, I think the Christian faith wins hands down. When atheists do this, they are ironically providing evidence for the Christian faith. You don’t fight an imaginary foe if you can fight the real thing. And I am willing to back this up. Give me the evidence for what you feel like is your strongest claim against Christianity and let’s talk about it. I know you might feel like because you studied to be a pastor you are attacking Christianity, but in our dialogues so far you haven’t, you have only attacked something imaginary. Sadly, I have found this to be true of other former Christians turned atheists as well. I would encourage you to reevaluate your arguments in light of this and work to have more solid arguments. Again, I am willing to back this up, you have not touched the Christian faith with your arguments.

Summary of the two approaches

Approach 1:

• A criterion is set up beforehand determining what kind of data will be evaluated as evidence. Evidence not fitting this criterion is thrown out.
• Criterion: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  • Basically, you start with a prediction, without observation, then create an unproven criterion for collecting data. And then only collect data that fits within that prediction, and then come to the conclusion based on that selected data.
• Faults:
  • It assumes that extraordinary evidence is necessary.
  • Extraordinary evidence is a subjective and biased criteria.
  • It assumes that the Schellenberg argument is a proven fact.
  • It assumes that the main purpose of God revealing himself is to make his existence known.
  • None of the assumptions required for this approach are proven facts.
• Conclusion: Because the foundation of this approach requires unproven assumptions it is not a scientific approach.

Approach 1:

• Since we cannot definitively say how God might reveal himself, instead of setting up a criterion beforehand of what evidence is acceptable and what is not, look at the data first, evaluate the data and test it. Analyze it both based on whether or not it is reasonable based on the data but also evaluate whether or not there are any reasonable arguments against the proposition.
  • Basically, you observe, question, hypothesis, test, scrutinize, and analyze, then make conclusions.
• Faults: As with all of science, this will not necessarily give you definitive proof. It will, however, allow you to provide support for the reasonableness of a proposition. Basically, this is the scientific method, and it has the weaknesses of the scientific method.
• Strengths:
  • It follows the scientific method more closely than Approach 1.
  • If the Schellenberg argument is not certain, then Approach 2 would be best.
• Conclusion: Approach 2 will produce results that are more consistent with the data and evidence. Approach 1 relies on confirmation bias and unproven assumptions.

Videos:

• Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence? (interview with Dr. Tim McGrew) – YouTube  (This is a more technical argument of why the statement “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” fails when used in the way it is often used.)
• There is evidence

Christianity demands that we believe based on the evidence. Atheism demands that you actively ignore evidence and scholarship.

The more I look at atheist arguments, the more I realize the lie that they have fooled themselves into believing, and their resistance to evidence. They have put their trust in poor arguments that ought not to even be heard among scholars.. . . They have blinded themselves.