Christians usually know when an inquirer is on a genuine search for knowledge or just a misotheist who is playing games. The latter may think they do not have to play with the hand they have been dealt, so they try to mark the cards, deal from the bottom of the deck, and pull other foolish tricks with their eternal destiny. It is bad enough to demand proof for the existence of God, but worse when they insist that there is no evidence for him.
That is amazingly arrogant. When such a statement is made, this child is reluctant to spend a great deal of time with that person. Sure, I can make some replies and see if I can spot any sign that the Holy Spirit is working in his or her life. Sometimes they start with bluster, then interact more civilly than before.
One jasper was so supercilious when asked what evidence would convince him, he said to present it and he would decide if it was worthwhile. I could tell that the goalposts were already in his pickup truck, ready to be moved. Also, he was judging other Christians and me as stupid because we could not meet his rigged challenge! I didn’t play. After all, there are times to end the discussion and find better things to do. Jesus did that.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all in favor of giving evidence when needed. Apologetics is important to help remove stumbling blocks for people coming to faith in Jesus. Certain kinds of evidence are not needed, as evidence for God is all around and they have no excuses. However, evidence must be presented in a presuppositional framework. That is, we presuppose that God exists and the Bible is his Word, and we will not accede to their naturalistic presuppositions.
Most people are indoctrinated into an evolutionary worldview. It’s not just about science, philosophies of life and morality are taken from it. But not consciously for the most part.
We have two articles to consider that are on a similar theme. The first one is about the “no evidence” claim, and it has a different approach we can use to get the attention of a scoffer. I reckon this is best in person with friends or family.
The ‘no evidence for God’ claim, though, is an interesting one. It often works to frame the discussion in such a way that only we have a burden of proof. It allows the unbeliever the comfortable position of the skeptic: they get to poke holes in our case without ever having to make a case for anything themselves. This however sets up a false dilemma: either we can convince them that God exists, or our faith in God isn’t reasonable. But there’s practically always a way to doubt any argument for God (or practically any argument for any philosophically interesting conclusion, for that matter) that’s not obviously wrong to all rational people. Plus, skeptics regularly demand airtight arguments practically anyone would have to accept before they would believe in God (Agnosticism). As such, we almost certainly won’t convince them. But then that supposedly means that our faith in God isn’t reasonable. The game is rigged from the start. Heads, the skeptic wins; tails, we lose.
You can read the entire article at “No evidence for God?” Don’t forget to come back for the next part.
You came back. Groovy! Unbelievers and even some Christians may wonder if the Bible is useful and can be trusted. I did. I was raised in an Untied Methodist (misspelling intentional) home and was allowed to attend a Babdiss school. Those Fundamentalists (I am not using it as a pejorative) insisted on the Bible being the inerrant word of God, so I did some investigation on it and on beliefs. That is, with an attitude toward doctrine-type statements of, “Where did you get that?”
Any question of origins is historical in nature, not entirely subjected to empirical science. The Bible, through its authors, makes some pretty strong statements about itself. It is self-attesting, and a reliable historical document based on eyewitness accounts. Historical matters have been verified, never disproven. Also, there is prophesy that has been fulfilled, sometimes hundreds of years later. Documented.
People today must judge between two contradictory worldviews: the biblical worldview and the evolutionary worldview.
I’m a lawyer, so I think about this like a legal case. Juries have to judge between opposing litigants, like we have to judge between worldviews. Juries do it by weighing the evidence. Let me give an example from a case I worked on.
I’d be much obliged, and it would be in your best interest, to read that one too. It can be found at “Do we have enough evidence to trust the Bible?“
The Creation Cowboy 