Claim: I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God.
Reply: That does not mean there is no God.
Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports His existence.
Therefore, it is possible that God exists.
If it is possible, then faith has its place.
If it is possible that God exists, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that God may exist but no proof can be had for His existence.)
It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God.
But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence.
Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism.
Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable?
If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state there is no evidence for God.
If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it?
Does Christianity fit within that criteria?
If not, why not?
Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable?
Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example:
Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory?
Even if that did happen, would you believe He existed; or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort, or a trick played on you?
How would you know?
Does your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not realistic?
Do you want Him to make square circles or some other self-contradictory phenomena, or make a rock so big He cannot pick it up?
If God exists, the laws of logic would be a product of his nature since he is absolute, transcendent, and truth (logical absolutes are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent which reflect a logical, absolute, and transcendent mind). He did not create the laws of logic. We simply recognize them because God exists. Therefore, God cannot violate those laws because He would violate His own nature -- which He cannot do.
Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented?
Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can?
But, do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur?
If so, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence.
Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence.
If so, then God becomes unknowable to you, and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position.
Do you define the miraculous out of existence?
If so, on what basis do you do this?
If you assume that science can explain all phenomena, then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof.
If you made that assumption, it is, after all, only an assumption.
when people say, "There’s not enough evidence", what they mean is "There’s not enough evidence to coerce me out of my indifference. If I choose to ignore it, the evidence isn’t going to grab me by the lapels and force me to believe."
Knowledge of God is unique in that it is conditioned by moral and spiritual factors. A spiritually indifferent person can have a profound knowledge of physics, or literature, or history, or sociology, or even of theology. But a spiritually indifferent person cannot know God. According to the Bible, the knowledge of God is promised to those who honestly seek him.
Blaise Pascal, who came to know God through Jesus Christ at the age of 31, put it this way:
Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.
Last edited by Otangelo on Thu Jan 07, 2021 11:46 am; edited 2 times in total