When Atheists ask for scientific, or scientifically verifiable, evidence of or for God’s existence there are a plethora of issues to consider.
Firstly, they should be asked to justify demand for evidence. This is because all of us believe in and/or otherwise hold to certain views without any regard for evidence. For example, our various worldview-philosophies are ultimately founded upon a basis, premises, presuppositions, assumptions, axioms, etc. and these are not proven or evidenced but rather, are assumed, intuited, etc.
The minutia of the nature of properly basic beliefs, what entails a properly basic belief, just what and/or which are properly basic beliefs is another issue.
Also, in claiming that we should or ought to present evidence for __________ (fill in the blank, God’s existence in this case) Atheists are making absolute truth claims and making absolute demands based on nothing but what comes down to personal preferences which are themselves based on personal preferences since “Thou shall ascertain empirical truth via evidence” is not part of the furniture of an Atheist universe.
Now, such evidence would, presumably, be something not natural but rather, supernatural. For if it was natural then it would be part of nature and thus, not count as evidence of/for God.
Yet, if such evidence is supernatural then science would be unable to access and explain it as science is a tool that was intelligently designed for the purpose of exploring the natural world, the material realm.
Thus, an Atheist would do well to recognize these facts and chose to request miraculous evidence, “Show me a miracle” they may say.
When an Atheist is asked “What would you consider to be evidence of/for God?’” their answer needs to be dissected for them and it generally comes in two categories:
1) Evidence that only God could provide, such as a miracle, a personal appearance by God, etc.
2) Evidence I, at least theoretically, could provide.
If they demand evidence that only God could provide then I would make sure to point out that I cannot help them with that—it is a set up for you to fail (consciously set up or not).
One Atheist told me “show me Jesus” well, just how am I supposed to do that? Although, I suppose that I could show him Jesus but then that would be called murder, “Your honor, he asked me to show him Jesus—capiche!?!?”
The Apostle Thomas, to whom the Bible never refers as “doubting,” demanded physical evidence when, and only when, he was told that physical evidence was available.
The Atheists will seek to demand things that they know you cannot provide and in doing so they will consider that they have disproved that any such evidence exists and thus that God does not exist as well—or, some such conclusion.
Of course, there is a much deeper issue which is, for example, that Richard Dawkins wrote, “The God of the Bible is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction,” etc., etc., etc. (note that he did not write of the God of the Qur’an or any other religion as Atheism is an anti-Christian support group). If you could prove to Dawkins that the God of the Bible exists, he would hate him all the more for existing. The point is that, as per Romans 1 for example, God’s existence is not the issue with Atheists, the issue is rebellion against God.
Now, the Atheist is demanding evidence of the supernatural (or, supernatural evidence) so that, by definition, science would not be applicable to it. Now, of course, they are asking for phenomena which science cannot explain (and may be unable to even begin access so as to observe it, etc.).
Notice what they are requesting when we see the bottom line: they are asking for evidence not only of a God of the gaps but they are asking for gap based evidence of such as God.
You will note that Atheists reject arguments, evidences or proofs which they categorize as being God of the gaps arguments, evidences or proofs but ultimately demand such arguments, evidences or proofs.
An issue is that Atheists of the sort in view are not skeptical as in a true and honest skeptic who states, “I will not believe until…” but rather, are cynics who state, “I will not believe—period.” This is because not matter what supposedly alleged evidence of the supernatural could be witnessed, we could never come to the conclusion that it was, indeed, evidence of/for the supernatural as we could simply keep continually stating, “Well, that there’s somethin’ alright, but someday in the future science will surely be able to explain it as the result of an as of yet unknown natural mechanism.”
Even if they must hold, by “faith,” that such a scientific explanation will come about 3,759 years and 3 days after they die, that is good enough for them: the cursed hopeless hope that someday, may thy king-less-dom come, Atheism, which they view as the one truth, will prevail over all.
In a chapter of his book “Orthodoxy” entitled “The Suicide of Thought” G. K. Chesterton made a statement about this sort of absolute skepticism:
Continue reading →
…the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything.
He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything.
For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it…By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.