Atheists and Evidence for God

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

A common occurrence when dealing with professing (Rom. 1:20) atheists is a demand to "prove that God exists", usually with some kind of empirical evidence. (This is the logical fallacy of the category error, because God is spirit, John 4:24.) On more than one occasion, other Christians and I have had such demands followed with question-begging epithets. It may come as a shock, but evidence is for believers, not scoffers. 

Assembled with graphics from Clker clipart

In the famous debate between Drs. Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein, the latter said that he would be persuaded if a miracle happened in his presence. Stein suggested that if the podium rose up five feet, hung there, then dropped down, he would have to conclude something supernatural had happened. Bahnsen was having none of that:

People are not made theists by miracles. People must change their world views; their hearts must be changed. They need to be converted. That what it takes, and that’s what it would take for Dr. Stein to finally believe it. If this podium rose up five feet off the ground and stayed there, Dr. Stein would eventually have in the future some naturalistic explanation because they believe things on faith, by which I mean that they believe things as which they have not proven by their senses.

I have come across scoffers who have made it impossible to prove that miracles happen, even when documented. This is similar to Darwinists who redefine science and scientists centered around evolution, so a creationist "cannot" be a scientist. That's against the real spirit of scientific investigation and discovery, old son, and stacking the deck to try to give atheists the winning hand every time.

Atheists cling to their world view despite evidence, not because of it. They especially believe evolution, which is a foundation for their worldview, by faith. (Two noteworthy examples of this are from George Wald and D.M.S. Watson.) Further, when Christians decide to leave the Bible out of discussions, they are immediately admitting defeat! They have materialistic presuppositions, and Christians have (or are supposed to have) biblical presuppositions.

Yes, evidence has a place in apologetics, but putting God on the shelf and presenting only evidence so the scoffer can make up his or her own mind is in defiance of what God's Word says about unbelievers. Evidence properly presented can help remove stumbling blocks, but within the proper framework.

An atheist once declared: “I will believe in God if He turns my red house into a blue one”. He went to sleep that night as usual, but the next morning when he went outside, he noticed that the red paint on the outside of his house was now a deep blue colour.

In such an imagined scenario, what do you think would most likely happen next? I believe (and will seek to justify it from the Bible) that the atheist would probably not shout ‘Hallelujah!’ in newfound faith. Instead, he would most likely declare how amazing it was to see how the environment, cosmic radiation, chemical pollutants in the atmosphere, and perhaps some unknown natural process had effected this transformation in the chemistry of the paint.

If it achieved wide publicity, a multidisciplinary research team might even be assembled to study this unusual situation, perhaps leading to the publishing of scientific papers proposing a number of alternative theories. All of these, of course, would be restricted to purely naturalistic explanations.

You would do well to read the rest of the article at "The house that changed colour."