are some of the approaches I use when dealing with atheists in
conversations that deal with alleged lack of evidence for
God's existence. Now, no argument is fool-proof and no single
argument answers all the objections. Nevertheless, it is
important to have thought out some of the implications of the
statements and bring them up during conversations. Of course,
conversations rarely follow a logical format. They usually
take tangents and detours. That is normal and good. But we
need to be prepared as much as possible.
don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God,
That does not mean there is no God.
cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists
that proves God's existence, or at least supports his
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.
all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible
that evidence exists that supports theism.
kind of evidence would be acceptable?
If you have not
decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then
you cannot state that there is no evidence for God.
you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it?
Does Christianity fit within that criteria?
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
Do you want Him to appear before you in
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
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, He
has created the laws of logic. He, then, cannot violate those
Are you objectively examining evidence that is
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
If so, then God becomes unknowable to you
and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic
Do you define the miraculous out of
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
If you made that assumption, it is, after all,
only an assumption.