Did you know there's no evidence for God? No, neither did I. It's a strange statement to me, as a Christian who not only converted based on the evidence, but makes a hobby of sharing it. Of course there is evidence for God. Not just for God, but specifically for Christianity. And with the invention of the internet, that evidence is very easy to find. If you've found this article, there's no reason you could not close it and find one which provides such evidence.
But the trouble with evidence is it's not proof. To show a paw print is not the same as showing a dog. It's evidence that a dog exists, it's not proof that the dog exists. In the same way, to show evidence for God is not to prove Him. Thus, there are essential qualifiers to add to the statement "there is no evidence". These include, but are not limited to, "that I am aware of", "in this particular place", or "that I find convincing".
An obvious follow up question to that last one is "then what would convince you"? This is an important question. In some cases, they might ask for evidence you can provide. This doesn't always work, though I'm getting ahead of myself, but to give the example I am thinking of, an atheist I once debated said he would convert if I could show him pre-Christian sources showing the Jews interpreted Isaiah 53 as Messianic. So I did. I gave him what he wanted, though unfortunately, rather than convert as he said he would, he simply said his goodbyes and I never heard from him again.
But even in cases where you cannot provide the evidence they ask for, you might be able to figure out where they've gone wrong. Yet another example from my own past, I once asked an atheist what would convince him, and he said "find the body of Jesus". I will never understand why I had to explain to him that, as Christ is risen, this would actually disprove Christianity, and thus he was asking me to prove I believed a lie before he would also believe the lie, but that did happen, and similar things do happen. You may ask "what would convince you?", and the answer will show a flaw in the atheist's reasoning.
One atheist who famously answered this question is Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion", and various other books. His answer was very telling, revealing a catastrophic failure in his reasoning. He began by saying "I used to say, it would be very simple, it would be the second coming of Jesus or a great big, deep, booming, base, Paul Robson voice saying: “I am God and I created.”"
Already, we see a problem. His initial answer has the same problem as the extraordinary claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". That is, it deliberately rules out ordinary evidence.
See, although Dawkins casually states that the second coming of Jesus would be simple, that would actually be the ultimate end. At that point, it is too dang late. He shows up, you mourn, because you had your chance, it's passed, and you're on a one way train to Hellfire. You're not asking for evidence at that point, you're literally asking for death. You're pointing a gun at a cop, but you're not asking him to show his badge, you're asking him to put a bullet in your brain.
But perhaps Dawkins' second request, a "big, deep, booming voice" is a little more reasonable? After all, it convinced the Apostle Paul. On his way to kill more Christians, he was confronted by Jesus, and he became a member of the very group he persecuted, laboring more for it even than Peter and the other Apostles. In his own words, "Are they ministers of Christ?—I speak as a fool—I am more: in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequently, in deaths often. From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness— besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation?" (2 Corinthians 11:23-29).
So we know that a big booming voice is quite convincing, and that God does sometimes provide this. So why should Paul be an exception? Why shouldn't Richard Dawkins receive this extraordinary evidence? Well, we'll get to that, but for now, let's simply consider this: We have the testimony of Paul!
Is this not how we all come to most of our beliefs? When you go to a museum, or even when you read a science textbook, you are relying on testimony. I don't have to hear one of Adolf Hitler's speeches to know he was the bad guy in World War Two. Nor do I need to shake hands with Isaac Newton to believe in gravity. Testimony is ordinary evidence, so ordinary that it is the most common form of evidence you will ever receive or accept. Sure, you could be lucky enough to actually go to the moon one day, or maybe you own a telescope powerful enough to see certain planets. Perhaps you've visted a zoo that houses a rare animal, or you're old enough to have personally attended Queen Elizabeth's coronation. Maybe you still own a shirt signed by Johnny Depp from that time you met him. Your personal experience may be quite unique, but the truth is, testimony forms the basis of most of our beliefs.
And Paul's is quite extreme. He put up with quite a bit. He even went to his grave for it. So, here he is, saying "Richard Dawkins, you haven't heard a big, booming voice telling you 'I am God'. But I have heard it, and I'm prepared to endure great persecution and martyrdom for it." Why is that any different from "you haven't looked through the Hubble Telescope, but I have, and I'm getting payed rather handsomely for the books I've published about my study on the subject"? You might not like that evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.
But it turns out, Richard Dawkins not only rejects Paul's testimony that he has heard the voice of God, but wouldn't accept it even if he did. In the same interview, Dawkins continues But I was persuaded mostly by actually Steve Zaro (...) he more or less persuaded me that, even if there was this booming voice and the second coming in clouds of glory, the more probable explanation is that it is a hallucination or a conjuring trick by David Copperfield or something. I mean he made the point that a supernatural explanation for anything is incoherent, that it just doesn’t add up to an explanation for anything."
Now, the irony here is Richard Dawkins, by these words, has become evidence for the truth of the Bible. As the aforementioned Apostle writes, "These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:13-14).
Is there really anything incoherent about the supernatural? Certainly not. A round triangle is incoherent. The supernatural is not. Neither does it fail as an explanation for anything. "Where did this car come from?" "I made it." "That doesn't add up to an explanation for anything." Sure it does. And I'll never understand this need for everything to explain everything. Some things are the end, not the beginning. There's a box of Shloer next to me right now. Is that in any way relevant to you? It is now, because it's become part of an analogy to help you understand something, but it wouldn't be. I saw a box of Shloer, I fancied the box of Shloer, I bought the box of Shloer, and over time, I plan to drink the box of Shloer. Why does God need to be an "explanation" for anything?
The irony is, even by Dawkins' worldly wisdom, this doesn't make any sense. What he has done is commit the incredulity fallacy. That is, he is arguing for his atheism on the basis of his refusal or inability to understand or believe in the supernatural.
But what if, as is the case, the supernatural does exist? What would convince Richard Dawkins? Well, note how he's already ruled out what he had previously set forth as his own standard. God could speak to him in a booming voice, Dawkins would assume the more probable explanation is that he is hallucinating. Jesus could return with clouds of glory, Dawkins would suspect a skilled magician is involved. He has shut himself off from even the most extraordinary evidence, which previously he suggested he would accept (if a little too late).
So what would convince him? Following these statements, Peter Boghossian, the interviewer, again asked what it would take for Dawkins to believe? "Well, I am starting to think nothing would, which in a way goes against the grain because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming. The trouble is I can’t think what that evidence would look like."
On its own, that last sentence is fair. Indeed, it is a question I have wrestled with myself. Think back to earlier on, when my atheist friend said that he would convert if we could find the body of Jesus. Well, this would not convince me, just as I wouldn't expect the bodies of Adam and Eve to convert an atheist. It's been 2,000 years. We could find the body of a first century Hebrew man hidden in an unmarked grave, complete with the marks of crucifixion, maybe even a shattered rib from a Roman spear, we couldn't prove this was Jesus. To add to that, I'm a Molinist, so I literally believe the Holy Spirit is protecting me from apostasy.
Now of course, if there is no Holy Spirit, then the only thing really preventing me from apostasy is the evidence. As it stands, I am firmly convinced by the evidence I know of that Christianity is the truth. But I can't think of how, exactly, that might change. I suppose, as some things have come close, those might work, if they perhaps combined, and the explanations against them were refuted? Say, for example, if the mythical Q document was found, written some time before Christ, with an interchangable name like "The Messiah" wherever Jesus' name actually appeared. Something like that would be pretty hard to get around.
But Dawkins doesn't seem conflicted in the same way. To begin with, he of course doesn't believe in an infallible God, residing in his heart, sealing him permanently into his faith. His beliefs are all his, with no external forces he is willing to acknowledge. But note, his conflict is that his resistance to faith "...in a way goes against the grain because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming."
Dawkins here confesses his inconsistency, and even the internal conflict it causes. "It goes against the grain", he says. But what grain is that? The "lip service" he pays to the idea that a scientist should change his mind when the evidence is forthcoming.
Now, Dawkins literally makes a living from denying God's existence. This not only means he has motive to continue doing so, but that it's unreasonable to assume he doesn't know the evidence is absolutely forthcoming. No doubt he gets many emails from well-meaning Christians who believe there's still hope for him (which, while he lives, I believe). Even lacking those emails, he has both debated Theists, and refused debate challenges from Theists. All he would have to do to know that there is strong evidence for God is to listen to his opponents, or search them up online, or even just look up "responding to Richard Dawkins". Thus, if Dawkins is unaware how flimsy his case is, it is entirely because he is too lazy and sloppy to look himself up.
But it turns out, it wouldn't matter, because by his own admission, he has always given lip service to evidence. Now of course, he won't have meant this as a confession. But a confession it is. When faced with the simple question "what would convince you", Dawkins begins by raising the bar to an unrealistically high level, then admits that even if God did fulfill these requests, it still would not be enough. Rather than holding a rational, evidence-based position, Richard Dawkins is so stubbornly atheistic, he literally would not believe in God if he met Him! "You're a hallucination. You're a conjuring. You're incoherent, and not an explanation for anything." Nothing would be sufficient to convince Dawkins he was wrong.
And lest you think Dawkins is unique, consider his fellow atheist Peter Atkins. In a debate between him and John Lennox, he was asked this same question, and he answered "I have asked myself that question previously, y'know, is there any evidence that would flip me into the belief camp, and I simply can't think of any. I think if I tell myself that if I agreed with some evidence then it shows that I've simply gone mad. It's a serious question, but I don't think there can be any evidence."
Is there any way to more securely lock yourelf out of Heaven than to say that even if evidence manages to convince you, it still won't convince you? To say that there can't be any evidence? At that point, you lose the right to pretend you're the reasonable one. I'm going to say this right now: If Christianity is true, then nothing can convince me it isn't, simply because God has sealed me, and given me the Holy Spirit as a guarantee. But if Christianity is not true, and that seal is a dud, then while I don't know what would convince me, a case can be made, and I will abandon Jesus upon hearing it. And if I happen to become an atheist, but the evidence again points me back to the faith, I will come back again. It is not hard to say these things. I can admit that my belief is firm, and thus I don't think anything ever will convince me, but the moment I say nothing could convince me, the day in which I say there could not be any evidence, I have failed as both an apologist, and as a thinking human being.
Now, I know that neither Richard Dawkins, nor Peter Atkins, are atheism itself. It's not like in Christianity, wherein we have prophets, and to separate ourselves from the divinely inspired philosophy they present is hypocritical. In fact, while I would exhort my Christian brethren to cling to the words of the prophets and Apostles, I urge atheists to reject the excessive bias of atheists who only give lip service to evidence. Nevertheless, they can be taken as lessons. Do you honestly believe their bias is unique, and isn't shared by other atheists by whom you are influenced? And be honest with yourself: Are you possibly infected with the same stubborn resistance to reason?
Perhaps you are. In fact, while it is unlikely, I acknowledge the slight possibility that you are Richard Dawkins, or Peter Atkins. In this case, let me ask you this: While you refuse to accept evidence, can you at least understand why other people do? Just picture it. Moses, on that day, hears a voice calling to him from the fire. Richard Dawkins would blame a magician, but why would Moses draw the same, asinine conclusion? Paul gets knocked to the ground by a blinding light, "why do you persecute me?" Peter Atkins assumes he has gone mad, but should Paul be so foolish?
If you truly are so stubborn that no amount of evidence can convince you, then you can oink right back off to your pig sty, I have no pearls for you. The consequences of your insanity are on your own head. But such stubbornness is an option human beings just are not designed to take. We are literally designed for eternal fellowship with Him, while Hell itself was designed to punish the devil and his angels. So, let us suppose you have a conscience, and a desire for truth. The evidence is forthcoming. I've given a shred of it in this article. I've written more about it elsewhere on this site. There are hundreds of Christian ministries, far better than this one, that show the truth of the Christian faith beyond reasonable doubt. Unreasonable doubts cannot be broken, but if you commit yourself to seeking the truth, rest assured it is available to you. Either way, atheism is a temporary delusion, for every knee will one day bow, and every tongue will confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord. If you have not already done so, I urge you to put a rush on it.