Living proof of the Living God

One of the biggest difficulties when discussing faith with atheists is the way in which they tend to abuse the word "evidence". Atheists have been trained to both view, and treat Theism as just a bold assertion devoid of any evidence what so ever. Thus, no matter how reasonably a Theist argues, they will always be told there is no evidence - even if they have already presented some.

It is helpful, at this point, to simply ask the atheist "what would convince you?" This forces them to commit to a standard to which they can be held. It may even reveal, as it has with some of the more popular atheist apologists, that actually, nothing would. They have merely, as Richard Dawkins puts it, "...paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming." But that's both meaningless and unreasonable. If evidence is not what you're looking for, why pretend a lack of evidence is your problem? And if no evidence could convince you, how could you claim to be the reasonable one? If this is the level to which a man will stoop, they are not worth discussing with.

But we're going to assume you're dealing with a more reasonable man than Richard Dawkins. At this point, it's possible they'll still ask you for something that, for one reason or another, can't be provided. For example, if you're going to say something stupid, like "pics or it didn't happen...", you're still expecting too much. Not to mention denying all of history prior to the invention of the camera in 1826 A.D. Similarly, I was once told by an atheist that he would believe if we found the body of Jesus, which in reality would be the literal death blow to Christianity. If Jesus is still dead, then He did not rise on the third day, which is the cornerstone of our faith. Thus, the fact that no one ever recovered His body is evidence for Christianity.

"No it's not!", the atheist cries. And therein lies the problem. See, a standard dictionary definition of the word evidence would be "a fact, or set of facts, that is/are helpful to forming a particular conclusion." Contrary to popular cliché, facts do not speak for themselves. They must be interpreted.

Furthermore, they rarely work alone. One fact may fit with multiple different interpretations, but two facts working together may invalidate at least one alternative. In the case of Jesus' missing body, this fits well with the resurrection, because if He rose again, His body would go missing. But it also fits with the body theft conspiracy theory, because that would also explain why it went missing. Thus, the empty tomb is evidence. It is a single piece of evidence, and is not sufficient in and of itself, but it is evidence nonetheless. If an atheist is not willing to level with this, then when they say "evidence", they do not actually mean evidence. At least, not by the definitions you will find in any reputable dictionary.

It's also worth noting that, in spite of their assertions to the contrary, atheists also bear a burden of proof. In the modern day, they have resorted to saying "Theism is the claim, and so Theism bears the burden of proof". And they are halfway correct. Theism does have a burden of proof, which of course I am going to contend it has met many times over. However, because of the nature of Theism, it cannot be the claim. Rather, it is a claim. Atheism is another claim. And actually, even agnosticism meets that threshold.

Consider the following three statements:

1. There is a man behind that curtain.

2. The man behind the curtain has a father.

3. I know the father of the man behind the curtain.

These three statements are not distinct in the amount of evidence that is immediately provided, but they are distinct in the burden of proof they bear, and the reasonability of skepticism.

The first claim is a claim of existence. It is not necessarily true or false. There may be a man behind the curtain, there may not be a man behind the curtain. Barring all other evidence, we may choose to accept the claim, or reject it, and both are equally reasonable. It is only necessary to accept it as true or false once further evidence is provided, or the curtain has been pulled back.

The second claim is a claim of origins. Of course assuming we have now confirmed the existence of the man behind the curtain, it is necessarily true. Almost, at least. Barring supernatural intervention, all men have fathers. Thus, it is reasonable to accept the man's own existence as evidence that he does, in fact, have a father. Skepticism of this claim is unreasonable, even in the absence of a direct encounter with the father. If we wish to doubt that this man has a father, we need reasonable grounds.

The third claim is a claim of specific knowledge. It is not necessarily true or false, but is at the very least plausible. It's also highly complex. Personal experience cannot be directly shared. For example, concerning my own father, I have direct access to evidence I literally cannot share. My memories of him are useless to you, but irrefutable to me.

In religious discussion, and especially when discussing Christianity, you will find all three types of claim: Claims to existence, claims to origins, and claims to specific knowledge.

When we read the Bible, we do find a number of stand-alone claims to existence. I of course contend that these claims are all true, but not all of them are necessarily so. For example, take the Hittites. The Hittites are a culture that the Bible claims existed. This is not true by necessity, and in fact there was a time when the Bible was the only surviving evidence of the Hittites in the scholarly realm. That is, until the early 1900s, when their capital city was re-discovered.

It's worth noting that this is a recurring pattern. There are many times when the Bible has stood as the only surviving evidence for a claim to existence, only to be confirmed by other evidence later on. This is evidence for our claim to specific knowledge. It is hard to imagine that a book of fiction would so often be confirmed by observable reality, and in fact it is not a pattern we see for other religious works. The Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, even Jewish apocryphal writings, do not have the Bible's fantastic track record of confirmation.

Beyond mere claims to existence, we find that Theism is actually a claim to origins. Just as we know that a man has a father, we know that everything finite actually has a cause. Now, I was being very particular with my words there: Everything finite has a cause. Thus, the existence of anything finite is necessarily evidence of a cause, even without direct observation of what that cause is. We can also make a reasonable assessment about what that cause must be. For living beings, the normal cause is pre-existing parents similar to itself. Thus, "that man has a father" is proven by the simple fact that the man exists.

But obviously, reproduction is not a satisfactory answer for origins. All this does is push the question back one step. If a man has a father, where does his father come from? There are only so many times we can answer "his father had a father, who had a father, who had a father", before we eventually come to the first father, whose origins must be explained beyond mere reproduction. This applies whether you believe this was Adam being created from the dirt, a magic microbe spawning in an ancient pond of goop, or something else entirely.

Ultimately, as long as a claim to existence has been proven - which it indisputably has in the case of the universe - the existing thing is evidence of its originator. Thus, our own claim to existence is evidence for Theism as a claim to origins.

From there, we move to the claim of specific knowledge. If we exist, we exist as proof of our originator. But if our originator exists, what is it? Is it Evolution? Ironically, this is where Evolutionists forget the burden of proof. Suddenly, we go from "there is no evidence for your claim, up to and including all the evidence that you have provided for your claim" to "you have no evidence against our claim, and we don't have to prove our claim because we claim we've already done it".

But setting aside the fact Evolution is neither historically, nor scientifically viable, it's ultimately unsatisfactory. It is such a feeble claim to origins that many modern Evolutionists have resorted to claiming it was never supposed to be one. By contrast, our Creator actually showed up.

This is a claim of specific knowledge. We know we have an originator because we have a finite existence, but we know who our Creator is because He has chosen to reveal Himself in various ways. Classically, these are divided into two categories: "General Revelation", and "Special Revelation".

General Revelation applies to the ways in which God makes Himself known to all men. For example, in Romans 1:19-20, we read "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Similarly, Psalm 19:1-3 tells us "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard."

This means creation itself testifies to God's existence, and it is so successful in this that atheism is a historical anomaly. Largely due to the fact it is a cultural phenomenon. The irony here is that atheists will often attempt to flip this concept. Rather than seeing the universe as it is; God showing off His vast power, an atheist might scoff at the idea that He would make such a massive universe, only to focus His love on one tiny planet. Notice, that's not a scientific claim, it's a philosophical one. One in which the atheist literally imagines himself as God and argues "God hasn't done what I would have done if I was God, therefore there is no God". That is, "because I am not God, and God is not me, there is no God."

Certain classical arguments for Theism rely primarily on general revelation. When we find things like pocket watches, or even a shard of pottery, we know that it had a designer. More than likely, a specifically human designer. But even if you look at a spider's web, or an anthill, you know nature didn't do it without some kind of intelligence. Ultimately, God's designs are so good, we attempt to copy them. We plagiarise the designs, then deny the designer! It makes no sense, except that there are spiritual forces at play. The devil wants your soul, and your flesh wants to give it to him.

General revelation is enough to show that there is a God, and even helps us get somewhat closer to determining who He is, but ultimately, it's insufficient on its own. You're not going to become a Christian just by looking at creation, any more than you can guess my father's name just by looking at my face.

That's where Special Revelation comes in. Special Revelation is more direct. God reveals Himself, usually to select individuals or groups. This cannot usually be shared directly, but can be testified to. This is what Scripture is. With some exceptions (e.g. Moses obviously wasn't around to witness the creation), the majority of Scripture is the direct testimony of eyewitnesses and contemporaries. Obviously, you and I cannot feel what Thomas felt when he placed his hands in Jesus' crucifixion wounds. The Apostles cannot directly share their experience with us directly.

Indirectly, however, they have done so by committing it all to writing. "But a book doesn't prove anything!" Correct, and that's not what I'm saying. But the book is evidence, in much the same way as Plato's works are evidence of Socrates. Few people resist standard claims to Socrates existence, and in fact I have never met an exception. Yet, the same logic testifies to Christ. More so, even, for more of Christ's companions and contemporaries testified to Him than to Socrates, and they were even more consistent.

It is tempting to elaborate further, but the purpose of this article is not necessarily to present further evidence for Christianity. Instead, it is to explain how mindset is half the battle. If you do not understand the difference between "evidence" and "conclusive proof", or that not all types of claims bear the identical burden of proof, you will inevitably be blind to the forest because of all the trees.

Ultimately, Christianity is not just one claim, but a collection of interconnected claims, each with varying degrees of evidence. We have claims to existence, some great, some small, each with varying degrees of evidence. We have claims to origins, which are harder to dispute, but are far more reasonable than mere denial. We have claims to specific knowledge, for which we have abundant evidence. If we treat all of these claims alike, even statements like "my father is..." become an everlasting debate. But when we adequately distinguish between these claims, we are on the right track to know our Heavenly Father, through His Son, Jesus Christ.

AI usage

AI was used to generate the header image.