By one atheist’s definition, the phrase “There is no evidence for God” means,
“This “fact” could not exist unless there was a Creator God.”
Well, each and every one of these posts is giving examples, examples that are based on scientific facts, facts that are attested to and verified by atheist scientists that show that the laws of physics as we know them are not able to account for the facts that we observe.
Therefore citing Creator God as the probable cause for these facts is not an argument from ignorance because Creator God is the answer that best fits the scientific evidence. The only thing keeping people from accepting the obvious answer to what we observe is an a priori rejection of the existence of Creator God. In other words,
According to known and accepted scientific laws, observations the evidence that I am citing in this series of posts COULD NOT EXIST unless there was a Creator God.
Are there alternative speculations proposed? Of course there are! There have to be because in the atheist world-view Creator God cannot exist. Have you ever asked yourself why there are dozens of hypotheses and dozens of variations of those hypotheses? It's because NONE of them work according to the laws of physics. If any one of them was workable according to scientific laws, then that would be the end of it. Like the saying, "It was in the last place that I looked," if any one of the atheist speculations was acceptable there wouldn't be any more theories. The fact is, based on know science,NONE of them are acceptable.
As everyone knows, atheists claim, and claim boldly, “There is absolutely no evidence for God.”
They then state that the reason for their atheism is evidence based. In reality atheism is not evidence based. One way we can know this is that atheism pre dates anything that modern day atheists describe as evidence. Atheism in all it’s forms is a philosophical stance that is supported by ideas that they’ve gleaned from their experiences. This "evidence" (which is really nothing more than an alternate explanation)supports their predetermined world-view. Evidence that doesn’t support this philosophy is ignored or mocked and belittled.
That’s not so unusual. We all do it. While atheists and Christians share the same hopes and dreams as any human, their philosophies are two belief systems that can never share the same podium.
What it all boils down to is this. We believe one of two possibilities:
1) Matter is eternal - or
Creator God is eternal
2) If Matter isn’t eternal then Matter is able to bring itself into existence - or
Creator God brings matter into existence
3) Matter, against impossible odds, accidentally or purposely produces life - or
Creator God purposely produces life from Matter
4) Matter arranges and designs itself exquisitely and intricately - or
Creator God arranges and designs Matter exquisitely and intricately
5) Matter produces a life of meaning and context and purpose - NOT! - or
Creator God produces a life of meaning and context and purpose.
Christians observe the world around them, both Universal and Cellular in nature and conclude that the evidence points to a “Creator God.”
Atheists say “No god,” then develop a hypothesis that provides for them a satisfactory and convincing argument.
Each group examines the very same evidence and comes to irreconcilably different conclusions. In the absence of further evidence, each side requires about an equal measure of faith in order to maintain their beliefs and to live out the moral and relational implications of their beliefs.
The Christian points to Jesus and says that His life on earth as well as His supernatural presence in the life of the “believer” is the final and convincing proof of God.
The atheist says final and convincing evidence that confirms “No god” will arrive, if not shortly then certainly at some point in the future.
Reaching this conclusion of “No God” ahead of confirming evidence allows atheists to emphatically and with a great display of confidence say, “There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God.”
The problem for both sides of the equation is, when there are several possible answers to questions that arise re: abiogenesis, or "Why did the universe come into being?" with some of the answers supporting your beliefs and some calling into question what you believe, how does one keep internal bias from discarding a “competing” proposition of equal validity? As I came to see, atheists like Richard Dawkins don’t even try to eliminate their bias.
It would seem, in this case, that agnostics are the ones who could call themselves the most scientifically minded. For they are the ones who only go as far as the evidence will take them. Christians and atheists, on the other hand, use inductive reasoning to take them part way, and then bring about a deductive conclusion based upon that evidence in combination with a faith that feels coherent to their pre-set world-view.
Till next Friday - God loves you - so relax and enjoy life.