You can't DECIDE to believe in something.

Critics say:

You can't DECIDE to believe in something.

You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.

You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.

You can't decide to believe that God exist.

You can delude yourself, but deep down you know it's not real.


That is all true, but you can decide to fairly evaluate the facts, evidence, and arguments to evaluate questions like:

1) Is reason the basis for all knowledge? If not reason, then what is it? Can you defend this sans reason?

2) Do you acknowledge that the inference to the best explanation is how most if not all field of inquiry gain knowledge? Meaning, the hypothesis or theory that best explains all [or most] of the data is held to be true.

 
3) What is reality, and how do you know?

4) What best explains the origin of physical reality?

5) What best explains the origin of information in DNA?

6) What best explains human reasoning?

7) What best explains morality?

8) Is there one hypothesis that best explains all of those questions?

One explanation would be a rational, extremely powerful, intelligent designer, moral person, existing outside the physical part of reality. What most would call God. 

The Engineering Problem in Evolution

The Engineering problem

Stephen J Gould [one of the two scientists behind punctuated evolution] said in his book "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory": I recognize that we know no mechanism for the origin of organismal features other than conventional natural selection at the organismic level [pg 710]

Here's a 20-min vid on how punctuated equilibrium doesn't solve the problem

Let's illustrate one of the difficulties with the fish to amphibian transition. There had to be changes from:

1) obtaining oxygen from water to directly from the air,

2) change from permeable scales to impermeable skin,

3) ventral, anal, and tail fins would have to go from steering to a) weight-bearing and b) to providing locomotion,

4) a two chambered, one loop heart system would have to transform into a three chambered, two loop heart.

And all of these changes had to happen 

1) in concert, 

2) on a molecular level and 

3) while that species remained the fittest for its environment. The genetic code had to change in multiple proteins throughout multiple systems within the fish, all at basically the same time.

For example, the Cambrian explosion, the unparalleled emergence of organisms between 541 million and approximately 530 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Period. The event was characterized by the appearance of many of the major phyla (between 20 and 35) that make up modern animal life.

As I said gradualism seemed plausible if there were 100's of millions of years for a system of hit or miss chance, but there is not; take that element away, as Punctuated Equilibrium and the Cambrian explosion shows, then design [a purposeful, intentional, guided process with a goal in mind] is the much more likely candidate than a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal.

This is part of a larger argument that can be found here

There is NO evidence for God!

I hear the "There is no evidence for God" line all the time from atheists and other critics, but I think that it's untrue; there IS evidence for God.

An analogy: The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, but that doesn't mean that there is no evidence for the Steady State universe or a cyclical universe. It just means that the Big Bang Theory explains more of the data/evidence better than those other two. The same data/evidence is used by all three.

Similarly, Christians, atheists, and other critics all see the same data/evidence, however Christians offer an explanation but atheists, and other critics usually do not.

The data/evidence

1) Reason is the basis for all knowledge - thus one cannot default to scientific explanations.

2) Philosophical Naturalism is logically incoherent, thus 1) one cannot default to physical explanations; 2) we now have at least one reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable.

3) Our thoughts are not just brain activity, rather they are the result of an immaterial mind thus, we now have a second reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable

4) A metaphysically necessary, efficient cause solves the problem of an infinite regress of causes

5) the origin of DNA is more likely on design than chance.

6) The fine-tuning of the universe is more likely on design than chance or necessity - thus, given all the above, a transcendent metaphysically necessary God is the best explanation for life as we know it.

7) Jesus was a historical person, see also Bart Erhman, NT Scholar agnostic/atheist where he says ["no question Jesus existed"] since there are many, early, independent sources.

8) Jesus' resurrection was historical rather than a myth

Conclusion: Sans the presumption of philosophical naturalism, 1–8 above, and the explanation offered for each, offer a critical thinker good reasons to conclude that the Christian God is the best explanation for the world as we know it.

If atheists and other critics with "I don't know" or "I'm not convinced" then they are admitting that they do not have any explanations and tacitly conceding that the Christian has the better explanation.

If one has no better explanation(s), why reject the Christian's?

Objection A - This is a God of the gaps fallacy

Reply: I’m not citing a gap in our knowledge and saying "God did it". This is a series of arguments; first showing that reason is the basis for knowledge not science; second, that must be a non-physical aspect to reality; third that design is a better explanation for our existence and life; fourth that God is the best explanation for whom that designer is.

Objection B - The theory of the existence of a mind makes no predictions, thus there can be no evidence for it. 

Reply: It doesn't need to. You seem assuming that it must meet the criteria for a scientific theory, but this is a logical argument. See point 1 Reason is the basis for all knowledge - thus one cannot default to scientific explanations.

Objection C - this is just a list of assertions based on your own ignorance, incredulity, and gullibility; that's not evidence for God. This is just "apologist goulash"  

Reply:  You are just sticking your head in the sand, refusing to engage in a discussion of the evidence/data/arguments. 

Objection D - You might want to post this on a Reddit sub where you debate atheists, not Christians. I'm sure the Christians here could offer some constructive feedback, though.

Reply:  In my experience: 1) there are enough atheists in Christian subs to get feedback/debate, 2) what I mostly get on when I used to post atheist Subreddits is derision and downvotes, no intelligent discussion. Look at the current comments on Reddit. Additionally, Christians can be edified, educated, and enriched with this.

Objection E - Your points/arguments are incredibly inaccurate

Reply: Which ones specifically and where exactly are the errors for each? 

Objection F - Is the universe really so perfect? It’s extreme and harsh. Completely inhospitable for life, with vast excesses of empty space. Is that the mark of design?

Reply: When scientists speak of fine-tuned universes, they are referring to universes that are life-permitting. By life-permitting, they do not mean that life can exist wherever, or whenever, or that it's a paradise, or that there is no suffering/death; they do not even guarantee that life will exist. It’s a much more modest claim. It only holds that the fine-tuning will permit the existence of life. That’s it.

Objection G - You misunderstand what constitutes evidence.

Reply: Evidence is an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, archaeological finds, DNA, etc

DNA is evidence. The findings of neuroscience for an an immaterial mind is evidence. Fine-Tuned Constants is evidence. Philosophical Naturalism is logically incoherent is evidence

Objection H -  Where you see design, others see chaos.

Reply: What better explains the Fine-Tuned Constants of the universe? Design, or chaos? Why?

What better explains the multitude of DNA-based micromachines like the ATP Synthase? Design, or chaos? Why?

SETI looks for design [or artificiality - i.e. not generated by natural processes], an arson investigator can tell if a fire came about naturally or was started by a human, the police can determine if a death was natural or at the hands of a human, an archeologist can say whether it’s a just rock or an arrowhead, etc. An appeal to a designer is accepted in every field of inquiry, including biology - we can determine whether a virus, like Covid-19 was designed of was natural.

An a priori non-design stance seems to be an a priori ideological conclusion, rather one that is driven by the facts

Objection I -  The problem with this is sooner or later we hit a brute fact. I say that the fact is there are natural laws that describe how reality functions.  You say, because a magic guy made it that way.  We can show the laws, testable, repeatable, and consistent.

Reply: First, you cite "reality"; so what is reality, and how do you know? 

It can't be Philosophical Naturalism since it's logically incoherent and since Reason is the basis for all knowledge this seems to be how we should evaluate arguments

And the "magic guy" is better understood as A metaphysically necessary, efficient cause 

Additional info

Atheist Engineer Explains How Reason Led Him To GOD (Part 1) [Video]

If God has perfect foreknowledge how can humans have free will?

What is critical to free will is not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. Philosophers sometimes call this agent causation. The agent himself is the cause of his actions. His decisions are differentiated from random events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind. And from determined events that are outside their control.

Thought experiment:

Let's say Grace builds a time machine and decides to travel to the future and see what her friend Anna has for breakfast tomorrow. After she comes back to the present day, she now has prior knowledge of a freely chosen future event. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any inconsistency with God having perfect foreknowledge of the future and humans have free will.

Objections:

A) Let's say Anna changed her mind at the last second and decided on something else for breakfast.

The reply: Grace would have seen that, and Grace would know of that change. Remember, we are speaking about perfect foreknowledge of the future

B) The idea of a time machine is incompatible with logic and therefore not possible for even an omnipotent being to accomplish, so using it as an example doesn't really resolve the issue.

The reply:

A time machine may not be compatible with physics/metaphysics, but it’s compatible with logic. But it's not meant as the way it was done, but more as an illustration of how prior knowledge doesn't refute the idea of freewill.

The Inference to the Best Explanation

Offering an inference to the best explanation occurs when we conclude that the best available explanation of the current data is probably true because it’s the best addresses all or most of the data or observations. A little more formally:

S is a state of affairs; a collection of data, facts, observations, givens.
H hypothesis, would, if true, explain S.
No other hypothesis [A, B, C] can explain S as well as H does.
Therefore, it is probable that H is true.

Inferences to the best explanation are common in all fields of inquiry, including scientific, and everyday life. For a more thorough exploration:

Inference to the Best Explanation - Peter Lipton

Inference to the Best Explanation - An Overview

Pushbacks

We may be choosing the best of a bad lot, and that we have no way of knowing whether the truth is contained in our set to begin with.

Reply: Scientists don't claim to have completely certainty on any scientific fact, no fact from any field of inquiry does. We've gone from Newtonian physics to special and general relativity, and guess what? Einstein's work is likely to only be partially correct. Qualms with IBE on this account are off base. Abductive inferences [IBE] are used in every field of inquiry, including science, history, linguistics, and everyday life,

Explanations help us to understand why something happened, not simply convince us that something happened. However, there is a common kind of inductive argument that takes the best explanation of why x occurred as an argument for the claim that x occurred. For example, suppose that your car window is broken and your iPod (which you left visible in the front seat) is missing. 

The immediate inference you would probably make is that someone broke the window of your car and stole your iPod. What makes this a reasonable inference? What makes it a reasonable inference is that this explanation explains all the relevant facts (broken window, missing iPod) and does so better than any other competing explanation. In this case, it is perhaps possible that a stray baseball broke your window, but since (let us suppose) there is no baseball diamond close by, and people normally don’t play catch in the parking garage you are parked in, this seems unlikely. 

Moreover, the baseball scenario doesn’t explain why the iPod is gone. Of course, it could be that some inanimate object broke your window and then someone saw the iPod and took it. Or perhaps a dog jumped into the window that was broken by a stray baseball and took your iPod. These are all possibilities, but they are remote and thus much less likely explanations of the facts at hand. The much better explanation is that a thief both broke the window and took the iPod. 

This explanation explains all the relevant facts in a simple way (i.e., it was the thief responsible for both things) and this kind of thing is (unfortunately) not uncommon—it happens to other people at other times and places. The baseball-dog scenario is not as plausible because it doesn’t happen in contexts like this one (i.e., in a parking garage) nearly as often, and it is not as simple (i.e., we need to posit two different events that are unconnected to each other—stray baseball, stray dog—rather than just one—the thief). Inference to the best explanation is a form of inductive argument whose premises are a set of observed facts, a hypothesis that explains those observed facts, and a comparison of competing explanations, and whose conclusion is that the hypothesis is true. The example we’ve just been discussing is an inference to the best explanation. 

Explanation: The hypothesis that a thief broke the window and stole your iPod provides a reasonable explanation of the observed facts.

Comparison: No other hypothesis provides as reasonable an explanation.

Conclusion: Therefore, a thief broke your car window and stole your iPod.

Notice that this is an inductive argument because the premises could all be true and yet the conclusion false. Just because something is reasonable, doesn’t mean it is true. After all, sometimes things happen in the world that defy our reason. So perhaps the baseball-dog hypothesis was actually true. In that case, the premises of the argument would still be true (after all, the thief hypothesis is still more reasonable than the baseball-dog hypothesis) and yet the conclusion would be false. 

But the fact that the argument is not a deductive argument isn’t a defect of the argument, because inference to the best explanation arguments are not intended to be deductive arguments, but inductive arguments.  That isn’t a defect of an inductive argument, it is simply a definition of what an inductive argument is! As we’ve seen, in order to make a strong inference to the best explanation, the favored explanation must be the best - i.e. the most reasonable. 

But what makes an explanation reasonable? There are certain conditions that any good explanation must meet. The more of these conditions are met, the better the explanation. The first, and perhaps most obvious condition, is that the hypothesis proposed must actually explain all the observed facts. 

Commonly acknowledged criteria for inference to the best explanation

1. Explanatory scope. The best hypothesis will explain a wider range of data than will rival hypotheses.

2. Explanatory power. The best hypothesis will make the observable data more epistemically probable than rival hypotheses.

3. Plausibility. The best hypothesis will be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths, and its negation implied by fewer accepted truths than rival hypotheses.

4. Less ad hoc. The best hypothesis will involve fewer new suppositions not already implied by existing knowledge than rival hypotheses.

5. Accord with accepted beliefs. The best hypothesis, when conjoined with accepted truths, will imply fewer falsehoods than rival hypotheses.

6. Consistency: Is the hypothesis consistent with other established facts or theories?

7. Comparative superiority: The best hypothesis will so exceed its rivals in meeting conditions (1) through (6) that there is little chance of a rival hypothesis’s exceeding it in fulfilling those conditions.

It’s Turtles All the Way Down - the Infinite Regress Problem

An Infinite Regress entails the inconceivable; an actual infinity. This quantity, in different contexts, yields different answers; many of which are in contradiction.

For instance, consider 2 + 3 =5. Thus, 5 - 3 = 2

So,

Infinity + Infinity = Infinity. 

Therefore; Infinity - Infinity = Infinity

However

Infinity + 0 = infinity. Therefore, infinity - Infinity = 0; but that's different to the answer above.

There are two major forms that the infinite regress problem takes.

Epistemic Regress: Knowledge is a true, justified belief. In every chain of logical reasoning, each step depends on the previous one (its justification) for its existence. For the sake of understanding, let’s take a step T1 in a logical argument. T1 relies on T2 for its justification, and similarly, T2 relies on T3, which again would require a justification in the form of T4. T1 will never be supported adequately, because the needed series of support would be infinite, and we would never have any justified knowledge. Thus, it has been proposed that reason is the basis for knowledge.  

 
Metaphysical Impossibility: This can be explained by taking an ontological example. Things in the external world are taken to exist because of the parts that they are composed of. These things (parts) must also depend on their own parts for existence. This chain continues till infinity, which many thinkers claim to be impossible.

Everything in the world has an origin. Something cannot come from nothing. Yet, something must have come from nothing if we want to be logically coherent . The idea of an origin-less universe seems absurd. Especially in light of the scientific evidence for it.

Those who propose an infinite/infinite universe, what do you do about the problem of an infinite regress of causes?

In other words, a series of things that are each ontologically dependent on the next; in this case, the singularity, the singularity -1, the singularity -2, the singularity -3....

How do we reach the singularity if there is an infinite/endless series of causes?

For example, if a giraffe had an infinitely long neck, he would die of starvation - even if he had eaten for an infinite amount of time - since the food would always have another inch to travel before it reached the stomach. So this string of infinite causes would always have another casual step to take before the singularity happened.

To say that "that there is no first moment, because every moment is preceded by earlier moments" is to be logically and philosophically hanging in midair.

Christians would say that God is a metaphysically necessary [efficient] cause for the material universe, thus avoiding regress problems.

Infinite regress can be a problem because it can lead to answers that never terminate. When people ask for justification for something, they want an answer that is compelling. However, answers that result in an infinite regress aren't rationally compelling

It’s more logical to believe in an uncreated Creator or First cause than an infinite universe. Why? Because If God had a creator [or a cause had a cause] who brought Him into existence, then we could ask “who created that God?” 

Ockam’s Razor - the philosophical principle used in science that suggests you shouldn’t multiply causes to explain something beyond what’s necessary - would suggest that we not have a regression of creators at all. The one who brought our universe into being is the uncreated one.

This isn’t special pleading for God. This is what the atheist has typically said about the universe; that the universe is uncreated and eternal in its existence. No atheist was asking “Who created the universe”? They thought the universe was “Just there,” that it was a brute fact. Although that conclusion is now invalidated by powerful scientific evidence and philosophical arguments. 

Objection - There is no problem whatsoever traversing an infinite chain of events. Every event on that chain can logically be reached. The only thing you cannot do with an infinite chain of events is reach the beginning or the end because those don't exist. Every event is logically reachable. The only way you could not reach your destination on an infinite chain is if you set your destination to the end, but that's because by definition there is no end and no beginning. Every other destination is not only possible but guaranteed.

Reply This makes no sense.

Let's say that the Big Bang is 0 and our present time is 14.  Yes, we can count from -99 to 0 and then to 14.  But first you have to get to -99, and then you have to get to -100, then you have to get to -101, then you have to get to -102, ad infinitum. It's absurd to think because we can count to 100 that the problem of the infinite regress has been solved. 

Theists are TERRIFIED of this CRUCIAL argument - Rationality Rules - A response

[Here's the vid]

The argument is that a perfectly Loving God who has created this perfect world would not create worms that eat children's eyes. Thus, a perfectly Loving God doesn't exist. 

Where do you get the idea that this world is what God intended? It's not, it's a fallen world. This atheist's error is presuming that we live in a perfect world. 

So this "argument", is based on a strawman fallacy - distortion of someone else's argument or view by exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's position, it's much easier to attack their view and present your own position as being reasonable; but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate. 

The fact is, that God created various forms of life according to their kinds, with the ability to reproduce and fill the earth (Genesis 1:21– 22, 24–28). This view includes the concepts that God had purpose in what He created and that it originally was very good (Genesis 1:31; Isaiah 45:18). Disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and "bad bugs" like the worms referenced are descendants of that which was non-harmful. We now live in a fallen world, and all creation “groans” under the consequences of our sin (Romans 8:22). 

Why would a loving God "create" a worm that destroys children's eyes? This is what is known as a loaded question - a complex question that contains an assumption or accusation that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with, or a question that has a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty. 

The most famous example is: Have you stopped beating your wife?  Answer yes, and at best, you are a former wife-beater. But this is the tactic used; the question assumes that God created the worm in question. But, He didn't.

Furthermore, the question posed by those in the vid is valid; if one thinks that only the physical exists [i.e. Philosophical Naturalism] - and thus every event/action in the world must be the result of the interaction of particles in antecedent physical states, in accordance to the physical laws - how can they say that anything is bad or evil?  All actions/events are just the result of unguided, unintentional, unintelligent, purposeless, goalless process. 

So in their worldview, how can anything be said to be bad or good? 

A further problem is, how can they say that they are reasoning or thinking critically - defined as "careful thinking directed to a goal" [per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] if they have no dominion of their thoughts? They cannot make any molecule act in a manner inconsistent with the physical laws; i.e. their thoughts must come via interaction of particles in antecedent physical states in accordance to the physical laws.  Again, all actions/events [including human thought] are just the result of unguided, unintentional, unintelligent, purposeless, goalless process. 

Thus, Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting as a physical-only model of the world cannot account for human reasoning - i.e. goal-directed thinking. 

Rationality Rules seems to assume Philosophical Naturalism, which leads to used two self-refuting statements; the existence of morality and the existence of reason are not grounded in Philosophical Naturalism. Rationality Rules used that plus two logical fallacies to try to refute Christianity.   So, FOUR fatal errors in one short vid - an interesting strategy by a You-tuber by the name of "Rationality" Rules. 

[this assumes that Rationality Rules is a Philosophical Naturalist - but given his vids with regard to miracles, it's likely true]

If atheists "follow the science"....

If atheists "follow the science" then all of them should be anti-abortionists because "Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96%{5337in out of 5577} affirmed the fertilization view" [1] and unjustly killing an innocent human is murder. But 87 percent of atheists support abortion.[2] Curious...

Perhaps there is some scientific data that challenges the life begins at conception view.

Perhaps there is an exception to the killing of the unborn that makes it okay.

That would be their argument to make.

Or perhaps atheists only "follow the science" when it's convenient for them

Sources

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist/views-about-abortion/

The atheist Euthyphro Dilemma

 The Euthyphro Dilemma is usually formulated against Christians as:

1) Does God choose what is good because it is good,

2) or does God chose what is good?

For the Christian, neither choice is acceptable.

To affirm that God choose what is good because it is good is to establish an autonomous moral principle that has authority over Him

To affirm what is good is whatever God has said it is to render morality arbitrary

The solution for the Christian is a 3rd option: God is Good itself. Since God is simultaneously the source and the measure of all goodness, the dilemma disappears.

But the atheist has an Euthyphro Dilemma of their own concerning the source of their morality:

A common atheist view of morality is that human instinct/society has decided that human well-being [Or harm mitigation] as the root of morality. Both atheistic views of morality often require people to act against their interests.

However:

The Marquis de Sade an atheist philosopher, concluded that Nature teaches us the principle that the strong ought to rule over and therefore exploit the weak.

Friedrich Nietzsche atheist philosopher, said a healthy society does not exist for its own sake, but exists for the sake of a higher type of person.

Both philosophers chose instincts such as the desire to dominate and cruelty, which are the antithesis of the "human well-being/harm mitigation" morality. The question therefore arises: why should we choose a "well-being or harm mitigation" morality over those of the Marquis de Sade and Nietzsche?

To argue that our morality’s source is human instinct/society means that we have no reason to prefer a "well-being or harm mitigation" morality over the Marquis de Sade and Nietzsche’s, since their moralities are derived from the same human understanding as today's atheists who should be aware of the fact that there are humans who do not have the same instinct for compassion as they do. So why prefer one morality over another?

Why should the human instinct/society be the arbiter of what is good? We look to history to see that it has been wrong in the past: Abolitionists held the minority view during most of human history, yet their anti-slavery philosophy is now almost universally accepted, except for the minority who continue to enslave people today.

If, as atheists assert, human instinct/society is the source of their "well-being or no harm mitigation" morality, a Euthyphro-style Dilemma arises.

The atheist Euthyphro-style Dilemma is this:

1) is a "well-being or no harm/harm mitigation morality" good because human instinct/society says so, or

2) is it morally good because it is a good?

If they say it is morally good because human instinct/society says so, then they run into the problem of those who feel/operate according to different instincts - aka Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade. Why well-being or no harm/harm mitigation morality" over Nietzsche and the Marquis de Sade?

If we say it is morally good because it is good or benevolent, then we admit a morality is external to us.

Whereas theists argue that morality’s external source is God, atheists who wish to adhere to an external morality have the burden of demonstrating this morality’s external source.

I suppose that a 3rd option would be that which best helps humans survive as a species, but why humans? What makes us special? Why not cockroaches or rats or the tardigrade? If it's about well-being or harm mitigation, those 3 probably caused less harm than humans combined...

The non-Problem of Divine Hiddenness

The Problem of Divine Hiddenness [PDH] argument is to demonstrate that, if God existed, He would (or would likely) make the truth of His existence more obvious to everyone than it is. There are many different “flavors” of PDH, but they are all similar in that they comprise basically the same core: two idea that are supposed to be incompatible with each other: 1) the existence of God and 2) the occurrence of some kind of “nonbelief” phenomenon. I will be examining the PDH put forth by Schellenberg, since his seems to be the most popular at the moment.

Definitions:

God: Given that this is a Christian debate forum I’ll define God as most Christians do, as He is described by the Scriptures: Omniscient, Omnipotent; Perfectly Loving, Holy, and Just. God has other attributes, but for this discussion I think these will suffice.

Non-resistant- non-belief [NRNB] – when someone who is (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of a meaningful conscious relationship with God, and yet (iii) does not believe that God exists.

The PDH argument The core of Schellenberg’s argument is simply that 1) God would ensure that there are no nonresistant nonbelievers, 2) but since there actually are nonresistant nonbelievers, 3) we must conclude that God does not exist.

This is how Schellenberg argues:

1) Necessarily, if God exists, anyone who is (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of meaningful conscious relationship with God is also (iii) in a position to participate in such relationship (able to do so just by trying). (PREMISE)

2) Necessarily, one is at a time in a position to participate in meaningful conscious relationship with God only if at that time one believes that God exists. (PREMISE)

3) Necessarily, if God exists, anyone who is (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of meaningful conscious relationship with God also (iii) believes that God exists. (From 1 and 2)

4) There are (and often have been) people who are (i) not resisting God and (ii) capable of meaningful conscious relationship with God without also (iii) believing that God exists. (PREMISE)

5) God does not exist source

Thesis: The Problem of Divine Hiddenness [PDH] is not a problem for Christians, as it fatally fails on a number of counts:

A) it is faith/trust/repentance, that is important not mere belief

B) God has morally sufficient reasons to hide Himself from certain people

C) Critics cherry-pick data

D) the existence of non-resistant non-believers is unprovable

Objection A - it is repentance/faith/trust in Jesus – i.e. that He is who He says He is, and will do what He says He will do - that’s what is vitally important, not mere belief in God’s existence. God’s purpose is that we repent and come to trust Him [i.e. have faith] not just merely believe that He exists; that mere belief does nothing for our relationship with God.

Most assume that the word ‘faith’ is more or less synonymous with the word “believe,” but the Bible is careful to communicate that it is not. James says: “Even the demons believe—and shudder!” James 2:19.

Many understand the term repentance to mean “a turning from sin.” Yet in the Bible, the word repent means “to change one’s mind.” Paul declares, “I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds” (Acts 26:20). The short biblical definition of repentance is “a change of mind that results in a change of action.”

The book of Acts especially focuses on repentance in regard to salvation (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11:18; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20). To repent, concerning salvation, is to change your mind regarding sin and Jesus Christ. In Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2), he concludes with a call for the people to repent (Acts 2:38).

Peter calls the people who rejected Jesus (Acts 2:36) to change their minds about that sin and to change their minds about Christ Himself, recognizing that He is indeed “Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). True repentance is prompted by “godly sorrow,” and it “leads to salvation” (2 Corinthians 7:10).

Repentance and faith can be understood as two sides of the same coin. It is impossible to place your faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior without first changing your mind about your sin and about who Jesus is and what He has done. Whether it is repentance from willful rejection or repentance from ignorance or disinterest, it is a change of mind. Biblical repentance, in relation to salvation, is changing your mind from rejection of Christ to faith in Christ.

Thus, merely believing in God's existence sans repentance and trust in Jesus does nothing for one's soul.

Objection B - God has morally sufficient reasons to hide Himself from certain people. The basic idea is that many non-believers, would NOT come to repentance/faith/trust in God even if God's existence were not subject to doubt. And their moral conduct wouldn’t improve, and might even increase. However, immoral conduct in such a state of affairs would be even more immoral since they know that Jesus is God and every sin is now a willful violation, and hence justly subject to greater punishment. Jesus affirms there are different degrees of punishment – see Matthew 11:20-24; Luke 12:47–48; Hebrews 10:28-29; 2 Peter 2:20-22; James 3:1-2; Matt. 10:15 - in the next life. But even more importantly, our level of knowledge and understanding is, in part, the basis for this punishment.

Thus, God mercifully remains ‘hidden’ to limit their moral culpability.

Objection C - Critics cherry-pick data – Critics say, for this argument [and others like the problem of evil] that God is omnibenevolent or Perfectly Loving. Where do they get this idea? From the Scriptures or from Christian via the Scriptures. But there is data that is ignored. For instance, the Bible clearly states that non-believers are in rebellion and are not non-resistant.

To consistently use the Bible would be the death warrant for the PDH, for to be consistent, they would have to use all of Scripture to define God and man rather than just what is convenient for the hiddenness argument. The fact is that the Scriptures present a worldview radically different from that presented by critics, the most significant and obvious distinction between a secular worldview and the biblical worldview is the nature of man.

According to Scripture, man is not a morally-neutral being but is a sinner and in a natural state of rebellion against his Creator (Rom 3:9–19; Eph 2:1–3; Gen 8:21; Col 2:13). Man does not reject God because there is no evidence for God, but because man twists the evidence to justify His own rebellion and hate of God (Rom 1:18–23).

The critic cannot even begin to argue against the existence of God via the PDH unless he can prove God’s omni-benevolence, but the only option for that is to approach the nature of God from the Christian worldview [lest a strawman is built] but, this worldview is not compatible with the moral neutrality of humanity as asserted by the PDH, and thus an appeal to the Christian understanding of God is self-defeating.

Objection D - the existence of non-resistant non-believers is unprovable, since nonresistant non-belief is a thought of the mind. If I were to state, “I was thinking about taking my daughter out for a ride on my motorcycle,” how would I go about proving that I thought about that? I cannot prove that I am thinking such a thought, for the mind cannot be observed in such a way. Thus, those whom I share this information with must simply take me at my word.

If a believer approaches an unbeliever and says, “I know God exists because God speaks to me through my thoughts via His word,” do you suppose that the unbeliever would accept this statement as evidence that God does exist? Hardly. What if, instead of one believer, one million believers approached this unbeliever and made the same argument. Would the unbeliever then accept that as evidence that God exists. Highly unlikely.

Why then should we believe the testimony of a non-believer when they say they are non-resistant?

Furthermore, it seems likely that a non-believer would be biased towards thinking that they are non-resistant since this proves their stance that God doesn’t exist or that they are justified in their non-belief.

Thus, the non-believer cannot prove they are non-resistant, and they have every reason to be biased in their assessment of their non-resistantance.

Given the four objections above, the PDH is not a problem for Christians. Any of these four objections are fatal to the PDH, in and of themselves, independent of any other objection.

The atheist's burden of proof

It is commonly argued within existence of God debates that the burden of proof remains entirely with the theist. The theist has to provide evidence for God in order to be rational, but the atheist does not have any burden of proof because they are not making a positive claim.

Most atheists now avoid statements like "it is true that God does not exist". However, they do state things like "there is no evidence that God exists". The atheist fails to realize that they too must provide evidence for God's nonexistence if that is a claim that they make. Thesis: The atheist must provide evidence for any claim they make about God's existence or nonexistence, whether it's positive or negative.

They argue their claim is negative, and negative claims require no justification. This is inaccurate. Negative claims are studied, analyzed and evaluated. Several scientific studies reach negative conclusions and they justify such using evidence. Many scientific papers are published solely to provide evidence for a negative conclusion that is against previously held conclusions and theories. Edited For instance, take the claim that Stana Claus does not exist - this negative claim can be proven; we have extensive knowledge of the North Pole and know that no one lives there with his wife making toys with elves. Nor do they have flying reindeer [and none with glowing noses] Nor is it possible for one to visit every home in the world within a 24-hour period, let alone crawling down chimneys. Thus, the best available evidence we have shows that Santa Claus does not exist.

If an atheist argues that negative claims require no justification, then they are in disagreement with much of the peer-reviewed academic literature, who all require evidence to substantiate negative conclusions. Yes, we can prove a negative All claims, whether positive or negative, are asserting something and thus require justification.

If the atheist ever says "there is no evidence for the existence of God" please insist on proof of that claim. If no proof for that claim is offered, then it can be rightly dismissed as a mere unsupported assertion.

Reverse the argument

Hypothetically, if a negative claim cannot be proved, then why can't the theist reasonably argue that "there is no evidence for God's nonexistence"? The next step in the atheist playbook would be for the theist to insist that the atheist prove that statement incorrect. The next time an atheist says:"It is not rational to believe that God does exist, because there is no evidence for God's existence". The theist should reply, "It is not rational to believe that God does not exist because there is no evidence for God's nonexistence". I'm not suggesting the discouragement of intellectual debate, but to show the atheist the hypocrisy of the atheist view, and deficiencies in their reasoning skills.

Non-belief [or agnosticism or agnostic atheist]

By now, most atheists realize that they are unable to provide evidence for God's nonexistence. So they make false propositions such as stating that they do not have a burden of proof in their claims, or they assert that they simply "lack" a belief in God and make no claims about God. They don't assert that God doesn't exist, but they instead just say they don't have belief in God or that they have "a dis-belief in God[s]". They don't know if God exists, but they lack the belief in God; they endorse atheism, but don't deny theism. Yes, it is true that an agnostic atheist who makes no claims do not require a burden of proof. But rare is the atheist that doesn't make any claims or not hold any positive or negative beliefs about God; they'll most likely make some sort of claim eventually.

It should be noted that this non-belief says nothing about its reasonableness. They have put themselves in the same category as the flat-earther who says they have a "non-belief" that the earth is spherical. Ask: "Why are you unsure"If they give reasons, then those reasons can be examined. If they have some sort of "I-don't-know-ism" [i.e. they don't know why they don't know] rest assured that their feet are planted in mid-air epistemologically speaking and can be dismissed as the prospect of a rational discourse is nil as they lack tangible evidence/arguments that supports holding a view of the nonexistence of God.

Claim 2: relying on a "lack" of belief in God without giving any reasons for that non-belief is intellectually meaningless.

Reverse the non-belief

The theist could also reverse the argument as well. The theist could reply that they simply "lack" the belief in the nonexistence of God. These arguments are relatively equivalent. Remember, a negative statement is just the jargon for a positive statement that affirms the nonexistence of something. Again, I'm not suggesting the discouragement of intellectual debate, but to show the atheist the hypocrisy of the atheist view, and deficiencies in their reasoning skills.

Atheism is a non-reasoned position/view

 Thesis: Atheism is a non-reasoned position/view.

When I talk to atheists they usually define their position with four statements - your interactions may be different.

The statements are:

1) I have a disbelief [or no belief] in god[s];

2) There is no evidence for any god[s]

3) I make no claims and thus have no burden of proof

4) Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence; theism is an extraordinary claim thus the theists must provide extraordinary evidence.

Statement 1 - I have a disbelief [or no belief] in god[s]

This tells us nothing about reality, it doesn't give any reasons why any critical thinking person should accept it as true; it is unfalsifiable. But it's not meant to be an argument; it is just their opinion, their declaration. Fair enough but still it's not a reasoned statement in and of itself.

Statement 2 - There is no evidence for any god[s]

Ah, now we have a claim [I know, I know. statement 3, but just bear with me] This is apparently their reasons concluding statement 1 is true.

But when usually pressed, there is nothing forthcoming in any substantive way that would move a critical thinking person to conclude that statement 2 is true [They usually cite statement 3]. I had a conversation with an atheist recently and when asked about this they essentially said that, I could list the arguments for God, but I might miss a few; but they've all been refuted

But this is another claim. However, the argument or evidence for this is, well let's just say this is where the articulation and defense of atheism usually ends, in my experience.

So, statement 2 doesn't provide any foundation for statement 1

Statement 3 - I make no claims and thus have no burden of proof

Well, the atheist just made two claims [sometimes they only make one] thus this is an internal contradiction in atheism. If a two or more propositions or statements are made and that both cannot possibly be true then it's a logically fallacious statement

And yes, you can prove a negative argues famed atheist Richard Carrier.

So atheists DO have a burden of proof and have failed to meet it.

Statement 4 - Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence; theism is an extraordinary claim, thus the theists must provide extraordinary evidence.

This is a strange statement. If one doesn't know what the nature of reality is, then how can one say what is an extraordinary claim? By what measuring stick are they using to determine what is extraordinary?

Conclusion - So, upon examination atheism [as outlined in the 4 statements above] is a non-reasoned position/view because:

1) it doesn't tell us what the nature of reality is [it doesn't even attempt to] let alone make a reasoned argument for it. If one doesn't have an idea of what the nature of reality is and why they think it's correct then on what basis can they make any epistemological claims - relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

2) Claims that there is no evidence for God, yet fail to support this claim.

3) Sometimes it claim that all arguments for God have been refuted, but fail to support this claim as well.

4) Claims that they don't make claims, when they clearly do - i.e. their view is thus internally inconsistent, i.e. logically fallacious.

5) Claims that theist must provide "extraordinary evidence" but cannot [or do not] state what the nature of reality is [see above], and how they've determined it. Thus, they have no reasonable basis to say that theists must provide "extraordinary evidence".