Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
It is interesting to note that when having a theological discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness it is advisable to learn the particularities, and peculiarities, of their own version of the Bible. In this way they accept the premise form which you are arguing, they accept the source of authority from which you are making your arguments.
When having a discussion with Roman Catholics it is important to discuss church history, the apocrypha, the Papacy and various other issues of contention.
It would be presuppositional to quote the Bible to people who do not believe it to be authoritative. Although, I will make a presupositional statement and say that it is still worthwhile since God’s word has power and will not return void-but that is another issue.
The point is that we ought to engage people with a premise that they will accept, discuss issues that they will accept, and utilize materials that they will accept.
If someone told me, “I’m an atheist,” I would ask them, “Which denomination?” This is an odd enough question that should insight interest, as well as confusion. The confusion ought to heighten the interest and the interest ought to cause the posing of the logical question, “What on Earth are you talking about?” We have dealt with this issue in Atheism’s Sects.
That is a good place to start and do keep in mind that you should be prepared to answer any question that you yourself ask-anything could be turned around on you. In fact, keep in mind to turn around anything that is asked of you. There is a saying about good lawyers “They don’t exist!” Just kidding, the saying is “A good lawyer never asks a question that they don’t already know the answer to.” Certainly, some questions are to be asked simply in order to acquire information. Yet, the reason for asking questions that you already know the answer to is so that, having an approximation of what the answer will be, you can lead the discussion and be prepared with your own comment to their response. Again, keep in mind that this will be done to you as well.
Now to my advice about offering proof for God’s existence-do not offer any.
You must first ascertain what the atheist considers “proof.” This is what you must ask, “What do you consider proof when it comes to an issue such as God’s existence?” Ask them what they would consider clear, irrefutable, absolute proof.
Clearly, historical proofs are not applicable, except in the case of a historical discussion of the bibliography of the Bible. As a side note, keep in mind that if an atheist is questioning the Bible’s reliability you can simply grant to them that it is utterly unreliable and not God’s word. Why would you grant this? Because even if the Bible was utterly unreliable and not God’s word this would not mean that God does not exist. It may mean that Judaism and Christianity are false and that their theology is false but it would not discredit God’s existence by the least bit.
Scientific proofs are not applicable, except in the case of testing certain biblical statements over against scientific claims-the beginning of the universe, its composition of time, space and matter, its expansion, the Earth’s spherical form, its hanging on nothing, etc. Although, it is important to keep in mind that one ought never base one’s beliefs upon science because science is constantly changing (perhaps draw a distinction between hard and soft science-engineering versus speculative cosmology for instance).
Oddly enough, it may very well be that what the atheist would consider the best proof of God’s existence is actually the worse. And that the proof that a theist considers the worse is actually the best (at least, those who are involved in the real or intellectual argumentation).I have heard may atheists offer the opinion that the best, absolute, clear, irrefutable proof of God’s existence would be if God would personally appear to them (individually or appear to the whole world). Theists consider the worse proof to be personal experience with God (although it often is considered a proof).
It would be interesting to point this out to an atheist, “You are saying that the most convincing proof for God’s existence is a subjective experience. Yet, this is the same kind of experience that you reject when it is claimed by theists.” We have discussed this topic in our essay What Would Atheists Do If God Appeared To Them?.
Now to the point of claiming that we know God exists because we have had a personal experience with God-a personal relationship. This is thought to be the worse claim of proof since it is highly subjective. It certainly is, but it is the best argument to make in order to demonstrate atheism’s circular logic. The atheist will counter argue that this is no proof at all.
But the point is that the atheist does not believe that people have experiences with God because God does not exist and one way to know that God does not exist is that people do not have experiences with God. Yet, the only way that the atheist could know for certain that no one has ever had an experience with God is if they had a prior commitment to the idea that God does not exist. Either that, an a priori commitment, or they could personally investigate every single instance, regardless of chronology, geography or theology, of claims to personal experiences with God.
Atheists believe that 100% of people who claim to have had experiences with God have been 100% wrong 100% of the time. As we have stated, this is based on their dogmatic belief in the non-existence of God. Theists, Christians for instance, take a more liberal view of the many claims to experiences with God-some of them did and some of them did not. If, and the atheist will consider it a big “if,” but if, for instance, we could demonstrate the Bible’s reliability we could furthermore claim that if anyone claiming to have an experience with God goes against the Bible did not really have an experience with God. For example, Christians can look back at very dark periods in the history of Christendom and can condemn those actions as evil, immoral, unchristian, and unbiblical, by utilizing the Bible’s very own moral standards. The atheist can look back at very dark times when people who were atheists took political power and did very evil things. While the individual atheist can say that they personally did not like what those people did, or that those things were immoral, the atheist will have to borrow morality from a theistic system in order to condemn those actions (or simply fall back on their explanation for everything-morality just is). That is to say that they could not make an absolute statement about the absolute evil of any behavior.
Therefore, before offering anything as proof, ask for parameters. Then build off of what is offered. You may just end up demonstrating how what they consider the best proof is, in part, what has been offered for millennia.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.