The atheist in me is quieted by the theist in me, for the theist in me knows insights and shares them calmly and gently to my skepticism.

Yes, credulity and wishful thinking form a power to lead minds astray. But the minds they target are not just believers. Many atheists, touched by the pain of dogmatism and self-righteousness, desire to distrust religion because of the ills that sadly come with it. This distrust lends to a keen eye for finding errors in theist arguments while also motivates an emotional connection to arguments against theism. Now while I have compassion for those who feel that distrust of religion, a heart against religious claims can have way of leading a mind against religious claims. In fact, I’d think that it would be more rational to keep open a sense of hope that God is real since after all, it would be a good thing if reality truly were governed by ultimate purpose and moral order, with One of Glory behind it. Of course, many atheists do seem to distrust God against their desire, but then I’ve also heard stories of former atheists who came to believe against their desire. I don’t want to overstate my point. For it does appear that the desire for religious belief is more deeply imbedded within humanity than the distrust of it. But this doesn’t necessarily imply that religious belief is irrational. In fact one might wonder why humans would have such a pervasive hunger for some God if no God can be found. Sure it could be a naturally selected instinct for our survival, but then again, a priori, it could be a result of being made by God. At any rate, as a "free-thinker" I think we should look at the evidence and see where it leads us, with one eye on skepticism and the other on hope.

Now while a few notable theologians tend to distrust the classical arguments, I strongly suspect this is because they feel that knowledge of God is basic (perhaps obvious) and not in need of being proved by human reasoning. I respect this sentiment, but for those of us who don’t find God so obvious, good evidence is needed to given reasons for rational faith.

So is there any good evidence for God? My atheist friend (the one in me), seems to think theologians have been trying for centuries (motivated by wishful thinking) to come up with an argument for God and yet can’t come up with anything persuasive. My good friend has a perspective in need of revision. Sure philosophers have been defending (and revising) certain arguments for as long as people have had minds to think, but it’s hardly the case that none are persuasive or that the "motives of those who tout them" are dubious. Many religious-turned-atheists have been persuaded by the arguments to believe in God again and become one of the theologians who "tout" them. C.S. Lewis, Patrick Glynn (once atheist with PHD from Harvard), P.C.W. Davis (scientist turned theist by anthropic principle) and G. Jordan, are a few that come to mind. As my atheist friend pointed out, the arguments are based on observing something about the world that is best explained if God exists. Unlike my atheist friend, I'm not nearly as optimistic that alternative plausible explanations could be given.

Let's begin with existence itself. There are only two types of things that can be conceived of existing, things that exist necessarily and things that exist, but could possibly not exist. Now whatever can change, exists with the possibility of not existing. For example, if a chair has the potential to change into a broken pile of wood, then that chair has the possibility to stop existing. Whatever has the possibility not to exist requires a cause for existing when it could possibly not exist. This is evidenced by the fact that effects (or changed things) are considered the result of causes. Scientific knowledge requires this principle of causation. So we have a series of causes that make up our changing universe. But one should wonder why there even is a series of things that could possibly not exist. I doubt the series itself could be a necessary, beginningless series. One cause for doubt is in thinking an infinite amount of changes could ever be accomplished to reach the present moment. A more satisfying answer to why anything exists at all is that the series of possible things begins with a first uncaused thing that exists necessarily, thus changelessly and eternally. For a more detailed evaluation of this reasoning and potential objections, go here.

 Another way to see the need for an eternal Cause of the universe is to use the Kalam version:

1. whatever begins to exist requires a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe has a cause, which we call God

Last time I argued that the argument is unsound and that both premises are dubious. Now I want to correct my reasoning. First of all, in nearly every place I've seen this argument defended, I've found additional arguments to show why the uncaused Cause must be necessary, eternal, timeless, changeless, and infinite. Perhaps these arguments fail, but they shouldn't be dismissed a priori (see my brief arguments showing an uncaused thing is God here). Secondly, there are responses to the criticisms of the premises.

Consider premise (1). The two major reasons people doubt (1) comes from taking the meaning of cause to be the same as determined or with taking the meaning of begins to exist as existing for finite time. In the first case, the spontaneous emergence of virtual particles is often given to show that some things can begin to exist in-deterministically. In fact Heisenburg's uncertainty principle seems to merit the notion that some things can happen while their not happening was equally, physically possible. The physics of the universe don't predict future states with deterministic certainty. However, even if an event happening over another event happening isn't something that's always determined, any event happening still requires a cause. High burst of energy are the cause of virtual particles even if those energy states aren't determined by necessity to cause any virtual particles. In the second case, it may be less clear that something existing for finite time requires a cause, but if something begins to exist where it previously didn't exist, then clearly it would require an origination cause. I know no person, whether theist or atheist, who wouldn't think things that begin existing where they previously didn't exist could be without a cause. (1) is clearly true when properly understood.

What about premise (2)? Since there is no time prior to the universe, how could one say that the universe began to exist? Well, if the universe is defined as the Whole of reality then I'd agree that the universe didn't begin to exist or have a cause, since I believe God Himself makes up the uncaused portion of reality. But if we define the universe as containing only the series of things that have a beginning, then unless that series is infinite, we must say the universe began to exist where it previously didn't exist. Thinking that the series of causes extends indefinitely seems far less reasonable than thinking the series begins with an uncaused cause. I gave one reason to doubt an infinite causal regress above. Another reason I doubt the reality of an infinite regress is my strong intuition that our current existence is never ultimately explained if it's explanation relies solely on other "to-be-explained" things. I'll save a more formal demonstration of my intuition for another place, but it's sufficed to say that I find fewer problems with an uncaused Thing than with an infinite regress of causes. So I have response to my atheist friend, who complained about the failure of "so many philosophers busily trying to get the cosmological argument to work". With so many intelligent skeptics and a wide variety of criticisms over the years, it's a wonder that this argument still stands while others have fallen (e.g. the ontological argument) and is still convincing to intelligent thinkers.

Last time, as an atheist, I questioned a particular version of the design argument based on the anthropic principle. I don't know why I was so suspicious of those who are convinced by this argument? J The only ways I can think of to get around the theistic implications of the anthropic principle would be to posit alternative universes, or argue that the principle is a metaphysical necessity without a need for explanation, or to argue that we shouldn't be surprised that the universe is fit for observers. None of these alternatives are intellectually satisfying to me.

Positing alternative universes means using a highly complicated explanation when a simpler explanation (i.e. a single Designer) is available. Remember Occam's razor? Occam wisely suggests that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything? Suppose my little sister claims she can flip a coin to be heads 100% of the time and then demonstrates successfully 100 flips in row. I might contend that there are many, many, many other people flipping coins in other undetectable places and that the odds that one of them happens to get 100 heads is quite reasonable. Or I could concede that my sister is intentionally rigging the coin somehow. I find the second choice more reasonable, and similarly I find it more reasonable to think our universe was selected for life than thinking that there are many, many, many other undetectable universes with different properties to help the odds.

Supposing the anthropic principle is a metaphysical necessity and not in need of explanation doesn't work either. For one should still ask, "why is it metaphysically necessary that the universe be suited for life when other universes are conceivable?" I've never seen any answer offerred to that question.

Neither does it help to point out that we shouldn't be surprised that the universe is fit for observers. For our surprise is not over the existence of a fit universe anyway, but rather, we are surprised that only a very, very, very precise universe is fit for intelligent observers. So as the anthropic principle continues to gain scientific evidence, it continues to strengthen my belief that our existence suggests the existence of God. And I admit, sometimes, I'm a little suspicious of those who come up with such extravagant theories to explain the appearance of intention in the universe other than supposing it was created by God.

Now what about the argument from morals? Can it too be rectified despite my earlier criticisms? I think it can. The argument I critiqued was as follows:

1. I get outraged at evil
2. Therefore moral principles exist
3. The best explanation of moral principles is God
4. Therefore, God exists

I was right to point out that universal outrage at certain evils doesn't necessarily mean that moral principles exist from a purely logical analysis. But then neither is my own existence necessarily true from a purely logical analysis. Two problems I see with denying the existence of moral truths is that such a denial wouldn't even be worth entertaining if an objective sense if worth is a purely subjective quality, and also, the denial of moral knowledge seems to slip into an unjustified skepticism regarding knowledge. I explain more fully why I think objective principles are real based on the first problem here.

I think I was also right in complaining that theists too often assume (3) follows from (2) without giving good arguments. I suspect theists don't usually show why (3) must result from (2) because there is an a priori intuition to think people objectively ought or ought not do certain things only if there is a God to provide a basis for the ultimate standard of righteousness. But atheists have given some interesting alternative explanations for objective morals, so further arguments should be given by theists. These further arguments do exist and are based on a cosmological type argument to show that objective values require an objective, perfect Source. A fair treatment of these arguments would require more space than is appropriate for this essay.

I'll concede with the atheist in me that ontological type proofs are not successful in proving God, although they do seem to be instrumental in analyzing the nature of a necessary being if there were such a being.

Just as I said as an atheist, there are countless other things in the world that are offered as evidence for God (such as certain NDEs, historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, etc.), and they should be considered before hope of God should be allowed to dim into non-existence. So if the cosmological and teleological arguments are not found wanting after closer examination, then what should we make of the arguments against God?

First of all, the existence of potential arguments against God should silence the all-too-popular rhetoric that one can't know God doesn't exist without possessing all knowledge. This rhetoric is mistaken simply because we can know that some things don't exist even while not possessing all knowledge. The two ways regarding God are to show God is an incoherent idea or to show He is incompatible with what we find in the world.

The arguments for God's incoherence serve to refine our understanding of what God is really like, but they don't succeed in invalidating the traditional understanding of God as perfect in power, knowledge, and love; at least, the arguments I know of and presented earlier are unsuccessful. I'll respond to each one:

Omnipotence should be understood as possessing perfect power to do all that is metaphysically possible. For example, God cannot sin or go out of existence since these things are metaphysically impossible for a necessary being to do. So if the future that God decides on cannot be changed, then that doesn't mean God is not omnipotent. It only means He must correspond to reality. Similarly, omniscience should be understood as possessing all knowledge that is metaphysically possible. I don't see why God couldn't know the future even if He could change it, but if He couldn't, then that should give us deeper insight into what can be known, not into God's lack of omniscience.

I'm not convinced that a Being must commit an evil act in order to posses full knowledge of that act. But if there is a kind of knowledge lacking from God, then this shouldn't surprise us anymore than God's lack of ability to commit sin surprises us. God can still be considered perfect in knowledge and power even if He lacks the knowledge and power to Be imperfect.

An omniscient being can't know what it's like to be imperfect in knowledge. If that implies a limit, then fine, God's knowledge is limited by metaphysical perfection.

God could experience external relational changes without changing internally. Foreknowledge doesn't imply determinism so allows for freewill. Since my atheist side didn't offer more detailed explanations of these potential problems, I'm satisfied to leave my answers simple.

My response, "The Christian is left with a more refined and accurate view of God. When he asserts that 'God exists", he knows more clearly what he is talking about than before, and when the non-theist asserts that 'No one knows what a theist means by God', no one should really know what that non-theist is talking about"

But what about the apparent gratuitous evils I mentioned before? I think I may have been right in claiming that if we can find evils with no reasonable explanation, then we are reasonable in denying that any explanation exists. A possible objection though is that we have reasons (such as from the Bible or from believing in God) to believe that there could still be reasons that we cannot conceive of. Michael Martin, in his book Athiesm, A Philosophical Justification (check out my Amazon review as joshrasm), argues that since none of those reasons are sound, we must accept unexplainable evil as it appears to be - without explanation. Since I disagree with Martin that there are no good reasons to believe in God, I may be justified in regarding unexplainable evil as simply beyond human comprehension. But I admit, there is something unsatisfying about not being able to think of at least some reasonable explanation for certain evils. Even still, the atheist in me lacks creativity, for I can think of many ways that may work together to account for the various evils I mentioned.

1. Finite suffering is always worth any positive everlasting effect. Human knowledge of animal suffering could lead to a net positive effect in everlasting souls.

1. suppose animal suffering increases skepticism about God, which leads people who were once closed-minded bigots to become open-minded thinkers (a good thing)
2. or leads to kinds of evil necessary to bring some people to true humility and repentance (a very good thing)

2. Animal pain could be used to demonstrate the effects of sin without hurting more everlasting beings (humans) so as to lead more humans to repent

3. Some animals could have souls and pain teaches them responsibility and prepares them for an afterlife

4. If animals don't have souls, they may not experience pain as suffering, but just as directing forces

5. The creativity God enjoyed in bringing about animals may have been worth the pain they feel as long as the animals experience a net of pleasure (tentative on this one)

6. Animal suffering could be a reflection of the natural and necessary consequence of evil coming from humans and evil spirits.

Many of these could work together to explain animal pain.

The amount of unbelief in the world is also without plausible explanation if God exists.

Some plausible explanations:

1. God hides from some narrow-minded, shallow-loving believers to promote humility (many atheists admit their former self-righteous zeal as a religious person)

2. God hides from some believers to give them deeper love for atheists and then restores belief again (that seemed to happen to me)

3. Unbelief is used to challenge and sharpen our understanding of God (remember the arguments for the incoherence of God?)

4. Unbelief for some could be a reflection of pride and self-centeredness (a number of former atheists admit this)

5. Unbelief for some could be a way of giving them freedom from a harmful religious system.

6. NDE's give people the necessary information before they die so everyone ultimately gains belief in God

The central issue is not mere belief in God, but rather entering into Life and knowing true love and true forgiveness. Unbelief might be helpful in resulting in more people who ultimately find Life. Further insights might be found in the Tough Questions section.

1. People who trust God in this world may experience knowledge of God (e.g. rescue from sin) that persons who died early won't enjoy even if they go to heaven. But why then let anyone die early? Some may die early since God knows they would freely reject Life if allowed to live in this world. But why then allow others to live and reject Life? Others may be allowed to freely reject Life in order to lead to still others freely receiving Life who wouldn't otherwise do so (see Tough Questions for more details).

2. The souls of early deaths may be re-incarnated until it enters a body that will have sufficient opportunity to choose between spiritual Life and Death.

3. Bodies aren't given souls unless God foreknows that they will live past a certain amount of time

Any of these seem reasonable to me, though I honestly haven't a clue what the actual case really is.

The greatest and most poignant deceit tends to live nearest to the greatest and most glorious truth. The false, misguided, and disparate religious claims of the world may involve some of the following explanations:

1. Religion is a description of humanity's error-prone attempt to reach for God. Deceit is permitted in order to show people their need for forgiveness, "help", and rescuing from unrighteousness. God still gives enough light for people to receive Life.

2.Many truths behind religions could be reliable even while those who represent those truths make mistakes

3. Many supposed "errors" are not errors at all.

Although Zechariah seems to contain this prophesy, there is evidence that suggests Jeremiah was the author of the part of the book of Zechariah in which the prophesy appears. Go here for more details.

4. Tough questions about God can motivate deeper thinking and also soften arrogant hearts. (Not every one of those closed-minded religionists stays that way)

There are many more examples of evils that have no plausible explanation if God exists.

Well, atheist in me, we'll just have to look at your examples one at a time so I can carefully and tenderly answer your questions.

The IQ of believers in God turns out to average at the mean IQ of the general population. For those with higher IQ's and educational status, there does seem to be an increase in skepticism. (Sorry I don't have my references handy). But this trend may have nothing to do with the actual evidence for God but rather with some historical and social factors. Historically, some great scientists were called "heretics" by the Catholic church by coming up with things, such as the earth moves around the sun. Cold rejection of scientists by religionists led to a bitter divorce between the scientists and the religious laymen (though with many notable exceptions). Also, for social reasons, we might expect that people of keener intellect would be more likely to question the religion of their upbringing. With so many false or deceiving religious claims it's not surprised that the smart questioners would be more likely to doubt a claim even if it were true. Other social factors may include worldly security, a secular academic environment, or a deeper awareness of the narrowness one's religious beliefs used to be. At any rate, some of the most intelligent people (people with multiple PHDS or IQ's higher than 180) have expressed belief in God. I think of Aristotle, Aquinas, or even contemporary, Dembsky. In addition, belief in God among intellectuals appears to be on the rise. I've read this from professional atheist philosophers. (again I'll have to find my references… here's one, "God is making a comeback…", Modernizing the Case for God," Time, April 7, 1980, pp. 65- 6) The advances in science and philosophy have made theism a credible option among intellectuals.

For me, an honest, reasoned view of the world takes me to ever deepening insights into the knowledge of God. But I do hope believers will find the courage to give up simple-mindedness and listen deeply to the complaints of atheists. Also, I hope atheists will find the courage to wonder again about God, perhaps to see the reasons to believe what is truly wonderful for the heart.