Watch the video above and talk about it with a group or mentor. Learn more.
Many Atheists and skeptics will claim that there is no evidence for God's existence. Are they right?
Key Points:
- Saying there is no evidence is not the same as showing there is no evidence. “Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence for absence.” Even if it’s true that there’s no evidence for God, it doesn’t follow that God doesn’t exist.
- The entire case for Christianity is based on a convergence of different types of evidence. It is a cumulative case, not one isolated case.
- It’s dishonest to say there’s no evidence for God without ruling out the best evidence or at least engaging with the best evidence. Ignoring the best evidence is an easy way to commit the straw man fallacy.
- Even if individual pieces of evidence are not convincing, those seeking truth must consider the cumulative nature of the evidence pointing to God’s existence.
Quote This:
Most of my cases have relied on the cumulative nature of evidential inferences. –J. Warner Wallace
Talk About It
- What is your initial reaction to this topic? What jumped out at you?
- Have you ever heard people argue that there is no evidence for God’s existence? Explain.
- Based on the abundance of evidence – at least in argument form – for God’s existence, what are many people actually saying when they claim that there is no evidence for God’s existence?
- What is an example of the principle: “Absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence?”
- Why is it important to recognize the cumulative nature of the evidence for God’s existence? What are some pieces of evidence that work well cumulatively?
- The late Christopher Hitchens, a famous “New Atheist,” said that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Is it wise for Christians to dismiss people’s claims even if they don’t provide any evidence for those claims?
- Is there a step you need to take based on today’s topic?
