Proving God Requires Extraordinary Proof

The way we frame a question makes all the difference. For example, atheists argue:

·       The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence should be… So to claim that gods, virgin births, resurrections, and spirits living among us are ordinary, is to say that they are common, routine, standard, or typical. But things that are ordinary are uncontroversial because they are backed up by lots of empirical data and we experience them frequently.

Now let’s re-frame the discussion:

·       The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence should be… So to claim that Big Bangs can create order, unchanging natural laws, and a precisely tuned universe, and that life can spring out of non-life, is to say that these occurrences are common, routine, standard, or typical. But things that are ordinary are uncontroversial because they are backed up by lots of empirical data and we experience them frequently.

Meanwhile, it makes far more sense that everything was caused and maintained by an eternal, transcendent, intelligent Being than by nothing at all. Do we have just one stitch of evidence that the latter ever happens! In fact, the latter is actually anti-science.