Most atheists will readily admit that there is no evidence against the existence of God. Why then do they deny God’s existence? For the same reason they also deny the existence of the Good-Tooth-Fairy, Bigfoot, and the Flying-Spaghetti-Monster – that there is simply no positive evidence for these!
But are these beings ontologically equivalent to a Being who can possibly account for the first cause, the existence of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, consciousness, life, and the laws of science – things that naturalism is hard-pressed to account for?
ATHEIST RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
What is the atheist response to the argument from design? One response is evolution. If things can evolve naturally, ID becomes unnecessary. However, there is no proof that ID might not have guided scientific “natural” processes.
Another response to design is non-design. The late Christopher Hitchens argued that we are confronted with more “non-design” and wastefulness than design. He cites the fact that 99% of biological species have gone extinct.
However, “non-design” – and it’s hard to prove that something is without a design - fails to directly address the evidence of design. For example, if I come home to my totally unkempt apartment to find that the kitchen has been perfectly cleaned and ordered, I shouldn’t say:
• I don’t have to account for the order of my kitchen because the three other rooms remain in total disorder.
Instead, I should still seek an explanation for my ordered kitchen.
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD REQUIRES EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE
The late atheist Christopher Hitchens had argued that extraordinary claims - namely the existence of God - require extraordinary evidence.
While this might be true, it must be weighed against another extraordinary claim - that everything sprung into existence uncaused out of nothing.
This observation leaves us with the unavoidable question - Which makes more sense: ID or naturalism?