DO GREAT CLAIMS REQUIRE GREAT EVIDENCES?

Atheists generally say that the existence of God is a great claim, and that great claims require great evidence.

Actually, I tend to agree. However, I would insist that the evidence for the Creator should be compared to its competing “great claim” that natural forces (NFs) are the creators. Both of these are necessarily extraordinary claims, which require extraordinary evidence. Both claim either that these NFs or the Creator must be eternal (and uncaused) and therefore wouldn’t require an illogical and endless series of causes (infinite regress) to explain their own existence. However, I think that the God hypothesis has far more support. From the little we understand:

1.    NFs cannot explain the creation of matter, energy, time, and space. Instead, NFs would require that these elements pre-exist eternally before NFs can act upon them. However, time cannot be eternal. It would mean that an infinite number of years would have to be fulfilled before we could arrive at the present – a logical impossibility.

2.    NFs cannot explain their elegance, demonstrated in the simplicity of their formulaic statements. Instead, elegance suggests Intelligent Design (ID).

3.    NFs cannot even explain their own immutability in a world of molecules-in-motion. In such a world, we would expect them to also change. However, if NFs are in the state of flux, there could be no scientific textbooks or even learning.

4.    It is more parsimonious to accept the eternal existence of one creative Force than many NFs.

5.    The omnipotent God hypothesis can explain everything. Besides, the eternal Cause must be adequate to account for the rest of the universe. However, NFs are hard-pressed to account for many things – life, consciousness, freewill, objective moral law, and even the existence of a single atom.

6.    There is absolutely no evidence that anything has ever been caused by a non-intelligent NF. Perhaps instead, these NFs are created by God, emanate from His Being, and are not at all natural.

Admittedly, theism and ID have other great claims like miracles, one-time phenomena that go beyond the grasp and purview of science. Consequently, don’t miracles require extraordinary supportive evidences (ESEs)?

At this point, we need to make a necessary distinction between a single miracle and miracles in general (MG). MG already possess ESEs in the form of millions of supporting testimonies or reports.

But where are the scientific evidences against miraculous occurrences? They do not and cannot exist! Why not? Because science can only address repeating events, events that can be retested! But miracles are anomalous, one of a kind. Therefore, they cannot be repeated. It is therefore not appropriate to ask for scientific proof for things outside of the reach of science. Consequently, science cannot disprove miracles.

But what do we make of the claims for individual miracles, like the Bible’s insistence on the Virgin Birth? From a materialistic and naturalistic perspective, the Virgin Birth would require extraordinary evidences, but not from the perspective of ID. If there is a God, then all of His creations are miraculous and transcend the grasp of science.

In light of this, we are taken back to the original question – “Does the Creator exist?” If He does, then He is the ESE.

This doesn’t mean that we should not be diligent about examining miraculous claims. In fact, the Bible tells us to examine all things, including ourselves. Even though we have a God who can perform miracles as easily as He can speak, the Bible also requires that any event or charge be established by at least two witnesses.

However, as I have argued earlier, even miracles, by themselves, can do little to change minds. After Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave after four days, instead of considering the implications of what they had just seen, many consorted to have both Lazarus and Jesus put to death (John 11). This account, and many others, demonstrates that humans have the ability to deny or distort any form of evidence. Therefore, don’t be surprised that the anti-supernatural bias is often deeply embedded and can stubbornly resist argumentation and piles of counter-evidence.