Many atheists claim that the various proofs for the
existence of God do not work. Why not? Because:
·
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence."
Actually, this is a sound concept. If someone tells me that
they just met the real Santa Claus and saw him ascend with his team of
reindeer, I would require more than a photo as evidence. After all, photos can
be doctored.
However, this sound principle fails to work when applied to
the theistic proofs. This is because the existence of a Creator God has only
one other competitor – naturalism (everything was created naturally without any
intelligence or design). Therefore, the question of God’s existence should be
restated:
·
Which is more reasonable and evidential – that this
world is maintained and designed intelligently or non-intelligently?
In light of this restatement, I find naturalism more
extraordinary than supernaturalism (ID). There is not one shred of evidence
that anything has ever happened naturally (without intelligence), meanwhile,
there is a lot of evidence that events or things have intelligent causes.
