Another position that is common among those who follow Atheism is their claim that there is a lack of evidence for a god. They claim that no evidence exists to prove that a god exists. The problem with their arguments is twofold.
First, strong evidence does in fact exist for the existence of God. So the claim that no evidence exists is just another way of saying they don't like the evidence that exists so they are going to deny that any evidence exists at all. They simply ignore or deny as irrelevant the evidence that people provide for God's existence. They simply discount the evidence and claim that the evidence provided isn't really evidence.
The Second problem with the claim that no evidence for God exists is that no one can logically claim that there is NO evidence for the existence of God. It is an impossible claim because no one is omniscient. We are limited beings and it is impossible for us to know all that there is to know. Because no one is omniscient then it is possible that there is evidence to prove or at lease support the existence of God. So if the existence of God is possible then Atheism can not exist, only Agnosticism.
Lets take a step back for a moment. I will admit that it is possible there is no evidence at all for the existence of God. The problem is, however, that this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence. Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that there is evidence for the existence of God.
So since it is possible that evidence for the existence of God exists then what kind of evidence is acceptable? This is where I often find myself when debating Atheists. I can provide all kinds of evidence that God exists. There are many other philosophers, theologians and yes even scientists that can provide substantial evidence for the existence of God. You see, the problem really is that Atheists don't like the evidence that people provide for the existence of God so they simply say that the evidence provided doesn't count. Well, you can't just ignore the evidence being provided and then continue to claim that there is no evidence! Thats simply illogical. If you want to say that there is no evidence for the existence of God then you have to at least provide evidence to the contrary. I ask Atheists who dare to debate this with me to provide evidence that God does NOT exist. No one has yet fulfilled that request.
I had one Atheists write me a nasty letter, in which she stated: "Atheists do not need to present evidence due to the fact that it is impossible and unnecessary to prove a negative. It is only possible and necessary to prove a positive, namely that God exists." What she, like most Atheists, fail to realize is that, in this context, there is a difference between PROOF which is irrefutable and EVIDENCE which provides support. While it may not be possible to PROVE (provide irrefutable evidence) a negative, it certainly is possible to PROVIDE EVIDENCE (provide support for an idea or belief) a negative, which, to my knowledge, no Atheists has ever done.
Think of it in terms of a legal trial where Theists are on trial defending their beliefs in God and the Atheists are the prosecution. The Theists are put up on the stand first to present evidence for the existance of God. The Theists present their evidence then it is then up to the prosecution - the Atheists - to provide evidence to the contrary. The prosecution in a legal trial can't just stand up and say, "Their evidence isn't valid therefore we don't believe it!" and expect to win the trial! They would be the laughing stock of the legal community. The prosecution in this case has the burden of proof and must provide evidence that proves the defendant guilty. Similarly, Atheists can't just make the claim that there is no evidence that God exists. They MUST provide evidence to the contrary, which we already established is impossible because all evidence cannot be known therefore all evidence cannot be disproved.
Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable? If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state that there is no evidence for God.
If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it? Most Atheists I encounter tell me that if God would come to them and show himself to them physically or talk to them or if they could experience God in some form that is irrefutable then they would believe. This is highly illogical and unreasonable.
If you are looking for evidence of something you can't just accept certain evidence and deny all other evidence just because it's not the evidence YOU want. Also, you can't tell the evidence what to do and only except the evidence if it does what YOU want. For example: Lets say that my brother was outside mowing the grass. All of a sudden he bursts through the front door and announces that there is a snake in the middle of the yard. When looking for proof that what my brother is saying is true I must go look at the evidence provided. I can't say, "I don't believe you. The only way I will believe that there is a snake in the yard is if it comes into the house and shows itself to me." That's not only illogical it's just plain dumb.
Even if God did appear before you in blazing glory, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? Simply put, the criteria demanded by Atheists for proof that God exists puts a requirement on logic that is not realistic.
In other words, are you OBJECTIVELY examining evidence that is presented or are you just denying it because it isn't scientific or because it isn't what YOU want? Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can or do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur? If you have a presupposition, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence. If so, then God becomes unknowable to you and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position. Finally, If you assume that science can explain all phenomena then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof. Again since it is impossible to know everything, especially those things that happen outside of our limited space-time continuum, then you are simply making an assumption which is irrelevant and illogical.
