After years of exploring arguments for and against the existence of God, the author concludes that atheism fails to provide a compelling case against theism, particularly in light of the problem of evil, which does not definitively disprove the existence of a deity.
Thirteen years ago, my brother's decision to become an atheist shocked me. Raised in a non-denominational Evangelical Christian household, I had never anticipated such a shift in belief from someone so close to me. While I experienced my own doubts after high school, I quickly overcame them, particularly after discovering that historical figures like Josephus mentioned Jesus. I thought I could easily address my brother's doubts, but I was mistaken.
After learning about my brother's atheism, I decided to confront his objections to Christianity. This meeting turned out to be one of the worst nights of my life. My brother raised challenges to my faith that I had never considered, revealing my lack of understanding about why I believed in Christianity. This prompted me to delve deeper into the arguments for and against the existence of God.
In my research, I encountered numerous compelling arguments supporting the existence of God, including:
These arguments suggested that atheism might be unreasonable. However, I soon realized that the situation was more complex than it appeared.
One of the most significant challenges to theism is the problem of evil, which posits that the existence of pointless suffering contradicts the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God. The argument can be summarized as follows:
Both premises seem plausible. If God exists, it stands to reason that He would not allow pointless suffering. However, I have spent considerable time studying this argument, engaging with books, debates, and lectures.
Christians have developed various responses to the problem of evil. Some argue that God can permit suffering for a greater purpose, while others suggest that what appears to be pointless suffering may have an underlying reason. However, my conclusion is not based on these responses. Instead, I argue that even if we accept the strongest atheist argument, it does not definitively prove atheism.
Atheism is simply the belief that no gods exist, while theism posits that at least one God exists. The problem of evil does not eliminate the possibility of many types of gods, including those with limited power. For instance, the philosopher Philip Goff proposes a non-standard view of God, suggesting that a deity may have created the universe with certain limitations, leading to both fine-tuning and suffering.
The problem of evil does not necessarily disprove the existence of a god with limited power. Just as scientific understanding evolves—such as the shift from believing in the infinite speed of light to recognizing its finite nature—our conception of God can also adapt. The best-case scenario for atheists should lead to a revision of the concept of God rather than a complete rejection of theism.
It is crucial to note that if we grant the arguments for God's existence, they would indeed prove that at least one God is real. In contrast, the atheist's strongest argument does not establish atheism; it merely suggests a need to revise our understanding of God. This asymmetry highlights a significant flaw in the atheist position.
In conclusion, after a decade of study, I no longer take atheism seriously. The problem of evil, while a powerful argument, does not definitively establish atheism. Instead, it invites a reconsideration of the nature of God. This realization, along with other reasons discussed in my recent live stream with David Wood, has solidified my belief in Christianity. The exploration of these philosophical debates has been enlightening, and I encourage others to engage with these ideas critically.
