Still No Evidence!

In continuation of the conversation of Presuppositionalism vs. Evidentialism we see how ineffective Evidentialism is to the atheist, explained by Dr. Bahnsen.

Also, this taps into one of the major points in our Arrogance of Atheism post.

In a past lecture, Dr. Greg Bahnsen said: "As [a Christian] I would say to an Atheist, there is plenty of evidence for God's existence. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations. God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on."

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” — C.S. Lewis

As we see it, we observe evidence all around us. The Atheist will say "Well, that is not evidence for God. Because I have another explanation for all of those things..."

"In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism."

Dr. Bahnsen goes on to say that, like many here, the empiricist says "I don't believe anything unless you can offer evidence from the senses to me."

"I suggest that well there are things we know totally apart from our senses and then I give him an example. What do you expect the empiricist to do? You expect him to fall down and say "Oh, I guess I was wrong, there it is, there's the evidence." No, what the empiricist tend to do is to say "no, you really don't know that. That's just delusion. That's speculation, that's your imagination" He wants to reinterpret everything I offer to him as a counterexample to his thesis, he wants to reinterpret it in terms of his truth of his thesis. By the way theists, and rationalists, do the same thing. That is just the characteristic of philosophical systems. Philosophical systems tend to exclude counter claims or counter evidence to the system itself.

The naturalist doesn't believe its even possible to have evidence of the supernatural. His autonomy, therefore, his view that he is self sufficient in his ability to understand the world to explain it in naturalistic terms, can be considered a personal prejudice."

This is why we must resolve this by determining which worldview is valid, or which worldview is best for the precondition for intelligible experience? The answer to this question cannot be finally settled by any direct discussion of facts, it must in the last analysis be settled indirectly. The ONLY way to do that is transcendentally.

Dr. Van Til said: "You have insulted God and His displeasure rests upon you. God and you are not on “speaking terms.” And you have very good reasons for trying to prove that He does not exist. If He does exist, He will punish you for your disregard of Him. You are therefore wearing colored glasses. And this determines everything you say about the facts and reasons for not believing in Him. You have had your picnics and hunting parties there without asking His permission. You have taken the grapes of God’s vineyard without paying Him any rent and you have insulted His representatives who asked you for it.

I must make an apology to you at this point. We who believe in God have not always made this position plain. Often enough we have talked with you about facts and sound reasons as though we agreed with you on what these really are. In our arguments for the existence of God we have frequently assumed that you and we together have an area of knowledge on which we agree. But we really do not grant that you see any fact in any dimension of life truly. We really think you have colored glasses on your nose when you talk about chickens and cows, as well as when you talk about the life hereafter. We should have told you this more plainly than we did. But we were really a little ashamed of what would appear to you as a very odd or extreme position. We were so anxious not to offend you that we offended our own God. But we dare no longer present our God to you as smaller or less exacting than He really is. He wants to be presented as the All-Conditioner, as the emplacement on which even those who deny Him must stand.

Now in presenting all your facts and reasons to me, you have assumed that such a God does not exist. You have taken for granted that you need no emplacement of any sort outside of yourself. You have assumed the autonomy of your own experience. Consequently you are unable -- that is, unwilling -- to accept as a fact, any fact, that would challenge your self-sufficiency. And you are bound to call that contradictory which does not fit into the reach of your intellectual powers. You remember what old Procrustes did. If his visitors were too long, he cut off a few slices at each end; if they were too short, he used the curtain stretcher on them. It is that sort of thing I feel that you have done with every fact of human experience. And I am asking you to be critical of this your own most basic assumption."


Please understand there is Sufficient Evidence for God.

This is certainly a worldview problem.

bit.ly/stillevidence