C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity that the "mere" Christianity he outlines is like the hall in a house. It is not a place to stay, but a gateway to different rooms, each with their own attributes. In Lewis' view, we were to find the room that best suited us in order to be with God. While I agree with most of this, I think a little clarification is in order. You always need to be careful which door you choose, as there seem to be an increasing number that actually lead outside. While the hallway may not be the best place to be, at least you're still in the House of God. Unless you've been lucky enough to stumble into the right room on your own, you should probably examine your surroundings and understand how the house is laid out. That way, you can pick the right door through knowledge and understanding, not through pure chance. Am I saying that you shouldn't put all your faith in God, since he obviously won't lead you astray? Well, maybe. While God may not lead you astray, you may misinterpret his directions. Have you ever been in an unfamiliar house, and been told that the room you're looking for is the "second door on the right"? If you're like me, you've seen a closet door or something else misleading and gotten confused. Instead of finding your bedroom, you could end up outside or in the cellar, only to find the door locked behind you! I hope I'm not taking this metaphor too far, but I believe you understand what I mean.
Pascal's Wager was designed to prove the benefits of believing in God. He divided the existence of God into four categories, based on whether there was a God and whether we believed in Him. If there was a God and we believed in Him, all was well. If there was no God and we didn't believe in Him, there was ultimately no harm done. Similarly, if God didn't exist and we did believe in Him, there was ultimately no real loss. However, if God did exist, and we denied His existence, we were in trouble. Based on Pascal's Wager, it is clearly in our best interest to believe in God. However, this is not very sufficient as a basis for real belief. While we are to respect God and fear his wrath, we are not to live in fear. Machiavelli's theory that it is better for a prince to be feared rather than loved does not work in this case. A God who could not abide any form of doubt and wasn't able to manifest His presence would be a very pathetic God. However, the YHWH of the Bible is not like this. He does punish unbelievers, but not without reason. Seeking to prove to someone other than yourself that there is a God, unfortunately, is nearly impossible. I can simply say that in my studies of biology and through my daily life, I've had numerous personal epiphanies and occurrences that prove conclusively to me that God does exist and is looking out for me.
Atheists have two primary weapons for "proving" the non-existence of God. The first is to attempt to rebut the arguments of believers, and claim victory if the believer is insufficiently prepared to answer questions of minutiae and triviality. In my experience, there is a solid answer for all major "discrepancies". As for the minor ones, I don't claim that the Bible I or others have is absolutely flawless. The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown a few minor differences, such as Moses crossing the Sea of Reeds (a swampy area in the Sinai with properties that would substantiate the account in Exodus) rather than the Red Sea. Just because someone uses poor grammar in saying "Ain't no road to that town" doesn't mean he's wrong. The second weapon is to cite a lack of proof that there is a God. While the burden of proof does rest with the one making the claim, I've already established that proof is nearly impossible, if it is indeed possible. There are many things which we cannot prove that we know to be true, however. Let us take the atheist at his word, and assume that God is merely an artifact of our imagination, designed to give us comfort or perhaps to enslave the minds of the weak-willed. If there is no God, then He obviously could not have created man and the universe. If God did not create the universe, then we must look elsewhere for its origin. The Big Bang theory is probably the most popular and realistic explanation if we discount God. However, we must ask "What caused the Big Bang?" An answer of "a smaller bang" will not do, as we must keep asking what came first. Arguments that time is circular do not hold up, and that the last event goes back in time and causes the first are similarly weak, as there must have been a first occurence to set this in motion. So long as we do not know what started the universe, we cannot, in good faith, discount a consciousness. If you saw a house, would it be more reasonable to assume that it was built on purpose, or that bricks, mortar, wood, and the tire swing out back simply developed on their own? With this in mind and no proof to the contrary, we simply cannot exclude the possibility of God.
There's obviously a lot more to this, but I'll have to get to it later. Feel free to email me with any ideas, though, and thanks for taking the time to read this.
© 2001 youngrobert@vt.edu