the argument for god
What atheists present as “science” supporting their views is actually extremely shoddy philosophy posturing or posing as science…a posing and posturing that would make Elvis impersonators proud.
The biblical claims about the divinity and resurrection of Jesus only violate common-sense when viewed from the lens of materialism (which says that only the world of material things is real). But materialism is a scientifically unsupportable stance.
Atheistic reasoning which judges belief in God to be a “primitive superstition superseded by science” fails to understand the nature and limitations of scientific knowledge.
The person who disbelieves in God can only do so from the vantage point of some other belief which precedes and therefore underlies scientific inquiry…not from the vantage point of a “skeptical“ lack of any belief. Atheists are “skeptical” of Christianity (etc.), but are very rarely skeptical of the scientifically and philosophically unsupportable belief system that is alternately referred to as materialism or naturalism. When it comes to materialism/naturalism, Christians (and other theists) are the skeptics, and atheists are the true believers.
Atheistic reasoning often suggests that “science explains things without the need for God.” But such a suggestion is what is known in philosophical terms as a “category error.” Science describes things in terms of natural laws, but does not explain where natural laws come from or how they are enforced.
Atheistic reasoning often cites pure chance or luck as an alternative explanation to God for such phenomena as the origin of life and the origin of our universe.
Sure—the atheist argument goes—the probability of such things occurring naturally is very low…but with enough time, and even a slight probability, what is there to prevent virtually anything from happening?! But this atheist reasoning makes some very grave oversights. First of all, bare probability and large amounts of time, alone, cannot accomplish anything, ever. Period.