Dear Atheist

Religious Atheist or Agnostic on checkmark royalty-free stock photo

(http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/religious-atheist-or-agnostic-on-checkmark-gm178100803-24725510?resource=AFF_IS_Linkconn_SP_www.freeimages.com_141052&asid=308966&cid=5418&lid=13)

Dear Atheist,

We had a discussion this week that I found to be an incredible experience.  I loved how it gave me the opportunity to dialogue with you and to get to know you on a more personal level.

First of all, I want to say that I respect the intelligence you have and also the tone of our discussion.  Your respectful consideration was noted and appreciated.

At the closure of our discussion, you challenged me to be open to other view-points.  You felt I had limited my thinking.

I respectfully must respond to you by asking you a question, “If you have seen the sun, which I assume you have, but someone else has never seen it and denies its existence, would you change your view to satisfy their denials?”  What if that person lives in Alaska too and rarely ever feels the warmth of the sun so they deny the existence of the heat of the sun?  What if you try to tell them that there are those who live who do see the sun, such as yourself?  What if you tell them that when it gets warmer in the “summer” and “spring” months that it’s because of the sun?  What if they then tell you that the warmth could be explained away by other means of energy?  If that person is unwilling to consider the possibility that there might be a sun, then it does not matter how many times you try to tell them the proofs (heat, seasons, gravity, etc…).  They’ll come up with another reason or theory to support the lack of its existence.

What if you tried to tell them that the reason why they are alive is because the sun gives warmth?  What if they then replied that it could be explained by some other means of energy and so they come up with theories and mathematical equations to equal their “expected” result?  To that person, you might appear as very irrational, with a “Lack of Imagination,” and with great “bias.”

The point, my dear friend, that I am trying to make is that it is impossible for me to prove God’s existence to you because you are unable or unwilling to consider its plausibility.

I have experienced and seen the God of the Bible, and I cannot deny His existence just because you do.  You can accuse me of being psychotic and imagining all of this in my head, but that does not concern me.  I am willing to base my life on the undeniable reality that there is a God who created life, who holds the universe together, and who loves me personally and unconditionally.

You challenged me to see other viewpoints, and I recognize that there are challenges to proving God’s existence.  It is a challenge to prove His existence and Biblical record to those who have excluded the factor of His force (influence) upon all mathematical equations in the scientific realm.

Perhaps, I should challenge you instead to see a different viewpoint.  What if instead of looking at the world with the assumption that God doesn’t exist, that instead you view the world with the assumption that He does?  Assume there was a huge flood that covered the entire world.  Assume that the earth is “young,” but that the trees, rocks, mountains, etc… were created in a mature state with an unknown amount of carbon.  Assume that God divided the continents for His purposes, as He states in the Bible, and that it wasn’t a Continental Drift but a God-division.  Assume that the stars were created the way they were — whether as a Supernova or a “new” star.  Assume that God created the species just as He said He did.  The list goes on…  Assume the Bible is correct.  Look for archeological evidence to support many Biblical records.  Consider how fossils are formed — not over millions of years — but over a catastrophic event like a flood.  Consider how we see floods that do cut away at cliffs and plunge houses into ravines as a result.  (See California floods.)  Consider why there are fossilized wave patterns that are visible in Colorado.

Perhaps, the scientific community is not as open-minded as they think.  They base all of their findings on their assumptions that there is no God; thus, their equations have much room for error.

Perhaps, I should ask how many times you have personally experienced or seen the Big Bang Theory?  Maybe, then I could accept your rationale.

There are many renowned scientists that believed the inerrancy of the Word of God and His Biblical record for mankind.  (See Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay, Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz, Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder, Pascal, Leibnitz, and Euler. These men were renowned in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, and mathematics.)

With all due respect, I cannot deny the reality of the God of the universe because I have “encountered” Him.  I see evidence of Him in my daily life, the world around me, in the very existence of life, and in the God-initiated Christian “Law of love.”  Call me “narrow-minded,” but I am unapologetic for what I know to be true.

You see, my belief in God isn’t only based on the historical record of the Bible but also in the confirmation of my own personal experiences with the God of the Bible.