How Should God Respond to an atheist Who Wants to Believe in Him?
When considering the scenario of a god who exists, responding to an atheist's desire to believe presents a complex challenge. This response should reflect the historical and ongoing actions of this divine entity. The Bible, for instance, suggests that inviting someone to accept and receive Him remains a pivotal approach. Verses such as Jeremiah 29:13, John 6:37, and Revelation 3:20 emphasize this invitation to belief. These biblical passages underscore the idea that the divine should extend an open invitation, demonstrating a willingness to communicate and engage with potential believers.
Comparing Divine Responses
It's interesting to compare the responses of mythical figures like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny. These archetypes typically begin by establishing their existence, followed by presenting non-fallacious arguments about their identity and role. For a typical Christian god, such straightforward verification might seem necessary. However, this perspective overlooks the numerous plot holes inherent in the narrative of Christian fantasy fiction.
Many theists argue that if their god existed, they would believe in it without hesitation. In reality, the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient creator god would imply that an atheist like me is explicitly intended as an atheist. This inherent contradiction arises from the logical flaw in positing free will within a fully deterministic creation. According to mainstream science, the idea of freewill is questionable, and indeed, it may be an illusion within the creation.
Logical Implications and Divine Attributes
The assertion of omnipotence and omniscience creates a paradigm where all events, including the existence of an atheist, are explicitly intended. Therefore, if a purportedly omnibenevolent god were to punish an atheist for being an atheist, it would be contradicting its own nature. This divine punishment would be for an action that the god itself predetermined. Such an argument stalls the idea of moral goodness, potentially leading to accusations of malice or sadism in the divine response.
Frankly, any divine response that aligns with the presence of freewill contradicts the claims of omnipotence and omniscience. Matt Dillahunty has highlighted this tension, suggesting that the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient creator god that made me an atheist makes the pursuit of faith a futile effort. This conclusion aligns with the notion that the existence of such a god could only be demonstrated through a fundamental shift in logical principles.
Evaluating the Best Reason
To seriously consider belief in a god, one must present a non-fallacious reason. If a theist can provide a single valid argument, it could compel an atheist to reconsider their stance. However, unsupported or logically flawed claims do not sway an atheist. In conversations, I find it compelling when the first reason a person presents is the strongest and most persuasive, and I tend to ignore other claims that are less robust.
The common defense strategy of theists often hinges on the assumption that it takes more evidence to refute a claim than to affirm it. This rhetorical approach attempts to undermine the critic's position before it can be fully examined. True intellectual honesty would necessitate a thorough evaluation of each claim, regardless of the number of claims presented.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the response of a god to an atheist who desires belief must encompass the historical and ongoing actions of such a divine entity. While an open invitation remains a logical and biblically supported approach, the existence of such a deity must also account for freewill and logical consistency. Physical evidence like the existence of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy may offer a starting point for believers, but the complex nature of the divine attributes and the challenge of freewill introduce significant obstacles. As an atheist, the burden of proof lies squarely on the theist to present a coherent and non-fallacious argument for belief.