The Proof Of Gods Existence Is There But Atheists Won’t Accept It

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Unwilling Souls

Have you ever had that moment when you showed someone you were arguing with the evidence they were wrong, and yet they still chose to reject it? Instead, they make a conscious decision right there and then to insist that you’re wrong. For example, someone has been arguing about Aunt Caroline, who allegedly had stolen 100 euros from her mother’s savings tucked under the mattress. 

Each person presents their case until the defendant pulls out the CCTV footage to prove this wasn’t the case at all. All the evidence adds up and makes sense, but the person making the accusations denies it, calling it all a conspiracy and made up. They pull every excuse and formulate many counter-arguments to refute what just took place. In the secular world we would call such a person a madman, in our world we call them atheists.

As I reflect upon the make-up of a person both spiritual and psychological, I can’t help conclude not only is this true of all humanity, but the Atheist also. All the existing evidence points towards the supernatural, but they remain solidified in their block of ice, unwilling to warm up to the idea of Gods existence. 

There are some ways to explain not just why an Atheist behaves in this manner, but all humans for it is a spiritual disability. It is a sickness born of original sin in which the person chooses itself over and above what is right and true.

The Will And The Intellect

The soul contains two faculties: The will and the intellect. Although they remain in the soul, yet they are distinct from each other. For example, a fireman knows (intellect) how to start a fire and make it look like an accident, but he chooses (will) not to. 

In the same way, a person can know (intellect) God through an apparition and yet choose (will) not to believe in the vision. Many excuses get conjured such as, “I’m crazy; I experienced a weird glitch in the brain, one in a million.” While I have always encouraged dialogue between believer and atheist, no argument can make them accept Gods existence. Why? Because the atheist does not want to believe any more than a serial killer will in the face of overwhelming evidence, confess he’s the killer. 

Take, for instance, the story of St.Thomas in the Bible. He refused to believe until his demands to see Jesus face to face had been granted. When Jesus appears, he falls to his knees and believes. However, St.Thomas had sufficient evidence that suited him, but because he had free will, he could have chosen not to believe. “It’s all in my mind, a sort of hallucination. Everyone around me seeing the same Jesus risen from the dead, they’re crazy too.” 

Unlike many people, he was open to the truth, his heart not being closed and therefore could accept more readily the appearance of Christ. If the atheist doesn’t want to believe, Is it then useless to even argue with an atheist? Not only is it beneficial for them, but also because there’s an opportunity to learn more about your faith. The atheist gets a chance to ponder the arguments. With your prayer, the grace of God, a person can be led to believe, but it always depends upon the will of the Atheist.

At what point should you stop arguing? When you get to the cliff edge where you show someone the evidence, they see the drop is real, and they still refuse to believe. It is at that stage of the game you should consider walking away and praying for that person because their will isn’t ready yet to take a leap of faith. 

Another time is when they keep making not counter-arguments, but deflecting onto other arguments that don’t address the evidence laid before them. 

The Evidence

It would be unfair of me to talk about all this evidence and yet not produce it. What is the proof that God exists? There is so much evidence of the supernatural that we can’t explain. For example, in Catholicism, there are the crying icons, bleeding Eucharists, undecayed bodies with persons associated with being Holy and apparitions.

All of these science cannot explain, yet they remain to be insufficient evidence for some people. Scientists independent from Christianity even studied them and still a person doesn’t believe. Why? Because they don’t want to. They make excuses that “one-day science will have an answer.” It’s an easy exit because they take on faith this idea that one-day science will have the answer. 

My favourite one they come up with is the idea that something can come from nothing. There always has to be a cause to the universe, and the reason must be intelligent. Atheists often view God as something created within space and time. Anything within space and time would be understood as designed, and therefore it ages and dies. In physics, it becomes understood that anything outside of space and time is uncreated without beginning and an end. Now if God is something created, ages and dies, he wouldn’t be God, would he? He wouldn’t be worth worshipping, either right? 

Therefore the God who created us isn’t running around the world somewhere hiding in a garden shed; he is beyond this place of space and time. God is not bound by the world in a created sense any more than the man who designed my car is dancing around in its engine somewhere. Everyone can look at a car and see that its creator and designer may have left his mark and memory upon the vehicle, but that he is out there somewhere. 

The same principle applies to the very fine-tuned universe and world in which we all reside. If God was just another person in the world with a beginning and an end, would he be worth worshipping? The answer is a simplified yet resounding NO

Therefore the cause must be superior; he must be beyond our visible scientific grasp; otherwise, he wouldn’t be God. Sadly we choose not to accept the evidence laid before us that God can be seen and understood in the things he has made. If we can see a man standing behind the very fine-tuned car he’s made, why not God stood behind a very fine-tuned universe? 

The evidence of his existence is indeed before us all, but some of us choose not to believe. Why? Because we don’t want to. Atheists prefer to live in the darkness of ignorance because coming into the light makes too many demands of them.

Atheism becomes more or less an excuse to carry on leading a sad, miserable and sinful way of living. They say religion brings us comfort, but it’s their atheism that brings them comfort. Here they put up their feet and relax in the face of overwhelming evidence and bury their conscience that they may continue living according to their own pleasures.

16 thoughts on “The Proof Of Gods Existence Is There But Atheists Won’t Accept It

  1. You have misrepresented the science there:
    ‘the idea that something can come from nothing. There always has to be a cause to the universe, and the reason must be intelligent.’
    Two points –
    Cosmology does not make that claim. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang, all information appears to be lost before the Inflation phase.
    Secondly -The cause must be intelligent? Why must it?


    1. Saying the very finely tuned universe does not lay claim to an intelligent designer, is the exact same as saying a very finely tuned automobile does not lay claim to intelligent design either. We don’t have to venture out and look for the man who made the car and put his intelligence under a microscope to prove it anymore than we have to visibily grasp the intelligence of he who made the universe. This is how we come to know what happened before the big bang, an interesting theory developed by a Catholic Augustinian Friar.


      1. There is no comparison, a finely tuned car has a name on it, it’s year of manufacture etc. We can go and see them being made and talk to the designer. You can’t do any of those things with the universe. That was the most irrelevant analogy.
        You need to rethink your analogies. Even better, find some evidence for your claims.


      2. It’s not a bad analogy at all. Just because you cannot see the designer nor ever speak to him doesn’t mean there is no intelligent designer. We will never know, for example the design behind some buildings in the world that reach as far back as the stone age. Should we conclude from being incapable of seeing or speaking to the designer that there was no intelligent designer? No. It’s the same with God. He exists, and the fact that we cannot comprehend him from the human way we are naturally accustomed to doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. Even within the human experience we may be able to find the designer of the car, but even so, while he can offer explanations as to how he built the car, ultimately we can only ever really have a limited knowledge nor can we take his ”invisible” intelligence and put it under a microscope. It’s the same with God, we can come to know God in this world through the visible things he has made, but our ability to put him under a microscope won’t happen and our knowledge of him will always be limited.

        The challenge for us all then, is to accept the evidence laid before us that point to an intelligent designer and secondly to accept the fact that we will never be able to put God under a microscope and come to fully know him. And lastly that just because we can’t find God like we can the manufacturer of the car, doesn’t mean there isn’t a manufacterer of the very finely-tuned universe around us. However for those who truly seek him they will find him, but if they’re not WILLING (caps for emphasis)….Then no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient.


      3. What evidence? If God is that important, we could expect something pretty substantial.
        Analogies are no use at all, however irrelevant they may be. It’s all in the evidence, should there be any.


      4. No it isn’t! The finely tuned universe is evidence that this universe happens to have physical properties that possible. Other universe’s with different properties cannot support life that can observe it. That is not evidence for a deity. This is the Anthropic Principle
        Nor is the existence of the universe evidence for any particular cause. Nobody knows what caused the universe or even whether there is a cause. What you’re suggesting is a non-sequitur, nothing more.

        You need to present a causal link between something existing and its creation. Forget the car metaphor, it’s not helping to support your claim.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Again, the finely tuned universe must have a cause, it’s physical properties that make life possible have an intelligent designer. Other universes that do not support life doesn’t mean there’s no intelligent design in them either. Not everything God creates has to support human life. The universe itself is evidence of what caused it, which is an intelligent designer. The car, the laptop all of these are helping me to support the claim. The link between a finely tuned car and creator behind it isn’t hard to understand, neither is the link between a fine-tuned universe and it’s designer difficult to comprehend either. Therefore the explanation is very supportive. Saying nobody knows the cause to a well-designed universe, is the same as looking a well put together laptop and saying ”Nobody knows the cause”.


      6. The laptop has evidence of its design and manufacture, the universe does not.
        Just stop using metaphors asnif they are evidence, they are not; they are illustrative of an idea not proof.
        How do physical properties prove the ID claim?
        How is the universe evidence of its cause?
        If the explanation is not hard to understand, then make that explanation.
        My laptop has a brand name, a date printed on it and the name of the person who safety checked it.
        Where in the universe is evidence of a creator that CANNOT be explained in another way?


      7. Essiep, the laptop is evidence that someone created it that’s all we need to know. The idea that we can find that person who created it is not important. Just because we can’t call up the designer and go speak to him doesn’t mean he didn’t create the world anymore than we can call up the stone age people and ask them about their clever artchitectural designs and speak to them. Does not being able to speak to these people mean the buildings aren’t evidence of the intelligent designer? Then why is not being able to converse with God mean he isn’t an intelligent designer of the very finely tuned universe?

        I’ve already covered this in previous comments. This is what happens with atheists, they say the same thing again and again only dressed in different clothes because they quite simply aren’t WILLING to believe.


      8. Because you can’t ‘converse with god’.
        No god communicates with you, and if one exists, is not going to listen to you.
        Unless, of course you have actual objective evidence that this communication is not imaginary.


      9. I’m not unwilling, it’s just that the evidence is not here. All you have offered is metaphor and non-sequitur. If that’s the best you have got then I have no choice but to disbelieve.
        Offer evidence then I will be forced to change my mind. I don’t choose to disbelieve, this is not about will, it’s not a choice I’m making. Evidence…

        Liked by 1 person

      10. Essiep, I have offered you evidence, but you’ve refused to accept the evidence thus proving the title of this blog. Are you arguing that a laptop is not itself evidence of intelligent design? If so then to argue a finely tuned universe is not evidence of intelligent design means you’re not accepting the evidence laid before you. With regards to the communication with God, that’s entirely different discussion. Right now, simply getting you to the point of accepting the evidence of Gods existence is where we are at. Don’t like the evidence? Nothing I can do about that I’m afraid except to say that God will wait for when you’re ready to accept it. It’s now at this point I’ve realized that we are going around in circles. Like I said in my blog, when you get to the point where you’ve shown them the drop from the cliff and they still refuse to believe it? It’s important to walk away from the discussion.

        Thanks for all the comments and I’m sure they will be of great interest to future readers.



      11. It’s not that I don’t like or refuse to accept the evidence, the truth is that I don’t see any evidence.
        Personally, I’m disappointed that you didn’t provide any. Moreso that you don’t even seem to recognise what evidence is.


  2. Lots of non-sequiturs here such as:
    “Therefore the cause must be superior; he must be beyond our visible scientific grasp; otherwise, he wouldn’t be God”
    How do you know this? The reasoning offered above does not answer this question. I think you should expand on this point.


    1. How about this—there was never nothing? I remember hearing this as the sandcastle argument and that failed, so now we switch to ID computers? The computer is just more evidence of evolution of neural capacity of human brains. but with evolution and sandcastles we have lots of evidence for randomly appearing sandcastles as well in geologic time. Just look at Moab and other monuments built over millions of years in what used to be the very oceans we speak. Nobody ever evolved in the time it takes to go to the beach. It took a long long time.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.