It's what any sensible person would ask. Where is the evidence? Why should it be so difficult to believe in God?
Beyond a doubt, the most significant question to ever penetrate the human mind is that of the existence of God. More consequences for humanity hinge on the denial or affirmation of God's existence than any other issue.
When you ask people to believe and trust in God, it is like asking a blind person to admire the intricacies of the Mona Lisa. You are talking to dead stones and asking them to dance. It's enough to make any self-respecting priest or Catholic give up in despair.
It seems reasonable and humble to admit that we do not know. I can't prove there is no God, and you can't prove there is. Provide me with the information, and of course, I will believe it. This position is best summed up by Bertrand Russell's statement that if he met God and was asked why he did not believe, he would declare, "Because you did not provide enough evidence.".
Hard-core atheism, the belief that there is no God (anti-theism), is difficult to defend, so the new softer, friendlier atheism defines itself as "we would believe in God if there was enough evidence". Most of the atheists you will meet are, in reality, agnostics (no knowledge). So our atheist/agnostic friends make this seemingly innocuous demand: "Show me the evidence.".
By using arguments like this, you will often find that an atheist quickly converts to agnosticism and is thus making rapid progress in the right direction. In dealing with an open-minded agnostic, an approach I have found effective is to point out that the universe is an effect that requires a sufficient cause, and the only sufficient cause is God.
It is helpful to clarify that there are only four possible explanations for how the universe came to be. The first is that the universe is an illusion. This view is unacceptable in an age of scientific enlightenment.
The second possibility is that the universe is eternal. This possibility flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics. If the universe was eternally old, it would have died a heat-loss death an eternity ago.
The third "possibility" is that the universe emerged from nothing. Little needs to be said about the absurdity of this option. Reason tells us that out of nothing comes nothing.
The fourth (and only tenable) possibility is that the universe was created by God. Theism, the belief in a personal God who is the Creator and Ruler of the universe, is the only viable option on the question of God's existence. Once this is established, it can be pointed out that only a personal God can account for human personality, thought and morality.
Perhaps apathy is the predominant thought out there. Many of your friends do not lie on their beds at night, pondering the meaning of life and suffering from existential angst. They are far more concerned about the game they just watched, the bills they have to pay, and their next visit to the doctor. Normal life for them does not involve God.
Countless numbers of Maltese Catholic families have sent their children off to schools across Malta only to see them return as strangers robbed of their faith in God and of the basis for morality and ethics.
Many of these children have attempted to fill the vacuum in their lives through aberrant sex, drugs and alcohol. Others have sought to fill this void with material success, which can never satisfy the spiritual needs of one created in the image of God.
Even today, we come across atheist writers in a local newspaper proudly asserting that we should not have Catholic schools because we should only teach children facts based on evidence, and Christianity is not based on evidence.
So how do we respond to this?
Very often, the person who demands evidence has already made a pre-judgement that there can be no such evidence. It's a bit like arguing with a conspiracy theorist. No matter what you say, it is automatically dismissed because it is perceived as being part of the conspiracy! I have often found that if you answer a particular problem or provide a particular piece of evidence, the person you are answering immediately turns to something else and just avoids the issue. To overcome this prejudice and to avoid wasting a vast amount of time arguing about it, I would simply suggest the following: Ask anyone who demands evidence: What evidence is it that they would accept for God?
It is not so much that they believe there is no evidence for God, but they are emotionally driven by their desire that there should be no evidence for God.
We should use the motto of The X-Files: 'The truth is out there'. An intelligent agnostic is someone who seeks the truth. A loving Christian is someone who seeks to present that truth.
Christians who seek to present the good news of Jesus Christ will be prayerful, loving people who are saturated with the word of God and who know how to present it in the context of a culture that is deaf, dumb and blind to that word. If we do so, we will not just be presenting the evidence; we will be the evidence.
Dr Mark Said is a lawyer