“Show me the evidence that your god exists.” “Your god doesn’t exist, because you can’t show me any proof.” “All you do is believe in fairy tales. Science proves it.”
If we have heard these comments once, we have heard them a thousand times, in the atheist’s long war against God.
It is something the atheist just can’t quit thinking about, as he stridently contends that until he either sees, smells, hears, tastes, or touches the “evidence,” then such a thing simply cannot exist.
But, if we take such an empirical demand and put it to something like the atheist’s mind, would it not be proper to draw the same conclusion based on the atheist’s logic?
In other words, has the atheist ever seen his mind with his two eyes? If he has, then where are all the peer reviewed articles at, along with the digital photographs, describing what the atheist mind looks like?
If the atheist has seen his mind, surely he must has smelled it as well. What exactly would that aroma entail? Surely, since all of reality is determined by human sensation, then the mind must smell like what? Roses? A ballpark frank? Nothing?
And who among the atheist elite has ever heard the audible noises of the human mind? Now, we’re only talking about those that can be tested in the finest secular laboratories, where data is only collected, but never interpreted. Where are those recordings?
Surely someone has tasted the mind, have they not? What was it comparable to? Was it bitter like the rants and diatribes of so many atheists that are hostile toward God or was it sweet as honey and smooth like milk? If not, then why not? Does not the mind exist?
Finally, the physical sensation of physically touching the mind must be awesome, correct? All of those abstractions running through the fingers had to have been chemically euphoric and electrically satisfying. Yet, what atheist has ever reported his empirical findings on what the mind felt like? If not someone else, what about his own?
Frankly, I have never come across anyone, atheist or otherwise, that has physically proved that the mind exists by empirical means. That kind of thing is reserved for metaphysical explanation or the very thing that atheist also believes does not exist.
So, since no one has ever seen, smelt, heard, tasted, or touched the atheist’s mind, does that mean it doesn’t exist?
If one follows the logic and demands of the atheist that he uses to discount the existence of God, who is not a physical being, then we would have conclude that the atheist mind does not exist either.
And if the atheist mind does not exist, then at best he is an unreasoning animal (cf. 2 Pet. 2:12), incapable of coherent thought or criticism of his surroundings, much less that which exists beyond it in the metaphysical realm.
So, the next time an atheist demands proof for God’s existence, simply ask him to provide proof that the atheist’s mind exists.
Based purely on the empirical standard that the atheist depends to validate existence, without a mind, one can pile up proof to the very heaven where God subsists, and the atheist will be incapable of understanding it.
It is just another reason why when it comes to proving God’s existence to an atheist, proof and evidence have nothing to do with it.
In fact, proof and evidence are the atheist’s worst argument, since its application to the atheist not only discounts his mind, it discounts his existence.
And just how ironic is that?