Atheists often assert, “There is no God,” but in doing so, they step beyond skepticism and into the realm of belief. This declaration is a metaphysical claim requiring evidence, yet it is often made without substantiation. Such a statement is not neutral—it is a creed. Similarly, the assertion that “there is no evidence for God” is itself a claim unsupported by evidence, revealing a selective blindness to the substantial metaphysical and empirical evidence for God’s existence. When these claims are examined, their foundations often crumble under scrutiny.

The Evidence They Ignore: Fine-Tuning

One of the most compelling arguments for the existence of God is the fine-tuning of the universe. Scientists have discovered that the constants governing the universe—such as the gravitational constant, the strength of electromagnetism, and the cosmological constant—are balanced with such extraordinary precision that even a minuscule change would render life impossible. For instance, the cosmological constant, which governs the expansion of the universe, is fine-tuned to within 1 part in 10 to the 120th. To put that in perspective, this level of precision is akin to aiming at a single atom across the entire observable universe and hitting it.

This extraordinary fine-tuning defies explanation by chance. Physicist Paul Davies admits, “The impression of design is overwhelming.” Some atheists appeal to the multiverse theory as an alternative explanation, suggesting that countless universes exist and we happen to inhabit the one capable of supporting life. However, this hypothesis is entirely speculative, without empirical evidence. Furthermore, even if a multiverse exists, it fails to explain why such a system would exist at all. Why would a mechanism capable of generating universes itself be so finely tuned? The most reasonable explanation for the fine-tuning of our universe is the existence of an intelligent Designer who established these constants to support life.

To further solidify this point, consider the syllogism for fine-tuning:

1. Fine-tuning requires an explanation: physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, fine-tuning is the result of design.

The logic is airtight: the intricate calibration of the universe points to a Designer.

Faith: Not Blind, but Evidential

Atheists frequently caricature faith as “blind belief” without evidence. Yet this misrepresents the biblical definition of faith. The Greek word for faith, pistis (πίστις), conveys trust and confidence based on evidence. As Hebrews 11:1 states, “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Faith, therefore, is not a leap into the dark but a reasoned trust in what is supported by evidence.

Ironically, atheism often requires its own “leap of faith.” For example, many atheists claim the universe came into existence without cause—an assumption that defies the principle of causality foundational to science and logic. The Kalam Cosmological Argument succinctly counters this:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This cause must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial—qualities that align perfectly with the God described in scripture.

Atheism, on the other hand, requires faith in unprovable assumptions, such as a self-causing universe or the emergence of life from purely undirected processes. These are not evidence-based conclusions but speculative leaps.

Science and God: Allies, Not Enemies

Atheists often claim that science has made God unnecessary. However, this argument misunderstands both science and theology. Science is a method for studying the natural world, not for addressing ultimate questions of origin, purpose, or morality. As John Lennox aptly states, “The very existence of rationality and order in the universe, upon which all science depends, is itself evidence for a Creator.” Science operates within the boundaries of what can be observed and tested, but it cannot explain why the universe exists or why it is governed by laws.

Throughout history, many of the greatest scientists were deeply religious. Figures like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, and Robert Boyle saw no conflict between their faith and their scientific endeavors. They believed that studying creation was a way to glorify God, who established the order they observed. This legacy continues today with modern scientists who view faith and science as complementary.

Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and leader of the Human Genome Project, has publicly embraced his faith in God. Collins describes his journey from atheism to Christianity in his book The Language of God, noting that his studies in genetics only deepened his awe for the Creator. Similarly, John Polkinghorne, a theoretical physicist and Anglican priest, has written extensively on the compatibility of science and faith, arguing that science and religion address different dimensions of the same reality. Nobel laureate William D. Phillips, renowned for his groundbreaking work in laser cooling, views his faith as complementary to his scientific achievements.

Additionally, many other well-respected scientists of faith challenge the notion that belief in God is anti-intellectual. George Lemaître, the Belgian physicist and Catholic priest, proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory, offering a groundbreaking explanation for the origin of the universe. Alexander Friedman, a Russian mathematician and cosmologist, and George Ellis, a South African theoretical physicist and cosmologist, both made significant contributions to our understanding of the universe while maintaining their belief in God. These individuals illustrate that faith and intellectual rigor can coexist and even thrive together.

While the faith of these scientists does not prove the existence of God, it decisively refutes the idea that belief in God requires one to “check their brain at the door.” On the contrary, their faith inspired their curiosity and commitment to uncovering the truths of the natural world.

In fact, the very foundations of science rely on assumptions that align with a theistic worldview: the intelligibility of the universe, the reliability of human reason, and the uniformity of natural laws. These are not self-evident truths in a materialistic framework but make perfect sense in a universe designed by a rational Creator. Thus, rather than displacing God, science points to His fingerprints throughout creation.

The Universal Longing for God

Atheists sometimes argue that belief in God is merely a product of human psychology. Yet this objection only underscores the reality of what C.S. Lewis called the “argument from desire.” He writes, “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists.” Just as hunger points to food and thirst points to water, the universal human longing for transcendence points to the existence of God. Ecclesiastes 3:11 declares that God “has put eternity into man’s heart.” Why would an evolutionary process, rooted in survival, produce an innate longing for something beyond survival—namely, God? The Christian worldview provides a coherent answer: humanity is made in the image of God and created for relationship with Him.

A Creed Without Evidence

Ultimately, the atheist claim that “there is no God” is a creed unsupported by evidence. To deny God’s existence, one would need omniscience to rule out His presence across all of reality—an impossible standard. By contrast, the Christian worldview not only provides evidence for God’s existence but also offers a coherent explanation for the universe, morality, and human purpose.

The atheistic position requires faith in unprovable assumptions, such as the universe’s existence without cause or the emergence of life through undirected processes. These leaps of faith, combined with the dismissal of compelling evidence like fine-tuning and the cosmological argument, expose atheism as an unstable worldview.

Concluding Questions

For those who dismiss the evidence for God, consider the following:

• If the universe’s fine-tuning is not evidence of design, what alternative explanation can account for its extraordinary precision?

• If faith is irrational, how do you justify the faith required to believe in a universe without cause or purpose?

• If belief in God is a psychological crutch, why is it universal across cultures and consistent with humanity’s deepest desires?

Atheism, far from being a neutral stance, is a creed that struggles to explain the very realities it critiques. By contrast, the evidence—both metaphysical and empirical—points to a rational Creator who is not only the source of all existence but also the fulfillment of humanity’s deepest longings.