As a Christian, I have seen quite a few strong reactions from my fellow brothers and sisters regarding evolution. There are many claims made regarding the evolutionary process that Christians could never accept, and rightly so. However, I think something that the Christian community may consider is whether or not all of the premises the atheist evolutionary community provides as evidence against God are at all required by actual scientific observations regarding evolution.
Fundamentally, theology and science cover two different areas of reality. Science ultimately explains the “how” things occur and theology is more about the “why”. This can be a confusing thought at first as it makes sense that if God created the universe, science should see evidence of “how” He did it. And we do see evidence of “how” the universe was created, from rates of expansion to background radiation, but none of this evidence seems to point directly to God. Atheists might say that this is a concern for Christians, but it really shouldn’t be.
Evolution is something that has troubled a great deal of Christians and swayed a many people from accepting the possibility of a Biblical God. I think the biggest reason for this is that theologians have historically had a certain way of interpreting the Bible and are not strongly convinced by the evidence for evolution. This lack of conviction in the scientific theory causes people either question science or question their faith. I think that this is a mistake.
If God knows everything that we will ever feel, think, say, or do, then do we have free will? It is certainly hard to imagine how we might be capable of freely deciding anything if all of our decisions are already known. But it may be possible to reconcile free will and "destiny" or "fate". Let's unpack the titular question and see where it leads.
The burden of proof is the idea that a person or party making any particular claim has to provide sufficient evidence that their claim is true. While this sounds a good idea conceptually, just how difficult is it to provide proof for simple, everyday actions. Lately, in an effort to find out, I have been disputing claims made by my friends in an effort to establish whether or not it is reasonable to put the burden of proof on the individual making the claim.
Ah, infinity. The ultimate childhood one-upper. The ace in the hole for when you really need to out do someone... times infinity. We all know what the word represents, but can it be practically applied? Let’s take a look at a few examples.
Can God create a rock so big that even He cannot lift it? I am sure we have all heard that question before. I certainly remember having long conversations about it as a child. We would argue that if God could not make a rock that He couldn’t lift, then He wasn’t omnipotent, or if He could make a rock that He couldn’t lift then He wasn’t omnipotent. It seemed like an unsolvable quandary and could certainly leave you feeling as though your are stuck between a rock and a hard place.. See what I did there?