This one's a bit old, but still relevant.
You might remember how Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists funded a series of bus ads in the UK that said "there's probably no God". There's at least three problems with that statement:
- I think it is, on the face of it, simply wrong. Even without Jesus and the Bible, I think there's evidence that there probably is a God. (a) The universe is full of evidence of purposeful, life-giving design (purposeful creation); (b) the life-giving inter-connectedness of the universe points to a good, life-giving creator who gives life through relationships (God the Holy Trinity); (c) the human tendency towards religious feelings and "worship" demonstrates there is an irreducible God-directed aspect of human nature (anthropology is necessarily theological and doxological); (d) and, purely on statistics, atheism represents a tiny minority of the world population - are we really going to say that almost everyone throughout history has been deluded?
- Let's say that statement is correct - "there's probably no God". Okay - but... oh dear... that still leaves a small chance that he exists! And if he does exist... maybe he doesn't like being ignored! Oh no! We really should find out..!
- Chris Deal of Punch has pointed out the yawning chasm between the strength of the atheist argument and the volume of their shouting. “Probably” isn’t enough, 26 March 2010. Note: Chris Deal is an agnostic.