|
Nothing is absolutely certain, save perhaps basic axioms and definitions. Thus, an atheist is always entitled to rejecting the hypothesis that the cause of some miraculous anomaly is divine in nature.
We should, however, form our beliefs rationally. Suppose you have a friend whom you've asked, over the telephone, to borrow $500 from. He agreed, and four days later an envelope containing $500 in cash arrived in your mail. You know that your friend is a reliable and altruistic person. Now, which explanation of the cash is more reasonable to believe- that your friend has, acceding to your request, mailed you the $500, or that the cash originated from someone else and has ended up, after a spectacular flurry of stochastic events, in your letterbox?
If, after encountering a miraculous (scientifically unfathomable) anomaly that is characteristic of God to manifest, an atheist investigates and discovers no trickery or mental instability at work, which of the following explanations of the anomaly is more reasonable for the atheist to believe in- that God has created a miracle, or that the anomaly had spontaneously and randomly occurred?
It is worth noting again that because few things or nothing can be known for certain, the abovementioned atheist is entitled to persist in a blind denial of God. The rest of us, I hope, will opt to subscribe to a belief that, although cannot be proven beyond all doubt, is more reasonable to believe in.
|