The Great Intellectual Trap: When the Evidence Isn’t Enough

The last three studies have provided just a small amount of proof through logical reasoning that there is a God. There is much more evidence that I will share as we move forward. But in all honesty, I believe the evidence already justifies belief in God.

Yet I know that there will always be the demand for more proof. There will always be the skeptic who says the proof is unconvincing. When it comes to understanding reality, we don’t arrive at absolute proof—we arrive at conclusions we consider sufficiently justified.

The Demand for More Proof

The skeptic says, “If you could prove to me that God exists, I would believe. We all would believe.” And I’m sure they are sincere. But the irony of that statement is that no one can force you to believe something is true. There is no set amount of evidence required to become convinced. Something can only be proven to you when you become willing to accept it as being proven.

The process we go through before we call theories fact often takes a long time. There are tests and experiments performed by multiple people. A lot of evidence is gathered. Eventually, we treat theories as true when the evidence becomes overwhelmingly consistent and no better explanation exists.

But sometimes we can’t or won’t accept something as being true, even when the evidence is there and no better explanation exists. So we stop calling it proven, and we begin to call it inconclusive. Because maybe a better explanation exists that we just haven’t found yet.

The problem is that while we can be certain of the results our tests gave before, we cannot be certain of future test results. We take it on faith that because something has always worked a certain way, it always will. Evidence can strongly point to a conclusion, but accepting that conclusion still requires a step of faith.

There is no set number of tests that must be run, no amount of evidence that must be found, and no point at which something can no longer be questioned. That’s why the escape hatch of calling the evidence inconclusive or unconvincing always exists.

Some skeptics will continue to say the evidence is insufficient, regardless of how much is presented. Or, in some cases, they will deny there is any evidence at all. At the end of the day, they normally say, “I haven’t seen enough evidence to convince me.”

And that’s where the real problem is. The more incredible a claim is, the more likely people will not believe it, no matter how much proof there is.

“If I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn’t believe it.” “I see it, but I still don’t believe it.” “It’s too good to be true.” All three of these statements are commonly said. They tell us that seeing isn’t always believing. Having all the proof in the world isn’t always convincing.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” That’s a claim you will often hear from a skeptic. What they don’t realize is that this claim is the kind of thinking that can prevent them from being convinced, no matter how strong the evidence is.

Who decides what extraordinary is? How do you measure it? If I tell you there’s a dragon in my garage, you might not believe a photo. But would you believe it if you witnessed it in person? Or would you still not be convinced it’s not a joke of some kind?

How about if I claim there is an infinite God? Would that require infinite evidence? If we are just looking for extraordinary evidence, I would argue that the existence of the universe is very extraordinary, especially when it operates under laws that prevent it from being its own cause or eternal.

The skeptic sets themselves up for unbelief because their standard of what would convince them changes. The more amazing the claim, the less likely they are to ever be convinced. The doubt increases proportionally to the claim. So a claim for an infinite God will never be accepted because they will never reach infinite proof.

Without realizing it, this way of thinking can prevent a person from ever reaching a conclusion. They are always requiring more, yet never satisfied.

They fulfill the scriptures in their unwillingness to believe.

When someone is determined to reject a conclusion, evidence can be dismissed very quickly. And when outright denial becomes difficult, the response often shifts from “that’s false” to “that’s not convincing.”

Sometimes that response is valid—evidence can genuinely be weak or incomplete. But other times, the issue isn’t a lack of evidence. It’s that the conclusion carries implications the person doesn’t want to accept. In those cases, the rejection isn’t really about whether the evidence makes sense, but about the hope that a different explanation exists—even if it hasn’t been found yet.

We can accept God the same way that we accept gravity. We don’t see gravity itself—we see its effects. We see objects fall, orbits hold, and motion behave consistently. From those effects, we infer the existence of gravity. In the same way, we don’t see God directly, but we can examine His effects—such as the existence of the universe, order, and causation—and ask what best explains them.

Science isn’t about finding more comfortable answers while denying the evidence in front of us. We always act in accordance with the best theory we have at the time. When something better comes along, then we adjust accordingly. But we certainly don’t ignore something just because we hope to find a better answer later.

To this day, no explanation has been able to account for the origin of the universe without ultimately stopping at something it cannot explain—something that requires an eternal first cause to already exist.

And it’s not because there is no logical path to reason beyond that point.

But my point is that being unconvinced of something isn’t the same thing as it actually being untrue. There is nothing wrong with questioning how something works. But we don’t jump from a building top simply because we still don’t know everything there is to know about gravity either.

The stakes are even higher when it comes to God. It’s ok to question things. You can question who God is, what God wants from you, and what it means for your life all you want. But just being hopeful that you will find another answer one day and won’t face God is the equivalent of jumping from a building just because you aren’t sure gravity will still work today.

The Great Intellectual Trap

I call this the great intellectual trap. It keeps you searching and looking for more evidence while never taking the time to deal with the implications of what you already know. It is like a cage you lock yourself into. You can never break free from skepticism until you can ask yourself in all honesty what the possibility of God being real means to you.

In a previous study, I quoted Stephen Hawking. He had first come to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning and that if it had a beginning, it could be supposed that it also had a creator. He held that truth in his hands and became famous because of it. But he started to look for another answer.

He began a quest to disprove that the universe has a beginning and an edge. Because if the universe were itself able to be eternal, he said, “what need then of God?” This strongly suggests his motive was to find another option that could remove God from the equation.

But he never found a more convincing theory to replace what he already had. He only hoped he could find answers elsewhere.

Eventually, he claimed gravity could have brought the universe into existence instead. But that ignored two things. The first is that gravity needs something to act upon before it can do anything in the first place. So something else had to exist first.

The second is that gravity is dependent and subject to mass and other laws of nature, including the laws of thermodynamics. And as we said in a previous study, anything subject to the laws of nature cannot be self-existent.

Hawking knew this when he wrote his thesis on the nature of the universe. But in the end, he seemed to simply “forget” these things. Either that, or he ignored them for some reason—perhaps believing there is no need of God.

So let’s consider how we evaluate the evidence. When something feels unconvincing, is it because the evidence is truly insufficient—or is there another more personal reason we may be unconvinced?

Thus far in these studies I have presented logical reasons for the existence of God. But I have not yet made the case for who God is. In the next study, I will begin to explore that question.

Unit 1:5 – Can We Know God, or Are We Just Creating Religions? OR

Return To Christianity 101 Unit 1 – The Bible and Faith in God