What Counts as Evidence?
"There's no evidence for God." This is perhaps the most common objection Christians encounter from secular people. It sounds decisive—scientific, even. After all, we should proportion our beliefs to evidence, and if there's no evidence for God, we shouldn't believe in Him. Case closed.
But this objection, though superficially compelling, conceals crucial assumptions that deserve examination. What do we mean by "evidence"? What kinds of evidence are appropriate for what kinds of claims? And is it actually true that there's no evidence for God—or is there abundant evidence that is being defined out of existence by artificially narrow criteria?
Before accepting the claim that there's no evidence for God, we must ask: What would count as evidence? If someone defines evidence so narrowly that only laboratory experiments qualify, they've excluded God by definition—not by investigation. The question of evidence is inseparable from the question of what kind of thing God would be if He existed.
Types of Evidence
The Narrow View: Only Scientific Evidence Counts
Many who claim there's no evidence for God operate with a narrow definition: evidence means empirical, scientific, laboratory-testable data. Since you can't put God in a test tube or detect Him with scientific instruments, there's "no evidence."
But this is scientism—the philosophical position that science is the only valid source of knowledge. Scientism is self-defeating: the claim "only scientific evidence counts as evidence" is itself not a scientific claim. It cannot be tested in a laboratory. It's a philosophical assertion that must be defended on non-scientific grounds.
Moreover, scientism would exclude much of what we know and reasonably believe:
- Mathematical truths (2+2=4 is not verified by experiment)
- Logical truths (the law of non-contradiction is not empirical)
- Ethical truths (that torture for fun is wrong cannot be laboratory-tested)
- Historical events (we can't repeat the Battle of Waterloo)
- The existence of other minds (you cannot scientifically prove I'm conscious)
- The reliability of science itself (we must assume reason and senses work before we can do science)
The Broader View: Evidence Appropriate to the Subject
Different kinds of claims require different kinds of evidence. We don't demand the same evidence for "water boils at 100°C" and "Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon" and "my wife loves me." Each claim is supported by evidence appropriate to its nature.
If God exists, what kind of being would He be? Not a physical object within the universe but the transcendent Creator of the universe. We wouldn't expect to find God through a telescope any more than we'd expect to find Shakespeare by examining Hamlet's molecules. The evidence for God's existence would be of a different kind than the evidence for a new subatomic particle.
Demanding scientific evidence for God is like demanding a photograph of justice or a chemical analysis of love. It's a category mistake—applying criteria appropriate to one domain to something in a completely different domain. The absence of scientific evidence for God no more disproves His existence than the absence of a photograph disproves the existence of mathematics.
The Evidence That Exists
Far from there being no evidence for God, there are multiple lines of evidence that point toward a transcendent, personal Creator:
The Cosmological Evidence
The existence of the universe. Why is there something rather than nothing? The universe exists—it requires explanation. Either the universe is eternal (which current cosmology denies), or it popped into existence from nothing (which is incoherent), or it was caused by something beyond it. That transcendent cause is what we call God.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument states:
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause
- The universe began to exist
- Therefore, the universe has a cause
The cause of the universe must be outside the universe—non-physical, immensely powerful, and (since it chose to create) personal. This sounds remarkably like the God of theism.
The Teleological Evidence
The fine-tuning of the universe. The physical constants of the universe are calibrated within extraordinarily narrow ranges that permit life. Change the gravitational constant slightly, and stars don't form. Adjust the strong nuclear force, and atoms don't exist. The odds against this fine-tuning occurring by chance are virtually zero.
Either this is a staggering cosmic coincidence, or we live in one of infinitely many universes (a hypothesis with no independent evidence), or the universe was designed for life. Design implies a Designer.
The Moral Evidence
The existence of objective moral truth. We experience some things as genuinely wrong—not just culturally disapproved but objectively evil. The Holocaust was not merely unpopular; it was wicked. But if naturalism is true, morality is just evolutionary adaptation or social convention. The very existence of objective moral facts points to a moral Lawgiver.
"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts."
— Romans 2:14-15The Evidence from Consciousness
The existence of mind. How does consciousness arise from unconscious matter? The "hard problem of consciousness"—explaining why there is subjective experience at all—has no naturalistic solution. If the universe was created by a Mind, the existence of minds within it makes sense. On naturalism, consciousness is a profound mystery.
The Evidence from Reason
The reliability of our cognitive faculties. We trust our reason to give us truth about reality. But if our brains evolved merely for survival, not truth, why trust them? If God designed our minds to know truth, reason's reliability makes sense. Naturalism undermines the very reason it relies upon.
The Historical Evidence
The resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection is a historical claim with historical evidence: the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, the transformation of the disciples, the explosive growth of the early church. These facts require explanation, and "Jesus actually rose from the dead" is the best explanation—if we don't rule out miracles in advance.
The Experiential Evidence
Religious experience. Billions of people across cultures and centuries have reported experiences of God—answered prayers, transformed lives, a sense of divine presence. While any individual experience can be explained away, the cumulative weight of human religious experience is evidence that deserves consideration.
No single argument may be decisive, but together they form a powerful cumulative case. The existence of the universe, its fine-tuning, objective morality, consciousness, the reliability of reason, the resurrection of Jesus, and widespread religious experience all converge on theism. The hypothesis "God exists" explains all of these; naturalism struggles with each.
Why the Evidence Isn't Seen
If there is evidence for God, why do many people claim there isn't? Several factors contribute:
Artificially Narrow Criteria
As we've seen, if only scientific evidence counts, God is excluded by definition. This is not honest investigation but philosophical prejudice disguised as open inquiry.
Unfamiliarity with the Arguments
Many who claim there's no evidence have never seriously engaged with the evidence that exists. They've absorbed the cultural assumption that religion is irrational without examining the actual case for theism.
Motivated Reasoning
We tend to find what we're looking for. Someone who doesn't want God to exist— because of the moral implications, the demand for submission, or the challenge to autonomy—may unconsciously filter out evidence that points toward Him.
Spiritual Blindness
Scripture teaches that sin affects our ability to perceive spiritual truth. Those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness have their minds darkened (Romans 1:18-21). The problem is not merely intellectual but spiritual—which is why prayer is essential to evangelism.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them."
— Romans 1:18-19Having the Conversation
When someone says "there's no evidence for God," consider these responses:
Clarify What They Mean
"What would count as evidence for you? What would you need to see to believe God exists?" Their answer reveals their criteria—and whether those criteria are fair or artificially narrow.
Challenge Scientism
"Do you think scientific evidence is the only kind of evidence? What about historical evidence, philosophical argument, or personal experience? Can you prove scientifically that only scientific evidence counts?"
Present the Evidence
"Have you looked at the cosmological argument? The fine-tuning of the universe? The evidence for the resurrection? There's actually quite a lot of evidence— it's just not the kind you'd expect if God were a physical object rather than the Creator of the physical."
Explore Their Resistance
"If there were good evidence for God, would you be willing to believe? What would believing in God mean for your life?" Sometimes the issue isn't really about evidence but about implications people don't want to face.
Christianity does not ask for blind faith—belief without evidence. It asks for trust based on evidence. The evidence may not produce mathematical certainty, but it can produce reasonable confidence. Faith goes beyond the evidence (as all trust does) but not against it. God has provided sufficient evidence for those willing to see; He has not provided coercive proof that overwhelms the unwilling.
Discussion Questions
- What do people usually mean when they say 'there's no evidence for God'? How does their definition of evidence affect what they're willing to consider?
- Which of the evidences for God (cosmological, teleological, moral, consciousness, reason, historical, experiential) do you find most compelling? How would you present it conversationally?
- How would you respond if someone said, 'I'll believe in God when you show me scientific proof'? What's wrong with demanding only scientific evidence, and how can you explain this graciously?