There exists an interesting contradiction that I’ve recently seen emerging in the world of religious debate. If I were to formulate the core evangelical position as a proposition, it would look something like this:
A god who would let us prove his existence would be an idol, but individuals ought to believe in God because evidence exists for both God’s existence and God’s involvement in the universe.
So which is it? This conversion tactic is obviously contradictory. On one hand, proving God with evidence is declared a fruitless exercise that fails to convey “true” trust and thus is largely irrelevant to salvation. On the other hand, it is thought that people ought to believe in the scant evidence for God’s existence (because then, I suppose, they can be saved), and that those who don’t are irrational.
A post addressing the debate itself is forthcoming.