As you know, the Institute receives its fair share of email. Often it’s questions about the Institute, our educational programs or feedback on an article. Every so often, however, we receive a question about theology. Here, for example, is one we received recently:

I was hit with this one while talking about the historical and archaeological evidence for the Bible. The atheist said … “There are tons of evidence for THOR, but you chose not to believe in him … you’re just being a picker and a chooser with whom you worship.”

What do you say to that? Why is the historical THOR ~ thunder god a myth and ours isn’t. Just curious what you thought.

In response, yours truly, webmaster for the Institute is offering a reply:

This is actually a rather common fill-in-the-blank question. You could just as easily insert other mythical characters like: Oden, Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It originates from a giant chum bucket of atheist talking points circulating on the internet. All of these types of questions have the same response.

First of all, everyone chooses whom to worship; Whether it is yourself, a deity or  the universe, the need to worship is human nature. Second, if we claim that a deity (or deities, impersonal forces, etc) exist,  evidence of their existence should be available to support that claim. Without any real evidence, our claim is very weak and our faith most likely misplaced. Since, without faith from God, people naturally choose a deity based on whatever purely selfish criteria they wish, the evidence portion of their faith can often left behind in favor or personal preference or pragmatism.

Let’s face it, everyone is a “picker and chooser” of whom to worship; After all, we could just as easily choose to worship Satan, the earth or ourselves. For Christians, we believe that it is God who gives faith. Each believer is chosen by God to be conformed to the likeness of His Son. All others, atheists included, then either choose the god that makes the most practical sense or one that fits into the mold of their personal desires.

For example, in Muslim countries, people choose to be “culturally” Muslim to avoid persecution. In India, many choose Hinduism to assuage their innate guilt for ignoring the countless poor while giving their lives some meaning. In Europe, guilt over blatant hedonism has lead to a surge of Atheism; The government takes the place of God (deciding right and wrong) while the converts get to do whatever they please, guilt free; Like a gay pride parade, these hedonistic atheists revel in their shame like a pig wallows in its own muddy filth.

So then, why would anyone not a Christian find worshiping Jesus more valid than worshiping Thor? For the practical purpose of removing stumbling blocks to the faith, the answer must come down to evidence. If someone makes a positive claim (e.g. God exists), we should expect to see some evidence that it’s true. It would be foolish for us to claim that God exists without providing reasons why.

However, we can’t absolutely prove or disprove anything existing purely in the supernatural realm. We can only have confidence based on the probability of something being true. For example, if you used the evidence available, would you say there’s a higher probability of there being no supernatural realm (atheist position) or that one exists (everyone else’s position). You would need to take into account: near death experiences, death and revival experiences (memories of real events while dead), miracles (resurrection of Jesus), visions of the future seen in dreams, the powers of darkness (as seen in the occult) and your own experiences with God (which are not to be discounted). As you can see, we have a strong line of evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm.

In the same way, stating that there “are tons of evidence for Thor” is certainly not the same as presenting that evidence. It also doesn’t bring the probability of his existence up to the level that we have for the God of the Bible. For the Bible, we can visit the places it references, see the results of the miracles, test the validity of the prophesies and examine philosophy to see if this God really exists.

Let’s be honest. You can’t say the same for Thor. The .0005% chance that Thor and the pantheon of Norse gods exists (based on available evidence) is not equivalent to the 99% chance that the God of the Bible does. That’s comparing apples with oranges; Only someone who is clueless about the available evidence would make such a baseless claim.

Did Thor rise from the dead or part the Red Sea? Did Thor cause a virgin to conceive or raise Lazarus after rotting in the tomb? Did Thor deliver prophesy concerning specific events and people hundreds of years in advance? The clear answer is no. Christians are ready to defend the God of the Bible with real evidence.

On the other hand, the atheists are rarely ready to defend their position. Stating that “God exists” is a religious statement. Equally religious is the statement, “God does not exist”. Both state a theory about the supernatural realm that people “believe” to be true. Don’t let an atheist fool you into believing that they don’t have to defend their position.

“Feeling” that the supernatural realm is all nonsense or “believing” that there’s no evidence for it certainly does not make it true; The Mormon has “feelings” and “beliefs” as well about a 19th century book of fiction. It is up to atheists to show that “matter is all there is”. Watch them start appealing to made-up, imaginary things (multiverses, inflation theory, etc) … and they call Christians deluded.

In short, the evidence for the God of the Bible is much greater than the evidence against Him. The same can not be said of Thor.

That’s right. Back up from the grave in a miraculous resurrection comes the Jesus-was-a-myth argument. It has reemerged from the depths of obscurity to plague the world of both Christians and true biblical researchers alike. Dr. Fernandes looks this issue square in the eye and tackles the people, places and events used in the failed attempts to discredit Jesus.

Due to some email correspondence we received around Easter, we’ve decided to publish something in response. This portion of the chapter is not exhaustive, but it does state the some basic arguments against those who would refute the empty tomb.

Excerpt from The Atheist Delusion by Dr. Phil Fernandes, Ph.D.

… just over 70% of New Testament scholars accept the empty tomb, rather than the near universal support for the other four pieces of data. There are several reasons which show that the accounts of the empty tomb are probably historical.

First, the first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb (and the resurrected Christ) were women. This is something the apostles would not have made up, for a woman’s testimony was held highly suspect in the first-century ad. It offered practically no evidential value to fabricate a story of women being the first witnesses. Plus, the principle of embarrassment applies here. For, it would have been very embarrassing for the two leading apostles, Peter and John, to have been proven wrong by ladies. This would be horrible public relations for the early church. The only reason for reporting that women were the first witnesses of the empty tomb would be if it was actually true.

Second, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then the Jewish religious authorities would have produced the rotting corpse of Christ, thus refuting Christianity and stifling its growth at its earliest stage. But this did not happen—Christianity grew at a tremendous rate in the early 30′s ad in the Jerusalem area. This would not be the case if Jesus’ body was still in the tomb.

Third, New Testament scholars agree that the sermons of Acts chapter 1 through 12 are the earliest sermons of the church-they date back to the early 30′s ad. Their antiquity is accepted by scholars because these sermons show no signs of theological development (this type of theological development is found in Paul’s letters which were written twenty years later).⁴ These sermons seem to report the events of the resurrection at the earliest stage of the church. One of the main themes of these early sermons was the resurrection of Jesus. Hence, the resurrection of Jesus was reported shortly after Christ’s crucifixion by people who claimed to be eyewitnesses and who were willing to suffer and die for their proclamation. Men do not die for what they know to be a hoax-they sincerely believed they saw the risen Christ.

Fourth, Jesus was buried in the tomb of a well-known man-Joseph of Arimathea. It would have been easy to locate the tomb to ascertain if it was empty. Many critics acknowledge the reliability of the account of Jesus being buried in Joseph’s tomb.⁵ For, if there was no real Joseph of Arimathea on the Jewish Ruling Council, then this account would be easily refuted by the enemies of the early church. However, once we admit that there existed a man named Joseph of Arimathea on the Jewish Ruling Council, then it is highly unlikely the apostles fabricated this account. Joseph would have been easy to find-there were only 70 members on the Sanhedrin and they met regularly in Jerusalem. If the apostles lied about the burial, then one could interview Joseph of Arimathea to check the account to disprove it. But, once we admit Jesus was buried in the tomb of a famous man, then we must acknowledge how easy it would have been to prove the corpse was still in the tomb, had it actually been there. But, this did not happen. Hence, the tomb was empty.

Dr. Fernandes discusses some of the compelling reasons for believing the Resurrection of Jesus was an actual, historical event. Quoting such Christian researcher Gary Habermas and apologist William Lane Craig, Dr. Fernandes highlights his case using the changed lives of the Apostles and early church leaders.

Evidence for the existence of God?

Dr. Fernandes gives a quick series of evidences for the existence of God. He does a great job of summarizing up several well known arguments (cosmological, teleological, etc) and looks at their implementations.