Atheists often deride theism -- and Christianity in particular -- for the lack of empirical evidence supporting it. Interestingly, however, the very type of God Christianity advocates -- one which values faith -- is not likely the sort to leave behind any scientifically demonstrable proofs that such people are looking for. If he were to, people could potentially know He exists, and the faith He is claimed to value so highly would become superfluous. It is often noted that the lack of empirical evidence for God suggests he does not exist. But consider: a world without physical evidence for God's existence is precisely the type of universe many Christians would expect. Why, then, is this considered to be such a coup de grâce to the theist? Keep in mind: I'm not saying that we should believe in God because there is no evidence. Such a position is clearly absurd. Instead, I'm merely pointing out that attacking theism on evidentiary bases seems unconvincing to a Christian who posits a God who wants people to believe in Him as a matter of faith because such a God is not likely to leave behind such evidence. Should atheists perhaps reconsider the use of this argument?
Read another response by Peter Smith