Skepticism and Atheism: A Case of Judging The Book By Its Cover
Skepticism and atheism are the principal players in stating that God does not exist for the following reasons:
1. For the skeptics: they need evidence or proof before they could say a thing exists or not. That means that for a thing to be said to exist, they need direct evidence or proof; and, for a thing said not to exist, they also need direct proof or evidence. For example, if I say that "I have a pen in my pocket," then you should be able to see it (or not see it). Since there's no way to prove or disprove God's existence (since none of us has seen or not seen God to prove or disprove his existence), then it's best to keep silent and suspend our judgment.
2. For the atheists: they deny God's existence on the basis of the problem of evil. This is the stronger argument for God's non-existence because if God is said to be all-powerful and all good, then why didn't he prevent the most wicked kind of evil from happening. Now, many pro-God would say that evil is necessary in order for us to learn something from it, and be good next time; and that God is testing us. That God is testing us is the weakest argument for God's existence and wisdom because that would mean that God is insensitive to man's sufferings (never mind if Hitler suffered, maybe, he deserve it. What about the children who were gassed and burned What did they do to deserve this?) As a mother, you might want to let your child go through painful but necessary experiences in order for him/ her to grow into a better person. However, if you say that he is about to hit by a truck and there's time to save him from this, would you just standby and let it happen, and hopefully he will survive and learn from it? What would happen if he didn't survive? So, based on how God is defined and this kind of evil that does happen, then the atheists say that either God does not exist, or he is not at all good. If God is truly an all-good and all-powerful (both traits are incompatible, do you see that?) then I will have to side with the atheists.
However, skeptics can't stay undecided for long. That's when they become atheists. Meaning, they decided to go for evidence. And, since there's no proof or evidence for God's existence, then they decide to claim that God does not exist.
My argument against skepticism and atheism can be expressed in this way: if one has already judged something not to exist just because it doesn't meet one's standard, then, isn't it unfair? It's like pre-judging someone to be a liar although he may be telling the truth just because he can't stand his guts. It's much the same as what the skeptics and the atheists are doing in the matter of God's existence. Before they go out to prove (or, disprove) God's existence, they have already set the rules on how they would like to judge a thing to exist or not. That is, they used the tools of science - not that I am against science. What are the tools of science? They are: observing, testing, experimentation.
Now, these may work for certain things. But, would they work, for example, on love? So, they ask what is love? And they, the chemist, speak of love in terms of chemistry. Or, they, the biologist, would speak of love in terms of biology. They, for instance, would say that love does not exist, because it is only 'used' for the species to survive for another generation. Or, in chemistry terms, love is nothing but a chemical reaction. True, these things may happen when two people are in love. But is that what we human beings mean by love. What I am trying to say is that if you want to judge something, then judge on its own basis, not on something else. Otherwise, that would be prejudging.
I think the best way to know whether God exists is by way of understanding the experiences of those who truly believe in God existence, and of those who pretend to believe in God; that is, who use God to fulfill their own desires. So, when one prays to God for more money, then you can be sure that he doesn't believe in God for God's sake. So, who are those who truly believe in God so that we can say that there is a God? It's like saying: who are they who truly love their children? Not all parents do. But some parents love, and would die for their kids. They're the ones we listen to if we genuinely want to understand the true meaning of love.
Which leads me to this: who are the true believers? They are those who don't ask God for any favor, who don't bargain with God. They are the ones who believe in God only because God is God. They're the ones who believe in God for God's sake. They are the ones whom we should listen to, in order to decide whether or not God exists. In fact, by listening to them, we will soon realize whether or not we are prepared to believe in God. If I am still selfish, then I cannot truly be said to know that God exists; nor can I truly be said to know the meaning of believing in God.
It all boils down to: not that does God exist. But, am I strong enough, spiritually and psychologically, to believe in God?
Therefore, it's best to listen to those who are of this make rather than to those who believe in God for selfish reasons or, than to those who judge that God does not exist on the basis of what other people say. And usually, they are the ones who don't understand what it means to believe in God.