Welcome to 10-minute Bible Talks, where we connect the Bible to your life.

In the time it takes to get to work. I'm Patrick Miller. In college, before I became a Christian,

I remember many questions that plagued me, but perhaps the most basic, the most granular,

the most atomic question was this.

If God is real, then why do I have no evidence of his existence? I can't touch God, I can't see God,

I can't hear God, and yet I'm expected to believe that he moves and sees and speaks.

Though this may seem like an easy question to overcome, I know that I'm not alone.

Philosophers and thinkers throughout the ages have been plagued by it. The Enlightenment philosopher

Dennis Didderot wrote, If you want me to believe in God, you must make me touch him. The philosopher

and playwright Bertrand Russell defended his disbelief in God this way. Not enough evidence, God,

not enough evidence. Christopher Hitchens would later agree that the absence of divine signs were

proof of God's non-existence. He wrote this, that which cannot be asserted without evidence,

can be dismissed without evidence. What all of these quote share in common is a stated and

unstated unbelief. The stated belief is this. There is no material evidence of God sufficient

to convince these authors of his existence. The unstated belief is less obvious, though arguably more

important, that if they received evidence of God's existence, then they would most

certainly believe. Now, the second one is really important because it informs the first,

but it's not actually a given. You see, there's a question every human must ask,

do we really want there to be a God? Because if God revealed himself to me and I didn't want

him to be real, I could just

deny him and move on, especially that God has something to stay about my life and how I'm living.

And if we answer that question, would I believe in God if I was given evidence of him? And if the

...