An Argument from Size
Once I had an atheist tell me that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Now, this may or may not be true, but it does demonstrate something about a number of atheists that I know. It demonstrates the inconsistency in their thinking for they say they cannot believe in a God that they cannot see, for which they point out that there is no scientific evidence. And yet they believe that it is likely that there are alien life forms in the universe, which they have not seen nor do they have any evidence for their existence. I’ll grant that this may change at any time, however, for now it is the truth based on current knowledge.
They say the reasons for their readiness to accept alien life forms are based on the size of the cosmos and probability. However, does not size and probability leave the door open as well to the existence of a God in the vast universe? Therefore, to make a dogmatic statement that there is no God is neither reasonable nor logical, or at best inconsistent. The universe is so vast one would have to be everywhere at the same time and know everything there is to know to make the statement “There is no God.” The only proper statement that can be made about Gods existence would be, “I am skeptical of it” or “I don’t know.” However, if one is a skeptic he would have to be skeptical of his skepticism. This would simply mean that when everything is said on the issue, he would have to confess that he is an agnostic.
Part of the problem with their size argument resides in their concept of God. As a matter of fact, the size argument tells us more than anything else about the picture thinking of the atheist. It tells us that they have a corporal image of God in their minds. In other words, God is a big man or spaghetti monster somewhere up in heaven, which of course would making him pretty large to have created a universe that is so vast. Of course, this is similar to the picture thinking of a small child, who may equate God with Santa Claus or a bearded man sitting on a throne in some distant heaven. It is little wonder for many atheists that a flying tea-pot or a flying spaghetti monster are their favorite metaphor for God.
This is keeping with and explains the fact that I’ve had a number of atheists claim that they rejected God when they were children. The truth is that most mature people reject the image of God that they had when they were children, replacing it with an adult concept of the deity. In fact, the Scriptures tell us that we should not have any image of God in our minds for God cannot be imaged. Any image of God that a human has in their minds is an image of an idol.
Here is where more strangeness comes in to the mix. Atheists claim that their position of denying the existence of God is not a faith or even a belief, as though theirs was some kind of neutral position, like that of the agnostic. If a person were to make the statement that they did not believe in alien life forms and in the same breath propound that his statement was not a belief, we would think them mad. Yet, the atheist seems to think such claims are the mark of genius. In other words, it is a dogma that cannot be proven, but at the same time it is not a dogma. What it seems to be to me is either a claim of infinite intelligence on the part of atheist, or a personal faith similar to a religious faith, but it cannot be a non-belief. That borders on nonsense.
Of course, if you infer that their belief, or whatever it is, resembles a religious faith they go ballistic. Yet their movement is organized like a religion, it has its evangelists like a religion and it has apologists like a religion, it even has a salvation message like religion. It is saving the world from religion, but of course it is not a religion.
Nevertheless, the atheists have a burden of proof to prove why they can go beyond the claims of agnosticism, to atheism. This burden of proof is not owed to Christians or believers in God, but to reason itself. There is not enough evidence for anyone to postulate that there is no God, and to insist that they have evidence to prove their claims, border on insanity.
The atheist, in order to be intellectually honest, must admit that their claims are based on faith similar to those of religion. It is here where the believer stands on a higher ground than the atheist, for he knows and confesses that his belief is ultimately based on faith, though it is faith that is not without reason or evidence. The atheist refuses to face the fact that his unbelief is based on a supposition because to do so would destroy the illusion that his belief is based on reason alone.
One thing that science has done for us, it has given us knowledge of the vastness of the universe. In doing this, it has demonstrated how very little we know about anything. If we were to put all knowledge into a container that encompasses everything that there is to know about the universe, how much of that knowledge do you think humanity now has? Would you say, 1% or maybe 5%? I think if you were to say 1% your answer would demonstrate that you have a good imagination. Human beings are mere infants in a vast universe which is infinitely big and infinitely small; which means that no one can claim absolute knowledge based on rationalism.
In the end the size of the universe does not prove or disprove the existence of God. It does tell us that if you choose to believe in God, your God must be big enough to accommodate the size of the universe. Of course the problem with most atheists, and most believers, is that their God is too small to begin with. It is not hard to deny the existence of a small God as the atheist has done, nor is it hard to avoid the commandments of a small God, which most believers have done. Humanity tends to shrink their gods to fit their intellect and their appetite.
 The readiness of so many atheists to believe pseudoscience, is evidence of the inconsistency in their use of reason and basing their beliefs only on evidence. They seem to have a great imagination except when it comes to things spiritual. They have a burden of proof in explaining their inconsistencies. Could it just be simply old bias.
 Most mature believers believe that God is pure consciousness or personality diffused throughout time and space or that he is totally other and is beyond man’s ability to form an image of him.
 Many atheists refuse to look at the word religion as a broad concept resulting in a narrowly defined definition of religion as organized religion. Of course this is done because of their awareness that their movement has many marks of a religion. In fact arguing over the semantics of the term religion is proof in itself that their thinking has reached the point of being a religion.
 Only few make this claim.