Today I had a discussion with a non-believer friend of mine. He asked me the frequently asked questions like "how do you prove God exists?" and such. Actually, just that one question mostly. Actually, it wasn't really a discussion at all. He told me which theory he believed in, but did not provide evidence to support his belief, and he refused to listen to my supporting evidence for my belief.
But I won't expand on that for now. Back to the "prove God exists" idea. It is said that God cannot be proven or disproven to exist. Fair enough. As it is said by one theologian (whose name I can't recall), science cannot be used to prove the existence of an individual. Historical evidence is needed for that kind of information. Even blood samples can't prove the existence of a person if you don't have a match on your database.
So how does one prove that God exists? Using accurate historical evidence is one way, and the Bible is actually proven to be historically accurate by scholars, even secular academics. However, most non-believers are ready to discredit the Bible as historical evidence because of unreasonable bias. Other sources documenting Jesus existence are also helpful in this area, and I've heard that they are out there. I haven't looked into these yet, so have fun searching them up. They might not support Jesus's divinity, however.
So since my friend refuses to take the Bible as a valid source for biased reasons, and I did not have secular sources supporting Jesus's existence at hand, I had to use simple logic instead. God's existence cannot be proven. I've felt His presence many times, but many non-believers will not take that as credible evidence, or they will provide ideas of what my experiences may actually have been, as if they know how I feel better than I know myself. So instead I talked about fundamental ideas of Christianity.
God gave us life willingly, but we must accept this gift willingly as well. John 3:16 supports this idea. "Oh, but you're using the Bible again." Yes, I did. Good observation. What's the best source of Christian fundamentals if not the Bible? Gonna tell me the Bible is an unreliable source for Christianity as well? If your answer is yes, and Christianity today is based solely on the Bible, what exactly are you attacking? Ideas of Christianity not based on the Bible? Or the Bible for supporting a pseudo religious system that isn't even a part of the discussion? Moving on.
God gave us a choice to choose to follow Him, meaning there must be an option to choose yes and an option to choose no. If, according to John 3:16 and other passages on the same topic, choosing no is equivalent to choosing eternal death and there is not even a doubt that this is true, then there really is no option to choose no. The human body is meant to keep the person alive. Choosing no willingly should in theory be akin to suffocating yourself by holding your breath. Your body will struggle against that, because it's unnatural. Then it should only be natural that you follow God, just as natural as one would follow the laws of gravity. One must follow them whether one wishes to do so or not.
In case that made no sense, let me sum it up. I believe doubt is crucial for freedom of choice to exist. Without doubt, one cannot help but follow God, knowing the consequences of not doing so. This may also explain why Christians sometimes feel distant from God. Of course, there are other reasons for this as well, but this may be one reason. And why is choice necessary? Because we were created to live as humans, not as robots. There cannot be genuine love and admiration for God if we feel the way we feel because we must and are made to do so. Love cannot exist without its binary opposite. Evil, likewise, is a blessing and a necessity because we are able to see God's power and goodness much better in comparison.
