Why does the improbability of God have to be his weakness? Many atheists often point out that the Biblical narrative is highly improbable and therefore deduct the likelihood of its truth laughable; at best. On a surface level they speak of quantum theory, evolution, and every other “ology” which, despite the strength of their studied minds, they cannot even fully understand. The problem with pursuing absolute truth through science is the same problem that forensics have on a crime scene. For example, let’s assume you are studying a crime scene of a murder. You have a dead body and a bloody knife. The dead person appears to have been stabbed. One could reasonably assume that the bloody knife you found was your murder weapon. You also found fingerprints on the knife, which you matched to a close friend of the victim named Bob. What do you think happened? It appears that from the looks of it the person matched by the fingerprints (close friend) is the murderer. Now it is absolutely reasonable that this would be what happened, however although one can make a reasonable conclusion to this fact; one cannot make the conclusion itself fact. The reason is because although we have some good evidence, all the evidence shows us is that Bob touched the knife. We cannot prove without some uncertainty that he stabbed the victim with it or that that particular knife was the one used. If we first conclude that the knife found on the scene is the murder weapon then this conclusion leads us down a path of other conclusions that a hinging on the previous deduction being true. If the knife was not the murder weapon (which is unlikely but is possible) then it leads our quest for truth down a completely different road. Now your first thought may be “well, it is highly unlikely” and that is exactly what scientists do. They take one plus two and with reasonable certainty they deduct that three is the answer. The problem is that they can never be fully certain that three is the answer. If scientists stopped at reasonable conclusions then all would be good. There is no reason to argue that two plus one is (or may be) three. The problem is that science does not stop here; it continues to build “assumed truths” on “half facts”. Let’s take another look at the example I gave. So a scientist would assume that Bob was the culprit due to the forensic evidence at the scene. For the scientific brain this assumption is now fact; whereas in reality it only has a greater likelihood. Forensic evidence leads to the conclusion that the killer is Bob so in the mind of the scientist he can make new assumptions based on his new fact. For example, he may say that because the killer was a close friend and he used a knife that he must have had a deep feeling of hatred for the victim, when we have no real evidence of this. Suppose that police find that the victim had planned to go through with a divorce with (his or her spouse) but had recently decided to stay the course with the marriage. This may paint the picture that the victim and Bob had an affair and all went south when Bob found out that the victim had chosen to stay with their spouse. This new conclusion is also a good theory but it is completely dependent upon the first conclusion. If my first conclusion is not absolute fact then the more conclusions I draw upon it the less likely they are to be true. The kind of conclusions we are drawing from this example are quite reasonable based on contemporary legal methods, case law, and scientific methodology however when we apply these strategies to the “God” argument than they are wholly insufficient. Scientists are claiming to have disproved “God” for all intensive purposes based on the improbability of his existence. The problem with improbability is that it only holds water if God is not real. Think about it; if there really is an omnipresent omnipotent God who governs the universe then how is improbability a factor whatsoever? Naturally speaking it is improbable (if not impossible) that a man can come back to life three days after dying, right? So the story of the Bible must be false or embellished because it does not mesh with the law of nature. Well, that’s what science would say, but if there is a God, does he not have a right to break the natural order for his purposes and is he not able to do so? Science can only be absolute if there is no one who lives outsides its absolutes. God is a God of the impossible and the idea that something is “improbable” has no bearing on him; he is outside it. If anything, the rare exceptions of miraculous phenomena observed in modern day should further prove the schism of a higher power, but it is written off as a scientific anomaly; a term for when science has random unexplained phenomena. Another common jab among atheist and religious critics is that religious people base their conclusions about God on “emotion” and that above all else cannot be reliable. Whoever said this was the true? Why isn’t emotion a valid symbol of truth? It is true that emotion can be dangerous if left unchecked and it can also be wrong but is this not true about science? Emotion is more known and basic to human expierance than anything science has ever offered. Science cannot tell me if I feel lonely, excited, or if an idea resonates within my spirit. They simply state emotion is a series of chemical and biological responses to varied stimuli. Does anyone really believe this? Are we just really complicated animals? The problem the atheist has with emotion is not so much with the validity of it, but that they have trouble quantifying it. In a vague way the atheist distrusts what he cannot “test” or what he cannot lay out in front of him. There is a point in which God can not longer be intellectually fleshed out; he has to be spiritual drank in. This is what the atheist can not understand. You can not quantify the unquantifiable, so the atheist’s conclusion is that that if you can not find the means to understand or conclude upon something it cannot be so. They are doing their deductions backwards. They say that based on the law of nature God cannot be true, because the idea of a God falls outside the law of nature. If they completed the equation backward they would have the answer. The law of nature is dependent upon God and God is outside this law therefore does not need to be explained through it. This logical conclusion is only logical however if you embrace and get to know God. God can never be fully understood from a distant gaze but must be recognized with the intimate embrace of a hug. The simplest answer is most often the right one. If we cannot understand the magnitude of the world around us then perhaps we were not intended to. The main premise of my words here are to say when you take a perspective of God from the mantel of his infinite abilities he is not so hard to see him in the soil of the earth, in the gleams of the sky, and in the crisp of the air. Atheists are looking for a God right in front of their eyes but in their straining they have missed the magnificent God that is all around them.