Does Null Hypothesis render God unreal?

Typically, it is thought that people reject God outright.

​

Sometimes, this may be the case, but an overwhelming number of people are really in the Null Hypothesis camp - though wouldn't use this language per se.

Null Hypothesis suggests that in the absence of evidence to the affirmative, the answer must be assumed to be neutral.

​

In other words, the assumption is that without pure evidence pointing to God that the neutral assumption is that there is no God.

​

I won't dig into the evidence in this post, but suffice it to say, the underlying issue at stake is not an outright rejection of God so much as a desire for proof. This is a fair request, and Christians believe proof is all around.

​

But, for the Christian and skeptic alike, let us consider the core questions at stake and make sure we are operating on the same playing field in our dialogue, even when we don't come to the same conclusions.

​

Reference Points:

1. Romans 1:19-20 notes, "For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse." To be sure, Scripture is an auto-turn off for many, but the argument itself is the very belief Christians hold true.

 

2. In the story of Matthew 2:1-12, we see a star leading the magi to Bethlehem, to Jesus. We see a reference to the prophecy in Micah 5:2. We see the magi being warned in a dream not to return to Herod. Nature, prophecy, miracles, and even possibly other religious peoples all looked to Jesus in this singular moment. Again, Scripture may not be proof for some, but we put more weight in writers like Josephus, Aristotle, and Plato, whose ancient writing are much more limited in number, less complete, and otherwise, but this is a topic for another post.