On August 7, 2018, Richard Dawkins tweeted:
Historic contingency “If the second dinosaur to the left of the tall cycad tree had not happened to sneeze …we should none of us be here.” Is this, 1) necessarily true for any dinosaur? 2) Necessarily true only of a dinosaur whose sneeze interrupted its pursuit of the ur-mammal?
and then added:
Why I favour (1):
Think back from own existence. Hyper-improbability of dad’s lucky sperm making it. Multiply up for 2 grandads, 4 gt grandads etc. Ripple outward back to ur-mammal.
Now think forwards. Outward worldwide-spreading causal ripple from any event, even trivial sneeze.
I agree. Everything is indeed connected. In fact, a moment’s introspection will tell you this is true concerning your own life. There are several trivial little decisions you have made over the years that are a necessary part of your history because they are crucial to your identity. For example, perhaps a split second decision to stop at a fast food place for a milk shake causes you to run into an old childhood friend and you therefore reestablish a connection. Months later, your friend then plays a crucial role in supporting you through a very difficult time, steering you away from bitterness and toward forgiveness. That decision then helps to frame future decisions which then help shape who you are.
I mention this because it is striking that Dawkins can understand this dimension to our reality, but then, when it comes to the topic of God, he completely abandons it and reverts to superficial, almost childish, thinking.
Dawkins, like most modern day atheists, build their atheism around the demand for evidence. Supposedly, “there is no evidence for God.” Therefore, if God exists, He is supposed to pay Dawkins a visit and supply this evidence. Of course, the evidence can’t be personal or private, because then it could be an illusion. It has to be public, verifiable, undisputable. We know this position collapses into incoherency once you ask Dawkins, or anyone like him, what would count as such evidence. For then they are stumped. They are clueless. Or they retreat into the logic of God-of-the-Gaps. And then Dawkins himself is forced to admit that he can’t think of anything that he would count as evidence for God. That’s what happens when your mind is closed shut and you rely on childish thinking when it comes to the topic of God.
We’ve been through this many times (since atheists have no reply), but let’s now add the new angle on it to illustrate just how pathetically weak the “there is no evidence for God” posture is. Let’s consider Dawkins’ “no evidence” complaint from his ability, in other contexts, to recognize how everything is connected. And we can do this with a simple question:
If the second dinosaur to the left of the tall cycad tree had not happened to sneeze …we should none of us be here, don’t you think the same applies to a public, verifiable, undisputable miracle designed to get Dawkins to believe in God?
Look, if God gave Dawkins the miracle he wants, all just to convince Dawkins that God exists (assuming that is even possible), don’t you think this would significantly alter the future such that people who would have come into existence would no longer come into existence? If a dinosaur’s sneeze would do that, it would seem impossible to deny the same for a public, verifiable, undisputable miracle.
This would mean that Dawkins, or a Matt Dillahunty, must think they are very, very special and privileged in deserving of a type of evidence that would likely erase the existence of countless people from the future.
Like I said, childish thinking -it’s all about me and my needs.
If God exists, he exists outside of time. Creation before Him is past, present, and future. One big package deal. From God’s perspective, creation is more like a portrait than a movie. By demanding their own special miraculous evidence displays, modern day atheists are demanding that Creation itself be radically altered. And when you take into account all the different types of miracles that various atheists claim to need in order to believe, you have a set of demands resulting in a large set of different, mutually exclusive, Creations.
So if you are an atheist demanding that God supply you with some evidence of His existence, you need to show that you are so important, and your ability to believe the truth is so important, that all of Reality needs to be changed to accommodate your needs. Why do you think reality revolves around you?