Why do skeptics, like Bertrand Russell, say there isn’t enough evidence? I submit to you that they’re looking in the wrong places. They’re looking for God to do something inside the creation — like do a miracle, appear to them, or give them a special message — when all they need to do is consider the origin and design of the universe. This would be equivalent to me denying [my home builder’s existence] because I don’t see him anywhere in my house. I’ve checked all the rooms, the garage, and even the attic, but I can’t find him. Therefore, I conclude, he must not exist. —Ryan Leasure (from, Is there Evidence for God’s Existence?)
There are a number of things wrong with this analogy, but let’s roll with it Are you claiming the “home builder” has totally left the house and isn’t around anymore? ok, then you’re claiming that by analogy God made the universe and then left on vacation and we can’t observe him anymore. That’s the deist position, and although not falsifiable, is nearly content-free. However, Christians would take issue with that because the point of Christianity is that God is around and active in our lives (supposedly). So, by analogy, if someone claims that the home builder was doing odd jobs around the house, fixing things, keeping things going, etc… but I see no evidence of that then I am well within my rationality to refuse to believe he’s still around. Right?