Christians often ask what kind of evidence it would take for us atheists to believe, and the answer of empirical or scientific evidence is met with disparaging responses. We will be told that it's impossible, that God is metaphysical and immaterial and outside of the universe, that he's inaccessible to scientific methods, that we shouldn't expect that kind of evidence, that we wouldn't be convinced anyway, or something else similar. I've often been told that all that is needed has already been given, and that I'm arrogantly demanding that God conform to my standards of evidence, as though they are absurd and unreasonable.

However, I can point to numerous examples from the Bible where God offers people direct empirical evidence of his existence and will. In fact, these examples conform perfectly to scientific standards.

The Scientific Method

First, a brief summary of the scientific method. After a phenomena is observed, one supposes a theory to explain the observation. From the theory, a hypothesis is derived. The hypothesis makes a specific, testable prediction about what should be observed when an experiment is performed. If the prediction fails, then we know that at least some part of the theory is false, and we must go back to the drawing board. A failed prediction conforms to the null hypothesis, that there is no relationship between the theory and the phenomena. The null theory is to not regard the theory initially posited as true. If the prediction succeeds, then we do not know that the theory is true, but it does constitute evidence for the theory. When theories successfully predict novel results of experiments that no one has ever done before, it is considered strong evidence. The riskier the prediction is, i.e. the more unlikely the result is on the null theory, the stronger the evidence. It was on the basis of novel predictions that every currently widely accepted theory rose to prominence in science, from germs to gravity to evolution. Good predictions lead to consensus.

We can use the scientific method to compare a theory of God, theism, against the null theory, or agnostic atheism. The null theory is not to believe that God does not exist, but to not regard God as existing. In other words, a lack of belief in the positive claim does not imply a belief in the negative claim. A theory supposing that God does not exist would need its own support (and strong atheists such as myself would say that is possible to provide, although that is not the topic of this post).

In this post, I will examine how the Bible presents a testable theory of God.

Gideon

The episode of Gideon and the fleece is my all time favorite story in the Bible. From his theory of God, he makes the prediction that God will answer his questions in a consistent manner. If you believe that God wants personal relationships with people, this should probably be contained in your theory of God, too. Gideon thus formulates an experiment, recounted in Judges 6:36-40. On the God hypothesis, the dew should obey Gideon's request. On the null hypothesis, the dew should behave naturalistically. He performs the experiment once and it works, evidence for his theory. Being a true scientist, Gideon repeats the procedure a second time, crucially changing the conditions to prove that the first result was not merely coincidental. The author of this passage has a very clear understanding of what makes for good empirical rigor, and I find it amazing to read things like this in the scriptures.

Having conducted the test twice, if Gideon had an understanding of statistics he would know that his confidence in the result should be precisely 75%, on the naive assumption of equal prior probabilities for the two outcomes. With each subsequent successful trial, the probability that the null hypothesis is true is cut in half, just as when flipping a fair coin, the odds that you'll get the side you predict any number of times in a row halves with each successive flip. Given that his theory of God predicted that God should be able to answer consistently every single time, Gideon can make the risky prediction that the experiment will be successful every single time. The only uncontrolled variable is how many times God is willing to participate in the experiment. Gideon asks for patience in his participation, echoing Abraham's bargains. Although Gideon is satisfied with a 75% confidence, we should note that God expends no effort to participate, and that the binary nature of the experiment causes our confidence to grow exponentially with each trial. After 10 successful trials, we could have a confidence of 99.9%. This proves that God could provide us with certainty, or as arbitrarily close to certainty as you would like to get, on the basis of empirical evidence.

Imagine what the world would be like if God provided everyone, or even just all Christians, with this method of obtaining yes/no answers to questions. Imagine if we could be like Gideon and say, "Dear God, I have this question about what you want me to do, and if the answer is yes, have this coin I'm going to flip land heads, and if it's no, tails. And let me repeat the flip as many times as I need to, possibly switching which answer corresponds to heads or tails at my request." If that procedure worked every single time, it would constitute an amazing proof of God. By its mathematical improbability, it would truly be the perfect miracle. And better than all other miracles, it would be testable and repeatable.

Imagine the implications such a thing would have for the church. For me, one of the biggest pieces of evidence against Christianity is the disunity that has always been present. Some examples of disagreements among early Christians were if Jesus was a created being, if the God of the Old Testament was evil, if Jesus had a human or divine mind, when Jesus was born, when Jesus died, if the resurrection was physical or only spiritual, the nature of the trinity, and which books ought be considered official scripture. In the first few centuries there were dozens of different gospel accounts floating around telling conflicting stories of Jesus, and though four became considered canonical, the choice was only appropriate, as St. Ignatius says, because there were four corners of the Earth and four winds. Even in the epistles at the very start of it all, it is not the Holy Spirit that guides the Christians (who were already in disagreement with each other), but the careful rhetoric of Paul. Although one orthodoxy eventually won out, it was only through human debate. Quickly, however, the Eastern and Western churches grew and split apart. Later, the Protestant Reformation. Today, Christian denominations around the world are more hopelessly fractured than ever. Imagine if Gideon's method were available for the settlement of doctrinal issues. How much bloodshed would have been spared if warring Christian sects could have found unambiguous answers to their disagreements peaceably? How much better would American history be, if Gideon's method had been used to tell Christian slave owners to free their slaves?

Elijah

In 1 Kings 18, God directly steps into human affairs to prove that he is real and that other gods do not exist. Elijah challenges the prophets of Baal to call on their god to ignite a sacrifice. Elijah will do the same. Whether or not the prayer succeeds is a direct test of the respective gods' existence or lack thereof.

On the theory of God, Elijah makes the prediction that if a god exists (is a god), it will light a sacrifice. When this hypothesis is tested in the case of Baal, it fails, supporting the null hypothesis, that we should not regard Baal as existing. When it is applied to Yahweh, it miraculously succeeds, providing strong empirical evidence that Yahweh is real. A good scientist would know that although the experiment has ruled out atheism by phenomenologically proving Yahweh's existence, it has not disproven the existence of Baal. Baal's existence has only failed to be proven, thus far. There are still possible explanations where both Baal exists and he does not light the sacrifice - namely, the case where Baal does not wish to participate or allow himself to be tested. As mentioned before with Gideon, any god's will is an unfortunately uncontrolled variable in these experiments.

However, Elijah disagrees with this analysis and implies that we should take the outcome as evidence that Baal does not exist. The author of 1 Kings does not seem to understand empiricism quite as well as the author of Judges. At the beginning of the story, Elijah asserts, "the god who answers by fire is indeed God." He later jeers to the prophets,

"Surely he is a god; either he is meditating, or he has wandered away, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”

Surely he is a god; therefore, if he fails, he is surely not a god. In other words, Elijah is asserting that if a god is real, then it will light the fire. We can then take the contrapositive, that if a god does not light the fire, then that god is not real.

So, by Elijah's standard of evidence, the god Baal should participate in this challenge on demand, or else we should conclude that Baal is not a god. If Elijah is consistent with his standard, he would say that if Yahweh didn't light the fire, he would not be a god, either. Fortunately for Elijah, Yahweh does light the fire. Then Elijah tells the Israelites to conduct a mass execution, and they do.

“Seize the prophets of Baal; do not let one of them escape.” Then they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Wadi Kishon, and killed them there.

Should we not today follow the standard of evidence given by the Bible and the example set by Elijah? What would happen if we set up alters for different religions and put them to the same test? I think we all know that nothing would happen if the test is fair and no one cheats. But - what if some God did answer? What if it's Muslims vs. Christians, and the Muslim alter wins? Would the Muslims then be justified in seizing the Christians and killing them? By a Biblical standard, yes they would.

Remember, Elijah implies that a god should be willing to participate in the challenge at our beck and call. Therefore, if I call on Yahweh to light a fire for me, and he does not, would it be right for me to mock Yahweh, and say that either he is not a god or has gone for a walk or is sleeping?

Thomas

The most famous example in this theme is that of Doubting Thomas, John 20:24-29. Thomas declares that his standard of evidence for the resurrection is so high that he must see and touch Jesus himself to believe. A week later, Jesus appears and allows Thomas to touch him. Jesus then says that it is better to believe without seeing.

This passage really speaks for itself. Thomas wants direct evidence and the Lord provides. The condemnation of skepticism in Jesus' teaching has always puzzled me. Why would it ever be better to believe without seeing? Are we to be gullible, believing anyone who reports to us supernatural claims? If evidence without seeing is sufficient for belief, then why did Jesus bother to appear anyway? Why doesn't Jesus appear in this way to everyone on Earth? Wouldn't that be great if he did?

The Power of Prayer

Jesus makes testable claims about what kinds of prayers will be answered: all of them. He even says it six times across three gospels - clearly the authors considered this one of his most important teachings.

Mark 11:23-24

Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Matthew 18:19

Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.

Matthew 21:21-22

“Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done. Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive.

John 14:12-14

Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.

John 15:7

If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

John 16:23

Very truly, I tell you, if you ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.

Obviously, these verses fail again and again when put to the test.

The most common apologetic here is that they are not intended to apply to all Christians, but in context they are right next to Jesus' most general commandments and instructions to his followers. For this defense to carry, one must provide a consistent method for differentiating which claims do and do not apply and a justification for that method. It’s also quite problematic and suspect if the only part that doesn’t apply to everyone is also the only part that we would expect to actually be verifiable were it the case.

Another answer is that true Christians would only pray for the things God wants them to pray for, citing that God’s words must be in their prayers per John 15:7. The immediate problem with this is that then prayer becomes nothing but a charade, bringing about only what God intended anyway.

The last response is to say that these verses are just hyperbolic, but with the message being repeated again and again in such clear language, it's difficult to consider plausible anything but a plain reading of the text. I should think that when Christians hear Jesus start off by saying "Very truly I tell you," that whatever comes next would be taken pretty seriously. Or else is one to argue that every time Jesus says, “truly I tell you,” he follows it up with something that literally is not true? That doesn’t sound right.

The Power of Christians

Jesus also makes specific, testable claims about what those who follow him will be able to do.

Mark 16:17-18

“These are the miraculous signs that will accompany believers: They will use the power and authority of my name to force demons out of people. They will speak new languages. They will pick up snakes, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them. They will place their hands on the sick and cure them.

There have been several documented cases in recent history of fundamentalist Christians taking Jesus at his word regarding snake bites and tragically dying for it. If one wants to ask how religion is harmful for society, that is a clear example of how following the word of Christ is dangerous. This is the danger of following a bad theory with failed predictions.

A scientific study found that when Christians pray for people, they are less likely to recover. If I were a Christian, I would find this fact extremely concerning.

Last remarks

I am quite aware of all the verses where the Bible says that God should not be tested. However, given that he does on many occasions provide tests, and especially considering that we are given the standard by Elijah that gods should respond to challenges on demand, this is irrelevant to the point. God can and does provide tests according to the Bible, and it's not unreasonable for me to have the same standard of evidence as these Biblical characters. If I were able to observe any of these things or anything similar in a repeatable, verifiable way, then I would consider it scientific proof of God. The fact that the Bible gives numerous examples of people receiving testable evidence and that such occurrences never happen today should be taken as evidence against its truth.