Today, I am confronted with the difficult task of proving, without a shadow of a doubt, that my faith in God is based in proof. The impregnable barrier of “proving God”, if you will. This problem, I must admit, I cannot answer using the senses and the world given to me. Sure, I can conjure up all sorts of images to bolster a believer's faith in Him, but I aim not to convince the believer. I aim to convince a nonbeliever of the Truth. With my tools limited as they are in this case, my case for Christ is quite impossible. All my conventional tools are useless against a nonbeliever.
Now, a believer, at this moment, would tell me there's plenty of proof, and I would agree. I would say I see god in everything I see or experience. Unfortunately, that reply would only spurn a nonbeliever to further oust me from its influencing circle. Thus, I must eschew the normal Christian responses, and thus attempt to corral its interest through logic and reasoning. As I said, this is nigh on impossible.
It is as if you were to explain the third dimension to a line. Or, if you are reading this as a nonbeliever, it would be like explaining a ghost to Stephen Hawking. He'd just get pissed off.
Thus, I must go at it a different angle. Even still, this is a difficult angle. I must use the human experience to argue God's existence. I must argue how, in the wake of human fallacy, we all need an immovable, unwavering deity to solidify ourselves. At this point, the nonbeliever calls my God a dictator, a controller. In response, I can freely agree. If I do, though, I lose the nonbeliever by the “damning” (note the irony) truth.
Instead, I bring in Free Will, to which the nonbeliever (forthwith called “Jim”) cites the “rat in a track” example. “You cannot be truly free,” Jim says, “if there's a higher deity who's already set everything in place.” At this point, I can see Jim's smirk through the internet. Now, I can again truthfully and happily say, “Yeah, you're right!”, but I’d again lose poor old Jim.
Instead, I reply, “Does the rat know he's being corralled into one decision, one outcome? No!” But, then again, how much more advanced is the scientist running the tests? In much the same way, God's that much more advanced.
(this argument again loses poor old Jim, because I used the G-word. I can't throw God in the equation directly, because that's somewhat of a buzzword. There's no proof for god, remember?)
So I throw a “higher power being much more advanced than us” into the mixing bowl, and it turns a slight brownish color. Jim thinks I’m delusional, and I’m out of a chance to witness to him. I’ll keep trying...