This is a fun thought experiment. Am I able to argue well that the Judeo-Christian God exists? Imagine me debating Christopher Hitchens, me on the right behind a podium, he on the left.
Hitchens begins as usual, if you have listened to him, protesting “God” as a sadistic tyrant if He permitted suffering, commanded acts like circumcision, and instituted a religious authority with a history of fascism. He would end by mocking anyone who would still then believe in the God of the Bible as stupid, deluded, and masochistically wanting spiritual slavery. Some would clap and then I’d take the podium…
I would admit for the sake of argument I could be wrong if Hitchens can give a reasonable and intellectually honest argument with sufficient evidence, but expect he needs to admit to the audience the same on his end, that he is open to seeing flaws in atheism and truth in theism.
I would then concede all his points. If one does not believe in the Bible as true, or a biblical world view, everything he says would be reasonable. A deistic view of God as merely existing does not answer his objections. I would also concede that atheistic secular humanism is not the same as communist dictatorship, and that atheists know the moral law just as the theist does based on human nature and reason distinct from faith.
I would then turn toward Hitchens and make eye contact, and say that while theism and the biblical God are irreconcilable to atheism, that if we can agree upon that yet still find agreement on which to collaborate in fields like science, philosophy, or political policy, then hopefully we can find a common bridge in which to debate theism vs. atheism that doesn’t devolve into a stupid exchange of ideologies. But that if we cannot keep it on the level of logic, I am prepared to be polemical if necessary, but will first exhaust myself to avoid that level of debate.
Next, I would outline the problem, that for the atheist to believe in the biblical God, several issues have to be resolved to cross the wide gulf from one position to the other. I would then argue that modern science cannot be the only measure of what is true including about the ultimate origins of the cosmos or human race, that if his main basis for atheism is material science, then it is impossible to have a bridge from one side to the other in exchanging ideas in a debate. I would then ask if he is willing to accept philosophy, history, collective human experience, and personal experience as legitimate source of knowledge that might address the question of God’s existence.
Hawkins likely would then make a joke at the expense of theism, conceded that other subjects have their limited place, but that modern science has shown that religion is false by showing natural explanations for traditional religious beliefs that add rendered medieval superstitions holding back human progress. He would argue science shows that belief in God is irrational.
I would then step back up to the podium and argue it is impossible to put science above philosophy since one is about material facts and the other about truth and wisdom which are superior, but that I will operate from a primacy of science framework. I would then say that if sensory observation and the scientific method are the most reliable, that leaves us examining miracles more than cosmological or moral arguments, since miracles have to be examined by science itself, and if valid sources of truth, point to a supernatural reality including God. Claiming science is the main measure, the atheist paints themselves into a corner in which theism is more provable by examining certain miracles, especially Catholic miracles, like the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, Eucharistic miracles, and supernatural occurrences during exorcisms. I would present the evidence from investigations, and logical lay out how if these miracles are true, then belief in the biblical God, Christ, and the Church is reasonable.
Hitchens would step back up, make a joke against relying upon miracles instead of reason and then attempt to superficially dismantle these miracles, that the Guadalupe image was painting and fraud, that the Miracle of the Sun mass hysteria, that Eucharistic miracles are frauds citing a proven example. and that supernatural events during exorcism are either explained by psychiatry or frauds.
I would then concede that I could likely believe as Hitchens does if it were not for miracles, and that when a claim of a miracle is made I am very skeptical until shown otherwise, as does the Catholic Church investigating possible miracles. I would then define a miracle as God causing an action that goes above the laws of nature, that would be otherwise impossible by means of natural laws by themselves. I would then focus on the image of Guadalupe, laying out how scientific investigation concluded there is absolutely no material substance on the cloth that causes the image. Only later was the image made more ornate with paint. I would then ask Hitchens if he could see the evidence, and if he saw that there was no natural pigment, would he be open to the possibility it is miraculous?
I would expect him to say something sarcastic that it better be overwhelming evidence excluding a natural explanation, and then object to a God hiding themselves from humanity making them chase after miracles just to know he exists. He may then try and steer the debate back to his satirical exposure of the hypocrisies of religion, citing examples of fraudulent miracles and mystical experiences, playing on human psychology.
I would respond by conceding that claims to the miraculous yes should be held in skepticism because of the reasons he is giving, but in the spirit of wonder and curiosity that animate modern science, there must be reasonable criteria to determine when a miracle occurs, and that absolute materialism and empiricism cannot require absolute exclusion of natural explanations or else the argument over God devolves into pure scientist vs. a fideistic belief in the supernatural without reference to science. I would reference again the 15th century image of Guadalupe and ask what evidence would at the very least lead him to believe it is a significant possibility.
At that point, he may insist that all known natural causes of such virtual images on a cloth must be reasonably excluded, to which I would say common sense and history tells us that, unless aliens visited the Mexicans with an advanced technology to make the image, which is almost certainly not true, then no natural cause caused it since Mexicans did not have that kind of technology, and even with the most advanced technologies today it would be very difficult to create in a sophisticated lab.
Hawkins would likely then go back to his diatribe against superstition and the need for religious people to embrace rational science as something in opposition to faith.
This thought experiment already shows how easily these kinds of debates fall short when one side or both is just asserting talking points, Trying to convince an atheist to go from theism to biblical belief, to Christianity, to Catholicism is next to impossible, but still possible.
In my closing statement I would argue that historically rational proofs for God are recognized in academia as coming from philosophy, but that I had conceded for argument the atheist position of scientism, that if cosmological and abstract inferences of a Creator from Creation are deemed inferior to the methods of modern science, then that leaves scientific investigation into potentially Supra-natural events as the common medium for debating the supernatural.
I would then say the atheists claims are valid only if we accept their epistemology or theory of knowledge as true, and exclude the possibility that miracles and fulfilled prophesies verify the Bible’s credibility. I would then distinguish between an intellectually honest vs. dishonest atheist, in that the former is sincerely open to evidence of the supernatural, including a reasonable scientific investigation into miracles open to the possibility that when conducted properly, could hypothetically demonstrate a supernatural cause.
I would then say there are as many combinations of arguments for or against God as there are people making them, and then give a brief testimony how I uniquely came to certainty about the biblical God, being raised devout Catholic going to Catholic schools, studying seriously in a catechism class for two years in high school before deciding to be confirmed, taught by our very learned priest, and having to study the claims of atheism, secularism, and scientism pushed on us at college to defend my faith, and then realizing the central, most difficult problems that divide the anti-religious from believers.
The problem is how we know reality, if we can in the first place, that science cannot be the sole method of knowing reality, that the paradoxes of the Christian God allowing suffering melding hell cannot be resolved through reading alone, and that miracles are the most obvious evidence for God that would then lead to considering Christ and the Church.
I would finish by answering simply Hawkins objections. The Christian God allows suffering for our redemption. Accepting His absolute authority isn’t slavery, it is a royal relationship where God gives us one of the greatest gifts of free will by which we have a loving relationship with Him. Once one has faith based in part due to miracles, then by means of theology, which with philosophy is greater than science, one can logically resolve every objection raised by atheism and scientific materialism.