A man raising from the dead was insufficient? Perhaps these folks would consider it if God would come and perform several miracles on demand for them?
Faith goes beyond the capabilities of human thought.
In addition, where's the missing link? (that one always gets the scientists) ;-)
Here are a few examples:
1-Science cannot prove that you love someone.
2-Science cannot prove that something is beautiful.
3-Science cannot prove that something is funny.
4-Science cannot prove that you miss someone.
5-Science cannot prove that something is noble or inspirational.
6-Science cannot prove why something makes you sad.
7-Science cannot prove what makes us happy.
There are lots of things that we believe in life that science cannot adequately explain. Clearly we do not say to our loved ones, "I don't love you because love can't be proven."
So it's probably a bad idea to disbelieve in God just because we lack air-tight scientific proof of His existence.
That's my experience.
That's a challenging question, but appropriate for a Sunday.
There are two books that have been very helpful to me in my own search. While this isn't a specific answer, they might be helpful to you in clarifying your faith and therefore at some point helpful to your friend as well.
They are: "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis, and "Letters From A Skeptic" by Dr. Gregory A Boyd and Edward K. Boyd.
"Letters From A Skeptic" takes a father's (the skeptic) letters to his son (the Christian) and the son's responses and does a neat job of addressing the questions a lot of people have about the existence and relevance of God. It is easy to read.
"Mere Christianity" was a bit tougher for me to get through because Lewis' sentences are somewhat convoluted and take a lot of "thinking through." But I love his writing. It just takes me longer to read him.
Lastly, I haven't found it productive to get into arguments over the existence or relevance of God, so I'd stay away from discussions on evolution. Not because I'm afraid of them, but because they tend to get both participants distracted from the initial point, which is, "Is there a God?", If so, "What is his nature?" and "How does that relate to me?"
Warmest regards,
Endeavor
my favorite, drawn fron aquinas and kant, has to do with the fact that we have a sense of right and wrong, of goodness and badness. this is not based on that which is easiest or that which produces specific results, but for some other reason. if there is no god, what would it be? (there are arguments to refute this, but they do not hold up.)
there is also, again from aquinas (and following through thomas jefferson and indeed clarence thomas), the notion of "natural law," as in "we hold these truths to be self-evident." the idea that there are metaphysical laws that are as inviolate as the physical laws of the universe demands a higher order of organization -- strong evidence that all this didn't just happen.
a little more difficult to argue for, and the locus of most religious dispute, is the relatively minor points of just what god's up to. to the extent that we might learn what active role god takes, we encounter a whole lot of background noise, extending from the tinfoil-mitred revelation-thumpers to the latter-day seers of many sorts. but there is something of which we can be certain, and that is that prayer does work. i have seen it time and again, as would your friend were she to watch for awhile. this isn't to say that god is some kind of cosmic santa claus delibering everything for which we ask -- bill buckley famously wrote that "certainly god answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is no," which is i think accurate but a little stark. i much prefer the formulation that alan keyes uses, "sometimes god does the right thing in his way rather than my way."
while i do not take the stock that many do in the bible (there has been way too much opportunity for it to have been corrupted over the millenia), there is one thing in it that i think cannot be doubted: "seek, and ye shall find." if your friend genuinely seeks god, she will not be disappointed.
dep
I don't know how I know. I just know it. I don't need any scientist to explain it to me. I know.
There isn't any quick comeback that is effective in answering a question involving deeper meaning; it can however be the topic of an ongoing discussion. That can be good too.
First, there is the evidence from the complexity of even the simplest organisms. Our entire molecular and genetic makeup is in effect information, and it has yet to be proved that there can be an ultimate source of information outside of some intelligent agent. The probability of this seems to indicate intelligent design, which supports (though it cannot irrefutably prove) the existence of a Creator.
Second, there is the evidence from the uniform cross-cultural experiences very different people claim to have when their lives were changed by Christ. This involves a degree of subjectivity and is imperfect also. But I think anyone who has an open mind will find such testimony compelling.
Third, there are the arguments in support of the reliability of the Bible. The smallest, easiest to read volume that defends Christ and Scriptural reliability is Josh McDowell's "More Than a Carpenter," but there are many lengthier volumes than that one.
I wish I had more time to go into detail. But for every flaw she can point to in the evidence for God, it is equally easy to point to the flaws in citing the "proof" of evolution as "proof" there is no God.
The universe -- based on established scientific laws -- had to be created. The universe could not have created itself, that would violate the first law of thermodynamics. Spontaneous generation -- matter creating itself -- has never been observed.
Nor could the universe have always been here. The second law of thermodynamics indicates the entropy is increasing and the available energy in the universe is decreasing. The universe is going from order to disoder. Eventually, given enough time, everything in the universe will die. All scientific laws indicate that infinite life can not exist in the universe. Thus, the universe could not have always been here or all available energy would be consumed and everything in the universe would dead.
The universe could not have created itself and it could have always been here. That leads one to only one logical conclusion -- the universe had to be created by a supernatural creator. The intelligent design and complexity of the universe also indicates a Creator and not something that has occurred by random chance.
Book "In the Beginning - Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood"
Creation Science (www.creationscience.com)
You can read the book online, buy a printed copy or CD.
Equally important is an open mind and a positive attitude. Again, scripture tells us that his existence can be known to those who, desiring God, look around and realize that "ever since the world began...his invisible attributes have been visible to the eye of reason, in the things he has made" (Romans 1:20 REB)