The Proof is in the Perceptual Pudding

        In the spawning days of Christianity, surprisingly, Christians were considered “atheists”:
"In such a world, the gospel was an outrage, and it was perfectly reasonable for its cultured despisers to describe its apostles as ‘atheists.’ Christians were--what could be more obvious?--enemies of society, impious, subversive, and irrational; and it was no more than civic prudence to detest them for refusing to honor the gods of their ancestors . . ." (David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and its Fashionable Enemies 2009). Having experienced the freedoms of unconditional love and forgiveness, new beginnings, a unifying and equalizing community, early followers of Christ challenged the existence of the localized gods by stepping toward another, purported to supersede them all, including the political gods--Jesus Christ.  And the world has not been the same since.
    Of course, Christians are not remotely atheists, yet the above displays the allure of stepping away from what is oppressive and no longer rings true toward that which offers freedom and truth--truth and freedom are comfortable bedfellows.
    And while atheism has always enjoyed some representation, I understand that much fuel was added to its flame (and fame) during the French Revolution.  The church’s heinous neglect of its call,  and instead, its aiding and abetting of the establishment provided much combustible material for an inferno of unbelief, and not only in France either. Citizens sought freedom from an oppressive establishment of which the Church was an enthusiastic participant. Atheism became and still is perceived as a viable solution in response to the misbehaviors, inconsistencies--basically, the sins--of the church. While I am sympathetic with the conclusion of atheism on this basis, it’s not prudent to throw out the babe of theology with the religious bath water.
    Subsequent scientific developments appeared to offer their endorsements of atheism, primarily to those subjectively motivated to encourage a fault-line between theism and science (including some misguided theists)--a misperception still lingering today. Nonetheless, theism and science have enjoyed and continue to enjoy a rich relationship: many renowned scientists were and are theists, including Einstein (not a Christian, mind you, nor a believer in a personal God of any sort).  And, of course, many renowned scientists are atheists. Science is no respecter nor endorser of worldview assumptions: science can certainly challenge and refine theories, but to suggest that in and of itself it proves God or eradicates God is to stretch,  and discredit,  the capacities of science.Therefore, “proof,” or lack thereof, of God is determined by perceptions, how evidences are perceived to confirm atheistic or theistic presuppositions.
    While what follows is not evidence of a personal or revealed God (in which I do believe), for me, it briefly summarizes the evidence to infer a creator.  I do confess to an a priori assumption of God’s existence, which I find a reasonable assumption.
    It is self-evident that consciousness precedes organized, developed matter in our entire human experience: every technology, industrial development, agricultural enhancement, architecture, artistic endeavor--in human creation of any sort, a conscious idea precedes the material reality. In considering a natural world of colossally more vast complexity than anything we’ve manufactured, it’s reasonable to conclude a Genius behind it as well. We enjoy and study an intelligible world, a world we can study and investigate with our minds. For me, intelligibility suggests intelligence. Information--including reproducible information--preceded the material that delivered it rather than the other way around.
    Dead matter developing into living matter and eventually into conscious, self-aware matter entirely on its own strikes me as an untenable position.  Borrowing an illustration from Roy Abraham Varghese: "Think for a minute of a marble table in front of you. Do you think that given a trillion years or infinite time, this table could suddenly or gradually become conscious, aware of its surroundings, aware of its identity the way you are? It is simply inconceivable that this would or could happen. And the same goes for any kind of matter. Once you understand the nature of matter, of mass-energy, you realize that, by its very nature, it could never become ‘aware,’ never ‘think,’ never say ‘I.’ But the atheist position is that, at some point in the history of the universe, the impossible and inconceivable took place" (Varghese and Antony Flew, There Is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind 2007).  I do not find it more convincing to simply endlessly add time--or tables--to increase the likelihood of such an occurrence.
    As to the notion that increasing scientific advancement clears the air of God, it seems that conclusion confuses agent with mechanism as Dr. John Lennox suggests with a rather simplistic illustration, which I appreciate: Just because I continually learn more and more regarding how my car works, the existence of Henry Ford does not become consequentially questionable. (I'm presently reading Lennox's God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? I'm unsure if that analogy appears in this text, however. I know the source is correct, but I'm no longer sure of the article.)
    Now, I’m sure atheists would be quick to suggest to me that they find God just as, if not a more, untenable option to the above unlikelihood.  That’s fair. I still would suggest that an uncaused God is a more reasonable inference than a uncaused accidentally, incredibly complex, and conscious world.
    Yet further, I would suggest that science does not give rise to atheism--something else does.  And science does not give rise to theism--something else does. Candor about what motivates our worldview conclusions is healthy for all of us.