From The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser:
The fact that it takes so much work to defend Christianity is a strong indicator, all by itself, that the Christian God does not exist, or he doesn’t care if we believe.
If God had done a better job of revealing his will, there wouldn’t be much of anything for Christian defenders, or apologists, to do but share the gospel message like evangelists do. But since the God of the Bible was in fact incompetent, Christian apologists are forced to defend their faith against the multitude of objections raised against it. It’s as if God gave Christian defenders permanent job security, while forgetting that there are eternal destinies stake, people who, on some accounts, will suffer conscious torment forever because of it.
When dealing with the problem of divine miscommunication, Christian defense lawyers seek only to get their divine client acquitted no matter what the intellectual or moral cost. Rather than face this evidence that shows their God to be nothing more than the product of ancient people, who didn’t have a clue about civilized matters, these apologists use convoluted legalese to obfuscate and confuse the jury.
Indeed, I would expect much better than the Bible (or any other religious text) from an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god who wants to teach us its nature, how to be good people, and how to achieve eternal happiness/avoid eternal suffering.
But the problem isn’t simply that it’s flawed, vague, and open to interpretation. Even if it were flawless and absolutely clear, it would still be unable on its own to prove its most significant (supernatural) claims. For that, we need undeniable physical evidence, which any god worth following would be able and willing to provide. In fact, any god worth following wouldn’t hide itself from humanity as some bizarre test of faith, especially if it chose to show itself to others in the past.
How have I heard Christians respond? First, that the Bible is sufficient on its own; second, that the actual presence of God and promise of Heaven/threat of Hell would distort our motivations. (The first objection is rather obviously false to anyone who doesn’t buy into it already, but never mind that.) But to object to having infinitely better, indisputable evidence because we already have evidence that is technically sufficient makes no sense. Many more people would be saved if their higher standards for truth were met. This should not be regarded as a game to see just how little it takes for people to follow Jesus, where those who don’t accept the minimum are sentenced to suffering. As for our motivations, the Bible itself already contains the promise of Heaven and threat of Hell and Christians use this carrot and stick to try to convert others all the time. Motivations have been “distorted” for as long as these beliefs have been around; God’s actual interaction with us would make no difference in the matter. In fact, as it stands, those with the most questionable motivations are the Christians who have bought into the Heaven/Hell story, since the rest of us aren’t motivated by what we don’t believe.
More damning than the fact that so many religious apologists are needed is the fact that they do such a terrible job of it even collectively. In any case, no quantity or quality of apologetics can replace hard evidence.