A lot of the dispute between atheists and Christians over the existence of God, the inerrancy of Scripture and other theological issues are sometimes a mistakenly invested conversation on objectivity/subjectivity and the evidence. For instance, we often hear from atheists that if there were evidence for the existence of God or what have you, then by virtue of their epistemic standards they would accept the conclusion that God exists. Unfortunately, no evidence either (1) has been provided to them by Christians or (2) exists.
It’s not so much an issue of trying to undermine (1) and (2) but rather show how those two conditions are misleading in the conversation. If an atheist concedes that he could convert to Christianity if only the evidence were substantial and pointed towards that direction, then I would point out here that the atheist – even if he were to convert – is not displaying a matter of conversion from atheism to Christianity on the basis of the evidence.
The debate should not center around the evidence more than it should the heart. For a human individual to make that decisive declaration that “Jesus is Lord” he has not jumped from one conclusion to another; he has rather had a transformation of the heart.
Christians should not only utilize but take note of this transformation in the Gospel conversation. I would personally say that taking the (object) facts and presenting them to an individual subject can have its merits for the Holy Spirit’s using, but that mere presentation can often have very little consideration for the (spiritual) condition of the person.