That article makes some excellent points. In debates with non-believers we must always challenge their premises. They frequently attempt to paint the playing field to their advantge and require Christians to play by one set of rules and them another. It reminds me of the application of the TOS.

On another but related note, I find it very revealing that no matter what evidence is presented, and there is a mountain of it, I have never met one single non-believer that will even acknowledge that any single piece of evidence, even in the slightest way, supports the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. That speaks loudly their "search for truth"  is in reality a "search for" reasons to support and confirm their pre-determined worldview.

Even if one took for example the most terrible person in the world, there could be found some evidence that they were not that bad. Yet when it comes to things of God, they will not acknowledge even one single piece of evidence as supportive of His existence. On the other hand, they will believe in black holes, parallel universes, certain sub-atomic particles, etc. that they have not seen or probably never will see. This quote speaks to that.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door." Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard University

"Now the real truth comes out. It's not that the evidence supports Darwinism—in fact, according to Lewontin and our own common sense, Darwinist explanations are "counterintuitive." The real truth is that the Darwinists have defined science in such a way that the only possible answer is Darwinism. Any other definition would, God forbid, allow God to get his "foot in the door"!" Source: I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist

For me, this just confirms that it is not because non-believers can't see the evidence of God's existence, it is because they won't, for to do so entails the reality and responsibility of submission to Him and His revealed Word which tells of things to come. In my opinion, the "lack of evidence" argument is but a smokescreen.

---

Disclaimer: To anyone reading this post, the above post should be taken literally based on what I actually wrote, not on what one thinks I wrote. Please do not speculate about what you thought I meant when I wrote it, or read something into it that I did not write, or infer that it was intended to "offend" some hypothetical person sitting in front of a hypothetical computer somewhere in the world. I can only be responsible for what I have written, not any one of thousands of inferences that one can make by connecting non-existent dots, whatever their motive for doing that may be.

I respect the right of others to believe whatever they choose. Please respect my right to do so as well. While others may differ, I do not accept the postmodern notion that truth is unknowable or that absolute truth does not exist. I believe that both of those statements are statements of absolute truth, and therefore self-refuting. That being said, I respect the rights of others to believe differently regarding this issue.

Thank you.