In contrast

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved...for...there will be deliverance among the survivors whom the Lord calls (Joel 2:32) 

I remember at university it was quite fashionable to snipe at Christians and their beliefs. There were certain arguments that were thought to be trump cards in the hand of the atheist. One was a rather childish version of the problem of evil along the lines of, 'if I were in charge I'd do a better job of organising the universe for good', usually from a slightly drunk and ethically dubious individual who clearly couldn't. Oddly the more common one today, i.e. 'science has disproved religion', was not so common then, probably because most of the scientists seemed to be Christians which undermined it rather. Another was even briefer, 'the Bible is full of contradictions'. 

The way the question is set up is often the trick,  like Hume's rejection of miracles: because by  definition a miracle as something that cannot happen, miracles cannot happen (well, duh). The challenge we have to faith is the problem of suffering not the problem of evil, and suffering is personal and relational not philosophical. God's people may give up on him when they suffer but that's between them and God. No atheist has a right to demand it. The problem of evil is different and best left to the philosophers, though quite frankly the atheists have as much trouble with evil as anyone else. I mean even accepting that such a thing as evil might exist suggests there is more to life that matter and motion. 

And science can't actually 'prove' or 'disprove' anything, as it's based on evidence and hypothesis. The question is whether science provides a complete explanation for the world around us without God. While I accept this is open to debate, the simple answer is of course not. Science by definition cannot explain anything not quantifiable, which cuts out most of the things we really value in life, like love and justice. Anyway Descartes, the father of modern science, decided he needed to prove the existence of God before he could do any science at all, and he had a point.

I really thought the one on contradictions in the Bible had gone away and then a number weeks ago (before lockdown) I had it presented to me twice, once by a Christian. The first, slightly shallow thought I have is 'have you read it?'. Often people tell you the Bible is full of contradictions and then can't give you any. The second, slightly more worthy thought is, 'have you ever thought about it?', because I find it is in the tension between the contradictions that we find the truth about God. God is a God of both love and justice at the same time. Without one the other makes no sense. Just look at the cross. As an act of love or justice alone it seems non-sensical, but as an act expressing both it reveals a God of holiness and compassion beyond anything we can understand or express. 

Here, in Joel, God is a God who calls the wayward to himself in spite of their rejection of him, and God is a God who waits for us to return home of our own free will. We call on him freely and he calls us inescapably. Both are true for colour is found in the mix of shades, light is found in the joining of colours. God is not a set of propositions to be accepted but a person to be worshipped and enjoyed. Of course our historical experience of him will appear contradictory, for we are but human and stuck in time. God, who is beyond all that, is not.

The dark and light of a moon in the trees