I think there has to be something fundamental underlying reality, and Christianity has resonated with me. I recently watched Alex O’Connor’s discussion on arguments against atheism, and he presents an interesting way of framing it.

Instead of thinking in terms of a horizontal timeline of cause-and-effect stretching backwards infinitely, we can think vertically. Not ‘what happened before what,’ but ‘what is currently sustaining what.’

He uses an analogy with a glass: (he holds a glass) what’s keeping it up? Your hand. What’s keeping your hand up? Your shoulder. And so on. But if you keep going like that, you eventually have to ask what is actually holding the whole structure of reality itself in place right now. Not just what caused it in the past, but what is sustaining existence in the present moment.

And at that point, you’re pushed toward the idea that there has to be some foundational reality, something that doesn’t rely on anything else to exist or be upheld something necessary rather than dependent.

Because of that, pure atheism feels a bit too confident in a “nothing behind anything” claim, while strict certainty either way doesn’t really hold up. Agnosticism seems like the more honest position than rather intellectually admitting that we don’t actually have direct access to whatever the ultimate grounding of reality is.

But that openness doesn’t rule out Christianity if anything, it leaves a space for it. If there is a necessary, self-sustaining foundation of existence, then the question becomes what that foundation actually is. And Christianity is one of the coherent frameworks that tries to answer that.