Atheism and the Existence of God

Introduction

Goal of these meetings

To whet your appetite to want to look forward for the resons to defend the hope you have within you.

Not to make you a philosopher or a professional apologist. I can’t make you what I am not myself.

Goal of these meetings

To whet your appetite to want to look forward for the resons to defend the hope you have within you.

What is Apologetics?

Not to make you a philosopher or a professional apologist. I can’t make you what I am not myself.

What is Apologetics?

Apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia, which means a defense, as in a court of law. Christian apologetics involves making a case for the truth of the Christian faith

We are not to have blind faith

Christians are commanded to know what they believe and why they believe it . They are commanded to give answers to those who ask ( ) , and to demolish arguments against the Christian faith ( ) . Since God is reasonable ( ) and wants us to use our reason , Christians don’t get brownie points for being lazy in this regard.

We are not to have blind faith

Scriptural Support

Christians are commanded to know what they believe and why they believe it . They are commanded to give answers to those who ask ( ) , and to demolish arguments against the Christian faith ( ) . Since God is reasonable ( ) and wants us to use our reason , Christians don’t get brownie points for being lazy in this regard.

Look at ; ; ;

Scriptural Support

1 Peter 3:15 ESV

but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

Look at ; ; ;

1 Peter 3:15 ESV

but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

2 Corinthians 10:4–5 ESV

For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,

Isaiah 1:18 ESV

“Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.

2 Corinthians 10:4–5 ESV

For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,

Jude 3 ESV

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Why Aologetics is Needed

Isaiah 1:18 ESV

“Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.

Jude 3 ESV

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Secularists are bent on eliminating religion from the public square. The so - called New Atheists , represented by people like Sam Harris , Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens, are even more aggressive. They want to exterminate religious belief entirely

Why Aologetics is Needed

Belief in a sort of generic God is still the norm, but belief in Jesus Christ is now politically incorrect. How many films coming out of Hollywood portray Christians in a positive way? How many times do we instead find Christians portrayed as shallow, bigoted, hypocrites?

Secularists are bent on eliminating religion from the public square. The so - called New Atheists , represented by people like Sam Harris , Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens, are even more aggressive. They want to exterminate religious belief entirely

If Christians could be trained to provide solid evidence for what they believe and good answers to unbelievers’ questions and objections, then the perception of Christians would slowly change.

If you know the answers, then you’re not afraid to go into the lion’s den — in fact, you’ll enjoy it!

A Christian minister at Stanford University recently told me that 40 percent of Christian high school students in church youth groups will quit church involvement altogether after graduation

So before we share with people evidence for God’s existence, we may need to help them see why it matters in the first place . Otherwise they just won’t care . By showing them the implications of atheism, we can help them to see that the question of God’s existence is so much more than merely adding another item to our inventory of things — rather it’s an issue that lies at the very center of life’s meaning. It therefore touches each of us at the core of his being .

What Apologetics is not

Belief in a sort of generic God is still the norm, but belief in Jesus Christ is now politically incorrect. How many films coming out of Hollywood portray Christians in a positive way? How many times do we instead find Christians portrayed as shallow, bigoted, hypocrites?

Notice the attitude we’re supposed to have when giving our defense: We should be gentle and respectful. Apologetics is also not the art of making somebody else sorry that you’re a Christian! We can present a defense of the Christian faith without becoming defensive. We can present arguments for Christianity without becoming argumentative.

If Christians could be trained to provide solid evidence for what they believe and good answers to unbelievers’ questions and objections, then the perception of Christians would slowly change.

We should never quarrel with a nonbeliever about our faith. That only makes people mad and drives them away

If you have good reasons for what you believe and know the answers to the unbeliever’s questions or objections, there’s just no reason to get hot under the collar.

Concerning Trends

Recent Studies:

In this survey of theological beliefs, researchers asked self-professing Christians to respond to a series of statements related to classic, historic Christian doctrine. In every answer offered related to these theological beliefs, young people between the ages of 18 and 34 consistently held heretical views at a higher percentage than older respondents. Young people who identify themselves as Christians, are far more likely to hold views that aren’t Christian.

If you know the answers, then you’re not afraid to go into the lion’s den — in fact, you’ll enjoy it!

The majority of teenagers are incredibly inarticulate about their faith, religious beliefs and practices, and its place in their lives. The de facto dominant religion among contemporary U.S. teenagers is what they call ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’: A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth; God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions; the central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself; God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem; and good people go to heaven when they die.

About 25% of college professors are professing atheists or agnostics (5-7% of the general population is atheistic or agnostic). Only 6% of college professors said the Bible is “the actual word of God”. 51% described it as “an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts.” 75% believe religion does not belong in public schools.

The percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christians has dropped by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in an equally massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Over the same period, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated – describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – has jumped more than six points, from 16.1% to 22.8%.

Students leave faith behind primarily because of intellectual doubt and skepticism (page 89). “Why did they fall away from the faith in which they were raised?” This was an open-ended question there were no multiple-choice answers. 32% said they left faith behind because of intellectual skepticism or doubt. (“It didn’t make any sense anymore.” “Some stuff is too far-fetched for me to believe.” “I think scientifically and there is no real proof.” “Too many questions that can’t be answered.”)

Data from the Southern Baptist Convention indicates that they are currently losing 70-88% of their youth after their freshman year in college. 70% of teenagers involved in church youth groups stop attending church within two years of their high school graduation.

Atheism Worldview

A Christian minister at Stanford University recently told me that 40 percent of Christian high school students in church youth groups will quit church involvement altogether after graduation

So before we share with people evidence for God’s existence, we may need to help them see why it matters in the first place . Otherwise they just won’t care . By showing them the implications of atheism, we can help them to see that the question of God’s existence is so much more than merely adding another item to our inventory of things — rather it’s an issue that lies at the very center of life’s meaning. It therefore touches each of us at the core of his being .

Why it is Attractive

What Apologetics is not

Notice the attitude we’re supposed to have when giving our defense: We should be gentle and respectful. Apologetics is also not the art of making somebody else sorry that you’re a Christian! We can present a defense of the Christian faith without becoming defensive. We can present arguments for Christianity without becoming argumentative.

Why it is Attractive

We should never quarrel with a nonbeliever about our faith. That only makes people mad and drives them away

If you have good reasons for what you believe and know the answers to the unbeliever’s questions or objections, there’s just no reason to get hot under the collar.

Concerning Trends

Why it is Attractive

Recent Studies:

No need to be held accountable to any moral standards or religious doctrine

In this survey of theological beliefs, researchers asked self-professing Christians to respond to a series of statements related to classic, historic Christian doctrine. In every answer offered related to these theological beliefs, young people between the ages of 18 and 34 consistently held heretical views at a higher percentage than older respondents. Young people who identify themselves as Christians, are far more likely to hold views that aren’t Christian.

Autonomous = self law

The majority of teenagers are incredibly inarticulate about their faith, religious beliefs and practices, and its place in their lives. The de facto dominant religion among contemporary U.S. teenagers is what they call ‘Moralistic Therapeutic Deism’: A God exists who created and orders the world and watches over human life on earth; God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions; the central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself; God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem; and good people go to heaven when they die.

Implications of Atheism

If God does not exist , our lives are ultimately meaningless, valueless, and purposeless despite how desperately we cling to the illusion to the contrary

About 25% of college professors are professing atheists or agnostics (5-7% of the general population is atheistic or agnostic). Only 6% of college professors said the Bible is “the actual word of God”. 51% described it as “an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts.” 75% believe religion does not belong in public schools.

If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life

If there is no God, then life itself becomes meaningless. Man and the universe are without ultimate significance. No Ultimate Value If life ends at the grave, then it makes no ultimate difference how you live.

As the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky put it : “ If there is no immortality … then all things are permitted.

However, If God does exist, then life is meaningful. Moreover , it seems to me that even if the evidence for these two options were absolutely equal , a rational person ought to choose to believe in God. That is , if the evidence is equal, it seems to me positively irrational to prefer death, futility, and destruction to life, meaningfulness, and happiness. As Pascal said , we have nothing to lose and infinity to gain

The percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christians has dropped by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in an equally massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Over the same period, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated – describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – has jumped more than six points, from 16.1% to 22.8%.

Law of Non-Contradiction

Students leave faith behind primarily because of intellectual doubt and skepticism (page 89). “Why did they fall away from the faith in which they were raised?” This was an open-ended question there were no multiple-choice answers. 32% said they left faith behind because of intellectual skepticism or doubt. (“It didn’t make any sense anymore.” “Some stuff is too far-fetched for me to believe.” “I think scientifically and there is no real proof.” “Too many questions that can’t be answered.”)

Data from the Southern Baptist Convention indicates that they are currently losing 70-88% of their youth after their freshman year in college. 70% of teenagers involved in church youth groups stop attending church within two years of their high school graduation.

Law of Non-Contradiction

Atheism Worldview

Why it is Attractive

ALL religions claim they have the exclusive truth

No need to be held accountable to any moral standards or religious doctrine

Autonomous = self law

The Law of Noncontradiction is a self - evident first principle of thought that says contradictory claims cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense. In short, it says that the opposite of true is false. We all know this law intuitively, and use it every day.

We should certainly honor the principle that all people are equal in God’s sight and entitled to equal protection of the laws as well as fair, courteous, and respectful treatment.

But there is no moral imperative that we adopt the notion that all belief systems are equally true . There is a moral imperative that we do not.

Implications of Atheism

Tolerance now means that you’re supposed to accept every belief as true! In a religious context , this is known as religious pluralism — the belief that all religions are true. There are a number of problems with this new definition of tolerance

many of our churches have become corrupted with these misguided notions of tolerance and pluralism. They have allowed their theology to be diluted and have permitted the authority of Scripture to be denigrated in favor of society’s “evolved” ideas about morality

If God does not exist , our lives are ultimately meaningless, valueless, and purposeless despite how desperately we cling to the illusion to the contrary

“All truth is relative” (Is that a relative truth?) ; “There are no absolutes” ( Are you absolutely sure?)

If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life

Truth transcends cultures

If there is no God, then life itself becomes meaningless. Man and the universe are without ultimate significance. No Ultimate Value If life ends at the grave, then it makes no ultimate difference how you live.

As the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky put it : “ If there is no immortality … then all things are permitted.

However, If God does exist, then life is meaningful. Moreover , it seems to me that even if the evidence for these two options were absolutely equal , a rational person ought to choose to believe in God. That is , if the evidence is equal, it seems to me positively irrational to prefer death, futility, and destruction to life, meaningfulness, and happiness. As Pascal said , we have nothing to lose and infinity to gain

Beliefs do not change facts

Law of Non-Contradiction

ALL religions claim they have the exclusive truth

The self-defeating of agnosticism and skepticism

The Law of Noncontradiction is a self - evident first principle of thought that says contradictory claims cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense. In short, it says that the opposite of true is false. We all know this law intuitively, and use it every day.

We should certainly honor the principle that all people are equal in God’s sight and entitled to equal protection of the laws as well as fair, courteous, and respectful treatment.

Believe truth can’t be known, but yet claim their view is true

But there is no moral imperative that we adopt the notion that all belief systems are equally true . There is a moral imperative that we do not.

Tolerance now means that you’re supposed to accept every belief as true! In a religious context , this is known as religious pluralism — the belief that all religions are true. There are a number of problems with this new definition of tolerance

many of our churches have become corrupted with these misguided notions of tolerance and pluralism. They have allowed their theology to be diluted and have permitted the authority of Scripture to be denigrated in favor of society’s “evolved” ideas about morality

All truth is relative (Is that a relative truth?)

Proof of God

Abductive Reasoning

This form of reasoning requires investigators to consider cumulative collections of evidence as they compare competing explanations to determine which , if any , of these explanations is reasonable

Proof of God

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Abductive Reasoning

Whatever begins to exist, has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause

If God does not exist , our lives are ultimately meaningless, valueless, and purposeless despite how desperately we cling to the illusion to the contrary

If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life

The kalam cosmological argument thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful Personal Creator of the universe

Abductive Reasoning

Are the Big Bang and the Bible in agreement?

This form of reasoning requires investigators to consider cumulative collections of evidence as they compare competing explanations to determine which , if any , of these explanations is reasonable

Did the Universe have a beginning?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The standard big bang model predicts an absolute beginning of the universe. If this model is correct, then we have amazing scientific confirmation of the second premise of the kalam cosmological argument

Whatever begins to exist, has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause

The kalam cosmological argument thus gives us powerful grounds for believing in the existence of a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful Personal Creator of the universe

Albert Einstein’s General Relativity 1916

Are the Big Bang and the Bible in agreement?

(Einstein held pantheistic views (God in all)

Did the Universe have a beginning?

When Albert Einstein tried to apply his general theory of relativity to the cosmos in 1916, he found these assumptions inaccurate. His own calculations indicated the universe was dynamic (either expanding or contracting). Einstein’s calculations suggested the universe was not eternally old and unchanging . This conclusion was shocking and unpopular at the time because it implied the universe must have had a beginning from which it was expanding.

The standard big bang model predicts an absolute beginning of the universe. If this model is correct, then we have amazing scientific confirmation of the second premise of the kalam cosmological argument

Law of Thermodynamics

Albert Einstein’s General Relativity 1916

These astronomical observations were consistent with the second law of thermodynamics . This well - established scientific law said the quantity of energy within a closed , isolated system ( like the universe ) remains the same, though the amount of usable energy deteriorates gradually over time .

(Einstein held pantheistic views (God in all)

When Albert Einstein tried to apply his general theory of relativity to the cosmos in 1916, he found these assumptions inaccurate. His own calculations indicated the universe was dynamic (either expanding or contracting). Einstein’s calculations suggested the universe was not eternally old and unchanging . This conclusion was shocking and unpopular at the time because it implied the universe must have had a beginning from which it was expanding.

Imagine walking into a room and observing a windup toy police car . The longer you watch it roll , the slower it moves . You realize the car is winding down — that is , the amount of usable energy is decreasing . If the universe were infinitely old , our cosmos should have run out of usable energy by now.

Law of Thermodynamics

Ex Nihilo

Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing". At this moment of origin, commonly referred to as a cosmic singularity , all space , time , and matter came into existence from nothing.

These astronomical observations were consistent with the second law of thermodynamics . This well - established scientific law said the quantity of energy within a closed , isolated system ( like the universe ) remains the same, though the amount of usable energy deteriorates gradually over time .

Imagine walking into a room and observing a windup toy police car . The longer you watch it roll , the slower it moves . You realize the car is winding down — that is , the amount of usable energy is decreasing . If the universe were infinitely old , our cosmos should have run out of usable energy by now.

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Either no one created something out of nothing, or someone created something out of nothing

Who made God and the Law of Causality

Ex Nihilo

The universe could not have caused itself, since something would have to exist to cause its own existence . But what exactly was this external causal “ suspect ” ? What could account for the beginning of all space , time , and matter? Could the cause of the universe also have a cause?

Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing". At this moment of origin, commonly referred to as a cosmic singularity , all space , time , and matter came into existence from nothing.

When God is suggested as the Beginner, atheists are quick to ask the age - old question , “ Then who made God ? If everything needs a cause, then God needs a cause too! ”

The Law of Causality does not say that everything needs a cause. It says that everything that comes to be needs a cause. God did not come to be. No one made God. He is unmade. As an eternal being, God did not have a beginning, so he didn’t need a cause

Why is there something instead of nothing?

In his Metaphysics, Aristotle went on to argue that there must be a First Uncaused Cause, which is God — a living , intelligent, immaterial, eternal, and most good being who is the source of order in the cosmos

The “Big Banger” and infinite regress

Either no one created something out of nothing, or someone created something out of nothing

If the cause of the universe is also caused, we face the dilemma of infinite regress

An infinite regress arises when we ask what are the justifications for the reasons themselves. If the reasons count as knowledge, they must themselves be justified with reasons for the reasons, and so on, ad infinitum.

Who made God and the Law of Causality

If it is an impersonal cause , it produced the universe out of necessity. Impersonal causes such as gravity cannot make decisions ; they simply act and cause reactions inevitably .

The universe could not have caused itself, since something would have to exist to cause its own existence . But what exactly was this external causal “ suspect ” ? What could account for the beginning of all space , time , and matter? Could the cause of the universe also have a cause?

If , on the other hand, the first cause of the universe is a personal causal force, the universe may be here as the result of a choice . Personal agents can choose ; impersonal causes must simply respond to prior events.

When God is suggested as the Beginner, atheists are quick to ask the age - old question , “ Then who made God ? If everything needs a cause, then God needs a cause too! ”

The Law of Causality does not say that everything needs a cause. It says that everything that comes to be needs a cause. God did not come to be. No one made God. He is unmade. As an eternal being, God did not have a beginning, so he didn’t need a cause

In his Metaphysics, Aristotle went on to argue that there must be a First Uncaused Cause, which is God — a living , intelligent, immaterial, eternal, and most good being who is the source of order in the cosmos

The “Big Banger” and infinite regress

From scientific evidence alone, we know the First Cause must be:

The “Big Banger” and infinite regress

self - existent , timeless , non - spatial , and immaterial (since the First Cause created time , space , and matter , the First Cause must be outside of time , space , and matter) .

If the cause of the universe is also caused, we face the dilemma of infinite regress

An infinite regress arises when we ask what are the justifications for the reasons themselves. If the reasons count as knowledge, they must themselves be justified with reasons for the reasons, and so on, ad infinitum.

In other words , he is without limits , or infinite ; unimaginably powerful , to create the entire universe out of nothing ; supremely intelligent , to design the universe with such incredible precision; personal , in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time - space - material universe ( an impersonal force has no ability to make choices)

If it is an impersonal cause , it produced the universe out of necessity. Impersonal causes such as gravity cannot make decisions ; they simply act and cause reactions inevitably .

Finely Tuned

If , on the other hand, the first cause of the universe is a personal causal force, the universe may be here as the result of a choice . Personal agents can choose ; impersonal causes must simply respond to prior events.

Finely Tuned

From scientific evidence alone, we know the First Cause must be:

self - existent , timeless , non - spatial , and immaterial (since the First Cause created time , space , and matter , the First Cause must be outside of time , space , and matter) .

In other words , he is without limits , or infinite ; unimaginably powerful , to create the entire universe out of nothing ; supremely intelligent , to design the universe with such incredible precision; personal , in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time - space - material universe ( an impersonal force has no ability to make choices)

Finely Tuned

A Fragile Universe

The delicate requirements for the existence of galaxies, star systems, and planets capable of supporting “ intelligent observers ” are incredibly fragile. The laws of nature are amazingly fine - tuned; there is very little room for alteration. The smallest modifications of these laws would completely destroy the possibility of life in the universe.

A Fragile Universe

If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter’s gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth

The delicate requirements for the existence of galaxies, star systems, and planets capable of supporting “ intelligent observers ” are incredibly fragile. The laws of nature are amazingly fine - tuned; there is very little room for alteration. The smallest modifications of these laws would completely destroy the possibility of life in the universe.

If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter’s gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth

Nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force, and force of gravity

These constants and proportions must exist within very narrow ranges in order for life to exist in the universe.

If value of the ratio of protons to electrons deviates more than 1 in 10 to the 37th power = no life

Expansion rate of universe

If rate deviated more than 1 in 10 to the 37th power = no life

If mass density of universe varied more than 1 in 10 to the 59th power = no life

Expansion rate of universe

There wouldn’t be a single habitable galaxy or planet in the universe

If rate deviated more than 1 in 10 to the 37th power = no life

Comprehending these numbers

Dimes example

If mass density of universe varied more than 1 in 10 to the 59th power = no life

Imagine covering the entire North American continent in dimes and stacking them until they reached the moon.

Now imagine stacking just as many dimes again on another billion continents the same size as North America. If you marked one of those dimes and hid it in the billions of piles you’d assembled, the odds of a blindfolded friend picking out the correct dime is approximately 1 in 10 to the 37th power — the same level of precision required in the strong nuclear force and the expansion rate of the universe.

There wouldn’t be a single habitable galaxy or planet in the universe

Measuring tape example

Comprehending these numbers

Imagine stretching a measuring tape across the entire known universe. Now imagine one particular mark on the tape represents the correct degree of gravitational force required to create the universe we have.

If this mark were moved more than an inch from its location (on a measuring tape spanning the entire universe) , the altered gravitational force would prevent our universe from coming into existence

Dimes example

Firing a bullet example

Imagine covering the entire North American continent in dimes and stacking them until they reached the moon.

Imagine trying to fire a bullet at a one - inch target on the other side of the observable universe. The accuracy required to accomplish such a feat has been calculated at 1 in 10 to the 60th power.

Now imagine stacking just as many dimes again on another billion continents the same size as North America. If you marked one of those dimes and hid it in the billions of piles you’d assembled, the odds of a blindfolded friend picking out the correct dime is approximately 1 in 10 to the 37th power — the same level of precision required in the strong nuclear force and the expansion rate of the universe.

Compare this to the precision required in calibrating the mass density of the universe ( fine - tuned to within 1 unit in 1059 )

Measuring tape example

Our Earth

Imagine stretching a measuring tape across the entire known universe. Now imagine one particular mark on the tape represents the correct degree of gravitational force required to create the universe we have.

If this mark were moved more than an inch from its location (on a measuring tape spanning the entire universe) , the altered gravitational force would prevent our universe from coming into existence

Distance from Sun

Firing a bullet example

Earth orbits the sun within a tight habitable zone where , statistically speaking , it is highly unlikely for a planet to happen to exist . If Earth were very slightly more distant from — or slightly closer to — the sun, a stable water cycle would be impossible.

Imagine trying to fire a bullet at a one - inch target on the other side of the observable universe. The accuracy required to accomplish such a feat has been calculated at 1 in 10 to the 60th power.

Orbital Tilt

Compare this to the precision required in calibrating the mass density of the universe ( fine - tuned to within 1 unit in 1059 )

Our Earth

Small changes in the orbital tilt of our planet , or minor variations in the tilt of Earth’s axis , would disallow our climate

Length of Rotation

If Earth rotated slower, our days would be too hot and our nights too cool to support life ; shorter, and the wind speeds would be too extreme

Distance from Sun

Our Atmosphere

Earth orbits the sun within a tight habitable zone where , statistically speaking , it is highly unlikely for a planet to happen to exist . If Earth were very slightly more distant from — or slightly closer to — the sun, a stable water cycle would be impossible.

Earth’s atmosphere has a finely calibrated ratio of oxygen to nitrogen — just enough carbon dioxide and adequate water vapor levels to promote advanced life , allow photosynthesis (without an excessive greenhouse effect), and provide sufficient rainfall.

Orbital Tilt

Our Moon

Small changes in the orbital tilt of our planet , or minor variations in the tilt of Earth’s axis , would disallow our climate

Our large moon is just the right size to stabilize Earth’s orbit and rotation, limiting the variations in our climate and temperature. Without a large moon, the axis of our planet would likely have wobbled dramatically — perhaps by as much as 90 degrees.

Fine Tuner is necessary

Length of Rotation

In many ways , the remaining explanation is the most intuitive and reasonable : perhaps fine - tuning is the result of a purposeful Fine - Tuner. This seems even more reasonable when we remember what the universe appears to be fine - tuned for: life , carbon - based life , capable of observing and interacting with the universe around us .

If Earth rotated slower, our days would be too hot and our nights too cool to support life ; shorter, and the wind speeds would be too extreme

The inference toward purpose is palpable . Could any impersonal set of physical laws be said to operate with such a goal? Or is the more likely alternative of an intentional, creative Designer the better inference ?

Our Atmosphere

It would seem to deny this as anything other than requiring a Fine Tuner would require more faith than someone who believes in God.

Earth’s atmosphere has a finely calibrated ratio of oxygen to nitrogen — just enough carbon dioxide and adequate water vapor levels to promote advanced life , allow photosynthesis (without an excessive greenhouse effect), and provide sufficient rainfall.

Our Moon

Origins of Life

Exposing Darwinism

Our large moon is just the right size to stabilize Earth’s orbit and rotation, limiting the variations in our climate and temperature. Without a large moon, the axis of our planet would likely have wobbled dramatically — perhaps by as much as 90 degrees.

Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

Fine Tuner is necessary

Microevolution has been observed; but it cannot be used as evidence for macroevolution, which has never been observed

In many ways , the remaining explanation is the most intuitive and reasonable : perhaps fine - tuning is the result of a purposeful Fine - Tuner. This seems even more reasonable when we remember what the universe appears to be fine - tuned for: life , carbon - based life , capable of observing and interacting with the universe around us .

Dog breeders always encounter genetic limits when they intelligently attempt to create new breeds of dogs. Dogs may range in size from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane, but despite the best attempts of intelligent breeders, dogs always remain dogs

The inference toward purpose is palpable . Could any impersonal set of physical laws be said to operate with such a goal? Or is the more likely alternative of an intentional, creative Designer the better inference ?

It would seem to deny this as anything other than requiring a Fine Tuner would require more faith than someone who believes in God.

Darwinists make no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, and thus use the evidence for micro to prove macro . By failing to make this critical distinction, Darwinists can dupe the general public into thinking that any observable change in any organism proves that all life has evolved from the first one - celled creature

According to their theory, all biological life has evolved from that first amoeba without any intelligent guidance at all. This, of course, is the theory of macroevolution : from the infantile, to the reptile, to the Gentile ; or, from the goo to you via the zoo

So the problem for Darwinists is twofold : first , they have no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds ; and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway

Origins of Life

The Fossil record

The fossil record has turned out to be a complete embarrassment for Darwinists . If Darwinism were true, we would have found thousands, if not millions, of transitional fossils by now

Exposing Darwinism

All of the major groups of animals known to exist appear in the fossil record abruptly and fully formed in strata from the Cambrian period (which many scientists estimate to have occurred between 600 and 500 million years ago)

All animal groups appear separately, fully formed, and at the same time. That’s not evidence of gradual evolution but of instantaneous creation. So the Darwinian tree we are so used to seeing doesn’t properly illustrate the real fossil record

Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

DNA and the “Chicken and the Egg” dilemma

DNA is the largest molecule known. In humans, DNA contains as many as ten billion atoms. The adenine , guanine, cytosine, and thymine bases in DNA are linked in a particular order to form the genetic code containing the master plan for the organism.

Microevolution has been observed; but it cannot be used as evidence for macroevolution, which has never been observed

Dog breeders always encounter genetic limits when they intelligently attempt to create new breeds of dogs. Dogs may range in size from the Chihuahua to the Great Dane, but despite the best attempts of intelligent breeders, dogs always remain dogs

Darwinists make no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, and thus use the evidence for micro to prove macro . By failing to make this critical distinction, Darwinists can dupe the general public into thinking that any observable change in any organism proves that all life has evolved from the first one - celled creature

According to their theory, all biological life has evolved from that first amoeba without any intelligent guidance at all. This, of course, is the theory of macroevolution : from the infantile, to the reptile, to the Gentile ; or, from the goo to you via the zoo

So the problem for Darwinists is twofold : first , they have no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds ; and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway

The complexity of DNA is not the only problem for Darwinists . Its origin is also a problem . A difficult chicken - egg dilemma exists because DNA relies on proteins for its production but proteins rely on DNA for their production. So which came first , proteins or DNA? One must already be in existence for the other to be made

So the problem for Darwinists is twofold : first , they have no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds ; and second , even if a viable mechanism were discovered , the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway

The Fossil record

Enzymes are necessary for the timely formation of proteins, but these enzymes are built, in part, with proteins

The fossil record has turned out to be a complete embarrassment for Darwinists . If Darwinism were true, we would have found thousands, if not millions, of transitional fossils by now

All of the major groups of animals known to exist appear in the fossil record abruptly and fully formed in strata from the Cambrian period (which many scientists estimate to have occurred between 600 and 500 million years ago)

Problem for Darwinists is explaining the origin of the first life. For unguided, naturalistic macroevolution to be true, the first life must have generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals

All animal groups appear separately, fully formed, and at the same time. That’s not evidence of gradual evolution but of instantaneous creation. So the Darwinian tree we are so used to seeing doesn’t properly illustrate the real fossil record

DNA and the “Chicken and the Egg” dilemma

Scientists have been unable to combine chemicals in a test tube and arrive at a DNA molecule, much less life

How did life arise from nonliving chemicals, without intelligent intervention, when nonliving chemicals are susceptible to the Second Law? Darwinists have no answer, only blind faith.

DNA is the largest molecule known. In humans, DNA contains as many as ten billion atoms. The adenine , guanine, cytosine, and thymine bases in DNA are linked in a particular order to form the genetic code containing the master plan for the organism.

By admitting God, Darwinists would be admitting that they don’t have the authority to define right and wrong for themselves . By ruling out the supernatural, Darwinists can avoid the possibility that anything is morally prohibited. For if there is no God, everything is lawful , as a character in a Dostoevsky novel observed.

A Hostile Earth

The complexity of DNA is not the only problem for Darwinists . Its origin is also a problem . A difficult chicken - egg dilemma exists because DNA relies on proteins for its production but proteins rely on DNA for their production. So which came first , proteins or DNA? One must already be in existence for the other to be made

Enzymes are necessary for the timely formation of proteins, but these enzymes are built, in part, with proteins

Scientists searching for an explanation for life’s origin concede that early Earth was anything but hospitable to life’s formation.

Problem for Darwinists is explaining the origin of the first life. For unguided, naturalistic macroevolution to be true, the first life must have generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals

Scientists have been unable to combine chemicals in a test tube and arrive at a DNA molecule, much less life

How did life arise from nonliving chemicals, without intelligent intervention, when nonliving chemicals are susceptible to the Second Law? Darwinists have no answer, only blind faith.

By admitting God, Darwinists would be admitting that they don’t have the authority to define right and wrong for themselves . By ruling out the supernatural, Darwinists can avoid the possibility that anything is morally prohibited. For if there is no God, everything is lawful , as a character in a Dostoevsky novel observed.

A Hostile Earth

In fact, researchers believe the planet underwent a number of sterilization events as it was bombarded by asteroids and meteorites. In spite of this, scientists have discovered life emerged quickly with surprising complexity.

Scientists searching for an explanation for life’s origin concede that early Earth was anything but hospitable to life’s formation.

As researchers examine the first appearance of complex micro - organisms and their proximity to Earth’s heavy - bombardment period, they are unable to explain how this complexity could emerge in the short timeframe available

In fact, researchers believe the planet underwent a number of sterilization events as it was bombarded by asteroids and meteorites. In spite of this, scientists have discovered life emerged quickly with surprising complexity.

As researchers examine the first appearance of complex micro - organisms and their proximity to Earth’s heavy - bombardment period, they are unable to explain how this complexity could emerge in the short timeframe available

The Problem of Chance

When considering the complex relationships between specific proteins and other important laborers in the cellular factory, the odds for their appearing by chance has been likened to 10 to the 40,000 power to 1.

DNA – An Instruction Book

Scientists now recognize the important difference between self - organization and organization driven by information. The miniature machines , transportation vehicles , and tools within the cellular factory cooperate and interact because they have been instructed to do so . How were these instructions written?

Laws and Forces of Nature can’t explain it

There are no chemical or physical laws at work to dictate its existence . We are left , then, with a paradox : the laws and forces of nature cannot produce information, but information is required for life to begin.

You must explain how the palm tree, the peacock, the octopus, the locust, the bat, the hippopotamus, the porcupine, the sea horse, the Venus flytrap, the human, and mildew, for example , have all descended from the first irreducibly complex life without intelligent intervention.

You also have to explain how the first life and the universe came into existence as well

Mind over Matter

You also have to explain how the first life and the universe came into existence as well

Mind over Matter

Scientists and philosophers have been unable to reconcile the precise relationship between our nonmaterial minds and our physical brains . Are they one and the same? What is the causal relationship between the two?

While physical states can be publicly known , mental states are only privately known

Physical brains are subject to the laws of physics ; mental states are subject to the laws of logic .

Chemicals are certainly involved in the human thought process, but they cannot explain all human thoughts . The theory of materialism isn’t made of molecules . Likewise , someone’s thoughts , whether they be of love or hate , are not chemicals.

Physical brains are subject to the laws of physics ; mental states are subject to the laws of logic .

How much does love weigh? What’s the chemical composition of hate? These are absurd questions because thoughts, convictions, and emotions are not completely materially based. Since they are not completely materially based, materialism is false.

Chemicals are certainly involved in the human thought process, but they cannot explain all human thoughts . The theory of materialism isn’t made of molecules . Likewise , someone’s thoughts , whether they be of love or hate , are not chemicals.

How much does love weigh? What’s the chemical composition of hate? These are absurd questions because thoughts, convictions, and emotions are not completely materially based. Since they are not completely materially based, materialism is false.

What combination of materials can account for consciousness?

In order to think rationally about their thoughts , they must have the freedom to do so, but this freedom is unavailable if the laws of physics and chemistry are controlling their thoughts.

What combination of materials can account for consciousness?

Thomas Nagel , a naturalist philosopher eager to find an explanation for anything but an outside force as catalyst for the universe, reluctantly acknowledged the deficiency of physicalist explanations: “ So long as the mental is irreducible to the physical, the appearance of conscious physical organisms is left unexplained by a naturalistic account of the familiar type. On a purely materialist understanding of biology, consciousness would have to be regarded as a tremendous and inexplicable extra brute fact about the world

In order to think rationally about their thoughts , they must have the freedom to do so, but this freedom is unavailable if the laws of physics and chemistry are controlling their thoughts.

The existence of the nonmaterial mind is yet another piece of evidence pointing to a nonmaterial, external cause of the universe. Unlike the cosmological and biological evidences we’ve examined so far, this piece of evidence is wholly nonmaterial.

Thomas Nagel , a naturalist philosopher eager to find an explanation for anything but an outside force as catalyst for the universe, reluctantly acknowledged the deficiency of physicalist explanations: “ So long as the mental is irreducible to the physical, the appearance of conscious physical organisms is left unexplained by a naturalistic account of the familiar type. On a purely materialist understanding of biology, consciousness would have to be regarded as a tremendous and inexplicable extra brute fact about the world

Free Will and Morality

The existence of the nonmaterial mind is yet another piece of evidence pointing to a nonmaterial, external cause of the universe. Unlike the cosmological and biological evidences we’ve examined so far, this piece of evidence is wholly nonmaterial.

Free Will and Morality

The Atheist’s Stumbling Block

Believe it is an illusion, our choices are purely dictated by prior chemical and electrical reactions in our brains

We cannot be held accountable for our actions (no moral accountability)

Believe it is an illusion, our choices are purely dictated by prior chemical and electrical reactions in our brains

The problem of planning for the atheist

Our ability to deliberate about our decisions and ponder the options before acting presupposes we have the freedom to think independently from deterministic physical processes.

We cannot be held accountable for our actions (no moral accountability)

Free will is difficult to deny (unless, of course, we have the freedom to deny it)

This freedom to make choices — even the freedom to reject truth — is what makes us moral creatures and enables each of us to choose our ultimate destiny. This really hits at the heart of why we exist at all, and why God might not be as overt in revealing himself to us as some would like.

God has provided enough evidence in this life to convince anyone willing to believe, yet he has also left some ambiguity so as not to compel the unwilling.

The problem of planning for the atheist

Morality - Can we be good without God?

Our ability to deliberate about our decisions and ponder the options before acting presupposes we have the freedom to think independently from deterministic physical processes.

Free will is difficult to deny (unless, of course, we have the freedom to deny it)

While it would be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God, that wasn’t the question. The question was : Can we be good without God ? When we ask that question , we’re posing a question about the nature of moral values.

This freedom to make choices — even the freedom to reject truth — is what makes us moral creatures and enables each of us to choose our ultimate destiny. This really hits at the heart of why we exist at all, and why God might not be as overt in revealing himself to us as some would like.

God has provided enough evidence in this life to convince anyone willing to believe, yet he has also left some ambiguity so as not to compel the unwilling.

Morality - Can we be good without God?

The question is not : Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? There’s no reason to think that nonbelievers cannot live what we’d normally call good and decent lives. Again , the question is not : Can we recognize objective moral values and duties without believing in God?

While it would be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God, that wasn’t the question. The question was : Can we be good without God ? When we ask that question , we’re posing a question about the nature of moral values.

There’s no reason to think that you have to believe in God in order to recognize that, for example , we ought to love our children. If God does not exist , do objective moral values and duties exist? The question is not about the necessity of belief in God for objective morality but about the necessity of the existence of God for objective morality.

The question is not : Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? There’s no reason to think that nonbelievers cannot live what we’d normally call good and decent lives. Again , the question is not : Can we recognize objective moral values and duties without believing in God?

There’s no reason to think that you have to believe in God in order to recognize that, for example , we ought to love our children. If God does not exist , do objective moral values and duties exist? The question is not about the necessity of belief in God for objective morality but about the necessity of the existence of God for objective morality.

The objection is that if our moral beliefs have been shaped by evolution , then we can’t have any confidence in them because evolution aims, not at truth, but at survival . Our moral beliefs will be selected for their survival value, not for their truth

Darwinian evolution cannot produce truly objective morality. If moral truths are merely behavioral concepts that humans have created to aid their survival , morality is once again rooted in the subject (humans) rather than in the objective moral truth claim under consideration

Is it just relative to each individual (objectivism)?

The objection is that if our moral beliefs have been shaped by evolution , then we can’t have any confidence in them because evolution aims, not at truth, but at survival . Our moral beliefs will be selected for their survival value, not for their truth

Darwinian evolution cannot produce truly objective morality. If moral truths are merely behavioral concepts that humans have created to aid their survival , morality is once again rooted in the subject (humans) rather than in the objective moral truth claim under consideration

Is it just relative to each individual (objectivism)?

If moral truth is subjective, nothing distinguishes what one person considers morally virtuous from what another considers morally vile. Mother Teresa was entitled to her opinion ; Hitler to his. Neither could be said to hold a superior position if there is no transcendent standard by which we could measure either of them.

No one makes excuses for acting like Mother Teresa. We only make excuses when we act against the Moral Law.

If materials are solely responsible for morality, then Hitler had no real moral responsibility for what he did — he just had bad molecules

If moral truth is subjective, nothing distinguishes what one person considers morally virtuous from what another considers morally vile. Mother Teresa was entitled to her opinion ; Hitler to his. Neither could be said to hold a superior position if there is no transcendent standard by which we could measure either of them.

Consider this example from a classroom exercise arguing for moral relativism: there are five people trying to survive on a life raft designed for only four.

If one person isn’t thrown overboard , then everyone will die. Students labor over the dilemma, come to different conclusions, and then conclude their disagreement proves that morality must be relative.

But the dilemma actually proves the opposite — that morality is absolute . How ? Because there would be no dilemma if morality were relative! If morality were relative and there were no absolute right to life , you’d say , “ It doesn’t matter what happens ! Throw everyone overboard ! Who cares ? ”

The very reason we struggle with the dilemma is because we know how valuable life is:

The reason we believe we ought to do good rather than evil — the reason we believe we should “help people” — is because there’s a Moral Law that has been written on our hearts. In other words , there is a “prescription” to do good that has been given to all of humanity

No one makes excuses for acting like Mother Teresa. We only make excuses when we act against the Moral Law.

The fact that a moral standard has been prescribed on the minds of all human beings points to a Moral Law Prescriber

In other words , everyone knows there are absolute moral obligations . An absolute moral obligation is something that is binding on all people, at all times, in all places. And an absolute Moral Law implies an absolute Moral Law Giver

The moral of the story is that there are absolute morals. And if you really want to get relativists to admit it , all you need to do is treat them unfairly. Their reactions will reveal the Moral Law written on their hearts and minds.

Without a Moral Law, there would be nothing objectively wrong with Christians or Muslims forcibly imposing their religion on atheists. There would be nothing wrong with outlawing atheism, confiscating the property of atheists, and giving it to Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham.

There would be nothing wrong with gay - bashing, or racism. Nor would there be anything wrong with prohibiting abortion, birth control, and even sex between consenting adults !

In other words , without the Moral Law, atheists have no moral grounds to argue for their pet political causes

So by rebelling against the Moral Law, atheists have, ironically, undermined their grounds for rebelling against anything

Is it cultural?

If materials are solely responsible for morality, then Hitler had no real moral responsibility for what he did — he just had bad molecules

Consider this example from a classroom exercise arguing for moral relativism: there are five people trying to survive on a life raft designed for only four.

if moral truth is determined by people groups, how many people in the group have to agree? Must everyone agree? Is a simple majority enough? Once the majority decides on a moral truth claim, wouldn’t the opposing group be considered immoral by definition?

If one person isn’t thrown overboard , then everyone will die. Students labor over the dilemma, come to different conclusions, and then conclude their disagreement proves that morality must be relative.

But the dilemma actually proves the opposite — that morality is absolute . How ? Because there would be no dilemma if morality were relative! If morality were relative and there were no absolute right to life , you’d say , “ It doesn’t matter what happens ! Throw everyone overboard ! Who cares ? ”

The very reason we struggle with the dilemma is because we know how valuable life is:

Is it biological?

The reason we believe we ought to do good rather than evil — the reason we believe we should “help people” — is because there’s a Moral Law that has been written on our hearts. In other words , there is a “prescription” to do good that has been given to all of humanity

The fact that a moral standard has been prescribed on the minds of all human beings points to a Moral Law Prescriber

If people like Sam Harris are correct and the well - being of the human species is the goal of human existence, “ good and bad ” behaviors could be determined by their ability to achieve this well.

In other words , everyone knows there are absolute moral obligations . An absolute moral obligation is something that is binding on all people, at all times, in all places. And an absolute Moral Law implies an absolute Moral Law Giver

This implies , however , there’s a right way to survive and a wrong way.

The moral of the story is that there are absolute morals. And if you really want to get relativists to admit it , all you need to do is treat them unfairly. Their reactions will reveal the Moral Law written on their hearts and minds.

Those who believe the pursuit of human well - being is the origin of moral truth begin with a definition of well - being already infused with moral truth. Who gets to determine the right or wrong way to survive or flourish?

Moral obligations exist between persons; if moral laws are transcendent, it seems reasonable for us to look for the transcendent person to whom we are ultimately obligated.

Without a Moral Law, there would be nothing objectively wrong with Christians or Muslims forcibly imposing their religion on atheists. There would be nothing wrong with outlawing atheism, confiscating the property of atheists, and giving it to Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham.

Naturalism fails to explain two attributes of the universe related to objective moral truth. It cannot adequately explain the existence of objective moral truths, and it cannot explain objective, transcendent personal obligations.

Transcendent moral laws require a transcendent moral law source , and an all - powerful , nonmaterial , nonspatial , atemporal , purposeful , personal Creator would certainly qualify.

Atheists have no real basis for objective right and wrong . This does not mean that atheists are not moral or don’t understand right from wrong . On the contrary, atheists can and do understand right from wrong because the Moral Law is written on their hearts just as on every other heart.

But while they may believe in an objective right and wrong , they have no way to justify such a belief (unless they admit a Moral Law Giver , at which point they cease being atheists)

Problem of Evil

There would be nothing wrong with gay - bashing, or racism. Nor would there be anything wrong with prohibiting abortion, birth control, and even sex between consenting adults !

In other words , without the Moral Law, atheists have no moral grounds to argue for their pet political causes

Why does evil exist if God exists?

So by rebelling against the Moral Law, atheists have, ironically, undermined their grounds for rebelling against anything

“ Is God willing to prevent evil , but not able ? Then he is not omnipotent . Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Back to free will

Is it biological?

Moral obligations exist between persons; if moral laws are transcendent, it seems reasonable for us to look for the transcendent person to whom we are ultimately obligated.

The vast majority of attributes and activities we value and revere require free agency. Love requires freedom ; no true expression of love has ever been coerced.

This implies , however , there’s a right way to survive and a wrong way.

Rationality also requires freedom; we cannot evaluate evidence and reason through an argument unless we have the freedom to choose between explanations

Those who believe the pursuit of human well - being is the origin of moral truth begin with a definition of well - being already infused with moral truth. Who gets to determine the right or wrong way to survive or flourish?

Even those who deny the existence of a Divine Creator must first have the personal freedom to do so. Freedom is a high value for all of us, because without it, we would be enslaved robots unable to love, hate, reason, or rebel.

Unless there is a transcendent, Divine standard of “ straightness, ” evil is simply a matter of opinion. If this is the case , we can eliminate evil tomorrow. All we have to do is change our opinion of it.

True evil requires a source of transcendent righteousness, a source for goodness transcending the universe and everything in it. Evil can be reconciled with the existence of an external source and, in fact, requires an external standard of benevolence for its existence. The very existence of evil is evidence for God.

objective right and wrong , they have no way to justify such a belief ( unless they admit a Moral Law Giver , at which point they cease being atheists

Summary

Moral obligations exist between persons; if moral laws are transcendent, it seems reasonable for us to look for the transcendent person to whom we are ultimately obligated.

Naturalism fails to explain two attributes of the universe related to objective moral truth. It cannot adequately explain the existence of objective moral truths, and it cannot explain objective, transcendent personal obligations.

Transcendent moral laws require a transcendent moral law source , and an all - powerful , nonmaterial , nonspatial , atemporal , purposeful , personal Creator would certainly qualify.

The arguments point us to the necessary characteristics of responsible party

Atheists have no real basis for objective right and wrong . This does not mean that atheists are not moral or don’t understand right from wrong . On the contrary, atheists can and do understand right from wrong because the Moral Law is written on their hearts just as on every other heart.

But while they may believe in an objective right and wrong , they have no way to justify such a belief (unless they admit a Moral Law Giver , at which point they cease being atheists)

Nonspatial

Problem of Evil

Why does evil exist if God exists?

Atemporal

“ Is God willing to prevent evil , but not able ? Then he is not omnipotent . Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Back to free will

The vast majority of attributes and activities we value and revere require free agency. Love requires freedom ; no true expression of love has ever been coerced.

Nonmaterial

Rationality also requires freedom; we cannot evaluate evidence and reason through an argument unless we have the freedom to choose between explanations

Even those who deny the existence of a Divine Creator must first have the personal freedom to do so. Freedom is a high value for all of us, because without it, we would be enslaved robots unable to love, hate, reason, or rebel.

Uncaused

Unless there is a transcendent, Divine standard of “ straightness, ” evil is simply a matter of opinion. If this is the case , we can eliminate evil tomorrow. All we have to do is change our opinion of it.

True evil requires a source of transcendent righteousness, a source for goodness transcending the universe and everything in it. Evil can be reconciled with the existence of an external source and, in fact, requires an external standard of benevolence for its existence. The very existence of evil is evidence for God.

Powerful

Summary

The arguments point us to the necessary characteristics of responsible party

Intelligent

Nonspatial

Atemporal

Creative

Nonmaterial

Uncaused

Powerful

Resourceful

Intelligent

Creative

Resourceful

Craig, William Lane. (2010). On Guard: Defending your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs, CO: David Cook Publishers.

Geisler, Norman L., & Turek, Frank. (2004). I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Meyer, Stephen C. (2013). Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Wallace, J. Warner. (2013). Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. Colorado Springs, CO: David Cook Publishers.

Wallace, J. Warner. (2015). God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe. Colorado Springs, CO: David Cook Publishers.

Zacharias, Ravi. (2007). Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Atheism and the Existence of God

References and Suggested Reading for Further Study