I simply don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. This statement might come as a shock to many of you out there because it appears to be a contradiction. While some faith is required for my conclusions, it’s often forgotten that faith is also required of a worldview such as atheism. As limited human beings, we simply don’t possess the type of knowledge that provides us with absolute proof or disproof of God’s existence. Outside the knowledge of our own existence, we deal in the realm of probability. However, I will soon demonstrate that there is strong evidence supporting the existence of a theistic God.
Just because I am a Christian does not mean I have to turn my brain off. While religion is about faith to a certain degree, it is also about facts. Facts are central to all religions, because all religious worldviews- including atheism- make truth claims, and many of these claims can be evaluated through historical and scientific investigation. But can the truth ever really be known? I believe that it can and that it matches with the claims of the Bible. However, in this debate, my main purpose will not be to prove Christianity, but the existence of a generic theistic God.
To begin with, I will demonstrate the absolute nature of truth. It is the solid base on which much of my argument rests. Many today claim that truth is relative and cannot be known. However, this argument is self defeating. Before, I explain why, however, check out some characteristics of truth:
- Truth is not invented, but discovered
- Truth is transcultural
- Truth is unchanging even though our beliefs about the truth may change
- Beliefs cannot change a fact
- Truth is not affected by the attitude of the one professing it
- All truths are absolute truths
If someone makes the claim that “All truth is relative,” then is that
a relative truth? If someone says, “There are no absolutes,” how can they be absolutely
sure that this is true? Claims that discredit absolutism in favor of relativism contradict themselves because they are in fact stated as absolutes and thus imply the existence of objective truth. Additionally, it is impossible to be a skeptic about everything because that would mean that you would have to doubt skepticism itself; but the more you doubt skepticism the more sure you would have to become. In short, there is absolute truth, it can be known, and the opposite of true is false.
So how do we discover what the truth is? Well that is what the purpose of this debate is. Here is a brief outline of some of things that I hope to argue in order to demonstrate the existence of God:Scientific EvidenceThe Cosmological Argument
: More and more evidence points to the Big Bang theory as correct. Everything that has a start has a cause and nothing can come from nothing. This is the Law of Causality. If the Big Bang Theory is true, a force outside of space, time, and matter had to have caused it.Anthropic Argument: The design of the universe is so precise and intricate that the more scientists’ discover, the more slim the probability of random existence becomes. Since the universe came into being with the Big Bang, it had one start. Additionally, since it is infinite there can be no parallel universes. The chance that a universe such as ours would randomly come into being on the first try is astronomical. The more reasonable conclusion is the existence of a designer.Teological Argument
: Evolution and the origin of life theory that many scientists espouse today are not true- They are just bad science! I have divided my justifications for this claim into two categories:
Origin of Life- Darwinists have never observed or gathered any evidence suggesting the spontaneous formation of life from non living matter. They take it on faith. This is too bad since their belief that simple life forms spontaneously arose from lifeless matter has much evidence against, but not in favor of it. To begin with, there is no such thing as “simple life.” Even the earliest organisms would have had the equivalent of 100,000 encyclopedias of information stored in them! Even if they had billions of years to develop, it still would not be enough time for all this information to come together so precisely. The Principle of Uniformity suggests that such complexity of life could not have evolved without guidance. For example, if you put a watch in a bag, smash it with a hammer, and then shake the bag up, will the watch gradually come together again? No. Even if you shake the bag for millions and billions of years? The answer is still no. However, that is essentially what Darwinists believe (except that even the most simple life form is more complex than a watch).
Evolution: When Darwin developed his theory of natural selection, the cell was still an impenetrable mystery. But today, scientists have peered into the cell and discovered something incredible: The cell is irreducibly complex! If just one of its parts was taken away (even one gene) it would fail to function. So how did the cell evolve? The only answer is that it didn’t. Some Darwinists try to claim that there was a “scaffolding system” allowing evolution to take place, but then the question of who put the scaffolding there (since Darwinists claim that evolution is all by chance) must inevitably be asked. Additionally, the fossil record does not support the idea of evolution at all. In fact, it acts as evidence against it. In light of all this, intelligent design (which is scientific and not necessarily religiously motivated) becomes an intelligent alternative.Moral/ Philosophical Evidence
What is the difference between Mother Theresa and Hitler? To most people this question is outlandish and the answer is simple: Mother Theresa helped people and Hitler killed people. One was good, the other bad. Such distinctions are important because they imply and absolute Moral Law. The Moral Law is highly relevant to this debate. To demonstrate why, I have laid out the following syllogism:
Every law has a law giver.
There is a Moral Law.
Therefore, there is a Moral Law giver (i.e. God)
If there is an absolute standard of morality engrained in all people’s hearts, it suggests the existence of God. However, many claim that like truth, morality is all relative. If this is the case, then there really is no difference between Hitler and Mother Theresa, just varying perspectives. However, if no true standard of morality existed then there would be no basis for argument against or for different standards of behavior. There wouldn’t even be a debate right now. Dissent over morality actually suggests that there is a set standard, because without an absolute to compare to, people have no basis for deciding right and wrong.
So if morality is objective, how can it be determined? Perhaps ironically, even those who claim to believe in relative morality are usually not happy when someone else treats them unjustly, although it may be in accordance with that particular person’s standard of morality. Thus it is not our stated beliefs or actions that help us determine the nature of right or wrong, but our reactions. Humans have an innate sense of right and wrong that is part of their very nature. In other words, there is a Moral Law and it points to a Law Giver.
Inherent and identical morality across all mankind cannot be explained with evolution, much to the chagrin of Darwinists. Some claim that morality developed because it was a social mechanism that allowed humans to work and survive together. In essence, they call morality an instinct. However, this cannot be true because if morality is an instinct, it is in direct opposition with other instincts. For example, if someone sees a person being mugged the moral thing to do is to help them. The animal reaction is to run away and remain safe. If morality were an instinct it wouldn’t contradict but compliment other instincts. Additionally, there is a third force at work that allows humans to decide which option to follow. This third force cannot be accounted for by Darwinists. Evolution also cannot account for self destructive behaviors such as suicide, smoking, drinking, and cutting. The more rational conclusion therefore, is that there is a Moral Law Giver.
In conclusion, so much evidence points to the existence of a theistic God that, ironically, atheism becomes the worldview based on blind faith and theism the logically based one. Both cannot be true because truth is objective and the opposite of true is false. There are many reasons that people deny the existence of God. One is intellectual. However, I have just addressed this objection and rendered it null. I will expand on this more as the debate continues. What I have jotted out above is very general and limited in comparison to all the information that is actually available. Another reason that people deny the existence of God is because of emotional obstacles. It is not easy for scientists to accept that they have spent hundreds of years climbing to the highest peak of knowledge only to reach the top and find some theologians who have been sitting there since the beginning of time. The hypocrisy of religion is also an emotional obstacle, as is religious exclusivism. The final obstacle that people have for believing in God is volitional. If there is a God, then there is most likely a set standard of behavior that people must follow. If this is true, their freedom of choice is limited. In this debate I hope to logically explain the existence of God, although emotional and volitional obstacles are likely to impede the process. Those aside, no individual can objectively examine the evidence and still deny the logical presence of God.