Feedback archive → Feedback 2015
Answering agnostic arguments
Published: 2 May 2015 (GMT+10)
Occasionally, people who are new to our site will write in with arguments against creation. K.S.’s first email made him sound like a questioning agnostic, but a second message received soon afterwards showed that his disbelief in Christianity was much more strident, but also based upon misunderstandings about Christianity.
K.S., India, wrote:
I’m an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in god as there is very little to go upon.
Your logic is great and this supreme creator logic indeed fits the bill on how universe was created. However, you are failing to see one point.
You say that because evolutionists cannot give a proper theory on how universe was created, it means that god created universe (which is indeed possible). However, the extent to which evolutionists can speculate about the creation of universe is limited by our intelligence as a race. Just like a Neanderthal could only imagine (if he could) more sophisticated beings to be more formidable hunters and better tool maker, while being unable to conceive arts, diplomacy, metaphysics, etc, the way we see them. My point is-the concept of creation of universe could be something that is way beyond our level. So it doesn’t mean that god created the universe because that’s the only explanation we have currently.
Lita Cosner answers:
As an agnostic, you’re admitting you don’t know the answers to some very important questions. But Christians claim to know about God, creation, and what happens after death because God has revealed it to us in Scripture.
You also seem to admit evolutionists are currently failing to explain the origin of the universe and human beings. But it isn’t a matter of not being advanced enough to understand the true naturalistic origin of the universe as you propose (by the way, Neanderthals are fully human—everyone with non-African ancestry has a little of their DNA! And they had some impressive skills; you can search creation.com for lots of articles detailing them). Rather, the more scientifically advanced we become, the more problems we discover with evolution.
Also, there are really only two options for explaining the universe: either it is eternal (which doesn’t work due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics), or it had a beginning. And if it had a beginning, either it made itself (which is self-contradictory), or it was created by some eternal, non-material, very powerful entity outside the universe, which is of course consistent with biblical creation. This is a logical argument and it is unlikely to change with more knowledge.
Biblical creation has the advantage of being an actual explanation for the complexity we see in the universe. That is, we have much positive evidence that confirms the biblical account, so we are not making our case merely on the bankruptcy of evolution. But saying that we aren’t advanced enough to understand the explanation isn’t really an explanation at all. It is a blind-faith-based position built entirely on speculation.
I would invite you to read creation.com more and explore what we have to say on the topic.
K.S., India,
I find it highly amusing that people still believe in worshipping as it is futile and is nothing more than an ancient primitive custom practiced by weak minded and superstitious people. It has no place in the 21st century. Do you all really think that we should spend our entire lives studying an old book, looking up to the sky and worshipping an invisible ruler in another realm ? People believe this ‘original sin’ story which is designed to impose a large amount of guilt onto the whole of humanity. The believers are then so grateful that they have been saved by the son of God nearly 2000 years before they were born that they abandon all reason, logic to obey and worship this god . Anyone who believes this story is indeed lost because to believe that a god would send his only son to help us, only to see his son get tortured and murdered, and then instead of unleashing all his wrath, simply absolve us from all crimes past and present, is pure madness to say the least.
Lita Cosner replies:
It is interesting that in your last message, you sounded like a more open-minded agnostic, but in this one you sound like you’ve made up your mind that Christianity is false. Were ancient people ‘weak-minded and superstitious’? Well, not any more than people today are (horoscopes are proof of that!), and studies have shown that people who think of themselves as ‘spiritual but not religious’ are more likely than Christians to be superstitious.
Christianity in particular makes very rational claims (whether or not you believe them to be true): God created the world as a perfect place, and mankind rebelled against Him, causing death and suffering. Mankind’s rebellion against God demands punishment—which means that all of us deserve punishment (and because we will continue rebelling against Him forever without His intervention, that punishment must be similarly eternal). But God loves mankind, so He sent His Son to be our substitute. Because Jesus was perfectly righteous, He had no sin of His own to pay for, so He could pay for ours. Because He is God, He could pay for the sins of the whole world. And because He was God and sinless, He rose from the dead.
As a Christian (moreover, one who has dedicated my life to studying the ‘old book’ whose merits you question), I don’t consider myself a superstitious person. Also, the Ph.D. scientists who work for CMI, and the many other creation scientists who have careers doing real science, demand scientific explanations for things that should have scientific explanations. But they realize that when we start asking historical questions about things that happened in the past, we have to look to history for an answer. And the Bible gives us that history.
The Bible gives a framework for understanding the world unlike any other book. It explains why the universe seems so intentionally designed and beautiful in some ways, but full of suffering and death at the same time. It helps us understand why we hate death so much (if we evolved and death is natural or even good, why should we hate it and see it as unnatural?), and gives us hope that one day there will be no more death. It helps us understand why we have an inbuilt conscience that condemns our sin (Christianity doesn’t create guilt, it explains our guilt and gives us a way to be free from it), and points us to the Saviour, Jesus Christ.
K., I’ve spent more time on your emails than I am able to for most people who write in, because I think it is so important for Christians to explain our faith. I hope that you come to believe in the Lord Jesus, because only He can give you hope in this world and the next. Please read our Good News article to learn more.
Readers’ comments
I agree that Christians can claim that they have a supernatural explanation for whatever. Doesn't mean much without the evidence, though. "We don't know" is how science works. That you seem to think that's embarrassing or a failing suggests that you need to go back and learn how science works.
But with regard to the origin of the universe, we're still stuck with "We don't know", which is kind of awkward for all the scientists who have spent their whole careers and millions of dollars worth of grants trying to figure it out. And as long as science has to say "We don't know", it surely isn't that unreasonable for the Christian to say, "We do know!"
Posing the matter as K.S. does, without considering the whole story, looks like to believe in Santa Claus, and he is right. But is totally overturns when the whole scenario is considered – and it looks our friend K.S. didn’t do it.
On the other hand the he makes of a possible different source for our universe, might please the stepping up of our race’s intelligence. Flattered by the proposal one would say: ‘Why not!’
‘Unluckily’ we do have only one document available: the Bible! An Old book says our friend K.S., and this shows me that he didn’t really analysed it as its projection into eternity demands. Above its doctrinal content on Morality and Poetry, the Bible is a book of History with a perspective on FUTURE things (spanning from our past to our future); we may call it Prophecy. It looks to me that no other fathomable super-intelligent race in the universe ‘far beyond our level’ could reveal even a little bit of future events. So, this indisputable FACT of the Prophecy phenomenon speaks loudly about the importance and validity of this ‘old book’ and its supernatural source. Furthermore, the whole scenario of the salvation plan of a race (human race) the way it has been organised and delivered, spells of a LOVE which is ‘far beyond our level’ of comprehension; and probably this is the reason is not understood as it should be!
In my opinion our friend K.S. lacks of patience and mind openness to analyze the whole Bible’s scenario to perceive in full its message which is timing not only with the past but with the present and the future (our future) towards the solution of this humanity’s doom that, created perfect - in the misuse of its granted freedom - lost its connection with its Creator.
In my opinion our friend K.S. lacks of patience and mind openness to analyze the whole Bible’s
If one seeks the truth with an open mind they will find it. but most don't want there to be a God because it make them accountable. Ro 1:21.
2) When stating: "Anyone who believes this story ... that a god would send his only son to help us, ... is pure madness to say the least." K.S. should take into account his own question: "My point is-the concept of creation of universe could be something that is way beyond our level." God's love may be well beyond his level for God's sacrificial love to make sense for him.
3) One should either start with a religious premise (such as the Bible) and see what comes out of this, what follows (CMI does an excellent job at this) or start with secular questions (such as the ones on origin) which wouldn't lead to a specific divinity. If one cannot do the 1st should do the 2nd. But K.S. starts with secular questions while attacking the specific Christian deity (see last comments under #1). That's disingenuous. Even if Christianity was false, that wouldn't answer his origin questions. That doesn't' exclude other non-Christian specific Gods. Again, dishonesty. It seems he's not after finding out answers to origin questions but after attacking Christianity.
God bless you for all you do!
Terry
I had spent many years as an agnostic, asking many of the same questions myself before accepting God the creator, and eventually discovering a plethora of evidence to support Christianity. This website is an outstanding source of information on the topic. I would also encourage you to get a copy of Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's book titled, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" (the Mp3 audio book format is easy to listen to by the way), and I know it will offer excellent explanations to your questions and help to clear up any misconceptions. An open minded approach would be to read it yourself and then decide for yourself what to make of it.
God Bless
A large portion of our argument as creationists, is the clearly an factually demonstrable intelligent design that we observe in all of the organisms. This is largely an argument FROM knowledge, rather than a GAP in knowledge. When we look at mankind's designs, we see that what makes something designed is usually some or all of the following;
- Specified complexity
- Contingency planning
- Synthesis of artificial materials. (silk, both for spiders and fabrics in human fashion)
- Information
- Engineering solutions to innate complex problems. (differential, echolocation)
- Aesthetics. (Colour, beauty, symmetry)
As we start to see what makes human designs designed, and we then look at organisms, we then clearly see all of the same elements of design, which means we argue from factual knowledge, not a gap in it. And the most important point you make Lita, IMHO, is that as knowledge increases, evolution becomes weaker as a theory, look at the things that have been disproven, the disproven predictions such as vestigial morphology, the list decreased to a point where it was very clear that evolution was an illusion and delusion in the human mind, but had no baring in reality.
An agnostic that says he would believe in Jesus, if... clearly does not yet believe in Jesus, and often what follows the 'if' is an excuse, even if they don't recognize or mean it as such.
The answer is the clear proclamation of the Gospel.
Its not like the 21st Century got here all by itself. Early man & women already had cultivation, engineering & design, government, art & music & as population expanded so did these things.
If it is possible that God created the heavens & the earth as stated by K.S then He would still be around no matter the century & we should rightfully praise Him & look to Him in the arts & sciences, government etc while this earth winds down in a pattern of decay.
Have you ever considered why this is so? Truth never needs to change but lies are ever-changing.
Evolution requires blind faith to be believed but Christianity is a reasoned faith, based on logic and truth. Consider Lita's responses carefully.
There is no shame in believing there is a God who is the God of heaven and earth, at once both Creator and Saviour of this world.
Only in Christianity is both justice and mercy combined at the cross of Jesus. Jesus extends His mercy to the lawbreaker through the cross because He satisfied the requirements of justice. He paid the price.
any-one who *doesn't believe* in an Almighty, Creator God in the face of the gob-smacking evidence of Intelligent Design (particularly at the biochemical/molecular biological level) is, quite frankly, beneath contempt!
they are either out-and-out wilful fools or clinically/criminally insane :(
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."
Also, the teaching value for Christians reading the response is another consideration.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.