Feedback archive → Feedback 2021

God’s existence a non-issue?

Following Lucien Tuinstra’s article debating strategies for atheists and Christians, based on a flow chart devised by an atheist to structure such a debate, CMI received feedback from Miguel F. Denying that we can debate God’s existence, he nevertheless attempts to do so, insisting that his assertions are to be accepted!

Such questions have been dealt with numerous times on this site but Lucien replies, with links to recommended related articles interspersed:

So why debate with us? Interestingly, you decided to continue writing, presumably to effectively lecture us with credible arguments that we have not already rebutted on our website. Open-minded people might want to check out:

• Does God exist? (Chapter 1 of the Creation Answers Book)
• What is atheism? (media)

It is clear you haven’t read—or understood—a key point of the article (repeated in its summary): “Evidence is not the same as proof”. See the two linked articles below and also consider this comment, from Dr. Charles L. Bennett, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, who wrote to the prestigious journal Science:

“The title of the 6 May News of the Week story ‘At long last, Gravity Probe B satellite proves Einstein right’ (p. 649) made me cringe. I find myself frequently repeating to students and the public that science doesn’t ‘prove’ theories. Scientific measurements can only disprove theories or be consistent with them. Any theory that is consistent with measurements could be disproved by a future measurement. I wouldn’t have expected Science magazine, of all places, to say a theory was ‘proved’.”¹

To which the editors of Science responded:

“Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.”

• Is there scientific proof of the existence of God?
• ‘It’s not science’

What did people believe before evolution was mainstream? Let me suggest that there were more people back then that considered the whole realm of knowledge, and also the limits of science. Existence is not just about the natural world, but numerous intelligent people (including leading scientists, past and present) are also convinced of the supernatural—or at least the possibility thereof.

Richard Dawkins said “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”.² His atheism is inherently linked to his Darwinism.³ We have written extensively about both topics and the following pages each link to many articles:

• Articles about atheism.
• Articles about Darwinism.

According to you, time (an immaterial entity), mutations, and random chance (which is merely a description of probability) made the universe. We believe Genesis 1:1:

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

This is our presupposition, our position of faith, but an eminently reasonable one. As you make an assertion, the burden of proof is on you, to show how your ‘evidences’ made the universe—and later life. If you had searched our website, you would have quickly found material answering your challenges, such as:

• Five atheist miracles (media)
• Created or evolved?
• Reading ‘origin of life’ research

You continue asserting—this time that evolutionary psychology is true—without providing any specific examples of evidence. CMI has pointed out many times that atheism has no rational basis for things such as morals and justice and evil. Here is one:

• Can atheism possibly explain morality and reason?

How do you know? According to you He does not even exist, yet you speak almost as if He does. Further, how many people did you survey to come to this conclusion? Did you ask anyone outside of your close circle of friends? Dare I suggest you ask some Christians? You may think God is irrelevant, because you do not care to listen to the contrary and you do not study His Word. What does your ‘god’—evolution—offer?

• Evolution: a message of hope?
• Understanding death

“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:21–22).

Sure, atheists can be happy at times, as can everyone else. However, without a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, they’ll be dismayed when they stand in front of their Maker (Hebrews 9:27). What’s more important (and lasting) than our happiness, is the joy that God’s people can know from being assured that their sins are forgiven and that they belong to Him (1 John 5:11–12) and that He supplies all their needs (Philippians 4:19). Such joy that is not fleeting. Jesus says to those who believe in Him: “Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full” (John 16:24).⁴

• Pascal’s wager

We agree. More than that, all humans are mistaken about God until/unless they acknowledge His existence (see Hebrews 11:6). In fact, everyone is a guilty sinner in the sight of God (Romans 3:10–12; 23).

Better than what/according to whom? What is your reference point?⁵ And have you not noticed the many times in your life you vowed not to make the same mistake ever again, but you did it anyway (true for us all of course)? Try as you might, you will not succeed.

• Can we be good without God?

Well, you are wrong about that. How can you logically define good/evil, or right/wrong, from a godless basis? Even Richard Dawkins has acknowledged this to be inconsistent with atheism on occasions.⁶

You are, of course, aware that other countries might have different laws than your own country. Which country is correct? It is tempting to feel superior and think, “I am/we are”. People of another nation might think the same way—but who decides?

• What is ‘good’? (Answering the Euthyphro Dilemma)

You admitted earlier, “human beings … do evil things”. So, someone must have introduced evil, but surely not a ‘good’ person? Tell me, why do little children lie? Why do they hit others? Why do they grab without permission? Evolutionary psychology cannot explain these things as good, or it would contradict your previous admission that people make mistakes.

• Why would a loving God allow death and suffering?
• CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil (see point 2)

To use the word ‘irrational’ you must have a rational reason that rationality exists. You believe that you are “the result of time, mutations and random chance”. So is your rationality a consequence of random chance?! According to you it also took ‘time’ and ‘tinkering’ (i.e. mutations), meaning that rationality did not exist at all, or else human reasoning was less rational in the past. Christians, however, believe humans have the capacity for rational thought because we are made in the image of a rational God.

• Atheism is more rational?
• Can evolution produce rational minds?

Why the 21st century? Is that how long it took for the ‘advance of knowledge’ to justify that God had become unnecessary and irrelevant? See also:

• Life only comes from life; the law of biogenesis (Louis Pasteur).
• Information cannot come into existence spontaneously. (Paul Davies’ quote in the article)
• The total amount of matter/energy cannot change: First law of thermodynamics. The available energy to do work is reducing: Second law of thermodynamics. Ergo, the universe had a beginning. You believe in the (natural) big bang; Christians believe in the supernatural Creator of Genesis 1:1. Where did the matter/energy come from in your view?

Don’t become ‘irrational’ now and have assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (see Hebrews 11:1). That’s faith, something you accuse Christians of; it’s a double standard you have here.

You seem very sure about the power and potential of science, its ability to adapt to problems and provide answers—a substitute god? And you talk about it as if you know its goals. On the contrary, science is conducted by scientists (fallible humans, with their own prejudices); as stated earlier, science has its limits, and evolutionary science is fatally flawed.

Those who study genetics learn about the genetic load/burden, and that our genomes are getting worse with every generation (i.e. their quality was better in the past), a scientific fact that is justifiably termed genetic entropy. Evolutionary ideology has hindered medical progress on more than one occasion, with its ‘junk-DNA’ and ‘vestigial organs’.

• Genetic Entropy and the Gospel
• Junk DNA (media)
• Vestigial arguments: remnants of evolution
• Origin of life

That’s a very tall claim indeed. Actually, besides simply asserting your opinions, you have made no attempt to ‘prove’ the coherence and validity of your worldview.

The irony is that you completely failed to follow the debating strategy (originated by an atheist!) in the very article on which you were leaving your feedback! You did not adhere to the flow chart discussed there, failing on all points: A, B, C, D, and E! Therefore, according to the originator of the flow chart—one of your ‘own’—you have not engaged in a rational manner.

• Is Atheism a religion?
• Anyone for tennis?

Finally, consider the following: If your atheistic worldview is correct, why does it matter what Christians believe? Why not relax and live with the fact that some people think differently from yourself? What have you to gain from corresponding with us? If there’s no God (as you claim) and everyone is ultimately headed for oblivion, who really cares?

CMI’s mission is clear: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.

Atheistic proclamations are not effective, and not credible, as attested by the linked articles.

Sincerely,
Lucien Tuinstra

Related Media

Naturalism and evolutionary closed-mindedness