There Is No Evidence For God's Existence

While I was in Savannah, Georgia at the St. Patrick’s Day parade I spoke to many atheists and agnostics. Some were very combative and wanted to argue while others had sincere and honest questions they simply wanted Christians to address or at least attempt to give an answer to. During my conversations with these people I noticed a few things that all of them had in common. One of which I would like to share in this post.

Logical Fallacies or the study of clear thinking is something over the past few years I have taken a great interest in. Now, before I get started I am not saying that I think clearly all the time, or that all Christians think clearly (they most certainly do not!), or that all atheists and agnostics cannot think clearly. I am simply asserting that a study in logical absolutes and logical processes would do all of us some good, both believers and non-believers alike.

Most of my conversations started with the question, “Is there any evidence for God’s existence?” I was given a wide variety of answers but one comment in particular I wanted to focus on. It is this statement – There is no evidence for God’s existence. Now, let’s examine the claims of this statement to see what one would have to know in order to make such a claim.

For one to say that there is no evidence for God’s existence he would have to know all evidences. That includes evidences in the past, present, and future and evidences that might be currently unknown to anyone. In essence he/she would be claiming to have all-knowledge which is exactly what he/she is trying to refute. By simply asking questions you can show the illogical position of such a statement.

Example:
Atheist: There is no evidence for God’s existence.

Christian: None? Really? Well, do you know all evidences?

Atheist: Umm, no. I don’t. Do you?

Christian: Do you think there are any evidences out there that you don’t know of?

Atheist: I’m sure there is, but I don’t know what it might be.

Christian: Exactly. Is it logically possible that there is any evidence out there that you don’t know of that could convince you of God’s existence?

Atheist: I guess there could be, but I doubt it.

Christian: I see. Well let me summarize…You don’t know all evidences about God’s existence and you admit that there might be some evidence out there that you don’t know of that could convince you of God’s existence? Doesn’t that make you more of an agnostic?

You see, I have simply asked questions to demonstrate the absurdity of the atheist/agnostic position. I have not gone on the offensive and listed evidence after evidence in support of my position. I have just asked questions to lead him to the ultimate conclusion of his statement. Sometimes that is all you need to do. There is no need to be offensive for the sake of being offensive. Simply help others to think clearly in these matters.

I also heard many other forms of logical fallacies while witnessing in Savannah. Below are a few of my favorites with explanations on why the statement is illogical.

Statement: “There is no such thing as right and wrong.”

Answer: Is the above statement right in saying that there is no right and wrong? If it is right that there is no right and wrong then the statement is right and that itself would be an example of something that is “right”. If the above statement is wrong then that too is an example of something that is “wrong”. Either way you go this argument is self-defeating.

Statement: “There is no way to know anything for certain.”

Answer: Do you know for certain that there is no way to know anything for certain? If you can know that for certain then you have just defeated your own statement. This is called the fallacy of begging the question or circular reason. It simply means that the premise of the statement is what ends up in the conclusion of the statement.

Statement: “You shouldn’t tell other people what to do by imposing your morals to them.”

Answer: When they say “you should not…” they are doing just what they are telling us not to do: enforcing their personal moral code on other people. If I should not be speaking to people about my moral code then what gives them the right to tell me what to do by imposing their moral code on me?

Statement: “You must have proof of something before you believe it”

Answer: I really like this one for several reasons. I typically ask “Ok, then give me the proof that you have to have proof to believe something.” By making this statement the person needs to logically demonstrate how they can have proof to believe that you need proof in order to believe anything. As a side note – Whether a person believes or has proof of the laws of logic you must presuppose them in order to use them in the first place. In other words, you must use logic before you even believe or have proof for its existence.

Statement: “You can’t know anything for a fact.”

Answer: Is it a fact that you can’t know anything as a fact? If yes, then you can know something as a fact. If no, then you have yet another fact. This argument is again an example of circular reasoning and is self-defeating.

Again, I’m not saying that I am the best thinker in the world, but a quick study in logic will do anybody a world of good. Here is a link for a great book to get started with. God bless!!

Is DNA a Language?

If you found an ancient clay tablet with strange characters washed up on the shore you wouldn’t be able to read it unless someone had cracked the code, but you would still know the letters represented a language even if you didn’t know anything else about the author or his civilization. Language is recognizable even if you can’t read it.

Take Morse Code for example. It has 3 basic parts; dots, dashes and spaces. These three simple parts are combined to represent letters. There are 26 letters in the English language which are combined to form over 400,000 words. Those words of course can be combined into an infinite number of sequences or sentences. There is evidence that DNA represents a language. Four basic units called nucleotides combine into a code for 20 amino acids. From those few amino acids the body forms more than 100,000 proteins.

Even if you can’t read DNA it still has all the hallmarks of language, a language that biologists are just now beginning to crack. Every tiny cell in our body is packed with 3 feet of DNA and three billion nucleotides. The similarity between DNA and human language is uncanny. In addition to codes both use similar techniques to pack, access, rearrange, copy, and translate information. DNA seems to represent a language; the language of life. An unseen author, the Creator of Heaven and Earth has left a testimony of His existence in the DNA of every living thing.

Atheism and Morality

Over the past several months I have been dealing with atheists on issues of morality. My claim is not that atheists cannot be moral people but how can an atheist justify an objective moral standard. What moral standard can an atheist use to determine between right and wrong? The question and answers below should help you when dealing with an atheist about these topics. Study and enjoy!

In the evolution worldview, right and wrong can be nothing more than electro-chemical reactions in the brain – the result of time and chance.


• Example 1

Atheist: Morality is just relative. There’s no such thing as absolute morality, and therefore you should not try to enforce your personal moral code on other people

Answer: When they say “you should not…” they are doing just what they are telling us not to do: enforcing their personal moral code on other people. If there is no absolute moral code, then nothing is actually fundamentally wrong: not lying, not stealing, not even rape and murder. And yet people cannot live consistently by such an amoral standard.


• Example 2

Atheist: I do believe in right and wrong, and I also believe in evolution, so they can go together.

Answer: People can be irrational; they can profess to believe in things that are contrary to each other. The statement is not directed toward what people believe to be the case, but rather what actually is the case. Can the concepts of right and wrong really be meaningful apart from the biblical God? How can morality be justified in an evolutionary worldview?


• Example 3

Atheist: People can create their own moral code apart from God. They can adopt their own standards of right and wrong.

Answer: If everyone can create his or her own morality, then no one could argue that what other people do is actually wrong since other people can also invent their own personal moral code. For example, a person might choose for himself a moral code in which murder is perfectly acceptable. This might seem upsetting to us, but how could we argue that it is wrong for others to murder if morality is nothing but a personal standard? If morality is a subjective personal choice, then Hitler cannot be denounced for his actions since he was acting in accord with his chosen standard. Clearly this is an unacceptable position.


• Example 4

Atheist: Right is what brings the most happiness to the most people.

Answer: Why should that be the selected standard as opposed to some other view? Also, notice that this view borrows from the Christian position. In the Christian worldview, we should indeed be concerned about the happiness of others since they are made in God’s image. But if other people are simply chemical accidents, why should we care about their happiness at all? Concern about others does not make sense in an evolutionary universe.


• Example 5

Atheist: I treat others as I feel I'd like to be treated if I was in their shoes, and I hope they do the same to me.

Answer: That’s the golden rule – right from Scripture (Matthew 7:12). The golden rule makes sense in a Christian worldview. We are all made in God’s image, and thus should treat one another with respect and dignity. But if we are just evolved chemicals, why should we care about others? Why not hurt people if it improves our chances of survival in this dog-eat-dog world?

In the biblical worldview, there is a universal standard for behavior because there is a God who is sovereign over all creation. Moreover, God has “hard-wired” His law into our mind because He knew we would need it. So, the Christian worldview can explain why (1) there is an absolute moral code, and why (2) everyone knows about it (it’s “common sense”). The atheistic worldview cannot explain either of these things. Therefore, atheists must “steal” morality from the Christian worldview. And isn’t it wrong to steal?


• Example 6

Atheist: Morality is what the majority decides it to be. If our social government decides to make a law against something then it is morality wrong.

Answer: This objection merely shifts an unjustified opinion from one person to a group of people and leads to absurd conclusions.

This is known as the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Populum; or the majority says it is right, so it is right. Of course the majority can be wrong about things, so that is not a valid and sound argument that proves an objective standard by the atheist. If he were to appeal to what society has worked out as being good, then he is again committing the fallacy of Argumentum Ad Populum.

Also, think about this. If society determines moral norms, then by what right does any atheist complain against the Ancient Jews in the Old Testament who lived in a different time, different culture, and different location? Does he have the moral right to impose his moral values on another society and judge it to be bad?

Thank you to Dr. Jason Lisle from Answers in Genesis and Matt Slick from Carm.org for the information used in these arguements. This list in no way completes what you may hear from an atheist or agnostic but keep studying different angles of argumentation to help the atheist see the logical conclusion of his worldview. God bless!

An Atheist Asks...

A few atheists have raised some objections to me when it comes to the issue of an objective moral standard. An atheist cannot have an objective moral standard to know what is good or evil. Yes, many atheists are moral, nice people, but my question is on what standard to you base your morality? Below you will see the atheist’s objections and my responses in a point-by-point style.

Response from Atheist #1

Atheist: I don't know how you would define anything from an atheist point of view. Just what is an atheist point of view? Me saying I'm an atheist, and I am, doesn't say anything about me other one, and only one thing I am not. I am not superstitious. However, you can define good and evil from a humanistic point of view. In fact, it is the only way to define good and evil.

Ty: To say that you can only define good and evil from a humanistic point of view is to admit that good and evil do not exist. If there is no objective moral standard then there can be no way to determine what is right and what is wrong. Morality would simply be what each individual wanted their particular morality to be. This would lead to chaos and is an unacceptable position.

Atheist: Good benefits the creatures of the planet. Evil harms the creatures of the planet. Reality is the massive gray area in between where we must make a determination if an act is good, or evil.

Ty: The problem with the above statement is..Who gets to define “benefits” and “harms”? Again, we come to the problem of each person choosing his or her own morality by defining these terms for themselves. If you say that society determines this then you have simply shifted the outcome of morality from one person to a group of people. This would in effect say that what the majority says is right and of course we know that the majority can make mistakes. So this is not a good position to hold.

Atheist: And there is the big bugaboo theists can't stand, relativism. But the world is relative, so deal with it.

Ty: If the world is relative and nothing is absolute, then what about your statement that the world is relative? Is that absolutely true? If it is true, then you have problem. Let me ask you this...“Is relativism absolutely true for everyone?” If you say yes, then you are contradicting yourself by holding to an absolute relativism, which would be an oxymoron. To be consistent, you could say, “Nothing is objectively true, including my own relativistic position, so you’re free to accept my view or reject it”.

Response from Atheist #2

Atheist: Morals don't come from religion. It comes from our culture and our idea of what is good and what is bad. The right way to learn these ideas is to be taught and understand why something is bad/good.

Ty: If our culture determines the moral norms then this presents a couple of problems.
1. Just because the majority says something it is right does not make it so. If our society determined that 100 years from now that atheists could be murdered in the streets. Would that then make an action of murder right? I don’t see how
2. If a culture decides morality then each culture or society could adopt its own moral code. In some societies murder, rape, or theft could be perfectly acceptable. We wouldn’t be able to call those things good, bad, evil, or right because each culture has decided was it right to them. Such an amoral standard people cannot live by.
3. If society determines moral norms then by what right does the atheist judge the Ancient Jews in the Old Testament who did what they had to do in order to live and help their society? The atheist seems to be contradicting himself when he complains against this group of people from the Old Testament.

Atheist: What religion does is brain wash you into believing there is an all powerful omniscient being watching over and if you don't follow the rules, he will condemn you to a horrible place where you will be tortured for all eternity.

Ty: That is a misrepresentation and a strawman argument against the Christian religion. Christianity does not teach that salvation comes by following any set of rules. Salvation only comes through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and Him only. We only try to obey Him from gratitude and love for what He had done.

Atheist: What is missing? A lack of understanding and reason. Atheists have morals. We choose to follow them out of good will and not fear.

Ty: In the above statement you speak of “understanding and reason”. This would imply that we have a mind and freedom of thought to consider alternatives and choose the best. But if atheism is true, then our brain is simply the result of mindless chemistry that happened to convey survival value in the past. So there would be fundamentally no reason to think that we can reason in an atheistic worldview. If atheism were true, then what you think and say could not be rational, but would merely be the inevitable result of chemistry over time.

I'm sure there will be more to come...God bless!

E.T. Phone Home

Consider SETI – the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. People in this research program hope to detect radio signals from alien civilizations. But many things in space produce radio waves – stars, quasars, pulsars, etc. How would we distinguish an intelligent signal from a “neutral” one? One criterion that would certainly do the job is to find information in the radio signal. Clearly, if we received a radio signal that contained instructions on how to build a complex machine, no one would doubt that the transmission came from an intelligent source. Of course, DNA has just such encoded information; instructions on how to build a complex machine. Yet, those same researchers will deny that DNA has an intelligent source. It is inconsistent for unbelievers to accept coded information as an indication of intelligence in space, while denying that very same principle in the DNA of living organisms.

Atheism and Logic

Over the past few weeks I have found a great place to dialogue with atheists…Facebook! There are many discussion forums so at night a few times a week I will post and engage in a friendly debate or two. Below is one such debate that I had with an atheist discussing the laws of logic. I am just now starting to understand this topic and enjoy it greatly. If you follow the dialogue below please keep in mind that the atheist may use parentheses to highlight something that I have said. My responses are in blue. The atheist is in red. Enjoy!

Atheist: It may interest you to know that I created wine from NOTHING. Also water. Also, everything that you will ever know. Water to wine is a parlor trick, creating the very atoms that make up the entire universe is a much more impressive feat, although I don't think you're intelligent enough to realize it.

Also, Jesus never existed. So Jesus, Jebus, whatever, it's irrelevant. You're not referring to anything but a figment of the imagination I created you with. Spell it however you please, there is no proper way, as there was no proper Jesus.

Ty: Stephen, you can't create anything from nothing so I'm sure you are using some type of play on words here.
I find it interesting that many atheists here insult Christians for not being intelligent but how does an atheist account for the preconditions of intelligibility in the first place?

Atheist: "Stephen, you can't create anything from nothing so I'm sure you are using some type of play on words here."

This is a claim of universal knowledge. I am god, I can do whatever I please.

Also, I don't think Christians are unintelligent, I think their beliefs, more specifically Christianity, is unintelligent. Isaac Newton was a Christian, and I would argue that he was a very bright man, but his faith in the supernatural was not due to intelligence.

Ty: I don't have to have universal knowledge to know that you can't create something from nothing. Logic tells me that.

With regard to your comments about Isaac Newton..."but his faith in the supernatural was not due to intelligence."

This is a correct statement. His faith in the supernatural was not due to himself but only to the saving power of God who opened his eyes and his heart.

Atheist: “I don't have to have universal knowledge to know that you can't create something from nothing. Logic tells me that. "

Well, then, you can't exclude the possibility, now can you?

"This is a correct statement. His faith in the supernatural was not due to himself but only to the saving power of God who opened his eyes and his heart."

Yet another claim of universal knowledge. How do you know?

Ty: Your first response - You cannot create something from nothing. The first law of logic is the law of identity. It simply states that something is what it is and is not what it is not. So if nothing exists how can something or anything come from that? It can’t. You might be able to manipulate and experiment with matter until it becomes something else but you cannot create from nothing.
Your second response – This is not a claim of universal knowledge only knowledge of the One who has universal knowledge. Big difference, huh?

I don’t claim to have universal knowledge. You do that by your own worldview. Do you claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God? If so, do you know all evidence? If you say that there is no evidence for the existence of God then guess what? You are doing the very thing you accuse me of . You claim to universal knowledge.

Atheist: You're leaving out a fundamental concept here, I am god. I am not bound by your logic or laws of conservation. So all of that is irrelevant, since I am the creator of everything.

You also claim to know Isaac Newton's thoughts, but I guess that slipped by you.

I'm still waiting for your evidence of any god(s) existing. I have provided equal evidence that I am god.

Ty: You haven’t offered any evidence. You have only contradicted yourself since you are claiming to be the very thing (god) that you say doesn’t exist. You are being inconsistent and irrational.

A rational worldview must provide the preconditions of intelligibility. Morality, laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature are a few evidences that God exists. Atheism cannot provide a rational basis for any of these. Which would you like to discuss?

Atheist: You haven’t offered any evidence. You have only contradicted yourself since you are claiming to be the very thing (god) that you say doesn’t exist. You are being inconsistent and irrational. "

I really don't see how this is any different that all other claims of a god.

"A rational worldview must provide the preconditions of intelligibility. Morality, laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature are a few evidences that God exists. Atheism cannot provide a rational basis for any of these. Which would you like to discuss?"

Actually, those are evidences that humans exist, and that nature exists. You have yet to show evidence of a god, nor a god that appreciates "order."

You're essentially saying that you know god, and how said god would order a universe. How in hell would you know any of that? Blind conjecture? Indeed.

Ty: Really? How do humans and/or nature account for the existence of the laws of logic?

Atheist: "Really? How do humans and/or nature account for the existence of the laws of logic?"

Logic is based off of the universe we live in. It could very-well be entirely different. How do you account for a god doing all of it? "Inventing" logic, if you will? You're simply assuming cause for something you have no interest of actually explaining. It's intellectually lazy and dimwitted to assume logic could ONLY be explained by a god.

Ty: First, laws of logic are conceptual in nature. They do not describe aspects of the universe. Rather, they describe the correct chain of reasoning from premises to conclusions. Second, if laws of logic were descriptions of the physical universe, then we might expect different regions of the universe to have different laws of logic, since different regions of the universe are described differently; but laws of logic apply everywhere. Third, we would have no way of knowing (and therefore no reason to expect) that laws of logic would apply in the future as they have in the past, since no one has experienced the universe’s future. After all, conditions in the universe are constantly changing. If laws of logic were descriptions of such conditions, then they would have to change as well.

The laws of logic were not created by God. They are contingent on God and are a reflection of the way God thinks. Thus, they cannot exist without Him any more than your reflection in a mirror can exist without you. Since God is a thinking being and since He has always existed, laws of logic have always reflected His thinking.

Atheist: Clearly I'm getting nowhere.

Yes, logic = there is a god. Very sound reasoning there. Don't let me stop you from spouting such nonsense.

Ty: Think about it Stephen. How can your worldview account for the laws of logic? I truly don't think it can. But logic and philosophy cannot save you. Only Christ can do that. Think about it. Eternity is a long time to be wrong. Good night.

Atheist: HAHAHAHA!

You apologists always come up with the stupidest $%&@. YECs come up with more convincing bull than that.

I just have to point out the circular reasoning here though. God is used to account for logic, while logic is used to account for god. Very nice.

Poor guy. He just doesn't get it...

Letter to a Jehovah's Witness Friend

Right before Christmas I received a letter from a Jehovah Witness friend of mine. Inside the envelope was a small piece of paper with a personal message and a Watchtower magazine. The cover of the magazine read “6 Myths of Christianity”. So I thought it fitting to respond to my friend’s letter (yes, yes, even using snail mail) by addressing each of the claims and mailing my response back to him. Below is the cover letter that I attached to my response. You can download my refutation to the Watchtower literature here. Enjoy!

I wanted to write you and thank you for thinking of my wife and I by sending your note in the mail. We think of you and Jean very often and look forward to the next time we see you both. I have enjoyed spending time reading through the Watchtower literature that you sent me. Given that you indicated that you would like to know what I thought of the information in the booklet, I have put together a brief response to each of the six myths discussed in what you sent me. I hope that you enjoy reading my responses and that we both can learn something new about each other’s worldview that maybe we didn’t know before.

If you are willing, I would like to go into some of these areas with you in person, but I do realize that sometimes your schedule will not allow you to spend a great deal of time visiting me in my home. I would like to say, however, that I would be more than willing to travel to meet with you, if you would like. Just let me know a convenient time.

Again, I thank you for your time and know that my family holds a very special place for you in our hearts. God bless you both.