Your Mind Matters: Objections to God’s Existence
By Brian Nixon, Special to ASSIST News Service
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO (ANS – Dec. 20, 2015)
-- In the last Your Mind Matters article [1], I discussed the reality
of the miraculous within the Christmas narrative, focusing in on the
conception of Christ as a miraculous event. One of the larger points
made in the article is that if there is a God, miracles are possible.
But for many, God is a fairy tale, a concept concocted by humans,
creating a crutch for living.
In
this article, I’ll focus in on answering some objections to God’s
existence, making brief comments. I’ve chosen to tackle these objections
using the three major delineations based upon the evidence for God’s
existence (teleological—order and purpose; cosmological—beginnings; and
philosophical and moral arguments). Much could be said in each area, but
I’ll highlight only a few to help generate some thoughts. I’d recommend
Dr. Norman Geisler’s book, The Big of Christian Apologetics, for more
information [2].
Teleological Argument
The
first objection regards chance. It is argued that things could have
happened by chance, not by design. A clear response to this argument can
be summarized as: the probability for chance is virtually zero. Why?
Science is not based on chance, but on regularity, demanding a regular
cause for life. There are two causes to life: natural or intelligent,
finite or infinite. And chance is neither intelligent nor natural. And
since chance is not a cause, chance has never caused a thing. Only an
uncaused cause—God—can create and design life.
The
second teleological objection concerns natural selection. This, too, is
argued that it could be a product of chance. My response is that
natural selection could not cause first life. It can only explain the
survival of the old, not the arrival of the new. Furthermore, natural
selection has never been observed to produce life from chemicals. And
science is based on observation and repeatability—natural selection
fails.
Another
teleological objection is the argument that there could be endless
designs and no first Designer—God. My response is that every cause does
not need a cause; only every effect needs a cause. Every designer does
not need cause, only every design does.
It begs the question to claim that every designer needs a designer. It’s a search without any proof.
Cosmological
A
common question people have regarding the beginning is that if all
things have a beginning, who made God? Response: No one. God is the
unmade Maker and the uncaused Cause. There has to be a first cause—God.
In another article, I write about the existence of God from the argument
of being [3].
Someone
could follow up with the question—couldn’t the universe have a cause
without God? There seems to be only three possibilities. They are: 1.
The world is uncaused (but science show us there was a beginning, known
as the Big Bang), 2. The world is self-caused (which is impossible, a
contradiction), 3. Caused by another (the most logical). In short, the
universe was either: God-caused, self-caused (contradiction), or
uncaused (can’t be, it’s here; we live in it; nothing can’t cause
something). Furthermore, we know that something exists—I do, creation
does. Which leads to something necessary and eternal exists—a Creator
and Designer.
But
then someone may argue if everything needs a cause, then so does God.
Our response can be as follows: Everything does not need a cause. Only
what begins (is contingent or finite) needs a cause. The world is all of
these (finite, etc.), but God is none of these (He’s infinite, etc.)
Hence, God does not need a cause, but the universe does. Only design needs a designer.
Someone
may then suggest that things can happen without a cause. Our response
is that this proposition is absurd. Even the skeptic David Hume said so.
It is absurd to affirm that nothing can produce something. Science is
searching for causes; it’s fundamental to scientific inquiry.
Moral
Concerning
the moral aspects of God’s existence, someone may suggest that the God
of philosophy (one aspect that is dealt with in philosophy is with
morals) is not the God of the Bible. My response to that question is
that they must be the same since: They are both infinite Beings, and
there cannot be two infinite Beings. They are both absolutely perfect,
and there cannot be two absolutely perfect beings. There is more than
one-way to approach the same object: Objectively—philosophically and
scientifically (what John Warwick Montgomery calls, tough minded) and
subjectively—religiously and emotionally (tender-minded). Though not all
philosophy is correct, it can contain characteristics of God’s truth.
Some
people may propose that the moral law is merely herd instinct. My
response would be to say that this is not it’s not so. Moral duty
sometimes sides with weaker instinct. Dr. Geisler, give the example of a
baby in a fire. Our moral instinct would be to save the child, going
against the natural instinct to run from fire. Or, as Francis Schaeffer
suggests, if we saw a small child in the street with an oncoming car,
our moral instinct is to save the child, opposed to the natural instinct
of running from the danger of an oncoming car.
Others
may say that the moral law is the law of nature. I’d respond that
nature’s laws are descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe not what
ought to happen, but what is happening. In some situations things are
factually more inconvenient but are sometimes morally desirable: why
would someone lay down their life for a loved one? Or give something to
someone (such as food in times of hunger), choosing someone else’s life
over your own? Furthermore, things deemed naturally convenient can be
condemned by moral duty: betraying someone for money. The moral law is
not always equitable to the natural law; at times it transcends it,
tethering it to God’s larger moral truths. In short, any value judgment
is meaningless without a moral law—which points to a Law Giver.
So,
contrary to the quip that a belief in God is a concept created by
humans, a crutch for survival, the evidence and arguments for God’s
existence are overwhelming, leading not to doubt but to decisive
determination that there is a God and He, like Francis Schaeffer
reminded us, is not silent [4].
2) Most of these arguments were presented by Dr. Norman Geilser at Veritas Evangelical Seminary http://www.ves.edu/) as found in his book, The Big Book of Christians Apologetics. I’ve gleaned much of the responses from my classroom notes.
4) He is There and He is Not Silent by Francis Schaeffer.
Photo captions: 1) Big Book of Christian Apologetics. 2) Veritas Evangelical Seminary. 3) Brian Nixon.
Note: If you would like to help support the ASSIST News Service, please go to www.assistnews.net
and click on the DONATE button to make you tax-deductible gift (in the
US), which will help us continue to bring you these important stories.
We need your help to invest in this unique service. If you prefer a
check, please make it out to ASSIST and mail it to PO Box 609, Lake
Forest, CA 92609, USA.
About
the writer: Brian Nixon is a writer, musician, and minister. He’s a
graduate of California State University, Stanislaus (BA) and is a Fellow
at Oxford Graduate School (D.Phil.). As a published author, editor,
radio host, recording artist, and visual artist, Brian spends his free
time with his three children and wife, painting, writing music, reading,
and visiting art museums. To learn more, click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Nixon 
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar