Why does God Allow
Evil? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why Does God Allow Evil 0908.htm
Should God’s existence be
proven? /Apologeticshtml/Should the Bible and God Be Proven
Fideism vs WCG.htm
Does the Bible teach blind
faith? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Gospel of John Theory of Knowledge.htm
Does
God Exist?
How do we try to persuade someone who has become an atheist or agnostic to change his or her mind? One important issue to consider about how to approach your daughter about her atheistic views concerns what her motive is for believing the way that she does. For example, does she believe in (say) the philosophy of Karl Marx or Ayn Rand? They were both atheists, but have very different philosophies overall. To deal with one as opposed to the other requires different tactics and some knowledge of what this or that specific atheist believes. (For example, Ayn Rand attacked the morality of self-sacrifice and altruism). Is she an atheist because of the problem of evil (i.e., why does a good, all-powerful God allow evil to exist?) Then it’s necessary to study into and to be able to explain the arguments about why a loving God allows pain and death in His universe. Does she have some kind of obvious emotionally driven motive for denying God’s existence, such as trying to provoke her parents by attacking their values during a youthful rebellion as a teenager or college student? Then her belief in atheism isn’t driven by reason and facts, but feelings and rationalizations. Is she an atheist because she believes in the theory of evolution? Then it’s necessary to study into the flaws of the theory of evolution if one wants to argue some with her. But now, we need to turn to why we should believe in God’s existence.
Now
this is one of life's ultimate questions: Is there a God? If there
isn't, then what's the real basis for morality (i.e., how we treat
other people then) and the purpose of life? And if there's a God,
did this God inspire the Bible?
Let's
consider first one good argument for God's existence, which is a variation on
the "cosmological" argument for God's existence, which
says the existence of the universe proves that God exists. It's
partially reliant on a "design" feature, so it's also overlaps with
"the argument from design," i.e., that the universe contain objects
that are so complex in their characteristics that they couldn't have happened
by chance. (If you want to know why the theory of evolution doesn’t refute
the argument from design, I can explain that some more to you in a separate
email).
Can
we prove God to exist by human reason alone, and without faith? Let's consider the following argument, stated first in a
short form. Then let’s explain it in detail and then cover two standard objections to it.
1. Either the universe has always existed, or God has.
2. But, as shown by the second law of
thermodynamics, the universe hasn't always existed.
3. Therefore, God exists.
1.
The point here is that something has always existed because self-creation
is impossible. Something can never come from nothing. A
vacuum can't spontaneously create matter by itself. Why? This is because
the law of cause and effect is based on the fact that what a thing DOES is based on what it
IS. Causation involves the expression over a
period of time of the law of non-contradiction in entities. Hence, a
basketball when dropped on the floor of necessity must
act differently from a bowing ball dropped on the same floor, all other things being equal. Hence, if something doesn't
exist (i.e., a vacuum exists), it can't do or be
anything on its own, except remain empty because it has no identity or essence.
This is why the "steady state" theory of the universe's origin devised
by the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle was absurd: It said hydrogen atoms were popping out of nothing! How can a
nothing do anything?!':' With
self-creation impossible, then something had
to always exist. So now:-was it the universe,
or was it some other unseen, unsensed Entity?
2. The second law of thermodynamics maintains that-the
total amount of useful
energy in a closed system must always decline. "Useful energy" is energy that does work while flowing from a place
of higher concentration to that of a
lower concentration. "A closed system' is a place where no new energy is flowing in or out of it.
The universe, physically, is a closed system because no
new matter or energy is being added to it. The first law of
thermodynamics confirms this, since it says no matter or energy is being created or
destroyed. Hence, eventually all the stars
would have burned out if the universe had always existed. A state of "heat death" would have long ago
existed, in which the levels of energy throughout each part of the universe
would be uniform. A state of maximum entropy
(i.e., useless, non-working
energy) would have been reached. But since the
stars have not burned out, the universe had a beginning.
In this regard, the universe is like a car with a full
tank of gas, but which has a stuck gas cap. If the car had always been
constantly driven (i.e., had always existed), it would have
long ago run out of fuel. But the fact it still has gas (i.e., useful energy)
left in it proves the car hasn't been constantly driven from the
infinite past. The stuck gas cap makes-the-car in this example a "closed system" because no more energy
can be added to make the car move. "Heat-death' occurs when the car runs out of gas, as it inevitably
must, since no more can-be added
to-it. Likewise, the universe then is like a wind-up toy that has been
slowly unwinding down: At some point “something” must have wound
it up.
Now, let’s consider two possible objections:
1. "Who created God then?" The point of the
first premise was to show something had to have always existed. At that point,
we didn't know what it was—or who it was. But if the universe hasn't
always existed, then something else--God--has.
2.
"The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to every part of the
universe, or else won't apply to it in the future." This statement is pure
prejudice, because there is no scientific
evidence anywhere that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply.
And this law won't change in the future because the fundamental essence (nature) of the things that make up the physical
universe aren't changing, so nature's
laws wouldn't change in the future. That is, unless God intervenes
through miracles (i.e., “violates” nature’s laws). So a skeptic can’t
turn around and say there are places (or times) in the universe where nature’s
laws don’t apply which no human has ever investigates or been to. And to
know whether the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable somewhere in the
universe, the doubter ironically would have to be “God,” i.e., know everything
about everywhere else. So to escape this argument for God’s existence,
the skeptic then has to place his faith in an unknown, unseen, unsensed
exception to the second law of thermodynamics. It’s better then to place
faith in the unseen Almighty God of the Bible instead!
Now, how do we know if the Bible was inspired by the God
who created the universe?
Now, it is commonly said Christians
who believe the Bible is the inspired
word of God are engaging
in blind faith, and can't prove
God did so. But is this true? By the
fact the Bible's prophets have repeatedly predicted the future successfully,
we can know beyond reasonable
doubt the Bible is not
just merely reliable in its history,
but is inspired by God.
By contrast, compare the reliability of the Bible’s prophets to the supermarket
tabloids’ psychics, who are almost always wrong even about events in the near
future.
The prophet Isaiah gave his prophecies
in the general period c. 740-700
b.c., long before the destruction of Jerusalem by the
Babylonian king, Nebuchnezzar, in 586 b.c. He predicted the
destruction of the city of Babylon (Isa. 13:19-20): "And Babylon,
the beauty of the kingdoms, the glory of the Chaldeans' pride, will be as when
God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It will never be inhabited or lived in from generation
to generation." This vast city had (if we can trust the ancient Greek
historian Herodotus, who was probably exaggerating) a 56-mile circumference,
14-mile sides, walls 311 feet high and 87 feet wide, and occupied 196 square
miles (including protected farmland within the outer walls). In
modern terms, it would be equivalent to predicting the
complete destruction and permanent desolation of New York, London, or Tokyo. Additionally,
to predict the site wouldn't be rebuilt upon was particularly bold, since
this was a common occurrence after a city was destroyed in the ancient Middle East.
Yet this prediction was fulfilled! After the ancient Greek geographer and
historian Strabo visited the site of the city during the reign of the Roman
emperor Augustus (27 b.c.-14 A.D.), he
commented: "The great city has become a desert."
The prophet Zephaniah predicted the destruction of
Nineveh, the capital of the ancient empire of Assyria (Zeph. 2:13):
"And He (God) will stretch out His hand against the north and
destroy Assyria, and He will make Nineveh a desolation." Similarly,
the prophet Nahum predicted Nineveh's destruction (Nahum 2:10; 3:19), with the help
of a flood (Nahum 2:6), during which many of its people would be drunk
(Nahum 1:10), and would be burned as well (Nahum 3:13). Zephaniah was written about
627 b.c., and Nahum somewhere between 661 and 612 b.c.
Nineveh, like Babylon, was one of the world's greatest cities, for
its inner wall was 100 feet tall and 50 feet thick, complete with a
150-foot-wide moat, and a 7-mile circumference. But these protective
features didn’t save it. As predicted (Nahum 3:12), the huge city fell easily,
after a mere three-month siege, to the forces of the Medes, Scythians, and Babylonians
under Nabopolassar in 612 b.c. All of Nahum's specific predictions about how
Nineveh would fall were fulfilled, which can’t sensibly be seen as mere coincidences.
The prophet Daniel, who wrote during the period 605-536 b.c., predicted
the destruction of the Persian empire by Greece. "While I was observing
(in a prophetic vision), behold, a male goat was coming from the west
over the surface of the whole earth without touching the ground; and the goat
had a conspicuous horn between his eyes. And he came up to the ram
that had the two horns, which I had seen standing in
front of the canal, and rushed at him in his mighty wrath. . . . So he
hurled him to the ground and trampled on him, and there was none to rescue the
ram from his power. . . . The ram which you saw with two horns represented
the kings of Media and Persia. And the shaggy goat represented the
kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the
first king" (Daniel 8:5-7, 20-21). More than two hundred
years after Daniel's death, Alexander the Great's invasion
and conquest of Persia (334-330 b.c.) fulfilled this prophecy.
Likewise, Daniel foresaw the division of Alexander's
empire into four parts after his death. "Then the male goat
magnified himself exceedingly. But as soon as he was mighty, the
large horn was broken; and in its place there came up four conspicuous
horns toward the four winds of heaven. (The large horn that is
between his eyes is the first king. And the broken horn and the four
horns that arose in its place represent four kingdoms which will arise
from his nation, although not with his power" (Dan. 8:8, 21-22).
This was fulfilled, as Alexander's empire was divided up among
four of his generals: 1. Ptolemy (Soter), 2. Seleucus (Nicator), 3. Lysimachus,
and 4. Cassander.
Arguments that Daniel was written in the second century b.c. after
these events, thus making it only history in disguise, ignore
how the style of its vocabulary, syntax, and morphology doesn't fit the
second century b.c. As the Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer comments (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 283):
"Hence these chapters could not have been composed as late as the
second century or the third century, but rather--based on purely philological
grounds--they have to be dated in the fifth or late sixth century."
To insist otherwise is to be guilty of circular reasoning: An
anti-theistic a priori (ahead of experience) bias rules out the
possibility of God’s inspiring the Bible ahead of considering the facts, which
then is assumed to “prove” that God didn’t inspire the Bible!
Let’s now turn to the problem of evil, in case this
is the issue that drives your daughter to choose to be an atheist. Why did a good God create a universe in
which He allows evil, pain, and death? Why did God give humanity
free will? Why did God tell Adam and Eve to not eat of the Tree of
But why? Well, here is a basic, bare-bones explanation: God is in the process of making beings like
Himself (Matt. 5:48; Eph. 4:13; John 17:20-24) who willingly choose to be 100%
righteous, but have 100% free will. God doesn't want to create a set of
robots that automatically obey His law, His will, for they aren't like Him
then, for they wouldn't have free will, and the ability to make fully conscious
choices. Now, the habits of obedience and righteousness can't be created by
fiat or instantaneous order. Rather, the person who is separate from God
has to choose to obey what is right and reject what is wrong on his or her
own. But every time a person does what is wrong, that will hurt him,
others, and/or God. But God has to allow us to have free will, because He
wants His created beings to have free will like He does. As part of
the process of impressing how seriously He takes violations of His law, He
sent His Son to die in terrible pain on the cross for the sins of others.
For if his forgiveness was easily granted and given without this terrible
cost paid for it, then people might not take violations of His law seriously as
a result.
So
then, we have the great mystery of God dying for the sins of His creatures
despite they were in the wrong, not Him. God allows suffering in His
creation, and then chooses voluntarily to suffer greatly Himself as a
result of His allowing it into His creation. Therefore, we know that God
understands suffering (cf. Hebrews 4:14-15). So although we may not
know fully why God allows suffering and pain in His creation, we should
trust Him in faith on the matter. God's basic answer to Job was that he
didn't know enough to judge Him. Also, many people wouldn't trust God to
have our interests at heart when telling us to not do X, just like they
didn't trust their parents when they told them (say) doing drugs or getting
drunk was bad for them. Therefore, God chooses to prove it to humanity
and the angels by hard, practical experience on this earth
that shows His way is best, not Satan's. After all, when the
evil angels revolted against God, they never had experienced any pain or death,
but they still mistrusted God for some reason, that He didn't love them
fully. So even though many awful things have happened historically in the
world, we should trust God that He knows what He is doing.
Furthermore, God needs to test us, to see how
loyal we'll be in advance of gaining eternal life. The greatness of the
prize, being in God's Family and living forever happily in union with God,
ultimately makes up for the suffering in this life. For what's (say) 70
years of pain relative to trillions of years of happiness in God's
kingdom? Unfortunately, our emotions, which normally focus on what's
right before us physically, rebel against this insight, but it's true
nevertheless.
Perhaps
you would need to do some research on these issues before talking to your
daughter. The subject to read into is
Christian apologetics, which is the body of knowledge that defends
the historical, philosophical, and doctrinal truth of Christianity against
attacks by others of different belief systems. What are some of the
questions it deals with and attempts to give a Christian answer? Let's
give some examples: Does God exist? Is the Bible the word of God? Can miracles
happen? Is the theory of evolution true? Why does a good God allow
evil to exist? Did the New Testament’s doctrines come from
paganism? Generally, Christian Apologetics attempts to respond to
questions or attacks on the truth of Christianity using rational and logical
arguments, rather than ones based on using faith alone. For example, it
routinely makes rational arguments for God's existence, such as the
famous five proofs the great Catholic theologian and philosopher
Thomas Aquinas gave near the beginning of "Summa Theologica."
Of course, it may attempt to defend faith using logic as well. It
may also deal with specific attacks on various doctrines, such as whether Jesus
is God (not just the Son of God).
Some
of the leading writers of Christian apologetics are (along with books
they've written): C.S. Lewis, "Miracles," "The Problem of
Pain," "The Screwtape Letters;" Josh McDowell, "Evidence
that Demands a Verdict," "More Than a Carpenter;" Henry Morris,
"Scientific Creationism," Duane Gish, "The Fossils Say
No!," Lee Strobel, "The Case for Christ," Gleason Archer, "Encyclopedia
of Bible Difficulties," F.F. Bruce, "The New Testament
Documents: Are They Reliable?;" Norman L. Geisler, "Christian
Apologetics;" J.P. Moreland, "Scaling the Secular City."
If you're looking for a basic introduction to this category of writing, I would
recommend such as book as McDowell's "More Than a Carpenter," Lewis'
"The Problem of Pain," or Strobel's "The Case for Christ."
Here
are some articles on this Web site that deal with this issue of why to believe
in God and why the problem of evil doesn’t prove there is no God:
http://www.lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Does%20God%20Exist%20MSU.htm
http://www.lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Is%20the%20Bible%20the%20Word%20of%20God.htm
http://www.lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Why%20Does%20God%20Allow%20Evil%200908.htm
http://www.lionofjudah1.org/Apologeticshtml/Darwins%20God%20Review.htm
It’s
crucial to figure out why someone became an atheist so that a discussion on
this subject can be well guided. It’s
would be useless to debate side issues.
We have to use the right tactics in order to persuade someone, much as
Paul changed his arguments when working with Jews as opposed to gentiles (I
Cor. 9:19-22).
Sincerely,
Eric
Snow
Click here to access
essays that defend Christianity: /apologetics.html
Click here to access
essays that explain Christian teachings: /doctrinal.html
Click here to access
notes for sermonettes: /sermonettes.html
Why does God Allow Evil?
Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why
Does God Allow Evil 0908.htm
May Christians work on
Saturdays? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Protestant
Rhetoric vs Sabbath Refuted.htm
Should Christians obey
the Old Testament law? /doctrinalhtml/Does
the New Covenant Abolish the OT Law.htm
Do you have an immortal
soul? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Here
and Hereafter.htm
Does the ministry have
authority? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Is
There an Ordained Ministry vs Edwards.html
Is the United States the
Beast? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Are
We the Beast vs Collins.htm
Should you give 10% of
your income to your church? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Does
the Argument from Silence Abolish the Old Testament Law of Tithing 0205 Mokarow
rebuttal.htm
Is Jesus God? Click
here: /doctrinalhtml/Is
Jesus God.htm
Will there be a third
resurrection? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Will
There Be a Third Resurrection.htm
Links to elsewhere on
this Web site: /apologetics.html /book.html /doctrinal.html /essays.html /links.html /sermonettes.html /webmaster.html For the
home page, click here: /index.html