WHAT WOULD IT TAKE?

Ok, so you’re an atheist.  You don’t believe in the existence of God, and you don’t see how anyone else could possibly believe in Him.  Or maybe, you’re an agnostic and you believe that there could possibly be a God or gods, but you don’t see enough evidence to justify that belief.  You’re thinking, “If there really is a God, then why does it look like He is hiding from us?”  Either way, you’re a rational thinker and you need hardcore evidence before believing in any “old man in the sky” fairy tales, right?

But the question has to be asked:  What kind of evidence would you require?  What exactly would it take to convince you of the existence of God?  Would you only be satisfied with purely scientific evidence?

But appealing to science brings up another issue:  Is science equipped to truly demonstrate God in a laboratory?  How would that work?  Look, we all know that you can’t measure the weight of something with a tape measure.  And we all know that you can’t calculate distance with an electrical volt meter, nor can you measure pressure with a microscope.  In other words, to measure or test something, you must use the correct tools for the job.  But using science to directly measure something metaphysical or spiritual (like God) is absurd.  Scientific methods are not equipped to directly determine the qualities or existence of God.  You can’t find Him in a test tube or see Him through a telescope.

 

Yet, atheists and other skeptics will often demand that God (if He does indeed exist) should make Himself visible so all can believe in Him… is that too much to ask?  He should “show Himself,” or maybe perform some great miracle, like giant writing in the sky for all to see.  You know, seeing is believing, right?  Yet no one has ever seen gravity, but no one goes around demanding that gravity needs to become visible before we can believe in it, do they?  By that logic, someone could also say that since your mind is not directly visible, it must not exist!  Physical visibility is not always necessary to prove existence.  Some things we don’t directly see, e.g., electricity, force, heat, pressure, energy, etc., but we can see their effects.  This is also true of God… although He is invisible, we can see His handiwork (Psalm 8:1; 19:1-2), His creation (Romans 1:18-20), and His affecting of our lives in many ways (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).  But we don’t need to directly see Him or directly hear His audible voice to know He’s there.  We can find Him through indirect evidence.

We find an interesting (and relevant) Bible story in the book of Luke, where Jesus tells us about two men who die, ending up in two vastly different places - the rich man in agony, and the poor man in bliss (Luke 16:19-31).  The rich man, after realizing the hopelessness of his eternal mistake, cries out for Abraham to send Lazarus (the poor man) back from the dead to testify of this horrible place to his still-living family, so that they don’t end up there with him.  But it is important to note that Abraham tells the rich man that if his brothers will not believe Moses and the prophets (Scripture), then they will not believe someone who comes back from the dead (v. 31).  Notice that Jesus, through this story, considered the testimony of Scripture as far more reliable than the witness of the dead coming back to testify!  The rich man wanted extreme evidence for his family to see.  But no one can demand the luxury of such extreme evidence.  Scripture is sufficient.

But the problem with skeptics, though, is that it seems that they are always able to “explain away” any evidence produced.  Medical miracles are simply written off as a hoax, and even if God were to visibly appear, they would claim that it was just an illusion or hallucination, anyway.

They ask for visible proof of God; but God already did show Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ (God becoming flesh), who did many, many miracles and even rose from the dead, yet many still didn’t believe!  But when skeptics demand evidence, what they are really asking is, “Why doesn’t He reveal Himself the way I want Him to?”  But God is not obligated to reveal Himself to skeptics, or to anyone, especially to someone who is not repentant nor willing to serve Him.  No one is promised a dramatic “Damascus Road” experience (Acts 9:1-9).

And God is not asking anyone to use “blind faith,” but faith resting on reliable historical evidence.  It pleases Him when we believe what He says – like parents who desire for their children to trust them without having to prove or explain everything to them – it’s about a relationship.  God wants us to learn to trust Him without having to give us every single detail, because we may not be ready for some details yet.

It is true that believers will often be biased, and they are not always willing to consider all the evidence concerning science.  But extreme bias can also be found in atheist circles.  The esteemed Professor Richard Lewontin (atheist geneticist at Harvard) writes:

“We take the side of science IN SPITE OF the patent ABSURDITY of some of its constructs… IN SPITE OF the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a PRIOR commitment – A COMMITMENT TO MATERIALISM.  It is NOT that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, ON THE CONTRARY, that we are forced by our A PRIORI ADHERENCE to MATERIAL causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce MATERIAL explanations, NO MATTER how counter-intuitive, NO MATTER how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is an ABSOLUTE, for WE CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR.” (Billions and Billions of Demons, Prof. Richard Lewontin, New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, Volume 44 [Emphasis added])

In other words, for the atheist, the existence of God must be kept out of the equation at all costs, no matter what the evidence suggests.

But ultimately, the issue is not whether God exists or not.  The answer to that is built into every one of us, atheists included.  Deep down inside, we all know He’s there (Romans 1:18-20), though some will not admit it.  God, in different ways, makes Himself known to all of us.  But are we willing to reach out to Him and let Him change our lives?  Are we willing to trust Him and submit to Him?

God is not obligated to provide greater evidence.  It’s not that skeptics need more evidence, the problem is that they are not believing the evidence that exists already!

See these articles:

http://www.str.org/blog/challenge-response-god-can-t-be-scientifically-quantified#.V1t65CG_J0w

http://christianthinktank.com/adam01.html

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

DO SUFFERING CHILDREN PROVE THAT THERE IS NO GOD?

Probably the most common objection, by far, against believing in God amongst atheists, skeptics, naturalists, and non-Christians is, “If there really is a God, then why is there so much suffering in the world?”

 

But the purpose of this article is not to specifically answer the question of why evil exists.  There are many great articles that address this topic elsewhere.  Here are links to a couple of them, one by author (and former atheist) Lee Strobel:

http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/162215-lee-strobel-why-does-god-allow-tragedy-and-suffering.html

And one by pastor, author, and apologist Charlie H. Campbell:

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php/evil-and-suffering/181

But today, our focus is mainly on the argument that says:

Since evil is present in this world (especially the suffering of innocent little children) then God must not exist.

To elaborate, many atheists and skeptics will use this type of argument as an excuse for not believing in God, as stated earlier.  They’ll say, “Why is there senseless suffering, especially of innocent children, in this world?  It is inconsistent for a God who is both all-powerful and compassionate to allow such tragedy.  If He is able to stop it, why wouldn’t He?  Apparently, He really must not care.  If He really has the power to do it, then He is obligated; He MUST stop children from suffering to be consistent with what the Bible claims about Him (that He is compassionate), otherwise, He just cannot exist.”

 

But this is a false dilemma.  You can’t erase God’s existence or override His wisdom and timing with these emotional arguments.  And you can’t say that there is no God just because He does not act like you feel He should act. 

 

First, God is able to turn all bad things into something good (Romans 8:28).  Second, God never promised that anyone (even the innocent) would be immune from suffering in this life.  Third, simply having the ability to do something does not logically obligate Him to do that particular thing.  If He wanted, God could make every person on the planet very, very rich.  But just because He can doesn’t mean that it would be wise to do so.

Look, if there is indeed a biblical God (and there is), then by definition:

·      He created us.

·      He is sovereign and in authority.

·      He is far stronger and wiser than we are.

·      The right to establish the rules belongs to Him, and Him alone.

·      We don’t have the right to tell Him what to do or how to run this world.

·      Since we are finite / limited, we should expect that He would do some things that we don’t understand.

These are simply things that define who the Christian God is, but atheists are trying to re-define Him by saying that, if He would exist, He should be subject to man’s demands. 

Real Concern for the Children?

It seems that the only time that atheists become vocal about suffering children is when someone mentions God.  Are they really as concerned as they say they are, or are they just using the children to attack the concept of God?  But if there is no biblical God to blame, then who will the atheist blame for the suffering children?  Would he be so quick to condemn his own “god” of evolution?  Would he DEMAND that science immediately fix the problem of suffering, as he would demand of the Christian God?  Or would he just say, “Oh, well, suffering is just part of life”?

And, instead of blaming God, why not blame the corrupt politicians who often cause the famine and devastation of countries and people, primarily because of mismanagement and / or stealing of funds that were sent to relieve the hunger and sickness?

Sawing off the Branch You’re Sitting on…

 

Atheists will also say that if God is compassionate, then why does He not remove evil completely?  Actually, He WILL do it.  But it’ll be in His timing and on His terms.  And again, He is under no obligation to erase suffering and evil when we want it done.  Man is often impatient and we don’t see the things that are being done “behind the scenes” by God.  But, like any good parent, God just wants us to trust Him. (Genesis 18:25)

But do we really want God to put an end to all suffering?  If so, then He must put an end to its cause, as well.  But remember, every one of us has, to some extent, contributed to the cause of someone’s suffering!  So, God would have to destroy us all if we insist on getting rid of suffering (and whatever causes it).  So, be careful what you ask for.

In the Beginning

Atheists may ask, “But if God exists, why didn’t He merely create a world where suffering and tragedy don’t exist in the first place?”  Actually, the fact is that He did just that in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1:31)! 

 

God didn’t create evil.  What He created was perfect.  But in order for love to be genuine and freely given (He didn’t want robots), He gave man and the angels free will.  They had the ability to freely choose either good or evil.  And this free will was abused by both angels and men, twisting goodness into evil, through their sin and disobedience.  In a nutshell, this is why there is suffering in our world, even today. 

An Argument that Backfires

We all agree that evil exists in this world, but you know, the very fact that we designate something as “evil” is strong evidence FOR the existence of God!  Though many may not realize it, calling something good or evil is an appeal to an objective (or absolute) standard of morality.  It points to a standard that is transcendent (above and beyond the limits of man and this world).  In atheism, “good” and “evil” can only be relative terms.   What is “right” for one atheist may be wrong for another atheist.  One atheist might consider a certain act wicked, while another thinks it is totally acceptable.  For the atheist, there are no moral absolutes, and without that absolute standard (God), the atheist cannot say with confidence that anything is actually “good” or “bad.” 

Conclusion

We believe that even if God decided to heal every single suffering child in the world, many atheists would be quick to attribute that miracle to something else, something other than God.  They would simply find another reason to continue to disbelieve in God’s existence.  Those same atheists may want to end the suffering of children, but what they want even more is to have reasons NOT to believe in God and be accountable to Him.

It is an unfortunate fact that we have suffering children in our world.  Sometimes the suffering may seem absolutely pointless, but rest assured that there is a God, and that He has morally sufficient reasons to allow this suffering, for the children’s sake, and for the sake of those directly affected.  Man’s ultimate purpose in this life is not mere “happiness,” but it is to know God intimately.  Only when we come to realize this does the “senseless suffering” make sense.  Eternal bliss awaits those innocent children, and anyone else who puts their trust in the person and work of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.  That even includes the atheist.

In summary, the fact that children suffer on earth certainly does not prove that there is no God.

THE ULTIMATE FUTILITY OF LIFE IN ATHEISM

Imagine a child whose parents tell him that he is absolutely useless and that no one wants him.  That would certainly be devastating for any child.  Many would call that the worst form of verbal abuse.  But why?  What is it about this scenario that we find so disturbing?  The reason is because we all crave meaning in our lives.  Every person (child or adult) wants to know that he has a purpose in life, that he has value as a human being. No one can deny the need for a sense of meaning and purpose in each person’s life, because without it, tragically, some are even willing to take their own lives.  And our awareness of that meaning and purpose is inherent.  It’s just built into our nature.  It is just as real and just as ingrained in us as the instinct to survive and the need to reproduce.  And if it’s built into our nature, then we have to wonder how it got there.

So, where did we get this sense of purpose, value and meaning in life?  Christians (and even many non-Christians) believe that this comes from God.  Naturally, atheists would disagree.  As far as we are aware, atheists and materialists don’t deny the existence of these concepts, but they will say that these traits came to us through evolution.  Supposedly, our sense of purpose has evolved in us over millions of years through an accident of chance, through random natural processes and mindless, chaotic matter somehow coming together and forming the incredibly complex creatures that we are.  No order, no design.  So, are we to assume that that which is purposeless has caused a sense of purpose in us?  Interesting.

According to scientists, the universe is ever expanding, and the final result is that it grows colder and colder until its energy is used up.  Eventually, all living things will die and even the universe itself will come to naught.  There will be no heat, no light, and no life of any kind.  If that’s all there is, then there will be nothing left to hope for, nothing to look forward to.  If atheism is true, all our lives will have been in vain, with no one left to remember any of it.  Nothing has made a difference, since we all end up the same way.  In the end, it doesn’t matter whether we ever existed or not.  Think about that.  Ultimately, all life will have been rendered insignificant. 

 

According to author, philosopher, theologian and scholar William Lane Craig, in an article titled, “The Absurdity of Life without God,” he says of humans [if atheism is true]:

“The same blind cosmic process that coughed them up in the first place will eventually swallow them all again.”

And a little farther on, he states:

“If God does not exist, then you are just a miscarriage of nature, thrust into a purposeless universe to live a purposeless life.”

Consider the doctor who helps to heal and save the lives of thousands… the scientist who studies the laws of nature, the soldiers and law enforcement heroes who protect our land… the heroic firemen who daily save lives and property… if atheism is true, then ultimately none of these people matter.  And since we are merely a by-product of random matter and blind chance, then, in the end, all of us are nothing more than a blip on the radar screen of time.  The life of a gnat would have been just as important as that of a human, since we are all random accidents anyway, and we all end in death.  If there is no final punishment for evil, nor any final reward for good, then man has no ultimate meaning.

 

Yes, atheism paints an awfully bleak picture.  But the atheist might object and say, “But we DO have purpose and meaning in our lives!  We have family, friends, work, etc.  It’s just that our purpose is in this life, not in some illusion of an afterlife.”  But if there is no afterlife, and if all meaning and purpose is confined to this life alone, then where is life’s meaning for the aborted baby, the stillborn, or the severely handicapped?  Where is their purpose?  If life does not have lasting or continual meaning after death, then whatever “meaning” it was thought to have is insignificant and will be swallowed up in the darkness of an empty eternity.

 

The point here is that we are all innately aware that our lives are designed to have meaning, but atheism does not give us ultimate meaning.  So, it therefore goes against our very nature.  On the other hand, Christianity confirms that the meaning and purpose that each person senses is indeed correct.  And the God of the Bible, the God of Christianity, offers everyone (including the atheist) the gift of eternal life.  In Him we have ultimate meaning and significance.  We just need to trust and accept Him.

The author of the book of Ecclesiastes strongly expresses the vanity, the futility, of a purely secular or materialistic life:  Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2)  Without God, life is ultimately meaningless.

As far as the atheist, if he is honest with himself, he has to admit that life just doesn’t make sense in his worldview.  We’re not saying that atheists are always bad people or that they can’t have morals; we’re saying that they’re living a lie.  Because every person knows, deep down inside, that God exists.  No one has an excuse:

For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20 - NASV)

See also William Lane Craig’s powerful article (mentioned above) here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god