Q&A - How Do We Argue the Existence of God?
August 29, 2021 Sunday Evening Study

Just imagine that the day comes - suddenly you are toe to toe with the dreaded atheist, who has come for the sheer purpose of challenging your faith, and now you have the responsibility of changing everything they believe about existence, creation, and a higher power. In reality, it is likely never going to go this way - because Atheists, like Christians are very certain in what they believe, and it is unlikely that a single conversation is even going to dent the armor. The fact is that there are a number of arguments for the existence of God - yet most of these arguments are nowhere near as effective as most Christians would like to believe. 

How would argue the existence of God with an Atheist? Have you ever been in that sort of situation? How did that go for you?

Consider some hypothetical arguments - pretty standard:

Christian: Everything with a beginning must have a cause - something must cause it to begin. The universe has a beginning and therefore requires a cause. That cause is God.
Atheist: Even if it were true that anything with a beginning requires a cause, why not the Big Bang? Maybe our universe sprang from another universe, as some physicists believe. Why must it be God?

Christian: All of the living creatures of the world clearly exhibit design. Therefore, they must have an intelligent designer, and that is God.
Atheist: Living creatures appear to be designed. Natural selection can also account for this apparent design, as poorly adapted organisms dies off and do not pass on their genes.

Christian: DNA has information in it - the instructions to form a living being. Science says that information never comes about by chance, but always from a mind. DNA proves the mind of God behind the creation of life.
Atheist: There could be an undiscovered mechanism that generates information in DNA. Give us time, and we will discover it. Even if DNA came from intelligence, why not alien intelligence? Why must it be God?

Christian: The resurrection of Jesus proves the existence of God. Only God can raise the dead.
Atheist: There is no solid proof that Jesus rose from the dead. This is simply an embellished story from a book of stories. ANd even if it were true, it still proves nothing. Perhaps under rare chemical conditions of which we are not aware it is possible for a dead organism to come back to life. It certainly does not prove the existence of God.

Christian: The Bible claims that God exists and that it is His Word to us.Furthermore, the Bible must be true, because God cannot lie.
Atheist: That is a circular argument. Unless it can be proven beforehand that God exists, we cannot prove that the Bible is His word to us. Yet as I contend that God does not exist, there is no reason to trust the Bible.

We cannot use a solely Biblical argument to argue against one who does not recognize the Bible’s authority.

Christian: I have personally experienced God, and so have many other Christians. He has saved us and transformed our lives. We know that He exists from experiencing Him in our lives.
Atheist: Personal experience cannot be open to investigation as evidence of fact - we have only your word for it. Besides, such subjective “feelings” could be the effect of a drug or other chemical response. Why must it be God?

Everything the Christian said in the above arguments is true. However, none of these are presented in a way that is decisive - they do not prove the existence of God. Moreover, most of the Atheist’s explanations are quite reasonable - He is not being illogical, he is being consistent with his position. Yet a Christian and an Atheist do not share the same worldview - we have different philosophies on life.

How do you suppose God feels about atheists? 

God does not believe in atheists. The Bible teaches that atheists are not actually atheists. That is, those who profess to be atheists ultimately do believe in their heart of hearts. Romans 1:19 teaches that everyone knows God because He has revealed Himself to all. In fact, the Bible tells us that God’s existence is so obvious that anyone who suppresses this truth is “without excuse” in Romans 1:20. The atheist denies with His lips what He knows in His heart - but why?    

Romans 1:18 explains the wrath of God comes from heaven against the unrighteousness of men, who as a result of their unrighteousness suppress the truth. God’s wrath indicates that God has anger toward those who are ungodly and unrighteous, and the anger of an all-knowing and all-powerful God is a terrifying prospect. So while many atheists may believe that they are neutral objective observers of reality, the fact is that they have a strong motivation to reject a God who is angry at them, causing them to suppress the truth. If they are right, they escape the wrath of God, yet if they are wrong, they are already subject to God’s wrath and separation from Him, so they are hedging their bets.       

Given these things, we do not need to prove to the atheist that God exists, but rather, we want to expose the suppressed knowledge of God the atheist already has. With gentleness and respect, we bring to light what he already knows but is suppressing.     

What do you think about this? I’ll be honest, it came off to me as being somewhat elitist - as if we are saying “you’ll remember eventually that we are right.” Something smacks as off about this for me, yet the Bible is without error.

Looking for inconsistencies: Since an atheist really does believe in God but believes that he does not, we have a walking inconsistency. Inconsistency will always show itself, in a number of ways:

Behavioral Inconsistency - consider an atheist professor who teaches that human beings are simply chemical accidents in biological evolution. But then he goes home and kisses his wife and hugs his children as if they are not simply accidents, but valuable irreplaceable persons deserving of love.

Principle Inconsistency - consider an theist who is outraged at seeing a violent murder on the 10 o’clock news. He is upset and hopes the murderer will be punished for this wicked action. However, his worldview dictates that people are just animals, making this muder no different than a lion killing an antelope - yet we do not punish the lion. Why would we punish the human? We cannot be upset at baking soda for reacting with vinegar - it’s simply what chemicals do. To punish the human is to say that humanity is more valuable that animals and chemicals, and that there must be an objective moral code which treats humans different from other things.

Moral Inconsistency - Many atheists behave morally and expect the same from others. How can there be a standard moral code which must be obeyed if the universe and the people in it are accidents of nature? Who is to determine what the moral code should be? Some people think it is ok to be racist; others think it is ok to kill babies, while others believe we should kill people of other religions or ethnicities. Who can decide what is right and wrong? Some atheists would then say “That’s right - you cannot impose your personal morality on other people.” Yet when they say this very thing, they are in fact imposing their morality on other people.

Logical Inconsistency - Remember from our logical and theological discussion that logic is based on laws. These laws, as we proved before, stem from God’s sovereign nature - they are a reflection of how God thinks. As a result, to argue the laws of logic is to argue the existence and the Word of God. Colossians 2:3 states “Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Remember the law of non-contradiction? It stems from the fact that God does not deny Himself. 2 Timothy 2:13 states “..if we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.”

Remember - the same belief that there cannot be a an absolute standard of morality fits here too - there cannot be an absolute standard of reasoning if everything is simply accidental “molecules in motion” as they atheist believes. The atheist worldview requires the existence of the intelligent designer they deny.

What do you think? Will this persuade them? Why or why not?

The argument for the existence of God, called the Transcendental Argument, or (TAG) is actually very solid logically and reasonably, but most atheists will not be convinced when hearing it. We must remember that there is a difference between proof and persuasion. The TAG can objectively prove that God exists, but an atheist is strongly motivated to not believe in a biblical God who is rightly angry at them for their treason against Him.

Yet this denial of God is an emotional one rather than a logical one. A toddler, when about to be disciplined, may close his eyes and try to believe that his father does not exist - but this is not logical. Yet we must also keep in mind that the unbeliever’s problem is not simply an emotional issue, but a deep spiritual problem. 1 Corinthians 2:14 - “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” It is only the Holy Spirit that gives them the ability to repent, no matter how well we argue our case. 1 Corinthians 12:3b states “...no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.”

It is not our job to convert people, nor are we able to do so. Our job is to give defense of the faith in a way that is faithful to the Gospel - to the Scriptures. 1 Peter 3:15 - “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” It is the Holy Spirit which brings conversion, but God often uses our arguments as part of the process by which He draws people to Himself.

How will this change your approach to witnessing? Do you feel better equipped?