Answers to objections

Note: There are many objections that have been raised against the existence of God, and against the Christian faith. Of course, I will never be able to deal with all of them, and I freely confess that I never expect to have water tight answers to every objection that can be raised. I think it goes without saying that if a person will not believe in God until every objection is answered, the person will never believe in God. On the other hand, I submit that if a person will not be an atheist until every objection against atheism is answered, the person would never become an atheist either. Reality is far too complicated for anyone who takes any position regarding the fundamental nature of reality, whether right or wrong, to be able to answer every conceivable objection.

I believe that there is plenty of evidence to make an intelligent decision for God and to have confidence in God's existence and in His love and benevolence, even though unanswered questions remain. This is not to say that the path to truth is an easy one. Neither is it to say that there are not many honest, intelligent people who are atheists and agnostics who have come to believe as they do through honest inquiry and thinking. But, it is my hope that by dealing with some of the more common objections, it will be easier for the atheist and agnostic reader to consider that maybe God might exist after all, and ultimately, to take hold of His hand in faith.

Objection: "Why would a God of love torture people forever and ever in hellfire for the sins of a miniscule lifetime?"
That is a very good question. The doctrine of an eternally burning hellfire has probably turned more people away from God than any other. I believe this is very unfortunate, and unnecessary. What do I mean by this? I could write a lot on this topic, and eventually plan to put in a page or two dealing with it. But, for now, let me direct you to an entire website dedicated to this question: www.helltruth.com. The answer may surprise you.

Objection: "What Christians call 'answered prayer' is just coincidence. Prayer had nothing to do with it. For example, some people pray for a loved one in danger and their loved one is spared. Others pray to no avail. It is just the luck of the draw."
All true prayer is answered. Sometimes the answer is "yes", sometimes "no", and sometimes, "wait." Why does God sometimes say "no" when it seems to us that the most loving thing to do would be to say, "yes"? There are many questions like this we will not understand completely this side of Heaven. The apostle Paul prayed that his infirmity would be healed, but it wasn't. And yet, if we take the New Testament to be true, unquestionable miracles of healing were performed in answer to prayer in Paul's time that cannot be attributed to purely natural causes. Similar miracles are reported to take place today in answer to prayer. It does not please the heart of God for humans created in His image to be gullible - simply believing everything that is reported by everybody. On the other hand, neither is it wise for us to require that God prove Himself on our terms before we believe. Sometimes the evidence He gives us may be through the word of a trusted friend, or through numerous "lesser" miracles that could perhaps individually be attributed to coincidence but collectively make a strong case for God's intervention. If we require God to prove Himself on our terms, it is almost certain we wouldn't believe even if He did so.

Objection: "It is not fair for God to protect someone who prays, but not to protect someone who doesn't know to pray."
To answer this question, it is imperative to understand that God does not currently have full reign on Earth. If He did, He would be some cruel monster indeed. It is ironic that many intellectuals are willing to believe in God but unwilling to believe in Satan. Disbelief in the existence of Satan has within itself the seeds to disbelief in God because of the numerous questions that are thereby rendered entirely unanswerable in God's defense. There are various reasons many don't believe in Satan. The concept of the existence of evil spirit beings whom we can't see who are hellbent on enticing earthlings to sin seems far flung in our modern age, especially when popular academia so often denies the existence of sin and of evil itself and claims that we are mere evolved scum in a purely material universe. Further, the ridiculous (and unfortunate) caricaturizations of Satan and his cohorts sporting goofy horns and pitchforks don't make his existence more credible in the minds of the educated public. (It is interesting that many intellectuals are much more willing to believe that the spirits of the dead communicate with the living than they are willing to believe in the existence of Satan. How convenient for the master imposter.)

Why doesn't God have full reign on Earth? See Why is there so much suffering?

Objection: "If there is a God, that would stifle curiosity and investigation. We would just expect God to give us all the answers."
That all depends upon what kind of teacher God is. While many students might think that the ideal teacher would be one who just sits in the back of the classroom silently reading a book while letting the students do whatever they wish, surely few educators would argue that this would be the most effective teaching style.

I remember my chemistry teacher in a Christian high school relating his view of what learning in Heaven would be like. A student - by the way, everyone will be a student in Heaven - would come to God with a question about science, and God would listen intently to the question. God, the Master Teacher, would then say, "That is a very interesting question. Why don't you go to the lab and study into it for the next 1000 years, and after you've finished, we will discuss your findings." I think my chemistry teacher was right on!

King David would have loved this image of Earth taken from the outskirts of the solar system.
visibleearth.nasa.gov Objection: "Why would a God who is grand enough to create our universe care squat for what we do on our tiny speck of a planet?"
It is interesting that King David, the Psalmist of the Bible, having far less knowledge of the immensity of the universe than we do today, echoed the same question - not as an expression of doubt, but as an exclamation of faith and wonder: "When I consider the heavens, the work of thy hands, the sun and the moon that thou hast ordained, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man, that thou dost care for him?" (Psalm 8:3-4). Surely, the heavens do make us feel small and insignificant!

But, looking at things from a different perspective, whether we are discussing a bacterium or a hummingbird, a humpback whale or a human being, living things are by far the most exquisite phenomenon in the universe. If the physical universe was indeed created by an intelligent Creator, perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised that He would take special interest in those planets that harbor life, and in those creatures that possess intelligence like Himself, and that seek after their Creator.

Perhaps there is hardly a Christian who would not agree that the grandest contemplation in the faith is that a God so great as to create our incredible universe, loved us so much as to step into our world and become a human being to die an ignominious death, so we can spend an eternity with Him.

Objection: "It is egotistical to believe that God cares for us tiny creatures on our speck of a planet."
Consider the following carefully: Is it egotistical to believe that the Infinite Creator of the Cosmos cares for us tiny wayward creatures inhabiting this tiny speck of a planet in our galaxy amongst trillions upon trillions of other galaxies, and in fact, to believe that God loved us so much that in order to save whom He could, He came to our planet as a human just like us, and yet we spat in His face, flogged Him until His back was covered with blood, mocked Him, nailed Him to a cross, and shouted obscenities into His face while He prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"? This would hardly be cause to be egotistical!

Some pride themselves for being wise enough to "understand" that we are only humble scum in a meaningless world. While the Christian has a deep sense of dignity knowing that we are loved and valued by God, he or she has no cause whatsoever for boasting.

"When I survey the wondrous cross,
On which the prince of Glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss
And pour contempt on all my pride."
Isaac Watts

Objection: "It is nonsensical to speak of God creating the universe. The universe, by definition, is everything that exists. If God exists, the universe would include God Himself by definition."
Consider this argument carefully, what it is and what it is not. It is an argument about semantics. It is not an argument about the fundamental nature of reality, although it may superficially appear that it is. God created the physical universe. God Himself, is spirit. Of course, that is another issue.

It is true that according to the Bible, God the Father and God the Son have a physical form. Personally, it makes sense to me to consider that this form was assumed after the creation of time-space, matter and energy. This is not a doctrinal position, and I believe it is a trivial point to argue over. But, this view makes what may seem a paradox with God existing "before" (or better, apart from) the creation of the physical universe a non-issue.

Objection: "Christians have merely made a God in their image. How foolish to assume that God would have similarities to us, such as desiring companionship, etc."
Christians (and others from the Judeo-Christian perspective) believe that humans were created in God’s image as stated in the book of Genesis, rather than the other way around. If this is so, and God has indeed so communicated this to humans, the improbability factor vanishes because it explains why God "just so happens" to have similarities to us. The onus, then, for the opponents of Christianity is to prove that God has not communicated this fact to humanity.

Objection: "Desiring companionship and so forth are attributes that arise from the circuitry and chemistry of the brain. Does the eternal God have a brain circuitry like we do?"
I cannot authoritively answer the question whether God has a brain with circiutry similar to ours, although I believe that God innately is spirit, and is not dependent upon matter to exist. I do not believe that the totality of human experience can be explained by the physical activity that takes place in the brain. Our desire for purpose, our sense of the inestimable value of life, and so forth, I don't believe can ever be explained purely by the physical activity in the brain, although that is not to say by any means that the brain does not play a role. It makes sense to me to suppose that some of what God feels (if you don't mind), He has modeled into our brain circiutry. On the other hand, I think that much of our spiritual experience results from interfacing with God Himself.

Objection: "Christians praise God to give Him an ego boost."
It is hard for me to conceive of any Christian, even a nominal one, who thinks that the reason we praise God is to boost His ego. It is even harder for me to imagine a Christian who would ever feel like praising God if they thought they needed to do it in order to boost God’s ego! A true Christian enjoys praising God, and doesn't do so out of a sense of obligation or out of a sense that they are somehow doing God a favor. And yet, this allegation is frequently made nonetheless. Christians praise God for much the same reason that a person says "thank-you" when someone has done a favor. Does God appreciate praise and our expressions of thanksgiving? Certainly. Not because He is vain, but because He loves us and He wants to have a relationship with us, a relationship of love, trust, and appreciation. Is it vain to tell someone "I love you?" Certainly not! And why do we tell someone, "I love you"? Or, why do we give flowers? Because we get an ego boost when the recipient says "Thank you"? I should hope not!

When God shows us His love by the things He does for us, He appreciates our expressions of gratitude that show that we have received, understood, and appreciated His message. God wants a relationship with us. God bestows His blessings upon His creation day after day. Does it blow the ego of the Infinite Creator of the Cosmos that He doesn't get more recognition from us tiny little humans? It would be preposterous to believe so! Does it hurt God's heart? Yes. Why? Little and insignificant as we are, God loves us incredibly, and desires our friendship.

Objection: "There are many good people who are not Christians in our world."
There is a lot of misunderstanding, even among Christians on this point. I will answer this question more completely later, but for now, let me quote Romans 2:14-16:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

I don't believe anyone will be lost for believing a lie, but for refusing to believe and to live by the truth.

Objection: "The God of the Bible is a violent, bloodthirsty, God."
I don't believe that God is either violent or bloodthirsty, although it can appear that way from a casual reading of the Bible. I would be reckless to give a short, pat answer to this objection. I will be writing a page in response to this objection which I hope to have up soon, although I may have to put it up in increments in which I will deal with individual case studies from the Bible. Keep posted.

First installment added! Go to God's strange act.

Objection: "Christian parents and teachers brainwash their children and students to believe in God."
I am in my eleventh year of teaching high school science in Christian schools. My practice when discussing origins has always been to present both sides of the issue as best as I can during the time that I have for doing so. I even discuss the evidence that I find to be the most challenging to interpret within the creationist framework, and am forthright in admitting the challenge. (Yes, I do my best to take the time to keep myself informed by studying the latest evolutionist as well as creationist sources). I don't tell my students that they had better believe in creation, although I encourage them to believe and explain my reasons for doing so even though I grant that creationists don't have all the answers. I believe that my policy is similar to that of many, if not the majority, of Christian science educators in Christian schools.

The fact of the matter is that evolutionists don't have all of the answers either, although many of their lead promoters would like everyone to think that they do. The discussion of creation is anathema in public schools. A teacher simply presenting a challenge to evolutionary dogma is in danger of quickly losing his or her job. It appears that science educators in public schools are not supposed to encourage the "undeveloped" and "impressionable" minds of their students to think, but rather to teach them how to regurgitate the textbook, especially when it comes to the matter of origins.

I ask, who's brainwashing who?

Also, when I tell my children that Grandpa and Grandma love them, am I brainwashing them because I'm not allowing them to determine that for themselves? I doubt many would make such an accusation. Why is it different then when I tell them what I believe just as well to be true that Jesus loves them, especially if I encourage them as they grow and develop mentally to think for themselves and not just to take my say-so?

(Note: I recognize and appreciate that because of religious liberty issues, things cannot be exactly the same in the public school as in the parochial school. However, I don't believe that the whole story is being told by those advocating "evolution only" in the public school. I believe that far more can be done to be fair to Christian students, parents, and taxpayers, without violating the rights of non-Christians.)

Keep posted for more additions to this list.

Page added: 2009.02.01
Last modified: 2009.12.14