Search

Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts

My friend, the atheist believer

My everyday atheist friend says, "I don't believe in God because I don't see any evidence for his existence... If you claim God exists, the burden of proof lies with you, because from the moment I came into this world, I've believed whatever I've seen or been shown."

What do I say to this? My friend is not going to even show the slightest interest himself in the subject of God before I first show him real and convincing proof of God's existence.

In The Reason for God Tim Keller shows us that actually, our atheist friends here show their own unbelievable inconsistency. Turning their very question around he asks them to "look for a type of faith hidden within their reasoning." Keller shows that "all doubts, however sceptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternate beliefs."
Some [say], 'My doubts are not based on a leap of faith. I have no beliefs about God one way of another. I simply feel no need for God and I am not interested in thinking about it.' But hidden behind this feeling is the very modern belief that the existence of God is a matter of indifference unless it intersects with my emotional needs. The speaker is betting his or her life that no God exists who would hold you accountable for your beliefs and behaviour if you didn't feel the need for him. That may be true or it may not be true, but, again, it is quite a leap of faith.

The only way to doubt Christianity rightly and fairly is to discern the alternative belief under each of your doubts and then to ask yourself what reasons you have for believing it. How do you know your belief is true? It would be inconsistent to require more justification for Christian belief than you do for your own, but that is frequently what happens. In fairness you must doubt your doubts. My thesis is that if you come to recognise the beliefs on which your doubts about Christianity are based, and if you seek as much proof for those beliefs as you seek from Christians for theirs -- you will discover that your doubts are not as solid as they first appear.

Tim Keller, The Reason for God 2008, p. xviii.

My friend, indifferent about God because he doesn't see him, is making quite a leap of faith; it's a faith-position as big as my own as a believer in God. Does the burden of proof remain with me? How can one belief about God require proof if another does not?

My friend believes that God does not exist because he believes that he has never experienced him via his physical senses. He has faith but in a different doctrine; he believes that reality is the sum total of what can be measured, witnessed or perceived immediately, and that nothing else does or can exist.

It's quite a claim; quite a belief-system. The question is, "How does he know that this belief is true?" It is inconsistent to require more justification for Christian belief than he does for his own. So I ask this question:

What proof do atheists have that nothing exists except than what can be measured, witnessed or perceived immediately?

Keller's challenge is out there: "I urge skeptics to wrestle with the unexamined 'blind faith' on which scepticism is based, and to see how hard it is to justify those beliefs to those who do not share them."

The Trouble with Christianity: Why It's So Hard to Believe It

Tim Keller is anything but defensive. He respects the real doubts that people bring to Christianity. Although described as a Christian apologist, what makes Tim Keller so palatable is his winsome while sincere approach, his genuine interest in reason and respect for people's skepticism. And he's thoroughly intelligent.

His book The Reason for God -- in which he discussed whether of not belief can exist in the age of reason, an age of scepticism -- was born out of literally thousands of conversations with young people since the early 90s.

In 1989 Tim Keller planted a church by going throughout New York City, talking to young professionals about why they wouldn't believe in God. Most of the people he spoke to had one or more of about half a dozen troubles with Christianity: common objections that made Christianity too hard to believe.

The Reason for God is a trip through reasoning. Keller shows that all of the common problems people today have with Christianity are in fact based in beliefs - alternative beliefs about God and the nature of reality.

And here's the punch line but it won't spoil it for you: To really have integrity skeptics need to apply the same tests to their beliefs as what they are demanding that Christians apply to theirs.

I recommend the book, but perhaps what I've found even more helpful initially, is listening through a series of MP3 audios in which Keller speaks to Christians on most of the subjects he addresses in the first part of his book:

These are excellent, absolutely fantastic presentations: really polite, respectful, palatable, engaging, informative, relevant, thought out and enlightening.

Why not listen to one or all of the following Reason for God audios (I dare you):

  • Exclusivity: How Can There Be Just One True Religion?
  • Suffering: If God Is Good, Why Is There So Much Evil in the World?
  • Absolutism: Don't We All Have to Find Truth for Ourselves?
  • Injustice: Hasn't Christianity Been an Instrument for Oppression?
  • Hell: Isn't the God of Christianity an Angry Judge?
  • Literalism: Isn't the Bible Historically Unreliable and Regressive?
  • Doubt: What Should I Do with My Doubts? (David Bisgrove)

And by the way, if you did want to read the book too, here it is: ReasonforGod.com

God and Evil

Evil exists. So how can God exist?

Either God is bad [he does evil himself], God is limited [his power cannot prevent evil], or evil does not exist in the first place; or so we might be tempted to think anyway.

But none of these three positions work. A bad God is a contradiction in terms, as is a limited God. In both cases the God we would be talking about would not actually be God.

A God who is bad would be evil himself, because he would not be separate to and against evil in the first place. A limited God who cannot prevent evil, would not be able to rule all things in the first place. But in asking about whether God exists separate from and above the existence of evil, we are of course asking about a God over and against evil.

And of course the non existence of evil is only a theoretical concept adopted by atheists. Christians do not deny the existence of evil in order to uphold belief in God; we are the first to unequivocally affirm the reality of evil.

Evil exists. So how could such a God at the same time exist, a good God with power over evil?

But how can evil exist in the first place if God does not exist? By definition evil can only exist if God does too. In order to deny the existence of God, atheists must deny the existence of evil too. But the problem with atheism is that it is not true to the world we see and the lives we live, lives full of the experience of evil.

Evil is the distortion of what is good; it is the perversion, the twisting of what is right in the world. And so by denying the existence of evil, atheists also deny the existence of everything we know by nature to be both good and right.

But to deny evil is to deny the existence of things that we know are bad. And to do that we must deny that things can be wrong in the first place. This stems from a denial of the existence of objective moral values, or laws. Laws must be given by one who has ultimately responsible; the owner, the director, responsible for our governance and judgment. It is in order to deny accountability to judgment that atheists want to deny both God and evil.

But evil exists, and so does God too.

And this God can only be good [so hating evil and always doing good] and all powerful [above all, controlling even evil].

So we have only one consistent option:

Since evil exists [and therefore God must exist] then God must be using evil for good.

The concept of 'using evil for good' raises many questions, but it is throughout the Bible affirmed again and again; that the all good and all powerful God reigns over and against evil by using it to magnify both his goodness and his power.

Elsewhere in Evil and the Sovereignty of God I have given a survey of the Bible's teaching on this subject; God, far from doing evil himself or being a victim of it, rules evil by making it achieve what is ultimately good.

This certainly can be hard to understand. But the problem of the existence of God in view of evil is not solved by denying the existence of God, as though by questioning God's existence we can make more sense of evil in our world, or at least cope with it better. For if God does not exist then we really do have no body to complain to; no body to question; and in fact, we are faced with a false reality in which we must deny our own perplexity, anguish, grief and turmoil, because by rejecting God we have denied the reality of all the evil itself that we suffer. This would be more terrifying, surely, than holding onto belief in a God over evil -- a God who we can call out to with our arguments; a God who we can turn to.

Nor is the problem of the existence of evil in view of God solved by denying the existence of evil. Evil is real, we know it, we feel it, we suffer it. It is not good, it is not right, and we know that it really is bad and wrong. But the denial of the existence of evil makes all the atrocities, all the pain and hurt, the war and genocide, the rapes and murders, the exploitation and the greed and lies; it makes is all 'disadvantageous', a subjective sadness relative to us -- but really and actually just "a part of life". They may be unfortunate for us, but not wrong as such; an inconvenience but not bad actually; an unhappy happening, but not an evil. The mature modern mind will just "accept them" and "move on". All the bad and ugly and evil of our world would simply by cause and effect, time and chance, and survival of the fittest and the lucky.

This is more unbearable, surely, than holding onto the reality of evil in the face of our suffering -- evil that is real, and that we can really hate.

How it is that God in his goodness and power actually uses all our evil ultimately to magnify his own goodness and power, we may never really comprehend this side of heaven; the most we might aim for is childlike faith.
 
But one thing is easy. Since evil exists, God must exist.

The Modern Theory of Idolatry, Or Atheists don't Exist

Have you seen Prof Brian Cox's Wonders of the Universe? He's the young and 'hard science' version of Sir David Attenborough and his wildlife documentaries, which have for decades wonderfied the world. Brian Cox has done with the same breathtaking beauty, but with images of stars and the physics of stellar evolution, what David Attenborough has done with biology and the theory of evolution.

Of course, people have been in awe at life on our planet and the wonders of our skies since the most ancient times. Today, science has if anything only increased our wonder; and given a new basis for our idolatry.

The modern mind, just like ancient peoples, idolises creation; our society still looks to the stars and to images of animals, rather than listening to the voice of the Creator. Modern science teaches that the Cosmos is our Father, and Nature is our Mother. They believe this because cosmology teaches that the life-cycle of star birth and death seeded the elements of the creation of life on this planet; and in turn the theory of evolution teaches that the environment's processes of constant change gave birth to life itself and eventually created all the kinds of creatures that have ever developed. In other words, our creator is none other than our wonderful world.

As D. Broughton Knox, in The Everlasting God (1982), pointed out:

"In our own times idolatry, which was a universal substitute for the creator God, has been replaced by the widely held theory of evolution. Both are substitutes for the concept of the creator God. Just as the ancients and the heathen today deified and worshipped the creature as the creator, modeling images of man or birds or animals or reptiles and worshipping these, so for western secular man the modern theory of evolution deifies nature, and acknowledges it as creator of all we see around us. All the beauty and intricacy and all the marvelous arrangements of the natural world are supposed to have evolved by a thoughtless, purposeless, mechanical operation of nature, and in this way the God who made the world is as effectively shut out of the minds of those who are enjoying the blessings of his creation as he was by the false religions of idolatry. Just as the idolaters could not see the foolishness, indeed the stupidity of worshipping gods of wood and stone, which have no life nor purpose nor mind, so modern believers in the theory of evolution cannot see the foolishness of that theory..." (p. 30-31)
For the theory of evolution does not merely acknowledge, as we do, the natural process we see by observation in the changing creation around us -- that the process of natural selection has adapted and continues to shape creatures to survive in their changing environment --but the theory theorises that by this process alone, the 'laws' of the Universe and Nature have created us; that is, the Creation is our Creator, the Universe is itself 'God', the real and only and 'living' deity behind all in the past, causing all in the present, controlling all of the future. This is idolatry, new improved.

D. Broughton Knox was right to also point out:

"Creation implies purpose. In contrast, impersonal evolution is purposeless -- things happen by accident without plan. But creation is a personal activity of an almighty supreme God. Personal action implies purpose and this in turn implies assessment. The doctrine of judgement is closely related to that of creation (p. 34)...

"Creation and judgement are the two focal points around which human life moves. These two truths, closely related because they both spring from a supreme purposeful Creator, should not be far from the thoughts of any. They are central in the Christian gospel, but neither purposeful creation nor future assessment finds any place in the alternative explanation of reality which the modern world embraces and which goes by the name of [the theory of ] evolution." (p. 38)
Brian Cox and David Attenborough are both atheists. They answer, "I do not believe in a Creator; I believe God does not exist." But the Bible's reply of course is, "You believe in a Creator, the Universe; the Creation is your God."

This is the modern idolater; they in fact commit in essence the ancient practice of idolatry. But by making creation the creator, they can call themselves atheists in order to deny the existence of a God who is outside and above Creation, who can and will give judgement. And of course the denial of judgement is the whole purpose of ditching the God who is over all in favour of worshipping his creation instead. But this is not really atheism; they don't exist.

---


D. Broughton Knox, The Everlasting God, Evangelical Press, 1982.

A God of love?

Or the God of horror?

‘If God exists, then he is horrible’. Atheists claim that the existence of such evils as war and suffering provide evidence against the existence of a good God.

‘If eternal hell exists, then God is horrible’. Universalists point to the existence of a God who is love as evidence against the existence of an eternal hell.

As humanists, atheists critique what the Bible makes known of God in comparison to what we know of human love. Without any other standard to measure reality against than themselves, they feel the existence of a loving God is incompatible with the existence of evils such as natural catastrophe and disaster.

Universalists, though vastly different in their starting point, end up doing something similar. Questioning the traditional understanding of that the Bible makes known about God, they compare the doctrine of hell against what we know about love from a human perspective. Again, without any other standard to critique God’s word against, they appeal to human reason to justify their position that the existence of an eternal hell is incompatible with the existence of a good God whose nature is controlled by perfect love.


Human love vs. God

Part I of this article explored the cost of human love demonstrated on the first Anzac Day, which has defined Australia. Human love – extraordinary human love – is perhaps the most inspiring of all human experiences. How does the love of God measure up against such an extraordinary story? How can a God who threatens retributive justice in terms of eternal conscious torture claim to love? Wouldn’t he, rather, be the God of horror?

The New Testament does in fact compare the love of God against human love. But it finds that in comparison even extraordinary human love does not come close, does not even compare, to the love of God. And the reasons tell us as much about ourselves as they do about the unique love of God.


A right to be loved?

We started in Part I by describing the essence of love in terms of giving. We measure the degree of love by the costliness of the giving to the giver in comparison to the worthiness of the receiver. The more it costs the giver and the less worthy the receiver, the greater the love.

It should not be surprising then that the Bible explains the love of God first in terms of our unworthiness to be loved at all. We have in fact lost all ‘right’ to be loved and actually incur his hatred. And the reasons might be as hard to accept for modern ears as any ancient truth.

Does God not have a responsibility to love all of his creatures? Don’t we all have a ‘right’ to the love of God as children to their Father? To be sure, the Bible does maintain the God has certainly loved all he has made.

But we need to start by asking whether love can be ‘deserved’. If love is in essence a ‘gift’, we might wonder whether love can be ‘deserved’ at all.

All relationships generate certain rights and responsibilities. And each different relationship in the world determines what different duties exist to give what gifts.

A married person has both the right to receive love and the responsibility to give love because of the promises they have made. Though the love given and received is indeed a free gift, it is nonetheless a duty to give it. But, if their spouse fails to love them in the most basic sense, such as by committing adultery, the covenant relationship is broken and they lose that right. In fact, the offended spouse has every right to divorce. In this case, failure to uphold the responsibility to love that this relationship generates creates in turn the right to permanently and formally ‘separate’. In fact, in the Law of God in the Old Testament, it might come as a shock to us to learn that such crimes would be deserving of death.

A Father has the responsibility to love his child. Likewise children have a duty to honour and obey their Father. But again, this relationship can be broken, if for example a son becomes rebellious and hardened against his Father. What lose of rights should his failure of responsibility incur on such a son?

Depending on our worldview and understanding of Fatherhood and what it requires, we will answer differently. As modern people, we might wonder, ‘what would I do as a Father in that situation?’ We aspire to be faithful fathers, and for us that might mean absolute tolerance, regardless of what our children do or become.

But how might ancient people and cultures answer? Failure to obey the voice of one’s Father in many ancient cultures was absolute dishonour. In this situation, the son will lose all ‘right’ to be loved by his Father and even to be called his son. In fact, it may come as an even greater shock to read that in the Law of God in the Old Testament, hardened disobedience of a son to his Father was a capital offence.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21  "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them,  (19)  then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives,  (20)  and they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.'  (21)  Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.


What such references show us is that our modern concepts of such things as Fatherhood, even of Love, are unlikely to apply backwards to God. In fact, the Bible makes the claim that our Fatherhood is derived from God’s, not the other way around. If we want to think about God and his Fatherhood, and ourselves as his children, we need to reverse the order and make his revelation the starting point.

I have said elsewhere that where we arrive at in our reaction to what the Bible makes known about God will be affected by our view of Scripture in the first place. If we believe that the propositional revelation of the Bible is the authority in all matters, then no matter how hard we might find it to digest, we will believe that the true God is both the God revealed by the Bible and that this God is good. If we believe that God is transcendent – that his ways are vastly higher than our ways and so unknowable by ourselves – then we will not put our confidence in reason or natural theology. Our dependence will be on special revelation. If we believe in the Bible’s view of human sin, we will completely distrust our thoughts and desires and emotions which will always distort the truth about God because of our sinfulness.

The Bible tells us both what we would otherwise not know about God and also what we would otherwise not believe about God.


God as Father

The greatest of all relationships in the world is that which exists between us and God. The Bible makes God known as Creator and as Father. As Creator he is good and loving. As Father he is faithful but also Just.

And this is where we have a problem. Because we are disobedient children: stubborn and rebellious; corrupt, crooked and twisted.

Deuteronomy 32:3-6  For I will proclaim the name of the LORD; ascribe greatness to our God!  (4)  "The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he.  (5)  They have dealt corruptly with him; they are no longer his children because they are blemished; they are a crooked and twisted generation.  (6)  Do you thus repay the LORD, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?

As wives, we would be unfaithful, adulterers; deserving only of hatred God would have every right to divorce us completely. As children, we deserve only death.

God then is not bound to love us at all; he owes us no right to do good to us whatsoever. As his creatures, as his property, we do continue to owe everything to him who made and owns us and continues to sustain our lives and give us many good things. Though we do not, we do have duty to love him, and a responsibility to serve him. But we all fail to do this in the worst of senses, with willful disobedience and dishonour of God as our Father.

Do we then deserve his love? We deserve only his judgment.


God as Judge

The passage above describes God first in terms of his justice, and his own faithfulness to that justice (Deuteronomy 32:3-6). By his nature, God brings judgment to ‘pay back’ what is deserved by our wickedness.

God’s judgment has been defined as his ‘just rectification of his moral order’. Justice which characterizes God’s judgment is not reconciliation to some universal norm, but it is an intrinsic expression of God’s own character (Deut 32:4)

Again and again the Old Testament portrays God as Judge (Ps 50:4; 75:7). But it also portrays him as the Father of us all, and often in the same context. Deuteronomy 32:3-6 is an example (compare verse 4 and verse 5-6).

God’s judgment is not in tension with his Fatherhood (e.g. 1 Peter 1:17). It might be to us, and it might be hard for us to imagine God as both Father and Judge. But because God is the Creator of us all, he is by origin both our Father – whom we owe every duty to honour and obey – and Judge – who will require repayment of just retribution for our failure to honour and obey him.


God as love

In view of this knowledge, it would come as a shock to us to learn that we had been loved by God at all. But that’s only the beginning.

In Romans 5:6-10 the Apostle Paul describes the enormous magnitude of the love that has actually been shown to us by God, which can only be understood firstly by contemplating just how ‘undeserving’ and ‘unlovely’ we are to him in the first place.  

Deserving hatred

The passage describes us as both ungodly (verse 6); sinners (verse 8); and in fact enemies of God (verse 10). As law-breakers; we are criminals before God because every day we break his holy commands. As rebels, instead of loving God as is our duty, we love other things instead.  And by living our own way to please ourselves, we treat ourselves as God in rejection of the very Father who bore us. We have become that senseless, corrupt rebellious son. And this makes us God’s enemies, in the worse of all positions: we are under God’s holy anger; we deserve only his ‘wrath’ (verse 9).

World War II

During World War II, after Germany had moved all the Jews who were living there into ghettos, ready to send them off to concentration camps, one of the commanding officers in the German army found a Jewish man still living in his original residence. So outraged was the officer that he took a grenade and  – with his gun pointing at the man lest he should flee – pulled the pin and stretched out his arm to throw it into the house.

But at that very moment the man pulled a rope from behind him that released a trap right under the officer, and as it grasped his leg the grenade flew straight up and exploded above the officer.

When the man came to stand over his enemy he found him still alive and his gun was still intact. Without hesitation he reached out and took the weapon from his enemy who was now blind, deaf and dumb, and without arms or legs.

The situation that officer was now in could be compared to our situation before God. In Romans 5:6-10 we are described as ‘weak’ or powerless before God (verse 6).

The officer no weapon in his hand; he had no hand to reach out; he had no words to beg for mercy; he had no mouth to speak; he had no leg to flee; he had no sight to see his predicament; he had no ear to hear and no way to respond to his enemy.

He now lay under one who was rightly filled with anger, and he weak and powerless can do nothing to save himself.

It is an illustration of the devastating position of our own weakness and powerlessness before the Almighty God – rightly angry – of whom we are nothing more than sinful, ungodly enemies.

The God who has loved us (already)

It’s only when we understand the Bible’s description of our utter unworthiness before God that we will be able to understand what the Bible claims about the love of God. What Romans 5:6-10 says is that God has demonstrated his love, he has proved it beyond all doubt, and he has shown it to end all question and suspicion. And he shows it in comparison to the pail dimmer of human love.

Romans 5:8:  “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

While we were still in that devastating situation before God, we were the most undeserving, with no right but to his hatred.

But what did God give us, his enemies? God gave a gift, and at the most expensive cost to himself. God’s gift to us is a person; it was Christ himself that he gave (verse 6 and 8); Christ the only Son of God (verse 6 and 10). God didn’t send prophets, or angels, who were of less value to him. He sent his Son – who is himself one with the Father. And so in Christ, God was giving us everything–His very own self.

But unto what did he give himself up to? He gave himself to die on a cross. God himself didn’t come to us in the person of Jesus and give us his sympathy, or advice. This was love in full action; this was a love that had God going further than we can really comprehend: The very life-giver himself, giving his life up to death at the hands of his own creatures.

And what type of death? His was not some painless, humane type of death. It was to a horrific Roman crucifixion on a cross – an instrument of torture reserved for the worst and lowest of all criminals.

Why? Why did Christ have to die? Was it because we were deserving; was it because we were lovely. We have already realised the contrary. But his death was for us what our sins deserved (verse 8) Christ died for us – who are sinners -- because sin and death must go together. Death is God’s penalty for our sin.

But here the sins were ours; but the death was his. His death, on the cross, was in our place; he was bearing the penalty that our sins deserve. He died our death, so that the penalty of sin on our heads could be paid, that God’s justice could be satisfied, and his anger and hatred removed, and we no longer be his enemies.

Now, by Christ dying for us, we can have peace with God. We again can receive the ‘right’ to call him Father. That is love. That is love without comparison.

Proof of God’s love

God has proved his love for this world in the death of Christ for world (John 3:16). It was God’s own demonstration. For although as unworthy as is possible, yet God himself gave us the most costly gift there is: He gave his own Son up unto the full fury of his own judgment against our sin. And in doing so, he -- who is the most worthy of all – gave us everything. And there is nothing left for him to give.


Where atheists and Universalists go wrong

God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). Here is something absolutely, unimaginably, amazing: God has proved his love already; he has poured it out for the entire world. When we look at the cross and his death for the world, we can actually know for sure not only that God is love, but also the perfect extent of that love.

So we don’t need to doubt or question anymore.

Although the Bible does maintain that God is the God over war and suffering in the world (Romans 1:18), atheists need look no further than the cross to see that God’s love is compatible with these realities. For there was the greatest display of supreme love through suffering and death. It was in the horror that the unique and incomparable love of God was displayed.

And although the Bible does point to the existence and future reality of an eternal hell, it also points to proof of God’s love at the cross where Christ himself went through hell for a world that is headed there. He suffered the sentence of hell for enemies who will continue to reject his incomprehensible love demonstrated for them. 

By questioning the traditional understanding of that the Bible makes known about God’s eternal judgment, Universalists hope to see the supreme love of God displayed at the end of history when God will eventually empty hell of every remaining rebel.

But the Bible’s focal point is very different. The end of history came at the middle of time. Between BC and AD the God who is love shined the magnifying glass on one man dying upon a cross, and said ‘here it is; this is me’. There he gave everything, for there he gave himself; and there is nothing more that can be given.

Atheism vs. Christianity - Where does the evidence point?

Notes on the Debate between Dr William Craig and Dr Peter Slezak (Sydney Town Hall, 2002)


Is there a God?
Did Jesus really rise from the dead?
Is Christianity true?

These are some of the most important questions anyone can ever ask.

In this debate, two fine speakers address these issues as they debate the topic “Atheism versus Christianity – where does the evidence point?”

Dr William Craig is one of the foremost contemporary defenders of the Christian faith. He is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, California.

Dr Peter Slezak is a Senior Lecturer in the School of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of New South Wales. He teaches and speaks widely in the media of philosophy, science and religion.

Presented by St Barnabas Anglican Church Broadway, the debate was held in August 2002 in front of more than 2000 people in the Sydney Town Hall.

William Craig (For Christianity) - 20 mins

Two necessary questions in this debate need to be answered:
  1. What good evidence is there that God exists?
  2. What good evidence is there that God does not exist; that atheism is true?
The second question is left to the opposition in this debate.
Five points of evidence are given for the first question:

1. The origin of the universe:
    • Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
    • Premise 2: The universe began to exist
    • Therefore the universe has a cause.
    • By necessity: The cause is a timeless, uncaused, personal agent who freely chooses to cause the universe.
2. The complex order of the universe.
There are only three possible explanations for the complexity in the universe:
    • Natural law
    • Chance.
    • Design.
Scientifically the first is not plausible (the universe could have been otherwise and still exist). The second is not probable (the chance of this complexity arising randomly is unthinkable). The third is possible and likely.

  • Premise 1: there are only three possibilities
  • Premise 2: Design is the only possible and likely explanation
  • Therefore the universe had a designer.
3. Objective moral values

Our argument is not must we believe in God to live moral lives. We’re not claiming we must. Nor, is our questions ‘can we recognise moral values without believing in God’. I think we can.

But our argument is, if God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist. On this point atheists agree.

But objective moral values do exist. The evidence for this is given.

Therefore, since objective moral values do exist, then God also exists.

4. The historical facts concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus

His life: Jesus showed divine authority to speak in God’s place.
His ministry of miracles and exorcisms support his claim.
His resurrection is a divine miracle that shows us that God exists.

There are three established historical facts that are best explained by the resurrection.
    • Jesus’ tomb was found empty
    • Appearances of Jesus as being alive after his death
    • The disciples came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus and came to willingness unto death for this belief.
Attempts to explain these facts away have been universally rejected. This therefore entails that God exists.

5. Immediate experience of God.

This is not an argument. Rather it is the claim that you can know God wholly apart from argument.

Dr Peter Slezak (For Atheism) - 20 mins

Dr Craig has not followed the logic of proof and disproof. ‘Evidence’ must be understood as scientists understand it. Therefore his question is misleading: There can be no proof or disproof of God’s existence, because God is not a mathematical theorem. The best you can do is point out the lack of evidence and conclude that the existence of God is not supported by what we observe scientifically.

This is the nature of all universal claims. No one has ever proved or disproved the existence of UFOs. But it is precisely the lack of evidence that makes us believe that they don’t exist.

1. Cosmological argument

    • Dr Craig’s argument relies on ones own ability to see common sense, though many of the established facts of the universe are not common sense, though they are true nonetheless (eg. Physics laws such as wave-particle duality of light)
    • Physics prevents a ‘cause’ for the universe because before the beginning of the universe there was nothing. That is, there was no before. Therefore there can be nothing before to cause the cause.
    • Dr Craig’s is rather talking about a ‘metaphysical’ cause, which is another way of saying there just must be something even though there can’t be something.
2. Design argument

Improbability is not always a good argument for design. In analogies such as the watch, it works. But you can’t use an analogy within the universe and apply it to the way the whole universe works. Nor can you trust your brain to infer anything simply from the unlikeliness of an event, unless you know something more in the background. The mere fact of the improbability is not enough. For that is the nature of improbability is not enough to conclude that it was not an accident.

E.g. A hand of total spades: It is just as probable as your usual mixed up hand. It’s just that the first is interesting. But so what?

The ones who survived in the war are the ones who get to tell the story. It is still luck, but the only reason they are there telling you their story is that someone was always going to win.

    • It is the imperfections that are the best evidence for evolution, not the perfections.
    • Why would an omnipotent God design imperfections?
3. The historicity of Jesus:
    • Human testimony is very unreliable.
It would be pretty perverse of God to give us rational skeptical minds and then expect us not to use them.

Dr William Craig (Christianity) - 12 mins

Question: what is the evidence for atheism?

Dr Slezak says the only evidence against God’s existence is the lack of evidence for God’s existence.

This is highly significant. It means he agrees that all of the traditional arguments for atheism fail (such as problem of evil etc). Therefore he claims that the only evidence for atheism is lack of evidence for God.

But absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

E.g. There is no positive evidence yet that no gold exists on Pluto – but this doesn’t mean that there is no gold on Pluto.

So when does lack of evidence mean evidence against something?

Lack of evidence for x, counts as positive evidence against x, only if in the case that x did exist then we should expect to see more evidence of x.

E.g. Absence of evidence for planet between earth and Venus. We would expect to  see evidence, of course for this.

But if God exists, should we expect to see more evidence than the 5 things we’ve pointed out?
    • Obviously not.
He has to prove that it is highly probable that if God exists we should have more evidence that what we do. But this would be pure speculation.

Thus in the case of God the absence of evidence is not an argument against the existence of God.

What about the second question:

    • Origin of universe.
He agrees with the second premise.
Therefore he is forced to deny the first premise, that whatever begins to exist has a cause. By cause we mean whatever produces or brings into being it’s effect.

He doesn't refute this premise. He just asks, what reasons should we think this premise is true.
    • Being does not come from non-being
    • Something does not come from nothing.
The causal premise is universally accepted. The only reason to deny it is because this would lead you to a conclusion you don’t want to accept.

    • Big bang: yes it can’t have a natural cause.
    • But this doesn’t prohibit a supernatural cause.
Dr Peter Slezak (For Atheism) - 12 mins

Atheist doesn't say God does not exist categorically. Therefore proof is not necessarily.

What are the rules for metaphysics? How do we define ‘cause’? Physics causes cannot be metaphysically. Science is the only ground we have for assessing things. What’s the rational for going beyond science?

Now to the issue of:
    • Objective moral values

‘If you escape the social consequences, there is nothing really wrong with you raping somebody?’ in the absence of God.

The point is that we can share his intuition. But his appeal is simply to ‘what you think’. This shows that ‘yes’ we do all think that morals do exist. Yes we all do have strong moral convictions. But this doesn’t mean that they really do exist, just because we all feel they do.

They don’t have a cosmic status, as the Aztecs show, which cut out the hearts of others to please their gods!

In the Andromeda galaxy, our morals don’t exist.

Now to more on:
    • Jesus and miracles
Arguments for biblical miracles haven’t got any better. We don’t have to doubt the historicity. It’s not the facts that are in dispute. It’s the interpretation that is in dispute. Eg. Our interpretation might be ‘He was not dead’, ‘the disciples stole the body’.

It is not just the miraculous interpretation that is possible. And actually any other interpretation other than miraculous is more probable.

Dr William Craig (For Christianity) - 8 mins

Back to:
    • Objective moral values
Which premise does Dr Slezak deny?

Without God there is no basis for existence of morals, even though we feel they exist. He seems to agree with this!

If Martians came from Andromeda would we accept their other morality, even if they wanted to rape our women in order to reproduce?

He has no answer. ‘We humans feel it’s wrong, but so what?’ he says. We agree that the moral values don’t exist in the absence of God.

But we maintain that they really do exist. We are justified then to believe in the existence of God, in the same way we are justified to believe that physical objects exist.

Now more on:
    • Life, death, resurrection of Jesus.
Notice that he doesn't deny any of the actual historical facts.
What he tries to do is offer an alternative explanation of the facts, such as ‘The old apparent death theory’. It is universally rejected. Why?

    • Roman method of execution
    • Spear
    • Bleeding in tomb.
    • Even if he’d revived, tomb was sealed.
    • Even if he’d gotten out, his appearance wouldn’t have caused his disciples to worship him as the conqueror of death etc.
He says it’s a better argument of miracles. Any natural explanation is of course more probable than a natural resurrection. But that says nothing of a supernatural resurrection. It doesn’t make it improbable for a supernatural resurrection.

And he has not yet answered the question:
    • Why cannot we trust our experience of God as evidence for the existence of God?
Notice his huge shift in this debate:

He now admits the absence of evidence is not positive evidence that God doesn’t exist. He just says that ‘I don’t believe…’

That is not atheism. That is agnosticism.

So even if all my arguments are rejected we still end up on neutral ground, because the debate is about atheism.

Dr Peter Slezak (For Atheism) - 8 mins

Distinction: being agnostic is about not being sure which way to go. Atheism is being sure that there is no better way than to be sceptical; to be in confirmed disbelieve.

On the matter of
    • Personal experience
I don’t deny these. But they are not grounds for belief.

On the matter of:
    • Jesus
It is inconceivable that you cannot think of more naturalistic explanations than the miraculous one.

On the argument of:
    • Ethics
Dr Craig insists there’s nothing objective if God doesn't exist. But he want’s to call absolute values the objective ones. To do this first of all you need to have independent grounds first for the existence of God.

Now to more on the matter of
    • Logic (the logic of belief)
Dr Craig is himself skeptical about the existence of intelligent life being elsewhere. And this is the exact reason why we are skeptical about the existence of God.