God does not exist?

If you have not yet read Rachel and I discuss the sun, read it first and then return to read this post.

It was evening, and as I sat watching the darkness spread across the land I chanced to think about how strange a thing it was to see the vast heavens and consider it came about quite by chance. When I said as much to Rachel, my imaginary friend, I regret she failed to see why this puzzled me, or even why I might think this at all.

Then, as if that wasn’t enough, I was confidently assured that “It’s because God created the heavens” – and with this and much other babbling I was instructed in the ways and habits of an entity named God that (being one God in three persons) created the heavens and the earth according to his will and by his word, such that all things were created through him. I must admit I’m not sure I’d ever heard such nonsense in my life.

I told Rachel that “Whilst the guy who invented this God theory you’re telling me about was obviously smart, yet it cannot be any more than an unsupported theory. There is no evidence for God. There’s no way we can know this supposed God exists!”

The indignant reply came almost as if she had been studying ways to defend the theory. Rather smugly, she asked me if I had ever pondered the immensity of the heavens, the glories of the sky, the depths of the sea and the heights of the mountains.

Having admitted as much, I asked the obvious question: “Why should my having pondered these things have anything to do with the theory of God?” This threw her off balance somewhat – for some reason she thought she’d made the case rather well. After some thought she replied with slow and measured tones to the effect that the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork (Psalm 19:1). She said that these invisible attributes of God, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made (Romans 1:20).

Said I – “Nonsense. Your supposed evidence relies upon your presupposition that God does exist. If God doesn’t exist, then these things we see, however marvellous, are not from God! How can you expect me to accept evidence which is contingent upon something I deny?”

She brought up various other things as the night went on. Vain theories such as the supposed evidence of history, thermodynamics, miracles, incredible complexity in minute things, and perfect engineering even in massive, and the like. She even talked about some story of how God sent his Son to die for the sins of the world, and raised him again from the dead – something she claims was witnessed by over five hundred people (I Corinthians 15:3-6) and is recorded by in eye-witness testimonies (e.g. Matthew 28:6-10, Luke 24:5-17, John 20:15-18, Acts 2:22-24, …). I listened graciously, gently shaking my head and grimacing as one invalid argument after another was brought forward.

Eventually I told her the bottom line. “It comes down to this”, I said, “If I am to believe in the existence of God, then it must be from evidence that does not arise from or as a consequence of this supposed God. If you believe God exists only because of the revelation of God, then I’m afraid your arguments all fall flat, for if God does not exist then not a single one of your arguments is valid.”

To bring the point home I said in a persuasive and somewhat louder voice that “I will only be convinced of the existence of God if his existence is revealed to me by some other means than the revelation of God”

That did the trick. She shook her head gently, walked off, and kneeled in her weakness – clearly defeated.

How foolish and ignorant she is, believing in something based only on evidence of its own existence!

Romans 1:18-25

The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

none

The sun does not exist

It was evening, and as I sat watching the darkness spread across the land I chanced to think about how strange a thing it was to see the light vanish all on its own. When I said as much to Rachel, my imaginary friend, I regret she failed to see why this puzzled me.

As if that wasn’t enough, I was confidently assured that “It’s because the sun’s gone down behind the horizon” – and with this and much other babbling I was instructed in the ways and habits of a rather peculiar solar entity that (being composed of a large burning ball) shines light on the earth, each side being illuminated in turn as the earth spins. I must admit I’m not sure I’d ever heard such nonsense in my life.

I told Rachel that “Whilst the guy who invented this sun theory you’re telling me about was obviously smart, yet it cannot be any more than an unsupported theory. There is no evidence for the sun. There’s no way we can know this supposed sun exists!”

The indignant reply came almost as if she had been studying ways to defend the theory. Rather smugly, she asked me if I had seen a large circle of bright light, rising behind one horizon in the morning, and setting behind the other in the evening – bringing with it light and warmth.

Having admitted as much, I asked the obvious question: “Why should my having seen this circular light have anything to do with the theory of the sun?” This threw her off balance somewhat – for some reason she thought she’d made the case rather well. After some thought she replied with slow and measured tones to the effect that this very circular ball of light is the sun, and so the fact that I have seen the light coming from it, felt the warmth of it, and witnessed its path through the heavens is evidence that it exists, just as she had said.

Said I – “Nonsense. Your supposed evidence relies upon your presupposition that the sun does exist. If the sun doesn’t exist, then the light from the sky was not from the sun! How can you expect me to accept evidence which is contingent upon something I deny?”

She brought up various other things as the night went on. Vain theories such as the supposed evidence of photosynthesis, gravitational studies, orbital calculations, optical measurements and the like. I listened graciously, gently shaking my head and grimacing as one invalid argument after another was brought forward.

Eventually I told her the bottom line. “It comes down to this”, I said, “If I am to believe in the existence of the sun, then it must be from evidence that does not arise from or as a consequence of the supposed sun. If you believe the sun exists only because of the revelation of the sun, then I’m afraid your arguments all fall flat, for if the sun does not exist then not a single one of your arguments is valid.”

To bring the point home I said in a persuasive and somewhat louder voice that “I will only be convinced of the existence of the sun if its existence is revealed to me by some other means than the revelation of the sun”

That did the trick. She rolled her eyes, shook her head, and walked off – clearly defeated and going to tell her physics professor that what he’d said about the sun was baseless and groundless.

How foolish and ignorant she is, believing in something based only on evidence of its own existence!

none

These two brilliant talks by Dr. Don Carson talk about the reliability of the New Testament in historical terms. As he explains, the focus is not the Bible but God himself, and so he unfolds the case for historical reliability as it arises from the historical actions of God and the historical facts regarding the Christ. The talks discuss a variety of approaches to this topic as well as including very interesting comparisons between different religions and different ways of thinking about truth.

The Reliability of the New Testament – D A Carson [Part 1]
The Reliability of the New Testament – D A Carson [Part 2]

Personally, I found them greatly rewarding listening, and will be following up on some of his recommendations for further reading.

3 com

Can we really take the Bible seriously when it talks about Jesus wondering around, bumping into people with demons possessing them, and casting them out? In the light of modern science, how can we reconcile the presence and threat of demons, devils and sorcery with our lack of evidence for any of them? Perhaps the demons, the devils and the sorcery are all myths, and perhaps so is their counterbalance, God.

Matthew 8:16 That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick.

Taking the part of the devils advocate – where have all the demons gone? Now; we know that it is the assigned work of Satan to tempt us, bringing us to rebellion against God. I can think of three types of rebellion against God, the first being to disobey the revealed law of God, the second is to disobey the law of God written upon our hearts, and the third is to deny the revealed God entirely. The first two are classical definitions of sin as disobedience to God, yet the third is something a bit deeper. When we deny God despite him having revealed himself to us, we make ourselves god for we acknowledge nobody and nothing as having a greater power than man.

The first two commandments together require us to acknowledge only God, and to put nothing and no person in his place. When we raise ourselves up as God then we fall so surely and so heavily by making an idol of ourselves. This is both blasphemy and idolatry and of the very highest level. This is the state of post-modern philosophy today – there is nothing supernatural and there is nothing beyond us. God is at best conceptual, and usually merely figurative. I do not believe that such a state of godless philosophy has existed in any time since that of Christ; for even savages who know nothing of the special revelation of God acknowledge that there is something or someone greater than them, some form of supernatural power. What a victory for Satan! What an easy job for Satan, when even those who have learned of God deny him and his law, denying the very concept of sin and hence the reason to resist it.

At first, such a philosophy seems fine, we assume that people are generally good and know how to behave. Even without God, we should be able to keep going on a reasonable path, at least no worse than before. Unfortunately, this neglects to ask where our moral anchor comes from, and it comes from God and the Word of God. When a ship raises its anchor nothing happens, the ship does not move, everything remains the same as it was before; yet it is clear that the ship will now drift anywhere it likes, being driven even unto destruction on the rocks. The same is true for a society uncoupled from its anchor – although at first all seems well and of no effect, it is both sure and certain that over time society will drift from its remembered patterns of Christian life into the depths of moral depravity and sin. When nobody has the ability to say “this is wrong” then all that was once wrong drifts towards being right. What a victory for Satan indeed!

Now consider if at this time, Satan were to openly send demons out amongst mankind, possessing them and causing them to curse God, exhibiting supernatural strengths in their depravity and evil. What a disaster that would be for Satan! The post-modern philosophy would evaporate like the morning dew with the clear demonstration of the existence of the supernatural devil and his evil. What a strong testimony to God the devil is when he is perceived by man, for in acknowledging the forces of evil man must acknowledge the existence of evil and hence sin. If a man realises the existence of sin then he too testifies to some form of God – as without a god there can be no definition of what is sinful and what is not. What a disaster that would be indeed for Satan, if man were to again acknowledge the concept of sin and the supernatural, and begin to think of taking care to avoid the former and seek the later.

Matthew 8:28 And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. 29 And behold, they cried out, “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?”

Therefore I suggest that it is not due to greater revelation and the closeness of Christ that we rarely see physical manifestations of demons amongst us, but rather due to our denial of even the general revelation of God and our failure to acknowledge the sin that Christ came to take away. Our condition today as those who deny not only the God of the Bible but the very concepts of God, righteousness and sin, is very much more evil than even savages to whom the Gospel has never been preached. The devil has no need to scare us away from righteousness through open works of evil, for we are quite happy to depart for hell of our own accord.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy upon us, and mercifully open our ears to hear you and our hearts to receive you as the sole Lord and master of mankind; that through a knowledge of you we might take heed of the depth of our sin, being drawn to repentance and forgiveness in your name. Amen.

2 com

Subscribe to Emails

Most commented