Mr. Theist and Mr. Atheist clash in: "The Big Question"
By Michael A. Sosa and Duke Zayas
Our contenders meet at the student parking lot after class. It’s time to go home.
The Question of Truth:
Mr. Theist: Hey, how's it going?
Mr. Atheist: Not so good. The Professor just refused to accept my term paper because I was
late to my philosophy class. It wasn't even my fault. There was an accident on the parkway.
Mr. Theist: I'm sorry to hear that.
Mr. Atheist: Not more than I am, guy. I was up all night working on that paper. That #*&@%*
is completely unfair.
Mr. Theist: You shouldn't do that.
Mr. Atheist: Do what?
Mr. Theist: Misuse God's name. It's a sin.
Mr. Atheist: Sorry. I’m a free-thinker. I don't believe in God. But, hey, I’m sorry for offending
you. I respect your beliefs. I’ll try and be more careful around you.
Mr. Theist: Thank you, although, I’m not the one you should be apologizing to. So, while we’re
on the subject, why don’t you believe in God, if you don’t mind my asking?
Mr. Atheist: I don’t mind at all. I love engaging in discussions about truth and the nature of
existence. Well, to answer your question, there is no proof for God’s existence. In my search for
truth, I’ve studied the various arguments for God’s existence and they all fail. Ironically, it is those
very arguments for God that have confirmed my doubts and lead me to embracing atheism.
Mr. Theist: Interesting. So what have you replaced God with? In other words, how do you
explain the existence of things? Do you believe in evolution?
Mr. Atheist: Of course I do. Most educated people do.
Mr. Theist: But you said that you’re a free-thinker. A free-thinking person doesn’t let what most
people believe govern his or her thinking. Why do you believe in evolution?
Mr. Atheist: Because I’m also an empiricist. I believe what the evidence shows humanity to be
true. Modern science has clearly proven evolution. That’s where the evidence points. Too much
is in favor of evolution. It's taught in schools and universities. It is talked about in popular
magazines like Scientific American, Time, and National Geographic. All the major scientists
believe in evolution. There's Gould, Hawkings, and many others.
Mr. Theist: It’s true the average person and scientist have faith in the theory of evolution. But, I
must disagree with your assertion that evolution has clearly been proven. It’s still just a theory.
In fact, respectable scientists have admitted that there is no proof for the theory. One such
scientist, Michael Denton, a microbiologist, wrote a book called, Evolution-A Theory in Crisis,
which I happen to have with me. He documents numerous problems with evolution. I’ll read you
a couple of interesting quotes. He writes, "...the problems (with evolution) are to severe and too
intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework, and that
consequently the conservative view is no longer tenable." Denton further states, "Considering the
way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already
established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no
evidence for its existence."
Mr. Atheist: So, that's what he says. You’re not going to prove anything to me with an obscure
quote. Your microbiologist is still in the minority. I’ve never heard of him. The majority of modern
scientists still hold that evolution is a scientific fact. Too much evidence is in their favor. Like I
said, I believe whatever truth-claim the evidence supports.
Mr. Theist: As do I. The problem with evolution is not so much with the evidence, but with how
the evidence is viewed or interpreted. With all due respect to your claim to being a ‘free-thinker’,
no one’s thinking is actually and totally free from influence and bias. We all look at the facts of
reality through a preconception. That is to say, all of look at the world with preconceived ideas
about the nature of the world, including scientists. Modern scientists are, after all, still human like
you and I. And they have the same prejudices and dislikes. They approach science with a
naturalistic prejudice that interprets the evidence in light of their naturalistic prejudice. What I
mean by ‘prejudice’ is that, for various personal and cultural reasons, they are biased against the
supernatural or 'creationist' point of view. Because they rule out a supernatural view of things at
the very beginning, they filter the evidence through their 'anti-supernatural grid’. The facts of the
fossil record, for example, do not show evolution. The fossil record shows merely fossils. If I
were a naturalist, I would look at the similarity of the fossilized animals and conclude a common
ancestor. As a creationist I would look at the same fossils and conclude a Common Designer.
There is nothing to connect the fossils, which may appear to be related, except the assumption or
imagination of whoever discovers and examines them. So, in fact, the fossil record could support
Creationism or Evolution, depending on the person doing the interpreting. No one can prove
evolution exclusively from the fossil record. There simply is no proof. No one has ever seen
evolution occur. Nor has any modern scientists existed at the beginning of history to observe life
arising from dead matter.
Mr. Atheist: I understand your point. But, I'll still place my bets with the conclusions of modern
science. It takes a greater leap of faith to believe in a Supreme Being than it does to believe in
evolution. Lack of proof for evolution still doesn't prove God. The burden of proof still lies with
the theist, not the atheist. If I said I believed in the Easter Bunny, with respect to your
intelligence, I wouldn't expect you to believe me without my first proving His existence, now would
I? Yet, you creationists expect me to put my faith in God without proof. As I said before, I have
examined all of the so-called proofs and they have proven nothing except a creative imagination
on the part of theists. This is why I’m an atheist.
Mr. Theist: Perhaps. Tell me; what are these so-called proofs or arguments that you’ve
encountered, for God’s existence?
Mr. Atheist: I’d love to. First of all, Christians have posited what they call the Design Argument.
I’ll talk about that one first because it’s the most popular one. I’m assuming you’re a Christian,
right?
Mr. Theist: That’s a safe assumption. I’m a Christian.
Mr. Atheist: Ok, fine. So there’s the Design Argument, which goes like this:
#1: Apparent design implies a designer.
#2: The world manifests apparent design.
#3: Therefore, there must be a Grand Designer who designed the world.
#4: This Grand Designer is God.
But this is surely flawed. There are several ways to respond to this:
#1: Apparent disorder implies chaos.
#2: There is apparent disorder in the world.
#3: Therefore this ‘Grand Designer’ is also chaotic.
By the way, I might point out that sometimes randomness results in order (i.e., place a monkey at
a typewriter and over a period of a couple of years, he can write a simple sentence!)
Or I can respond by arguing:
#1: Apparent design sometimes requires several designers.
#2: The world manifests apparent design on a grand scale.
#3: Therefore, there are several Grand Designers!
There is also the First Cause Argument, which goes like this:
#1: Every effect requires a cause.
#2: And each cause itself requires a previous cause.
#3: But as this cannot go on to infinity, there must be a first cause behind of everything.
#4: Therefore, there is an ultimate First Cause, and this we call God.
But this is likewise flawed:
#1: It is only theoretically true that every effect requires a cause as no one can test every single
effect!
#2: If each cause requires a previous cause, why stop at God? Perhaps God too has a cause!
#3: It does not follow that this abstract First Cause is to be equated with a personal deity called
‘God’.
So, you see, these are simply two of many arguments based on essentially the same premises.
And they all fail to meet the simple qualifications set forth by any reasonable person.
Mr. Theist: I understand. And while I do not wholly endorse these arguments as many have
classically stated them, I must argue that they in fact demonstrate that belief in God is not
irrational but rational. Although they do indeed fail to prove the existence of the God of the Bible,
they are nevertheless reasons to believe in a Creator. It is not unreasonable to believe that the
fine-tuned-ness of the universe and the complexity and diversity of life on earth could be evidence
for God. Also, God could be the first cause at the beginning of all other causes. And thus they
do serve an important purpose for the theist, in that, although they are not irrefutable proofs, they
show that creationists have good reasons to support their case. Therefore, if belief in Creation is
irrational because the evidences do not irrefutably prove that God exists, then belief in evolution
is just as irrational because evolutionists also work with evidences that also fail to irrefutably
prove their case.
Mr. Atheist: That's fine, but all of this interesting reasoning still has not answered the big
question. What’s the proof for your God?
Mr. Theist: Ok, let’s cut to the chase then. Here’s my proof for God’s existence. First of all,
there is a big difference between belief in the Easter Bunny and belief in God. The question of
whether or not the Easter Bunny exists really has no connection with the way we view reality and
how we behave. Not so with God. The claim of the Christian is not merely that God exists, but
that all of reality was created and is governed by the Triune God of the Bible. Thus, God is the
foundation and source of all truth. And therein is your proof for God. Because God created all of
reality, truth has meaning. I call it the argument from truth, which goes like this. There is truth,
therefore God is.
Mr. Atheist: That’s your proof?
Mr. Theist: Yes. Perhaps I can demonstrate this by asking you a couple of questions. First, is it
true that your professor was wrong for rejecting your term paper?
Mr. Atheist: Obviously wrong. Why would have I been upset if He was right?
Mr. Theist: But, why do you think he was wrong?
Mr. Atheist: I told you before, because I was stuck in traffic. His decision was unjust and unfair
because I had no control over my ability to get to class on time. What does this have to do with
belief in God?
Mr. Theist: Everything. Let me explain. Your statement that your professor is unjust is pregnant
with a huge assumption that runs contrary to your claim to atheism. When you say that your
philosophy professor was unjust and unfair for what he did, you assume an absolute moral
standard. Fairness and justice presupposes or assumes a universal law of morality that is more
than mere preference. When you assume a right and wrong that applies to everyone, regardless
of cultural or personal values, you confess belief in a universal standard of morality. This is only
possible by borrowing from the Christian-theistic view of the world. You see... the existence of
universal standards of morality depends on the existence of the God who is moral. That is to say,
there is a universal morality to the universe because the God who created it is moral. Your truth
claim destroys any basis for consistently holding to an actual right and wrong. This is because the
evolutionist’s universe is impersonal. That is to say, the claim of atheism is that there is no
supreme person behind everything. Your universe is just matter and energy. Since mere matter
and energy are inherently non-moral there are no absolute standards of morality to refer to. On
this basis morality is relative. Relative morality means that everyone determines what is right and
wrong for his or her self. For Atheism, this means that there is no real right or wrong. With this in
mind, you are being inconsistent when you complain about the unfairness of your professor for
his unjust actions or about anything else, whether it's someone stealing your lunch money or
rejecting your term paper. Call it 'preference' if you like. But in an impersonal universe of brute
fact, in an imaginary universe that was not created by the personal God of the Bible, there is no
right or wrong, there is only the right of force. This is the morality and basic government of the
evolutionist's universe. Brute force is what spawned everything and it is mere brute force that
governs us. In this pretend reality without the moral standard of God, might makes right. Power is
the consistent ethic of the evolutionist's world. Thus, whether one commits rape and murder, or
fails a student without just cause, he is right just because he has the power to do so. You may
prefer not to be victimized, but you have no ultimate point of reference to justify your belief in the
wrongness of it. Without God there is only personal preference. Although you may assert that
you don't believe in God, you act as though He exists when you refer to some higher moral law; a
standard that your professor violated when he made his decision. Without God, what's your point
of reference? To what or to whom do you refer to in order to justify your complaints?
Mr. Atheist: I could refer to the moral and ethical standards developed by the society in which
we live.
Mr. Theist: But on that base, how can any person or society know whether another society’s
actions or policies are right or wrong? For example, how do we know that the ancient Aztecs
were wrong for practicing human sacrifice and cannibalism? Or how do we know that the
communist dictator Stalin was wrong for his starvation policies that resulted in the deaths of
millions of innocent people? If morality is reduced from the universal law and character of God to
what is most useful to a culture, those who kidnapped the African people and traded them for
profits were perfectly moral. So was Adolph Hitler, on the evolutionist’s view of ethics anyway. If
the extermination of a certain people-group was useful to Nazi Germany, then the establishment
of death camps is a very moral thing for a culture to do.
Mr. Atheist: That’s funny. You Christians always talk about morality and right and wrong, and
yet most of the wars in history were caused by religion-specifically the Christian religion.
Mr. Theist: Christians are not afraid to admit the sins of their own people. It is Jesus Christ who
we exalt, not ourselves. That said, I would say that those persons who claimed to be Christians
were indeed wrong and were hypocrites. But, I have a basis for knowing that what they did was
wrong- the objective moral law and character of God. Secondly, those theists who did horrible
things in history were inconsistent with the Christian worldview they professed. However the
same could not be said for the atheist governments of history-all of which, without exception,
have caused the deaths of millions of people. Their actions were perfectly consistent with the
ethic of evolution-survival of the fittest. They were not hypocrites. But, you’re avoiding the
question. How do you account for right and wrong on your worldview? What’s you point of
reference?
Mr. Atheist: Wait a minute! You’re pulling a fast one and I’ll get to it in a moment. Besides, the
whole superstitious idea of God is totally illogical. And even if there was a Supreme Being at the
beginning of things, no one could know or prove it.
Mr. Theist: But you can know and I have been proving it. I’ll give you another proof. You just
said that the idea of God is illogical. But how do you account for logic and even the ability to
engage in this debate?
Mr. Atheist: I suppose your going to say that logical reasoning depends upon God too?
Mr. Theist: Exactly. You and I can reason and argue with each other because there is such a
thing as logic. And there is logic because God exists.
Mr. Atheist: I must disagree with you. Logic is not a thing that exists, like a chair, or sunlight.
It’s just an abstract convention that humans have invented during the course of our evolution so
that we could reason, interact with each other, and invent things to make our lives in this world a
little easier. You could say that it’s a mental survival mechanism that we evolved to win at the
game of survival. Plus, I don’t see how the fact that we use logic is a proof for God. Your
argument must be false because I reject your God and I use logic all the time. So do my atheist
friends.
Mr. Theist: Indeed, that’s very true. Atheists such as you can be intelligent and logical. You
have clearly demonstrated that in our conversation. Just as atheists can also be moral, a fact
that is inconsistent with the evolutionist’s view of the world. But the question you, as an intelligent
thinking person, should ask yourself is, how do you account for the logic that you depend on for
reasoning and reaching conclusions? Not only have you simply assumed the evolutionary
development of logic, your explanation of how we evolved logic, as a survival tool cannot account
for logic’s reliability. For if logic is a mere concept that we invented during the course of our
evolution then its truth and reliability cannot be justified. First, on your worldview, logic must be
consistently viewed as an accident. If our brains are the result of a series of random events in a
meaningless universe, then our thoughts must be equally meaningless and random. This view of
our brains and thoughts is inconsistent with the belief in the rationality of our minds and the truth
of logic. If our thoughts are just brute purposeless events in a series of random events that flow
from an irrational first cause then how do we know that anything that our minds produce, such as
the laws of logic, are true? Upon what basis can one fizzing bottle of Pepsi say that its truth claim
is valid over against the claim of another fizzing bottle of Coca-Cola? This may sound silly, but
this is basically the atheist view of man. If man is not created in the image of the personal God
who has spoken in the Bible, then we are nothing more than an accident and our thoughts are
just the meaningless effect of an irrational first cause- just as if an accidental explosion caused a
bottle of Pepsi to fizz. In the evolutionist’s universe our thoughts are mere Pepsi-fizz.
Also, for the laws of logic to be a reliable tool to reach truth it must be objective or universal.
Thus, to avoid self-contradiction, you must believe that logic is not a personal or cultural
invention. Like morality, if the laws of logic were, as you said, a mere invention of an evolving
society then it is relative-not universal. This means it could not be objectively true, because what
could be logical for one culture could be illogical for another. There would be no objective
standard or measuring tool outside of us for any person or culture to refer to prove any
proposition as true or false. Without that objective point of reference, the laws of logic must be
reduced to preference. Whatever a culture preferred to be true could be true; such as the
statement that George Washington was both the first president and not the first president of the
United States. But you’re a smart guy. You and I both know that statement is false because
there is an objective logic that we can appeal to. This is because logic transcends and applies to
every man and culture. It is, in other words, universal. So, in order to know anything everyone
(be he Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or even an Atheist), must use the point of view of the Biblewhich is that we live in the Christian universe that was caused by the personal first cause. The
personal God whose logical character is revealed in the Bible created the reality that everyone
believes in. That is my proof. You and I can know things because God exists. We know
because God first knows. We can reason and discover laws of logic because God created out
brains-they are not one meaningless accident in a billions-of-years-long chain of meaningless
accidents. So, when you posit any argument, including one against God’s existence, you must
contradict yourself and must assume the contrary-that He is there and He governs us. With all
due respect-you lost this debate when you assumed you were right. Not because I’m right-but
because God exists.
Mr. Atheist: That’s a very compelling argument. But, in light of your assertion, how do you
account for the evils that we witness in the world. I mean... I can use that very same type of
argument against belief in God. It goes like this: there is evil in the world, therefore God could not
exist.
Mr. Theist: I’ve heard that argument before. It’s a very powerful and thoughtful one. I’d like to
hear your version.
Mr. Atheist: Certainly. Basically, as an intelligent person how can you believe in Christiantheism with all of the evil that occurs in the world. Your Christianity presupposes that the ‘God
who exists’ is good. On that basis alone he could not exist. If your God is there, why do so
many bad things happen in the world? I mean, really! Surely an all-good, all knowing, and allpowerful God would put a stop to all the crime and terrorism. And what about earthquakes, and
diseases? Thousands of good innocent people (both theist and atheist alike) are victims of these
things and your God never lifts a finger to do anything about it. Either He is incompetent,
careless, evil, or He does not exist.
Mr. Theist: Hmmm. Well, the answer to that question depends on the god who one is talking
about. If your god is the god of modern culture-the all embracing gooey lovey-dovey god whose
criteria of getting into heaven is how nice you are, then you and every other atheist who has
posited the argument from evil is indeed correct. That god, the god that atheists think should
exist-who must submit to sentimental human standards of morality, does not exist. However, if
you’re talking about the God of the Bible who does exist, then there is no problem and there is an
answer. First of all, when you say that humans are innocent victims of evil, you assume that
humanity is innocent. But, like we discussed before, on your worldview, there is no sin and thus
the evolutionist cannot consistently say that a person is innocent or guilty. To be consistent the
evolutionist must admit there is only the impersonal universe with nothing behind it except
meaninglessness. There is no god or no character of a moral creator to serve as a base for
judging the good or evil of events. What happen to us in this world is likewise meaningless, just a
cosmic event like when asteroids crash in space. So what if we feel pain? Why is that wrong?
Everything that occurs in the pretend universe of the evolutionist is just a natural function of that
universe. The ‘wrongness’ of death by earthquakes must be consistently be viewed the same as
the ‘wrongness’ of sunspot activity. But the Bible’s view of man and the universe is totally
different. First, from the Bible’s perspective evil is not a natural part of the random phenomenon
that merely happens. It is an aberration that is the result of sin. Thus to see certain things that
happen in the world as ‘wrong’ is to be consistent with the living God’s revelation about the world
and history. Second, the Bible view of man is consistent with the sadness and outrage that we
feel when a loved one dies or when a child suffers. This is because a child’s tears are more then
a biological chemical reaction. When a child cries from pain it is the reaction of a person made in
God’s image who feels the un-natural consequences of sin. But the outrage that we
understandably feel when we experience pain should not be directed toward God. It is we who
bring the wrath of God upon ourselves because of our sin. We are the sinners and thus we are to
blame for our so-called tragic condition. Our condition is indeed lamentable. But the proper
response is not to blame God or disbelieve in His existence. The answer, according to His
revealed word, the Bible, is to repent. Third, if the God your talking about is the God of the Bible
then it is possible to make sense of evil in the world in light of God’s total goodness. As a
Christian who thinks his thoughts after God’s Word, I look at the world and the evil things that
happen and must interpret them in light of the Bible. Just as I look at the evidence of Creation
and see the hand of God, I must do the same thing with the events that happen in God’s creation.
Hence from a Christian’s perspective, when I see death and suffering I must see the justice of a
holy God upon not-so innocent sinners. This might be offensive to someone who looks at the
world from a different perspective, but no offense to you or any other atheist, that’s not my
problem. My portion is to be faithful to the Creator in what I do and how I interpret the facts
around me. Fourth, this method of interpretation also applies to a proper view of humanity and
our alleged ‘innocence.’ According to the Bible none of us are without sin, even from birth. The
only innocent victim in history was Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He is the only one ever born
into the world without sin and was thus the only innocent person or victim ever born. That point in
history was a testimony to the actual non-innocence of the human race and the perfect love of
God who surrendered His Son to die at the hands of sinful humanity that they might live in Him
through His resurrection. Because The God of the Bible is the God of justice, He has to punish
sin. Because He is the God of love and mercy, He made a way for sinners to be pardoned by
pouring infinite justice and wrath upon His eternal Son in their place. This brings me to my last
point. God could have a sufficiently moral reason for allowing and even ordaining that evil things
should happen in the world. He has given us the best example in the historic death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. In that moment, God used the greatest act of evil ever committed,
the completely unjust murder of His infinitely righteous and divine Son, to accomplish the greatest
act of good in history. In a manner of speaking, God, in His perfect wisdom, dealt with the
problem of evil through problem of evil. So, there are thoughtful Christians have answered this
argument in a manner that is faithful to God’s self-revelation. There really is no problem here.
The evidence provided to us from the God who does exist, from the facts of the fossil record to
the facts of the human condition, are in fact plenty of proof for the honest inquirer. The real
problem is that none of us are honest with ourselves. As the Bible says, because we’re sinners
we suppress the truth in unrighteousness. That is to say we deny the truth of God’s existence in
spite of our better knowledge. We all know God. We just don’t like the fact that the God who
exists is there because we want to retain our autonomy. In other words, all of us, from the
college professor to the local mailman-would rather be the god of our own lives and do whatever
we want instead of submit to the Creator.
Look, you’re a reasonable guy. In view of all that I’ve said so far, I think you should at least rethink your epistemological position and consider being more consistent.
Mr. Atheist: How so?
Mr. Theist: By accepting the only reasonable alternative to your worldview. By repenting and
confessing what you and I both know to be true. Quit hiding behind your secular philosophy and
false scientific arguments. The living God has provided the only safe hiding place for sinners in
Jesus Christ-He paid the price. Take this God-given chance while you have it.
Mr. Atheist: Can we talk more about this stuff over a cup of coffee?
Mr. Theist: Only if you let me buy the first cup.
For more information contact Messiah’s…