Answering Common Answering Common Atheist ObjectionsAtheist Objections

Some General Objections to God’s Some General Objections to God’s ExistenceExistence

““I Only Believe in What I Can I Only Believe in What I Can See”See”

The statement “I believe in only what The statement “I believe in only what I can see” cannot be seen itself.I can see” cannot be seen itself.

The underlying assumption that The underlying assumption that “what is real is visible” is “what is real is visible” is not not visible.visible.

A self-defeating statement affirms A self-defeating statement affirms and denies its own basic meaning.and denies its own basic meaning.

This position is, therefore, self-This position is, therefore, self-defeating.defeating.

““Only Scientific Truths Exist”Only Scientific Truths Exist” This view is self defeating.This view is self defeating. Again, a self-defeating statement Again, a self-defeating statement

affirms and denies its own basic affirms and denies its own basic meaning.meaning.

Question: “Is the claim, ‘only Question: “Is the claim, ‘only scientific truths exist’ a scientific scientific truths exist’ a scientific statement?”statement?”

Defending the Cosmological Defending the Cosmological ArgumentArgument

Is the Universe Oscillating?Is the Universe Oscillating? There is not enough mass in the universe There is not enough mass in the universe

to cause it to stop expanding and then to to cause it to stop expanding and then to make it collapse.make it collapse.

The 2The 2ndnd Law of Thermodynamics would Law of Thermodynamics would prevent an infinite number of “bounces” prevent an infinite number of “bounces” because the universe would lose energy because the universe would lose energy with each bounce.with each bounce.

Is the Universe Oscillating?Is the Universe Oscillating? There would not even be enough There would not even be enough

energy left in the universe to energy left in the universe to generate a bounce if the universe did generate a bounce if the universe did collapse.collapse.

There is no known “bounce” There is no known “bounce” mechanism.mechanism.

Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation?Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation? The quantum vacuum consists of a The quantum vacuum consists of a

sea of fluctuating energy.sea of fluctuating energy.

Particles arise from fluctuations in Particles arise from fluctuations in this energy sea.this energy sea.

Quantum Fluctuation:Quantum Fluctuation: The quantum vacuum and the The quantum vacuum and the

energy inside the vacuum allegedly energy inside the vacuum allegedly cause the particles.cause the particles.

Where does the quantum vacuum Where does the quantum vacuum itself itself come from?come from?

Stephen Hawking’s “Imaginary Stephen Hawking’s “Imaginary Time”?Time”?

Hawking tries to disprove what most Hawking tries to disprove what most scientists call the scientists call the singularitysingularity—the point in —the point in which the space-time universe began by which the space-time universe began by applying “imaginary time” to the universe.applying “imaginary time” to the universe.

““Imaginary Time” is time measured using Imaginary Time” is time measured using imaginary numbers.imaginary numbers.

Imaginary numbers are “multiples of the Imaginary numbers are “multiples of the square root of –1.”square root of –1.”

Stephen Hawking’s “Imaginary Stephen Hawking’s “Imaginary Time”?Time”?

Hawking plugs imaginary numbers Hawking plugs imaginary numbers into equations about the universe.into equations about the universe.

However, when mathematicians and However, when mathematicians and scientists plug real numbers back scientists plug real numbers back into the equation, the reality of the into the equation, the reality of the singularity returns.singularity returns.

Hawking Admits:Hawking Admits: ““When one goes back to the real time in When one goes back to the real time in

which we live, however, there will still which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities. appear to be singularities.

The poor astronaut who falls into a black The poor astronaut who falls into a black hole will still come to a sticky end; only if hole will still come to a sticky end; only if he lived in imaginary time would he he lived in imaginary time would he encounter no singularities.”—encounter no singularities.”—A Brief A Brief History of Time: The Updated and History of Time: The Updated and Expanded 10Expanded 10thth Anniversary Edition Anniversary Edition (1988, (1988, 1996), p. 144.1996), p. 144.

Hawking Also Admits:Hawking Also Admits: ““In real time, the universe has a In real time, the universe has a

beginning and an end at singularities beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science and at which the laws of science break down.” —break down.” —A Brief History of A Brief History of Time: The Updated and Expanded Time: The Updated and Expanded 1010thth Anniversary Edition Anniversary Edition (1988, (1988, 1996), p. 144.1996), p. 144.

Does Quantum Uncertainty Does Quantum Uncertainty Disprove Causality?Disprove Causality?

If the uncertainty principle disproved If the uncertainty principle disproved the law of causality, then the the law of causality, then the uncertainty principle would be self-uncertainty principle would be self-defeating.defeating.

Quantum physics is a part of science Quantum physics is a part of science and science rests on the law of and science rests on the law of causality’s validity.causality’s validity.

Does Quantum Uncertainty Does Quantum Uncertainty Disprove Causality?Disprove Causality?

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does does not not prove that the movement of prove that the movement of electrons is uncaused.electrons is uncaused.

It only describes our inability to It only describes our inability to predict predict their location and speed at their location and speed at any given time.any given time.

Does Quantum Uncertainty Does Quantum Uncertainty Disprove Causality?Disprove Causality?

The mere fact that we can’t predict The mere fact that we can’t predict something doesn’t mean that something doesn’t mean that something has no cause.something has no cause.

This rests upon only one of many This rests upon only one of many different interpretations of quantum different interpretations of quantum mechanics.mechanics.

Does Quantum Uncertainty Does Quantum Uncertainty Disprove Causality?Disprove Causality?

In fact, quantum scientists In fact, quantum scientists acknowledge that we might not be acknowledge that we might not be able to predict the simultaneous able to predict the simultaneous speed and location of electrons speed and location of electrons because our very attempts at because our very attempts at observing them are the observing them are the cause cause of of their unpredictable movements!their unpredictable movements!

““Who Made God?”Who Made God?” The causality principle does The causality principle does notnot say that say that

everything everything needs a cause. needs a cause. Rather, it says anything that Rather, it says anything that has a has a

beginningbeginning must have had a cause. must have had a cause. An infinite being, such as God, does not An infinite being, such as God, does not

have a beginning. have a beginning. An infinite being must have always existed An infinite being must have always existed

and is, therefore, uncaused. and is, therefore, uncaused.

Defending the Design ArgumentDefending the Design Argument

““We Live in a Multiverse”We Live in a Multiverse”

Scientists Alejandro Jenkins and Scientists Alejandro Jenkins and Gilad Perez Write:Gilad Perez Write:

““Short of invoking a supernatural Short of invoking a supernatural explanation, which would be by explanation, which would be by definition outside the scope of definition outside the scope of sciencescience, a number of physicists and , a number of physicists and cosmologists began in the 1970s to cosmologists began in the 1970s to try solving the puzzle by try solving the puzzle by hypothesizing that our universe is hypothesizing that our universe is just one of many existing universes, just one of many existing universes, each with its own laws….each with its own laws….

Jenkins and Perez Continue:Jenkins and Perez Continue: ……According to this ‘anthropic’ According to this ‘anthropic’

reasoning, we might just occupy the reasoning, we might just occupy the rare universe where the right rare universe where the right conditions happen to have come conditions happen to have come together to make life together to make life possible.”—“Looking for Life in the possible.”—“Looking for Life in the Multiverse,” Multiverse,” Scientific AmericanScientific American, , January 2010, page 42January 2010, page 42

Christian Philosopher Norman Geisler Christian Philosopher Norman Geisler Responds to this Reasoning:Responds to this Reasoning:

““If positing a supernatural cause of the If positing a supernatural cause of the universe goes beyond the realm of universe goes beyond the realm of science, then so does naturalistic science, then so does naturalistic evolution when it insists there is no such evolution when it insists there is no such supernatural cause, for that too is a supernatural cause, for that too is a statement that goes beyond the natural statement that goes beyond the natural world.”—Norman Geisler, world.”—Norman Geisler, Creation & the Creation & the CourtsCourts, 259, 259

Multiple Universes?Multiple Universes? There is no evidence of their There is no evidence of their

existence.existence. Humans could never observe the Humans could never observe the

other universes.other universes. Where did the other universes come Where did the other universes come

from?from?

Multiple Universes?Multiple Universes? No universe could bring another No universe could bring another

universe into existence, because universe into existence, because these hypothetical universes are these hypothetical universes are believed to be causally unconnected.believed to be causally unconnected.

Multiple Universes?Multiple Universes? ““It is crazy to postulate a trillion It is crazy to postulate a trillion

(causally unconnected) universes to (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) when postulating one entity (God) will do the job.”—Richard Swinburne, will do the job.”—Richard Swinburne, “Design Defended,” “Design Defended,” ThinkThink (Spring (Spring 2004): 17.2004): 17.

““The fact that it is logically possible The fact that it is logically possible that there are multiple universes with that there are multiple universes with their own laws of nature does not show their own laws of nature does not show that such universes do exist. There is that such universes do exist. There is currently no evidence in support of a currently no evidence in support of a multiverse. It remains a speculative multiverse. It remains a speculative idea.”—Antony Flew, idea.”—Antony Flew, There is A God: There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAtheist Changed His Mind, 119., 119.

Researchers Alejandro Jenkins and Researchers Alejandro Jenkins and Gilad Perez Write:Gilad Perez Write:

““Our work did not address the most Our work did not address the most serious fine-tuning problem in serious fine-tuning problem in theoretical physics: the smallness of theoretical physics: the smallness of the ‘cosmological constant…’the ‘cosmological constant…’

Researchers Alejandro and Gilad Researchers Alejandro and Gilad Perez Continue:Perez Continue:

……thanks to which our universe thanks to which our universe neither recollapsed into nothingness neither recollapsed into nothingness a fraction of a second after the big a fraction of a second after the big bang, nor was ripped part by an bang, nor was ripped part by an exponentially accelerating exponentially accelerating expansion.—“Looking for Life in the expansion.—“Looking for Life in the Multiverse,” Multiverse,” Scientific AmericanScientific American, , January 2010, page 44.January 2010, page 44.

Alejandro Jenkins and Gilad Perez Alejandro Jenkins and Gilad Perez Also Write:Also Write:

““We may never find any direct evidence We may never find any direct evidence of the existence of other universes, and of the existence of other universes, and we certainly will never get to visit one. we certainly will never get to visit one. But we may need to learn more about But we may need to learn more about them if we want to understand what is them if we want to understand what is our true place in the multiverse—our true place in the multiverse—or or whatever is out therewhatever is out there.”—“Looking for .”—“Looking for Life in the Multiverse,” Life in the Multiverse,” Scientific Scientific AmericanAmerican, January 2010, page 49. , January 2010, page 49.

““Who Is the Designer?”Who Is the Designer?”

Who is the designer?Who is the designer?

““There are Many Poor Designs in There are Many Poor Designs in Nature”Nature”

Not all designs must be optimal.Not all designs must be optimal.– Some cars are more optimally designed Some cars are more optimally designed

than others.than others. Apparent “bad” designs turn out to Apparent “bad” designs turn out to

be “good” designs as scientists learn be “good” designs as scientists learn more.more.– Stephen Jay Gould and other Stephen Jay Gould and other

evolutionists used to declare that the evolutionists used to declare that the Panda’s thumb was poorly designed.Panda’s thumb was poorly designed.

The Panda’s Thumb—a Good The Panda’s Thumb—a Good DesignDesign

““The radial sesamoid The radial sesamoid bone and the accessory bone and the accessory carpal bone form a carpal bone form a double pincer-like double pincer-like apparatus in the medial apparatus in the medial and lateral sides of the and lateral sides of the hand, respectively, hand, respectively, enabling the panda to enabling the panda to manipulate objects manipulate objects with with great dexteritygreat dexterity.”—.”—”Role of the Giant Pand”Role of the Giant Panda’s ‘Pseudo-Thumb’,” a’s ‘Pseudo-Thumb’,” NatureNature (January 28, 1999). (January 28, 1999).

““The Design Argument Commits The Design Argument Commits the ‘God-of-the-Gaps’ Fallacy”the ‘God-of-the-Gaps’ Fallacy”

The design argument is based on what we The design argument is based on what we knowknow——notnot what we what we don’tdon’t know. know.

For example, we know that intelligent For example, we know that intelligent causes produce information.causes produce information.

Therefore, when scientists observe Therefore, when scientists observe information in DNA, they are justified in information in DNA, they are justified in inferring an intelligent agent generated inferring an intelligent agent generated that information.that information.

““The Design Argument Commits The Design Argument Commits the ‘God-of-the-Gaps’ Fallacy”the ‘God-of-the-Gaps’ Fallacy”

We also know that We also know that intelligent beings intelligent beings construct motors and construct motors and biochemists have biochemists have detected molecular detected molecular motors inside cells—motors inside cells—motors which surpass motors which surpass humans’ design humans’ design abilities.abilities.

““The Design Argument Commits The Design Argument Commits the ‘God-of-the-Gaps’ Fallacy”the ‘God-of-the-Gaps’ Fallacy”

 ” ”A common function of these A common function of these diverse enzymes is the diverse enzymes is the transformation of chemical energy transformation of chemical energy into mechanical motion and vice into mechanical motion and vice versa, often performed versa, often performed at nearly at nearly 100% efficiency100% efficiency.”—.”—Biophysicist Biophysicist AlekseiAleksei AksimentievAksimentiev, University of , University of IllinoisIllinois

Recommend ResourcesRecommend Resources Dembski, William A. Dembski, William A. The Design RevolutionThe Design Revolution. .

Downer’s Grove: IVP Books, 2004.Downer’s Grove: IVP Books, 2004.

Flew, Antony. Flew, Antony. There Is a GodThere Is a God. New York: . New York: HarperOne, 2007.HarperOne, 2007.

Geisler, Norman. Geisler, Norman. Creation & the CourtsCreation & the Courts. Wheaton: . Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2007.Crossway Books, 2007.

Zweerink, Jeffrey A.Zweerink, Jeffrey A. Who’s Afraid of the Who’s Afraid of the Multiverse?Multiverse?, which is available at reasons.org., which is available at reasons.org.