From Gödel to God

This page addresses some of those common criticisms to the existence of God, unrelated to this and many other proofs.

​1. Question: Doesn’t evolution prove that God doesn’t exist?

​Answer - There is a common misconception (unfortunately aided by some Fundamentalist Christian groups) that Christianity teaches that the Earth is around 6,000 years old and God made man separate and apart from all other animals; this misconception continues that, should these “Christian beliefs” be proven to be false, then the entirety of Christianity is false. This is a strawman of the most naked and uniformed kind. The Bible nowhere presents the age of the Earth nor is the Story of Adam and Eve taken by orthodox Christianity to be historically factual. Christianity is dependent on the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not on allegorical Jewish folklore, so even the concluding argument of the criticism is erroneous. Therefore, it is a fallacy of false alternatives that one must either choose a young earth/anti-evolution “Christian” position or an evolution/atheistic position. A person can in fact believe in God and in evolution (the majority of Christians do just that without any crisis of rationality). It is even more ridiculous when one considers that a huge proportion of theists around the global aren’t even Christian (or Jews or Muslims as a matter of fact), so attacking the Biblical narrative is meaningless to them and their beliefs.

But there’s more. This criticism is actually way more pointless when we get under the surface. Let’s illustrate with a story as given in John Lennox in “God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?”, “Take a Ford motor car. It is conceivable that someone from a remote part of the world, who knew nothing about modern engineering, might imagine that there is a god (Mr. Ford) inside the engine, making it go. He might further imagine that when the engine ran sweetly it was because Mr. Ford inside the engine liked him, and when it refused to go it was because Mr. Ford did not like him. Of course, if he were subsequently to study engineering and take the engine to pieces, he would discover that there is no Mr. Ford inside it. Neither would it take much intelligence for him to see that he did not need to introduce Mr. Ford as an explanation for its working. His grasp of the impersonal principles of internal combustion would be altogether enough to explain how the engine works. So far, so good. But if he then decided that his understanding of the principles of how the engine works made it impossible to believe in the existence of a Mr. Ford who designed the engine in the first place, this would be patently false – in philosophical terminology he would be committing a category mistake. Had there never been a Mr. Ford to design the mechanisms, none would exist for him to understand.” Those atheists who insist that evolution makes God impossible are likewise committing a category mistake; dismissing the entity (God) because of the mechanisms (evolutionary processes).

In fact, Aristotle’s four causes make such assertions highly dubious. We must be mindful not to conflate the material cause (the building blocks of a thing), with the formal cause (the thing being built), with the efficient cause (the mechanisms and rules that build the thing), with the final cause (the purpose for which the thing is built). It is this final cause that is notoriously hard to distill and cannot be dismissed by even a thorough understanding of the other three.

It goes to show that atheist heroes like Richard Dawkins are best viewed as intellectual swindlers – knowing the inefficacy of their arguments (after years of these holes being pointed out, they must know!) but persisting, nonetheless (for what gain or self-deluded right to be correct?). They have done a great disservice to science and philosophy and indeed, to the many they’ve led astray.

​2. Question: “Doesn’t the problem of evil mean that God cannot exist?”

Answer – First off, a simple examination of this argument reveals that it doesn’t even attempt to refute God, only the idea of a “good” God. So, as a convincing argument for atheism, it falls short. In fact, in many religions, and even in heretic “Christian” beliefs (such as Gnosticism), there are evil elements ascribed to God; a dualism of good and evil. Secondly, what does an atheist mean by "evil"? Evil and good in a materialistic worldview cannot be objectively defined. They are simply things that the speaker doesn't like. So there are fundamental problems with this criticism from the get go. Nevertheless, it is quite possible to reconcile a good God with the reality of evil in our world, in fact, Christians would expect the world to be as it is!

To begin, the argument is more formally presented as by the French rationalist Pierre Bayle, “Why has God not prevented evil? Either God cannot: then he is not really omnipotent. Or he will not: in that case he is not good, just or holy. Or he cannot and will not: in which case he is powerless and hostile. Or he can and will: but then, why all the evil in the world?” A theodicy is a justification of a good God and the persistence of evil. Three main theodicies have been advanced: (1) evil exists as part of God’s cosmic justice and divine punishment, (2) evil exists as a consequence of man’s free will; it is very hard to imagine our free will without the possibility and eventual occurrence of evil, and (3) evil exists as opportunities for us to develop character; it is also equally hard to image courage being developed in a world free of evil and danger, or compassion without suffering. 

Much could be elaborated on these three theodicies but it is better dealt with in specialized texts. Just one personally troubling aspect I will deal with. While the punishment, free will and soul making arguments suffice in large part to justify a good God, I have difficulty understanding suffering for which none of those three purposes can be served. For example, a poor animal born lame and abandoned in some remote, unpeopled jungle; born to limp and die, with no contemplation, mercy or redemption. (Note, however, that such an animal can only exist in theory as if not observed by anyone, it is philosophically questionable whether such a creature really exists but I think for most, reality exists outside of our mind and our observation, so it stands as a good criticism, in my opinion). But understand two things. Firstly, in the Judeo-Christian worldview, man stands in the center of the created order (anthropocentric theology) and thus the whole world (including animals) exists (at least in part) to enable man’s development as a child of God. So the broken world, where evil occurs, even unheeded and unknown, is just part of conditions necessary (conditions of punishment, free will and soul making) to do just that. Secondly, if God exists, then in His estimation, all the suffering in the world is worth the final outcome – redeemed persons, His offspring. It may not seem worth it to some of us all the time and to all of us some of the time but we’d just have to take His word for it. And this points to another failing of the "problem of evil" argument: it begs the question! The criticism must presuppose there is no God who can make all the suffering in the world worthwhile. Thus assuming the very thing the atheist is trying to prove!

But in summary, the three basic theodicies do well enough to rubbish even the weakened view that a "good" God cannot exist. That evil exists is not in the least bit troubling for the Christian, in fact, logical reasoning and his Bible tells him to expect just that. In the final analysis, the problem of evil cannot be used as a justification for atheism.

3. Question: Would a good God send people to hell?

Answer - When someone does something bad to you, do you demand justice? Justice is something good. Wrongs are punished. If there were no punishment, then world would be a very unfair place (a problem that must be particularly troublesome for atheists). I am sure most everyone would agree up to this point but then one may think about Biblical depictions of hell and think that is may be just too much. A bit of excessive punishment. Well, if someone rejects God, then it'll be a pretty big violation of their freewill if God forces them to be with Him in heaven, won't it? But then you're likely to object that hell is more than that. "What about the flames and torture? That's what Christians believe, isn't it!?" The counter to this is quite simply, "Says who?" Those fiery descriptions of hell are taken by many Christian thinkers to represent the desolate and hateful condition a person eternally separated from God must feel. But I guess this raises another objection: "Why eternal? Surely the punishment doesn't fit the crime, no matter how egregious the offense." Now, I mentioned before that some persons choose to reject God and His Authority. They want nothing to do with God. They think that they are good on their own (Mark 10:18). But they'd be wrong. Deprived of God's goodness and light, the darkness of depravity of their rebellion would only grow and grow until they are evil all the way through (cf. 1 John 1). It's a slippery but inevitable slope to slide down. Besides, whatever that is good in them (a right conscience) belongs to the God they've rejected and so even that could be taken away from them (Matt 25:28-30). If we want an example, look at demons. Originally, creatures of light and goodness but they chose rebellion and today they are evil through and through and worthy of eternal damnation (curiously, universalism and annihilation arguments hardly extend to demons. Why?). Yes, without God, deprived by choice from the light of his goodness, the evil and evil desires that grow and consume the person is hellish and makes that being worthy of eternal punishment. Their evil isn't just historical, it's current and they've rejected the only remedy. Consider Romans 1:21-25, 28b-31, "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles...so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents, they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy." (NIV). The unsaved person who passes away will not be the same person throughout eternity. A Christian harmatiology shows a sinful entropy.  

But a further problem with this objection is that its circular. Only by assuming God does not exist and can't bring about the fairest, most merciful and noble destiny for all persons can the atheist push that there's an incompatibility. The theist trusts in God's wisdom on this matter.

But if you're really persistent, you may ask, "Would it be fair to millions of people who have never heard of Jesus to be condemned to hell?" This is a reasonable question. I don't think that would be fair at all! But I don't believe that God damns to hell persons who have never heard of Him (Matt 25:34-40). It can be argued from this Bible passage that persons who sincerely pursue and do good will be with God eternally. Even the atheist who rejects a "caricature" of Jesus (as well he should!), never having been shown the true gospel, can be saved, if he does, by conscience and God's mercy, what is good and right (as judged by God, of course). Only those who reject the Jesus of the gospel (outright or by disobedience to conscience) are in danger of eternal damnation. "So what's the point of preaching Jesus?", you may ask. It is a tremendous benefit to know Jesus this side of the grave and to demonstrate fidelity to the gospel, for which you will be rewarded in Heaven (there are different crowns for the resurrected in Heaven). Even here on earth, in Jesus, there is fullness of joy (Ps 16:11). And as the Psalmist says, "Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path". God's word protects us from falling into evil. (Atheists often say that you don't need God to be moral. This is a half-truth at best. Firstly, it assumes that worshiping God is not a moral necessity. So it assumes that God doesn't exist. Such arguments are circular. Secondly, it assumes that there is no external opposition to persons' goodness. But temptation from a fallen world and demonic influences, in a Christian worldview, are near insurmountable. Again circular.) Plus, obedience to God to share the good news of friendship (indeed, sonship) with Him, should be a top priority (Matt 28:19).

You may now be realizing that God isn't a "moral monster" but have one more objection. "How could God create individual persons knowing that they'd be sent to an eternal hell?" This is a heavy topic concerning freewill and God's sovereignty and so, I can only briefly sketch out a defense here. But suffice it to say that people's freewill and God's sovereignty need not be in conflict. For the first thing, having foreknowledge of someone's choices isn't the same thing as causing or making someone to choose a particular way. And secondly, God isn't the only creating agent. God created life such that we are life-propagating beings. This is called the Traducian view. We procreate and each progeny has freewill to make his or her own choices (this is called the Agency Theory of causation). God may have set things in motion but we play a big part in the final outcome. Regardless, Christians believe that God took the punishment for our disobedience (wrong freewill choices - which he foreknew) on himself and so, each agent can choose or not choose to be justified. So again, in this sense, God does not send anyone to an eternal hell, rather, it is a choice made by a freewill, causal agent.

No one should fear anyone being unfairly condemned to Hell. God is not looking for a "gotcha" moment. He desires all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). Ultimately, this criticism fails.

4. Question: Is the atheist and the theist so different? The atheist just rejects one more god than the theist does.

Answer - Suppose I told you that I had won the lottery and you responded, "Impossible! Millions of people play the lottery and they all lose, so you couldn't have won." Do you think that this is a sound argument? Despite millions of people getting the numbers wrong, it is conceivable that I might get them right. It'll be more reasonable to examine the evidence of my claim. This is an example of a hasty generalization fallacy: many are wrong, so all are wrong.

However, you may respond that the analogy is poor one. "We know that someone can win the lottery but we can't know if God exists." Ok, but again, instead of assuming the premise that God doesn't exist or we can't know if God exists, won't it be better than to just look at the evidence?

In any case, the inductive nature of this criticism cannot justify atheism by equating it to exclusionary theism. To claim that "God doesn't exist" is essentially equivalent to "one god out of thousands of gods exists" is intellectually sloppy. The difference between existence (such as a black swan; God exists) and non-existence (no black swan, all swans are white; God doesn't exist) is monumental! Once again, better to look at the evidence!