Who Is This God?
One of the common arguments against Christianity is the position taken by those that deny any knowledge of God existence.
This is one of the core arguments of many modern atheists.
When questioned as to the existence of God and how they know He does not exist, they will answer that they lack a belief in God or gods.
That they just have no evidence whatsoever of His existence.
A Truth Claim
So if there is no evidence for God's existence, then how can they accept Him or believe in Him.
The core argument here, the core “knowledge claim” is that they have no evidence, no awareness, no experience of God's existence?
And this is important to understand, many atheists will argue they are not making an argument, so they don’t have to defend their position.
But ‘I lack a belief in God’ is a knowledge claim and has to be examined like all other knowledge claims, to test its validity.
Another Claim?
But do we have awareness of God's existence?
God states that He has revealed His existence to all men, that they are without excuse, you can find this in Romans Chapter 1 of the Bible.
That everyone knows of Him, that He has revealed Himself in Creation, that He has revealed Himself to them personally.
They Cannot Both Be True
So here we have a problem.
The atheistic argument is that they lack a belief in God.
But God through the Bible says they have an awareness of His existence.
One of these must be wrong!
Running Away
The Bible explains to us, again in Romans chapter 1, that mankind has suppressed the truth of God’s existence, both individually and societally.
Suppress means to hold down, to push down, to intentionally hide something.
They have ignored it, ran away from it, tried to bury it.
So if this is true, is there any evidence of it?
Can we see if this is the case or not?
Chocolate Donuts
If someone says they don’t like chocolate donuts and never eat them, yet we observe them eating a chocolate donut every day, are they telling the truth?
If someone says they don’t have a belief in God, that they have no awareness of His existence, but live in a way that is only consistent with the existence of God and their awareness of His existence, are they telling the truth?
Moral Absolutes Require God’s Existence:
Moral absolutes can only be provided by an absolute intelligent being, which we discussed in another video.
So if there is no God, then there are no moral absolutes and we cannot appeal to them.
So if I want to argue that I lack a belief in God, I have also rejected the basis, the only basis on which we can appeal to moral absolutes.
So if I state a lack of belief in God and yet at the same time I am appealing to moral absolutes, I am contradicting myself.
Justice, Liberty And Freedom
If I argue for justice and say I lack a belief in absolute moral values that only God can provide, then I am not being consistent with my stated belief system, or my professed worldview.
If I say that humans should have the right to dignity, personal freedom and liberty of conscience and yet I am stating I lack a belief in moral absolutes, I am contradicting myself.
Bags Of Random Chemicals
Why is that, why can I not appeal to moral absolutes without God?
If all we are, as the theory of Evolutionary says, are the product of random chance and circumstance, a chemical reaction in the accident that is the universe, why would morality even exist?
If I am nothing but a bag of chemicals, why does it matter what I do to another bag of chemicals, or what they do to me?
I am just a product of a materialistic environment, I have no rights, just as a rock has no rights.
There is no ‘ought to do’ or ‘should do’, as there are no moral absolutes I can point to.
If a rock is destroyed, is that morally wrong?
Does the universe care, the collection of atoms and molecules that make it up, whether I live or die?
Friedrich Nietzsche - 15 October 1844 – 25 August 1900
Nietzsche was a Philosopher and one of the leading thought leaders behind the concept of Nihilism and its negativity on society if adopted.
Nihilism basically means there is no point, there are no moral absolutes and life is meaningless.
And you have to applaud him his logic, he basically argued that life was pointless if there is no God.
So if someone claims they lack a belief in God, they are lead to Nihilism, a complete and utter pointlessness to their existence..
If I was an atheist and was honest with myself and lived as an atheist, then Nihilism is the only logical and natural conclusion my worldview can lead me to.
The Contradiction
If I say I am an atheist, that I lack a belief in God, but then live my life as if moral absolutes are true (which can only be accounted for by the existence of God, who is intrinsically morally absolute), then I am being inconsistent.
My very actions, reveal the truth, that God has made Himself known to me, that I live in His creation, with a knowledge of right and wrong and an intrinsic sense of personal value and worth.
I cannot live as an atheist and at the same time to appeal to absolute moral values!
Consistency
If I were to be consistent, if I were to live the way I stated, that I lack a belief in God, then nothing is immoral, nothing is wrong.
To kill or not to kill is just a choice, to steal or not to steal is just a choice, to lie or not to lie is just a choice.
And many will argue that that is indeed correct, it is okay to murder, steal or lie, if it is expedient.
Unless it happens to us, then and only then, will we see our true values arise, because none of us wants to be subject to someone else's pursuit of moral nihilism.
It is when we need justice or mercy that we all, everyone living, abandons nihilistic tendencies and appeals to their fundamental rights, that God has given them an awareness of.
In Conclusion
If someone says that they lack a belief in God, yet appeal to any absolute moral value, then it is clear that they are not quite telling the truth or being consistent with what they claim to believe.
So if I lack a belief in God, and yet live as if God exists, who could be blamed for noting my hypocrisy and pointing it out?