When Christians offer arguments for the existence of God based on the beginning of the universe or the objective nature of morality, some atheists will respond by asking, “Why can’t we just say we don’t know what caused the universe or what the objective source of morality is?” How might a thoughtful Christian respond?
I would suggest that you turn the question around. Ask them, “Why can’t we just admit that God best explains the origin of the universe and the objective nature of morality?” The atheist wants to plead ignorance, but we are not ignorant on these matters. It’s not as if we don’t know what the options are. We do. And it’s not as if the evidence is equal for all options. We have solid scientific, philosophical, and logical evidence that points to God as the cause of the universe and ground of morality. In other words, we have knowledge, not ignorance. So why not just say we don’t know? It’s because that would be a false statement. We do know. The evidence clearly favors the theistic hypothesis.
The atheist wants to plead ignorance, not because we don’t know of any possible explanations or because the evidence for any of them is equal, but precisely because we know the options and the evidence overwhelmingly points in the direction of the theistic explanation. That puts him in a pickle. He doesn’t like that conclusion, but he can’t refute the evidence for it either. If he admits that he rejects the existence of God for volitional or emotional reasons rather than rational reasons, he knows he would look foolish. So instead, he claims he’s just comfortable admitting that we don’t know the answers yet.
In saying so, he implies that he believes (1) the answer will be found in the future and the answer will not involve God, and (2) that the reason you adopt a theistic explanation is because, unlike him, you cannot tolerate uncertainty and ignorance. Not only does his response dodge the evidence presented to him for God’s existence, but it also proclaims his intellectual superiority over you as well. Don’t fall for this trick. It’s a red herring. Steer the conversation back to the evidence. Make it clear that the issue is not about one’s ability to handle uncertainty, but about the evidence we have right now that clearly favors one explanation over all others. At the very least, we should adopt the God hypothesis unless and until new evidence might arise that would call this conclusion into question. That’s intellectual honesty and intellectual integrity.
Thinking to Believe 
December 31, 2021 at 2:36 pm
As a Christian theist, this blog piece is very disappointing – egads…😖
LikeLike
December 31, 2021 at 2:46 pm
And the reasons being…?
LikeLike
December 31, 2021 at 3:49 pm
First, the simple reality is that we do NOT know a lot – sadly, even with respect to the natural, e.g. the canonical mss, church history, etc., the epistemic impoverishment is overwhelming.
Further, we know far less about God – the supra-natural and the like. Simple integrity and humility call for such recognition (contrary to so many in the evangelical scene esp. leadership who God all figured out…😒).
But then to pull the type of switch-er-oo in paragraph two on the non-believer – thinking that is somehow analogous – that was the part that really caused me to grimace. There is simply no analogy there.
There are MANY problems with standard white-washed evangelical apologetics. Even as a Christian theist, I find them all horribly inadequate – and self-serving. Just because you, I, WLC or anyone thinks they have built some kind of mountain of “intellectual” firepower means really nothing – especially with so much simply born out of ego and need.
I am open to positing sort of semi-reasonable guesses – but I remain firmly convinced of the reality of “our faith NOT being based in the wisdom of men, BUT in the power of God”. And therein lies the rub – the unbeliever has not been so blessed – and, perhaps, not just a few professing “believers”…. certainly not based on the character seen in the evangelical community beginning with its leadership. Further, how God has revealed himself to one man – is NOT necessarily the same as to another…. which is a challenging issue.
I leave it at that – but do hope you will be both willing to challenge all the assumptions contained throughout here – and be very gracious to unbelievers. Frankly, it is NOT that easy to walk with God – as is evident if one tries – and certainly if one hangs out in evangelical churches and simply listens to the very human challenges that we all have.
Best,
Greg
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 31, 2021 at 10:54 pm
May your unprovable God bless you, my son. At long last, an honest Christian. 😳
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 1, 2022 at 1:01 am
Archon Dan,
Thank-you my father – I have been well trained in the temple of Youtube former evangelical now atheist prophets…. I am strong and capable of handling all the arrows of the enemy…
LikeLike
January 2, 2022 at 9:12 am
Greg Logan — What do you mean by the following statement?
“Further, how God has revealed himself to one man – is NOT necessarily the same as to another…. which is a challenging issue.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 2, 2022 at 5:47 pm
Recall Jn21 – “don’t you worry about him – take care of the business I have given you”
We see significant disjunction between soteriological models through the canonical text (not that such a text is relevant to God – He will do whatever He chooses to do).
LikeLike
January 3, 2022 at 5:21 am
“Ask them, “Why can’t we just admit that God best explains the origin of the universe and the objective nature of morality?”
Because God isn’t the best explanation, and the vast majority of experts on cosmology—physicists—agree that science supports a naturalistic explanation. Physics offers compelling evidence that the natural forces of cosmic inflation and quantum mechanics are the most likely explanation for our universe. If you’re not familiar with this, here is a simple primer on the topic: https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/physicists-multiverse-exists/
One “out there” but plausible naturalistic explanation for our universe is that you are an artificial intelligence living in a simulated world indistinguishable from a “real” world, and you can never find evidence for this because the moment you do, the programmer (who need be no more intelligent or powerful than your average computer game programmer, and living in a universe with rules nothing like our own) removes the evidence, “rewinds” the simulation back to before you discovered it, and continues the simulation with you blissfully unaware of your reality.
Of course, I’m NOT saying I believe that claim, since by definition there is no testable prediction that could prove it false, but it “explains” our universe just as well as the theistic model (only without needing to resort to the supernatural). The point is, there are multiple such unfalsifiable explanations for our universe with no credible way to distinguish between them, so insisting that any one of them is true is not rational. Thus, until we have sufficient credible evidence, “We don’t know” is the most rational answer.
As for morality, natural selective forces are all that is needed to explain it. After all, social species have clear advantages over solitary species (they have more eyes to spot predators, they can cooperate on defense, they can specialize, etc.). So genes affecting behavior that increase social cohesion within the population are selected for and become prominent in any social population. Thus, even piranha know not to attack one another. Humans are among the most social and intelligent of social species, and we call our socially cohesive behavior morality. All it takes is an awareness that treating others the way you want to be treated is more likely to get them to treat you that way. Nothing supernatural needed there.
And whenever there is a naturalistic explanation that is supported by evidence, that should ALWAYS be accepted as more likely than a supernatural explanation, especially given that there is no credible confirmation that the supernatural even exists. As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
“The atheist wants to plead ignorance, not because we don’t know of any possible explanations or because the evidence for any of them is equal, but precisely because we know the options and the evidence overwhelmingly points in the direction of the theistic explanation. That puts him in a pickle. He doesn’t like that conclusion, but he can’t refute the evidence for it either.”
WHAT evidence is there for a theistic explanation? A hypothesis requires that one make testable predictions that could potentially prove the claim false. Can you think of even one testable prediction made by theism that could prove it false (at least that hasn’t already proven it false)? I’ve yet to find a theist who can (I even have a standing $1,000 bet that no one can provide one).
Meanwhile, although the evidence supporting quantum mechanics and inflation is overwhelming, science still cannot confirm the cause of the universe. THAT is why most atheists say “We don’t know.” Because it’s true. And anyone claiming otherwise bears the burden of proof.
“If he admits that he rejects the existence of God for volitional or emotional reasons rather than rational reasons, he knows he would look foolish. So instead, he claims he’s just comfortable admitting that we don’t know the answers yet.”
Belief is not something someone can choose; it’s a process that occurs at an unconscious level (try to make yourself believe in Krishna even for five minutes and you’ll see why this is true). Atheism is nothing more or less than a lack of belief in gods. So the atheist doesn’t “reject” the existence of God, he or she simply doesn’t believe the claim that he exists. Just as you (probably) don’t “reject” the existence of Bigfoot, you simply don’t believe the claims that he exists. It’s not a claim that God or Bigfoot don’t exist, only a lack of belief in that claim. So there’s no such thing as an atheist who is an atheist for “volitional or emotional reasons.” That doesn’t mean every atheist is an atheist for rational reasons, although the majority are because they are not convinced by the arguments theists have given for God.
“In saying so, he implies that he believes (1) the answer will be found in the future and the answer will not involve God, and (2) that the reason you adopt a theistic explanation is because, unlike him, you cannot tolerate uncertainty and ignorance.”
Is the lack of sufficient evidence to support one belief justification for belief in something else? No. We may never know the cause of the universe, and there’s nothing about reality that says we’re owed that explanation. Is an intolerance for uncertainty justification for belief in gods? Well, we can’t be certain we aren’t artificial intelligences living in a simulated world, so any decision could easily be wrong. Thus, my advice is to simply get used to uncertainty.
“Not only does his response dodge the evidence presented to him for God’s existence, but it also proclaims his intellectual superiority over you as well. Don’t fall for this trick. It’s a red herring. Steer the conversation back to the evidence.”
Again, WHAT evidence? I’ve been asking for such evidence for decades now, and I’ve scoured every claim from the Kalam to the Five Ways to the argument from design in search of that evidence. But every single one of them is based on a logical fallacy or simple error of fact. If the evidence were credible, I would accept it, but fallacious reasoning is not credible evidence.
LikeLike
January 3, 2022 at 7:33 pm
lol ………… our scientific laws oh delusional one(s) —- like “the law of conservation of matter.” based on this “Law” the only possible explanation for creation is something outside of the natural world (aka. super natural) was “the first cause.” this “Law” excludes ALL natural causes for creation. ALL sane people know this —- but the delusional ones will never admit it. And the vast majority of the sane people that know this call the super natural first cause —- God.
lol ……… and if you are smart enough to admit your error and say —- okay that must mean the universe has always existed and always will exist — you have admitted God could have always existed and always will exist.
LikeLike
January 19, 2022 at 9:51 am
“like “the law of conservation of matter.” based on this “Law” the only possible explanation for creation is something outside of the natural world (aka. super natural) was “the first cause.” this “Law” excludes ALL natural causes for creation.”
But if you accept scientific laws as immutable, then what about the First Law of Thermodynamics? Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. I’ll bet you’ll backtrack on that one and claim a special pleading fallacy exemption for your God, right?
“and if you are smart enough to admit your error and say —- okay that must mean the universe has always existed and always will exist — you have admitted God could have always existed and always will exist.”
Yes, most physicists agree that the multiverse is likely: https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/18748/20190316/the-multiverse-theoretically-inevitable.htm. There is mathematical support for this. But there is no mathematical or any other credible support for the existence of God. That’s the difference.
LikeLike