Are There Objections to the Evidence that God Exists?

This section will present some typical questions or objections that people may raise about the arguments for the existence of God. The answers here are the most reasonable and logical options.

A. Cosmological Argument

1. Objection: “Who created God?”

Answer: No one created God. God is the “First Cause.” If anyone asks you this question, go through the Causal Argument. Show the person that, logically, there must either be an infinite “chain of causes” going back in time, or an infinite “First Cause.” The most logical option is that there must be a First Cause. It takes just as much—or even more—faith to believe that the universe has alway existed as opposed to believing in an infinite and eternal God.

2. Objection: “What’s the scientific evidence?”

Answer: To answer this question, we will introduce the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

a. The First Law of Thermodynamics

This Law states that energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. That is, the amount of energy and matter within the universe is constant, but it can change form.

Example: when we use gas in our cars, the chemical energy of the fuel is converted into different forms of energy: motion, heat and noise. But no energy is lost and no energy is gained, it just changed in form.

So how does this relate to evidence for Creation? Since natural processes do not create new energy or matter, the universe must have been created by an “outside source.” Additionally, if nature cannot create simple non-living matter or energy on its own, then how could it have possibly produced any life form, not to mention extremely complex organisms?

This law logically shows that the universe could not have created itself. Either it’s eternal (it has always existed), or it had a beginning. These are the only two rational options.

The “Big Bang” theory (the prevailing explanation for the origin of the universe in the secular scientific community) claims that the universe began 15-20 billion years ago as a very dense “dot” of mass-energy that exploded. There are many problems with the Big Bang theory, but the biggest problem is, “Where did the original mass-energy come from?” Believing the Big Bang theory actually takes more faith than believing that the universe was created!

b. The Second Law of Thermodynamics

This Law states that there’s always a tendency toward disorder and decay in this universe. Living things die, machinery wears out, buildings crumble, stars burn up. This law indicates that the universe is not eternal. It had a beginning.

Yes, there are “events” of increasing order, such as the building of an automobile on an assembly line or the development of an unborn child in the womb. These examples don’t contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, rather these examples happen when “outside help” is being provided. They’re small pockets of increasing order within a larger closed system (the universe) of decreasing order. The overall trend in the universe is toward disorder and disintegration. For example, our sun is burning up and cannot last forever. Without “outside help,” the universe will eventually run down. (By the way, the Bible has a lot to say about “Outside Help” for our universe!)

The Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates that the universe was more ordered in the past than it is today. It implies that the universe is not eternal, and it must have had a starting point.

The first verse of the Bible give a simple explanation for that starting point: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The New Testament states the case for creation very clearly: “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” (Hebrews 11:3).

B. Teleological Argument

1. Objection: “The universe developed naturally over many years. If we place the date of the ‘Big Bang’ far enough in the past, natural laws would develop to bring about design and order over very long periods of time.”

First Answer: The cosmological argument must be answered first! How did it all get started in the first place? Where did it all come from? Remember every effect must have a cause. Where did the (so-called) “very dense microdot of mass energy” come from? What started the “Big Bang”?

Second Answer: Scientifically, it’s not possible to demonstrate that design and order develops if you have more time. In fact, just the opposite. The more time you have, the less ordered things become! Remember, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in any closed system, order decreases. The universe is naturally a closed system, and things are becoming more disordered.

2. Objection: “There’s no order and design in the world, only chaos, disintegration and death!”

Answer: Yes, there’s chaos and disorder around us. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us why this is true. But the other natural Laws are still operating. And we can still observe many, many magnificent examples of overwhelming and complex design, such as the atom, the DNA molecule, or the human eye.

3. Objection: “Order and design came about through evolution, and not through a ‘Creator God.’”

Before starting to answer this objection, let’s think through a basic definition of evolution. The theory of evolution describes the development of life where lower, less complex forms of life evolved into higher, more complex forms of life over the span of millions of years. Selected mutations occurred entirely by chance and supposedly caused beneficial changes in a species. This allowed the fittest to survive and pass along the new trait to future generations.

First Answer: There’s no real evidence of evolution.

a. Evidence for evolution has not been demonstrated in a scientific laboratory.

Life has never been produced in the laboratory. Even if life is ever produced by scientific experiments, it would not be by chance. It would be produced by intelligent scientists, under very closely controlled conditions. Even secular scientists agree that evolution has not been demonstrated in the laboratory. For sample quotes on this subject, see our page on, “Did God use Evolution or Progressive Creation?”
Mutations are random changes in the genetic codes of the DNA molecule. Generally, mutations are negative and destructive, rather than beneficial.
Genetic variation is not evolution. Hybridized flowers, fruits and vegetables, selective breeding of cattle, or new dog breeds are examples of genetic variation, not evolution (even though some people try to call this “micro-evolution”). Breeders work with a gene pool that’s already in existence. No new genetic information has been added. Most people have heard of the case of England’s light and dark Peppered Moths. That is a case of genetic variation, not evolution.
The theory of evolution claims that all changes came about purely by “chance.” Natural adaptation to the environment and survival of the fittest are valid concepts, but that’s not evolution. It’s genetic variation at work in nature. No new genetic information is being added to the already existing gene pool.

b. Evidence for evolution is not found in the fossil record.

The Theory of Evolution’s transition from reptile to bird

If evolution were true, there should logically be millions of “transitional form” fossils found around the world. That is, fossils of organisms that are in the process of changing from one species to another species. But no transitional forms have ever been found in the fossil record. The fossil record shows a sudden appearance of invertebrates. There are no transitional forms between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with skeletons). There are no transitional forms between one form of vertebrate and another vertebrate. The late Stephen J. Gould, evolutionary professor of paleontology at Harvard University wrote, “Concerning the fossil record… we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find in a world that does not really display it” (emphasis added).

Example: Evolution theorizes that birds evolved from reptiles, but there are no transitional fossils to show the transition (such as reptiles with scales changing to feathers, or forelimbs changing to wings). Evolutionists claimed that the archaeopteryx fossil was a transition between reptiles and birds, but it’s been shown to be an extinct bird, and not a transitional form at all.

Evolutionary scientist W. E. Swinton said, “There’s no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.” Furthermore, fully formed birds have been found in the fossil record in rock layers that are lower than layers containing dinosaur fossils, indicating that birds existed earlier than reptiles.

The biblical record of Creation contradicts the evolutionary assumption that reptiles preceded birds. Genesis 1 states that birds (Day 5) were created before reptiles (Day 6). Some Christians believe in “Theistic evolution” which theorizes that God used evolution to form the universe and everything in it. However, it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fit theistic evolution into the biblical Creation account (see also Exodus 20:11 and Mark 10:6).

Second Answer: If order and design came about through evolution, then all design and order we see in nature must be explained by evolution.

The evolution of the most complex species and the most complex biological mechanisms must be explained! How did they come about by chance?

Consider the incredibly complex human eye or brain. Could these develop over time by chance mutations from a one-celled organism? Even Charles Darwin, the “father of evolution,” acknowledged the difficulties in explaining how complicated organs could have come about. In Origin of Species, Darwin wrote, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances… could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Consider the development of the spider’s web-spinning machinery, or the metamorphosis of a caterpillar to a butterfly. How could these (and many other) amazing phenomena in nature develop by chance? How could the species manage to survive during the many generations needed to evolve all the essential and complex physical / biochemical mechanisms involved? Many organisms are actually irreducibly complex. In other words, if all the parts were not fully developed at the same time, the organism would not be able to function properly.

In Scientific American, a secular science journal, George Wald, professor of biology at Harvard University, admits: “Most modern biologists, having reviewed the downfall of [evolution] the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.”

C. Anthropological Argument

1. Objection: “Humans are not really rational or moral. Rational thought is only a chemical function of the brain, and morality is only societal conditioning.”

Answer: This stance is inconsistent. If humans are not rational, then they would not even be able to debate the existence of God with each other like this!

Sociological evidence shows that humans around the world have a “built-in sense” of right and wrong. Humans are innately moral. Although moral standards may vary, and moral consciences can be hardened and distorted, it’s still evident.

Example: Murder, stealing, and lying are viewed as “wrong” by almost everyone all over the world, in every culture. This fact demonstrates that morality is a built-in feature of humankind. Even the cultures that are far removed from biblical moral standards reflect a God-given moral conscience.

“Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right” (Romans 2:14-15).

2. Objection: “Evolution produced humans as rational, moral beings.”

Answer: If everything that exists came about by chance, when and how did “chance” produce morality? We don’t expect morality from an intricate arrangement of molecules like a smart phone. So if humans are, in essence, just a more complex collection of molecules than a smart phone, how and why did humans acquire morality? And at what point did it happen?

Even if it were possible to show that rational thought came about by chance through evolution, then thought is not really “rational.” And if morality came about by chance, then moral values wouldn’t have any real meaning. Humans shouldn’t be angry or outraged about stolen cars or vandalized houses. If it’s all random activity taking place by chance, who’s to say what’s actually “right” or what’s “wrong”? You cannot get morals from molecules!

Conclusion

In all the scientific talk about the arguments for the existence of God, it’s important to remember that the greater body of evidence is on “God’s side.” Christians have the “heavy artillery.” People who choose to believe otherwise do not realize the amount of evidence there is for the existence of God — or they intentionally ignore the evidence.

Apart from God, there are no logical answers to explain the existence or the complexity of the universe, the diversity of the things we see about us in nature, or the existence of human qualities such as rational and moral thought. The Bible makes the point very succinctly: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).

Are There Objections to the Evidence that God Exists?