APOLOGETICS: So You Say there is no God?

I was coming out of the library with my wife the other day, and I noticed an old VW van.  It was beat up, but someone had gone to the trouble of putting a message on the right rear and right quarter panel.  They used two-inch tall, green vinyl letters and arranged them in a neat manner.  It was obvious they wanted to make a statement.  The message read like this:

Of God and Satan I know nothing, for I have seen no evidence that either has saved or condemned my soul.

Now, I imagine the person who put this message on their vehicle thinks they are making a profound statement, or at least a statement of some importance that reaches beyond themselves.  But — to me — the irony seems to have been lost of whoever put that message on the van.  You see, they said they have seen no evidence that their soul has been either saved or condemned, but how can you believe you have a soul while — at the same time — saying you have seen no evidence of God?  Admitting you have a soul is evidence of a Creator.  But more than this, admitting you have a soul and then claiming you have seen no evidence of God is a confession that you have been dammed because you have rejected your Creator.

Whoever it was that put this message on their car is not alone in their attitude.  Most people who profess to be Atheists share it.  If you engage them, most people who profess to be Atheists will tell you that what they really want is not to have religion forced on them.  The militant Atheists have gone so far as to use the power of government to force this desire on the whole of society.  They like to claim they are just trying to enforce the Constitutional wall of separation between Church and State, but this is a lie.  There is no wall — not in the sense they claim.  In fact, it is they who are violating the First Amendment: both in word and in spirit.  Rather than forcing people of other religions to leave them alone, they are using the power of government to force their religion on others.

That’s right: Atheism is a religion.  The Supreme Court has ruled it is a religion, and it meets the definition of a religion.  But this is not the point at hand.  The visceral attack on religion is the issue.  If you are an Atheist, then what does it matter if I believe in God or the flying spaghetti monster?  You should believe both are superstitious non-sense, yet there is no war on those who believe in the flying spaghetti monster.  If a person is truly an Atheist, then they should have as much concern for those who believe in God as they do over people who believe in other delusions, such as people who get lost in the world of Comicon, or some video game.

The truth is simple: all of us are innately aware that God exists.  The Bible makes this point several times, and in different ways.  The Apostle Paul flat-out states that we are all born with this intuitive knowledge, and that this is why none of us will be able to claim ignorance on judgment day.  So why do people reject God?  Personally, I think it is because we are either too proud or too selfish — or both.  Some people want to think they are in control; self-made.  These people do not want to give God credit for what He has done; they want to take the credit for themselves.  These people have exalted themselves to the seat of God.

But others are just selfish.  Either they are mad at God because He did not do what they wanted Him to do; or they are blaming God for something that happened in their lives; or they do not want to accept the rules that come with admitting God exists.  These last people are the ones who will tell you that what is right for you is not necessarily right for them, or that you have no right to judge them.  What they are really saying is they do not want to be held accountable for their actions.  Essentially, they have never grown up and are still acting like a little child: selfish and self-centered.

Whatever the reasoning may be, all I know is that I have yet to meet anyone who honestly thinks there is no God.  For whatever reason, they just don’t want to acknowledge Him.  But suppose — just for a moment — suppose that there isn’t a God.  What would that mean for humanity?  If there is no God, then the people who say you can’t judge them are correct.  There is no such thing as moral law for animals, and if there is no God, and we are all just animals, then there is no moral law for us.  So how can you or society tell anyone else how to live?  You can’t.  All you can do is live by the law of the jungle: might makes right.

But I’ll take you one step farther.  If there is no God and we all do whatever the universe has programmed us to do, then the idea of laws is an absurdity.  If we are all just a collection of matter responding to some complex system of universal laws, then everything that has and will ever happen was per-determined at the moment the universe came into being.  And if your actions were per-determined, then how can you possibly be held accountable for them?  You can’t be.  Trying to hold the lion accountable for murder because ti eats the zebra is an absurdity.  So, if there is no Creator, trying to hold a murderer or rapist accountable for their actions is also an absurdity.

You see, when you truly understand the logical implications of a universe without a Creator, you have to start inventing things you cannot prove, such as limited free will, or random variations in responses to stimuli.  Now, you can rationalize this any way you want, but it all boils down to this: when you start inventing these things to account for the implications of a universe without a Creator, you are admitting there must be a Creator, and by inventing all these fixes, you’re just trying to take His place.  Either way, your instinctive rejection of a world where murder, rape, theft and slavery are all absurdities is one of the strongest implications of God’s existence we have, and it takes a conscious choice to ignore that instinctive rejection and replace it with a system of our own invention.