The Final Proof of God’s Nonexistence?

I just watched an episode of Answers News on YouTube. It showed up in my recommended videos presumably because I follow Bill Nye and watched the debate with Ken Ham. Anyway, it was clear in the episode that you believe in God. But I just don’t understand how that is possible. There is SO much evidence that effectively makes the God and creation story an impossibility. SO much evidence that evolution is just as solid a fact as gravity. It’s the evidence that I’m hung up on, because if you educate yourself on the natural history of life on this planet it is simply impossible to come away still believing an old book written by people who thought the earth was flat is true. It. Is. Simply. Not. True. The evidence is everywhere. As soon as we are able to recreate how non life became life on this planet it’s over. Since we have already proven evolution as fact and occurring to this day, the only missing link is the non life to life transition. When that day comes we will officially be able to show that life as we know it on this planet was able to arise without the need of a God that created it. Do you at all agree with what I’m saying? Curious if you do or not. Sorry to take your time.

It is nice to hear from you. In my response, I’m going to be bold and challenge you in the interspersed responses below. But in all of this, I want you to understand that I’m saying these things in kindness.

I just watched an episode of Answers News on YouTube. It showed up in my recommended videos presumably because I follow Bill Nye and watched the debate with Ken Ham. Anyway, it was clear in the episode that you believe in God. But I just don’t understand how that is possible.

I do. But not just any God. I believe in the God of the Bible—the true God. And according to the all-knowing God of the Bible so do you; but God also points out that there are some people who unrighteously try to suppress that knowledge (Romans 1:18–32).

There is SO much evidence that effectively makes the God and creation story an impossibility.

Such as? Creation is what happened in history, and God, who created all things, was there to eyewitness it and affirmed it in his Word. This modern story of evolution is a false, make-believe tale for the religion of naturalism (think atheism, materialism) to try to explain how all things came about from nothing.

SO much evidence that evolution is just as solid a fact as gravity.

What evidence are you referring to again? I can observe and repeat experiments regarding gravity (i.e., dropping things) but no one has observed or repeated the changing of single-celled organism like unicellular algae and turned it into anything else. This is a false analogy fallacy.

It’s the evidence that I’m hung up on,

Once again you mention evidence and have presented none. You must realize a simple reality: I have the same evidence you do. I look at the same rock layers. I look at the same fossils, continents, solar bodies, cells, DNA, and so on. The difference is the interpretation.

because if you educate yourself on the natural history of life on this planet

And what makes you think I haven’t been educated on this subject? This is a presumption fallacy. I have been taught the naturalistic religious story since a small child in state schools through my educational years at the state university.

I’ve read separate books on the subjects as well (including Charles Lyell, the father of naturalistic geology, Charles Darwin, the father of modern naturalistic evolutionary biology, and the late Stephen Hawking among many others).

Do you think Bill Nye was not educated well enough in the natural history of life on this planet? I have the same degree as Bill Nye, and, in fact, one level higher. I’ve even written an entire book refuting the claims of Nye’s naturalism. You need to understand that the natural history of life is part of the fictional story associated with the religion of naturalism.

it is simply impossible to come away still believing an old book written by people

And yet, you just professed a belief in natural history which comes from old books written by people? That is double standard fallacy. The Bible, unlike these works of fallible men that you adhere to without question, was written by the inspiration of God, the Holy Spirit. God doesn’t err like imperfect men.

who thought the earth was flat is true.

The Bible nor Bible writers propound a belief in a flat earth. This is straw man fallacy.

It. Is. Simply. Not. True.

God disagrees with you regarding the truthfulness of the Bible. God repeatedly affirms the Bible is true, and God, being the truth, is why truth exists in the first place. Truth is a Christian concept. In naturalism, truth shouldn’t exist since truth is not material.

Subsequently, your objection to the truth of God’s Word is simply because you say so. That is arbitrary. But this outlines the classic argument between Christianity and the religion of humanism (i.e., man is seen as the ultimate authority)—God’s authority vs. man’s authority. [For the readers, naturalism is one form of humanism that says nature is all that exists. In other words, only material things like matter and energy (i.e., nothing spiritual, no God(s), nothing immaterial exists) exist.]

The evidence is everywhere.

Once again, you appeal to evidence, but don’t mention any evidence to present your case. And to reiterate, I have the same evidence that you do.

As soon as we are able to recreate how non life became life on this planet it’s over.

So the one piece of evidence you appeal to (trying to refute the scientific Law of Biogenesis), is actually evidence that the naturalistic worldview is false. See below.

Since we have already proven evolution as fact

How so? Who was able to change a single-celled organism like an ameba into a goat? We’ve not observed this nor repeated this. Clearly, this is not a scientific fact.

With all seriousness, I realize you believe in the religion of evolutionism and naturalism (which go hand-in-hand) without question in all likelihood because you’ve been told to believe it over and over again. Repeatedly, you profess to say there is evidence for it—because you have been told there is.

Consider just one facet of naturalism: millions of years. We have no observational or repeatable scientific evidence of millions of years. And yet, many processes that people profess takes millions of years do not. Without evidence of millions of years, evolution has no possibility (we don’t hear people say that all life on earth evolved from a single-celled organism beginning about 6,000 years ago).

and occurring to this day,

What we observe today are small changes that only produce variations in existing animals within created kinds—exactly as the Bible predicts. We aren’t observing evolutionary changes (onward and upward) but degenerative changes (mutations and filtering of already-existing information) to the genome

the only missing link is the non life to life transition. When that day comes we will officially be able to show that life as we know it on this planet was able to arise without the need of a God that created it.

Besides the Law of Biogenesis, as mentioned above, perhaps you don’t have a good grasp on the problems in an evolutionary worldview. You are missing the observations of onward and upward evolution, information-gaining mutations, missing links, missing rock layers,29 2nd law of thermodynamics, Horizon problem, and so on.

And do you realize the argument you just made? You are arguing that we have many brilliant minds trying to make life because we don’t observe life come from non-life naturalistically (spontaneous generation). So you openly appeal to the requirement of an intelligence to make life. I’m here to tell you the name of that intelligent Creator: Jesus Christ. Jesus died, was buried, and rose again on the third day (Acts 10:40)—the infinite Son took the infinite punishment from the infinite Father that we deserve for sin—and that makes salvation possible from this sin-cursed and broken world.

Furthermore, if someone shows that life could be made by man, it wouldn’t prove that God did not create things in the beginning. If people succeed in mimicking what God did to create life—with the building blocks he created no less—that only proves that intelligence is a prerequisite to life, not naturalism (a great confirmation of what God did at creation).

Do you at all agree with what I’m saying? Curious if you do or not. Sorry to take your time.

Obviously not. I simply do not take people’s word for it when they say God doesn’t exist and evolution is true. And neither should you. Rather, I take God’s Word for the truth of his existence and creation.

Since you really struggle with the existence of God and had watched a debate, I suggest you consider listening to a debate (back from the “old days”) between Dr. Gordon Stein (professing atheist) and Dr. Greg Bahnsen (a Christian). This became known at The Great Debate and is one of the most influential debates in the 20th century.30

Dr. Stein was arguably one of the brightest atheists of his day and knew about the classical arguments for a “generic” God’s existence and how to argue against them. When Christians used these arguments, he was very effective at destroying them. But his debate with Dr. Greg Bahnsen stopped him in his tracks (echoed here). To his dying day, Dr. Stein could not effectively respond to Dr. Bahnsen (they actually wrote letters back and forth after the debate). It is worth a listen.

In conclusion, you may be thinking deep down that God (the Bible) is wrong about you believing he really does exist and that you are suppressing that knowledge, as mentioned above. But consider the letters you’ve written to people who discuss the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus or suggest that yoga meditation will bring people closer to nirvana. And yet, you took the time to write to us about God’s existence. You are trying to suppress the God of the Bible in your heart. Please consider this.