Top Eight Objections to Christianity: Part 1

I thought this would be something fun, and hopefully something that I can get the high schoolers involved with.  Like I said earlier, one of the most interesting portions of the week was a seminar that everyone went to on the top ten objections to Christianity.  The young lady from Ravi Zacharias’ apologetics organization brought up a student and asked them each one of the questions.  They in turn were asked to reply and defend their faith.  It was a very interesting exercise, and it allowed some of the kids to really shine.  Unfortunately, she was only able to go through 8 of the ten.

So what I want to do here is go through the 8 objections.  I’ll state the objection as best as I can in the words of one who sincerely brings this question.  Then I would like you all to answer me as you would a friend who is struggling with these issues.  Please allow my high schoolers to get in the action.  And I will give you the same directions she gave us.  Just don’t answer with more questions, but with actual answers.  So here’s the first objection:

8.  There is simply no proof that God exists.  How do you know that this isn’t just the creation of a bunch of guys?  I can’t see God and neither can you.  And there is nothing you can do to prove that God actually exists.


12 comments on “Top Eight Objections to Christianity: Part 1

  1. D-ram says:

    aight… here goes.

    The existence of God is evident in his creation all around us. Everything had to start somewhere. There had to have been a cause for everything we see today. There is also natural moral law. For example, if no law or rules are laid down in a society and one man murders another, he is completely aware that what he has done is wrong and evil. There is no law or rule that is needed to convince a person that something like murder is evil. This is the law written on our own hearts by God.

  2. Kim Y says:

    Just because you can’t see God doesn’t mean that he doesn’t exist.
    All designs imply a designer. For instance, if you saw a watch on the beach, you wouldn’t think the waves created it. The same goes for the world; it shows great design in all its aspects – nothing is created by chance. (Statistically, if it was left up to chance, it’d be something like 10 to the 40000 power… I think…for life to evolve, which is mind boggling to try to comprehend.) So it has to be created by a great designer – who has to be God. If it was not God, then who else? The definition of God is omnipotent and omniscient. God is the only ultimate being capable of making something so great. You cannot search for something greater than God because God is the uncaused cause.

  3. Becca says:

    A pretty simple and cool analogy I like is from a tract Tim got while we were going through “Way of the Master.” It said that you can’t name one painting that didn’t have a painter. And you won’t find a building that didn’t have an designer. Creation implies a Creator. And it only makes sense that the universe, which is infinately more complex than anything any man could make, would have to have come from a Master Creator.

  4. Sarah B. says:

    Even though you can’t see God, you see the effects of him everywhere. Have you ever seen gravity? Not so fast. Nobody has ever SEEN gravity, but meerly the effects of gravity. This logic applies to the changes that are present in the hearts and minds of Christians everywhere. Christians desire to be different than the world because God presses down his desires into their hearts. Even though I have never seen Jesus, I know he exsists because of the effect he has upon me, which is evident in my life.

  5. ehudadams says:

    Good comments! Thanks for taking part! Sarah- I love the “not so fast”.

    David- This is called the Cosmological argument. It says that because creation exists, that means God exists. You also reference the Moral argument that says that if there is any morals, there must be an absolute moral that those came from. Also, if there is a sense of wrong, there must be a perfect right, of which the wrong is a corruption.

    Kim- Thanks for commenting! Yours is similar to the Cosmological argument, but also hints towards the Teleological argument, which says that the detail in creation cries out for a designer. Also, the statistics that the evolution lays out for the chances for this to happen is totally bogus. They say that it means that it is theoretically possible, but any statistician could tell you that when the numbers get that big it is theoretically impossible.

    Becca- again, this is the Teleological argument, which cries out for a designer and its the Cosmological, which cries out for a creator.

    Sarah B- again, love the ‘not so fast’! one thing about Jesus, is that he can be proven to be a historical figure. For some reason, people have begun to think that they can make claims about the fact of him ever existing is questionable. Enough people have said it and it has attained some credibility just because people say it like it is true. But his existence can’t be seriously debated.

  6. ehudadams says:

    a few more arguments;

    Ontological Argument- the point that people can even fathom that God exists means that God must exist.

    Transcendental argument- our ability to reason as human beings means that God must exist.

    Presuppositional argument- that man has the knowledge within themselves that God exists. Basically Romans 1.

  7. BethsMomToo says:

    “There is simply no proof that God exists. ”

    Prove to me that He DOESN’T.

  8. katie says:

    kims was william paley- which is entirely teleological (kim, im surprised you paid that much attention to mesica.. :D)

    another point- the design of organisms and their features could to a point be evidence for the existence of a creator. take one part of our body- the eye, it has a lens, retina and a brain fit perfectly together to enable us to have vision…
    and complex design=complex designer…
    and presuppostional just seems… iffy to me- like i understand it and everything- but i would hate to say that because of it people arent saved that have never heard the gospel… (ive heard that from teachers before)

  9. ben says:

    The proof against and for God comes down to once personal perception. Some people see God everywhere, and some can’t find anywhere, thats an indisputable fact. The argument on both sides always falls short of the perception.

    The one who claims he cant find God anywhere may argue about his inability to sense, see, hear, smell, touch God. Ultimately he maybe right, since God, according to the Bible, chooses who to reveal himself to. Thats why some people see God everywhere and some just never find him. Those who cannot find him, there is no sense of trying to make them find him, because ultimately it is not possible, it isnt even about believing in God’s existence, its about God not revealing himself.

  10. ehudadams says:

    This is somewhat part of the debate of human responsibility vs. God’s sovereign will. It is true that God must change man’s heart before man can be saved. But I would disagree with the theory that there is no sense in trying to make them find him. Romans 10:14 says that how is anyone to believe unless someone tells them. How are they to believe without the preaching of the Word of God? While I agree that man cannot believe unless drawn by God, that does not mean that man should just sit on the side of the road, waiting for God to speak. God uses the preaching of the Word of God to cut straight to the heart. The preaching of the Gospel is a tool that God uses to draw people unto himself.

    In the previous chapter, Paul defends the idea that man is still responsible for not turning to God. The fact remains that God is sovereign and has the right to do whatever He wills with His creation. What right does the creation have to say to the Creator that you haven’t created me like I wish you had. We also must eliminate the idea that God sends people desiring to be saved to Hell. There is not one person that will be in Hell that truly desired salvation. God does not work that way.

    And the issue of perception, I think, falls short. The reality is that you can see evidence of God everywhere. If you see a building, you don’t think that it came up out of the ground. You think that someone designed it, someone constructed it, and someone finished it. When you see creation, it is the same way. You can choose to reject the idea that there is a Creator, but the reality is that you must look around you and ask who the designer is. You can choose to go out on a further limb and reject the idea, but there HAS to be a first cause.

  11. BethsMomToo says:

    I was studying Pre-Socratic Greek philosophy recently and was surprised to discover that one of the foremost theories was Intelligent Design! The argument went – design in the universe proves the existence of a Designer and Sustainer. It was something men were aware of way back in Ancient Greece and Ionia PRIOR to the time of Socrates [470-399 BC]!! Isn’t ancient history cool? [I keep trying to tell ya … ]

  12. NAME EDITED- 11/27 says:

    “Those who cannot find him, there is no sense of trying to make them find him, because ultimately it is not possible, it isnt even about believing in God’s existence, its about God not revealing himself.”

    I think this is really unfair to anyone who has tried to find god and not found him. How can he do that if he supposedly made us with free will able to choose to stay with him or stray from him?

    And by the way, if you study science (falsifiable, testable, developing, able to aknowledge previous mistakes and working with best current facts) you will see that there is plenty of chance for life evolving even with the slim chances posted above, since the universe is even more vast then any numbers hypothetical thought experiments about the probability of life arising “by chance alone”. There are a plethora of scientific explanations for all the inexplicable phenomena you have mentioned that do not need god to work. I worry that a lot of people invoke this kind of explanation for their beliefs, that is saying that since we don´t know, god must have done it. I think it would be quite extraordinary if god exists, and extraordinary claims need extraordinary justifications.

    Also, I do not believe the complexity of the world has to stem from the Christian god. There may be some entity who dipped his finger in the universe and things started to stir about and accumulate from there, without this being an indication of an intelligent designer. The eye is actually a very bad example of irreducible complexity, as we have several examples of simpler eyes and very good evidence that it evolved and how it evolved. If god created the eye, then why do we “see” upsidedown? The image captured on the back of our eyes is actually the wrong way and only gets corrected in the brain. There are also other obvious flaws in our bodies´ “designs”. For example, many people get backproblems as we age, and this is well explained by biologists and physiologists when accounting for our very long history walking on four limbs. Our backs have still not adapted to walking upright, as this process can be so slow it is hard to fathom. If in doubt that it does happen, just ask any breeder of any domesticated animal to what degree they can achieve change in a population over several generations.

    I am very happy I didn´t see the “if we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?”-answer above, as any person with high school biology should be able to tell you that the monkeys we see today have evolved too and are different than the ones we branched off from so long ago.

    The “evolution is just a theory”-comment is also a common response from fundamentalists (crossing over into ID here). The simplest response to this is that though evolution is a theory, this is a scientific term meaning something that is unprovable, but is the best model we have that fits with the evidence gathered so far. It is not a theory that we have fossils that originate in different time periods, showing different stages of a developing process, those are facts. Evolution theory is simply the best coherent idea we have for explaining all these facts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s