Atheists are having a field day with a recent Youtube video-clip from a debate between Eric Hovind (creationist) and Bernie Dehler (secular humanist) at Portland State University. The highlight is a question posed by Bernie’s son, a sixth grader, who asked for Eric to produce evidence for God. “How do you know that God exists” was essentially the question. Eric responded with an appeal to logic suggesting that unless you know everything you cannot be sure of anything. Therefore it is irrational to discount the presence of God. After watching the clip and witnessing the difficulty Eric had making his point, I began to wonder how I would answer the same question.
The answer, I believe, is quite simple though intensely contemplative and personal. The best place to start is a review of the 3 endowments at Creation’s finale – The Image, The Breath, and The Mandate. In these we can begin to appreciate our purpose in and sense the anticipation of the great cosmic symphony.
In the 5 days and several hours preceding man’s entrance, the creative episodes were initiated with impersonal mandates such as “Let there be…Let the waters be gathered…let the dry land appear…Let the waters bring forth…and Let the earth bring forth.”
Then, for the first time, creation gets personal. “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Genesis 1:26a).” This endowment signals the Creator’s original intent for man.
John MacArthur expounds on the significance of divine image in his book The Battle for the Beginning.
“Above all, the image of God can be summed up by the word personhood. We are persons. Our lives involve relationships. We are capable of fellowship…We know what it is to share thoughts, convey and discern attitudes, give and take friendship, perceive a sense of brotherhood, communicate ideas, and participate in experiences with others.”
I think Henry Morris gives the best defense of human purpose in his book Many Infallible Truths.
“Communication and fellowship between man and God not only are possible but must actually have been a part of God’s very purpose in creation…since this is the ultimate consummation toward which time is moving, then there can be no doubt that this was God’s primeval purpose when time began. He created men for fellowship with Himself.”
The inevitable result of the obvious compatibility was fellowship.
Another unique endowment was The Mandate from the Creator to fill and subdue (1:28). Sometimes referred to as the Dominion Mandate, this declaration clearly establishes mankind as Creation’s superior.
The Bible presents man as the epicenter of God’s creative power and genius, charged with its mastery. “Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under His feet (Psalm 8:6).”
This is by no means a license to abuse the earth and its creatures, but rather a sanction for careful responsibility in management.
Henry Morris addresses our sovereign assignment this way in his commentary The Genesis Record.
“The cultural mandate, as some have called it, is clearly a very expressive figure of speech for, first, intense study of the earth (with all of its intricate processes and complex systems) and, the, utilization of this knowledge for the benefit of earth’s inhabitants, both animal and human. Here is the primeval commission to man authorizing both science and technology as man’s most basic enterprises relative to the earth.”
It is the endowment of The Breath, however, that is key to evidential witness of the Divine. In my attempt to rationalize the uniqueness of The Breath, I originally posed that it must have been the particular exercise that made man eternal giving him the ability to navigate concepts beyond his time-space-matter existence (see Scripturosity article “Mankind – Favored Not Fortunate”).
But there was a flaw in that supposition. If death had not yet intruded the Creation (Romans 5:12), then all creatures would have had eternal intent in the beginning. What, then, did the breath of God uniquely signify of man in the “very good” Creation?
Genesis 2:7 chronicles that “God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.”
There are two Hebrew words in this verse that warrant definitive clarity. The first is nephesh translated “living soul” here. This is the same word used to describe the compatibility of all creatures with earth’s biosphere. It has also been explained as consciousness. By biblical comparison and cross-referencing, it is technically referring to that which bleeds and breathes (see Scripturosity article “Plant-ing Seeds of Doubt”). The other word is neshamah which is translated “breath of life.” While all conscious creatures “brought forth” from the impersonal creative mandates processed oxygen from their environment for functionality, none of them received the neshamah – the breath from God. This was given only to man. One commentator referred to it as the Divine spark.
Could this blast of pure Spirit, while initiating the nephesh or conscious elements of his existence, also been the primordial endowment of man’s conscience – his unique co-knowledge with God?
Proverbs 20:27 articulates that “The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly.”
The young philosopher, Elihu defended his qualification to intervene by telling Job, “There is a spirit in man: and the inspiration (neshamah) of the Almighty giveth them understanding (Job 32:8).”
In the context of “the beginning,” John the Apostle wrote, “In Him (God the Son) was life; and the life was the light of men…That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (John 1:4,9).”
The great Apostle Paul wrote of a specific human reality that makes all men accountable before the holy Judge of heaven despite excuses of ignorance. “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead: so they are without excuse (Romans 1:19-20).”
I propose that it was The Breath of God that enlivened man’s essence with the innate ability, yea necessity, to connect with the Divine. While man has a free will to act in harmony with or resistance to this conscience, God has, nevertheless, given every child of Adam’s race a divine nudge toward Himself. This is why all men are “without excuse (Rom. 1:20).” It is this internal “candle” or spirit-connectedness with the Creator that shines on the natural world and it’s First Cause.
My answer to the skeptic or seeker appealing to sense or reason in the pursuit or denial of God’s presence is that the evidence is within them. Every individual is endowed with a compass that points the way to true North – a candle to dispel the shadows of error.
The best evidence to the atheist that there is a God is the intellectual and emotional energy consumed in snuffing this inherent light. Be honest with yourself in a moment of sincere introspection and retrace your steps toward naturalism. How did you get here? Did you have to deny any premonition of purpose along the way? Did your intellect eventually overcome your conscience at the feet of academia (see Scripturosity article “Conscience and Intellect”)? Are you satisfied that you have not been influenced by agenda-driven zealots (see Scripturosity article “Intellectual Invention”)? Have you ever given yourself the intellectual latitude to observe and consider the evidence from a paradigm that invites the supernatural and aligns with your essence (see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message”)?
What it boils down to is the direction of one’s faith. Faith is not exclusive to proponents of the supernatural. Faith is requisite to a naturalistic cosmogony as well (see Scripturosity article “Answering Skeptics – Part 5”). The worldview disparity is not in the evidence, but rather in the axiom – the philosophical starting point from which the evidence is observed (see Scripturosity article “Fact and Theory”). Creationists presuppose the history of earth and humanity as chronicled in the book of Genesis; while evolutionists regard every observation through the notion of deep time and the doctrine of geologic uniformity (see Scripturosity article series “Deep Time Warp” – Part 1 & Part 2). These initial assumptions shape the direction of every interpretation. To decry faith is either open ignorance or pure hypocrisy.
Before one can reject a Creator or a redeeming Sovereign, he must first deny the very essence of his own humanity. Does God exist? Perhaps the better question is – Should anyone really have to ask?
Yes I have to ask that question. We are all brought up with an excess of imagination, which displaces the rational..
Hi Mark,
Love, closely followed by Faith and Hope; three, and one. Of which, while any one may at times be manhandled out of shape due to the inherent, gentle nature within each with, combined, there is no weapon (argument) that can prosper–in fact every tongue that would come against the Triune God does so to its own hurt, in that, as you note, this requires that a man would deny “the essence of his own humanity.” And I heard one say, “Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.”
On the other hand, it is we Christians who rightly face the first judgement since we know that it is not those who hear the “law that gives freedom” who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey said law who will be declared righteous. For again, many a man claims to have unfailing love, but a faithful man who can find? In other words, the enemy is not so much the person who would question the “existence of God”, yet lives as though there is, as much as the person who says that God is (Faith, Hope and Love) and then lives as though He were not.
Thank you,
Don
Very will written as usual. I find this explanation to be a very simple, yet deeply profound answer at the same time. In discussions with skeptics, I find that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to rationalize even the simplest of truths. I observe that there are basically two types of people. 1) As you have stated, those who deny
the essence of their humanity (seemingly, out
of stubbornness) and 2) Those who find it hard, if not impossible to believe that so many modern day scientists could have it so wrong. It is this latter group of people that I believe to be in the overwhelming majority. The prevalence of evolutionary thinking has reached so far that even those who would consider themselves to be religious have bought into its doctrines. They’ll either ignore how it conflicts with their faith, attempt to reconcile it with their faith, or claim that faith and science are separate as a generic explanation to ease their consciences. In public media outlets, those who would reject the concept of deep time are made to look like fools. If you believe in God, your simple minded. I am getting to the point that I am starting to believe that the only hope is truly praying for these people and a shift in the way our populace views such important matters. It seems after going in endless circles that rationale has been thrown out the window by those who claim to be the most rational. Although this is extremely frustrating to me, perhaps it’s a good lesson that all my speech and apologetics is empty without the power of prayer. Thank you for your ministry, God bless.
I think Eric Hovind missed a chance to give a compelling answer. His philosophical response was over the head of his sixth-grade questioner.
The response proposed above in this blog is very good for a thoughtful adult, but possibly still over the head of a sixth-grader. It reminded me of this statement by C.S. Lewis: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” There is a light that cannot be denied. Denying or “snuffing out” the light is evidence the light exists.
If I were asked the question “What is your evidence for God?” or “How do you know God exits?”, I would give a 2-point response:
1. Argument from design
2. Personal experience
I would argue that the many examples of complex design we daily see around us in nature is strong evidence for a Creator. This “design implies a designer” argument must be a good argument because it appears frequently in the Bible. God introduces Himself to man as Creator in Genesis 1. Throughout the OT God points to His work of creation as proof of His identity. John introduced Jesus as the Creator at the beginning of his gospel (John 1:3). Paul identified the true God to the Athenians as the One “who made the world and all things in it” (Acts 17:24). Paul used the design argument in Romans 1:18-23, saying men are without excuse because the evidence is plain in nature.
Secondly, I would testify of my own personal experience with God and state that millions more throughout history have likewise testified to a personal relationship with the Creator. The apostles themselves testified based on their personal experience (2 Peter 1:16-19; 1 John 1:1-3), so the Bible uses the “personal experience” argument too.
While a person may not believe this “evidence” (design and experience), one can’t deny that it is evidence that must be considered. With examples, it would be an argument a 6th-grader could understand.
Dr. Pelletier,
One of my challenges is finding a way to address children without glazing their eyes over. After reading my article, Eric replied (Facebook) that the evidences of inherent “light” and design were presented during the debate. The Q&A came afterward. He mentioned that he felt the need to handle the child carefully to avoid any appearance of condescension or intellectual bullying. But in retrospect, he wishes he had answered with informational guns-a-blazin’.
Yours is a very good approach. The absence of “design” in my answer was intentional. Naturalists are locked and loaded with a counter-perspective of nature’s remarkable appearance of design. Despite how counter-intuitive their argument, they seem completely satisfied with the probability. But design certainly must be a deafening annoyance during their “pillow pondering.” Despite the brutal introspection, they dust off the denial to crusade again.
Thanks for taking the time to comment…very rich.
Marc
Marc, that’s interesting about Eric’s reply to you. However, I disagree with him that the “informational guns-a-blazin” approach would have been better. The key is to connect/communicate with the mind and heart of the questioner. Eric’s answer in the video was confusing and poorly expressed, and I’m sure the sixth-grader had no idea what he was trying to say. I understand it’s hard to give good answers on the spur of the moment in the midst of a debate, but we should be prepared with good answers for the “standard” questions.
The best approach with children, in my opinion, is to use examples and stories. In Eric’s case, I would have used a contemporary variant of the “Watch requires a Watchmaker” argument of Robert Boyle and William Paley. I probably would have asked the boy if he had an iPod or cell phone and built from there.
I intend to expand soon on my comments on this post of yours with a blog post on my own site and explain why I think the Design argument is the best argument to use with everybody, from children to adults. (“Soon” should be interpreted liberally.)
I think your arguments in this post are strong and compelling for thoughtful adults. “Thoughtful” is a key word here. Many people are no longer willing to do mental work. Mental laziness is another obstacle we have to confront in our culture. Too many are willing to trust others’ thinking: “How could so many scientists be wrong?” So they end up accepting evolutionism, naturalism,and atheism — not because the arguments are convincing, but because they rely on others’ conclusions.
We have to get away from the idea that we have to “prove” God’s existence. That can’t be done. Yahweh is the Almighty Creator and ground of all existence upon which everything else is based. There is no starting point from which to begin to prove God’s existence. However, what we can do is use arguments (like Design , Inherent Light, etc) to support the claim that the existence of God is far more plausible than the non-existence of God.
The vast majority of all decisions are made based on plausibility or probability evaluations. We hardly ever absolutely prove something. The same has to be done with God’s existence, for neither His existence nor non-existence can be proved. Atheists/agnostics often ask for an argument that “proves” the existence of God. We have to correct the presupposition of the question in order to prepare the ground for our plausibility arguments.
I enjoy the articles on your blog. They are Biblical, well-reasoned, and clear. Keep up the good work!
Dr. Pelletier,
Your iPod approach has much merit and your points are well taken. I am looking forward to your “Design Is Best Argument” article.
Marc
Galileo quote, “I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.”
Marshall,
Tremendous quote! I hadn’t read that one before. Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment.
Blessings,
Marc