Answers to objections

Many objections have been raised against the existence of any god, and against the God of the Bible in particular. That said, we believe that there is plenty of evidence to make an intelligent decision for God and to have confidence in God's existence and in His love and benevolence even though unanswered questions will always exist. (That's just the nature of reality, no matter one's worldview.)

Below are our answers to some of the more common objections. We do not claim that our answers are perfect, but we hope they will be helpful.

King David would have loved this image of Earth (tiny dot in the "sunbeam") taken from the outskirts of the solar system. (The beams of light are artifacts of the optics that made this image).
NASA Image and Video Library, ID: PIA00452

Objection: "Why would a God who is grand enough to create our universe care for us on our tiny speck of a planet?"

It is interesting that King David, the Psalmist of the Bible, having far less knowledge of the immensity of the universe than we do today, echoed the same question—but not as an expression of doubt, but as an exclamation of faith and wonder: "When I consider the heavens, the work of thy hands, the sun and the moon that thou hast ordained, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man, that thou dost care for him?" (Psalm 8:3-4). Surely, the heavens do make us feel small and insignificant!

But, looking at things from a different perspective, whether we are discussing a bacterium or a hummingbird, a humpback whale or a human being, living things are by far the most exquisite phenomenon in the universe. If the physical universe was indeed created by an intelligent Creator, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the Creator would take special interest in those planets that harbor life, and in particular those creatures that also possess intelligence.

Perhaps there is hardly a Christian who would not agree that the grandest contemplation in the faith is that a God so great as to create our incredible universe, loved us so much as to step into our world and become a human being to die an ignominious death, so we can spend an eternity with Him.

Isaac Watts

Objection: "It is egotistical to believe that God cares for us tiny creatures on our speck of a planet."

Consider the following carefully: Is it egotistical to believe that the Infinite Creator of the Cosmos cares for us tiny wayward creatures inhabiting this tiny speck of a planet in our galaxy amongst hundreds of billions of other galaxies, and in fact, to believe that God loved us so much that in order to save whom He could, He came to our planet as a human just like us, and yet we humans spat in His face, flogged Him until His back was covered with blood, mocked Him, nailed Him to a cross, and shouted obscenities into His face while He prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"? This would hardly be cause to be egotistical!

Some pride themselves for being wise enough to "understand" that we and our loved ones, the king on his throne and the downtrodden of society, are only humble scum in a meaningless universe. While the Christian has a deep sense of dignity knowing that we are all loved and valued by God, there is no cause for boasting in light of the cross.

"When I survey the wondrous cross,
On which the prince of Glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss
And pour contempt on all my pride."
Isaac Watts

Objection: "Why would a God of love torture people forever and ever in hellfire for the sins of a minuscule lifetime?"

The doctrine of an eternally burning hellfire has probably turned more people away from the God of the Bible than any other. This is extremely unfortunate because this doctrine is rooted in tradition, not the Bible. To truly understand the biblical faith, we must go to the sources (ad fontes). Any teaching contrary to the original sources is a corruption of biblical doctrine by definition. It is true that there are a few Bible texts that superficially appear to many to teach an eternally burning hellfilre. However, closer study of the texts in the original languages and comparison with the weight of biblical evidence provide powerful evidence that they were not intended to teach an eternally burning hell at all. We plan to create a page on this topic. More information can be found at www.helltruth.com.

Objection: "What people call 'answered prayer' is just coincidence. Prayer had nothing to do with it. For example, some people pray for a loved one in danger and their loved one is spared. Others pray to no avail. It is just the luck of the draw."

All true prayer is answered. Sometimes the answer is "yes", sometimes "no", and sometimes, "wait." Why does God sometimes say "no" when it seems to us that the most loving thing to do would be to say, "yes"? There are many questions like this we will not understand completely this side of Heaven. The apostle Paul prayed that his infirmity would be healed, but it wasn't (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). And yet, if we take the New Testament to be true, unquestionable miracles of healing were performed in answer to prayer in Paul's time that cannot be attributed to purely natural causes. Similar miracles are reported to take place today in answer to prayer. It does not please the heart of God for humans created in His image to be gullible and to simply believe everything that is called a miracle that is reported by anybody. On the other hand, neither is it wise for us to require that God prove Himself on our terms before we believe. Sometimes the evidence He gives us may be through the word of a trusted friend, or through numerous "lesser" miracles that could perhaps individually be attributed easily enough to coincidence but collectively make a strong case for God's intervention. If we demand that God prove Himself on our own terms, we probably wouldn't believe even if He did (Luke 16:31).

Objection: "It is not fair for God to protect someone who prays, but not to protect someone who doesn't know to pray."

"It is alarming that many are much more willing to believe that we can communicate with the dead...than they are willing to believe in the existence of the master deceiver..."

To answer this question, we must understand that God does not currently have full reign on Earth. If He did, He would be some cruel monster indeed. It is ironic that many are willing to believe in God but consider it naïve to believe in Satan. Disbelief in the existence of Satan has within itself the seeds to disbelief in God because of the numerous questions that are thereby rendered unanswerable in God's defense. There are various reasons many don't believe in Satan. The concept of the existence of evil spirit beings whom we can't see who are hellbent on enticing earthlings to sin seems far flung in our modern age, especially when popular academia so often denies the existence of sin and of evil itself and claims that we are evolved scum in a purely material universe. Further, the ridiculous (and unfortunate) caricaturizations of Satan and his cohorts sporting goofy horns and pitchforks don't make his existence more credible in the minds of the educated. It is alarming that many are much more willing to believe that we can communicate with the dead—a practice forbidden in the Bible—than they are willing to believe in the existence of the master deceiver, who can, and has, very effectively personated the dead and angels of light (1 Samuel 28:13-19; and 2 Corinthians 11:14).

Interestingly, many scholars believe that the book of Job is the first book that was written in the Bible. The entire book, in essence, deals with the question of why there is evil when God is good. The battle between God and Satan motif is not one dreamt up by modern-day apologists to explain the existence of evil, but is arguably foundational to the Bible itself. There are powerful indications in the book of Job that God Himself is on trial before the universe. The willing service of the inhabitants of the universe depends on how God's goodness, fairness, and justice are perceived. By disobedience, the lordship of Earth has been surrendered to Satan (Hebrew for "adversary"), although the God of the Universe has placed limits on what he can do (see for example Job 1:12) even to those who do not know to pray. One of the reasons for prayer is that it frees God to do that which He would not otherwise be free to do in the dominion of Satan on account of the nature of the current conflict and the desired end of ultimately bringing the universal order back to the state of stability, harmony, and love that existed before the rebellion. Satan does not own those who accept God as Lord of their hearts, and when God's people cry out to Him in prayer, the Lord rebukes Satan (Zechariah 3:2), and God is able to deliver.

[For more on why God doesn't have full reign on Earth, see Why is there so much suffering?]

Objection: "If there is a God, that would stifle curiosity and investigation. We would just expect God to give us all the answers."

That all depends upon what kind of teacher God is! While many students might think that the ideal teacher would be one who just sits in the back of the classroom silently reading a book while letting the students do whatever they wish, surely few educators would argue that this would be the most effective teaching style, and it may well be a mistake to suppose that that ought to be the kind of teacher God should be.

A chemistry teacher in a Christian high school related his view of what learning in Earth made new would be like. He imagined a learning experience in which a student—by the way, everyone will be a student in Earth made new—would come to God with a scientific question, and after listening intently, God would say, "That is a very interesting question! Why don't we make that your next laboratory assignment? Study into it for the next 1000 years, if you'd like, and after you've finished, we can discuss your findings."

Who says God can't be a master teacher?!

Objection: "It is nonsensical to speak of God creating the universe. The universe, by definition, is everything that exists. If God exists, the universe would include God Himself by definition."

Consider this argument carefully, what it is and what it is not. It is an argument about semantics posing as an argument about the fundamental nature of reality. God created the physical universe. God, Himself, is spirit (John 4:24).

Objection: "Theists have merely made a God in their image. How foolish to assume that God would have similarities to us, such as desiring companionship, etc."

Christians (and others from the Abrahamic religious perspectives) believe that humans were created in God's image as stated in the book of Genesis, rather than the other way around. If this is so, and God has indeed so communicated this to humans, the improbability factor vanishes because it explains why God "just so happens" to have similarities to us.

Objection: "Desiring companionship and so forth are attributes that arise from the circuitry and chemistry of the brain. Does the eternal God have a brain circuitry and chemistry like we do?"

The Bible does not reveal whether God has a brain with circuitry and chemistry similar to ours, although the Bible does teach that God is spirit (John 4:24), which suggests that His existence is not dependent upon matter. From the biblical point of view, the totality of human experience—including our desire for a transcendent purpose and our sense of the inestimable value of life and of existence—will arguably never be completely explainable by the physical activity that takes place in the brain alone, even though the brain clearly plays an indispensible role. It may be reasonable to suggest that perhaps some of what God feels, He has modeled into our brain makeup. On the other hand, much of our spiritual experience results from the interface between God and humankind—the impressions of the Holy Spirit upon the mind (John 16:12-13).

Objection: "We praise God to give Him an ego boost."

It is hardly credible to conceive that there are many who believe in God who think that the reason we praise God is to boost His ego. It is even harder to imagine anyone who would ever feel like praising God if they thought they needed to do it in order to boost God's ego! We enjoy praising God, and don't do so out of a sense of obligation or out of a sense that we are somehow doing God a favor. And yet it is almost incredible that this allegation is frequently made nonetheless.

We praise God for much the same reason that a person says "thank-you" when someone has done a favor. Does God appreciate praise and our expressions of thanksgiving? Of course! But not because He is vain, but because He loves us and wants to have a relationship with us. Is it vain to tell someone "I love you?" Certainly not! And why do we tell someone, "I love you"? Or, why do we give flowers? Because we will get an ego boost when the recipient says, "I love you" or "Thank you"? Perhaps some may. But that is not the way God is.

When God shows us His love by the things He does for us, He appreciates our expressions of gratitude that show that we have received, understood, and appreciated His message. God wants a relationship with us. God bestows His blessings upon His creation day after day. Does it blow the ego of the all-powerful infinite Creator of the Cosmos that He doesn't get more recognition from us tiny little humans on this tiny speck of a planet? It would be preposterous to believe so! But does it hurt God's heart? Yes. Why? Little and insignificant as we are, God loves us incredibly, and desires our friendship.

Objection: "There are many good people who are not Christians in our world."

"No one will be lost for believing a lie—for innocent ignorance—for having honest questions..."

There is a lot of misunderstanding, even among Christians on this point. A key passage dealing with this question is Romans 2:14-16:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."

Salvation is not dependent upon knowing that the Son of God was nailed to two pieces of wood, but upon responding in faith to His voice to the soul. Surely, the details of what God has done for us are of extreem importance because they strengthen us in our love and service for Him and fortify the mind in the truth so we will not be snatched away. But all who are saved, from the earliest to modern times, are saved by the blood of Jesus, even those who have never heard His name.

No one will be lost for believing a lie—for innocent ignorance—for having honest questions; but those who obstinately refuse to believe—who refuse to give the truth a fair hearing because it may cost them something—stand without excuse.

Objection: "Why would a loving God destroy all the people and animals He created except for the few which were saved in the ark according to the Bible?"

Note that our intent in this response is not to defend the scientific feasibility of the biblical narrative of the flood (a subject upon which much worthy material has been written), but to answer the question at hand given the narrative. First, let's look at what the book of Genesis has to say about why God sent the flood:

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." Genesis 6:5-6

"And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." Genesis 6:13

The biblical narrative reveals that the people of Earth had become very corrupt. It appears that wanton murder, torment, neglect, and abuse were rampant. The Golden Rule to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Matthew 7:12), or more simply to just "be nice", was only practiced when considered expedient. God, and those who expressed any inclination to follow Him, likely were public objects of contempt, derision, and brutal hostility. Self-interest was the ruling power of the day, and very feeble were the attempts to surmount this trait and strive for something better. The desire for a relationship with the Creator was arguably nearly obliterated, and interpersonal relationships had themselves become sadistic. The world had become a perpetual cauldron of woe, and drastic action was called for.

For this cause, God sent the flood. During the long years that Noah, his family, and hired workers were building the ark, Noah preached to the people, urging them to turn back to God (2 Peter 2:5) and to enter the ark to escape the pending destruction. The people had plenty of opportunity to turn to God. God does not delight in the destruction of anybody (2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 33:11); it is called His strange act (Isaiah 28:21).

It is true that there was a great deal of suffering and destruction during the flood, but the seed of humanity and of the various basic kinds of animals was preserved. Taking the biblical narrative to be true, if God had exercised the kind of "mercy" that critics say a good God "should" have exercised, it may well be doubtful that there would be any person or animal alive on our planet today.

Teeth of a tiger shark
By Stefan Kühn, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Objection: "If we were created by a beneficent God, why is there so much natural evil? Why, for example, are so many organisms intricately constructed to kill?"

Any belief in a beneficent all-powerful God that is not accompanied by a belief in sentient evil forces at work on our planet is arguably destined for collapse because God unavoidably becomes responsible as the direct instigator of the evil that is in our world. Of course, belief in Satan and demonic angels is generally regarded with more disdain and as a sign of backwardness and naivety in today's intellectual clime than is belief in God. A simple scoff and sneer accompanied by a sentence or two of modern "wit" is generally considered sufficient to dispel any argument in support of such a belief. On the other hand, belief in the disembodied spirits of the dead communicating to the living is often considered much more intellectually acceptable than is belief in the existence of a great impostor. Such is today's "wisdom."

The problem of evil in a world created by a good God is not a newly discovered one by modern skeptics, but is a central theme of the Bible. About 2 or 3 pages into the Bible (Genesis 3), we discover that when our first parents sinned, some marked changes took place in living things. The serpent—the medium used to deceive Eve—was made to crawl upon its belly, evidently as a token of God's displeasure with sin and of the eventual overthrow of the reign of evil (Genesis 3:14). This change in the serpent suggests that it may have initially had limbs. We are also informed that on account of the fall, the land would produce thorns and thistles (Genesis 3:18). It is reasonable to suppose that the author of Genesis meant for us to understand that other changes may have taken place in living organisms as well as a result of the curse. We learn from other passages in the Bible that Earth was surrendered to the rule of Satan—although God did not abandon our planet unchecked to his tyranny. Limits were placed upon what Satan could and could not do (e.g. Job 1:12 and Job 2:6). Living things today bear the combined impress of both their original Creator, and of the current ruler of this world. The evil traits we see in living things today are the result of the latter.

How much control God has allowed Satan to have over the hereditary traits of living creatures can only be speculated. Far from being a ridiculous looking creature donning a pitchfork and horns, the Bible portrays Satan as a noble, majestic being—arguably far surpassing any human alive in intelligence—who turned against God and led others of God's angels along with him in his rebellion. In recent times humans have genetically modified living organisms, such as modifying bacteria to produce insulin. If we allow for the existence of Satan as a real and sentient entity, it makes sense to suppose that Satan can do the same kinds of things for sinister purposes.

To be honest, we are hesitant in most cases to suggest what changes are the result of Satan and which are the result of God. We are reluctant, for example, to use organisms such as the Venus fly trap as an example of God's creative genius because there may possibly have been another power involved in the modification of its design. The thorns on flowers may be the direct result of God's intervention because this seems the most natural way to interpret the biblical account. The flowers were given thorns to protect them from new evils that entered our world with the fall, namely greed and intemperate indulgence. Features of living things that seem to be especially sinister rather than mere necessary adaptations to survive on our diseased planet may more likely be the result of modification by Satan—to bear his impress and to confuse minds in regards to the true nature and character of our Creator. Finally, we do not question the ability of organisms to undergo adaptations as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and epigenetics, and we conclude that much of the diversity we see in living things today is a result of such changes.

Objection: "Theists brainwash their children and students to believe in God."

"Both creation and evolution have vexing difficulties, and it is only honest for both sides to admit this."

Many, if not most, science educators in schools that uphold the biblical account of origins as given in the book of Genesis, present both sides of the issues as best as can be done in consideration of time constraints and the amount of material to cover. The best educators even candidly discuss the evidences that seem to be the most challenging to interpret within the creationist framework, and are forthright in admitting the challenge. They do their best to keep informed by studying the latest evolutionist as well as creationist sources. They don't pressure their students and tell them they must believe in biblical creation in order to be saved, although they encourage them to believe and explain their own reasons for doing so.

Both creation and evolution have perplexing difficulties, and it is only honest for both sides to admit this. Unfortunately, the discussion of challenges to evolutionary theory is anathema in many public schools. A teacher simply presenting a challenge to evolutionary dogma is often in danger of being quickly dismissed. (See the book Slaughter of the Dissidents by Bergman and Wirth). There are more than a few cases in which it appears that science educators in public schools are not supposed to encourage the "undeveloped" and "impressionable" minds of their students to think, but rather to teach them how to regurgitate the textbook, especially when it comes to the matter of origins.

When this is the case, we ask, "Who's brainwashing who?"

Is it brainwashing for parents to tell their children that God loves them rather than to let them determine that for themselves? Well, is it brainwashing for parents to tell their children that Grandpa and Grandma love them? It is doubtful many would make such an accusation in the latter case. Why is it different, then, when parents tell their children what they believe just as well to be true—that Jesus loves them—especially if they also encourage them as they grow and develop mentally to think for themselves and not just to take their say-so?

We are opposed to bullying kids or anybody into any belief system. We recognize that this practice is followed by many around the world, not excepting either theistic or atheistic parents, teachers, and political regimes. However, God Himself invites us to "Come and let us reason together..." (Isaiah 1:18).

We also recognize and appreciate that because of religious liberty issues, things cannot be exactly the same in the public school as in the parochial school. However, we don't believe that the whole story is being told by those advocating "evolution only" in the public school. In many cases, far more can be done to be fair to both those of faith and to those not of faith, as well as to encourage a spirit of open inquiry, than is currently being done.

Objection: Where did Cain get his wife?

The logical answer is actually quite simple - he married his sister who happens not to be previously mentioned in the Bible (see Genesis 4:17). But, isn't it immoral to marry your sister? Yes, it is today, because if siblings marry each other they are very liable to have deformed children, and that, of course, would be unfair to the children. However, these deformities are the result of genetic defects in our DNA. From a biblical worldview, we conclude that these defects are the result of sin and not a part of God's original creation which was "very good" (Genesis 1:31). These defects have come about as a result of mutations which have been accumulating in our gene pool since the fall of Adam and Eve. Granting these points, the DNA of Cain and his wife who were the generation just after Adam and Eve was assuredly much less likely to cause deformities than is our DNA today, even when we don't marry close relatives.

Did Adam and Eve have any daughters? Most assuredly! Genesis 5:4 states: "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters."

Gustave Doré - Crucifixion of Jesus

Objection: "Why couldn't God simply forgive our sins and get over it? Why did He have to have His Son tortured and murdered on the cross?"

This question has theological, sociological, and legal bearings that can be easily overlooked. Let's begin by clearing up a common theological misconception: according to the Bible, Jesus did not die in order for God the Father to love us. One has to look no further than John 3:16—arguably the most treasured and repeated verse in Christianity—to discover that it was because God the Father already loved humankind that He sent Jesus to die for our sins. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (NKJV). Clearly, grace existed the moment our first parents sinned, else they would have been destroyed instantly. To understand the Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Christ, as well as the wrath of God against sin, we must consider these things within the social context of the world for whom Jesus died.

"...the most drastic measure imaginable had to be taken, which, when properly understood, was also the most kindly measure imaginable, in which the Creator Himself bore the penalty of our sin."

Granted, if someone thoughtlessly does something unkind towards someone else, it generally isn't too hard for most people to say, "That's o.k." and to get on with life. But God is not a co-equal with humanity, and further, according to the biblical view, even the apparently tiny sin of disobedience in the Garden of Eden was the seed of rebellion that mushroomed into the ugly violence and abuse that we see in our world today.

If you are in the passenger seat and your friend drives 50 mph over the speed limit, you may be able to forgive your friend easily enough, even though you may have been scared half to death. On the other hand, if you are a police officer and some guy whizzes past you at 100 miles per hour on a residential street, you had probably better issue a pretty hefty ticket. Why? Because you are in a position of authority and the law must be upheld as something serious or people will ignore it and lives will be in danger.

Most any parent, teacher, or even government knows that rules must be enforced. It is true that when rules can be effectively and consistently enforced through kindly persuasion, this is the better manner of doing so. Unfortunately, we know all too well that rebellion does not always respond to kindly persuasion, and more direct measures may need to be taken. In order to destroy the root of rebellion that infected the human race at the fall and yet spare the lives of those willing to receive God's grace, the most drastic measure imaginable had to be taken, which, when properly understood, was also the most kindly measure imaginable, in which the Creator Himself bore the penalty of our sin.

"For many, it is inconceivable that the Ruler of the universe would condescend to do such a thing. But it is no mistake that Jesus was lifted up on a cross at the very moment when He stooped down the lowest."

As already mentioned, from the biblical perspective, the violence and suffering we see in our world today are the natural result of what may seem a trivial act, namely, disobeying God's command not to eat of the fruit of a certain tree. (Why did God put that tree in the garden? The first four chapters of the excellent book, Patriarchs and Prophets, give a clear answer to this question.) At issue was much more than a piece of fruit and a healthy curiosity, but rather a question of loyalty and trust. Suppose God had merely told Adam and Eve, "Adam and Eve, I'm very disappointed in you, but I love you so much, why don't we just pretend it never happened?" What then? Disregard of God's will would be regarded as of no consequence, and they, as well as we today, would likely feel that God owed it to us to forgive us anyway. At the very least, we would still have violence, cruelty and suffering; plus the human race would be forever confirmed, with conscious impunity, in its disloyalty and open rebellion against God.

The human race has been infected with a spirit of rebellion, a spirit that promotes unrestrained indulgence in pleasure-seeking and that believes that desire is the highest law. From this rebellion stem the horrors of murder, slavery, violence, human trafficking, abuse, and all the other evils that darken this planet. The only cure to save the human race and to completely extricate this weed of rebellion from the heart was for God to take the penalty of sin in our place. For many, it is inconceivable that any wise and all-powerful entity would condescend to do such a thing (1 Corinthians 1:23). But it is no mistake that Jesus was lifted up on a cross at the very moment when He stooped down the lowest to die the death reserved for the vilest criminals (John 3:13-15, John 12:32, Luke 14:11). Exhibitions of power will never change the heart, but love and mercy will. Never has the love and mercy of God, God's greatest glory, been so manifest as on the cross (Romans 5:8, Philippians 2:7-9)! It is impossible for us, in our own strength, to save ourselves from the bondage of sin and self-serving. But when we turn to God in response to what He has done to save us, we will come to see the nature of sin for what it really is. God will turn our hearts away from our preoccupation with self-seeking with disgust, until ultimately, the last vestiges of rebellion are vaporized and its power forever vanquished.

Keep posted for more additions to this list.

Page added: 2009.02.01

Page last modified: 2023.10.23