Questions to Ask an Atheist

This article will be divided into 3 categories: Logic, morality and science.
There are however, a couple of questions that will stop the discussion before it
begins. They are: Isn’t science something that can be observed and repeated?
Then within that framework, what evidence is there for Marco Evolution? I’m not
talking about adaptation (small changes within a species), but for one species
becoming another? If Macro Evolution is true, there should be thousands of
intermediate life forms all around us! Can you show me just one example?
The fact is, there is NO observable evidence for Macro Evolution, therefore it is
not science; it requires blind faith, which makes it a religion for the foolish
(Psalm 14:1).
Introduction to logic…
In order to have a rationale discussion with someone we must begin by thinking
logically and rationally. The Christian can be as confident as a lion, because
God’s laws of logic, nature, and morality are self-evident. Let’s look at what
these laws are and then, (God willing) we will see the insurmountable problems
they pose for the unbeliever.
The law of logic
Rational debate would be impossible without the laws of logic. The first law of
logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states that all contradictions are
false.
You cannot say, “My wife is home and my wife is not home.” Either both
statements are wrong (maybe I’m not married), or one is right and the other is
wrong. Both statements cannot be true at same time, in the same sense. That
is simple logic.
If you think this through carefully, only the biblical worldview can account for
these laws.
But wait, the atheist can say, I believe the first law of logic and I don’t believe in
God or the Bible! That may be true however, in an evolutionary worldview the
atheist cannot provide a reason why logic would exist at all. The rationale for
logic is only found in a biblical worldview.
The Bible clearly states that two antithetical positions cannot both be correct.
Here is a perfect example from I John 2:21:
I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but
because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

According to the Bible (and sound logic) something is either true or it’s false it
cannot be both true and false at the same time. The evolutionary worldview
provides no objective standard of truth and falsehood, right and wrong, or good
and evil.
The evolutionist (if he is honest, which is an oxymoron) must borrow from the
Bible for these concepts to be rationale. The idea that we should or should not
be rational at all depends on the universal laws of logic and the moral laws of
God.
To be rational means you are able to give a reasonable answer for why
something is true or false.

Section #1. Logic. Let the questions begin:

1. If I prove the Bible is true and God exists, would you want to become a
Christian?
A. If they say, “No.” Then you ask, “Why not?”
B. Then, you’re not interested in truth?
C. What are some of the obvious implications of your answer?
D. Then, isn’t your real problem a matter of the will and not the intellect?

2. So, you believe that nobody, plus nothing, equals everything?

3. Which is more complex, the worlds fastest super-computer, the worlds

most advanced robotic system, the Space Shuttle, or, an Earthworm?
Answer: The earthworm. Nobody knows how to make an earthworm. The DNA
and its reproductive system is beyond anything ever created by man.
a. How much more complex is a human compared to an earthworm?
b. What would you think of me if I firmly believed that the Space Shuttle, the
super computer and the most advanced robotic system was the result of random
mindless chance rather than an intelligent designer?

4. Of all the knowledge contained in the 70 million books and articles

(much of it written by scholars and experts in their fields) found in the
Library of Congress, and of all the knowledge yet to be discovered, what
percentage of that knowledge do you think you possess? (My thanks to Ray
Comfort for that one).
a. What percentage of the universe have you explored?
b. For someone to say that God does not exist, wouldn’t they need to be
omniscient?
c. Since you are not omniscient, what evidence can you offer that God does not
exist?
d. Since you cannot do that, doesn’t that make you an agnostic rather than an
atheist?
e. So, then, wouldn’t you agree that there is no such thing as an atheist?

5. Do you believe there is bias in the media? Could there also be bias in
laboratories and college classrooms?

6. Did you know that many prominent atheistic scientists admit to

believing evolution even though they know it’s not true?
Prominent evolutionist George Wald, biochemist and Nobel Laureate from
Harvard University admits he believes and teaches a lie,
“When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to
how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the
other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third
possibility…Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one
hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others.
 That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion—that life
arose as a supernatural creative act of God…I will not accept that
philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I
choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible,
spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”

7. What do you call someone like this?

8. What do you think this mans real problem is?
9. The real answer comes from the famous atheist Aldous Huxley, who
speaks for all atheists (whether they like it or not) in this priceless quote,
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning;
consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty
to find satisfying reasons for this assumption … The philosopher who
finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a
problem of pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no
valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For
myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of
meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The
liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain
political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of
morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our
sexual freedom.”

10. Here is another invaluable insight on what can drive atheism. The
question is, are atheists born, or do they evolve?
“A study was done a while back into all the famous atheists of history,
Jean Paul Sartre, Camus, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Karl
Marx, Madalyn Murray O’Hare, and every single one of them had
something in common. They either lost their father when they were
young, their father abandoned their family, or they had a terrible
relationship with their father. That is very interesting because often
these doubts aren’t really driven by intellectual questions; they are
being driven by an emotional issue that really blocks them from
wanting to relate to a heavenly father because they feel so abandoned,
or cheated, or hurt by their earthly father.”

11. You are walking along the beach. You see in the sand the words, “God
loves you.” Could the waves rolling up on the beach cause that to happen
by chance, or would it be far more rationale to believe that someone just
came by with a stick (or a finger) and wrote that in the sand?
12. You see the faces of four Presidents carved in solid rock on the top of
Mt. Rushmore. You have two choices:
A. A scientist with a Ph.D. in geology tells you that this is the result of millions of
years of erosion from the wind and the rain. The similarity to the presidents
faces is coincidence.
B. A 16-year-old boy looks at it and says, that was obviously carved out by a
gifted and very intelligent artist trained in the art of sculpting.
1. Which answer is more rational: chance or intelligent design?
2. What would you think of me if I denied the great works of art were created by
the great masters, that they all happened by chance?
3. When you see a skyscraper like Sears Tower in Chicago, isn’t that empirical
proof there was an designer and a builder, even though you’ve never seen him?
4. Think about what you are seeing in this picture. How does that logic not also
apply to this system of sun, moon and stars?

5. Can you honestly say that you believe this system so vast, complex, and
orderly could have made itself?
6. There are an estimated 100-400 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. The
entire galaxy of stars rotates at a speed that will allow them to complete one
revolution every 250 million years. They all stay in place like a giant cosmic
Ferris Wheel.
a. What causes that to happen? Why don’t they collide? How much power do
you think is required to drive this system?
b. Does that look like an intelligent design / system to you?
c. The sun (a small star) consumes 400-700 billion tons of hydrogen per second.
Multiply that by 100-400 billion (the number of stars in our galaxy, then by the
trillions of other galaxies also revolving in place). Where did it all come from?
Exposing the denial, the hypocrisy, the illogical and irrational “thinking “of
atheists:
1. The moral relativist (atheist) says, “Everything is relative; there are no
absolutes.” Isn’t saying “All things are relative” an absolute statement?
2. Is that a contradiction? So then, that is a false statement. Isn’t that true?
3. When you say, “It’s wrong for you to impose your morals on me,” aren’t you
trying to impose your morals on me by saying that?
4.How about this one, “There is no such thing as right or wrong.” Is that right or
wrong?
5. Here’s another good one. “All truth is a matter of one’s own opinion, just like I
prefer chocolate over vanilla.” That is subjective and appropriate for personal
preferences like food. But that same rationale breaks down when applied to
objective truth such as morality.
6. You cannot say, “That was a wonderful dinner party,” and in the same breath,
speaking of Hitler’s murdering six million innocent people, say, “That was a
wonderful holocaust. Let’s do it again soon!”
7. The relativist would argue, “Everybody can believe whatever he wants!” Why
then are they trying to get us to believe what they want?
8. The relativist claims that everyone should be free to do whatever he pleases.
Ask that same person how he feels if someone cuts in line in front of him.
9. Suppose the relativist comes home to find his home has been burglarized, his
wife and children have been beaten, raped, and then murdered. Do you think
you would hear, “Oh well, who am I to impose my views on this person?
Tolerance is what we need here. His views on robbery, rape, and murder are just
as valid as mine?”
10. How about philosophers who read books that say life has no meaning. Are
these books meaningful?
11. How can college professors tell their students, “There are no absolutes when
it comes to right and wrong,” and then turn around and grade their papers?
Whose standard will they use to determine my grade, his or mine?
12. If there is no such thing as absolute moral truth, would you mind if your
spouse was relatively faithful?
13. Would it bother you if your bank statements were relatively accurate?

Section #2 Morality
This section is under construction
1. Have you ever told a lie?
2. How many lies do you think you have told in your life?
3. What would happen to our world if everyone always told the truth starting
tomorrow?
4. Have you ever stolen anything?
5. If they answer no…Have you ever wasted time at work? Is that not a form
of stealing from your employer? So, have you ever stolden anything?
6. What would happen to our world if everyone stopped stealing tomorrow?
7. Have you ever looked at woman other than your wife and lusted after her?
8. Is it wrong to lie and steal and cheat?
9. Do you think everyone knows it’s wrong to steal, lie and cheat?
10.How is that possible and doesn’t that sound like an absolute standard of
right and wrong that applies to all people?If evryone knows its wrong, why
does everyone do it? The Bible calls it sin. Is it universal and true of all of
us?
11.Do you see you need of God’s forgiveness for the things you have done in
secret?
12.Do you know that the Bible says, that God is willing to forgive you
because Jesus took the punishment you deserve so God could legally
forgive you without compromising His justice.
13.If there is no God, then there is no moral law. If there is no God, then life
is meaningless and the world is an inexplicable riddle. But if you read the
 Bible and believe God, the history of the human race is satisfactorily
explained. Does that make sense?
14.Morality is absolutely true because God wrote the Ten Commandments
on tablets of stone and on the heart of every man. How do you account for
the fact that every man knows in his heart it is wrong to murder, it is wrong
to steal, and it is wrong to lie?
15.Every man knows it is wrong to have another man’s wife. That is
universal, unchanging, indisputable, timeless, absolute, moral truth. You
know it’s true, I know you know it’s true, and God’s knows you know it’s
true. Isn’t that true?
16.16. Why do all men die?

Section #3 Science
1. Try to imagine nothing exists. No earth, sun, moon, stars, or galaxies.
There are no elements such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, or oxygen. No
such things as time, space, or matter. No universe, no God, there is
nothing! If there was ever a time when nothing but nothing existed, then
what would exist now?
a. There is one thing that all scientists, philosophers, and theologians agree on,
and it’s this: you only have two choices: either God is eternal and uncreated, or
matter is eternal and uncreated, right?
b. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity which is a mathematical equation (math being a
perfect science) provided proof that the universe and time itself had a
beginning. Since we know that nothing comes from nothing, what option does
that leave you?
c. Einstein’s discovery revealed that we live in a three-dimensional world–time,
space and matter (which is energy). Interestingly, the Bible starts out, “In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In the beginning (that’s
time), God created (that’s energy) the heavens (that’s space) and the earth
(that’s matter). How do you suppose the Bible got that right?

2. If the material universe is all that there is and all there ever will be as
Carl Sagan claimed, then why is the material universe governed by
immaterial laws?
a. Where did these laws (not suggestions) come from?
b. Don’t these laws show power, authority, design, and mathematical precision
beyond anything man can conceive of?
3. How and when did life begin?
A. How do you know that?
B. What existed before that?
C. If at one time nothing existed, how could anything exist now?
D. Where did the chemicals come from for life to begin?
E. What are the odds of them coming together by chance to form life from non-
living matter?
(F.Y.I. Using the laws of mathematical probability, the odds of the
random assembly of genes, both physical and chemical, coming
together for spontaneous generation to occur, is not within the realm of
possibility.)

4. Do you believe in the resurrection of the dead?

A. Why not?
B. What is, spontaneous generation?
(F.Y.I. Spontaneous generation is the idea that living cells sprang spontaneously
from non-living matter, something evolutionists must believe).
C. How is spontaneous generation significantly different from the idea of the
resurrection of the dead?
D. Has spontaneous generation ever been observed in a laboratory?
E. What evidence do you have to support the idea of spontaneous generation?
F. Since spontaneous generation has never been observed in a laboratory, how
can it be called a scientific fact?
G. Since it requires faith to believe that, how is that significantly different from
religion?
H. If scientists ever were successful in producing a living cell from non-living
matter, wouldn’t that only serve to confirm that intelligence was necessary to
produce it?
5. Can you explain the differences between a hypothesis, a theory, and a
scientific law?
(F.Y.I. A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation, but has not
been proven. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis when that hypothesis
has been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is
no evidence to dispute it. A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it
is made, no exceptions have been found to that law.) Some scientific laws, or
“laws of nature,” include the law of gravity, the laws of motion, and the laws of
thermodynamics.
6. Can you explain the difference between Micro-Evolution and Macro-
Evolution?
A. What scientific evidence is there that Macro-Evolution has ever occurred?
B. Can you provide one observable example of macro-evolution occurring
today?
C. Why don’t we see hundreds and even thousands of transitional forms of
animals (or humans) walking around today?
D. If man evolved from apes, why do apes still exist?
E. Since Macro-Evolution has never been observed, how can it be taught as
science?
7. What did Darwin say the fossil record would certainly reveal if his
theory of Macro-Evolution were true?
A. Isn’t it true that Darwin said, in essence, that his theory of Macro-
Evolution would stand or fall on what the fossil record would show?
B. How do you account for the fact that there are virtually no fossils showing any
intermediate forms?
C. Isn’t it true that the fossil record reveals fully formed kinds in their own right?
8. Can you explain the laws of thermodynamics?
(F.Y.I. Many atheists believe that matter and energy originated from nothing. The
first law of thermodynamics states, “matter and energy are neither created nor
destroyed.”)
According to Isaac Asimov, “Another way of stating the second law is: The
universe is constantly becoming more disorderly.” According to the second law,
energy could not be eternal, because the universe is running down like a clock.
9. Have the laws of thermodynamics ever been proven wrong?
A. How do you explain the clear contradiction between the laws of
thermodynamics, which are among the most well established laws of science,
and the theory of Macro-Evolution?
10. What is energy?
A. Astronomers tell us that there are 100 billion galaxies in the “known universe,”
and hundreds of billions of stars in each galaxy. According to the laws of
thermodynamics, if energy can neither be created nor destroyed, where did all
the energy in the universe come from?
11. Why is it that the vast majority of us die between the ages of 40 and 80,
no matter where we live or what we eat?
A. If evolution were true, why don’t we see some people who live in relatively
unpolluted areas living to be 200 to 300 years old?
12. What do we know about cells today that Darwin did not?
F.Y.I. Darwin believed that life could have originated by chance, in large part
because he mistakenly believed that cells were very simple life forms.
A. So then, was Darwin correct in his assessment of the simplicity of cells?
B. Since Darwin was wrong about cells, which are the basic building blocks of
life, how does that affect his theory of Macro-Evolution?
13. “Logic and mathematics are abstract principles that have been discovered
rather than invented. We cannot do science, communicate, or navigate this
world without them. They appear to stand outside of nature to describe and
measure it. As Albert Einstein said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the
world is that it is comprehensible.”
14. “What is the source of math and logic? The existence of this remarkably fine-
tuned universe aside, how is it that we have these ‘languages of reality’ to so
elegantly describe and interact with it?”
15. For more than 50 years, scientists from the S.E.T.I. program (Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence) have been using radio telescopes to send out radio
signals across the universe, hoping to receive radio transmissions back. If these
scientists ever received a radio signal with a pattern as simple as the musical
notes from the children’s song, “Twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you
are,” they would unashamed, unabashedly, without fear or reservation, proudly
announce to the world that they have positively identified intelligent life in outer
space!
A repeated pattern that simple, coming from something or someone they have
never seen, would rule out random chance because coded information requires
intelligence. Yet, these same scientists can look at the pattern found in a cell’s
DNA, knowing that within every cell there is a code with three billion bits of
information that not only determine your genetic makeup, but continually instruct
your cell’s behavior, then turn around and deny that this is the result of an
intelligent designer. How do you account for that?
Be sure to check out our book, Answering Atheism With questions at:
http://voice-wilderness.org/store/answering-atheism-with-questions/

16. Do you think this could be the “Missing Link?”

Once I was a tadpole beginning to begin.

Then I was a frog with my tail tucked in.
Then I was a monkey in a banana tree,
now I’m a professor with a PhD.
Atheists are not born they evolve
People are not born atheists, it is a conscience, and deliberate choice to
become an atheist, just as one chooses to accept Christ. While
some atheists may try to deny it, like it or not, atheism requires faith. It is a
belief system just as any other religion. The atheist has faith alone, through his
intellect alone, that God does not exist.
When reasoning with an atheist, we must help them see the obvious fallacies
inherent in their faith. Here is a great point from Ron Rhodes.
• Some atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all atheists, by
definition, believe it. And yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A
person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say
from his own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who
is capable of being in all places at the same time – with a perfect
knowledge of all that is in the universe – can make such a statement
based on the facts. To put it another way, a person would have to be God
in order to say there is no God.
Questions are better than answers when dealing with difficult and deceived
people. So, a good question to ask is, “The library of Congress has more than
70 million books most of which are were written by scholars and experts
in their field of academics. What percentage of that information do you think you
have in your mind? Whatever there is you can follow-up with, “Do you think that
God may exist outside of your knowledge and experience?” It’s
a rhetorical question but wait for his answer. Then you can ask, “If I could show
you that it is more rationale to believe in God than in no God would you be
willing to look at the evidence? If he says “No” then you can gently point out that
it is his will not his intellect that is the problem.
Another common excuse atheists use it the question of evil. “If God is good and
all-powerful, why is there is so much evil in the world?” Many atheists like to use
this but it does not work.
Ron Rhodes…
A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this effect:
“Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to prove that evil
actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by what criteria do you judge
some things to be evil and other things not to be evil? By what process do you
distinguish evil from good?” The atheist may hedge and say: “I just know that
some things are evil. It’s obvious.” Don’t accept such an evasive answer. Insist
that he tell you how he knows that some things are evil. He must be forced to
face the illogical foundation of his belief system.
After he struggles with this a few moments, point out to him that it is impossible
to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is
absolutely good. Otherwise one is like a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a
compass (i.e., there would be no way to distinguish north from south without the
absolute reference point of the compass needle).
The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can only be found in
the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the definition of “absolutely good.”
If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes by which one has the
right to judge something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God
does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of Hitler. Seen in
this light, the reality of evil actually requires the existence of God, rather than
disproving it.
At this point, the atheist may raise the objection that if God does in fact exist,
then why hasn’t He dealt with the problem of evil in the world. You can disarm
this objection by pointing out that God is dealing with the problem of evil, but in a
progressive way. The false assumption on the part of the atheist is that God’s
only choice is to deal with evil all at once in a single act. God, however, is
dealing with the problem of evil throughout all human history. One day in the
future, Christ will return, strip power away from the wicked, and hold all men and
women accountable for the things they did during their time on earth. Justice will
ultimately prevail. Those who enter eternity without having trusted in Christ for
salvation will understand just how effectively God has dealt with the problem of
evil.
If the atheist responds that it shouldn’t take all of human history for an
omnipotent God to solve the problem of evil, you might respond by saying: “Ok.
Let’s do it your way. Hypothetically speaking, let’s say that at this very moment,
God declared that all evil in the world will now simply cease to exist. Every
human being on the planet – present company included – would simply vanish
into oblivion. Would this solution be preferable to you?”
The atheist may argue that a better solution must surely be available. He may
even suggest that God could have created man in such a way that man would
never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether. This idea can be countered by pointing
out that such a scenario would mean that man is no longer man. He would no
longer have the capacity to make choices. This scenario would require that God
create robots who act only in programmed ways.
If the atheist persists and says there must be a better solution to the problem of
evil, suggest a simple test. Give him about five minutes to formulate a solution to
the problem of evil that (1) does not destroy human freedom, or (2) cause God
to violate His nature (e.g., His attributes of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy)
in some way. After five minutes, ask him what he came up with. Don’t expect
much of an answer.
Your goal, of course, is not simply to tear down the atheist’s belief system. After
demonstrating some of the logical impossibilities of his claims, share with him
some of the logical evidence for redemption in Jesus Christ, and the infinite
benefits that it brings. Perhaps through your witness and prayers his faith in
atheism will be overturned by a newfound faith in Christ.

Questions for Atheists

1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that
there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any
reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?
2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent
designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent
design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?
3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the
universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a
cause beyond the universe?
4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our
eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it
doesn’t exist?
5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes
does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?
6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more
reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone
created something out of nothing?
7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently
exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree
that something must have always existed?
8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not
also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an
encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists
such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much
information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins,
The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)
9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do
not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter
than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?
10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a
moral law?
11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law
needs a Moral Lawgiver?
12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a
science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?
13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the
woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the
need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe)
need a cause?
14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this
cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?
15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the
emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there
was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?

Questions for Agnostics

1. Of the two possible kinds of agnostic, which kind are you: 1) Strong agnostic
who says we can’t know anything for sure? or 2) Weak agnostic who says we
don’t know anything for sure (but we could if we had enough evidence)?
2. If you are the strong kind, then how do you know for sure that you can’t know
anything for sure?
3. If you are the weak kind of agnostic, then is it not possible that we could know
for sure that God exists (if we had enough evidence)?
4. Do you agree that an open-minded person should be willing to look at all the
evidence? If so, then are you willing to look at the evidence for God’s existence?

Questions for Muslims

1. Do you pray five times a day? If you have not done the minimum requirement
for a Muslim, how can you be sure you are going to get to heaven?
2. How can Jesus be considered a great prophet when the Gospels say many
times that Jesus accepted worship as God (Matthew 8:2; 14:33; 28:9; Luke
24:52; John 9:38; 20:28-29)?
3. If our Bible today is corrupted, then how do we know what parts are
corrupted?
4. How can the Bible be corrupted when Muhammad told people to read it (Sura
5:68; 10:94) and we have manuscripts showing that the Bible of Muhammad’s
day was substantially the same as the one we have today?
5. How can you believe the Qur’an when it states that “none can change His
word” (Sura 6:115; see also 6:34; 10:64), yet it also says that the Bible is God s
previous revelation (Sura 2:136; 4:163)? Yet you believe that Jesus never
claimed to be God but merely claimed to be a prophet, and somehow the Bible
got corrupted because it teaches that Jesus claimed to be God.
6. If killing is wrong for religious reasons, then why does the Quran prescribe the
killing of unbelievers (Sura 9:5,29; 47:4)?
7. How can heaven be described as a place full of wine and women when this is
the kind of life Allah forbids here (Sura 78:32)?
8. Why do Muslims believe Muhammad is superior to Jesus when even the
Quran affirms that Jesus was sinless (Sura 3:45-46; 19:19-21), born of a virgin
(Sura 3:47), called the Messiah (Sura 3:45), performed miracles such as raising
the dead (Sara 5:110), and bodily ascended into heaven (Sara 4:158), and
Muhammad did none of these things?
9. If many Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the eternal Word of God and yet
different from God, then why can’t Jesus be the eternal Son of God and yet
different from God?
10. If Allah can do whatever He pleases, then why could He not allow His
prophet Jesus to die on the cross and raise Him to life again?

Questions for Hindus

1. Can you explain why some Hindus believe there is one reality beyond good
and evil, and yet they live as though they believe evil is real?
2. If reincarnation is a result of deeds in a previous life, then how did the first
reincarnation begin?
3. If those suffering in this life are being punished for deeds in a previous life,
then why show any compassion to help the downtrodden and needy? Are we
not just tinkering with their karma and delaying their punishment to a further life?
4. If evil is not real, then how did the illusion begin? Why is it so universal? And
why does it seem so real?
5. If we must undergo a changing process of enlightenment to discover we are
one with the Absolute, then how can we be the Absolute since it is unchanging
and never underwent such a process?
No one can demand a proof that God does (or doesn’t) exist, but where does
the evidence point? Following the evidence without bias is the best we can hope
to do.
A number of apologists defend Christianity with the thinking of a courtroom
lawyer or detective. One of these is J. Warner Wallace. In his essay “The
Christian Worldview is the Best Explanation”* he gives ten tough questions to
which he claims Christianity has the better answer. Let’s take a look.
1. How Did the Universe Come Into Being?
Our universe had a beginning, but what caused it? Why is there something
instead of nothing?
I don’t know what caused the universe. I don’t even know if asking about a
cause (which implies an action through time) even makes sense before time
existed. (And I say “I don’t know” simply because I’m parroting the consensus
view of physics. If that changes, so will my opinion.)
But there’s nothing embarrassing about pointing out where we don’t know
things. Science has plenty of unanswered questions, and highlighting them
shows where work needs to be done. It’s not like we’ve ever learned anything
new about nature through holy books or divine revelation.
That science doesn’t know something doesn’t mean that Christians do. They still
must deliver evidence for the claim “God did it.” Believing by faith won’t do.
Note also that quantum events may not have causes, and the Big Bang was a
quantum event. There’s no reason to demand a Big Banger, some supernatural
First Cause.
As for “Why is there something instead of nothing?” show us why nothing is the
default. Show us that nothing is what a godless universe would contain. In fact,
physicist Lawrence Krauss argues the opposite: that nothing is unstable and
would spontaneously produce something. (More here.)
More could be said on this and the other questions here, but I’ll keep it short for
space reasons. Apologies in advance when I shortchange one or both sides of
the argument.
2. Why Does There Appear to Be Design (Fine Tuning) in the Universe?
The constants that govern our universe appear to be remarkably fine-tuned to
allow life. What explains that if not a supernatural intelligence?
I’ve responded to the fine-tuning argument before (here, here, and here). The
quick answer to this question is the multiverse—an almost infinite number of
other universes defined by different constants. Most of them might be sterile, but
there are enough to make one or more life giving.

The Christian might imagine frustrated atheists lamenting how the appearance
of deliberate fine tuning makes a deity unavoidable and then hitting on the crazy
idea of bazillions of universes so that by sheer luck at least one of them will be
tuned to allow life. But that’s not how it happened. A multiverse is predicted by
well-established physics—both string theory and inflation.
Note also that events and objects aren’t unique in physics. There’s more than
one photon, more than one electron, more than one star, more than one object
influenced by gravity, and so on. Why must we be limited to one Big Bang?
Wallace says that explaining the appearance of design “is a problem for
philosophical naturalists only because they are precluded from considering the
possibility of a designer.” If someone is closed minded to the evidence, I agree
that that’s a problem. However, I’m happy to follow the evidence where it leads.
Science has studied supernatural claims but found only natural causes.
And how designed does the universe look? The vast majority of the universe is
hostile to any kind of life that we’re familiar with. Does creating hundreds of
billions of galaxies sound like what a cosmic designer would do if life on a single
lonely planet was the goal?
Wallace says, “The Christian worldview is founded on the existence and creative
activity of a Master Designer, and for this reason, it does not have to struggle
with the appearance of design.” Show us that this is grounded with evidence
and it’ll be more than just an ancient myth. Until then, not so much.
3. How Did Life Originate?
“Philosophical naturalists are still unable to explain how life began, and more
importantly, their work in this area simply reveals how difficult the problem is to
explain. . . . This scientifically inexplicable event can be described as nothing
short of miraculous; the Christian worldview explains how the long odds against
the emergence of life were overcome.”
No, the Christian worldview explains nothing. Christians can show how their
theology is compatible with the question, but this isn’t evidence.
The origin of life is called abiogenesis. Though science has lots of ideas, it
doesn’t have a good theory. Nevertheless, science not having an answer gives
nothing to the Christian side of the question.
And Wallace’s “inexplicable” is a very bold claim. I’m sure biologists will be
eager to hear his proof that abiogenesis is impossible by natural means.
Do Christians think that this or any of the scientific questions are fundamental
parts of their argument? I doubt it. When science reaches a consensus on any
puzzle—and science’s track record for finding answers to nature’s questions is
remarkable—they’ll just drop that question and pick up something new and hope
that no one notices the switch. Their argument then becomes “Science has
unanswered questions; therefore God.”
We’re exploring ten tough questions from Christian apologist J. Warner Wallace
that supposedly provide strong evidence for the Christian claim. Let’s continue.
4. Why Does There Appear to Be Evidence of Intelligence in Biology?
“Most scientists are quick to agree that biological systems often ‘appear’ to be
designed. There are many examples of biological ‘machines’ that appear to be
irreducibly complex, a sure sign of design. . . . Perhaps the most important
evidence suggesting the involvement of an intelligent agent is the presence of
DNA and the guiding role that this DNA plays in the formation of biological
systems.”
Appearances can be deceiving. ELIZA was a computer program with which
users could have a typed conversation, as if with an attentive friend. Originally
written in 1966, it could be assigned as a homework problem today. It
convincingly mimics intelligence, though it contains none. Perhaps we’re seeing
an ELIZA effect when we look at DNA, imagining intelligence where there is
none.
Is the marvelous complexity we see in the cell a clue to an omniscient designer?
Or is this clumsy, non-optimal Rube Goldberg machine actually evidence for
evolution? Biologists are satisfied that evolution explains it. Laymen have no
grounds by which to reject the scientific consensus as the best provisional
explanation we have (more here).
The claim of irreducible complexity doesn’t convince biologists either.
As for DNA being strong evidence for intelligence, guess again. In fact, DNA
alone demolishes this Argument from Design. DNA is a record of evolution’s
sloppy progress, not the perfect blueprint of an omniscient designer.
The Christian might point out that for every instance of information, we find an
intelligence behind it. That may be so, but for every instance of intelligently
caused information, that intelligence is natural, not supernatural.
Given the long list of things we thought were supernatural but are actually
natural (disease, earthquakes, and so on), you’d think that apologists would be
more cautious. But no, once science resolves a puzzle, they’ll just retreat to
another unanswered question to defend their God of the Gaps.
5. How Did Human Consciousness Come Into Being?
“[As evolution proceeds, naturalists must] imagine that spatially-arranged matter
somehow organized itself to produce non-spatial, immaterial mental states.
Naturalism has no reasonable explanation for how this might come to pass.”
Ah, but it does: emergent properties. Consider a water molecule. It doesn’t have
the properties of wetness, fluidity, or surface tension, but once you get trillions of
trillions of them, then these properties emerge.

Or take the human brain. Our brains have roughly 100 billion (that’s 10 11)
neurons. A single neuron doesn’t think 10–11 times as fast; it doesn’t think at
all. Thinking is another emergent phenomenon. (I’ve written more on that here.)
If the point is that we have plenty to learn about consciousness, that’s certainly
true. Again, science’s long to-do list of unanswered questions does nothing to
support the Christian claim.
Wallace also insists on the existence of the mind as something separate from
the brain, but he gives no evidence of this dualism. For every instance that we
know of, a mind is supported by a physical brain.

Remember the story of Phineas Gage, the man who had a steel rod shot
through his head while working on a railroad tunnel? Or consider an Alzheimer’s
patient. As the physical brain is damaged or deteriorates, the mind is also
damaged. The “mind” is simply what the brain does.
If Wallace thinks that the mind (or soul) is something separate or that
consciousness is not the inevitable end result of a sufficiently large brain, he
needs to show evidence.
6. Where Does Free Will Come From?
Wallace imagines various philosophical problems with free will and then solves
them with God as the first mover. Of course, he doesn’t explain the new puzzles
that the God hypothesis introduces—where God came from or how God could
always have existed or what laws of nature (if any) God breaks to do his
miracles. This hypothesis teaches us nothing new. God becomes a synonym for
“I don’t know.”
If God is the reason that we have free will, then Wallace is saying that a godless
universe would have no free will. I await evidence of this claim.
I have little interest in philosophical puzzles. In the apologetics context, they
seem like nothing more than smoke screens.
7. Why Are Humans So Contradictory in Nature?
Humans can be altruistic and compassionate, but we can also be hateful and
murderous. “Philosophical Naturalism struggles to explain how creatures
capable of genocide and cruelty are also capable of compassion and sacrificial
generosity.”
What’s puzzling? Humans have a large palette of personality traits and drives.
They came from evolution, and we’re stuck with them, though we can try to
adapt to modern Western norms.
These drives, both “good” ones like patience and perseverance and “bad” ones
like lust or envy, can be useful. The problem arises when any are used too
much.
For example, generosity is a good trait because we usually aren’t generous
enough, but you need to be a bit selfish so that you don’t damage your own life
by giving away too much. Anger is a bad trait because we can be angry too
often, but the focus and drive that it gives can be useful occasionally when
righting a wrong.
Different conditions create a wide variety of norms (the Nazi prison guard is a
classic example) that encourage actions inconceivable in healthy modern
society. We don’t need to handwave about Mankind’s fall to explain the good
and bad we see in human actions.
Christian apologist J. Warner Wallace has created a list of ten questions so
tough that atheists are unable to respond. So far, the ferocious problems haven’t
materialized. Perhaps the final questions will be more challenging.
8. Why Do Transcendent Moral Truths Exist?
“We have an intuitive sense of moral ‘oughtness’; we recognize that some
things are right and some things are wrong, regardless of culture, time or
location. We understand that it’s never morally ‘right’ to torture people for the
mere ‘fun’ of it. . . . These moral vices and virtues are objective in the sense that
they stand above (and apart from) all of us as humans; they are not simply
creations of our liking. Instead, they are independent and transcendent.”
Transcendent law requires a transcendent Law Giver.
I’ll use William Lane Craig’s definition of objective morality: “moral values that
are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not.” I doubt Wallace
would object.
Now, back to the question: Wallace asks why objective moral truths exist.
They don’t.
Take, for example, our response to an adult abusing a child. What could explain
that moral revulsion? Wallace says that we tap into objective moral truths, but he
doesn’t explain where they’re stored, how they got there, how we access them,
or if we access them reliably. He confuses a universal response or a deeply
held response (which it is in the case of child abuse) with an objective response
(which it isn’t). A far more plausible explanation is the natural one: we humans
are the same species, so we share the same moral programming.
Wallace also raises the is/ought problem: how do you get an ought (a moral
prescription) from an is (a fact of nature)? You can say, “When
someone is injured, you ought to help them,” but what grounds this demand?
His error is in imagining an objectively grounded ought. I’ve seen no evidence
that such things exist, and Wallace provides none. An ordinary ought works just
fine here. Our moral programming gives us this ought, and most other people
will share the opinion.
Another way of seeing the problem: if morals don’t come from what is—that is,
reality—then where do they come from? Where could they come from? Don’t
point to the supernatural before showing compelling evidence that it exists.
Finally, note how morals change with time. We are horrified at the slavery and
genocide in the Old Testament, for example, and congratulate ourselves to the
extent that we’ve erased them from Western culture. Objective morals that
change over time aren’t objective.
(I’ve responded more thoroughly to another of Wallace’s arguments for objective
morality here.)
9. Why Do We Believe Human Life to be Precious?
We kill weeds and pests, and we eat livestock, but we’d never consider this for a
fellow human. How do we justify this if we’re all just the results of evolution?
Are “it’s wrong to kill a human” or “it’s okay to kill a rat” objective moral
statements? Nope. There is no difficulty if there is no objective moral truth to
align with. We value our own species more than others because of our biological
programming.
Wallace characterizes the naturalist position: “In the true scheme of things, we
are no more important (nor any more precious) than the thousands of species
that have come and gone before us. Biological life has no intrinsic value and the
universe has no purpose.” I agree—life has no absolute value and the universe
no absolute purpose. You think it’s otherwise? Show me some evidence.
Wallace also characterizes the naturalist position as saying that only the strong
survive.
And here he’s wrong. This is the “nature, red in tooth and claw” caricature. It’s
not the strongest that survive, as any high school student who’s studied
evolution knows, but the fittest. The fittest for any particular evolutionary niche
might be the best camouflaged or the best armored or the fastest. In the case of
humans, cooperation and trust can make a stronger society which, in turn, helps
protect the people in it. And we don’t see cooperation just in humans—think of
any social animal such as wolves, monkeys, or bees.

10. Why Does Pain, Evil, and Injustice Exist in Our World?
“People are capable of inflicting great evil on one another and natural disasters
occur across the globe all the time. More importantly, no matter what we do as
humans, we seem to be unable to stop evil from occurring.”
Correct. That’s not strong evidence for an omniscient, loving god.
“Atheists often point to the presence of evil as an evidence against the
existence of an all-loving and all-powerful God, but all of us have to account for
evil in the context of our worldview. Both sides of the argument have to explain
the existence and injustice of evil, consider what role it plays in the history of the
universe, and come to grips with why justice is often elusive.”
Wrong. The atheist has no Problem of Evil to resolve. That’s your problem.
The Problem of Evil asks: how can a good god allow all the suffering that we see
in the world? Wouldn’t he stop more of it—at least the gratuitous suffering?
When you drop the god presupposition, this problem vanishes.
“Whatever worldview we adopt, it had better offer a cogent response to the
young child who is dying of an incurable disease. Which worldview offers the
most satisfying and reasonable explanation for the evil and injustice we see in
our world?”
“Satisfying”?! Is that our goal? I thought we were trying to figure out which
worldview is accurate! If Wallace wants to rank worldviews based on how happy
a story they have to tell rather than how accurate they are, he can do that on his
own. I have no interest in participating, but I doubt that Christianity is at the top
of the list.
“Christian Theism offers an explanation that naturalism simply cannot offer.”
As does Scientology or Shinto or Pastafarianism. Do I care? I’ll focus on reality.
Summary
For each of his questions, Wallace has explained nothing. He has given us his
theology, not evidence. His answers often distill down to nothing more than,
“Science doesn’t have all the answers, therefore God.” To this gunfight he has
brought a squirt gun.
Sure, science has unanswered questions. It always has. But it has a startling
ability to find the answers. If we can look back and see how poorly “God did it”
answered the question, “What causes drought and earthquakes?” centuries ago,
why continue to apply this discredited answer to the latest series of questions?
By being unfalsifiable, “God did it” could explain anything. In so doing, it explains
nothing.
I’d love to see an apologist show some courage in their claims. Is the riddle of
abiogenesis or human consciousness or the origin of the universe so intractable
that God is the only possible answer? Will you rest your faith on that claim? Will
you say that God must be the answer and, if science does eventually resolve it
naturally, you’ll abandon your faith?
Of course they won’t. Science’s unanswered questions aren’t the reason for
their faith. But then if these unanswered questions aren’t supporting Christianity
for them, why should they for the rest of us? When one of these questions is
answered (and, given science’s track record, that’s a safe bet), Christian
apologists will abandon it and retreat to whatever new question catches their
fancy.
Science boldly pushes into new territory and gives us new insights. Religion
follows and says, “Oh yeah, I knew that.” Religion is the dog that walks under
the ox and thinks that he is pulling the wagon.
Is Atheism a LACK of Belief in God or a BELIEF that there is no God?

Most atheists generally claim that atheism is a LACK of belief in God or gods.
This definition implies that atheists DO NOT have the ability to believe in God.
This definition implies that atheists are INCAPABLE of believing in God. Is this
true? Do atheists lack or have an inability to believe in God?
The Bible however explains that atheists do not lack a belief – but rather
atheists SUPPRESS their belief in God. Every human being has a measure of
faith and has the ability to believe. In every human being is the desire to worship
someone or something. However the case with atheists is that they suppress
God as the object of belief and replace God with anti-God belief systems.
Romans 1:20-23 says the following pertaining to atheism and the atheists
suppression of belief in God: For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because,
although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but
became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22
Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the
incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and
four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore atheists not only suppress the existence of God in their lives but
through the theory of evolution they have replaced God with the worship of
animals and worship of themselves. The theories of evolution is what has
become the atheist’s religion.
Therefore atheism cannot be defined as a LACK of belief because the atheist
simply CHOOSES to SUPPRESS his belief in God.
Atheism is a CHOICE. It is a belief system.

If God Exists Would You Become A Christian?

If the atheist were given all the “proof” and “evidence” that they needed
pertaining to the existence of God, would he/she become a Christian?
This is a question that only individual atheists can answer themselves. However,
the several atheists that I have personally asked this question have continued to
either avert directly answering the question or continue to rebel against the idea
that God exists.
The truth is, it takes humility to accept God. Pride is the seed of atheism.
Atheism is the belief that life is “better” without God or that life does not need
God. Atheism is a belief that man does not have to be accountable to a Greater
Power than himself.
Therefore to accept God into one’s life requires personal humility and a sense
that one is accountable to somebody greater than himself.
If you’re an atheist and you’re reading this take the time to ask yourself “If God
Exists, Would You Become A Christian?”

How Do You Determine What’s Right & What’s Wrong?

To the atheist: Where does your sense of morality come from? How do you
determine what is acceptable and what is unacceptable?
For example – if there are 2 atheists in a room: One atheist believes that
abortion is wrong and another atheist believes that abortion is good. Which of
these atheists is correct? Which one is right and which one is wrong?
For the Christian the question of morality and right or wrong comes from the
Scriptures / the Bible. But for the atheist, the morality issue is very murky and
always changing. For example, with the atheist, something as queer as
beastiality can be wrong today and then the same act might be okay with him in
the future. After all, atheists view themselves more as animals than humans. So
the queer concept of beastiality is an open view even in their mindset.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good
work.”
The issue of right and wrong comes only from one source – God.
How Do You Deal With Guilt & Sin in Your Life?

No matter what moral beliefs we may have, all people have felt guilt in their life.
Every person including the atheist has felt that they have done wrong in their life
and may have felt guilt or remorse or depression as a result.
The question however is: How do atheists deal with guilt and sin in their life?
What do atheists do to remove guilt or sin in their hearts?
It is said that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than theists. This is
believed due to the fact that the atheist belief system does not adequately
account for purpose or meaning of life. Hence in the perception of the atheist life
is not only temporary but it lacks no definitive meaning.
In the eyes of God & the Christian however, God has given meaning and
purpose to people’s lives. Every person can find their meaning in life through a
relationship with God.
God says the following in Isaiah 43:7 – “Everyone who is called by My name,
Whom I have created for My glory; I have formed him, yes, I have made him.”
God created us to glorify Him. Glorifying God means that we acknowledge His
existence and He is the object of our faith and worship. It also means that we
live in order please and serve our Creator.
Without God, the issue of guilt and sin cannot be properly or adequately dealt
with.
In Isaiah 43:25-26 God says “I, even I, am He who blots out your
transgressions for My own sake; And I will not remember your sins. 26 Put Me
in remembrance; Let us contend together; State your case, that you may be
acquitted.”
God sent Jesus Christ to deal with our sin problem (John 3:16)

Do You Act According To What You Believe or According To What You

Lack In Belief?

If atheism is simply a lack in belief in God, then do atheists act according to

what they believe in – or do they act according to their lack of belief.
Everyone BELIEVES in something or someone. Our beliefs drive us. What we
believe in affects our life and ultimately our destiny.
The truth is – we don’t have to see something in order to believe in it. All
humans have the ability to believe.
• Atheists have NO EVIDENCE that non-life can create life but yet they
BELIEVE it.
• Atheists have NO EVIDENCE as to HOW the universe was created yet
they BELIEVE their theories.
• Atheists have NO EVIDENCE dinosaurs turned into birds but yet they
BELIEVE it.

The Bible describes belief / faith as the following: Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is
the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”.
Therefore the atheist does not behave according to what he lacks belief in – but
he behaves according to what he believes in even if that belief is wrong.
The source of our faith however should not be our own intelligence – but the
source of our faith should be God and His word.
True faith does not come by hearing the word of man but true faith comes by
hearing the word of God.

Romans 10:17 says “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word
of God”.

Can You Prove HOW the Universe Was Created?

There is no evidence pertaining to the evolutionist explanation for origin of life.

All evolutionist explanations for the origin of life and the creation of the universe
remain merely as theories, presumptions and hypothesis. The reason is
because there is no scientific proof that for example, life may have evolved from
non-life or that life resulted due to a “big bang”. Therefore atheists cannot prove
how the universe was created. It actually takes faith to believe some of the
theories that evolutionists have suggested.
The Bible is clear as to who and how the universe was created. God created the
universe. Genesis 1:1-2 – In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth.

Can You Prove That God Does Not Exist?

When asked this question atheists argue that it’s not up to them to provide
evidence for proof of God. The problem however with their argument is that if
they claim God doesn’t exist then they should provide the evidence.
If atheists have never visited every planet; or if they have never been to every
part of the universe; or if they have never seen every star in outer space – then
how can they prove that God does not exist?
Atheism in itself is merely a CLAIM – it is NOT a fact.
Atheism is NOT merely a lack of belief – it is an NONFACTUAL CLAIM that God
does not exist because there is no proof that He doesn’t exist.
Psalm 14:1 – The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are
corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.

Do You Know Where You’re Going When You Die?

The atheist cannot prove that heaven and hell does not exist. However, what a
tragic day it will be when the atheist discovers the existence of hell because
there is no going back and there is no second chance.
Does heaven and hell exist? Yes these places do.
Ecclesiastes 3:11 says “He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He
has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that
God does from beginning to end”.
God has put eternity in our hearts. This means that in our mind or soul God has
placed within us a spiritual longing or desire for eternal fulfillment inside of us;
God has put that sense inside us that there is more to life than the mere
physical and natural things that we touch and see.
Every person whether Christian or atheist has an eternal desire or a search for
purpose and meaning that is beyond the present. The issue is our interpretation
of these desires and how we apply these desires.
Our sense of longing and meaning should be directed towards God who is the
source. Without God there is no meaning or fulfillment in a person’s life.
Ultimately when people die, where they go will be an indication of who or what
their source of fulfillment was.
Jesus is our fulfillment. Without Jesus Christ we are nothing. Jesus came that
we may have abundant life.
John 10:10 – “The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to
destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more
abundantly”.
Do you know any atheists? Here are seven questions you can ask them.

Why did you become an atheist?

I have no animosity towards atheist because I used to be one. Christians are in
no way superior to non-believers because God is no respecter of a person’s
ability, social standing, or wealth (Acts 10:34; Rom 2:11). God doesn’t look at the
outside as we do, rather He looks at the heart (1 Sam 16:7). We too must look,
not at the outside, but at the soul of that person as someone that needs saving.
They may have very good reason not to believe in God, but we all know that
belief doesn’t alter what is true so ask them sincerely why they became an
atheist? Show them respect but ask them what their reasons for not believing in
God since they lack all knowledge of all places in the universe? Why can they
not deal with a God and that exists?

Where did matter come from?

We know about Aristotle was opposed to Plato’s “First Cause” but his own
theory of causality is still an argument from universal causation. Plato’s basic
argument in The Laws (Book X) was that all movement in the world was an
imparted motion, and since everything is in motion, who or what caused that first
movement? Who or what was the first cause of the universe? Where did matter
come from? Was there a singular point of the beginning of the universe and all
matter? Since matter must have a cause, Who or what was that cause?
Not all atheists are hostile toward Christianity. Are you and if so, why?
Since atheists claim that there is no God, why do some have such hostility
against those who do believe in God? Why do some seem to have a mission in
life or an axe to grind against Christians or Christianity and even against God?
Why do they detest a belief in something that they themselves don’t believe in?
Since there is no Santa Clause, why don’t they go up to every Santa Clause
they meet and rail against them or not existing since both don’t seem to exist to
them?

Have you asked yourself, what if you’re wrong

and there is a heaven and a hell?

If you don’t believe in something, does it mean it doesn’t exist? In other words,
does what we believe change what is true? An example was that humanity was
convinced at one time that the earth was flat but their “concrete evidence” of
looking at the earth and seeing nothing but flatness didn’t make the world into a
flat surface. What atheists believe and don’t believe cannot make something
true or false.

What happens after you die and what proof of your belief do you have?
Atheists may say what happens to them after death and as far as the physical
body, we can know that, but what about the soul of a man or woman? Can you
kill a soul? Is this all there is after life? Is it nothingness or no state of
awareness? How can they be so sure that there’s no afterlife? What if they’re
wrong? Won’t it be too late them to believe in God (Heb 9:27).

Do you believe in objective truth?

I would ask an atheist if there are certain objective morals. Do they have
something that they see an absolute moral principle? Is murder of an innocent
person always wrong and at all times? Are there objective universal morals? Are
there none? Where does morality come from?

Conclusion
If humans are simply a process of random chemical processes over millions of
years then how a non-believer be so sure their atheism properly represents
reality? What if they’re wrong? What hope is there after this life if life is all there
is? Does that rob purpose beyond the grave? Do you believe in an after-life
somewhere? The Bible declares that “what can be known about God is plain to
them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely,
his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the
creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without
excuse” (Rom 1:19-20).