God Talk: Debates and Discussions with Believers

These are actual conversations that have taken place between religious believers and myself, through forums, email, dialogue, etc.

Observing Creation's Imperfection

Christian: You just ignore the evidence presented to you about the existence of God and make excuses for it just as you say people that acknowledge creation do with evolution.

Rebuttal: When I am faced with evidence of any kind, I consider how likely it is to be true. When I am faced with evidence that may indicate a number of differing alternatives, I especially need to consider which one is more likely than the others. However, if they are all untestable, unverifiable, and so forth - the only reasonable conclusion is to not reach one yet. We don't have all the information.

Regarding our ultimate origins, I suppose I am more agnostic than atheist. It is possible that a god caused all this, but it is also possible that science is correct about our gradual evolution and the space-time expansion of the Big Bang. My reasons for rejecting belief in God are separate and more philosophical than they are based on natural science. I can perfectly understand how a religious person would consider the creation as evidence for the creator, but this - like you have pointed out - is far from a perfect world. It begs the question, "does this imperfect creation point to an imperfect god?"

The bible says it is imperfect because of sin, and that mankind has screwed up things for themselves, but it also contains a lot about God that seems less-than-perfect. Ordering genocides, wiping out nearly his entire creation after he's no longer satisfied with it, establishing a difficult and demanding covenant, then finally deciding to be merciful and gracious after several millennia of suffering and death have passed... if this god were perfect, it seems like he would be doing more to protect his creation, instead of annihilating and tormenting so many of his creations - in this life and the next.

Christian: You asked, "Does this imperfect creation point to an imperfect god?" Define what it means to be perfect and then we'll have a base to go with on that question. From my own perspective on perfection, I'd say that the answer is no. God made us the right way to begin with. When we messed up, he offers a way out. Ultimately the way out became Jesus. We are made perfect through Him. If God was imperfect He couldn't make anyone perfect.

Rebuttal: I would define perfection as, "being without error or flaw; needing nothing to be added or subtracted".

I know you believe the standard biblical teachings about God's perfection and our fall, but what I'm saying is that we have no more evidence of this than we do for an imperfect god. You can point out the beauty and intricacy of creation all you want, you can try to validate the claims of the bible and other stuff, but when it comes down to it, you really cannot be sure that the bible's portrait of God is honest. Assuming it is the word of God, what if God were lying to us about himself? How would we ever know if he was?

Christian: You seem to be under the assumption that anyone who believes in creation as the answer to why we exist doesn't really know what science is.

Rebuttal: I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if I want to know about the nature of our universe and how things work, I'll consult scientists who have made life-long careers out of studying it - archaeologists, biologists, cosmologists, botanists, and so on. If I want to know religious ideas or myths about our origins, I'll consult theologians or creationists. To expect that the average person knows better than a scientist who has devoted extensive time and work to learning about something like evolution, is the point where I lose faith in your rational processes or sincerity of seeking truth.

Until creationists and apologists become worthy contributors to the sciences, I take their opinions with a grain of salt. They have made no important discoveries supporting their views, they have not published any ground-breaking papers, they have not submitted anything for peer review, and their suggestion of God creating the universe is not even an hypothesis, because it is not testable. I have no problem with Christians marveling over nature (or "God's creation"), but to deny significant elements of it simply because you think they disagree with a book you consider to be the word of God - I think that is insulting both to mankind's intellectual progress and to the supreme being you believe in.

Christian: Let me ask you something: if you could acknowledge that what's around you was created and not just evolved or formed after a massive explosion, even though I realize you currently don't, but if you could, then wouldn't you find on some level that what was mentioned in [an article written by a creationist] shows a proof of God's existence? Even if, as you say, some of the scientific terms were confused?

Rebuttal: If I acknowledged that this was all created, I might consider [the creationist's] booklet to be a decent proposal for some designer. It's still a leap, in my opinion, to connect the dots to a god or the Christian God. What can you say against Gnostic teachings, which claim that this world was created by a demigod, and the true God is a separate being? If there be design in our universe, a multitude of questions arise that are not easily swept away by the bible or any one religion. What is God? Would it have a will for our lives and how would we recognize it from other man-made claims about God's will? These are just two examples.

But to return to your question, if I began to acknowledge creation, I would look to creation itself as the evidence for a creator. Mind you, this is quite different from what [this creationist] has done. He has looked to the bible for evidence of a creator and cherry-picked science to support what the bible tells him. I would first explore the creation and the sciences to learn what I could of God, forget the religious texts. It could easily be possible that a god exists that is completely unlike any being fantasized by any of our religions. If this were the case, where would I find out more about this god than from its own design and creation? Holy books are suspicious and often proven to contain errors and obviously man-made doctrines - but if there is a creator, then creation is its handiwork, by definition.

However, I do not believe creation would point to a perfect or loving god (if a god does exist) for a number of reasons.
[Aside: For more on this, see the article God Doesn't Care for Humanity]

Christian: You seem to think that [he] "looked to the bible for evidence" in his writing. I suggest you re-read it. As you have stated that you would do if you acknowledged that which is around you was created, he saw creation itself as proof of God's existence. He then used various things from creation to prove God's existence. Sounds like you guys think more alike than you thought. Try to have a fresh mind about it.

Rebuttal: I know [he] tried to make it seem as though he considered the evidence and it just so happened to confirm the Christian God, and I know you believe that. However, I am more skeptical, because of how he cites bible verses at least three times in the booklet and raves about the bible under the "I Found Proof" heading. How do you know he wasn't just trying to sound like he had been objective in his search for truth, and maybe had not quite taken the skeptical approach beyond looking for reaffirmation of Christianity?

As I've said several times by now, nothing in his booklet explicitly proves the existence of the Christian God - not by a long shot, and yet he interjects references to that specific deity in quite a few places. If he were intellectually honest, I think he would've admitted that the evidence he sees for a creator only goes so far, and to arrive at a further conclusion is left up to faith.