Retorting the Atheist’s Code of God’s Non-Existence

By Patrick Fynn

Atheists are a group of people with a relatively high level of intelligence – so much that they find it lame to have faith in a so-called supreme celestial dictate otherwise known as God. In their minds it’s illogical to say a giant sky fairy created the universe with magic dust in 7 days.


That apparently leaves us to the obvious debate as to whether a God exists or not. Chris Jami says, ‘the whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: one of them believes a ‘what’ created the universe; another believes a ‘who’ created the universe.’
Atheists don’t believe due to complete lack of evidence. But the plot twist is the burden is not on Christians and theists to prove anything. So the need to reply hadn’t been much needful.
Atheists believe that in their conviction of the non-existence of a deity, evolution is a perfect substitute. Most do believe the theory of evolution is a proven fact, yet cannot provide the name of whoever proved it. The thing about evolution is, it doesn’t claim to explain how life started. Nobody, not even Charles Darwin knows how the first life came into being. Science itself recognises that energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Apart from atheists wanting to make an exception, we never see things jumping into existence out of nowhere.
All physical things require a first cause – evolution doesn’t have it. It is clearly an impossibility to create life from non-matter. So evolution fails even before it gets started.
The icing on the cake is there are many theists who accept evolution. A belief in a deity should have nothing at all to do with evolution. And the principles of atheism do not rely on evolution to be true. What is funny is, the philosopher of this model is neither a biologist nor scientist. So the Darwin theory of evolution is comparable to a book on brain surgery authored by a football coach.

Even with knowledge without superimposition, both atheists and theists are having a hard time answering the question of how the first creation was produced. The only explanation that fits the equation is ‘SUPERNATURAL’. Any other assumption will lack proof and credibility – we all know.
Atheists are screaming, ‘Show me. Prove yourself, God!’. However, absolute ignorance is hitherto in their quest for physical proof of a being without physical existence. Sorry to burst your bubble…you can’t see God. You will die at the sight of Him!
Dear non-believers, what is so comically frustrating about your round-about argument is that you continually stomp your feet demanding that God proves himself to you, yet you ignore the most valid form of proof of the creator – creation.
You refuse to accept the creation as proof of the creator, but you believe in naturism, forgetting that nature itself is the creation and always testifies its creator. Just as the artist reveals his work to the world, the world unveils itself in the work of its creator.
And this is the evidence you have mistaken for evolution.
There has been a perpetual call for evidence. But then there’s Jesus. He was on earth proving that he was God, and people still didn’t believe him. He will be back and that will be that evidence you won’t be able to deny.
Your non-belief isn’t the certitude that there’s no God. So it’s interesting how your sect is confident to win the debate without evidence that God does not exist. You can’t prove there are no unicorns either.
So let's make progress. How do we prove something exists when we can’t see it? Does the wind exist? Yes, we know because the wind blows. Therefore, evidence in a clearly non-tangible being is manifest in effects. That is how we prove the existence of the wind – the effect of rustling of trees and leaves.
Another way is to poke it. If there’s nothing, nothing happens. It something happens, your guess is as good as mine.
But because atheism is about avoidance, not truth and you are limited by your own limitations, all you do is suppress the truth in your deliberate doubt. Otherwise there’s more than enough prove of a God. Where it is found is where you dread and abhor. An atheist is a like a blind man who is convinced that there is no such thing as colour.

Get the drift: the argument isn’t science versus God, as if science in any way goes against God’s existence. Science is rather the suggested explanation of how things work in this universe. It is kind of, like some unknown person built a highly complicated machine and you try to figure out how it works. Discovering how the machine functions doesn’t disprove the engineer’s existence.
Now, there are only 3 possibilities: either God does not exist, he exists and you are not sincere in finding him, or he exists and isn’t interested in you so doesn’t give a hoot whether or not you believe in him. This all comes down to choice. You believe or don’t believe. That’s all there is and will be. Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose three days later and is alive today.
God is quietly whispering, ‘I’m closer to you than your hands and feet’. It is easy to dismiss what you don’t understand or what you don’t want to understand but surrendering to the truth is the most enlightening, empowering, and liberating thing a human can do.
‘There’s a way to find God. It’s different from the way you find the temperature of a stone or listen to the internal sounds of the human body using a stethoscope. When you want to discover something, you need an instrument. But when you want to find God, the human being itself is the instrument. It’s when you immerse your mind, soul and spirit in a relentless search that you find him’ – Edwin Appiah
It is better to live your life as if there’s a God and die to find out there isn’t than to live your life as if there’s no God and die to find out there is. As for agnosticism, it isn’t an option. You either believe a claim or don’t.
Author: Patrick Fynn
(patrickfynn.blogspot.com)
Follow the author on Twitter: @PatrickFynn