Reason 1: A Fully Functioning World
If all the separate parts of a car were strewn about on a factory floor – the four wheels, windscreen wipers, engine, exhaust pipe, car doors, steering wheel, hood, oil, petrol, battery, and so on – could chance alone ever fix them together in a roadworthy way? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that a truly infinite amount of time is not available (it rarely is). Surely the answer must be no.
When we look at our world suspended in space, it could be compared to a fully functioning car. Just as petrol keeps a car running, the sun fuels all activity on earth. But like the battery inside a car, within the world there are additional energy sources: oil, coal, wood, and others. As a car’s engine turns the wheels, so the extraordinary phenomenon of life powers growth, motion, and reproduction. The parts of a car are tightly screwed into place, and similarly everything in the world holds together: a protective atmosphere, tidal oceans, rain-bearing clouds, soil-covered land, and fresh water rivers. The warning lights on a car’s dashboard could be compared to the invaluable advance signs of changing weather patterns. The complexity of a car’s cooling system is surpassed by the earth’s water cycle, which even oscillates successfully between salty and fresh.
So if we agree that the components of a car could never slot together by accident to form a roadworthy vehicle, shouldn’t we also agree that raw chance couldn’t fix the components of our world into a fully functioning unit?
sixty guilders 
Couple thoughts;
You illustrate the probability of random chance originating so complex a world as low. Let’s assume that random chance did originate this world and consider how it may have done so.
As a coin must be flipped twice to have every chance of coming up heads, so too must the universe be given opportunities equal to the inverse of it’s probability of randomly generating this world in order for such an outcome to have every chance of occurring. If space and time are infinite then there are infinite chances for random chance to generate not only our world but many other worlds much like our own. The infinite, upon which an inevitably randomly generated world is predicated, must be dismissed by any not wanting to believe in incredulous things such as aliens and other such crackpot phenomena (to say nothing of the stumbling block which the infinite poses for empiricism, rationalism and non-faith dialectics.)
Discounting the infinite, it appears (though I wouldn’t know however to prove this, either as a priori or posteriori knowledge) that there become fewer opportunities available than are required to give this universe every chance to randomly generate this world. Which isn’t to say that it is impossible that random chance has generated this world, just fantastically unlikely.
In the first case, I regard adherents as a bunch of regular loons, in the second I can’t help but admire their faith.
LikeLike
I’ve now altered the original post to reflect your point. Thanks Seymour.
LikeLike
The uniformity of nature is good evidence of God’s existence but is it really Christians task to prove the existence of God ?
LikeLike
Thanks Dale. I agree with you in the sense that it’s not our main task.
LikeLike
I think you missed my point.
You see, everyone knows that God exists, everyone. Not sure? read this ~
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness *suppress the truth*.
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is *plain to them*, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 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 1:21 For although they *knew God*,…..
Now, if the Word of God (Christians final authority) says that everyone knows that God exists, why when we come up against someone claiming to be an atheist do we begin by trying to convince them otherwise with evidence ?
Should we not simply believe God and dismiss their claim ?
I made another comment asking of your involvement with the CofE and wondered if you were going to follow the same pattern of compromise in your Church plant in NY ?
Regards
Dale UK
LikeLike
The answer is that we believe God, yet treat the atheist with love and respect. We recognise that sin brutalises the intellect, and darkens reasoning and insight, and so we share the light we have received. We do not ‘prove’ God, but we reason as Peter counsels us to do (1 Peter 3:15). We remember that once, whilst we were yet dead in trespasses and sins, some Christian graciously helped us to see that there was reason for faith.
LikeLike
At no pint did I suggest that we do not reach out to atheists, or any other groups of people for that matter.
Let me try and make my point even clearer.
If someone knows that God exists and comes to us claiming otherwise, then giving them evidence to try and convince them is pointless.
Do you see that ?…Why would we present evidence to someone who knows God exists ?
When we come up against someone who says they do not believe God exists or they are not sure, we should obey Scripture and point out to them that their claim is untrue, that they do know that God exists and that they are suppressing the truth because they love their sin.
We show them how foolish their worldview is without God, then present the Gospel to them in the hope that God will make their dead spirits alive and grant them repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.
Dale
LikeLike
Hi Dale
I don’t think I did suggest that you were suggesting that we should “not reach out to atheists”. I think the question is what we actually do in practice when we do reach out.
From the perspective of our understanding of the human condition, you are quite right to point to Romans 1:18-22 and similar passages. However we seek to exegete this passage, it’s clear that the teaching is that everyone on the planet has some kind of fundamental evidence of God’s existence.
However, as Paul also makes clear, the understanding of human beings is darkened by sin, and our perceptions of who or what God is have become corrupted. Therefore (v22), people have arrived at debased views of what God is.
The use of reasoning (as opposed to ‘just’ preaching the truth) therefore has several purposes:
(1) it shames the ungodly, showing how their own appeals to ‘reason’ are without basis;
(2) it corrects false views of the godhead;
(3) it treats the individual with dignity – and models a level of respect that (in my experience) atheists rarely show to Christians – which, in itself ought to have a positive impact;
(4) it provides a more general antidote to the prevailing secularist worldviews which influence our culture – in circumstances where we may never have opportunities to preach the Gospel;
(5) it forces the Christian believer to understand his or her own faith sufficiently to be able to argue its reasonableness to those who are implacably opposed to our beliefs.
And yes, I would believe that if, having done all of this, the unbeliever wilfully persists in their false notions and opposition to the Gospel, then we shake off the dust from our feet and move on.
Kevin
LikeLiked by 1 person