Recently I came by a story where a poem denouncing the existence of God was distributed to a middle school class as part of an assignment in Greek mythology. Although the school is claiming the poem is referring to the existence of Greek gods and not the idea of God in general it seems to me from the language in the poem that this cannot be the case, considering the poem was not written by anyone in the class that was studying Greek mythology, instead is was pulled from a collection of materials gathered by the teacher. The teacher claims not to know how the poem got into the collection. You can read the details and decide for yourself at the following links
What I would like to address is the arguments made in the poem about the existence of God. The poem is written by a high school child but the arguments are those I have seen proposed by PhD professors. The following is from the poem…
Although this is a poem and not a series of developed philosophical arguments I see two objections to the existence of God within the poem. First is the problem of evil in the world. The author infers that since there is evil and death there cannot be an all powerful God who cares. I have written about the problem of evil in a previous blog entry. For brevity I will point out that those who recognize evil also recognize a standard by which they judge good and evil. But from where comes this standard? and why should it be recognized by all humanity? Why do we assume human beings have purpose and value and were not meant for suffering and death? These assumptions are in the background of the writers objections and yet they are baseless on the foundation of Atheism. Only an existing God can provide value, purpose and objective moral standards for humanity.
The second objection I see to God’s existence is the that the idea of God is no different than the idea of a unicorn. Many believers get stuck when our view of a theistic God is compared to mythical creatures. The unicorn isn’t special in this case. God has been compare to the ideas of Santa Claus, Easter Bunnies, Zues and Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Two things are needed to respond to this line of argumentation. First is a definition of what is meant by God. Second is to understand the definition of the detractor’s use of Unicorn. Once both of these are known the differences can be easily pointed out. By God the Christian theist generally means a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, logically necessary being who is creator and designer of the universe and who is the moral standard for good and evil.
What then can be said about this unicorn? It is a horse like creature with one horn with some magical abilities. Well the differences become clear when terms are defined. Ideas of horses, creatures and horns only have context inside a real universe and God is transcendent to the universe. He is spaceless, timeless and immaterial and any form or substance applied to Him is contradictory and is not what Christians mean when we speak of God. Those who raise this argument even if they are teenagers or PhD professors lack an understanding of the theistic view of God and expose themselves as having a belief that nothing outside of nature exists which is a point I should remember to speak to in a future post.