YT Question: DOES GOD EXIST? | Genesis Under a Microscope E1

Updated: Feb 20, 2021

Written by: Christopher Sernaque


Mike Cordner

"The Bible says that the existence of god is self-evident based on what he has made or what we find in creation."

First, a self-evident truth wouldn't need to be based on anything if it were, in fact, self-evident.

Second, the Bible is a book full of unsubstantiated claims and can not serve, as its own source of evidence. This is known as circular reasoning and is a fallacy whenever the premises contain no evidence distinct from the conclusion.

Third, for 'creation' to be evidence for the existence of a god, you would first have to demonstrate that at least one phenomenon in our universe has been created - to have be brought into existence ex nihilio instantaneously by the solitary volition of a single deity. This has never been obsevered.

Instead every single phenomena (substance, event, entity, object, process, being) can be shown to emerge from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception.

These fallacies were found in the first minute of the video.


Thank you for your comment. Your feedback is appreciated, and I will address each of the points that you raised.

1. The first point depends on one’s definition of “self-evident.” According to Oxford Dictionary, the words “obvious” and “clear” are synonyms for the term “self-evident.” Thus, there is no fallacy in my claim that the irreducible complexity in the nanomachinery in cells or microorganisms or the digital code in DNA is clear or obvious evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

2. Secondly, because there was not a single example of an “unsubstantiated claim” listed, the claim “the Bible is a book full of unsubstantiated claims” is in itself an unsubstantial claim. Furthermore, my argument is not circular. This would be an example of a circular argument: The Bible says its true. Therefore, the Bible is true. This is circular; however, this is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the Bible makes testable predictions that have been born out in history and therefore its accuracy is authentic. Additionally, the Biblical worldview provides the preconditions to intelligibility. These points were explained in the video.

3. Just as I cannot demonstrate God creating the universe the evolutionist cannot demonstrate the big bang or abiogenesis. All scientists from both sides can do is take the evidence that is before them and see whether or not their narrative fits with the evidence and change or discard their model as further light is presented. The evolutionary narrative however, as pointed out in the video, cannot provide a consistent and adequate explanation for laws of logic, morality, or structures that exhibit the hallmarks of fine-tuning and design. These evidences best fit the Biblical Creation model.

Finally, the claim that “every single phenomenon (substance, event, entity, object, process, being) can be shown to emerge from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception” is untrue. Causal explanations, or explanations that indicate a cause, can either be scientific explanations, in terms of laws and initial conditions, or be personal explanations by which an agent and their volitions are signified. For instance, if I walk into the kitchen and see that a kettle is boiling, I might be prompted to inquire, “Why is this kettle boiling?” To which someone could respond in two manners. In their response, they could state that, “The copper bottom of the kettle is conducting the heat of the flame from the stove to the water inside the kettle, which in turn results in the water molecules violently vibrating, until they are hurled off as steam.” Or they could respond simply by saying, “The kettle is boiling because I put it on to make tea, would you care for some?” Even though one explanation is a scientific explanation and that other is a personal explanation, both explanations are equally legitimate and authentic causal explanations. How does this analogy relate to why the universe must have a personal cause? Because there cannot be a scientific explanation in terms of initial conditions and natural laws for the first physical state of the universe. This is because prior to the first physical state of the universe there would be no natural laws based on prior conditions from which the first physical state of the universe could be deduced from! Thus, the only form of appropriate explanation for the first physical state of the universe would be in terms of a personal agent and their volitions, or a Personal Creator.

Thank you for your time. May you and your family be blessed.

15 views0 comments