wrh987
March 31st 2005, 07:09 PM
If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED? If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest.
-- Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism
Theists Paul Hughes (http://www.apologetics.com), James Lee (http://www.apologetics.com), and Matthew Slick (http://carm.org) have offered responses to this quote.
Paul Hughes responded:
First, the context should be better understood. Shelley
wrote The Necessity of Atheism but there is disagreement
over whether he WAS an atheist. The point of the piece he
wrote while at University (it got him kicked out) was an
unbelief is necessary; I think no orthodox Christian need
disagree with that (though perhaps one might).
Second, what Shelley describes is the perfect behavior that
would logically and naturally follow if we completely knew
and did all we should -- that is, if we understood all
things, and lived every moment from that. But of course we
don't live like that. Many of the answers could be, "I
totally agree with you Mr. Shelley; we SHOULD do those
things. But we don't." What is demanded, if indeed
Shelley is demanding it (I think he isn't necessarily doing
so) is some kind of mathematical existence. It's not the
one we have.
So before going into specifics, it should be understood
that if these claims are serious -- and even if Shelley
isn't seriously making them I suppose some people would --
they are made of a world that doesn't exist. It's the idea
of saying, "My gosh, how could anyone do X!!!???" but it's
being said about HUGE existence-size things. Well, c'mon
-- obviously people can do X, can make HUGE errors, can be
wrong, etc. etc. That's how this is possible.
In addition, this is an extremely truncated perspective.
It asks how a reasonable God can be upset at X, but it
ignores that the Loving God is also sad at our sin ("Jesus
wept."). So if we're goingt to be "upset" at him not being
one way (if we can be) then we need to give him his props
for being the other way.
Another issue, generally, is the changing meaning of words
in the argument. I think there's a formal fallacy there,
actually. For instance, if we say "God is offended" then
WE think of someone being annoyed or "personally miffed" or
something. But is that what the Hebrew or Greek says? Is
that ALL or ONLY what it can mean?
In a way, though, these are good questions. I mean they
are helpful to us, and they challenge us, etc. However,
honestly, I'm certain Christians have done so for centuries
and there are likely some awesome answers out there.
The overall problem with the questions is a rationalistic
(vs rational) approach to life.
Some specific ideas:
* We only need fear Him as sinful beings -- good persons
dealing with sinful beings can produce some sparks.
* We actually should not have doubts about anything because
He is all wise; but we do have them. He knows we will.
* Our prayers do not fatigue him; He wants us to talk with
Him. Prayer is not talking, in the end -- prayer is
listening.
* The temples are for our benefit -- it helps us remember.
They are "for Him for us," so to speak.
* Grace does some things and enables others. Also, God
isn't recomnpensing us in the "transactional" sense of that
(like "do this job and I will give you a cookie."). It is
more that God has created a reality that WORKS LIKE THIS,
so when you do the right things (i.e. believe in Him, love
Him, follow Him, etc.) then the NATURAL and GOOD results
follow (the "recompense").
* Someone who is all-powerful can still be offended --
though He cannot be OVERCOME.
* It is BECAUSE he is reasonable that unreason is
reprehensible. A reasonable being should be extremely
offended by unreason -- and by unwillingness to solve the
problem of unreason. He has given them freedom, but not
the freedom to be other than what they should be. CS Lewis
has mentioned this. We are not free to be thirsty and
refuse water. That is a violation of cosmic order. We are
not "free" to be vile with impunity.
* I don't think God is immovable. But if He is, then He
could allow us to pursue changing Him FOR OUR GROWTH. For
instance, by trying and failing we would realize we can't
change Him. Or by the request we could be making ourselves
teachable, submitting to His will, etc.
* He is ultimately inconceivable, not utterly
inconceivable. We can understand some things somewhat. We
can "get it" a little. We see bits and pieces. We
understand this part and a sliver here etc. This
particular question is dumb; it's really beneath Shelley (I
hope).
* If He has spoken why is the Universe not convinced.
Actually, I would say the universe is. Some people in it
are not -- because they are stiff-necked hard-hearted
people.
* The most necessary isn't always the easiest thing (most
evident or clearest). Sometimes the most necessary is the
HARDEST thing. If it were easy, would we value it? Could
it be the most vital thing in the world and be as easy as
drowning in the ocean? Love is the most necessary thing,
but it's not the easiest. Conversely, it's easy to sin,
and it's the thing we need the LEAST of.
There are a ton of assumptions underlying these questions.
The assumptions DO NOT have to be granted.
James Lee offered the following:
As Christians, we don’t build temples. However, we do erect church buildings in order for the body of Christ to meet corporately in worship. We acknowledge that the church of Jesus Christ does not actually refer to a physical building, but to the souls of corporate body of Christ.
Besides, the early church, as well as many churches throughout the world, met in homes and not in church buildings.
If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filledwith weaknesses?
He does not punish weaknesses of humanity in general, but rather, the moral weakness which is borne out of man’s own sinful inclinations and patterns. Therefore, those of us who are in Christ should never fear punishment b/c God has, instead, clothed us w/ the righteousness of Christ and does not count our sins against us.
If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them?
B/c salvation is through God alone, but the sanctification process requires the cooperation of man and God (Hebrews 11:6, Philippians 2:12b-13).
If he is all-powerful, how offend him,how resist him?
Just b/c He is all-powerful doesn’t mean that He is overrides man’s choice to either obey Him or rebel against Him. You can disobey His wishes and act in evil. However, this does not mean that the evil act is ultimately not going to go unanswered (Romans 2:1-5).
If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind,to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable?
(Note: I guess ‘blind’ here refers to those who are spiritually depraved and does not have salvation.) Just b/c someone is spiritually blind doesn’t mean that they are not guilty. Their own sin that resides in their soul convicts them of this truth. God is angry b/c these ‘blind’ people are willfully rejecting the gospel of God and cursing it instead.
If he isimmovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees?
Whether you are a Calvinist or otherwise, you can sufficiently answer this question:
1. Calvinist’s response – b/c He commanded us to petition and pray for the burdens and issues (Philippians 4:6-7). We really don’t know how things will work out in the future, so it is presumptuous to say that we are not part of the plan where we are in fact brining up those exact prayer requests to Him and He answers them.
2. Arminian’s (Molinist’s) response – in this view, God does, in fact, genuinely change His mind, based on our deliberations. Therefore, this question is not an issue either.
If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him?
Just b/c He is incomprehensible in His entirety does not mean that He did not give man the mental faculty to apprehend some elements/attributes of His character and being. We occupy ourselves w/ Him b/c of the sheer fact that: (1) there is so much to learn about and of Him, (2) He blatantly commanded us to meditate on the doctrines taught in the Word of God, and (3) meditating on the truth of God’s Word helps us to become Christ-like in holiness and righteousness (Deuteronomy 6:1-9).
IF HE HASSPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED?
I think perhaps the universe is convinced, but man’s willful rebellion keeps him from being able to see the truth of God and to accept it (Luke 19:40, Romans 1:18-20, 8:22).
If the knowledge of a Godis the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest?
This is a subjective question, all depending upon one’s own disposition, biases, etc. (this is a subjective question...plenty of professing Christians throughout the centuries have believed that the message of the gospel is evident and clear. I believe the reason why people reject it is not b/c the message is not evident and clear, but precisely b/c it is evident and clear, and it convicts the heart of man of their sins and calls people to repent.
Matt Slick's response, found at http://www.carm.org/atheism/God_good.htm, is:
I have reproduced the paragraph and then attempted to show how the atheist complaints about God are in valid. To do this I will dissect the paragraph point by point. Here is the original paragraph.
"If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED? If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest."
Following are my responses.
1. If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him?
A. To say that God is infinitely good is somewhat misleading. I am not saying that God is not "infinitely good." But the point is that God is not only infinitely good. God is also just, righteous, holy, forgiving, gracious, and a host of other moral purities. Therefore, when addressing an issue dealing with God's behavior, if someone were to select a specific and very narrow aspect of God's character and then build an entire argument upon that "sliver of truth," then the argument that follows is not representative of what God truly is and cannot accurately represent the character and actions of God. Therefore, the argument and its conclusion are highly suspect.
Nevertheless, God is not only good. He is also righteous. He has stated that He will punish those who are unrighteous. "Thus I will punish the world for its evil,
And the wicked for their iniquity," (Isa. 13:11). Therefore, those who are unrighteous should fear God since He has the right and ability to punish.
Also, if God is infinitely good, should He not also be infinitely righteous? Isn't righteousness a good thing? Of course it is. Therefore, if God is by definition good, then He must also be righteous. Then we can ask, if anyone is unrighteous should God punish him for his unrighteousness? Would it be a good thing to let someone do bad things and not get punished? I would hope that even the atheists would realize and except the premise that people who do bad things should be punished and held responsible for their actions. If our judicial system were "infinitely good," we would have no prisons because we would have no justice.
The premise of the argument is incomplete and insufficient.
2. If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future?
A. We have doubts because that is our nature. Whether or not we doubt God is not a reflection on His trustworthiness or wisdom. It is a reflection upon our lack of character.
3. If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers?
A. It is said that prayer changes the one who is praying. Prayer is for the benefit of the one who enters into the presence of God's holiness. There is much discussion in Christian circles dealing with the interaction of our prayers and God's infinite knowledge. It is a subject far too deep for this brief paper. Suffice it to say, God ordains even our prayers in the ultimate accomplishment of His divine will. Besides, God doesn't get fatigued.
4. If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him?
A. This deals with the aspect of worship and God's call to us to worship Him in truth. Old Testament temples were a precursor to the temple of God in Christ Jesus(i.e., the incarnation) who dwelt among men, fulfilled the righteous law of God, died, was buried, and rose again for the forgiveness of the sins that men have committed against God.
Also, places of worship are often healing and emotionally fulfilling places where the worshiper can focus with other worshipers. They can be very good places.
5. If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses?
A. God did not fill them with weakness. God made them good; He did not make them weak. But in the rebellion of Adam, people sinned and are now suffering the consequences of their rebellion.
Again, this is a faulty and incomplete premise in the question.
6. If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them?
A. I am not sure what this person is saying. So I am not able to give a proper response.
7. If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him?
A. God being all-powerful does not mean that He cannot be resisted or offended. A person could stand out on a beach and resist the incoming tidal wave. But it does not mean he will have victory over it. As far as offending God goes, we do this when we break His law. His law is a reflection of His character. Do not lie, do not steal, etc. are reflections of His goodness. To break those laws is to offend his character. The offense carries a hefty punishment -- eternal damnation. But praise be to God who through Jesus Christ, has removed the wrath of God for those who trust in the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross.
8. If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable?
A. Again, his point does not really follow the premise. God can be angry at those who sin against Him. There is nothing in His reasonableness that would prevent Him from becoming upset with those who would do wrong. The liberty that we have as people to be unreasonable is a benefit of being made in His image.
9. If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees?
A. This is a weak objection. Being immovable does not deal with God's decrees. Furthermore, another error is to say we can make God change His decrees. We cannot make God do anything. His eternal decrees are made in the counsel of His own mind from all eternity which is interdependent with His omniscience. Even our desires to have God do certain things (i.e., heal someone), is known by God from all eternity, and is included in His eternal decrees. The atheists question demonstrates a lack of understanding of Christian theology dealing with the issue of God's decrees and human freedom.
10. If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him?
A. Who said that God is inconceivable? The very fact that an atheist is objecting to God's existence demonstrates that he is conceivable.
11. IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED?
A. Because there is sin in the hearts and minds of people. By the way, the universe is not sentient.
12. If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest.
A. Who said that the knowledge of God is most necessary? This is another deep subject to vast for this article (see my paper Is it God's will that all people be saved?)
It may be that the atheist asserts that we should know who God is because it is very important to know who He is if He exists. But since God justifies by faith, tells us to live by faith, and that He opposes the proud, then those who presuppose He does not exist, who challenge faith in Him, who challenge God's existence, etc., will find God opposed to them. He will not bend to their demands and arrogance to reveal Himself to them. They will be given over to the hardness of their own hearts and they will not hear Him or recognize His hand in their lives.
"God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble," (1 Pet. 5:5).
-- Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism
Theists Paul Hughes (http://www.apologetics.com), James Lee (http://www.apologetics.com), and Matthew Slick (http://carm.org) have offered responses to this quote.
Paul Hughes responded:
First, the context should be better understood. Shelley
wrote The Necessity of Atheism but there is disagreement
over whether he WAS an atheist. The point of the piece he
wrote while at University (it got him kicked out) was an
unbelief is necessary; I think no orthodox Christian need
disagree with that (though perhaps one might).
Second, what Shelley describes is the perfect behavior that
would logically and naturally follow if we completely knew
and did all we should -- that is, if we understood all
things, and lived every moment from that. But of course we
don't live like that. Many of the answers could be, "I
totally agree with you Mr. Shelley; we SHOULD do those
things. But we don't." What is demanded, if indeed
Shelley is demanding it (I think he isn't necessarily doing
so) is some kind of mathematical existence. It's not the
one we have.
So before going into specifics, it should be understood
that if these claims are serious -- and even if Shelley
isn't seriously making them I suppose some people would --
they are made of a world that doesn't exist. It's the idea
of saying, "My gosh, how could anyone do X!!!???" but it's
being said about HUGE existence-size things. Well, c'mon
-- obviously people can do X, can make HUGE errors, can be
wrong, etc. etc. That's how this is possible.
In addition, this is an extremely truncated perspective.
It asks how a reasonable God can be upset at X, but it
ignores that the Loving God is also sad at our sin ("Jesus
wept."). So if we're goingt to be "upset" at him not being
one way (if we can be) then we need to give him his props
for being the other way.
Another issue, generally, is the changing meaning of words
in the argument. I think there's a formal fallacy there,
actually. For instance, if we say "God is offended" then
WE think of someone being annoyed or "personally miffed" or
something. But is that what the Hebrew or Greek says? Is
that ALL or ONLY what it can mean?
In a way, though, these are good questions. I mean they
are helpful to us, and they challenge us, etc. However,
honestly, I'm certain Christians have done so for centuries
and there are likely some awesome answers out there.
The overall problem with the questions is a rationalistic
(vs rational) approach to life.
Some specific ideas:
* We only need fear Him as sinful beings -- good persons
dealing with sinful beings can produce some sparks.
* We actually should not have doubts about anything because
He is all wise; but we do have them. He knows we will.
* Our prayers do not fatigue him; He wants us to talk with
Him. Prayer is not talking, in the end -- prayer is
listening.
* The temples are for our benefit -- it helps us remember.
They are "for Him for us," so to speak.
* Grace does some things and enables others. Also, God
isn't recomnpensing us in the "transactional" sense of that
(like "do this job and I will give you a cookie."). It is
more that God has created a reality that WORKS LIKE THIS,
so when you do the right things (i.e. believe in Him, love
Him, follow Him, etc.) then the NATURAL and GOOD results
follow (the "recompense").
* Someone who is all-powerful can still be offended --
though He cannot be OVERCOME.
* It is BECAUSE he is reasonable that unreason is
reprehensible. A reasonable being should be extremely
offended by unreason -- and by unwillingness to solve the
problem of unreason. He has given them freedom, but not
the freedom to be other than what they should be. CS Lewis
has mentioned this. We are not free to be thirsty and
refuse water. That is a violation of cosmic order. We are
not "free" to be vile with impunity.
* I don't think God is immovable. But if He is, then He
could allow us to pursue changing Him FOR OUR GROWTH. For
instance, by trying and failing we would realize we can't
change Him. Or by the request we could be making ourselves
teachable, submitting to His will, etc.
* He is ultimately inconceivable, not utterly
inconceivable. We can understand some things somewhat. We
can "get it" a little. We see bits and pieces. We
understand this part and a sliver here etc. This
particular question is dumb; it's really beneath Shelley (I
hope).
* If He has spoken why is the Universe not convinced.
Actually, I would say the universe is. Some people in it
are not -- because they are stiff-necked hard-hearted
people.
* The most necessary isn't always the easiest thing (most
evident or clearest). Sometimes the most necessary is the
HARDEST thing. If it were easy, would we value it? Could
it be the most vital thing in the world and be as easy as
drowning in the ocean? Love is the most necessary thing,
but it's not the easiest. Conversely, it's easy to sin,
and it's the thing we need the LEAST of.
There are a ton of assumptions underlying these questions.
The assumptions DO NOT have to be granted.
James Lee offered the following:
As Christians, we don’t build temples. However, we do erect church buildings in order for the body of Christ to meet corporately in worship. We acknowledge that the church of Jesus Christ does not actually refer to a physical building, but to the souls of corporate body of Christ.
Besides, the early church, as well as many churches throughout the world, met in homes and not in church buildings.
If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filledwith weaknesses?
He does not punish weaknesses of humanity in general, but rather, the moral weakness which is borne out of man’s own sinful inclinations and patterns. Therefore, those of us who are in Christ should never fear punishment b/c God has, instead, clothed us w/ the righteousness of Christ and does not count our sins against us.
If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them?
B/c salvation is through God alone, but the sanctification process requires the cooperation of man and God (Hebrews 11:6, Philippians 2:12b-13).
If he is all-powerful, how offend him,how resist him?
Just b/c He is all-powerful doesn’t mean that He is overrides man’s choice to either obey Him or rebel against Him. You can disobey His wishes and act in evil. However, this does not mean that the evil act is ultimately not going to go unanswered (Romans 2:1-5).
If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind,to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable?
(Note: I guess ‘blind’ here refers to those who are spiritually depraved and does not have salvation.) Just b/c someone is spiritually blind doesn’t mean that they are not guilty. Their own sin that resides in their soul convicts them of this truth. God is angry b/c these ‘blind’ people are willfully rejecting the gospel of God and cursing it instead.
If he isimmovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees?
Whether you are a Calvinist or otherwise, you can sufficiently answer this question:
1. Calvinist’s response – b/c He commanded us to petition and pray for the burdens and issues (Philippians 4:6-7). We really don’t know how things will work out in the future, so it is presumptuous to say that we are not part of the plan where we are in fact brining up those exact prayer requests to Him and He answers them.
2. Arminian’s (Molinist’s) response – in this view, God does, in fact, genuinely change His mind, based on our deliberations. Therefore, this question is not an issue either.
If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him?
Just b/c He is incomprehensible in His entirety does not mean that He did not give man the mental faculty to apprehend some elements/attributes of His character and being. We occupy ourselves w/ Him b/c of the sheer fact that: (1) there is so much to learn about and of Him, (2) He blatantly commanded us to meditate on the doctrines taught in the Word of God, and (3) meditating on the truth of God’s Word helps us to become Christ-like in holiness and righteousness (Deuteronomy 6:1-9).
IF HE HASSPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED?
I think perhaps the universe is convinced, but man’s willful rebellion keeps him from being able to see the truth of God and to accept it (Luke 19:40, Romans 1:18-20, 8:22).
If the knowledge of a Godis the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest?
This is a subjective question, all depending upon one’s own disposition, biases, etc. (this is a subjective question...plenty of professing Christians throughout the centuries have believed that the message of the gospel is evident and clear. I believe the reason why people reject it is not b/c the message is not evident and clear, but precisely b/c it is evident and clear, and it convicts the heart of man of their sins and calls people to repent.
Matt Slick's response, found at http://www.carm.org/atheism/God_good.htm, is:
I have reproduced the paragraph and then attempted to show how the atheist complaints about God are in valid. To do this I will dissect the paragraph point by point. Here is the original paragraph.
"If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED? If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest."
Following are my responses.
1. If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him?
A. To say that God is infinitely good is somewhat misleading. I am not saying that God is not "infinitely good." But the point is that God is not only infinitely good. God is also just, righteous, holy, forgiving, gracious, and a host of other moral purities. Therefore, when addressing an issue dealing with God's behavior, if someone were to select a specific and very narrow aspect of God's character and then build an entire argument upon that "sliver of truth," then the argument that follows is not representative of what God truly is and cannot accurately represent the character and actions of God. Therefore, the argument and its conclusion are highly suspect.
Nevertheless, God is not only good. He is also righteous. He has stated that He will punish those who are unrighteous. "Thus I will punish the world for its evil,
And the wicked for their iniquity," (Isa. 13:11). Therefore, those who are unrighteous should fear God since He has the right and ability to punish.
Also, if God is infinitely good, should He not also be infinitely righteous? Isn't righteousness a good thing? Of course it is. Therefore, if God is by definition good, then He must also be righteous. Then we can ask, if anyone is unrighteous should God punish him for his unrighteousness? Would it be a good thing to let someone do bad things and not get punished? I would hope that even the atheists would realize and except the premise that people who do bad things should be punished and held responsible for their actions. If our judicial system were "infinitely good," we would have no prisons because we would have no justice.
The premise of the argument is incomplete and insufficient.
2. If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future?
A. We have doubts because that is our nature. Whether or not we doubt God is not a reflection on His trustworthiness or wisdom. It is a reflection upon our lack of character.
3. If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers?
A. It is said that prayer changes the one who is praying. Prayer is for the benefit of the one who enters into the presence of God's holiness. There is much discussion in Christian circles dealing with the interaction of our prayers and God's infinite knowledge. It is a subject far too deep for this brief paper. Suffice it to say, God ordains even our prayers in the ultimate accomplishment of His divine will. Besides, God doesn't get fatigued.
4. If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him?
A. This deals with the aspect of worship and God's call to us to worship Him in truth. Old Testament temples were a precursor to the temple of God in Christ Jesus(i.e., the incarnation) who dwelt among men, fulfilled the righteous law of God, died, was buried, and rose again for the forgiveness of the sins that men have committed against God.
Also, places of worship are often healing and emotionally fulfilling places where the worshiper can focus with other worshipers. They can be very good places.
5. If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses?
A. God did not fill them with weakness. God made them good; He did not make them weak. But in the rebellion of Adam, people sinned and are now suffering the consequences of their rebellion.
Again, this is a faulty and incomplete premise in the question.
6. If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them?
A. I am not sure what this person is saying. So I am not able to give a proper response.
7. If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him?
A. God being all-powerful does not mean that He cannot be resisted or offended. A person could stand out on a beach and resist the incoming tidal wave. But it does not mean he will have victory over it. As far as offending God goes, we do this when we break His law. His law is a reflection of His character. Do not lie, do not steal, etc. are reflections of His goodness. To break those laws is to offend his character. The offense carries a hefty punishment -- eternal damnation. But praise be to God who through Jesus Christ, has removed the wrath of God for those who trust in the sacrifice that Christ made on the cross.
8. If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable?
A. Again, his point does not really follow the premise. God can be angry at those who sin against Him. There is nothing in His reasonableness that would prevent Him from becoming upset with those who would do wrong. The liberty that we have as people to be unreasonable is a benefit of being made in His image.
9. If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees?
A. This is a weak objection. Being immovable does not deal with God's decrees. Furthermore, another error is to say we can make God change His decrees. We cannot make God do anything. His eternal decrees are made in the counsel of His own mind from all eternity which is interdependent with His omniscience. Even our desires to have God do certain things (i.e., heal someone), is known by God from all eternity, and is included in His eternal decrees. The atheists question demonstrates a lack of understanding of Christian theology dealing with the issue of God's decrees and human freedom.
10. If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him?
A. Who said that God is inconceivable? The very fact that an atheist is objecting to God's existence demonstrates that he is conceivable.
11. IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED?
A. Because there is sin in the hearts and minds of people. By the way, the universe is not sentient.
12. If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest.
A. Who said that the knowledge of God is most necessary? This is another deep subject to vast for this article (see my paper Is it God's will that all people be saved?)
It may be that the atheist asserts that we should know who God is because it is very important to know who He is if He exists. But since God justifies by faith, tells us to live by faith, and that He opposes the proud, then those who presuppose He does not exist, who challenge faith in Him, who challenge God's existence, etc., will find God opposed to them. He will not bend to their demands and arrogance to reveal Himself to them. They will be given over to the hardness of their own hearts and they will not hear Him or recognize His hand in their lives.
"God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble," (1 Pet. 5:5).