Their unbelief is a belief!

I’ve said many times that atheists play word games.  Specifically, they like to redefine terms in their favor.  Evolution, for example, doesn’t mean what most people think it means - “the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.”   No.  They say it means, “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”  They get really upset when you don’t use the same definitions as they do, like they’re the Word Czars or something.  

One word they have consistently redefined is atheist.  Most people define an atheist as someone who doesn’t believe in God or someone who believes there is no God.  Am I right?  However, just like the word evolution, atheists get in a huff when you don’t define atheist the same way they do.  They claim an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God.  In other words, they say they’re not trying to make any claim about the existence of God; they’re just expressing their lack of belief in Him.  Hmmm.  Something about that doesn’t sound right.

First, there’s already a word to describe when people are unsure about the existence of God; it’s called agnosticism.  How is the atheists’ twisted definition of atheism substantially different from agnosticism?  There must be a reason they prefer using such a vague definition rather than adopting the already existing term.  I’ve asked many and they usually try to draw the distinction that agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God cannot be known, while they simply lack a belief that He exists.  It sounds like a case of splitting hairs.  

When people resort to equivocating over the meanings of words, they begin to open themselves up to contradiction.  Do they know God doesn’t exist?  Do they only think He doesn’t exist?  Do they admit He might exist?  Why do they object when people say He does exist?  You can see the difficulty with their position.  They want to attack theism without having to defend their position.

Frank Turek has used this analogy to expose the weakness of the modern definition of atheism: There are two detectives investigating a murder.  There are fingerprints, DNA, and a murder weapon that all point to one suspect.  Detective A is certain the suspect is guilty.  Detective B looks at the same facts and says he doesn’t believe the suspect is guilty.  So Detective A asks, “Then what about the gun, the blood, the fingerprints, and all the other evidence?  How do you explain all that?”  Detective B only replies, “I don’t have to explain it.  I just don’t believe it’s him.”  

I know it’s not a perfect analogy, but do you see the comparison?  You can show an atheist all the evidence we have for God: we can discuss the historical certainty of Jesus, we can point to the ontological necessity of a supernatural First Cause, we can appeal to the existence of absolute morality, and the atheist can just sit cross armed saying, “That’s not enough.”  He offers no rebuttal, he doesn’t concede an inch, he simply just doesn’t believe.  In the case of the detectives, there is a dead body and there is evidence that points to one suspect; why should we not consider what is possibly the most likely explanation?  Likewise, why should we deny the plausible explanation that God created everything and default to the incredible belief that nothing created everything?

Psalm 19:1 says, The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.  When I look at the starry night and see the grandeur of the universe, I consider its complexity, design, and beauty.  Knowing that God created it doesn’t end scientific inquiry; rather it makes me wonder more.  It tells me something about God.  I understand the cause of the universe must be something outside of the universe, something “supernatural” by definition.  God is the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover that Aristotle argued must exist.  He must be greater than all burning stars.  He must be eternal and timeless, to have created time.  He must be omniscient and personal, to have created the mind and consciousness.  Knowing God exists helps me to make sense of the universe.

Everyone has a worldview.  There is a method by which we see the world and make sense of it.  For someone to deny that God is behind the universe, he must necessarily believe that nature is all there is.  They may claim they don’t believe God created everything, but they don’t have any alternative explanation.  They must necessarily believe in some other “undivine” creator.  They may claim God isn’t the moral Lawgiver, but they must have some basis to believe something is right or wrong.  They acknowledge how things are but will not consider why they are.  When they do consider how and why anything exists, they intentionally ignore what could be the most likely explanation. 

The problem for the atheists is their disbelief is actually their belief.   They pretend to be blank slates looking at the evidence but are committed to naturalism.  They somehow think it’s more intellectual to assume nothing created everything than God having created everything.  

In closing, read these telling words of Richard Lewontin:

Evolutionists ... have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Dan Barker’s Free Will Argument for the Nonexistence of God (FANG)

Dan Barker is a former evangelical, Christian preacher turned zealous atheist. He and his wife, Annie Gaylor, co-preside over the activist atheist group, Freedom From Religion. He also spends a lot of time debating Christians. By the way, in his own words, his apostasy began with a rejection of a historical Adam & Eve and his embracing of evolution – but that will have to be the subject of another post.

Barker has put forward an argument against the existence of God that he calls the Free Will Argument for the Nonexistence of God (which he identifies with the acronym FANG).  I’ve heard other people use this argument but they always give credit to Barker.  I’ve also seen Christian apologists respond to the argument who claim to be responding to “Barker’s” argument.  I've heard similar types of arguments but I’m going to say this particular argument is originally his.

Instead of just saying what his argument is, I’ll cite his own words (source):

The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no “state of uncertainty.” It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Barker’s argument reminds me a little of the Omnipotence Paradox people sometimes use to argue that God cannot exist. In that case, critics ask, “Can God make a rock so big that He can't lift it?”  The answer is either yes or no but, either way, it would mean there is something God cannot do so, therefore, an omnipotent God cannot exist. Barker's argument is very much along the same lines and could be described as an Omniscience Paradox. At the end of the day, it's simply another gimmick of logic.

His argument is a tangle of logical fallacies that I’m going to have to sort out.  There’s a straw man, mixed with equivocation, tied up with a non sequitur.  I’ll break them all down here.

Let’s start with the straw man.  Barker said, “The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.”  First, if we had to define God, I doubt any Christian would start with, “a personal being who knows everything.”  Certainly, God is omniscient but that is an attribute of God - not necessarily a defining characteristic.  Also, the term “personal being” is somewhat vague.  I mean humans are personal beings, too, but obviously God is not like a human being.  Furthermore, there is much debate about whether or not humans have free will but I’ll talk about that more in a minute.  

You can already see how Barker is setting up his straw man.  He’s telling us how Christians define God and what we think about free will.  Tsk, tsk.  Since when does an atheist get to say what Christians think of God?  This is also where Barker also starts to equivocate, by changing the definition of God.

Barker continues equivocating by changing the definition of “free will.”  The Cambridge Dictionary defines free will as: the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence.  That certainly applies to God.  He is free to act any way He decides and no one or no thing can affect what He purposes.  But according to Barker, “In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future.”  Since when does free will hinge upon not knowing the outcome?  If I jump off a bridge, I’m pretty sure what the outcome would be.  I would still have the choice to jump or not.

Free will is a notoriously thorny subject. One might even ask if humans have free will; Indeed, many have asked that question for centuries. We may have choices but we have little say in the consequences. I could choose not to eat, for example, but then I couldn't choose not to be hungry. I could choose not to breathe, but then I couldn't choose to keep living. 

Sometimes life seems like a game of chess that we’re playing against a better opponent. We might think we are deciding which pieces to move but our decisions are only unavoidable responses to the better moves the other player is making. The game we think we're playing is really the game he is playing and we continuously have fewer and fewer choices until, finally, we have no choices. Checkmate!

As we live day to day, it may seem at any moment like we are free to choose from a near infinite number possibilities, but the consequences of each decision continuously restricts the number of our future options. I could decide to walk to work instead of driving. However, walking takes longer so the decision to walk affects what time I decide to get up in the morning or whether I decide to get to work on time. Do you see what I mean? My future choices are the victims of the consequences of my present choices.

This applies to the theological realm as well.  If God is sovereign, then perhaps I cannot choose to believe or deny Him. Perhaps everything I do is as He has commanded and I can do nothing by my own will.  This debate has raged between Calvinists and Arminians and is outside the scope of this post. Regardless, Barker fails to see how this is a problem for his argument. He is hoisted upon his own petard, if you will, because if humans do not have free will, how is that an argument for their non-existence?  This is where Barker’s argument becomes totally non sequitur.  

If you think about it, it's rather ridiculous to argue that free will must mean making a decision without knowing anything about the outcome.  Barker is essentially saying that since God knows the future, He cannot exist.  What?  Let's reduce this to the absurd: do rocks have free will?  Do rocks exist?  It's rather obvious that free will is not a condition of existence yet that is what Barker argues!

Consider this passage from Isaiah:

Isaiah 46:9-11, Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

The Bible attests that God knows the future. Let me rephrase that: God brings to pass those things He has already purposed. It's not a prediction as though God's some kind of psychic.  He has and has always had the ability to make things any way He wanted and He made them this way. According to Barker, that's proof He doesn't exist. //RKBentley shakes his head//  

Here's a Bible quiz. See if you can identify who is being discussed in this verse:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2)

Hmm... a Ruler born in Bethlehem whose going forth has been from eternity. Who could that be? Pretty easy, huh? Let's look at another passage:

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)

Still too easy? Here's one more:

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.. (Psalm 22:16-18)

Did you have any trouble identifying the subject of any of those verses? Probably not. It's not hard to identify that it's Jesus who is being discussed in each passage. However, there's something very interesting about these verses that critics of the Bible seldom stop to consider. All of these passages are taken from the Old Testament! These passages that so clearly discuss accurate details of His birth, His passion, and His death, were written hundreds of years before the events actually occurred. Furthermore, these are but a handful of the dozens of Old Testament passages that I could have cited.

Once a thing that God has proclaimed comes to pass, it reveals the sovereignty and authority of God. When Jesus came and fulfilled the prophecies spoken about Him centuries earlier, it established His status as the Messiah. It proved that God is the sovereign Lord of the universe. It proved the things spoken by the prophets were true. It proved the Bible is the word of God.  Knowing the future isn’t an argument that God cannot exist!  Good grief!!  If anything, it proves He exists!

To all the critics who read my blog, let me ask you something: do you deny that the Bible is the word of God? You probably do – otherwise you'd likely be a believer. Even still, you have to admit that what the Lord spoke about Jesus centuries in advance, came to pass in exactly the same way He spoke it. It's proof that He is God and that the Bible is His word. If you're still not convinced, then let me ask you this: when you read the above passages, didn't you think they were talking about Jesus? You can deny it if you'd like but I know you did!

Eternal universe? I’m still not convinced!

I seem to have struck a nerve with a few unbelievers on X.com with my last post (here).  I had given five problems in believing the universe is eternally old and some critics tried to explain why I was wrong.  One skeptic in particular made a brief rebuttal to each point.  Other skeptics chimed in with similar thoughts.  

I don’t normally engage skeptics too much on social media.  It seems like once it starts, it’s hard to end the conversation and it ends up consuming all my time.  Instead, I thought I’d take some of their comments and address them here, in a new post.  Maybe they’ll leave future comments on my blog.

Before getting into their comments, one thing that struck me is that, by criticizing my arguments against an infinitely old universe, I can only assume they are tacitly admitting that the universe is infinitely old.  Once upon a time, some people believed in the Steady State Theory of the universe.  Explainingscience.org describes the theory this way:

[F]or a while the Steady State theory was very popular. This theory was developed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), Herman Bondi (1919-2005) and Thomas Gold (1920-2004) as an alternative to the Big Bang to explain the origin and expansion of the Universe. At the heart of the Steady State theory is the Perfect Cosmological Principle. This states that the Universe is infinite in extent, infinitely old and, taken as a whole, it is the same in all directions and at all times in the past and at all times in the future.  In other words, the Universe doesn’t evolve or change over time.

We see that the Steady State Theory is an alternative to the Big Bang.  It’s not especially popular anymore and the Big Bang Theory is now the most widely accepted origin story in the secular science community.  Holders to the Steady State Theory are definitely the minority and could be described as fringe.  So, as I read the comments attempting to rebut my five points, I had to ask myself, do these people really believe in an infinitely old universe?  I doubt the critics commenting on my X thread really endorse the Steady State Theory.  I think, instead, they were simply disagreeing with a creationist without realizing they essentially agree with all my points.  Oh the irony!!

The primary critic posting on my thread goes by the handle God Fodder (@PeteAlonSoCrazy).  In his bio is the hash tag, #Atheism, which leads me to believe maybe there’s a bias there.  No worries; I have a bias too.  It’s just nice to know his frame of mind as I read his arguments.  I’m using his points to outline my rebuttal.  

To be fair, due to character limits on X, God Fodder had to keep his rebuttals to a few sentences.  I think he made his points fairly well and I think it’s obvious what he was getting at with all of them.  However, if had been able to write longer responses, he might have made better arguments.  But, these are all I have so they are what I have to work with.

Are we ready, then?  Let’s look at some of the comments.  I will note my points with RKB and his response with GF:

RKB: 1. It's not scientific.

GF: Yes because the origin of the universe is UNKNOWN. God is in the same boat. Not an argument against it.

OK, so on point #1 we are in agreement.  Claiming the universe is eternally old is a faith statement not unlike a religious dogma.  I’ve written before about how some things in science rely on faith and how scientism is a danger to science.  

My pointing out the faith-like assumptions behind believing the universe is infinitely old is meant to disqualify it from being scientific.  People only cling to it because they don’t want to believe in an Eternal Creator.  In a real sense, they are merely using their faith to attack my faith.

By the way, GF also has contradicted an oft used criticism of creationism.  Creationists are often told that creation can’t be true because it’s not scientific!!  So I agree with GF -  just because something isn’t scientific isn’t sufficient to prove it’s not true.

RKB: Entropy

GF: Without knowing the cause of the Big Bang causes this is complete guesswork.  Let me guess, entropy magically does not apply to god? Why?

GF is employing a sort of “you too” response as though it excuses him from explaining why the universe isn’t already in total entropy.  It seems, to me, a tacit admission that an enterally old universe should have reached entropy already but, since God hasn’t reached entropy, then it doesn’t matter.  //RKBentley scratches his head// 

There is nothing in this response - not one thing - that attempts to explain how energy could be eternally old without having reached heat death.  Let me remind the readers, too, that claiming the universe is infinitely old yet still has usable energy is to admit that perpetual motion exists!

Concerning God, entropy is a property of the universe.  It’s an observed part of nature.  God, by definition, is supernatural so I don’t expect the things of nature to apply to Him.  This is like saying, “How could Jesus walk on water?  Does gravity or buoyancy magically not apply to Him?”  

RKB: Time

GF: How does an eternal consciousness experience time?  Eternal god has just as many issues if not more.

More “you too.”  Sigh.  God does not experience time.  Psalm 90:4 tells us of the Lord, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”  

Time is a property of the universe.  We experience time.  Since God is transcendent and supernatural, therefore, there’s no reason to believe He experiences time like us.  

Again, there’s no rebuttal here.  The inescapable conclusion of the Steady State Theory is that we have arrived here after infinity has already passed!

RKB: Universe is expanding.

GF: So what? It could be in a cycle or big bangs could be repeated.  Why would a god make an expanding universe?  What’s the point?

I see a lot of things wrong with GF’s response.  First, a cycle of bang-crunch-bang-crunch universes is another faith statement (see point #1).  There is no scientific evidence to support it.

Next, this flies in the face of entropy (see point #2).  Imagine a spring that continuously springs out, then contracts again - infinitely!  What, it never runs out of energy?  It’s perpetual motion all over again.

Finally, what about Aristotle’s “First Cause” argument?  GF is simply invoking an infinite regress of bang-crunch events with nothing to start the chain.  It’s turtles all the way down to him!

RKB: Bible

GF: Who care what an ancient story book says?  

Really bad reasoning here.

There are billions of people in the world who care very much about what the Bible says.  Why do you think the Bible is still so popular after more than 2,000 years?  

I believe the Bible for the same reasons I believe anything - I’m convinced that it’s true.  There are myriad reasons I believe it’s true but I’ll have to save that discussion for another time.  To ignore the Bible in favor of a theory that makes literally no sense would indeed be “really bad reasoning”!

Earth Day?

Today is Earth Day.  Oh brother!  According to Wikipedia, “Earth Day is an annual event on April 22 to demonstrate support for environmental protection.”  That sounds all well and good but I’ve noticed that since its inception in 1970, it’s morphed into a cult-like worship of “Mother nature” and leftist causes. Some sites brag that it’s recognized in 192 countries and that it’s the largest secular holiday in the world.  Hmm, I’d have to think about that one.  Most of the world lives in crushing poverty so I’m not sure how many people outside of developed countries even know the event is happening.  Inside the US, I'm sure it ranks well behind Halloween, Independence Day, and probably even Cinco de Mayo in celebrated secular holidays. 

In the infancy of Earth Day, back in the 70s, the focus was on “overpopulation.” It was feared that the earth did not have enough resources to support the three billion or so people who lived in the world back then so an early objective of Earth Day was to push for zero population growth. The idea of having children was booed by environmental advocates. Paul Erlich, author of The Population Bomb and an early champion of Earth Day made these radical statements:

“[T]he first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” [The Population Bomb, pp. 130-131]

Of course, abortion was also one of the big issues of the 70s and liberals used population control as another reason to support their argument to allow abortion. Thus, the left has also used Earth Day to defend their pro-abortion position. Liberals often defend their radical agendas by saying, “it's for the children.” In the case of abortion, that doesn't quite have the same effect so they instead said, “it's for the planet.”

And I can't resist mentioning the evolutionary connection to Earth Day. A few years back, I posted this Oakland Zoo quote about their Earth Day celebration:

Bring the whole family out to the Oakland Zoo… for Earth Day 2009 Festivities! This year, the theme is "We're All Connected." All of the world is connected in a beautiful web of life, including you!

Today, Earth Day is all about climate change and the environment.  Consider this excerpt from a USA Today article about today’s event:

For the 55th year, the world is using the day to celebrate Mother Nature and the wonderful planet we live on.

"Earth Day really is a symbol of the environmental movement," Sarah Davies, the director of communications and media at EarthDay.org, told USA TODAY. "You know, it started back in 1970 under President Nixon, which is always kind of amazing to think about."

Earth Day has always been a day that acknowledges our planet, which provides for us, and ways we can protect and preserve its beauty.

 

Seriously?  We’re supposed to “celebrate Mother Nature”?  Our planet provides for us?  Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for appreciating the Earth’s environment. But there’s a fine line between appreciation and adoration and I fear too many people blur the distinction.

Let me remind Christians about our role in the world and God’s plan for us. And let me be clear about Who we're celebrating!

First, we are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26). We’re different from the animals. When God made Adam, he wasn’t like the beasts or the birds; he was in the image of God. When God made Eve, Adam at last saw someone like himself. Upon seeing Eve he exclaimed, “This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23). But some celebrants of earth day don’t draw the line between humans and animals

Another commandment God gave to Adam and Eve is to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28). He gave this same command to Noah and his family after they left the Ark (Genesis 9:1). Procreation is a blessed event that God encourages within marriage.  

Still another thing that bothers me about Earth Day is the misguided notion that it’s somehow noble to leave the environment untouched. Don’t get me wrong, I believe we should be good stewards over the environment; but don’t forget that God said, “Let them [men and women] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26).  God is our Provider, not “mother nature.”  And He gave us the earth to be of service to us - not the other way around!

Finally, I’m a little uneasy with the whole “nature worship” that seems to go on this day. Romans 1:25 talks about how people, “worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.” I remind you of the dreadful day of the Lord discussed in 2 Peter 3:10:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

This earth and everything in it is going to pass away. While we’re here, don’t pollute, act responsibly, and let’s be good stewards over what God has given us. Beyond that, don’t get too caught up with this “Earth Day” craze. I believe it focuses on all the wrong things.

Be thou exalted, O God, above the heavens: and thy glory above all the earth; (Psalm 108:5)