The New Atheists are Not Intellectually Bright

The Golden Ticket

In a debate with J.P. Moreland, agnostic, Clancy Martin, described Pascal's Wager as a golden ticket, if the Christian claim turns out to be a reality in the end. Jesus, boldly makes the same claim about himself (John 14:6). Not only does Jesus claim to be the exclusive way, but individuals after Jesus claimed the same (Acts 4:12).

As we approach the time where people celebrate the birth of Jesus worldwide, the question has to be asked, "Why?" The reason for such a universal celebration is the belief that Jesus himself, is in fact, the golden ticket of salvation. Prophesies exist to confirm the announced birth of Jesus (Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:2-7). The prophet Isaiah tells us concerning Jesus, "The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of deep darkness a light has dawned (vs. 2)." Again Isaiah proclaims about Jesus, "You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy (vs. 3)." Still again in the ninth chapter we find, "Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end (vs. 7)." Not only is Jesus prophesied about, but he is said to be the Savior, who will bring light, joy, and peace to a dark and dying world.

We see joy and light in the magi as they approach the infant Jesus , "When they saw the star, they were overjoyed (Matthew 2:10)." Why were the magi so happy about the star? Because the star represented the light of a long promised salvation. In the physical light, the spiritual light of God's love is realized, causing the magi to have overwhelming joy.

Peace is also found in the coming of the Christ child. The angels announced, "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests (Luke 2:14)."

The birth of Jesus represents the light of salvation, and the promise of his eternal peace and joy. Jesus claimed that he was the golden ticket of peace and joy. Before ascending back to the father Jesus told his disciples," I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy (John 16:22)." Also, Jesus told his followers, "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world (John 16:33)."

Pascal's Wager by no means is a proof or argument for the existence of God or the Christian worldview. The wager is solely that, a wager. Christianity does not bank on any one argument, but on the cumulative evidence that Jesus was the long promised Messiah. Christianity has withstood 2000 years of ridicule, and yet the world has not show the falsity of its worldview. In fact, Christianity invites testing (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21). If the Christian story of the birth of Jesus is true, it is not only the golden ticket of salvation, but the joy and peace that passes all understanding has dawned, and the greatest gift ever presented to humanity came in the form of a baby named Jesus.

• Debate between Clancy Martin and J.P. Moreland over the existence of the Christian God
  

The absurdity of chance beginning

I encourage everyone to read a post by Joe Carter (click link below) titled, "When Nothing Created Everything." Joe weaves a narrative that speaks to the scientific absurdity of nothing creating everything, which is supported by Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and others. It seems the more scientific discoveries that are made, the more the evidence points towards God's fingerprint, and not to a chance beginning.

One of the dangers of this type of thinking is that life is ultimately meaningless and no one has self worth. The truly scary realization of this is what kind of world would ensue if the masses of people adopted this philosophy? As Nietzsche eloquently stated not so long ago, ""Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him." [1] Ultimatly, a life from nothing means that life is worth nothing.

[1] Nietzche's, The Parable of the Madman

• Joe Carter's blog, When Nothing Created Everything
  
• Joe Carter's blog site, First Things

The Hype Over Stephen Hawking's "The Grand Design"

In this short audio, Dr. Craig address problems with Dr. Hawking's recent comments that the universe created itself.

What is the "multiverse" theory?

This video talks briefly about the Multi-Universe theory, and highlights the philosophical aim of those who espouse this unscientific belief.

Taking the negative view

Atheism and skepticism have nothing to offer when it comes to evidence, but they do have plenty to say contra theism and the Christian worldview. In fact, skeptics can't say anything of note, so why should they be taken seriously? Skepticism is self defeating as a worldview, because the battle cry of skepticism (It is true that we need to be skeptical) espouses nothing more than relativism.

What about atheism? Again atheism offers no positive reasons why one should believe in the non-existence of God. Atheistic arguments always seem to take the negative view against theism or Christianity. About the only argument that atheism has is the argument from evil, but even this argument fails to show the non-existence of God, because recognizing evil means there must be a moral law. Evil points out that this world is not the way it is suppose to be. The most damaging part of the argument from evil is how to reconcile evil with an all-powerful and omni-benevolent God, but again this does not show that God does not exist.

What about the Christian worldview, does it offer positive evidence for its view? On the Christian world view a positive cumulative case can be made for the existence of God and the truthfulness of Christianity. Various arguments concerning the existence of God can be given such as: the Kalam cosmological argument, the design arguments (moral, mind, biological, astronomical), and revelation. All of these arguments placed together are pieces of a puzzle that reveal a positive case for God's existence. The late Anthony Flew stated that the cumulative argument can't be sustained if one of the arguments is flawed. He compared the cumulative approach to a leaky bucket; all you need is one leak to drain the bucket. However, it was a design argument (DNA information) that convinced Flew to change from atheism to theism. The cumulative approach brings many arguments together that support one another in order to show that theism is the most rational approach.

Like the cumulative approach for theism, the historicity of the Christian worldview offers cumulative evidence to show it is the most logical view. The cumulative evidence of Christianity rests on the person of Jesus. As Paul stated in his letter to the Corinthians, " If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God (1 Cor. 15:14-15)." The evidence rests primarily on the person of Jesus and his resurrection, which includes: prophesy, secular writings along with the gospel narratives, the empty tomb, the women as the first witnesses of Jesus, the resurrection occurring in Jerusalem, the post-mortem appearances, and the changed lives of the disciples.

Atheism and skepticism can present no positive case for their worldview, only the negative tearing away at theism or Christianity. Part of the problem with these worldviews is that they rely too heavily upon a Humeian system of proof. The late atheist, David Hume, set the bar way to high for anything that could even be considered as truth. In fact, his own standard of absolute, 100% proof, can not be sustained to show that his view of what should count for truth should be accepted. Much like David Hume's reasoning, atheism and skepticism attacks theism and Christianity in such a way they do not have to justify.

Atheism and skepticism are forced to take the negative view, because meaninglessness is ultimately what they are arguing for. As C.S. Lewis rightly pointed out, "Atheism turn out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."[1] Taking the negative view does nothing to advance one's cause, and yet, this is exactly the approach of both the atheist and skeptic.

[1] Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, p. 46

• For a detailed article on "Hume and a cumulative case argument", by Doug Geivett - click here

The quest for a chance beginning

According to recent findings, scientist's have found bacteria that feeds on arsenic for the purpose of photosynthesis. This represents a breakthrough discovery, because if this can occur on earth, why not on Titan, which is a moon of Saturn, or other places in the universe? The conclusion of this recent finding is that life is no longer unique to earth. For those who espouse a naturalistic view of science the implication is, life can evolve by chance processes alone. One of the angles that the naturalist would take is that God is not necessary anymore, for life will find a way.

One of the big illusions of naturalism is its handicapping of possible truth. If supernaturalism is ruled out a priori, then the possibility of truth may be lost if anything is supernaturally caused. In this case with the discovery of bacteria, it must be assumed by naturalistic science that it came to be by a chance creative process. Another problem arises when the naturalist takes the position that life comes into being by a chance process, but how does he know this? What evidence can be given to show this is the most logical view? How does he know this bacteria was not created supernaturally in the past? When naturalism jumps to this conclusion, the the jump is merely a jump of faith.

Further problems exist when the assumption is made that because bacterial life can possibly form outside of earth, Darwinian evolution must be true. Several questions need to be addressed for life to even start and evolve. For example, How did something come from nothing? If you have chance creation of the universe, then how did the living arise from non-living material? How did the first DNA chains arise by chance? These questions have to be addressed first, but naturalistic science assumes not just chance evolution, but that conscious beings can evolve by a random chance processes.

What the naturalist does not want to address is explaining these fundamental questions to chance life beginnings. The reason why these questions are not addressed is because there is no way to show that life arose by chance. Science can never test this, but that doesn't not seem to slow the advocates of a purely naturalistic ideology. If naturalistic science claims that this discovery proves Darwinian evolution, they are swimming in the water of preconceived, philosophical, pseudoscience. If naturalism is crowned the champion of truth based upon this discovery, then the science of the gaps is inserted and real truth has been deleted.

• Article of NASA's findings