Strong Delusion

In his work, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins asserts that belief in God qualifies as a delusion: a fixed false belief which persists in light of conflicting evidence. Atheists often exude this conviction, that any belief in God is blind superstition, confident that science, logic and reason are entirely on their side.

When we’re at fault, we may find ourselves projecting our own error upon others, and then judging them mercilessly. (Rom 2:1) We find it so with many atheists, Dawkins being typical.

Just how difficult is it to prove God exists? If we’re honest with the facts, it’s relatively simple.

Consider the claim of the late Stephen Hawking, that there are only two possibilities for the origin of the universe: Either [P1] God created it ex nihilo, or [P2] The laws of physics did.

Being a committed atheist, Hawking chooses P2, positing that the laws of physics exist as creative forces independent of Nature. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” he writes. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”

The obvious flaw in P2 is that the laws of physics actually don’t exist: they are not creative forces, merely abstract concepts describing patterns we consistently observe in Nature. So, P2 is a delusion in the proper sense of the word: a claim explicitly contrary to science.

However, Hawking is so confident in P2 that he offers no third possibility. So, in his inestimable brilliance, Hawking leaves us with a very simple choice: Deity, or Delusion. He sides with Delusion; anything but Deity, no matter how absurd. This is atheism, at its very best.

Perhaps the following are the only plausible responses.

[R1] Hawking is no expert in this field and should not be trusted. This is easily dismissed; Hawking was an eminently reliable authority, knowing the valid options on origins and distilling them for us.

[R2] The above misrepresents Hawking’s claim. Also easily refuted with commonly available facts.

[R3] Fall back on “God of the gaps” (GOTG), and assert that P2 is a valid choice, merely one scientists can’t fully support just yet. The problem here is that GOTG is reasonable only when bridging the “gap” in question does not require contradicting all known science. Claiming we might eventually discover how something which does not exist could create everything which does exist – ex nihilo, from NOTHING — does contradict all we know from science. In this case, GOTG isn’t an argument; it’s a cop out, a refusal to consider any evidence for God at all. (Ro 1:20)

[R4] Ignore the proof and continue in willful blindness.

[R5] Admit atheism is irrational.

If we have already presumed there can’t be a god then we must confidently choose P2, and never P1, no matter what the data say. Though the heavens declare the glory of God (Ps 19:1), our presupposition blinds us to the obvious. This is the essence of delusion.

God will eventually send strong delusion upon all who don’t love the truth. (2Th 2:11-12) There may be thousands of poorly framed arguments for the existence of God, but this is not one of them. It only takes one to convince the honest soul. What say you: Deity or Delusion?

articles    blog

Thou, LORD, Hast Done It

Evidence for the existence of God is found in what He’s done, things no one else could possibly do. (Ps 109:27) It’s based on the Law of Cause and Effect; that every effect, everything that happens, has a cause. If the cause can’t be natural, then it must be supernatural: God must be the Cause.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, the primary way of establishing the existence of God (Ro 1:20-21), is based on this law:

  1. Everything that comes into being has a cause.
  2. The universe came into being.
  3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Premise 1 is merely a restatement of the Law of Cause and Effect, which forms the basis of all scientific inquiry. We presuppose it whenever we’re trying to understand something natural. When we’re being honest, we never suppose something just is, that it’s causeless. We instinctively ask Why? looking for the cause. People only deny this law when they’re biased, averse to the implications – and there’s just one scenario like this: when the Cause is God. We find the idea absurd otherwise; it opposes science itself.

Premise 2 is true because if Nature (i.e. everything that is natural) is infinitely old then it would be at steady state with no usable energy (due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), and it’s not. Since Nature is not infinitely old, it must have come into being.

So, the universe, or Nature, the entire space-time continuum, came into being; therefore it had a cause. Nature could not have caused itself since effects must be distinct from their causes; the cause of all of Nature must therefore be distinct from and separate from all of Nature. Thus the cause of Nature cannot be natural; it must be non-physical, beyond space and time: spiritual, supernatural. We call this supernatural, spiritual Cause of Nature: God.

writings    posts

Choose Life

God frequently tells us to be careful in our choices (De_30:19) because they have consequences. (Ga_6:7) He asserts that we have a will, that we are conscious, and that we have a responsibility to choose the good and refuse the evil. (Is_7:15) There is a moral law, and we violate it at our peril.

To all of us, each and every one of us, this is self-evident, that we have the ability to make choices: that we are conscious and aware of the options of both good and evil choices before us, and that we have an obligation to make good choices.

Atheism, however, asserts that only matter and energy exist, and that matter and energy are not conscious. This implies there is no consciousness, thus no free choice, and no good or evil. This implies that our perception of free will and moral choice is merely an illusion in our brains, implying that we are no more than mechanical robots, programmed by evolution to act as we do. Atheists assert this because it is implied by atheism, not because there is any actual evidence for it.

Even Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle does not provide for conscious, moral choice; it only provides for the possibility of random, unconscious, amoral behavior.

When accepting proposition A implies conclusion B, and B is false, we know from the logical contrapositive that A is also false. This is called proof by contradiction. In other words, the fact that atheism implies we are not conscious, and that we make no voluntary choices, and that there is no moral reality, conclusions which we know by experience to be false, proves that atheism is false.

It is true that while we are alive in our body we are intimately linked with our brains, which operate with chemicals and electricity, but we are not merely our brains: we are more than bodies. We live through our bodies and think through our brains, but our thoughts are not merely impulses in our brains any more than we are merely our bodies. In other words, we are intimately connected with Nature, but we are not merely of Nature: we are eternal, made in God’s image.

Our ability to think and to choose, to understand Nature, something Nature by itself cannot do, proves we are above Nature, that we exist outside of and apart from Nature, such that we can look at Nature as an outside observer. This is the foundation of epistemology, the science of knowledge, that enables us to perceive, understand and know the living God, and the universe He created.

writings    blog

Oppositions of Science

One of the most important tools God gives us in our search for truth is the scientific method: observing natural events, looking for causal relationships by creating models or ideas about how and why things are the way they are, and testing these models rigorously to see if they adequately describe reality. He tells us that real science will never oppose His truth, since He’s the Author of it all, and that if we accept any kind of false science we err in our faith. (1Ti 6:20-21)

OrionNebula
Orion Nebula: César Blanco González

Yet too many of us are content to believe whatever we’re told, afraid to question and explore. It leaves us prone to error and superstition, and moves those who do intelligently explore our world to dismiss our witness of the rest of God’s truth and promote a false science.

False science is rooted in lies; it’s promoted by those who oppose the truth through bias and dishonesty, dismissing facts which don’t align with their view. Rather than considering all facts with integrity, the wicked blindly assert their view and deny the facts, only looking for explanations which suit their bias, no matter how ridiculous.

Freedom from false science is found only in the love of truth. (2Th 2:10) Whether challenging evolution (finding it void of scientific foundation), atheism, climate change, sexual perversion, or the shape of our Earth (it can’t be flat), we need to do our homework and be honest. We should always be ready to give a humble, informed, confident answer to anyone who asks us why we believe the way we do. (1Pe 3:15) It’s the only way to maintain a sound mind, and walk with God.

articles      blog

There Is No God?

Are we intimidated by atheistic claims that God is dead, that evolution is proven science? Do we hesitate to explore the facts, worried we might lose our faith? Are we afraid of being disdained as ignorant and superstitious?

Small-Magellanic-Cloud
Hubble: Small Magellanic Cloud

Scripture asserts that atheists are foolish and corrupt (Ps 53:1), implying God is easily found. Yet who can show this from facts and reason? Are we missing the obvious?

Here’s a 3-step proof that atheists are as God claims, from easily understood and readily verifiable facts:
[1] Establish atheists’ burden of proof; then prove atheism is unprovable.
[2] Establish atheists’ foolishness: Pascal’s Wager vs absurdity.
[3] Consider Moral Law: it transcends Nature, implying metaphysical reality.

Q.E.D. Done. Let’s talk: what’ve I missed?

articles      blog