Enraging the Dragon

A woman, clothed with the sun, with the moon at her feet - another sign - an enormous red dragon
Is using the Big Bang to support creation a good idea? No – Better to enrage the dragon, than God 
A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun…
…Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon Rev 12.1,3
 

I’ve noticed a number of Christians – including some well known defenders of the faith[1] – like to use the Big Bang as a way to ease a  scientifically minded culture into belief in God since the Big Bang theory requires you believe that 1) the universe began 2) a  finite amount of time ago, at a point in time, 3) out of nothing – just like the bible says.  That leaves a perfect opening to  present the Kalam cosmological argument which, briefly stated, says:

1. Anything that begins to exist has a creator
2. The Universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe had a creator

The Christian apologists then endeavor to show why the required creator is the God of the Judeo-Christian bible. So it’s easy to see the appeal of the argument, but it’s always seemed to me like a bad idea. Initially, I  was going to use this article to go through the various reasons why the big bang is untenable, and Christians especially shouldn’t  be relying on it to persuade people. Things like a required belief in 1) Cosmic Inflation, 2) a 13.9 billion year old universe 3)  The scientific belief in a self caused “singularity” that defies the laws of physics. But I’ll save a discussion over those issues for another time.[2]

Instead, I’ll give two reasons why using such an approach is a bad idea for Christians.

Why using the Big Bang to “prove” God’s existence is a bad idea.
Continue Reading

Denying the Obvious

Boeing 747 Intercontinental

Boeing 747 Intercontinental

Those who can’t see the design behind clearly designed things such as a 747 or a human cell are denying the obvious.

In his critique of Stephen Hawking’s “Grand Design”, John Lennox writes:

“…after disparaging philosophy, he then proceeds to engage in it. For, insofar as he is interpreting and applying science to ultimate questions  like the existence of God, Hawking is doing metaphysics. Now, let us be clear, I do not fault him for doing that; I shall be engaging in metaphysics  all through this book. My concern is that he does not seem to recognize this.”1

Stephen Hawking is not the only atheist who doesn’t realize he’s engaging in metaphysics by dealing with questions of God. And  that is not the only truth atheists fail to recognize. As I demonstrate below, many have a problem acknowledging that they are working not from scientific  fact, but from deeply held belief. Lennox is not the first to point out obvious errors to someone who refuses to acknowledge it.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Mat 7:3 NIV)    

With these words Jesus advises careful and close self examination to avoid not only the charge of  hypocrisy, but this current  issue of self denial. After all one can hardly miss a “plank” or “beam” in the eye unless one is  intentionally refusing to acknowledge it. That’s denial. And while some may find it questionable to poke the bear by  appealing to a historical figure that some atheists deny, what is undeniable is the logic and wisdom of the advice.  I mention it because one of the  reasons for this blog is to point out errors, blind spots and logical inconsistencies that atheists tend to be either unaware of, or attempt to avoid by refusing to address. As a creationist attempting to point out such errors and inconsistencies,  I find I keep running into the same kinds of  invalid (and often irrational) arguments from atheists, such as:

  • – Intentionally missing the point, or avoidance of the point being made
  • – Factual errors in their arguments which they refuse to acknowledge or address
  • – Engaging in illicit arguments – based on their beliefs

Often, when you point out these errors, they are not addressed, not because the objection is not understood, but because there  simply is no  reasonable answer to the objection. So instead of acknowledging a problem with their world view, typically the response from atheists or agnostics will be show their inability to address the issue by to changing the subject and/or  launching ad hominem attacks. But in refusing to address a glaring problem in their argument or logic by attempting to side step it, it leads one to an inescapable conclusion:

Many who hold to an atheistic world view and belief system are in denial about the fact that what they consider a “scientific” rational for supporting a “scientific theory” is  actually nothing more than a deeply held, but irrational belief.

By irrational I mean untrue, or in the case of an argument, invalid for any of a number of reasons. By refusing to acknowledge or address such blatant errors what they are actually communicating is – Continue Reading