How Do We Explain Denial of God?

Denial

In countless talks about Christ it has been my experience that what stands between men and Christ is not intellectual arguments but sins.
– Helmut Thielicke

I am persuaded that men think there is no God because they wish there were none. They find it hard to believe in God, and to go on in sin, so they try to get an easy conscience by denying his existence.
– Charles Spurgeon

Atheism, nine times out of ten, is born from the womb of a bad conscience. Disbelief is born of sin, not of reason.
– Fulton John Sheen

No one in the final analysis fails to become a Christian because of a lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with god.
― William Lane Craig

Two new studies by the American Psychological Association confirm that disbelief in God for a significant percentage of atheists is not due to dispassionate reasoning, but the effect of emotional or relational discomfort with what they perceived God to be. According to an article in Psychology Today, which summarized the findings, “54% of self-reported atheists indicated some relational and emotional reasons for nonbelief. In the second study, 72% of 429 American adults who expressed some level of atheism or agnosticism endorsed similar reasons.”
– Lenny Esposito

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
– Romans 1:18-20

How Do We Explain Our Story?

Collage 9

Would you ever expect to find the complete works of Shakespeare printed, collated, and bound by an accidental explosion?

But this is exactly what we have. An explosion that not only gave us the complete works of Shakespeare, but a bunch of bipedal units to act things out, crowds to weep and moan, and an industry of Shakespeare criticism that spans centuries. But the explosion didn’t stop there. It also gave us Kafka, Russian architecture, solar panels, Jeffersonian democracy, Christianity, and ivory poaching.

We are bits of the flying flotsam, spinning away from the eye of the Great Disaster. Anything we do is attributable to Chaos, for we are its children, carbon-based shrapnel with sensitive nerve endings, a problem with self-importance, and a taste for pizza.

I see your painting. It’s by Pollock. But where is your story? What is the plot? Who are the characters. What are the rules?

In this story, the Darwinian device that moves action is called (hail, the conquering hero) natural selection. But it has no purpose, no goal at all. Survival is the result for some and death for others, but there is nothing in this story to show that one is actually to be preferred over the other. Survival as good is just one of the axioms that’s been adopted by the faithful. The characters? What do you mean? There is only a strange impersonal trinity—Time, Chance, and Matter. Matter exists, and it is shaped by chemical reactions as Time and Chance act upon it. You have no soul. You are simply a combination of chemicals. What you call “death” is nothing more than a transition out of one combination and the beginning of another. Welcome to the leaf pile—you as mulch is no better or worse than you as man. When you begin and end is a pointless question…

The truth is that very few atheists will try to maintain that atheism is pleasant. It has been pitched as a hard truth, and those squinty-eyed atheists are the brave ones (the “brights,” according to Richard Dawkins), the ones willing to peer into the burning bosom of reality, see absolutely nothing, and write best-selling books about their experiences (and to convince us of our own soullessness). They preach this hard, chemically fatalistic doctrine like a bunch of Victorian Calvinists unable to understand why the populace won’t simply bow their heads and come along quietly.

Because it is nonsense. (And you can keep your tenure. I’d rather have a ping-pong table.)

― N. D. Wilson,
Notes From The Tilt-A-Whirl

How Do We Explain The Existence Of God?

Seeking-to-Know-the-Secrets-of-the-Universe

If you would, imagine that I am God . . . and I hold the Universe in my hands. Picture a shoe box, but it’s the Universe… OK? All space, all time, all matter is in the box: the universe. I AM not in the box, but holding the box…

Now, let me tell you about the universe—the box in my hands: Recent estimates are that the universe is 156 billion light years across. That is, if the universe were not still expanding, it would take light 156 billion years to go from one side to the other. Scientists tell us that we can only see 14 billion light years away, because the universe began 14 billion years ago. That is, we can’t even see the vast majority of the universe, for the light hasn’t even reached us yet.

The Rosette Nebula (NGC 2237, Caldwell 49) in the constellation of Monoceros, HST image

• The universe is 156 billion light years across.
• Our solar system is .00126 light years across (the orbit of Pluto).
• Our solar system is 7.5 trillion miles across.
• So our solar system is 117.5 quadrillion times smaller in width than our universe.

If the entire universe were the size of planet Earth, our solar system would be about 1/70,000 of an inch wide. It would be about 1/6 as wide as a small bacteria.
The solar system: 7.5 trillion miles across, as wide as 1/6 of a small bacteria, if the universe is scaled down to just the size of the earth. But I’m asking you to imagine the universe in this box. Got it?

Now imagine that a man in the utterly miniscule speck that is our solar system, on the unimaginably miniscule speck that is our planet, in one particular spot, at one particular time, examines some clam fossils. He is a specialist in fossilized cretaceous mollusks. Then based on what he “empirically” and “objectively” observes, he writes a book stating, “There is no God,” that is, there is no one holding the box.

So, all the modern, technologically advanced, scientific people say, “Well, he is an expert . . . so that must be truth.”

That’s absurd, isn’t it? It’s absurd because some questions are way too big for any specialist. Yet some specialist invariably says, “We’ve examined the clam fossils and have concluded that there is no God.”

So what do we Christians do? We call in our own specialists who go out to the same spot and analyze the same clam fossils and say, “There’s a lack of transitional forms in the clam sequence; therefore, God exists. Someone’s holding the box.” Then all of us modern, technologically advanced, religious people say, “There is a God because our specialists say so . . . our scientists have concluded: God Exists!”

In the words of C. S. Lewis:

“The statement that there is [a God] and the statement that there is no [God] are neither of them statements that science can make. And real scientists do not usually make them. It is usually the journalists and popular novelists who have picked up a few odds and ends of half-baked science from textbooks who go in for them. After all, it is really a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, “Why is there a universe?” “Why does it go on as it does?” “Has it any meaning?” would remain just as they were?”

… I heard that Einstein once asked his class, “How much of the universe do you suppose we comprehend?” Someone said, “Five percent.” Einstein said, “I think that’s way too much, but even so, who’s to say God couldn’t exist somewhere in the other 95%?” Well, Christians don’t even believe He’s an object in the other 95%. They believe He’s outside the universe; outside of space and time; outside the box, holding the box. He’s the Creator of the box. Why would we even expect him to be a thing in the box that He created?

… God is not an “object” of scientific observation in this world.

Even if you understood every individual part of a Ford motor car, took it apart and analyzed each piece, you still wouldn’t find Henry Ford. And the car would no longer run. You would’ve dissected it. Yet a whole Ford motor car is a beautiful testimony to a person named Henry Ford.

God may not be a thing in His world,
yet the whole thing can bear testimony to its maker.

– Peter Hiett,
The History of Time

How Do We Explain Math?

maths111319impact

In the atheist’s paradigm, only mutability or inconsistency exists. Anything that is immutable or consistent, such as a fixed point of reference, is incoherent in such a template… Since there is no opportunity for the existence of the attribute of immutability in an atheistic world, it then follows that that which is immutable by nature… cannot exist in the atheistic model…

Math, like God, has the attribute of immutability. It is unchanging. Therefore, it can be relied upon. It is the means by which proper thinking, science, and economics (amongst many other disciplines) may be accomplished. However, by virtue of its complete absence of immutability, atheism by default renders its view of reality and math as mutually exclusive. In other words, just as atheism and God are mutually exclusive, the atheistic paradigm and math also both cannot occur at the same time due to the essence of their opposite natures.

The Bible teaches us that there are no atheists. Every person knows that God exists (Romans 1:18-32) because every person is an image bearer of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Not only does the “atheist” know that God exists, but the “atheist” also knows that math exists. The “atheist,” true to his/her chaotic and incoherent worldview, attempts to have the mutually exclusive coexist. The “atheist” attempts to embrace math while denying its attribute of immutability.

http://theidolbabbler.com/2016/01/01/the-mutual-exclusivity-of-atheism-and-math/

Atheists Sound The Alarm:

 

Richard_Dawkins_810_500_75_s_c1

Decline of Christianity is seriously hurting society

Jonathon Van MarenJonathon Van Maren

November 4, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Only a few years ago, the aggressive “New Atheist” movement was on the march, with rhetorical brawlers like Christopher Hitchens and renowned biologists like Richard Dawkins leading the charge against religion and the last vestiges of Christian faith in the West. Religion, Hitchens famously stated, “poisons everything,” and could only be considered, at best, humanity’s “first and worst” attempt to solve existential questions. If these cobwebbed superstitions could be blasted away by the refreshing winds of reason and the Enlightenment, a fundamentally better society would rise from the ashes—or so the thinking went.

But as Christianity fades further and further into our civilization’s rear-view mirror, many intelligent atheists are beginning to realize that the Enlightenment may have only achieved success because it wielded influence on a Christian culture. In a truly secular society, in which men and women live their lives beneath empty heavens and expect to be recycled rather than resurrected, there is no solid moral foundation for good and evil. Anti-theists like Christopher Hitchens mocked and reviled the idea that mankind needed God to know right from wrong, but scarcely two generations into our Great Secularization and we no longer even know male from female.

It would be interesting to know how the late Hitchens would have responded to the insanities that have proliferated since his passing, and whether he would have come to realize, as some of his similarly godless friends have, that one does not need to find Christianity believable to realize that it is necessary. Douglas Murray, who has taken to occasionally calling himself a “Christian atheist,” has publicly argued with Hitchens’ fellow “Horseman of the Apocalypse” Sam Harris over whether a society based on Enlightenment values is even possible without Christianity. Harris holds out hope that such a society is possible. Murray is sympathetic, but skeptical.

To read the rest of this article, go to:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/atheists-sound-the-alarm-decline-of-christianity-is-seriously-hurting-society?utm_content=buffer92c66&utm_medium=LSN%2Bbuffer&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=LSN

The question science does not address

Scientist Problem

It’s a mistake to conflate atheism with science.
Nobody uses God to answer scientific questions
about the world of nature. Christians (like me)
use science to answer scientific questions. We turn
to our faith to answer the “why” questions that
science is not built to address.

–Sy Garte
Ph.D, Biochemistry. Biologist. Former atheist, now Christian