The fact is, we live in a miraculous world. Regardless of a person’s worldview, the extraordinariness of the universe is evident to theists, atheists, and agnostics alike. It is therefore not a matter of whether we believe in a virgin birth, but which virgin birth we choose to accept.
We can believe in the virgin birth of an atheistic universe that is indifferent to us—a universe where “there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference”(Quentin Smith).
Alternatively, we can believe in the virgin birth of a God who loves us so deeply that he “became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14). Emmanuel, God with us.
• Richard Dawkins calls God “evil,” but tells us evil doesn’t exist. (He’s half right: “Evil” is meaningless without God.)
• Sam Harris wants to hold people accountable for their actions, but tells us we have no free will. (He’s half right: if the world is strictly natural and material, free will is impossible.)
• Lawrence Krauss pursues as the causal explanation for what we see in nature, but tells us the cause of the universe was “nothing.” • He thinks his loose definition of “nothing” resolves that obvious tension.” (He’s stuck there: without God as creator, the explaining where the universe came from requires some creative thinking.)
• Atheists claim to be the true representatives of reason, but have no good explanation for where reason came from, and (trust me, I was there at the “Reason Rally,” and I have a chapter about it in True Reason) resort to ridicule and emotion to make their “reasoned” case. (Are they stuck, too? Is that why they do that?)
• They claim their reason is about reality, but as atheists Thomas Nagel and Alex Rosenberg have cogently argued, they can’t explain how a strictly material brain can be about anything at all. (That requires something else. God, for example.)
Stealing from God:
Why Atheists Need God To Make Their Case
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.
Evolution, whether cosmic or biological, cannot — logically cannot! — be a theory of ultimate origins of existence or order, precisely because its operations always presuppose the prior existence of certain entities with specific potential behaviors, as well as of an environment of some specific kind that operates upon those entities in some specifically ordered (law-governed) fashion, to determine which ones are allowed to survive and reproduce. Let us quite generally state: any sort of evolution of order of any kind will always presuppose pre-existing order and pre-existing entities governed by it. It follows as a simple matter of logic that not all order evolved. Given the physical world — and however much of evolution it may or may not contain — there is or was some order in it which did not evolve. However it may have originated (if it originated), that order did not evolve, for it was the condition of any evolution at all occurring. We come here upon a logically unsurpassable limit to what evolution, however it may be understood, can accomplish.