One thing ALS has done is to limit my mobility. Hence, I have more time to read, and in doing so, engage in dialogue online with those who attack the Christian faith–the faith that provides me hope and peace while dealing with ALS.
In reading an article today by actor, Kirk Cameron, “It is an exciting time to be a Christian in America,” I anticipated a blowback from some readers. So I checked out the comments posted.
One reader commented:
“Oh, Kirk, you lovable, doe-eyed shill. Let’s just take one idea you flogged in ‘Left Behind’ and on your own videos:
“If there’s a creation, there has to be a Creator, right?
“Well, first you need to establish that it’s a creation in the first place, and not simply a phenomenon. If you define a creation as simply something that is caused to come into being, such as the merging of oxygen and hydrogen causing released energy and water to come into being, then you’re on safe ground calling it a creation.
“But then you make a yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge leap and assume the creator is a personal, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God with a plan for every atom in the universe.
“But you haven’t yet established that the “creator” is even alive, let alone aware. The impersonal, unaware forces of nature could easily be considered the creator. ‘But who created the impersonal forces of the uni-?’ Who created God?”
Note: Here we go again with that lofty, “unanswerable” question that supposedly debunks entirely the case for a creator God–“Who created God?”
“‘Well God existed before everythi-‘”
“Then why couldn’t the impersonal forces of the universe?
“‘Well – uh – Genesis Chapter 2 ver-‘”
“I didn’t ask you to simply repeat your debunked assertion with someone else’s words. Try again.
“Paul finally threw up his hands at the futility of trying to argue logic and reason with the Greeks. Instead he said, ‘From now on I will only preach Christ crucified.’ee
“Maybe you should do the same, and leave science to the scientists.”
OK. Should we just allow this kind of mindless garble sit out there as if it was unassailable?
So, I responded as following.
One of the most established and universally accepted principles of logic is the principle of causality: something that has a beginning has a sufficient cause. The principle does NOT maintain that EVERYTHING has a cause. Rather, the principle is that everything that has a BEGINNING has a cause. Something which had no beginning has no need of a cause. The principle also maintains that a cause has to be sufficient, or adequate. ‘You were born in a hospital’ is not a sufficient explanation for your existence.
This principle of causation is so fundamental and universally accepted that if I said that the computer you are using to post to this discussion, which obviously must have had a beginning, just popped into existence without any cause, I would be considered ready for a psychiatric evaluation.
The only explanation for the existence of the universe, other than an Intelligent Designer, is to argue for an eternally existent universe, or at least its atomic structure. So, what are the evidences for eternally existent atoms? What about eternally existent matter or energy? None, other than the argument that since the existence of an Intelligent Designer is not tenable (which is absurd when you exam something so fundamentally small in this universe as the human eye), the reductionist’s atom must be eternal.
It’s simply amazing how far people will go to defy the basic principles of logic to escape the reality of a Creator God. Why do they do so? To escape, at least in their own fantasy world, accountability to a Higher Being.
And you said, “Maybe you should do the same, and leave science to the scientists,” (referring to his supposition that the Apostle Paul shrank away with his tail between his legs in defeat from the philosophers in Athens.)
OK, let’s do that.
Have you heard of Christians in science like Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Bacon, Boyle, Kepler, Paschal, or von Braun? Furthermore, I refer you to a 2015 study conducted by Rice University exploring the idea that most scientists are atheists. Here’s what they found.
“While it is commonly assumed that most scientists are atheists, the global perspective,” resulting from the Rice study, “shows that this is simply not the case.”
When asked about conflict between religion and science, the study shows that only a minority of scientists in each regional context believe that science and religion are in conflict. In the U.K. – one of the most secular countries studied – only 32% of scientists characterized the science-faith interface as one of conflict. In the U.S., this number was only 29%.
The image above is found at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/Why-Think-Whatever-Begins-to-Exist-Has-a-Cause