ALS is preferred to a mind that denies the Supernatural

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.

“Fine.

“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

3 Replies to “ALS is preferred to a mind that denies the Supernatural”

  1. There is an interesting book I am reading given to me by my brother in law , an astro-geo- physicist and former shuttle astronaut called Science vs. Religion by Ecklund. Though they are probably for the most part evolutionists, many scientists believe in God, and some of those are Christians. It is a mistake to think that most scientists are
    a-theists.

    Like

    1. Eklund was part of a survey conducted by Rice University.The study’s results challenge longstanding assumptions about the science-faith interface. While it is commonly assumed that most scientists are atheists, the global perspective resulting from the study shows that this is simply not the case.

      When asked about terms of conflict between religion and science, Ecklund noted 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 percent of scientists characterized the science-faith interface as one of conflict. In the U.S., this number was only 29

      Ecklund and fellow Rice researchers Kirstin Matthews and Steven Lewis collected information from 9,422 respondents in eight regions around the world: France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, the U.K. and the U.S.

      Like

  2. This touches me. The typical response to ALS is the viewpoint of how tragic to have a fully aware mind trapped in a failing body……The fact that you can, in Christ, praise the fact that your mind can still be used to His service touches me to my core…..beyond words….. It is an alter to me, that our God is real……I love you so very much, big brother……Thank you for this blog…….

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s