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.
I think another Scripture that should go with this is found in the book of John: Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own (John 7:17). There is something intrinsic about obedience and truth. Truth isn't discovered through study of the Scripture. It is revealed by the Holy Spirit through obedience. Scripture can be expounded by the Spirit, but study alone will not bring truth.
The reverse of this is also true.
By wickedness the truth is suppressed. When I was an atheist, I claimed to be a seeker of truth. I wanted to know what was true and false, real and fake. I think every person wants to believe the Bible is true. No one wants to go to hell. We want to believe that there is a God that loves us and that He made a way for us to dwell with Him forever. I think even the most anti-theistic atheists would agree with this much. Christopher Hitchens admits that for him, to dwell with God in heaven would be hell. But that doesn't mean that he is opposed to the idea of heaven. Who doesn't want a perfect system? Who doesn't want utopia? Who doesn't want eternal bliss? The problem comes from two things: hatred of God and love of darkness.
I want to spend this time talking a little bit about science. What is it that science says? I know that there are a lot of scientists that tell us the universe created itself and there is no god. But those are the scientists speaking. What does the evidence say?
I'll use a story to help us out here. Galileo discovered that objects will fall at the same "speed" no matter how heavy the one is from the other. A penny will fall and hit the ground the same time as a boulder if they are both dropped from the same height at the same time. He discovered this by using a ramp and letting different weighted balls roll down the ramp. They would hit the stopper at the same time. He repeated this experiment hundreds of times. Galileo was able to come up with an equation that described fairly accurately what he saw.
He discovered that they balls roll faster as they go down the ramp. This seems obvious, but it means that they accelerate. What isn't obvious is the rate of acceleration. He came up with a pretty accurate formula to figure this out. Now what did the science say?
Well, the science said that the balls roll down the slope at the exact same acceleration. Neither ball has a greater force of gravity upon them than the other (according to Galileo). The science needed to be interpreted to discover the depths of gravity. Newton came along later and added to Galileo. With Newtonian physics, we can accurately predict the orbit of the planets around the sun. However, there was a time in the late 1800's when "dark matter" was discovered. Mercury's orbit wobbled. Newtonian science couldn't explain why.
So scientists said that there must be an asteroid belt between Mercury and the Sun. This asteroid belt wasn't able to be seen, and so it was dark matter. Other scientists said this was preposterous. They said there was a planet behind the Sun that we can't see from Earth. They called it planet Vulcan. It was dark matter. So when the science they knew couldn't explain why Mercury reacted the way it did, they invented an unseen substance called dark matter.
Einstein then came along with his General Theory of Relativity. In this theory he was able to explain why Mercury's orbit wobbled. Thus, dark matter was obsolete.
So maybe you can tell me what the science said.
As far as I can tell, the science (evidence) only told us that gravity works as an inverse law. The closer you get to the object that is pulling you downward, the stronger the force becomes. This is why there is acceleration. What it does not tell you is that gravity is the same here on planet Earth as it is everywhere else in the universe. That is an assumption. No one has been to Andromeda to test whether gravity works the same or not.
So when we come to evidence about the world and universe, we have to understand that there is a bit of predictability, but it is finite. The further back in time we take a theory (like the Big Bang), the less predictable the theory becomes. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Moon could have been orbiting the Earth for 10,000 years. That doesn't mean it has been for 10,000 years; it means that it is possible. But the Moon is receding from the Earth about 1/4 inch every year. Remember that gravity is an inverse law. The further back in time we go, the closer the Moon comes to the Earth, and the stronger the gravitational force is upon the Earth and Moon via gravity. If you take it back thousands of years, we're fine. If you take it back millions of years, now we're reaching some problems. The tides on the Earth would have been enormous. The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon could have knocked the Earth's orbit around the Sun slightly. If we go back billions of years, then the Moon has already touched the Earth.
Science doesn't come up with theories like the Big Bang. Evolution isn't a fact. Theories that take billions of years for the universe to come to maturity are absurd. The science doesn't show that. The science and evidence will relate to us here and now what is happening. To say that there hasn't been any kind of flood, volcano, massive storm, fire, or any other substantial natural disaster in the past million years is completely ridiculous. Science can't tell you that. Actually, I am one who thinks that much of what we see in the realm of Earth science only makes sense if there was a worldwide flood about 4500-5000 years ago.
What is it that causes scientists to speculate that there has never been a worldwide flood on the Earth (which has enough water to cover the planet a mile deep) and then to speculate that Mars has had a recent planet-wide flood? Mars doesn't have any water on it. Just because there are erosion patterns does not mean that there has ever been water on Mars. This is sheer fantasy and speculation. It isn't factual at all. Science doesn't tell us what happened in the past. It tells us what is happening now. It can make a certain amount of predictability to the past or future, but it cannot guarantee those predictions.
So the real reason that scientists are so certain that there is no God and that the universe created itself has nothing to do with the science. Every scientific model that has been created falls flat on its face. Nothing works. You need stars before you can have stars made naturally. You need a universe before you can have a universe made naturally. You need an atmosphere without oxygen for life to begin on Earth naturally, but you need oxygen in the atmosphere for the "simple cell" to survive after coming to life. You need collections of information to be put within the DNA of cells in order to evolve from one organism to a more complex organism. Where did the information come from? Was it already within the eobiant (simple cell)?
No, the reason scientists are certain of a godless universes is because they are wicked. Wickedness brings forth falsity. Truth and reality are obtained through righteousness. This is why everyone is without excuse. It is obvious that God had to create this world. And what do I mean by God? Well, before there is space-time, there is nothing. So God must be outside of space and outside of time. This means that He is present everywhere and also eternal. In order for Him to create the universe, He has to have power to do so. This means that (in our eyes especially) He is all powerful. He has to know how to create the universe. It isn't sufficient for God to create something and test out through the Big Bang and evolution how to make this work. God must be all knowing, and therefore get it right the first time.
Well, if He must be all present, eternal, all powerful, and all knowing (we can continue in this logic to show more attributes that must be true), then I would say that the God of the Bible fits it perfectly. The question is raised, "Who created God?" This shows the ignorance and arrogance of the doubter, not of the believer. If God is timeless, then He has no beginning. How can you create something without giving it a beginning? Nonetheless, this is like asking the questions, "I can see that the God Delusion was made by Richard Dawkins, but who made Richard Dawkins?" That isn't the point. It is a non-question. It is a stupid argument that has no ground whatsoever.
Before any argument is made, let the atheist explain to me why we even have logic and reason to begin with. Our brains are nothing but chemicals, and yet we can argue about morale, logic, reason, and philosophy? How does that work? Nothing creates nothing. Chemicals reactions don't create life. If something is living, then it has desire, reason, logic, hope, fear, and attraction. Why would the living creature desire to procreate? Why would the living creature desire to mate? Why would the living creature desire life at all? Why would the living creature fear death? It makes no sense if we are only chemical reactions. Physical matter has no living attribute. It isn't until life is placed within that matter that there is living attribute.
So to sum this all up, the believer is not the one who has to prove God's existence. The onus is upon the skeptic. It makes perfect sense that there would be a God. Everything around us shows that God exists. Everything around us shows His deity and His attributes. In fact, I even oppose the term bestial. If something is bestial, then it is something that the animals (or beasts) would do. However, we use the term in a far different way. Animals don't systematically annihilate other species. Animals don't murder for no cause. Animals don't rape. Animals don't find traumatic ways of oppression. Animals don't have euthanasia, abortion, suicide, genocide, or any form of torture. The onus is upon the atheist to explain to me why it is that humans seem to have this ability, but the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't. The Bible explains it quite simply.
Before we get into what Paul starts calling out as blatant sin, I felt the need to discuss how nature itself tells us of God and His Law. We're not talking about "the Bible says." We're discussing that even nature tells us the truth, but when we desire wickedness, we reject truth. I came to this realization as an atheist. It isn't my Christianity that compels me to make these statements. It is truth and reality that compel me to make these statements.
No comments:
Post a Comment