Tag: Kalam Cosmological Argument

  • The Failure of the Atheistic Meme

    The Failure of the Atheistic Meme

    Social media has become a breeding ground for memes that address pop culture, politics, religious, etc… I’m exposed to a ton of religiously motivated memes from both Christian and atheistic camps. Admittedly, I’ve seen some funny ones over the years but I’ve also seen some grossly misleading ones. Christians aren’t innocent of partaking in the spreading of ridiculous memes and I feel they should be held accountable when they spread nonsense via meme over social media. However, I’m devoting this article to addressing some popular atheistic memes that won’t seem to go away. In my opinion, these are memes that are completely undeserving of the recognition they’ve received. I have selected five memes (there are many more) that seem to have gained a lot of traction among popular atheistic social media sites.

    The reason for me addressing this particular topic is because I’ve personally observed skeptics who find these meme-arguments to be top-notch. This type of lazy thinking doesn’t benefit anyone and the tone that it sets is destructive for those who genuinely desire to have a constructive dialogue. Some may think that I’m taking these memes too seriously, and I would be inclined to agree. These memes are undeserving of any serious consideration most of the time. However, what about those who are young in their faith and are not equipped to thoroughly respond to these memes that are written to appear pseudo-sophisticated? It’s important for those that are persuaded by these atheistic meme-arguments and those that truly feel challenged by them to understand that these memes largely fail when attempting to advance arguments that challenge the opposing position. Some people, like myself, take these little memes with a grain of salt but others unfortunately become influenced by them.

    We should let the meme-content speak for itself and not dismiss it because it’s merely a meme; that would be a fallacy. With that being said, let’s give these memes some serious thought and judge them on the basis of their own merits…  

    1.

    Atheist meme 3

    The irony of this meme is obvious once you begin to assess the wording and apply the same standard to atheism. If you replace ‘god’ with ‘the universe’ in this meme you’ll have the following sentence…. “The belief that there was nothing and then suddenly the universe appeared out of nowhere and that made everything after that.” This sentence is precisely what atheists are required to believe to loyally adhere to atheism. Atheism and materialism are bedfellows that strictly prohibit anything from being explained outside of material causes. So, does the universe popping into existence out of nothing make ‘perfect sense’? Not to me and not to most people. There have been no scientific observations made that support the claim that material has the power to cause its own existence.

    This meme also makes a false presupposition from the get-go; it assumes that God began to exist and then subsequently created everything. The very nature of God is an eternal being without a beginning. The notion of a finite god doesn’t meet the definition of God. If there is a God, the existence of the universe and everything within it would be contingent upon Him, the Creator.

    The last statement, “and hates gays” is just ridiculous. This is the poorly articulated ridicule that shuts down substantive dialogue.

    2.

     

    Atheist meme 1

    The author of this meme is attempting to claim that fine-tuning doesn’t exist by attempting to make a parallel between the elements of fine-tuning observed in our universe and water forming to the shape of the pond. However, does this seemingly clever little parallel hold water? The answer is no. As much as the author wants to attribute all of the fine-tuning for the existence of habitable universe and intelligent life-forms to mere physical necessity (i.e. it couldn’t have been any other way), the reality is that the universe could be much different. In fact, the existence of the universe being uninhabitable is incomprehensively greater than observing a universe that is habitable for intelligent life.

    Below is a video that effectively describes the fine-tuning argument:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

    After viewing the video, the analogy used in the meme falls apart. The universe couldn’t ‘shape’ life if the constants and quantities weren’t precisely tuned to allow for living organisms to exist. Given the vast number of constants and quantities that had to fall within a very narrow life-permitting range, the likelihood of chance or physical necessity being the most probable explanation is nearly impossible.

    3.

    Atheist meme 7

    To dismiss the entire idea of intelligent design on the basis of perceived natural flaws is like saying that Disney World is a product of random chance because Splash Mountain was closed due to mechanical difficulties. There are lots of examples that illustrate the absurdity of this meme’s message. Are vehicles not designed when it is discovered they have engineering flaws? Are paintings not painted by artists when imperfections are discovered? Are books without authors if a letter is misspelled? Reality evidences the fact that designs do not require perfection in order to be designed. This meme is about as evidentially valid as saying that Mt. Rushmore was the product of wind and erosion.

    4.

    Atheist meme 4

    I’m assuming the intention of the meme is to compare Jesus to other mythological gods by assuming that Jesus was developed on a fictitious basis and was eventually deified on a global scale. Unlike Zeus and his band of mythological brothers, the historical narrative of Jesus is firmly rooted in historical evidence. What the meme conveniently fails to mention is the fact that a persuasive historical case can be made for the resurrection of Christ. On the whole, the vast majority of modern New Testament scholarship (including popular Biblical scholar and skeptic Bart Erhman) openly accepts that Jesus was a historical individual and that his life and ministry was chronicled reliably. While not all New Testament scholars accept the resurrection as a historical reality, they concede that much can be known about the historical Jesus because of the abundant amount of reliable sources about his life and ministry. The historical evidence is what separates Jesus from any figure of mythology.

    5.

    God beheading me

    The “God” page has almost two million ‘likes’ on Facebook. Wow… In brief summary, this page is a mockery of the Biblical God. If one were to skim through the page, it would soon be clear that the page is designed to invoke humor at God’s expense. While the humor may be lighthearted at times, I’ve observed posts that are directly pointed at God/theists in a negative way; like the picture above.

    When I see comments like this, I ask myself a couple different questions. 1) Are you familiar with 20th century history? And 2) How can you make an objective moral judgment without the existence of a transcendent moral standard that can only be provided by a moral law giver? In the video below, Ravi Zacharias beautifully answers both of these questions together…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0218GkAGbnU

    After viewing this short video addressing these questions, does the meme have the same rhetorical impact? Clearly not. Regardless of which method one chooses to murder, atheistic dictatorships have been responsible for more killing in the 20th century than the total amount of deaths from all religious actions combined. It was Fyodor Dostoyevsky who said, “If God is not, everything is permitted.” When these atheistic dictators loyally adhered to their worldviews, history has proven that atheism is a much more dangerous worldview due to the lack of objective moral prohibitions.

    It may be considered trendy to make these types of comments when ISIS beheadings are frequently happening in the Middle East in an attempt to portray atheism as being morally superior. This attempt at moral superiority is vain. Trying to portray the atheistic worldview in a morally superior light isn’t supported by historical evidence or philosophical reasoning.

    Conclusion

    My goal with this post is to challenge people to think beyond the common meme arguments that are used by many internet infidels online. I cannot comprehend why anyone would advance an argument through a meme but since they are becoming increasingly prevalent in social media, I felt it was worth a post to address the more common memes I’ve seen.

    I know atheists are not the only guilty parties in the war of the memes on social media. I discourage all Christians from posting fallacious memes that advance poorly articulated thoughts and arguments. This is not a way to advance the Word. As we’ve seen above, simply because it may sound clever on the surface doesn’t mean that it’s a good argument for your position.

    Lastly, if you can’t help yourself…post a cute meme of a puppy or something. Everyone loves puppies.

  • Being Ignorant about Nothing?

    Being Ignorant about Nothing?

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34QjYPuiEA]

    I’ve seen this video (above) circling the Facebook Christian apologetic community so I thought I’d make a quick comment on it. One of the particular motivations for commenting on it is because it is absolutely ridiculous, especially because the absurdity is derived from the “top world thinker”, as bestowed upon him by Prospect Magazine in 2013 .

    While it isn’t surprising that Dawkins would take such a position, regardless, it is intellectually incomprehensible that a prominent scholar would completely overlook the fallacious definition of “nothing” that he currently subscribes to in order to maintain his atheistic worldview. As it is clear, his inconsistent approach to defining “nothing” as “something” is clearly a trick of semantics that Dr. Lawrence Krauss has convinced him of. Otherwise, Dawkins would have the potential to see what the rest of us are already seeing. Which is “nothing” means “no thing”. William Lane Craig summarizes this absurdity beautifully when he humorously says, “I ate nothing for breakfast this morning and it tasted great!!!”

    While it may sound humorous to those who are tutored in the field of philosophy, but what about those who are convinced of it? Is it funny to them, or us, when they genuinely believe that nothing caused the universe? Honestly, I feel that it is immensely dangerous, especially to the church, when someone like Krauss and/or Dawkins continue to propagate such a dangerous view of the beginning of the universe. Why is it dangerous? The danger comes from the contradiction of truth, which facilitates a decline in the Christian faith. These are dangerous ideas because they are false and are being popularized by highly credentialed scholars that have the power of persuasion over the ignorant.

    I’m phrasing my article rather candidly. Not every article is going to be slathered in rainbows and pixy dust. Even atheists are becoming disenthralled with the initial love affair they had with Richard Dawkins, as well as the other New Atheists. Below is a video of an interview with prominent atheist philosopher Michael Ruse where he explains his dissatisfaction with Richard Dawkins.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaQgWl-HtYA]

    However, there is no surprise that serious scholars would react in disgust to the shoddy academic material produced by Dawkins. Personally, when I read “The God Delusion” written by Dawkins, I was disgusted that a publishing company would actually publish a book with such ludicrous material contained within it. With that aside, his inability to get his story straight between “nothing” and “something” (mysterious mind you) is absolutely mind boggling to those on the side of theism (and maybe even atheism) when it comes to having a serious dialogue on this topic. The world’s leading Christian apologist William Lane Craig has extended multiple offers for debate on this matter and has been rejected because Dawkins “doesn’t have time to debate creationists” (video below).

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFamS4RGE_A]

    In closing, I’d like to clarify one thing. “Nothing” means “no thing”. Nothing doesn’t have the power to create something because nothing doesn’t have properties that would enable it to create something. Maybe it takes a non-academic to see through the absurdity because they have not yet been indoctrinated by such counterintuitive and fallacious ideas. Last thing, keep Dawkins in prayer. While he may not accept any arguments from any theist because he has ideologically closed himself off, but God may work on his heart behind the scenes.

  • Who Created God?

    Who Created God?

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxL8AwT7ObY&feature=player_embedded]

    The above video is of philosopher/mathematician John Lennox discussing the schoolboy argument, “who created God?”.  This is often a question that many atheists pose when a Christian states that God is the cause for the universe.  However, have many Christians really thought about it?  It is important to check out our views and rationale for God being a timeless being and knowing how to properly respond to such a question.  You might find that it may be a little more difficult than you originally thought. 

    Using the Kalam Cosmological Argument, we see that:

    1)     Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
    2)     The universe began to exist
    3)     Therefore the universe has a cause.

    Not only philosophically is this true, but scientifically as well.  A vast majority of scholars in the field of cosmology hold that the universe is not timeless but had a beginning.  Therefore, we see that since it began to exist, it therefore must also have a cause.  Our universe is contingent upon this cause.  Since the universe is contingent upon this cause, this cause must be a timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and a even personal being to create a universe that is so finely tuned that if only one of the hundreds of physical constants goes astray, life on this planet would be impossible for habitation. 

    Given the above description of the Kalam Cosmological argument, we see that our universe had a cause, which is God.  This is where this question, “who made God?” starts to come into play.  I recently heard a good analogy on this.  If you were to visit Mt. Rushmore, you would acknowledge the fact that the President’s faces did not carve themselves into the side of the cliff.  You would realize that sculptors designed the President’s faces and took the time to carve their faces into the cliff.  However, would you need an explanation for who created the sculptor in order to answer the question, “how did the President’s faces get carved into the side of this cliff?”.  ABSOLUTELY NOT!  Therefore the same method applies here; you do not need an explanation for the cause of the universe to explain whether or not the universe was caused. 

    Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins uses this question as one of his foundational arguments against God in his book, “The God Delusion”.  As Dr. Lennox discusses in the video, Dawkins must be under the false assumption that we are talking about created Gods.  This is obviously not the case in the matter of the universe.  Many other prominent atheist writers are also finding creative ways to get around there being an initial cause.  One example would be Daniel Dennett who claims that the universe caused itself (I’m not joking) or Lawrence Krauss who believes the universe came into being from nothing as the title of his newest books suggests, “Universe from Nothing”.  Other atheists hold to the universe being eternal to avoid there being an initial cause.  However, this is stance that cosmological science has refuted for decades.

    No matter how you look at it, there was an initial cause for the universe.  Regardless of how you want to justify the cause, whether it is through simply denying it because you can’t explain the cause (Dawkins), declaring that the universe had the power to create itself (Dennett), or whether it randomly came into being from nothing (Krauss), a cause is inevitable for the universe.  As for me, I place my faith in God.