A long debate, but worth the look of you have the time. Obviously it touches on a number if issues and questions in regards to the debate over the existence of God, but I’ll focus on only one here.

At about 1:13:00 Hitchens is railing away at how we as humans should not claim to “know” why we are here as humans or how “it” all began. Its good he acknowledges that its a very good and very important question, but that the question should remain open, the questions “sharpened”, and all the infinite possibilities explored. Well, there are some issues with that:

1. He and most of his atheist crusaders, while claiming that we can’t “know” yet the true meaning of our own existence, have rejected literally every explanation that doesn’t deal in the scientific realm of possibilities.
2. If we can’t “know”, than rejecting any possibility as irrational, not just religious explanation but ANY explanation, is just as fallacious as claiming to “know”.

The first issue is an issue for simple reasons: the true meaning of our existence can’t be quantified in scientific terms, because to answer that question one must go beyond the “beginning”, if any, and science can’t do that. Ever. Science is the study of the natural, observable world we live in and whether you believe in a big bang, or some other mechanism, science can’t look beyond the formation of the natural order.

The second issue is the problem with most atheist crusaders. They claim to have a lock on what makes a belief “rational” without ever demonstrating what makes a belief rational or irrational. They simply chant over and over again that Christianity and all other forms of religion are irrational. But the fact remains, in their worldview built supposedly on verifiable, empirical evidence, they have none to validate their accusation that belief in a Creator, which is obvious to 2/3ds of the world’s population, is irrational.

So Hitchens is right, we can’t “know” in the factual sense why we are here. But the Christian explanation, built on the completely logical conclusion that the natural order had a beginning and that life cannot be formed from nonlife, coupled with the verifiable evidence that supports the reliability of the Bible, is still far better an explanation than the ultimate idea that there is no reason why we are here, we just are. Unfortunately for atheists like Hitchens, since they reject all “unscientific” explanations to a question that can’t be answered by science, that is the only answer left for them.

Video  —  Posted: May 16, 2013 in Uncategorized

This video actually has been posted in 4 different parts, feel free to look up the other 3. Its a ridiculous “debate”, as a scientist and a “skeptic” (I guess that makes him smart) try to explain to a nuclear physicist from MIT and one of the smartest apologists on the planet that their belief in God is irrational.

Funny thing though, they never actually demonstrate how the belief in God is irrational. I thought skeptics were all about empirical evidence when debating logic and reason? They agree in the video that over 2/3’s of the world’s population agree on the consensus of an intelligent creator, if not the identity. So 2/3’s of the world are irrational, or have at least one irrational belief? And as the video demonstrates, many of that population work in the same field/fields as those who are “skeptical”, having the same level of intelligence?

The fact is, most skeptics who debate these sort of things are forced repeatedly to concede that science is incapable of proving/disproving the existence of a God, yet when they argue against that existence, its always based on scientific theory or lack thereof. Its hysterical how they carved themselves a comfortable little niche: demand natural evidence of the supernatural, knowing that if such evidence existed that it would make the evidence natural by default, not supernatural. So circular reasoning wins the day for the skeptics again.

Video  —  Posted: January 7, 2013 in Uncategorized

Now that its nearly Christmas its time for the annual self-righteous bashing of the way we celebrate Christ’s birth in December rather than His actual birthdate. A friend sent me this article via email and it made my stomach turn.

When this subject is broached, many Protestants and Catholics become quite emotional, often becoming firmly entrenched concerning the December 25 date in spite of the facts. Many simply enjoy the season and feel that the actual day of Christ’s birth is irrelevant. Biblical and historical scholars are equally divided over this question as well. Christmas, however, is founded on the premise that Jesus was born on December 25, and a person who is truly striving to follow the Bible will see that the celebration of Christmas is based upon falsehood.

The author is right in that many feel the actual birth date of Christ is irrelevant. Or more correctly put, relevant but our faith doesn’t hinge on the actual date. The author is completely wrong when he says the celebration of Christmas is based on a falsehood. The article goes on with a well researched argument as to why the December 25th date is actually not Christ’s real birth date, and I’ll leave that to my readers to look at.
Why is it important that we know when Jesus was born? We certainly do not use this knowledge to celebrate His birthday—He tells us to commemorate His death, not His birth (I Corinthians 11:23-26). The true date, however, destroys the entire foundation of the Christmas holiday. It also points to the proper time of His ministry, crucifixion and resurrection, helping to disprove the Good Friday—Easter Sunday tradition also. Lastly, and maybe most importantly, it renews our faithin God’s Word—that it is true, verifiable and historically accurate.
Here is the point the author is missing: almost everyone already knows all of this. We don’t care. The “true date” doesn’t destroy any foundation of Christmas, because regardless of when Jesus was born, December 25h is when we celebrate the holiday. Period. Its no more disrespectful or detrimental to the Christian faith than my celebrating my son’s birthday on the Saturday before the Tuesday he was actually born. I’m also insulted at the ridiculous notion that we’re not to celebrate Christ’s birth. While I agree His death and resurrection are far more crucial and should be celebrated far more than what they are, to simply write off His birth as something we shouldn’t celebrate is just flat out stupid. At Christmas we decorate trees with our families and buy gifts for our loved one’s in Christ’s name while celebrating His birth and that is something that doesn’t get diminished in God’s eyes by one date or the other. While its true that church leaders backin the day decided to celebrate Christmas in December on the 25th to answer many pagan rituals that transpired during that time and to bring happiness to an otherwise depressing season, those goals aren’t exactly “heathen” and if Christ’s birth is so irrelevant as the author claims than it shouldn’t matter that we hang holly and buy presents on the 25th or any other day. While secular society has indeed commercialised Christmas into the biggest holiday event of the year its not up to the author or any other man to decide for themselves that Christmas should not be celebrated in the winter. To place such theological importance on this is so mind-bogglingly fruitless its no wonder atheism has gone up a few percentage points.

Love: The Evidence Of A Creation

Posted: November 9, 2011 in Uncategorized

Ravi Zacharias once said (probably more than once) that every human goes through 4 struggles: origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Or, as I like to say, “where am I from, why am I here, what do I do now, and where am I going?” Not one human being in history has not thought about, and struggled with, all 4 of those questions. No matter how intellectually proficient we may be, no matter what our faith system or lack thereof, we’ve all struggled with those questions and concepts. Its a fact of human nature. One might say the very fact we struggle with those questions is evidence enough that we’re not simply formed from random chance. Only a Creator could adequately explain all 4 of those struggles.

So we look at love. The Bible explains it like this:

4 Love (A)is patient, love is kind and (B)is not jealous; love does not brag and is not (C)arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it (D)does not seek its own, is not provoked, (E)does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 (F)does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but (G)rejoices with the truth; 7 [a](H)bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

What’s funny is that people from all faiths and no faiths love to use this verse in their wedding ceremonies, yet the divorce rate is over 50%. But when a human actually looks at this description of love and he/she are honest with themselves, they’ll see that what is being described is entirely beyond our human nature. While atheists like to point to an inherited sense of obligation humans have toward one another in a tribal sense, the above definition of love doesn’t even enter the equation. Even in marriage, where this verse is used and abused over and over again in ceremonies, love only goes so far. Everyone has a line that once its crossed, they end the marriage. This is the exact opposite of how God intended marriage to be however. The Bible repeatedly even refers to the relationship between Jesus and His Church as a “marriage”. Have we humans not repeatedly crossed the line? Yet does God “divorce” us? Just the opposite.

So why is it that in society today, love is seen as some emotion? You hear it all the time, its about feelings, warm fuzzy feelings. Problem is, no matter how “in love” with someone you may feel at the time, those feelings are here one day and gone the next. Then what? Love is a choice. We have to choose to make a conscious decision to love someone in the way being described here. Its the only way love makes sense. If we simply adhere to our human nature every time, those “feelings”, that’s how you get a divorce rate over 50%. That is how you get broken relationship after broken relationship, because every relationship is based on how someone feels at the time. That isn’t love, that is pure selfishness. Yet love exists. In an amoral, meaningless universe formed from a random event of time, matter, and chance, love has no place and cannot exist. But in a Creation, where beings were formed with a design, a purpose, and are born with longing for meaning, worth, and acceptance, love not only makes sense, but its required.

Well most Christian apologists would not want to put anything by Richard Dawkins into the limelight, but I happen to think his arguments against the existence of God to be so infantile that their exposure only help my cause of sharing the Gospel. Its not that Richard Dawkins is stupid. The man has written lots of books on science and has a great mind for the subject. Where he goes wrong is where he attempts to use science as some reason to excuse God from any rational discussion of origins, an idea so absurd its hard to comprehend why so many people have been swayed by such an idea.

Here is a video, a piece of an interesting debate between Dawkins and Alister McGrath which is a prime example. Dawkins throughout many of his lectures and books likes to make the claim that God would “have to be infinitely more complex”, and likes to make the claim that its mere chance and geography that people woship God. Fact is, as Alister points out, God by definition is not someone or something that would reside within the natural order. Science is the study of the natural order. So pointing out scientific issues in regards to God’s existence is simply a waste of time. If God exists, the Creator, than He created the natural order. Its laughable that intellectual atheists, in an attempt to disprove the supernatural, use laws within the natural order to make their claim. Hello? If there was concrete, natural, physical evidence, like say, a satellite photograph of God in Heaven, than He would cease to be supernatural. The idea of using finite human logic and applying it to a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eteranal being is even more laughable. “God would have to be….” is the worst and most illogical start of a sentence one can utter in a discussion of God.

One thing Dawkins is right about, is the fallacy in believing in God simply because there is no better explanation. Dawkins rightly concedes that science has no answer in regard to origins, it can never have that answer, but that its no reason to believe in the Christian God over any other theory. He’s correct. But Christianity isn’t rooted in a desperate “I need answers” state but rather is backed by the common sense in looking at the world and seeing a design, a document with 66 books written by over 40 authors spanning thousands of years in perfect coherency, etc. Not all of which is concrete evidence proving the faith but it is concrete evidence that the “God Delusion” as Dawkins puts it has more to do with intellect and human spirit than it does desperation. If anything, the fact that over 90% of the world believes in some sort of Creator puts guys like Dawkins in an elite minority. How Dawkins’ arguments against the existence of God and others like it are considered so intelligent is beyond me.

One of the biggest divides in the Protestant Church is the issue of eternal security, or “once saved always saved”. Denominations are split into two categories, labeled Calvinists (after John Calvin) or Arminians (after Jacob Arminius), the former ascribing to eternal security and the latter just the opposite.

Scripture is replete with wisdom that would seem to support both sides. Problem is, both can’t be correct about such a doctrine.  I’m not a Calvinist by any means, but the idea that one can reject Christ later after accepting Him and experience the complete and total transformation that takes place as a result is simply fallacious in my view. God says He predestines those He foreknew to be conformed to His image. (Romans 8:29) Now its common for the Arminians to say “when the Bible says “elect”,  it really means that God elects those whom He has seen will at some point accept Christ.” Problem: that is the exact opposite of election, and reduces God to being a fortune teller rather than an almighty Creator of all. The reason people lean that way though is clear: in the humanistic sense, this type of salvation is terribley unfair. How is it fair to predetermine someone be saved and not someone else through no merit of their own? How is it fair to reward someone who has lived in depravity all of his/her life and then grant them salvation with a mere death bed conversion?

Well that is the human condition. Even those who devoutly believe in God, we still compare His character, actions, and His written instruction with humanistic ideas of morality and fairness. But the fact is, its not fair Jesus die and pay the penalty for everyone’s sins, while He Himself was blameless. Another fact is that God is the highest principle, to say predestination is unfair would imply there is a principle higher than He that He must ascribe to and there isn’t one. What He says, literally is. Humans, no matter what their walk with Christ, will always have their own standard by which to judge God, rather than let God judge their standard according to His will. Truth is truth, regardless if it makes us uncomfortable or not. This is a vast simplification of the entire debate however.

This Is Why Public School Sucks

Posted: December 8, 2010 in Uncategorized

This story makes me laugh and and yet fills the heart with dread for where our education system has taken this society. A couple in New Hampshire removed their child from the local high school because the required reading material happened to be a book written by socialist hag Barbara Ehrenreich. The book is basically liberal propaganda that the minimum wage should be higher in all 50 states based on antecdotal evidence and obscene disgust for anything that resembles fair.

Bedford High School recently assigned a book to its students entitled Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, a book that refers to Jesus Christ as a “wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist.” Fox News reports, “The book is a first-person account of author Barbara Ehrenreich’s attempts to make ends meet while working minimum wage jobs in Florida, Maine, and Minnesota. But in addition to taking aim at the American Dream, and arguing for a higher minimum wage, Taylor says Ehrenreich also takes aim at Christians and other groups in the book and uses foul language.”

Very nice how we have another liberal lunatic mocking anything and anyone that resembles Christianity, and its equally hilarious how she refers to Jesus as a socialist in the same book that advocates socialism. Good one Barbara. You just gave your “poor me” stories and your book loads of credibility with that one (note the sarcasm). So not only does she write a book that attempts to validate a policy based on nothing more than her own experience that tramples all over the Constitution but she mocks Jesus at the same time. Of course its fashionable for atheist liberals to either mock Jesus because His teachings don’t coincide with their ideology, or use His teachings to somehow validate their ideology. That’s the downfall of a living, Holy Bible: it will get abused, not used. Here is an excerpt from the book that the story printed:

It would be nice if someone would read this sad-eyed crowd the Sermon on the Mount, accompanied by a rousing commentary on income inequality and the need for a hike in the minimum wage. But Jesus makes his appearance here only as a corpse; the living man, the wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist, is never once mentioned, nor anything he ever had to say. Christ crucified rules, and it may be that the true business of modern Christianity is to crucify him again and again so that he can never get a word out of his mouth.

Absolutely classic. First of all, we live in a capitalist society Barbara, so “income inequality” is not the job of the U.S. government. Second of all, demanding an employer who put in the time, effort, work, to pay what the U.S. government thinks is fair, is not exactly a moralist position. One could easily argue, and I will, that it is the personal responsibility of each of us in America to provide for ourselves, even if it means working 3 jobs. As an employer, I’m paying what the job is worth, not what someone tells me they can live off of. Not to mention John Stossel has profiled volunteers living on minimum wage and with the right decisions, they did just fine. But these days, liberals expect everyone of all income classes to be able to have the same cars, the same satellites, the same healthcare, and the same retirement as those who busted their ass since their first day of high school putting themselves into position to have those things without government assistance. But its typical that liberals like Barabar would bash Jesus for not advocating a higher wage with divine assistence. I won’t even get in to the absurdity in her remarks about Jesus, or point out the fact that she’s claiming we need a wage increase, while WRITING A BOOK about how rough it was for her trying to make ends meet. Guess what Barbara? You must have made them meet because here you are, living the American Dream and getting fat off of your profits. I’d say think before setting pen to paper but apparently you can make money either way so what do I know?

Be that as it may, this is another example of our broken public education system, mainly because its controlled by the U.S. government.