Greg Laurie.. What is an atheist

I remember growing up as a young boy being driven to elementary with my mom blasting greg laurie on the radio day in and day out. Knowing my mom, the best way to bring up her son in "the ways of the Lord" is to have that stuff playing in my ear 24/7 at home and in the car to and fro from school. As a religious minded kid, I liked listening to Greg Laurie. I've also went to his harvest crusades but was more of a fan of his radio show. He is the type of pastor who specializes in appealing to peoples emotions, and he appealed to mine.

Now as a grown man who has put childish things behind me, I've been curious to see what Greg Laurie has to say about atheism, especially since atheists are more vocal as ever now. So I went on YouTube and did a search on Greg Laurie and atheism to come and find out that he has made a couple videos on atheism by interviewing a man named Dinesh D'souza.

The main question that I asked myself before I listened to the videos is what approach does Greg Laurie take in dealing with atheists? The videos are in interview format where Greg is asking Mr. D'souza questions regarding atheism but I don't doubt for a second that D'souza's responses are in fact the position that Laurie holds to. Let's break the questions and responses down on these videos and see what kind of approach that Greg is taking against atheism.

In the video, "What is an atheist", Greg asks, "What is an atheist?" The response given is 100% false, but typical. "An atheist is someone who asserts that there is no God..." I have covered this issue time and time again, my response now is pretty much the same. Atheism, in its pure form, is a negative position. It is the statement of, "I do not see enough evidence to justify what your saying as truth." That statement does not equate to, "I know what your saying is false." Atheism tells us nothing about the person's knowledge, only their belief. Also, responses like these is a deceptive attempt by the theist to put the atheist of the offensive, which is wrong. The reason why is because atheism is not selling anything, rather, were not buying into what theism is selling. This puts the theist in an uncomfortable position because it puts them on the offensive.

Then the video starts going on about the difference between agnostic and atheism which if they would have broken down the term atheist the same way they broke down the term agnostic they would not be in such confusion. Then they talk about two camps of atheists, the intellectual and the moral atheist. The moral atheists being the ones who say they don't like God and reject him because they feel he's a monster, whereas the intellectual atheist relies on science. But how he words his description of a "moral atheist" is deceiving because he states, "moral atheism is not I don't believe in God, but it's I don't like God." This is misrepresentation because even if people are driven to nonbelief because of how much a monster Yahweh is, they still nevertheless do not believe in that God. It's not as if the atheist secretly believes in Yahweh but rejects him. This is a gross misunderstanding and simply demonstrates that people like Greg and D'souza transpose their unwillingness to imagine for one second to doubt the existence of their beloved God unto other people.

Then they describe the "intellectual atheist" as one who says they have science and don't need God. With a little change in this wording, I would accept this as an accurate assessment of most atheists. Indeed, we do not see a need to invoke a God when we have a scientific explanations of how the universe works. Does it make any sense to invoke Zeus as the one who causes lightening when we already have a scientific explanation of the natural process that causes lightening? We invoke that which there is a rational justification for.

Going back to the "moral atheist", they state that when dealing with a moral atheist, it does no good to give them proofs of God's existence since they reject God because they are angry with him. This is false, because people who deny the existence of God based on evil in the world do so, not necessarily because of emotion, but because logically, a loving God is incompatible with an evil world. Which leads us to the next thing that was said in the interview in regards to a skeptic who invokes the argument from evil which was, "lets say my dad was a really important guy, like bill gates, and very loving and i look to him for help. Then i face a terrible problem in life and ask him for help but he doesnt help me. Do I then say my dad doesnt exist? Of course not, its not a question of his existence, but his character." But this analogy is inherently flawed because in this case, we already have solid proof that our dad already exists, so of course it would be irrational to question his existence. But in the case of a God, we have no evidence that such a being exists. And when the theist makes these claims about how God is, how he is good and loving, but yet we do not see evidence of goodness and love in the world, then it is perfectly rational to question the existence of that good and loving God.

If I were to say what he says we should say, that, "Oh I need to revise my opinion about my dad, in other words, this is not a debate about the existence of my father, but of his character" then this would still lead to the same problem. If my opinion on Yahweh is revised to me believing that he exists, but is just evil, then I am still an atheist in regards to the Christian. They have made a claim about the existence of a particular God Yahweh, my opinion on who Yahweh is has been revised so my Yahweh is different from their Yahweh. Since I lack belief in their particular Yahweh then I am still technically an atheist in regards to their version of God.

But that is of course silly because in order for me to simply just revise my view of God's character as opposed to questioning his existence, I have to already presuppose that he exists. Which is probably the root cause of the problem in this interview. They are working off the presupposition that God must already exist, as opposed to simply following the evidence.

Fine Tuning or Flawed Tuning?

The fine tuning argument for the existence of a Creator/God has become an extremely popular argument in formal debates between theists and atheists. I have to admit: the argument on a surface level appears convincing. Some people consider it to be the strongest argument for the existence of God. I think I agree. For those who are not quite familiar with the argument, let me explain it.

When sophisticated debaters like William Lane Craig debate the issue of God's existence, they do so under the supposition of Big Bang cosmology, not the literal Genesis account of creation. It turns out that the Big bang produced certain laws/constants that, had they been any different to the slightest degree, the universe would not have allowed the emergence of life. An example of this is the weakness of gravity. If the physical constants produced from the Big Bang were slightly altered then gravity could have been much stronger than it is, causing stars to quickly collapse in upon themselves and planets would have never been produced.

According to the proponents of the arguments, the physical constants being the way they are to allow the formation of life is so slim to be one in many billions. For a universe with the actual natural laws to have come into existence is therefore so improbable that it cannot have happened by chance. Thus, it requires a special explanation -- God.

I do not find this argument convincing. Here are my objections:

#1. The fine tuning argument relies on a major assumption: other combinations of physical constants are even possible. Granted, other combinations are conceivable. People like Craig spend a lot of time describing different combinations of constants that would not allow for the emergence of life. But the fact that the constants could have been something else remains unproven. Conceivability does not equate to possibility.

To say that any imaginable combination of laws/constants are possible assumes that there are more fundamental laws above and beyond the physical laws of our universe, and according to those more fundamental laws, any other laws could have easily been true of our universe. This is a huge claim that no theist has proven. This leads us to the second objection:

#2. Without the evidence to demonstrate that any other conceivable combination of physical constants are even possible then there's no reason to think that the present physical constants are not a necessary fact. To ask why constants/physical laws are the way they are is to presuppose that there is an ultimate reason to be found, something beyond the material. But if the existence of the universe is a necessary fact then there is no reason or cause to be found.

#3. Even if the laws could have been any other possible combination, it doesn't follow necessarily that our set of laws would be as improbable as theists make it out to be. The long odds against the universe having laws allowing life to emerge are arrived at by multiplying each each of the several probabilities. However, if the laws and conditions are not independent then the probability theory does not allow us to multiply the probabilities. If the constants are not fully independent then it would be a mistake to multiply them since the probability of the universe having the laws it has could either be much higher (or possibly much lower).

#4. The fine tuning argument proceeds by looking at just one or a few laws or constants different from those in our universe, assuming that all other laws would remain the same. If we assume that all the laws might simultaneously be different, the conclusion does not follow. No attempt has been made to show that the emergence of life is improbable, given that all logically possible combinations of laws are possible.

#5. Let's suppose that the probability of our universe producing life-permitting physical constants is too improbable. Still, the argument must assume that there is only one universe. If there are, or have been a great many universes, or perhaps an infinite stream of universes then it would not be too improbable for some of those universes to have the laws required for life.

#6. Lee Smolin has suggested that universes may reproduce, in the sense that events in one universe may give rise to other universes. If , for instance, there are universes that produce new universe by generating black holes, and if universes tend to generate new universes in some respects like themselves, then there would be a natural selection of universes likely to form black holes, and therefore there would be natural selection for universes having laws very much like ours.

#7. Fine tuning is an argument against design. The idea of extreme fine tuning beyond which the target can exist is not indicative of an intelligent designer. To understand this, an analogy is required. Suppose that our breathing was dependent on a specific level of oxygen in the atmosphere, and any other level would cause suffocation. That would certainly count as fine tuning. The atmosphere composition in question would be the only one capable of supporting life and would require an "explanation". But how could this justify intelligent design?

A designer would not make it to where humans are constantly in danger of suffocation. An intelligent designer would try, whether possible, that ensure that a given system could keep functioning under different conditions. This is the case with humans who can breath in atmospheres rich and thin in oxygen.

#8 The fine tuning argument lacks specificity. People assume that it must have been caused by a personal God, but I see no reason to think that's a necessary conclusion. It is possible to imagine that a supernatural process, law, or impersonal creator caused the universe to come into existence, instead of a personal being.

#9. Most of the universe, far from being hospitable to life, is actually lethal to life. Who would conclude that, a house that is swamped with a lethal vacuum deadly radiation is perfectly designed for life just because there is a microscopic speck of area that sustains life? Would you conclude that the house was built to serve and benefit the subatomic speck? Yet this is precisely how theists view the universe.

Our universe is the perfect universe, not for producing life, but for producing black holes. The emergence of life is simply a by-product of our perfect black hole generator universe. Richard Carrier has offered a simple analogy: If you found a pair of scissors and didn't know what they were designed for, you could hypothesize that they were designed as a screwdriver, since scissors can drive screws. Once you became aware of the fact that scissors our perfectly designed for cutting paper, it would become clear that their ability to drive screws is simply a by-product of their design. Nobody would never continue to cling to their idea that the scissors were designed to drive screws. Likewise, understanding that our universe is primarily "designed" to be a perfect black hole generator, and that the emergence of life is simply a by-product of that "design", there no longer remains a reason to think that the "design" of the universe is to allow the emergence of life anymore than the design of scissors being for driving screws.

In light of all these objections, I conclude that the fine tuning argument fails. It is the majesty of natural law, not a god, that fills the heavens.

Silence resulting in chaos.

The majority of people in the western world look to Christianity as the standard of truth, as the spokesman of God himself. But behind the image that Christianity has created, there lies absolute chaos. Looking at the Christian worldview, God is completely silent and does not speak to anyone directly, but instead has trusted his message of truth to fallible men via the Bible. Good idea? Think again. As a result of God's silence, what has resulted is countless of different denominations and beliefs.

In religious discussions, the "countless amount of denominations" issue is brought up, but I rarely ever hear anyone actually give a list. You do have your typical few religions that are quoted but a few listed in a discussion doesn't give much credence to the "countless". In this post, it is my objective to bring that "countless" amount to light and deduce the rational conclusions as a result of that list.

This list will comprise religions that are based on the Bible (whether OT or NT or both):

Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, A True Church, Calvinism, Christadelphianism, Arminianism, Preterism, Christian Family Fellowship, Christian Identity Movement, Christian Science, Eckankar, Emerging Church, The Farm, How to have perfect faith (by Apostle Eric VonAnderseck), International Church of Christ, Kabbalah, Islam, New Age Movement, Open Theism, Oneness Pentecostal, Raelians, Roman Catholicism, Seventh Day Adventism, Universalism, Shepherds Chapel, Third Day Church, Swedenborgianism, Women in Ministry, Weigh Down Weight Loss with Gwen Shamblin, The Way International, Unity School of Christianity, The Unification Church, The Christianity Identity Movement, Christian Reconstructionism, Dispensationalism (all forms), Assemblies of Yahweh, Armageddon Church, Apostolic Team Ministries in Ohio, Baha'i, Black Hebrew Israelites, Benny Hinn, Bible Truths - Ray Smith, Biblical Unitarianism, Celestial Church of Christ, Christ Gospel Church, Christian Separatist Church Society, Church of God, Church of God in Christ International, Church of God in Wales, Church of Jesus Christ forever, Church of the first born, Church of the Living God, Messianic Judaism, The Walk, Church of Yahweh, Church Universal and Triumphant, Churches uniting in Christ, Conversations with God, Disciples of Jesus, Dominion Theology, Eastern Orthodox Church, First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty, General Assembly of the Firstborn, International House of Prayer, Israelite Church of God and Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ of Nazareth International Church, "John of God" in Brazil, Lightening of the east, from china.

This list is by no means exhaustive. Rather, it is only meant to give you a general idea of the full gravity of the situation. People who believe in God and the Bible have no standard of truth. The Bible is not a valid standard because it is subject to an unlimited amount of different interpretations. How then can someone determine what is true in light of all the chaos of so many opposing religions and denominations? I contend that if there was a God who was loving and wanted mankind to know his truths then he would present those truths clearly and unequivocally. The theistic worldview necessitates this. But we see the exact opposite. There is no clear message, no harmony of believers, no agreement, just pure chaos. Exactly what we should expect to see if the universe was not created by a God.

Theists love affair with design

Looking at the human body, their certainly is the appearance or illusion of design. We have two arms, two legs, and internal organs that have roles which support the existence and well being of the organism in question. Theists will not only point to the order and structure of biological organisms as evidence of design but will also appeal to the complexity of systems within those biological organisms.

A crucial point that theists need to be aware of is that the appearance of design does not equate to the reality of design. So how do we recognize something that is designed? Do we identify design by complexity?

In order to identify design, we need a valid standard or frame of reference. Right now I am holding a clothes hanger in my hand and I know that it was designed. Why? Because I already have knowledge that human beings design clothes hangers. The hanger is not complex, but yet we are able to identify design because such an object is verified to have been created by man and never occurs naturally within the biological world.

What is the standard that Christians use to determine design? As stated above, beauty, complexity, and order. But this is a non-sequitur. There is a gap that the theist has not yet bridged. You have the theist claim of "the human cell is complex and appears designed" to "It is designed". The conclusion does not follow from the premise because it presupposes that the cell could not have formed via natural processes. The theist is working under the presupposition that complexity necessitates design and from this they conclude that the complex cell was designed. It is a circular argument and the argument also commits the argument from ignorance fallacy because the theist is essentially saying that because they know of no natural process that could produce the cell then they assume that it is from design.

Theists need a valid standard to determine that complex systems necessitates a conscious designer. Typically, theists appeal to the complexity of computers and machines and argue that since the cell is far more complex than computers and encyclopedias which are designed then the cell had to have been designed as well. The obvious flaw is that you cannot compare to technological world to the natural biological world. They are in completely different categories. Complex machines which are made of different types of metals cannot be used as a frame of reference when speaking of biological organisms that operate much different than simple metals put together by humans. For instance, organisms are able to reproduce and pass their genetic material, machines cannot.

In order for theist's to prove design they have to either (a) provide a rational argument that necessitates a conscious designer or (b) discount all possible naturalistic explanations. People in the intelligent design movement try to affirm (b) by arguing for irreducible complexity. However, even if we granted the validity of irreducible complexity (though I do not believe for a second that it is valid) then the theist has only succeeded is disproving evolution. Disproving evolution does not validate creationism. You prove creationism by proving creationism, not by disproving evolution. But even with evolution set to the side, there are still a number of naturalistic possibilities that could account for design outside of evolution.

Unless the theist is able to discount all possible naturalistic means for a complex cell to form then they are still arguing in a circle since they have to continually presuppose that there is a conscious designer as opposed to any possible natural means. Since the burden of (b) is not satisfied by the theistic camp then their just left with (a). But as stated earlier, how do we know that complexity requires a designer? What is their standard? What is the frame of reference?

Also, if the theist wishes to use complexity as evidence for design then things such as rocks and simple elements are not designed since they lack complexity. We know that computers, watches, clothes, shoes are designed because of the knowledge that we already have that humans create these things, not because of complexity. If we identified design by complexity then clothes hangers, towels, metal bars, rope, etc, would not be products of design.

It is not sufficient to jump from complexity to design, one must demonstrate that natural law is insufficient. We have sufficient evidence in big bang cosmology and biological evolution, that natural law is sufficient.