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.

Argument from scale

Christians time and time again continue to point to the awesome beauty and majesty of our universe as evidence for the existence of God. Everything from the existence of stars, the sky, clouds, trees, plants, animals, all attest to the glory of God according to our Christian friends. Is this true? Does the existence of everything declare the glory of God and show his fingerprints? I contend that not only does the cosmos lack evidence of a designer, but how the cosmos behaves is exactly how we would expect it to behave if there is no creator.

In theism, human beings are the jewel of God's creation. God created the cosmos with human beings in mind. If this is true then we should expect to see a universe that is hospitable and caters to human life. Let's first direct our attention to the stars above.

Theists adore the night sky and attest that the beauty of the stars above is God's way of showing his majesty and divine craftsmanship for all of humans to see. But the stars that we see from earth are those which are located in our milky way galaxy. What purpose do the stars in other galaxies serve if they cannot be witnessed by human beings? This leads us to the point of how big the universe is and how really insignificant we are in comparison to it. The universe is 93 billion light years in diameter and is continually expanding which means that virtually all of it is inaccessible and even unobservable by human beings.

According to science, only 4% is conceptually accessible to us since the other 96% consists of either dark matter or dark energy. Even this 4% is comprised of empty space some two degrees above absolute zero which is lethal to human life. So even that which is accessible to human beings is constantly trying to kill us.

Our galaxy is one of more than a hundred billion galaxies. We occupy just one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and that does not even count the empty space between each solar system. So 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is entirely off limits to human beings and even lethal to us being filled with deadly radiation filled vacuum.

Theists, like William Lane Craig, adore the idea of physical constants and how they are perfectly fined tune to allow the universe to promote life. But these physical constants allows the universe to be a perfect black hole generator. Life as we know it is merely just a by-product of this universe which has the perfect combination of cosmological constants to make the universe dedicated to being a black hole generator.

If theism was true, then we should expect to see a universe that would appear and behave the way that early christians thought it did. It would be one solar system that is hospitable and friendly to human life, with the earth being the center of the universe. We should not expect to see a vast universe where planet earth is an insignificant tiny microscopic speck of dust.

Directing our focus now to planet earth, theists inform us of the beauty of our planet looking from space and attest that there must have been a creator. Indeed, it is beautiful. But for every thing beautiful in nature there is also an equal amount of ugliness. The earth is not so beautiful when looking at it from ground level. Nature mindlessly slaughters innocent women and children through hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, drought, lightning, fires, starvation, and epidemic disease. We see a mixture of beauty and ugliness which should leads us to conclude that nature is not governed by a god. For every beautiful "God given" child that comes into this world, there is another child dying of leukemia.

Theists like to claim that if the distance between the earth and the sun was any different then life would either freeze or burn. Not only is this false but theists seem to forget that the same sun that provides life to our planet is that same sun that causes skin cancer. The same sun which gives warmth and energy to some, it is killing others via dehydration and heat strokes.

Theists adore the beauty of plants and flowers in nature and will tell us to just look at the trees and see the beauty. But yet it is the same plant kingdom that produces countless of poisonous plants that will kill humans upon ingestion.

Christians claim that even the rain is a gift from God and is a sign of his kindness towards us. But yet it is the same rain that floods and kills entire nations.

With all the so-called beauty, this planet is hardly hospitable to human life at all. 70% of the planet is covered in salt water that we cannot stand on, live in, or breathe or drink from. Of the remaining land, half of that is taken up by uninhabitable mountains, glaciers, deserts, and other unlivable terrains. On the tiny amount of land that we can live of, nature is constantly trying to wipe us out with the disasters such as tsunami's and other disasters that I mentioned earlier.

The same Christians who claim that earth is finely tuned for human life are the same people who live in homes that are heated during the winter and cooled in the summer. If we were to strip humanity of their amenities -- clothing, shelter, technology etc, and allow them to reside on this planet in their natural state, the way that God originally created them, most of the human race would be wiped out by extreme weather conditions and by all the countless infections that we would otherwise be able to treat with medication. And just so you forgot, it is God that brought deadly pathogenic microorganisms into existence.

A possible theistic objection could claim that if we lived in a naturalistic world that was not governed by any deity then there would not be any beauty and order at all in the world, only chaos. The theist could claim that even though there is a mixture of chaos and order, the order still needs to be accounted for.

But this is a non-sequitur. There is nothing about natural law that necessitates that there cannot be any order or forms of beauty. If anything, my worldview necessitates that a certain degree of order must exist, because without such order we would have never been able to evolve on this planet. Furthermore, with stars producing billions of planets throughout the universe, its not surprising that there would be a few planets out of the billions that would possess the necessary amount of order to allow for the evolution of life. And planet earth is simply one of many planets that have came into existence from dying stars that became friendly to a certain extent to allow our form of life to evolve.

This is why I do not see any evidence for the existence of God around us. The fingerprints and majesty of a creator is completely absent.

I have seen and heard the one true God!

Okay, this is a continuation on my previous post on the issues of miracles or personal religious experiences being evidence for the existence of a god. As I stated before, all alleged supernatural experiences that are used to prove that God exists are circular arguments since the person making such arguments has to already pressupose the theistic worldview, unless of course, they are omniscient and can rule out all possible natural causes.

Let's say, hypothetically, that Yahweh manifests himself to me. Not only does Yahweh clearly speak to me from a burning bush but he demonstrates to me his awesome power. And I'm not talking about watered down vague examples of God's power that most Christians refer to. Usually when Christians attest to how awesome God's power is, they are referring to events dealing with them going through hard times, someone recovering from an illness, or a person turning to the christian faith. As opposed to these insignificant examples, let's say that Yahweh literally (not metaphorically) causes an entire mountain to move from one location to another right before my eyes. And then, at my request, God causes all the mountains to disappear and causes brand new mountains to form. As proof that I am not hallucinating, I have hundreds of people who are witnessing AND recording such events. Then, God causes the earth to shake and causes the earth to start splitting in two. As a means of protecting us, he elevates us from the ground and keeps us suspended in mid air while he demolishes the ground beneath us. And then within seconds he repairs all the damage done and brings us back to the ground. Any type of supernatural act that we can think of, God does per our request. One person asks that all the fish, sharks, and whales be taken out of the ocean and suspended in mid air for us to see. Everyone of us marvels.

After all the miraculous events take place, God then tells us about who he is. He states that he infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient (characteristics of the theistic God). Now, have all these "miracles" provided evidence that this being possesses all the characteristics that he claims to have? Not at all. Of course, if there are theistic minded people in my group then they immediately will be convinced. It is, however, blantantly obvious that there is a higher being that has extraordinary powers. That point is clear. But it is not clear that this being created the cosmos, or is eternal, or has any of the omni -attributes. Any person in my group that says otherwise has to already presuppose theism.

How do we know that this "god" is even telling us the truth? How do we know that this "god" is not an highly evolved extraterrestrial that has technology so advanced that it is able to manipulate matter and energy in finite ways that it deems fit? How do we know that this being is even a person? It could just simply be a immaterial/spirit machine that is inherently programmed to interact with finite human beings in accordance to how those beings respond or act towards it. Without omniscience, we have no way of knowing or identifying the source of all the phenomena that we have witnessed. All we can know is that there is something that exists that is higher than us. Theism, based on my hypothetical scenario, cannot be established.

Matt Slick's cosmological nonsense

I'm going to take a brief respite from posting arguments against the existence of God and take some time to address a Christian apologist named Matt Slick. Matt Slick owns an apologetics website called CARM (www.carm.org) where he has spent an enormous amount of time writing against practically anything that is against fundamental Christianity. He has a category for secular movements and has atheism in that category. Um, excuse me Matt, but atheism is not a secular movement, it is a lack of belief in a god. If lack of belief in a god is a movement then so is lack of belief in any imaginable being that our brains can come up with.

Matt also has a strong tendency of treating atheism as if it is a religion that teaches doctrines opposed to Christianity such as evolution, big bang cosmology, etc. While it may be true that a good majority of atheists hold to these doctrines, it is not true that atheism is defined as a system of belief that includes these things. As stated above, it is merely a lack of belief in a god, nothing more, nothing less. With that said, when Matt accuses atheism of not being able to provide answers to issues such as cosmology he is presupposing that atheism is even suppose to answer such questions. It is not. Does Matt think that atheism is selling something such as concepts or ideas in the way that religion sells its nonsense? Atheism is not selling anything, rather, we are not buying into what religion is selling. That is what atheism is.

Matt has a few pet arguments which he keeps in his immediate arsenal and uses heavily in debates. These arguments are the cosmological argument for the existence of God, the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG), and the argument from morality. In this post I will focus on his cosmological argument. One thing that I personally enjoy about deconstructing Matt's argument online as opposed to live verbal debate is that he tends to accuse his opponents of misrepresenting what he says. In this case, I'm going to be posting from his website and addressing it point by point to where there's no room for any misrepresentation. Let's begin.

As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems. One of the biggest is its lack of ability to account for our own existence.

Matt seems to be of the idea that if someone does not have all the answers, especially to issues regarding origins, then their position is bankrupt. Matt elsewhere shows irritation to the alleged arrogance and pride that he sees from atheists but when an atheist humbly states, "I don't know" as opposed to adhering to some dogma, then they are now bankrupt.

Okay, so we exist. That's obvious. And though atheists like to tout the evolutionary flag, evolution isn't the issue here. Instead, we need to go way back and ask, where did the universe come from? You see, whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence by something else. The universe came into existence. So, what caused it to come into existence?

Of course Matt dodges the evolution issue. I'm sure he is aware of the fact that there is mountains of evidence demonstrating that it is a fact. Matt is seemingly unaware of the fact that evolution does partially refute theistic cosmology. If evolution is true, then the Genesis account is clearly false. Though theistic evolutionists try to spiritualize Genesis, people like Matt who hold to a literal interpretation of it cannot use the Bible as a frame of reference to support the idea of a god creating the universe.

Not only that, but the fact of evolution lends credence to the idea that our universe probably was not designed because of the chaotic nature of our planet as well as flaws in evolutionary design of species. So while evolution does not deal directly with cosmology, it does indirectly.

Matt's second point, that whatever has come into existence was caused to come into existence by something else is fallacious. He is applying the laws of cause and effect to the universe when he should know that to infer a necessary causality on the whole -- the universe -- on the basis of the attributes of the parts, is a fallacy of composition. We have absolutely no empirical basis for stating that something coming into existence (that is, an absolute beginning out of nothing) has to have a cause.

When answering this question, there are only two possibilities to account for the cause of the universe: an impersonal cause and a personal cause. This is an antonymic pair that exhausts all possibilities. It is either one or the other. There is no third option. Let’s first look at the atheist option to explain the universe, an impersonal cause.

Matt has not even established that something coming into existence requires a cause. His argument cannot even get off the ground. While I might agree that a personal and impersonal cause is an antonymic pair, that point is irrelevant since he is working off a false premise.

If the atheist were to say that the universe brought itself into existence, then that would be illogical since something that does not exist has no nature and with no nature, there are no attributes, and with no attributes, actions can’t be performed such as bringing itself into existence. So, that doesn’t work.

I agree whole heartedly that the universe bringing itself into existence is illogical, just as the concept of a God making nothing turn into a universe is also illogical. Just as Matt said, nothingness is devoid of any nature or attributes. Therefore, a god cannot act on nothing and bring something (the universe) out of it.

I kind of suspect though, that Matt may also be addressing the idea of the universe not being able to spontaneously form ex nihilo (out of nothing), hence, the need for a cause. As stated above, we have zero empirical evidence to support the idea that something coming into existence ex nihilo requires a cause. But he could argue saying that logically, if the universe cannot bring itself into existence out of nothing then something else has to do it. But I contend that this is a false dichotomy. If we assume that ex nihilo is true, then the universe could have formed spontaneously due to the 'nature' of nothingness. Let me explain. True nothingness, lacks any possible property and any possible law. If this is so, then nothingness lacks any law that would prohibit the formation of something. If nothing does not permit something, such as an expanding universe, to start existing for no reason at all, then it's a fact about this nothing that the probability of something coming into existence is zero, and such a general fact would be a law, the nothing in question would not be true nothing.

In light of that, we can have a universe forming without either being from a personal or impersonal cause and neither by bringing itself into existence. It would simply be a 'by-product' of the nature, or more specifically, the naturelessness of nothing.

If the atheist said the universe has always existed, that doesn’t work either because that would mean the universe was infinitely old. If it is infinitely old then why hasn’t it run out of useable energy by now as the 2nd law of thermodynamics would state. Also, in order to get to the present in an infinitely old universe, an infinite amount of time would have to be crossed. But, it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. These problems would also mean that there could not be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So, those explanations can’t work.

Matt is essentially making 2 points here. First point is:

1. If the universe always existed, it would have run out of useable energy

2. The universe cannot be infinitely old since an infinite amount of time cannot be crossed.

Just a quick note, point 1 is contingent upon point 2, so by addressing point 2, point one is also refuted. The problem of actual infinity is not just a problem for atheistic cosmology but for theistic cosmology as well. Unless a theist subscribes to a timeless view of God then he/she falls to the same problem of infinity not being able to be crossed.

Matt's argument is contingent upon a major assumption here, namely that the universe has always existed and acted in the way we perceive it today. Prior to the big bang, we do not know how the universe behaved. According to physicists, prior to the Planck time, our understanding of the laws of physics (including the 2nd law of thermodynamics which Matt makes reference to in his argument) break down. For all we know, cause and effect relationships of matter (requiring time) may not have existed. If so, then the universe could be said to have only existed for a finite amount of time but have no beginning. This might appear as a contradiction at first glance but it is not. Time is the measure of change, of movement, or motion. An asteroid flying from one position to another requires time. Even matter itself which is composed of atoms and kinetic energy requires time. But all this is how the universe as we perceive it today behaves. We have no evidence to suggest that the universe behaved prior to the big bang in the same way it does now.

The alternate view, that the universe formed spontaneously out of nothing also nullifies all of Matt's points.

If the atheist says that matter and/or energy have somehow eternally existed before the universe, just in different forms, then the same issue of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now would negate that idea. But, this explanation would pose yet another problem. If the necessary conditions for the cause of the universe have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy, then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy, and the universe would have been formed an infinitely long time ago. But this can’t work since it would mean the universe would have already run out of useable energy by now (entropy problem again), not to mention the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now. So, that explanation doesn’t work either.

If the universe existed in a form where there was no motion, then Matt's argument fails. We have no clue how the universe used to behave so neither theists or atheists can make any claims either way. If we assume that the universe could have existed in a timeless state, for instance, then saying that the universe would have formed infinitely long time before would be incoherent since there is no 'before'. Again, his argument implicitly makes hidden assumptions regarding the nature of the universe pre-big bang.

This same reasoning applies if we assume that the universe had an absolute beginning. To ask why the universe formed spontaneously out of nothing at one time and not before, or infinitely before, presupposes time.

But there is another problem that Matt fails to realize (and this is if we assume that time did exist before the big bang). If the laws of physics breaks down prior to planck time then it does not follow that there are even necessary conditions for the universe' formation. Without governing laws, the formation could occur randomly or just once for unknown reasons or no reason at all. If it could occur for no reason (and I see no reason to think that the concept of "reason" or "cause" has to exist prior to big bang) then it is futile to ask why the universe did not form an infinite amount of time before it did.

Okay, so the universe, which is comprised of matter and energy, cannot be infinitely old, in its present form or any other form. So, how did it, and ultimately we get here? Atheism can’t help us here. So, let’s turn our attention to the other option: a personal cause. If there is a personal influence, which means a personal being that acted upon the universe, then we have an explanation for the cause of the universe. Let me explain.

And how does Matt know that the universe could not have always existed in another form? He has no evidence for such an absurd claim. And arguments such as incoherency of divine creation, apathetic god, imperfection from perfection, and the argument from scale, nicely demonstrate that Matt's conclusion of a personal cause is most likely not the case. Theists (as well as Matt right here) time and time again always ask the question, "How did it all get here?" Such a question makes that simple category error that practically every theist falls victim to. If the existence of the universe is a necessary fact then asking, "How it all got here?" is completely futile. There is no 'how' and there is no 'why'. The brute existence of the universe is inherent and does not come from an outside source.

A rock doesn't suddenly change from being a rock into say an axe head unless acted upon by something else. For matter and energy to change and form something new, they must be acted upon from the outside. So we must ask what acted upon matter and energy and caused the universe to exist?

This again presupposes that cause and effect exist outside of the universe. Not only that, but we have counter examples to show that even within the universe, cause and effect does not always apply. For instance, the radioactive decay of an atom is scientifically proven to be uncaused. A shift in the orbit of an electron also has no cause at all, in the sense of pre-existing set of conditions that determined that it had to occur. In terms of the universe around the time of the Big Bang, unimaginably hot, unimaginably dense, unimaginably disorderly, and unimaginably tiny, is this more like a rock turning into an axe or the shift in an electron's orbit? It strikes me as very unlike a rock into an axe, mainly because it is so disorderly.

Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.

Matt's position still continues to break down. If God existed timelessly then there is no, "before the universe". In order for Matt to avoid his own problem of crossing over an infinite time gap, he has to place God outside of time. The problem is that he cannot say that, "God created AND THEN the universe came into existence." Such a notion requires time. Rather, Matt has to say that God's existence, his volition to create the universe, and the universe itself coming into existence was all simultaneous. But this would imply that the universe would come into existence at the same exact moment with when it does not exist -- a logical contradiction. This is unless Matt wants to admit that the universe has existed eternally alongside God, but we know that Matt will not go there.

In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.

And of course, such a notion places God in temporal eternality, which nullifies creationism because God would have to wait an infinite amount of time to create. By Matt saying that it was, "a decision to act at a specific time in the past" he is refuting his position with his own arguments of impossibility to traverse infinity.

You see? The atheists have nothing to offer us with the important issue of explaining how we got here. Atheism can’t answer one of the most important philosophical questions pertaining to our own existence. It is deficient and lacking and at best can offer us only ignorance and guesses.

By now we have seen that the only one making guesses regarding the nature of the universe pre-big bang is Matt Slick, not atheists. If anything, Matt would prefer to be in pure willful ignorance than to be humble enough and simply admit that there is not enough evidence to give us a verdict on the definite origins of the universe.

And speaking of having nothing to offer, we know already that the term 'god' is absolutely meaningless. A god that does not manifest and cannot be defined is equivalent to absolutely nothing. It is Matt Slick that is promoting absolutely nothing. Atheists promote beliefs that are reality based. That reality manifests clearly. It is axiomatic. It is the theist that is trying to add meaningless concepts that are.. quite bluntly.. purely asinine.

Okay, finally, even though it isn’t necessary in this video, I’ll deal with one of the standard objections atheists have when this topic comes up. What brought God into existence?

The answer is simple. Nothing brought him into existence. He has always existed.

And I have dealt with the standard theistic objection of what brought the universe into existence. The answer is simple. Nothing brought it into existence, it has always existed.

He is the uncaused cause. Think about it. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes. It’s like having an infinite line of dominos falling one after another. If you go back infinitely in time to try and find the first domino that started it all, you’d never find it because you’d have to cross an infinite amount of time to get to it which is impossible to do. This would also mean that there you can’t have an infinite regression of causes. Furthermore, this would mean there would never be a first cause. If there is no first cause, then there can’t be a second, or a third, and so on and you wouldn’t have any of them falling at all. But since they are falling, there had to be a first cause, that itself was uncaused that started the whole thing moving at a specific time in the past. So too with the universe. It was caused to exist at a specific point in time. The uncaused cause is God, who decided to create the universe and who, as the Bible says in Psalm 90:2, “is from everlasting to everlasting.”

Matt's conclusion, that an infinite regress cannot exist, is indeed valid. However, he presupposes that only a god can terminate that regress. When a built object is slowly taken apart, it is regressing back to its inferior state. As you keep regressing, eventually, it is the object itself that terminates the regress, because you cannot regress anymore. Matt may state that this is a categorical error. However, that would only be correct if the universe was static, it is not. The universe is expanding, and when you rewind time back, the universe regresses back to it's previous simpler state.

It is the universe itself, not a god, that is the first cause. The universe forming into its current form involving time, motion, change, was inherent within the universe itself. It does not need to come from any outside source.

Nature itself exists eternally without beginning and without end. It is that nature, which laws, fills the heavens.