Pilgrim's Rock

Hey Creationist, Prove It!

Have you ever been asked by an evolutionist to prove your belief in Creationism? Have you ever been frustrated by the challenge? In a recent response to one of our videos someone confidently proclaimed that Creationism is refuted by two simple words: “prove it.” Done, slam dunk, end of argument.

Should we tremble? Do we lack evidence for what Scripture clearly teaches? In a few brief paragraphs we will see that the claim not only lacks merit, it represents an unreasonable denial of the obvious.

To illustrate, imagine brothers Tom and Tim admiring classic artwork in a well-known museum. Upon viewing a famous painting by Claude Monet, Tom compliments the genius of the painter. Tim, however, will have none of that and retorts with great temerity, “prove it!” Surprised by Tim’s odd and unexpected response, Tom ponders how he might prove the existence of an artist behind a great piece of art. After a few minutes he replies that no greater evidence of the existence and genius of the artist can be produced than the artwork itself. Further, he adds, the obvious existence of the artist behind the art is known immediately and intuitively by the mere sight of the painting. To deny the artist would be akin to denying a baker while viewing shelves of bread and cupcakes, or denying a builder behind the home in which we live. He concludes that denying the artist behind a Rembrandt, Renoir, or Monet is nonsensical and contrary to how all reasonable people view the world.

The same can be said of all denials of God’s existence, only infinitely more so. The universe we inhabit clearly displays the genius, power, wisdom, and goodness of God as the maker of everything, both in and outside of us. We are drowning in evidence. And like asking for proof of air while grasping a tree for dear life in the midst of a hurricane, so all denials of God willfully reject the obvious nature of His works. As Scripture tells us:

The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:18-21)

Thus, we can always point to a bird, a flower, the birth of a baby, to everything from sub-atomic particles to distant galaxies as evidence of God’s power and genius. Moreover, time and chance explain nothing. And since the unbeliever will never accept this reality apart from a divinely changed heart, we need not fret over a supposed lack of proof. Until unbelievers bow before God’s authority and excellence, they will never acknowledge Him behind His works. And until they give God the worship and honor He disserves, we will be subject to the silly demand: “prove it.”

Scriptures marked NAS are taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, copyright© 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.


Click here to download a PDF of this article.

© 2019 Craig Biehl, author of God the Reason, The Box, The Infinite Merit of Christ, and Reading Religious Affections

 

Hey Creationist Prove It - Weekly Blog Post by Dr. Craig Biehl - blindfolded man

X

Yes, I Want a PDF of “Hey Creationist, Prove It!”


    [anr_nocaptcha g-recaptcha-response]

     

    We respect your privacy. We’ll NEVER sell, rent, or share your email address. That’s more than a policy, it’s our guarantee!

    The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 23): Some Review

    Before we review a few key principles of the series thus far, allow me a brief mea culpa. Two weeks ago (in Part 21), I made the comment, “no one is without excuse” in speaking of the unbeliever’s accountability before God. Oops. It should have read, “all are without excuse.” A single word can make a world of difference, since the former contradicts my intended point and the latter affirms it. Perhaps I accidentally provided a lesson on how biblical inspiration and inerrancy apply to the level of individual words, or an example of human weakness and the principle that we are saved, sanctified, and used by God according to His infinite grace—alone. In any event, if you scratched your head when you read the gaffe, you had good reason.

    Before we critique the claim that biblical miracles deny God’s existence (next week), we do well to review the simple assumptions that underlie and undermine the best atheistic arguments. [1]

    Reasonable and Unreasonable
    Reasonable people freely admit their ignorance of a good many things. We cannot see beyond the edge of the universe or the three or four dimensions of our existence, and know nothing of the contents of our neighbor’s glovebox, basement, or garage. At the same time, many discard reason for blind-faith speculation about God. For instance, no atheist would claim to possess infinite knowledge, yet to know that God does not exist requires knowledge of everything in the universe—and beyond. Every atheistic argument assumes the ability to know what cannot be known without God’s revelation.

    For instance, how can anyone know that God as infinite spirit does not exist, or what He can or cannot do? And how does it logically follow that our limited knowledge of the physical realm gives comprehensive and accurate knowledge of the spiritual realm? The properties of the physical realm do not apply to the realm of God as infinite spirit. Yet, in arguing against God’s existence, people assume their limited knowledge justifies speaking of realities beyond their capacity to know.

    Atheists, then, exist in a state of contradiction. They admit their human limitations while they make claims about God and eternal things that cannot be known apart from omniscience. They reason in a rational-irrational dialectic, as reasonable and unreasonable at the same time.

    Atheists use logic to build arguments to “prove” what can and cannot be true of divine things. Yet, a syllogism affects nothing of God’s existence and nature. Logic, after all, is used by severely limited people, while God is infinitely beyond any aspect of reality known to man: “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8-9 NAS). Nonetheless, atheists reject what they cannot understand or logically reconcile, making their mind the ultimate standard of truth. In other words, what they cannot comprehend cannot exist. Yet, none can know transcendent realities without knowledge of transcendent realities (so to speak). God’s omniscience, then, is needed to deny God’s existence. In our study of The Impossibility of God we have yet to see an argument that does not rest on the unreasonable assumption that people can know what their severe human limitations preclude them from knowing.

    The Key Question
    For instance, God is infinite spirit and unaffected by the properties of the universe. He knows all things, can do all things, and always acts with perfect wisdom and righteousness. Now ask yourself, who knows enough to know otherwise? In fact, when asked in different ways and in different circumstances, one simple question reveals the blind-faith assumption under every atheistic claim: “how do you know?” Or, what would someone need to know to justify denials of God’s existence? Unjustified claims are just opinion. Some examples, including a few examined in the series, will prove helpful. Every denial of biblical truth rests on the assumption of sufficient knowledge. For instance,

    • “God does not exist.” Yet, one would need to know everything about everything and beyond to know this.
    • “God is unjust.” The claim requires perfect knowledge of every detail of every case, including the depths of every heart and how God deals with every soul in eternity. None can know that God will not always judge rightly by observing the evils of this short life.
    • “A perfectly good and powerful God would never allow evil.” To know this requires exhaustive knowledge of the mind of God and every possible reason why He would allow it, while denying our smallness and the reality of mystery. Our limitations render it useless as a definite argument against God’s existence.
    • “Every attribute of God must be logically reconcilable to our understanding or God cannot exist.” Apart from God’s revelation, how can the limited human perspective know what infinite spirit can or cannot be? We cannot know that things we do not understand are not ultimately reconciled by God.
    • “God cannot be beyond time and act within time at the same time.” No one can possibly know that God is limited by that which limits us.

    Pick any argument against God’s existence and ask yourself if the atheist knows enough to make it. The results will surprise you.

    Conclusion
    Forgive me if this article seems overly repetitious. But we often struggle with quickly and easily seeing unjustified assumptions behind arguments against God—ongoing exposure helps meet that need. Application requires both practice and a good understanding of the truths to be applied.

    Why, then, do atheists claim to know what they cannot possibly know? For one, to acknowledge God denies our presumed independence and highlights the proper need to love, honor, and submit to God’s authority; it confesses that our sinful desires cannot be pursued with impunity. In the end, atheism denies the obvious, infinitely more than the absurdity of denying a painter behind a great painting. Everything in the universe bears God’s fingerprints and clearly points to His existence, power, genius, and goodness. Indeed, none are without excuse (Rom. 1:20).

    Next up: Do miracles disprove God’s existence?


    [1] In an earlier article I noted that I would be addressing original sin in this series. I have since decided that original sin deserves a separate and detailed series of its own, which I will likely do later this year.

    Scriptures marked NAS are taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, copyright© 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.


    Click here to download a PDF of this article.

    © 2018 Craig Biehl, author of God the Reason, The Box, The Infinite Merit of Christ, and Reading Religious Affections

     

    The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 23): Some Review - Weekly Blog Post by Dr. Craig Biehl - rational and irrational human thought

    X

    Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 23): Some Review”


      [anr_nocaptcha g-recaptcha-response]

       

      We respect your privacy. We’ll NEVER sell, rent, or share your email address. That’s more than a policy, it’s our guarantee!

      The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 14): “The Problem of Evil” (Part A)

      In the previous two articles we examined examples of “definitional disproofs” of God, including: 1) perfection and a man-made definition of imperfect virtue cannot co-exist in God, and 2) a perfect God who deserves complete submission and worship is incompatible with autonomous human moral agency. Of course, no orthodox theologian would disagree with the first claim, but none would ever apply a human and imperfect virtue to a God of perfect power, holiness, and righteousness. The argument does not apply to the God of Scripture. As for the second claim, not only is submission to a perfect moral authority consistent with moral agency, it forms the most reasonable choice among the options continually available to moral agents. We would be foolish to trust the imperfect and sinful over the God of perfect knowledge, wisdom, power, and holiness. Of course, submission to God does contradict autonomous moral agency. Yet, to seek independence from the One who gave us life and all good things, apart from whom we have nothing, and to whom we owe all love, honor, and obedience comprises the essence of sin and should not be desired.

      Moreover, fallen and finite man as an autonomous ultimate authority certainly contradicts God as the only supreme authority, but how does this obvious truth make God impossible? It does, however, display the need of repentance for those exalting their own perspective, opinion, and preference to the place of ultimate authority over God. Kant’s claim that “kneeling down or groveling on the ground, even to express your reverence for heavenly things, is contrary to human dignity” speaks volumes about the sinful heart that refuses to love and honor our infinite and benevolent Creator and Sustainer, but says nothing about God’s existence, except that many people do not like it and view God as an obstacle to their presumed authority and independence.

      Deductive Evil Disproofs
      We come to the second category of arguments against God’s existence, what the editors call “deductive evil disproofs,” or variations of “the problem of evil.” [1] In the interest of brevity, the present article provides some helpful background, while future posts will address specifics. In general, denials of God built on the problem of evil enlist the same irrational assumption that underlies and undermines every argument against God—that finite and fallen people can speak with authority about things infinitely beyond them without God’s explanation. Mystery, the limits of human understanding, and unproven or unjustified premises will also demonstrate how logical and theological riddles need not worry believers. We will also see how appeals to the problem of evil to deny God display the unbelievers’ need of the Gospel of Christ.

      Noisy Dust
      In the opening paragraph of the first disproof appealing to the existence of evil, the author portrays belief in God as unsupportable and irrational, as embracing that which our own beliefs disprove. [2] We will see, however, that belief in God is logical and reasonable. Also, the mistaken notion that deductive proofs are the greatest evidence for the existence of God will be examined. Logic is necessary and vitally important for right thinking, yet most things are known before or without a process of deductive reasoning, and often with a greater certainty than a logical argument can provide. Knowing how and why this is true gives a better understanding of the nature of knowledge, proofs, why belief is reasonable, and why unbelief is without excuse.

      The assumption that the miniscule can speak with authority about the ultimate, infinite, and transcendent underlies all denials of God’s existence. Alongside this stands the notion that what we cannot understand or logically demonstrate cannot exist or be true. In other words, reality in and beyond the universe is restricted to what we can comprehend. Atheists seem unaware or unwilling to admit that their entire enterprise stands on such an unreasonable idea. And as we will see, this belief governs every expression of the problem of evil.

      Focus on the Foundation
      Therefore, any serious discussion of God’s existence should consider the assumptions behind the claims and recognize the severely limited vantage point from which people speculate about God and ultimate realities. And again, every argument built on irrational, unjustified, or false assumptions is unsound.

      Smaller than Dust
      Now, for some perspective…

      Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, And marked off the heavens by the span, And calculated the dust of the earth by the measure, And weighed the mountains in a balance, And the hills in a pair of scales? Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, Or as His counselor has informed Him? With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding? And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge, And informed Him of the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket, And are regarded as a speck of dust on the scales; Behold, He lifts up the islands like fine dust. Even Lebanon is not enough to burn, Nor its beasts enough for a burnt offering. All the nations are as nothing before Him, They are regarded by Him as less than nothing and meaningless (Isa. 40:12-17 NAS).

      And as nations before an infinite God are as nothing, how much more our speculations? Moreover, consider the enormous depth and breadth of what we have yet to know of life and the universe, let alone that which lies beyond it. We can’t even know the content of an unopened gift in our hands, yet we speak with great authority about what lies beyond the few dimensions of our existence, a reality we could never know apart from God’s revelation. True wisdom admits its limitations.

      So, until next time and always, “To Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen” (Jude 1:24-25 NAS).

      [1] Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier, eds., The Impossibility of God (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003), 59-124.

      [2] J. L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence” in The Impossibility of God, 61.

      Scriptures marked NAS are taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, copyright© 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.


      Click here to download a PDF of this article.

      © 2018 Craig Biehl, author of God the Reason, The Box, The Infinite Merit of Christ, and Reading Religious Affections

       

      The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 14): “The Problem of Evil” (Part A) - Weekly Blog Post by Dr. Craig Biehl - grenade in egg carton

      X

      Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 14): “The Problem of Evil” (Part A)”


        [anr_nocaptcha g-recaptcha-response]

         

        We respect your privacy. We’ll NEVER sell, rent, or share your email address. That’s more than a policy, it’s our guarantee!

        The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 6): “Have Faith in Me”

        Atheists often recite the mantra that their denial of God’s existence stands on reason and science while belief in God stands on faith. The claim, of course is pure fiction. All people use reason and all people have faith in an ultimate authority, though the object of faith may differ. But problems with the claim run deeper, with an irony we would do well to appreciate. Defining faith as blind, the apologists of atheism believe they call people from fairy tales to the enlightened conclusions of science and reason. But underlying the “rational and scientific” façade lurks a well-disguised plea—a call to faith in the perspective and opinion of fallen and finite people. The evangelist of atheism says, in effect, “entrust your meaning, purpose, life, and the ultimate destiny of your soul to my personal opinion.” In short, “have faith in me.” The debate between atheists and Christians has nothing to do with faith versus reason and science (every scientific discovery is consistent with the Christian worldview). Rather, it concerns faith in the God who created everything, knows everything, and has explained everything to us in Scripture, versus faith in the perspective and opinions of people who do not know the contents of their neighbor’s garage without having a look.

        A Tall Story and Calling
        As we have seen, atheists assume for themselves the ability and authority to know and explain ultimate realities that they cannot possibly know. They presume their own sufficiency to tell others the source, meaning, and purpose of life, including the destiny of the soul. Naturalists, of course, deny the soul’s existence, a belief they cannot know as true. Yet, they invite you to trust their opinions, including no life after death, no judgment of their works, and no heaven or hell.

        They ask you to reject Christ, the only possibility of an eternal, holy, and happy life of meaning and purpose, and exchange Him for the speculations of limited and fallen people. They invite you to deny the obvious, to treat with contempt the One who created us in His image, has given us every good thing, including the ability to reason and discuss such things, and has paid an infinite price of infinite suffering to Himself that we might have forgiveness of sins and new life. They ask you to discard the knowledge of your God-given purpose, meaning, and destiny of immeasurable joy in heaven as God’s royal children in exchange for a few years to do what you want without accountability, without hope or purpose as an accident of time and chance destined for nothing, even as they ask you to trust them that you will not end up in hell for it.

        Atheists propose a tall story with serious consequences. And who would dare assume responsibility for the eternal destiny of others and direct them entrust their souls to such blind-faith and unwarranted opinions? Who would write books to influence millions without a certainty that their opinions are absolutely true and not leading people to a horrible fate? Their boldness is frightening and only outdone by their inability to know what they so confidently assert and ask others to embrace. By denying God’s existence they have assumed His place.

        A Gamble
        Whatever you may think of Pascal’s “Wager” as an encouragement to pursue God, one should consider the eternal consequences of the Christian versus the atheist being wrong about heaven and hell. The contrast is stark. Eternity is forever. Yet, atheists cannot possibly know that hell does not exist and they will not bail you out should they be wrong. Beer commercials notwithstanding, there are no parties in this horrible place. Why would anyone risk even a 1% chance of spending eternity there? Yet, the unreasonable deception of sin risks eternal condemnation for a few years of bread that never satisfies (Isa. 55:2), incurring the guilt of inviting others to follow this disastrous course. And as for the here and now, ask any believer if their life is better or worse since they have been born again, even with its hardships and the scorn of the world. True believers know the infinite value of Christ as compared to the temporary and shallow allurements of the world. Why, then, should anyone trust the untrustworthy prophets of nothing and despair?

        Be Encouraged and Be Warned
        To the believer, God remains infinitely excellent and worthy of your life and worship, while the inability of atheists to know what they claim to know will boost your faith in Christ and Scripture. To the unbeliever, please reflect upon the ability of your object of faith to meet your needs and deliver on its promises, implied or otherwise. Please consider that appeals to reason and science to deny God are neither reasonable nor scientific but attempts to justify unbelief and avoid the One to whom we owe all things. Deep down all people know God exists and that He deserves our love, trust, and gratitude (Rom. 1:18ff.). And consider that those writing thick books denying the truth of Scripture, who ask you to trust their siren song concerning God and all things, cannot possibly know what they ask you to believe.

        And know that “the Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9 NAS), that He “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1-4 NAS). And while people find comfort in numbers, book sales and popularity provide an untrustworthy barometer of truth or virtue, especially today. “The gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it” (Matt. 7:14 NAS). As for the supposed earthly benefits of presuming one’s independence from God, “what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? For what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mark 8:36-37 NAS). And disinterest displays contempt for the One who gave us life and every good thing, to whom we owe all things. Christ suffered infinite wrath on His soul to pay the penalty for our rebellion and contempt, and he did so from an overflowing love for the unlovable. Imagine the ingratitude of ignoring such a gift.

        Have Faith in Christ
        Thus, along with the saints and the Apostles, “We beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:20-21 NAS). May God give you grace to trust Christ, who alone gives eternal life and meets your every need, to whom belongs all glory and honor forever, Amen.

        Scriptures marked NAS are taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, copyright© 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.


        Click here to download a PDF of this article.

        © 2018 Craig Biehl, author of God the Reason, The Box, The Infinite Merit of Christ, and Reading Religious Affections

         

        The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 6): “Have Faith in Me” - Weekly Blog Post by Dr. Craig Biehl - people betray each other

        X

        Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 6):
        “Have Faith in Me” “


          [anr_nocaptcha g-recaptcha-response]

           

          We respect your privacy. We’ll NEVER sell, rent, or share your email address. That’s more than a policy, it’s our guarantee!

          The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 1): Biblical Miracles

          Imagine yourself sitting in the classroom on the first day of a biology course at a local college when the professor takes his place behind the podium and says, with an air of great authority, “I know everything about everything in the universe and beyond, including everything that could possibly exist.” Imagine again laughing with the other students at the professor’s sense of humor, encouraged at the prospect of an enjoyable semester. But, imagine further that the professor was dead serious, and when a fellow student raised his hand and challenged the claim, the professor responded with epithets of “flat-earther,” “backwards,” and “unscientific,” to name a few of the nicer labels. And to your surprise, the majority of the class agreed with the professor! Now, maybe you think this scenario makes for an interesting introduction but bears no resemblance to reality, that nothing like this takes place in or outside the hallowed halls of higher learning and objective inquiry. No human in their right mind would say such things, and no one in their right mind would buy the books of those who did. But, alas, many not only say it, many applaud their brilliance and give their hard-earned wages for their books.

          Who, then, says such things? Look no further than the shelves of your local bookstore and the countless videos and articles on the internet, not to mention text books and scholarly journals. The claim is implied in every assertion that God does not exist. “Design but no Designer,” goes the mantra. (Many avoid using the term “design” to describe reality given the obvious implications.) Yet, a mere mortal would need to know everything about everything in the universe and beyond, including every possibility, to know that God does not exist. (Of course, if God did not exist, we would not be here to discuss it, but I digress.) In other words, someone would need the omniscience of God to know that the omniscient God does not exist. (Interestingly, sin presumes the place and authority of God, but I digress again.)

          The absurdity of the claim derives, in part, from our human limitations, an impediment to the infinite knowledge required to know that the God of Scripture does not exist, and one of many reasons no human argument can make the case. For instance, consider the argument that biblical miracles are impossible and thus the biblical God does not exist. But, to know that biblical miracles are impossible requires knowing that the infinite God of Scripture who created, orders, and sustains all things does not exist. And to know that the God who can easily perform such miracles does not exist requires complete knowledge of every possible thing.

          Moreover, to presume God does not exist to disprove biblical miracles in order to disprove God’s existence, assumes what the denial of biblical miracles is supposed to prove. To borrow a phrase of Edwards, this “is not strong arguing.” Additionally, who knows enough to say that nothing could ever have operated differently from how things operate today? Many assume it, but none can know it. Omniscience, once again, is needed. And why would people that claim the universe is founded on time and chance use arguments assuming a uniform and non-random universe? Are we really to believe that time and random chance produce constant and unchanging physical laws, and that science has proven it? Scientists have done no such thing. And, to claim eternally existing uniform laws not only contradicts a universe founded on time and chance, it ignores the question of where they came from and how they became organized and fixed in the first place, and constitutes nothing more than a wild, blind-faith guess, and that contrary to reality, logic, how everything we observe in the universe functions, and the observation, testing, and repeatability that science requires.

          In the end, uniform physical laws only exist because God created, organized, and upholds the universe. Time and chance explain nothing of its design, order, and continuous operation, or the results of such uniform “laws.” Concerning miracles, the God who designed, created, and upholds the rules can bend, break, and organize them as He pleases, whenever He pleases, and for whatever purpose He pleases. As He orders and upholds every aspect of the universe at all times, He can do whatever He wants at a particular time and place, for a particular reason, in a manner we cannot comprehend. Hence, biblical miracles are quite reasonable. The best anyone denying biblical miracles can say is they have never seen one, affirming their own limitations and thereby affirming their inability to legitimately deny the existence of the God who performs them. And to imply, “the only things possible are things I have personally experienced” appears no more reasonable than the implied claim of omniscience.

          Lastly, many of the same people that deny the possibility of the biblical miracles believe the entire universe, including life and everything in it, came from an explosion of compressed, non-living matter the size of a golf ball or pin head. The result somehow organized itself into everyone and everything. And Jonah in a whale is impossible? For some, it seems, anything is possible, except the God of Scripture. In fact, scientists spend millions of dollars looking for extra-terrestrials and are quick to see marks of their existence in space noise and rock formations on planets but see no evidence for God in the exquisite design and beauty of the immeasurable life forms on earth. The amazing design and order in all things, from atoms and molecules to the expanse of the cosmos, give abundant evidence for—nothing. We should not be surprised at this illogical and irrational double-standard, given that imaginary space aliens make no authoritative claims on our life or call us to repent of sin. And neither does a God conveniently defined out of existence, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary and the absurdity of the alternatives. God has clearly told us the truth of the matter, and that for our own good: “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God” (Ps. 14:1 NAS). “Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20 NAS). Perhaps we should listen.

          Scriptures marked NAS are taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, copyright© 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.


          Click here to download a PDF of this article.

          © 2018 Craig Biehl, author of God the Reason, The Box, The Infinite Merit of Christ, and Reading Religious Affections

           

          The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 1): Biblical Miracles - Weekly Blog Post by Dr. Craig Biehl - Northern Lights man on mountain top

          X

          Yes, I Want a PDF of “The Human Limitations of Unreasonable Atheism (Part 1):
          Biblical Miracles
          “


            [anr_nocaptcha g-recaptcha-response]

             

            We respect your privacy. We’ll NEVER sell, rent, or share your email address. That’s more than a policy, it’s our guarantee!