So You Think that You're too Enlightened to Believe in God

Nothing can ever be anything.

An Excerpt: Addendum 1 from Aspects of Salvation

So you think that you’re too enlightened to Believe in

God. With all due respect, no, you are not; perhaps you’re currently too

stubborn to do so (I get it; I can be stubborn too). The arbitrary decision

to reject supernatural explanations, even though they are often the best

explanations for many phenomena, is not enlightenment; it is narrow-

mindedness, not “free thinking,” no matter how educated, intellectual,

or “scientific” one may attempt to come across when discussing it. I

respectfully implore you to get past this because: A) Atheism is probably

the most ridiculous and bankrupt RELIGION ever devised (a religion is

something that is adhered to with ardor or faith…blind faith in this case).

Please understand that none of this is an attack on you, but on the load

of nonsense you have been duped into believing, at least at some level.

I question whether there are really any 100% genuine true atheists. B)

Eternity is a long time, and you don’t want to spend it in the only place

that is available to spend it in if you choose to die in your sin. I often

hear people who object to the truth of Scripture ask, “How could a

loving God send people to Hell?” The proper and more logical question to

ask here is, “Why would anyone choose Hell over a loving God?”

The religion of atheism ultimately reduces to this principle: Nothing, for

no reason, with no cause, with no purpose, with no direction, with no

intention, somehow became everything. And then this “everything,”

through countless ridiculously lucky accidents, each of them with odds

against them happening being orders upon orders of magnitude beyond

that of mathematical absurdity (mathematical absurdity being 1 in

10^50), became the orderly universe that “just so happens” to be fine-

tuned to support life, that we see today; including our biosphere, which

of course includes us. In addition, one must accept that each of these

mind-blowingly improbable events had to occur in just the right order

relative to one another. The odds against that happening are even

greater. One must accept the entirety of this ridiculous premise purely

on blind faith if one truly chooses to truly adhere to the religion of

atheism. Anything else would not be atheistic thinking and would be

profound [willful] cognitive dissonance at the very best.

I think that oftentimes when someone thinks of the term “nothing,” they

think of space. Space is far from being nothing; space is something that

would have had to come into existence at the alleged Big Bang, if the

Big Bang were indeed true. Genesis 1:1 provides a much better

explanation. Do a little reading; space itself is very complex. A true

“nothing” is something that I am not sure any mortal can truly wrap

his/her mind around. One must also question why there is something

instead of nothing. Atheism has no answer for that.

One must also accept the idea that moral laws that transcend human

determination are nonexistent and must then appeal only to human

emotions, feelings, and opinions. In other words, there are no moral

absolutes, and therefore judgment regarding them is irrelevant and

misplaced at best. If this is the case, one person’s truth and moral code

is no less relevant than anyone else’s. Good and bad become irrelevant.

There is no place for any sort of justice system. If someone feels that

you shouldn’t exist, and that if your existence were to cease, the world

would be a better place, then they are within their own rights to act

upon their own truth and kill you because, according to their truth,

which would be just as relevant as anyone else’s, they felt that this was

best. This would be completely acceptable, and you would have no basis

on which to say otherwise. If, according to someone’s truth, your car

should belong to them and they choose to simply take it for themselves,

then what right do you have to be judgmental and tell them that they

shouldn’t take it from you? After all, they followed their heart and acted

according to their own truth, which is just as relevant as yours or

anyone else’s. I could go on with countless examples. I certainly hope

that all of us see just how absolutely ridiculous such a premise is.

Nonetheless, if there is no Law Giver that transcends humanity, there is

no law that transcends humanity, and the ridiculous statements I made

earlier in this paragraph are not ridiculous statements at all, but

“relevant” according to this impossible “reality.”

0 x 0 = 0

Information needs a source. It would be ludicrous to think that the

production of the hardware and the programming of the software of the

computer that I am using to type on right now was not the result of a

sophisticated, deliberate, and coordinated source of information many

layers deep, consisting of many brilliant minds working together with

intention, logic, creativity, and precision from concept to production. Life

is perpetuated by information at all levels. I submit that it is far more

ludicrous not to credit a deliberate information source for the

sophisticated information system of life, which consists of and is carried

out via nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) and proteins, that dwarfs (to put it

mildly) the information involved with the most sophisticated computing

systems ever devised or proposed by the most brilliant teams of minds

of mankind. We rightly recognize the fact that the information necessary

to build a sophisticated computer system has and requires an elaborate

source of intelligence with intention. An adherent to the religion of

atheism must, by faith, assert the exact opposite regarding the far more

sophisticated information source necessary for life. Any sort of “in-

between” ambiguous attempt at explaining otherwise is a result of

nothing more than willful cognitive dissonance. Life is either a result of

an intelligent Creator, or it is not. To think that it is not is illogical and is

nothing more than willful ignorance.

The adherent to the religion of atheism will look at a drawing of a human

being or a prosthetic leg and conclude that an artist is responsible for

the first and a talented engineering and manufacturing team for the

second. However, at the same time, he will credit a ridiculous chain of

lucky cosmic accidents for the existence of a real human leg and a real

human being. I don’t have enough faith to even begin to believe

something as ludicrous as this.

I drew myself!

I also find it interesting that someone can readily believe the miracles

that must be invoked in regard to the Big Bang (i.e., cosmic inflation),

as well as abiogenesis (life from non-life), but then turn around and

scoff at the miracles recorded in the Bible. Belief in the Resurrection of

Christ, where there is a body with all of the chemical ingredients of life

lying right there, even in the right places, does not require even an

infinitesimal fraction of the faith necessary to believe in abiogenesis.

Historically speaking, the Resurrection of Christ is as plausible as Lincoln

giving the Gettysburg Address; something no one has any logical need

to question. Also, there is no way that 12 men (Jesus' 12 apostles) were

going to keep a lie straight for 40 years, especially one of the magnitude

of the Resurrection, that was guaranteed not to bring them any material

gain and continuously expose them to hardships and put them in harm’s

way. Each of the apostles knew without a doubt that the Resurrection

was either undeniably true or that it was false. No one would have

voluntarily endured the horrendous suffering and brutal deaths that

these men endured for something they knew to be a lie.

The concept of atheism also lacks the necessary non-contingent factor

for the formation of life. Many, if not most, prominent atheists, such as

Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick, will agree that there is no way that

life could have formed here on Earth via unguided processes. They will,

however, argue that life must have developed elsewhere and then

somehow made its way here to Earth; in other words, life on Earth

would be contingent upon it developing somewhere else. This does not

solve the problem of abiogenesis (life coming from non-life via unguided

processes); it only moves it elsewhere where it is no less implausible

than it is here on Earth. They would have to move the initial

spontaneous formation of life back sequentially from place to place,

planet to planet infinitely, with one world dependent upon life coming

from the one before it, and then somehow against astronomical odds,

making it there. It amounts to an infinite string of extremely lucky

contingencies. This is, of course, not logical, especially considering that

the universe had a beginning; it has been around for a finite amount of

time. The God of the Bible is the logical and necessary non-contingent;

someone, the force outside of time, space, and matter who is needed to

cause time, space, and matter. God has no beginning; no one created

Him; He just is (Exodus 3:14, Hebrews 13:8). This is not only by far the

most sensible and logical conclusion, it is also by far the most hopeful

(and by that, I do not mean merely wishful)!

Science is based on logic. The logical conclusion when one sees evidence

of design, especially evidence of overwhelmingly elaborate design, is to

attribute it to a designer. Science is the search for truth. The truth can

be found in logic. Atheism deceitfully masquerades as science. At its

core, it appeals to anything but logic. In our universe, we see vastness,

morality, order, and amazingly complex and purposeful design. These

only come about by the deliberate action of a very intelligent and very

powerful Creator; a God; one like the God of the Bible; the one true

God. The point of this writing is really not about winning an argument. It is

about the fact that I want you to go to Heaven and not be deceived into

forever forfeiting it for a lie devised by someone who hates you.

Aspects of Salvation is also available on Kindle and paperback.