christianapologetics

2 maart 20235 maart 2023

The Hiddenness of God as Evidence for God

Share us >>

If God would give undeniable evidence for His existence, it would be a contradiction in terms of who He is. Why is that? The answer lies in free will and love.

The materialist often asked us for evidence for the existence of God. The request, and arguments rooted in a materialistic worldview. Thus, a request for scientific evidence. In materialism, it is often stated that scientific knowledge is the only true and reliable knowledge. The request would imply the evidence to be of a material and/or demonstrative nature e.g., verifiable, testable, repeatable evidence. However, this is a deeply flawed and serious category mistake. In this talk, I will address this form of evidence specifically though there are numerous other kinds of reliable evidence.

I will argue and demonstrate that free will and love are immaterial properties. And that free will and the freedom to choose to love imply that God exists, that is if the Judeo-Christian God does indeed exist. If He would reveal Himself fully as He is portrayed in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, the Bible, and it is true, one will be totally overwhelmed by who He is. So much so that we will not have the freedom to choose to love Him, and believe in Him. A contradiction in terms of who He is. God has to be hidden to allow the freedom to choose to love Him. Yet, He reveals enough of Himself to those who seek Him to be convinced of His existence, but He hides enough of Himself to those who do not want to be convinced, those who do not want God to exist. In the following talk, I will give my reasons and arguments as to why I say this.

What is love? Can it ever be forced? No, love per definition is free. Forced love is a contradiction in terms. If you are not free to choose to love, it can never be love. Right?

For the strict materialist free will is only an illusion (Sam Harris – ‘free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it.’)¹ and rightly so, because if we are but material, i.e., molecules in motion, electrochemical processes in and between cells – if nothing transcendent exists, and we are nothing more than material particles reacting to the laws of nature, free will is impossible. And love can only be an illusion. If everything that exists, can be examined and empirically proven given enough time and the necessary knowledge and nothing immaterial exists, free will and love can be not real. Physical objects behave by natural laws and inputs, and free will and love can only be an illusion.

Yet, we experience love as real. Love for a spouse, for a child, for parents? Can all of this be a mere illusion, an illusion so strong that we believe it, yet do not have it? Are we, and everyone ever born into this world, at all times, been deceived in believing that love is real? Can it be possible that we are being deceived by the material world that we live in and are part of? Think carefully, do we not experience free will as real, and love as real? Or is our world a dishonest joke? The alternative is that there is more than the material world and love and free will is a reality and not a mere delusional product of the material brain.

Sam Harris writes¹ that if he were to trade places with a particular individual, a criminal, atom for atom, he would be that criminal. There would be no extra part of him that could decide to see the world differently or to resist the impulse to victimise other people. ‘I cannot take credit for the fact that I do not have the soul of a psychopath’ if he was truly in the shoes of that criminal, that is, if he had the genes and life experience and an identical brain (or soul) in an identical state, as that criminal, he (and by implication ‘each of us’) would act exactly the same. I totally agree with Sam Harris if there is only a material world and nothing more.

But I put it to you that we have free will and can choose to love – more than our family and people important to us. We can also choose to love those who hate us, our enemies that might threaten our survival, and love them, with zero benefits to us, or to our own people. It is a choice, that we can take freely. There is nothing in this notion beneficial for the survival of the species, not to our particular people group, not even our personal selves. In fact, it might cost us dearly. But, we do have a choice, we are free to choose.

In the world of the strict materialist, there is no free will. The love of the mother for a child is not a free choice but a necessity for the survival of the species, even so amongst people. Free love does not exist as a reality, it is not a choice in the world of the materialist.

So, is the materialist trapped in the world of materialism? Yes, if there is no transcendent being, no God, he/she is trapped. And with this, all moral responsibility falls flat. One would lock up a criminal, not because he has done anything wrong – he had no choice, no free will after all – but to protect society against him. If there is no God, then morality and law lose their foundation and there is no objective good and evil. This was acknowledged by Nietzsche, Stirner, Ruse, Satre, Camus, Dostoyevsky and others.

This is not the reality that we experience in life nor what humans live out. It is not coherent with life, and we know it. We encounter free choices throughout our lives daily and, very importantly, we are responsible for our decisions. We experience love – free to even love our enemies, a decision that has nothing to do with the survival of the species but with profound transcendental significance.

Caught in this ‘box’ of materialism, caught in the ‘box’ where no transcendence exists, where no God exists, free will and love cannot exist or have any true meaning.

Free choices require that man is more than just a body, that there is more to reality than just the physical world. If more than the material world does exist, if transcendence, if God, does exist, free will and true love can exist. This would add one more argument to the collective evidence for God’s existence, in the larger palette of reasons to believe and one less reason not to believe.

So, we experience free will and true love as real. Materialism is incoherent and not in line with reality – lest you are willing to accept free will and love as deceitful illusions. Certainty is knowing that a truth aligns with reality.

We might ask then that if God exists, why is it not obvious to everyone? Afterall, the Judeo-Christian concept of God is that He is love. That He is the very essence of what love is. Love is not described as an attribute of God, but that love is what He is, the sole source of love. Why can’t we experience and see Him, why not definitive evidence for His existence, and we can know that He is a reality? Why His hiddenness?

Why do some people see God in everything and other do not see Him in anything? Blaise Pascal wrote “What can be seen on earth indicates neither the total absence, nor the manifest presence of divinity, but the presence of a hidden God. Everything bears this stamp.”

I’d like to put yo you two reasons for God’s hiddenness:

I. ‘If God had wished to overcome the obstinacy of the most hardened, He could have done so by revealing Himself to them plainly that they could not doubt the truth of His essence, … This is not the way He wished to appear when He came in mildness because so many men had shown themselves unworthy of His clemency, that He wished to deprive them of the good they did not desire. It was therefore not right that He should appear in a manner divine and absolutely capable of convincing all men, but neither was it right that His coming should be so hidden that He could not be recognised by those who sincerely sought Him. He wished to make Himself perfectly recognisable to them. Thus, wishing to appear only to those who seek Him with all of their hearts and hidden from those who shun Him with all of their hearts, He has qualified our knowledge of Him by giving signs which can be seen by those who seek Him and not by those who do not. There is enough light for those who desire only to see and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition’ Pascal – Pensées

But Nietzsche (in Daybreak, 1881) finds the notion of a hidden God inconsistent with a God who holds us accountable for our unbelief. ‘A god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and does not even make sure that his creatures understand his intentions – could that be a god of goodness?’ But ‘Nietzsche’s objection labour under a false assumption: for God to be good and omnipotent, He must reveal Himself so clearly as to leave no doubt for all humans irrespective of their moral condition or attentiveness. But Pascal argues that God is available to those who seek Him and God has left enough clues to make the search warranted.’ – Douglas Groothuis². He continues, ‘Pascal wants to kindle …. a passion to seek out God, for “it is well worth it”. But conditional epistemic access is involved in acquiring knowledge. Each kind of truth claim, or discipline requires appropriate skill for knowing. Certain qualities, (virtues), best suit a person for gaining knowledge are patience, tenacity, humility, studiousness, and honest truth seeking’.

Blaise Pascal, ‘He has willed to make Himself . . . appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart. He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not’.³

This allows for free will, the choice to seek, to love, to believe. God will not coerce us into loving Him.

II. Furthermore, if God would give us all the evidence, undeniable evidence for His existence, we will be left with no choice but to love Him. And it will not be love, as we will have no choice. Contrary as to what love is. God created us to love Him – but also gave us a free will to choose to love Him. That is what He wants, that is what love is.

If the Judeo-Christian God exists and would fully reveal Himself, as expressed in the Bible, mortal man will have no choice but to love Him.

God reveals enough of Himself in the Word of Scripture (Bible), and the Word of Nature (science), and on a personal level, to know that He exists and that we can live in a relationship with Him based on trust. And we can experience more evidence of His existense by seeing His action in our lives and developing a deeper trust daily. Yet, He hides enough of Himself for us not to be overwhelmed by the fullness of His being. He leaves us with the choice daily to love Him and trust Him, or not. To seek Him or flee from Him.

If the Judeo-Christian God exists and what is written about Him is true, then,

We would be so overwhelmed by His goodness, overwhelmed by His love and presence, more than we can ever imagine, or ever encounter in our experiences in human relationships, we would experience peace beyond imagination, and contentment that only a fool would walk away from it. The majority of Christians that live in a relationship with God experience this but not all of it all the time.
We would realize and understand the purpose of the universe, the purpose of our existence. And not to choose Him would make no sense.
We will believe the Scriptures, the Bible, and know that it is true. That we are sinful, that God is holy and righteous, the perfect righteous Judge that will punish every sin we ever committed lest in His love our sin is covered by Christ on the Cross, and we will be taken up into His presence. And if not, if we choose not to love Him, He will respect our free choice, and we will experience what our guilt earned, now and with eternal torment (i.e., guilt, regret, experiencing nothing of the goodness of God; no beauty, friendship, love, light, warmth, or anything that is good). Only a fool would choose the latter – nobody in their right mind.

To grasp and realize this to its full extent, without a shred of the slightest doubt, and to experience the abundance of who God is in His grandeur, will leave us with no choice and love will be not free and thereby cannot be love.

‘I see as a trait of God that He always gives us plausible deniability. Every time He makes Himself known, He also says, ‘If you don’t want to believe in Me, you don’t have to. It’s your choice. If you don’t want to think this is the handout I’m showing you, you don’t have to. But if you’re willing to accept that it’s Me, we’re going to have a great time together.’ Guy J. Consolmagno, SJ – an American research astronomer, physicist, and director of the Vatican Observatory.

Without undeniable conclusive evidence for His existence, He leaves it open to us to believe Him or not believe Him – He would not bully us, coerce us nor force us. He desires true love, a completely free choice.

The ‘hiddenness’ of God and the lack of ‘final evidence’ for His existence are enveloped in the reality of the existence of the transcendent, of the reality of love and free will, and these cannot be separated. It makes sense that He will not give us final and definitive evidence for His existence. He wants us to freely choose Him. A passion to seek and find Him. If we are merely physical, material stuff, then there is no god, no free will, no love, no objective morality, and very little sense in this world. Love and free will just an illusion.

People will forever argue for and against God’s existence depending on what their hearts’ desire is. The final conclusion will forever escape the minds of the materialist because of free will and love.

If God would give undeniable evidence for His existence, it would be a contradiction in terms. He is love and created us for love. Love is free and definitive undeniable evidence for His existence would remove our free will to choose to love Him. Not being able to choose to love Him contradicts who He is.

My own experience when I was seeking God and found Him in February 2000, whilst praying for an atheist friend:

Typically, Christians report, and I experienced this, though reading this many years after the experience:

A new moral awareness concerning good and evil in themselves and others – Hebrews 5: 11-14
A sense of guidance and calling received primarily from the wisdom of the Bible – II Timothy 3: 15-17 as well as through Christian fellowship Psalm 133
Personal moral progress (adhering to moral principles and developing personal virtues through the agency of the Holy Spirit)
A deep sense of belonging to God through the work of Jesus Christ – Romans 8: 14 – 16

The atheist wants the god to be material-like, like the ancient Israelites and other ancient civilizations that made physical idols, gods. This had been natural to the human race throughout the ages and still is. Our idols are now mostly one of three material entities, if not all three; money, power (over fellow humans), and sex.

Scientists cannot even try to prove or disprove God’s existence because they know there is not an experiment that can ever detect God. You cannot use material means to prove the immaterial. How do you prove the existence of mathematics which is also a nonphysical entity, something that you cannot hold in your hand, or demonstrate under a microscope? You can claim the existence of mathematics, invent mathematical language to describe it to make it useful, and present evidence to prove that mathematics is true and exists. The essence of mathematics has always existed since the Big Bang. The cosmos is based on mathematics! We as humans can only discover it, invent a language to make it useful, and find ways to describe it – with a rational brain. You can neither demonstrate mathematics physically nor see the reality of mathematics, or the rationality of the brain in a laboratory – only the effects of it. It is a serious category mistake to try and prove the immaterial by material means.

The atheist always asks for evidence. Physical, verifiable testable, repeatable, evidence for the existence of God. This is a deeply flawed and serious category mistake. God is immaterial. And to cling to demand for this type of evidence is just an excuse not to face reality and to avoid the truth.

I find that atheists very often focus on the next possible objection in the arguments for the existence of God and they do not seriously think about and consider the arguments that have been put to them and miss so much of the strong evidence, the collective arguments, for the existence of God.

If the knowledge of God is available to everyone (Romans 1:18-21) and if the case for Christianity is strong for those who want to investigate, then everyone is accountable for what they know and could know about God. Much of atheism is understood as misotheism: the hatred of God that they know is there, often from previous painful experiences. Atheists, like Freud, assume there is no God and then wreck their brains to explain why so many believe this egregious, glaring, falsehood.²

The atheist or sceptic, having been exposed to general revelation sufficient to know there is a God, develops a false belief that God does not exist, since if God existed, one would need to humble oneself, be thankful, and worship God. Pride forbids this, and pride (or autonomy) is the essence of all sin⁴ As Pascal wrote, ‘Men despise religion and hope that it is not true’. In one sense, Christianity is the easiest of all religions. You believe the gospel and are redeemed. It is all of grace. In another sense, it is the hardest of all religions because you must repent of any self-righteousness and humble yourself before the cross.⁵

If God is there, one should be humbled, and worship Him. But resisting this requires self-deception. Suppressing of the truth is intentional by not considering the cumulative truth of the existence of God seriously, yet seriously pursuing every possible counterargument to find reasons not to believe, which God will allow as you turn your back on Him. It is a free choice.

Often it is we that are hiding from God and not God hiding from us

Summary

Free will is inconsistent with materialism.

Free will is a necessity for the existence of love – love is inconsistent with materialism.

Free will and love are consistent with reality. And consistent with immaterial transcendence. Consistent with the existence of God – not proof of God but consistent with His existence.

If God is love and exists, why does God not show Himself clearly?

God gives enough evidence of His existence for those who seek Him but does not reveal enough of Himself to those who do not want to know Him. Only one version of each of the cosmological, design, moral, religious experience, and ontological arguments need to be sound as a convincing item of knowledge that theism is true. On the side of historical argument, the reliability of the new testament manuscripts and the resurrection of Jesus, by itself, is good reason to believe that there is a God and that Jesus is who the New Testament claims He is. The atheist will constantly attempt to poke holes into each of these arguments but none can be finally overturned nor act as final evidence for God. But there is enough evidence for His existence and enough counter arguments to doubt. And that is exactly where God leaves up to the individual to freely choose.
Should He reveal Himself fully, one would be so overwhelmed by who He is that one will have no choice but to love Him. But love equals free choice. Thus, God puts us in a position to choose freely, and truly love Him and not for man to be overwhelmed and leave us with no choice. If we would have no choice, there can be no love and no loving God.

God leaves us with enough doubt and enough confirmation to freely choose to love Him.

It would be a contradiction if God is love and gives us so much evidence not to question in any sense His existence and thereby no choice but to love Him.

Therefore, any final and definitive evidence for God by whatever means would be a contradiction in terms of who God is. Furthermore, to ‘demand’ physical evidence to prove God’s existence is a category mistake as pointed out and a mere excuse for the materialist to hide behind and be under the illusion to think he has got God in check mate.

The Hiddenness of God points to the Evidence for God.

God can be found by everyone who sincerely wants to find Him.

Free Will. Sam Harris. Free Press 2012
Christian Apologetics Douglas Groothuis InterVarsity Press
Blaise Pascal Pensee 430
James Spiegel The Making of an Atheist. Moody Press 2010
Francis Schaeffer The God Who is There. InterVarsity Press 2020

29 juli 202119 augustus 2021

Time to Think. 3. How Reliable is the Biblical Account of Jesus Christ?

Share us >>

In Defense of the Gospel

If we find Mark’s Gospel account of Jesus’ life reliable it could also point to the reliability of the other Gospel accounts by Matthew and Luke and the rest of the New Testament. So, we will consider the Gospel of Mark in some detail with the concerns that Mark’s account might not be reliable.

The account of Jesus’s life by Mark (the Gospel of Mark) is accepted by most Christian and non-Christian scholars as the earliest account of Jesus’ life. If the account of Mark is found to be reliable even so, then would the other gospel accounts by Matthew and Luke be. (90% of what is written in Mark is written in Matthew and 60% of Mark is written in Luke. Matthew has 44% and Luke 58% material in common that is not found in Mark)

There are however three important objections to the reliability of Mark’s account to consider I. Was he a reliable witness to tell the story, close enough to Christ, and willing to tell the truth? Or was he trying to make a Jewish peasant into the Son of God? II. Is the transmission from what Mark wrote to the Greek manuscripts reliable? Important to know that Mark’s original documents are not available. Was it perhaps changed, even corrupted? III. Is the translation from the original Greek manuscripts to today’s New Testament reliable or in some texts changed to what Christians want it to say?

We will discuss each of these objections and start with the most important.

On the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts see – ‘The Resurrection of Christ’

I. The Objection of Unreliable Testimony.

Mark was not with Jesus, he was a post-resurrection person. Response: From scriptural/Biblical as well as second-century evidence it is evident that Mark was associated with Peter while in Rome as Peter’s interpreter. Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (60-130AD) claimed that Mark wrote the Gospel in Rome as he scribed the preaching of Peter.
Jesus was a legend. Response: Experts date the writing of Mark to be around 60 A.D., within 25 to 30 years after the crucifixion, making it most probably the oldest Gospel written. Thus, written much too early to create a legend. Legends are not created within the lifetime of the acquaintances of the supposed legend – created facts and stories are too easy to be exposed as untrue. Records of the life of Alexander the Great was between written 400 and 450 years after the events yet they are given the benefit of the doubt as factually correct.
Controversial stories of Jesus Christ vs the Pharisees were invented to dissolve debates and written later into the story of Jesus Christ. Response: The issues in the New Testament church were not solved by the sayings of Jesus. If the story of Jesus in the gospel were made up, Paul and others would have solved it by saying ‘Jesus said’ but Jesus is almost never cited to solve controversy except with The Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11.
Teachings like the Sermon on the Mount were invented to provide instructions to new Christians. Response: The is no Biblical or extra-Biblical evidence for this statement and accepted widely as the word spoken by Jesus.
Miracles were invented as apologetic material. Response: see The Resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection happened, then miracles can happen.

More evidence for the reliability of Mark

The unflattering portrayal of Jesus. Mark told the truth. He would not have included Mark 1:4-9, the baptism of repentance of Jesus and Mark 6:5, that Jesus could not do any miracles, Mark 10:18, Why do you call Me good or Mark 16: 5-7 the woman as witnesses of the resurrection. Mark gives a feel of integrity, unlike the non-canonical books.
The Presence of Independent Witnesses to what Mark wrote. Matthew and Luke’s account of Jesus’ life that coheres with Mark’s account. And Paul’s account that He saw the risen Jesus who radically changed his life. The high Christology that Jesus is the Son of God, Devine, died for our sins, worked miracles, raised from the dead and sits at the right hand of God in heaven, took years to develop. Response: Paul wrote a high Christology of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15 and written around 51 AD.
The effects of Jesus’ life on people. If he was just a teacher, He would have had minimal effect on the lives of His followers, but His followers were so convinced of His Christology that the church exploded, and His followers were prepared to lay down their lives.

From the above, it can be concluded that the Gospel of Mark is a reliable testimony of the life of Jesus.

II. Transmission from what Mark wrote to the Greek manuscripts. The objection is that it could be tainted because Mark’s original manuscripts are not available. Response: The question is not whether we have the original documents but how many copies of the original documents do we have, and how early were they written – how close to the original. The time from the earliest copies of Tacitus’ Annals that were written AD 14–68, the central historical source for the first century C.E. Rome, to the original writing is at least a thousand years and 20 copies are available. With Mark, the time between Mark’s original documents and existing copies is 140 years and thousands of copies are available. The reconstructed text from these manuscripts demonstrates 99% similarity with no major doctrinal (foundational teaching) variance.

III. Translation from the Greek manuscripts to today’s Bible. The objection is that it is a biased translation, that the modern translations from Greek were changed into what they wanted it to say. Response: There are many translations and different translations use different forms to express the same meaning. Some translations emphasize the precise meaning like the New International Version (NIV), and some emphasize the original language, like the New American Standard Version (NAS). Thus, different translations have different emphases but the same meanings and are not biased. The accuracy of the English translations is open to scrutiny by Christian and non-Christian Greek scholars. It is an accurate translation from Greek. This is not really an issue anymore and the least important of the objections to the reliability of Mark’s account of Jesus’s life

Conclusion: each of the main objections to the reliability of Mark’s account has been addressed. It was shown that Mark was a reliable witness, and willing to tell the truth. That the transmission of Mark’s writings to the earliest Greek manuscripts can be trusted and thirdly that the translation from the original Greek to today’s Bible was not corrupted and reliable and open to scrutiny by scholars. Mark’s Gospel is a reliable source about the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

29 juli 20219 augustus 2021

Time to Think. 2. Why Life without God is Untenable, if not Absurd

Share us >>

Man is the only creature that asks ‘why’- questions about his existence. If we are no more than the by-product of nature, the result of matter, time, and chance, and there is no reason for our existence, the answers might just be dark and terrible. (Loren Eisley) If God is left out of the equation, the only prospect is that we will all end up, with the universe, in a purposeless death.

Modern man thought when he got rid of God, that he freed himself but in killing God, he only orphaned himself. Without God, man and the universe are doomed to nothing more than a dark cold purposeless death. Science tells us that the universe is running out of energy and eventually everything, the entire universe, will end up in death. In Sartre’s words ‘the universe is marching irretrievably to its grave, there is no hope, no escape’.

If each individual will pass out of existence when he dies, what ultimate meaning could there be? Does it matter that he/she lived at all? Consider the average person that lived a thousand years ago, in the Middle Ages. The vast majority of these people are completely forgotten by everyone. What they did as individuals, good or bad, makes no difference to anyone today. Their actions while they were alive bore no significance relatively soon after their deaths. And so will our life and actions have no significance within years after our death, once we are forgotten as individuals. ‘We don’t remember what happened in the past, and in future generations, no one will remember what we are doing now.’ Ecclesiastes 1:11. If there is only death, there is no ultimate meaning. Everything will be forgotten as if it never existed – our final destination would be unrelated to our behavior. So, we can live as we please.

Without God life becomes ultimately absurd with no ultimate meaning, no ultimate value, and no ultimate purpose. Just today’s pleasures for today.

If all is doomed to die anyway, what difference if one has ever existed? Mankind is in the doomed race of a dying universe – it will cease to exist, and it will make no difference. Each individual will die, the human race will stop to exist, and the universe will die; just a cold, dead, lifeless, lightless chaotic conglomeration of stars swallowed by black holes. And no one to remember anything.

This is the horror of modern man: in reality, because he ends in nothing, he is ultimately nothing. And doomed to purposelessness in a forgotten vacuum of nothing.

Life might be significant relative to now but ultimately there is no significance to anyone’s life. What is the ultimate difference between the life of a Hitler and a Mother Teresa, if they both and their actions will be forgotten in a thousand years from now?

If there is no God, there is no ultimate meaning. People live as if their lives have meaning, but it is inconsistent with their worldview. A self-delusion really to ‘create’ your own meaning.

So does the concept of morality lose its meaning without God? If there is no God there can’t be objective morality, no objective right or wrong. Without God, who can say whose values are right or and whose are wrong? Hitler, Mother Theresa? Morality becomes an expression of individual taste, of personal subjective feelings, and relative judgments. With the implication that means it is impossible to judge war, suppression, crime, evil, love as bad or good. It becomes only the bare valueless facts of existence, personal opinion. I will soon do a talk on morality in this series.

If death is the only and final outcome of existence, what can the goal and purpose of life be? All for nothing? We are here to know purpose and humans seek it all the time!
If not, we are no better than a dog or an insect. Without God, there can only be despair if we are honest with ourselves. If God is dead, man is dead. For atheist Friedrich Nietzsche the implication is that atheism equals nihilism, the belief that nothing is real, that it is impossible to know anything, that all values are based on nothing, especially moral values, believing that life is inherently and utterly meaningless. Without God, there is no goal or purpose for the universe. And man is merely a biological electro-chemical machine, controlled by altering genetic codes and cannot have a free will and neither have rational thoughts.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s solution holds ‘two possibilities: face the absurdity of life or live valiantly with courage and determination’. Or atheist Bertrand Russell ‘build your life on unyielding despair’. Albert Camus ‘come to terms with the absurdity of life, then learn to live in love with one another’.

Without God, you are in a desperate position and have to try and make the best of reality. But it is impossible to live consistently in despair and with incessant attempts to deal with the situation.

Francis Schaeffer illustrates this concept in the Two-Story Universe – model a ‘two-story division of knowledge’. The first level is the finite world without God: a life without ultimate meaning and purpose. Absurd. The second level is life with meaning, purpose, and value because of a belief in God that created the universe and us for a purpose. It is impossible to live happily and consistently without God, on the first level. Without God, you can either be consistent and unhappy being stuck on the first story or inconsistent, in what you believe and jump to the second story and be happy. Modern man, the atheist, is living in this two-story universe. He lives in the lower story because he believes there is no God. But he cannot live consistently and be happy. He makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm that life has meaning, value, and purpose, but he has no right to do it. He is inconsistent if he does that.

Three areas that show that life is absurd without God and that you cannot be consistent and happy. To be true to yourself, to be true to truth, and be consistent with a materialistic worldview one cannot be but unhappy. To be happy you have to be inconsistent with one’s materialistic worldview.

Meaning

Without God life has no ultimate meaning because everything is ultimately on its way to death and all will be forgotten as if never existed. But people continue to live if life has meaning. You can ‘create’ meaning by freely choose to follow certain actions – Sartre. This is utterly inconsistent. If life is meaninglessness, because there is no ultimate meaning, then to ‘create’ meaning is meaningless as it will also end in death and be forgotten. Man is trapped in the lower story. To ‘create’ meaning represents a leap of faith into the upper story. Sartre has no basis for this leap of faith – without God, there cannot be any objective meaning. This is only self-delusion because each person can’t give the universe its own meaning. The universe without God is ultimately meaningless irrespective of how the individual sees it. So, you have to pretend.

2. Value; ethical values and human value.

Represents the most blatant inconsistencies in the materialistic worldview.

Bertrand Russell confessed ‘I do not know where ethical values come from. Dostoevsky, ‘All things are permitted but man cannot live this way. Everything in him cries out to what is wrong but does not know why.’ Sartre admitted that the Holocaust was wrong but he could not live with his denial of absolute ethical values. Moral compatibility – an atheist cannot live consistently with this.

Feminism. If God does not exist, then women have no value more than a female goat. In nature male is dominant. But nobody can live with such a dehumanizing view. Francis Crick (Watson-Crick-DNA) concludes that man is no better than a laboratory specimen. If so, why was the holocaust wrong? We can only protest consistently if we believe in God.

No God and humans have no value. Inconsistent if you say they do

3. Purpose

You have to create a purpose. It is self-delusion without God. You cannot reach a logical conclusion. Ernest Bloch, ‘the only way modern man lives in the face of death is by subconsciously borrowing the belief in immortality that his forefathers held to, even though he himself has lost and has no basis for believing it since he does not believe in God.’ He believes that life ends in nothing. It is hardly sufficient to keep the head high and to work as if there is no end. He makes the leap of faith to confirm but it is inconsistent. If God does not exist, then nobody has any value. And if you say that humans do have value, you are inconsistent. Live as if immortal.

The dilemma. Postmodern man denies God’s existence and results in absurdity of purpose, meaning, and objective moral values. Life is ultimately without meaning or purpose. If you are consistent in believing and living this, you will be profoundly unhappy. To live happily demands a lie. Man, desperately try to escape this. L D Rue. The ‘Noble Lie Option.’ We deceive ourselves means by some noble lie thinking that we exist in the universe that has meaning. Our quest for personal wholeness and self-fulfillment becomes only relative to the individual. No social coherence – relativism. In order to live modern man must live in self-deception. But once you see this lie, it doesn’t work anymore like a placebo, and atheism fails.

Biblical Christianity offers meaning, value, and purpose. Not proof but spells out the workable alternative. The existence of God makes sense of morality, the moral force behind the moral law, shame and guilt, equal rights, human value.

This blog on YouTube.