I have concluded that it, indeed, is a fortuitous situation that
God does exist—lest the atheist would have little purpose in life
Gallups is the senior pastor of Hickory Hammock Baptist Church and along with hosting a long running radio show, Freedom Fridays with Carl Gallups as well as writing a weekly newspaper column titled As the Preacher, he has produced more than a dozen full-length documentary-style DVDs on various biblical subjects.
His book “The Magic Man in the Sky” was obviously, based on the titled, based on his interaction with Atheists—find the book here.
Chapter headings are:
The Magic Man in the Sky
Three Views of Life
The Great Divide
When Two Worlds Collide
The Straw Man
Dismantling the Straw Man
Looking Down From on High
The Seen and the Unseen
The Tale of Two Dimensions
Atheism and Agnosticism: A Pondering
Proving the Existence of God: The Set-Up
Proving the Existence of God: The Delivery
Is Thar Your Final Answer?
The Meaning of Life
The Problem of Evil
Is Evolution Settled Science?
Pondering Pesky Puzzles
But … They Have Never Heard!
The Sky Is Falling! The Sky ls Falling!
Requiem for a Saint—Hope for a Sinner
The Ultimate Question
Hereinafter is a sample of the points he makes.
I note that Carl Gallups is obviously basing his book on his interaction with Atheists due to the title “The Magic Man in the Sky” because such a childish level of dealing with issues such as God’s existence is, sadly, very, very, very common amongst Atheists.
For example, Gallups quotes, ACLU “Scopes Trial” lawyer Clarence Darrow, “I don’t believe in God for the same reasons that I don’t believe in Mother Goose.” To my mind, the problem is not that God is so much like Mother Goose but that Darrow apparently believed that Mother Goose is a philosophically necessary being, is self-existing, possesses the prerequisites for being the creator, etc. Atheists make likewise statements regarding Santa, fairies, invisible friends, etc. which only go to prove that their level of theological (as well as logical, philosophical, commonsensical, etc.) development became retarded at a very early stage.
Carl Gallups notes that “it is vital to possess a thorough knowledge of the three dominating philosophies of life. They are the secular worldview, the religious worldview, and the biblical worldview” because “Within one of these three worldviews—secular, religious, or biblical—lies the philosophical foundation of every human being who is capable of thought and function.”
He points out that “In the religious worldview, spirituality is at least recognized” yet, “it denies that Jesus is the exclusive way of salvation and restoration to God. Satan is the ultimate constructive force behind the religious worldview…The greatest divisiveness reveals itself between two of these three worldviews. I call this division the great divide.”
He writes, “Now, one would be considered superstitious and/or ignorant if he believed that something living could appear by magic from something that, up until that time, was nonliving. On the other hand, would he really be considered ignorant—today? With no apparent shame, modern-day scientists have dusted off the understanding of spontaneous generation. In the late 1800s, a new, shined-up, spiffed-up, spun-about name was given to the term. The revised expression was—abiogenesis…Today, abiogenesis is the foundational cornerstone of origins theory.”
Carl Gallups writes:
The secular worldview proclaims that each of us is a moral being from within our very makeup. It declares that humanity is basically good…In contrast, the biblical worldview declares the observed true truth—we are sinners from birth. If you have ever been around a small child, you understand this to be a fact. An infant soon learns that if it persistently cries, at just the right volume, it will become the center of attention…
As the child becomes a toddler, we soon discover that we do not have to teach him to be dishonest or selfish. He was born that way. We must then spend several years of our child’s life fervently attempting to teach him to be honest, truthful, self-sacrificing, and focused on the bigger picture of life. I have yet to be acquainted with a toddler that is honest to the core, selfless, and nondemanding.
That tot does not exist. Why is this? Because the total condition of the human being is fallen. It is self-seeking—in whole. The human family possesses a collective sin nature. The Bible declares this truth in clear fashion. The secular worldview often illogically denies this plain truth as though it does not exist.
As G.K. Chesterton put it, “new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved” (Orthodoxy, chap. 2).
He also writes
Ironically, the secularist’s worldview sees a dire necessity to save the planer’s ecology but ignores the salvation of the souls and lives of the lost people who live on that planet.
In secularism, a person is declared a hero if she participates in saving dolphins, or trees, or manatees, but is declared a villain and an outlaw if she commits her life to saving babies from bloody and violent abortions.
Similarly, a person can be imprisoned for molesting eggs in the nest of an eagle or a turtle, but will receive federal assistance and police protection while mutilating a human child within the womb…
When a culture is saturated with and immersed in a secular worldview, social justice becomes the magical answer to all of man’s tribulations. Political activity and government programs take the place of spiritual transformation and regeneration. A feel-good, self-help, self-esteem-worshipping philosophy springs up around this view and makes its way into the culture and, over time, into the preaching from some pulpits.
A more positive gospel that denies the revulsion of sin and humanity’s desperate need for redemption begins to tickle the ears of a deluded citizenry. Sin is no longer declared the ultimate problem. The human dilemma is relegated to the mere lack of opportunity…
However, if your worldview is based on the Word of God, then you will understand that you are not a mere accident. You will be assured that your life has purpose, dignity, and value—eternal value.
Gallups quotes from a New Scientist interview with Dr. Christian de Duve (biochemist of international acclaim, professor emeritus at New York City’s Rockefeller University, 1974 AD winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine) which is titled “Natural Selection Will Destroy Us” and in which de Duve states, “Natural selection…looks only at what is happening today. It doesn’t care about your grandchildren or grandchildren’s grandchildren.” He is asked, “One solution you propose is population control, bur isn’t this ethically dubious?” and replies, “It is a simple matter of figures. If you want this planet to continue being habitable for everyone that lives here, you have to limit the number of inhabitants. Hunters do it by killing off the old or sick animals in a herd, but I don’t think that’s a very ethical way of limiting the population. So what remains? Birth control. We have access to practical, ethical and scientifically established methods of birth control. So I think that is the most ethical way to reduce our population.”
Here is a telling anecdote from the book:
The story is related of a pompous college freshman who was attending a raucous football game. Seared beside him was a senior citizen, and the two began conversing. As they talked, the pretentious youth began to explain to his elder why it was impossible for the older generation to understand his younger and more enlightened generation.
“You grew up in such a different world. Actually, your world was almost a primitive one,” the student declared, loud enough for many of chose nearby to hear.
“The young people of today grew up with satellite TV, jets, space travel, and man walking on the moon. Our space probes have visited Mars. ‘We have nuclear energy, electric and hydrogen cars, computers with light-speed processing, cell phones, and all manner of electronic convenience and communication modes, and … ’”
The long-winded young man paused to rake a huge gulp of his soft drink. Taking advantage of chis break in the student’s wordy litany, the elderly gentleman proclaimed, “You know what? You are right, son. We did not have those things when we were young—so we invented them for your generation to enjoy. Now, arrogant young man, let me ask: what are you doing for the next generation?”
The applause from the audience surrounding them was resounding. The young man choked on his soft drink and did not utter another word.
Carl Gallups notes that one problem with the secular “straw man presentation of the ‘magic man in the sky’” includes the fact that this “term sneaks into the argument that we Christians do not employ in our speech nor embrace in our biblical understanding of the truth about God. Neither the Bible nor the one familiar with it believes that God lives in the sky.” This reminds me of why I wrote Richard Dawkins – Looking for God in All the Wrong Places (and in all the wrong ways).
He points out that within the book “we are only scratching the surface concerning our understanding of quantum mechanics. This field of study is one of the most fascinating scientific reinforcements of the biblical faith and certain astonishing declarations revealed within the pages of the Word of God.”
He also notes that we “frequently encounter the following adage: Atheism is the most natural state of man. The atheist’s claim here is that religion has to be either learned or imposed upon a person, because in our most natural state, we are nonreligious or atheistic. From this logic, then, many atheists conclude that everyone actually begins as an atheist, and becomes religious only by outside influence.” Of course, this is only given a certain definition and is also a logical genetic fallacy: for example, that 1+1=2 is taught, and it is true—and absolute.
He notes, “According to the latest statistics, the vast majority of the world’s population is religious, to one degree or another, and believes in God, a god, or several gods…the statistics bear out that our most natural inclination is to be religious. Therefore, the natural inclination of man, in reality, is to reject atheism.” As Atheist Michael Shermer put it, “We are natural-born supernaturalists”— see here.
Carl Gallups actually gets to the point of stating that “one can prove the existence of God” and that “God’s own evidence proves His existence and, at the same time, proves He is the only God. He also authoritatively proves that the Bible is the true and exclusive Word of the living God. His proof of Himself begins with the following passage:
For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it? Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live? Or hath God assayed to go and rake him a nation from the midst of another nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched our arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?
Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. Our of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he shewed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words our of the midst of the fire. And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power our of Egypt; to drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, as it is this day.
Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. (Deuteronomy 4:32-39)
Gallups follows up with referring to “His proof that the Bible, which declares this truth, was the only book that had ever proclaimed such a certainty” and proposes a historical argument for God’s existence.
On a different issue, he notes:
…we must point out one of the most obvious and duplicitous double-speaks of evolution postulation. When engaging in a conversation with an evolutionist about the absurdity of abiogenesis or chemosynthesis (spontaneous generation), the evolutionist will frequently say something like this:
“Origins theory and evolution are two different things. Evolution only speaks of natural selection and speciation. These things are indisputably proven scientific facts. We do not speak of origins.”
Hogwash! Do not be misled nor intimidated by this ruse.
Evolutionists of just a couple decades ago would not attempt to make such a ludicrous argument. They knew that evolution theory begins with and encompasses origins theory. In actuality, they used to be rather proud of the relationship. The two are necessarily inclusive of each other.
Many evolution textbooks still used in today’s classrooms clearly the inseparable relationship between origins and evolution.
As a relevant note: biology is a science and evolution is a worldview-philosophy. The way that evolutionists seem to argue science is about cause and effect but evolution is about how life is the effect, the cause is irrelevant, unknowable, not to be questioned or questioned—at least not by them.
I have often asked Atheist what they would consider to be evidence for God’s existence and inevitable, since they do not live in a vacuum (even though, by definition, Atheism is thought restricting) they invent an answer which inevitably amounts to something they are very, very certain will not happen. In any case, Carl Gallups writes about how the Atheist can be quite certain of themselves “if the atheist is the one who determines the circumstances in which God operates (see Genesis 50:20). As a matter of good fortune for us, the atheist is not allowed to call this shot. Again, this is another matter of presumption on the part of the atheist.”
As an example, I would say that by necessity all Atheists are theologians and thus, all argue to the affect of “if God was then God would ___________” with the blank being some subjective assertion and from this they conclude “since God does not ____________ then God is not.” And yet, we find that they have only succeeded in discrediting a straw-god: a god made in their own image.
Gallups states, “I must point out how shaky that foundation is, especially if evolution is to be stated as a proven fact. In case an evolutionist objects to my assertion that the theory is presented as proven fact, let me verify it. If evolution is not considered proven fact or at least the best understanding of life that science has to offer, why is it taught to the exclusion of all other theories in our public education systems?”
Of course, many Atheist—who turn a theory which is supposed to be about biology into a worldview—would argue that evolution is a proven fact—and generally do so without bothering to define what they mean by “evolution.”
Thus, Gallups goes on to “examine several conundrums of evolution theory” and states, “let me be fair about this. Simply because a scientific notion possesses unanswered questions does not always render that notion unscientific. Furthermore, unanswered questions do not render it disqualified from debate or further scientific and philosophical exploration.”
…constants include such things as our exacting distance from the sun, the meticulous balance of gravitational forces, the earth’s axis rotation rate, and the thickness of the earth’s crust. They also include the preciseness of atmospheric discharge, the delicate balance of the thickness of our protective and life-sustaining atmosphere, and the interaction of the salt and freshwater bodies.
In addition, the list includes the necessity of specific types of vegetation, the precise chemical balances of the air we breathe, and the absolute necessity of the interconnectivity of our ecology, from honey bees to rain forests…
Which Atheists would claim are one big coincidinc.
The remarkable fact is that the values of these anthropic constants seem to be adjusted with such precision as to make possible not only the development but also the sustaining of life, only here on our earth. The reality is that we live on a unique planet. We are perfectly positioned in an extraordinary solar system that is ideally located in an enormous and rare galaxy that exists within a remarkable and implausible universe.
Which, Atheists would tell us, came about when nothing caused nothing to explode for no reason and resulted in everything without meaning.
Gallups also deals with issues such as:
The terms last days, end of the age, last times, time of the end, and
day of the Lord are all biblical terms. These terms are not merely little catchphrases that sensational preachers have made up in order to scare people into heaven. They are declared in the Word of God as biblical truths, and their biblical uses are plentiful…
Several detractors of the biblical message have attempted to prove that the New Testament documents cannot be the infallible Word of God because, undoubtedly, Peter, Paul, and John, seemed to think the end was coming in their lifetimes. Yet the end did not come. They were mistaken, the critics would say, and therefore, since the disciples were wrong, the Bible is wrong. This can initially appear as a powerful argument. In reality, however, it is flawed, for nor one of these biblical writers named a specific day or time when the end would come. When their actions are examined in proper context, they merely called their generation to readiness.
Thus, this was a mere sample of the various and sundry topics Carl Gallups convers in his—interesting, engaging and easy to comprehend manner—book “The Magic Man in the Sky”—find the book here.
Materialism is un-provable as it could only be proven once humanity has acquired omniscience—knowing everything that there is to know and everything about everything there is to know—or, presumably, upon death.
Human omniscience seems rather unlikely—even and if materialism is true then upon death the materialist will not be cognizant of having takin the correct position.
Thus, materialism cannot be known to be true as the materialist will never know it to be true. They may speculate, suspect, assert, claim, and believe yet, even at death they would not know.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.
Continue reading →