Home
My Weird Ideas
Religion
Mormonism
Awards
Books I've Read
About Me

This page has been visited times since the weasel incident. Let us not discuss it further.

[Note: I have not sent a copy of this rebuttal to Mr. Hanegraaff. Like Gerald Lund before him, I doubt that he would be interested in my arguments, and I'm quite sure he doesn't want to hear them from me.]

Hank Hanegraaf:
Beyond a doubt, the most significant question to ever penetrate the human mind is that of the existence of God. More consequences for humanity hinge on the denial or affirmation of God's existence than any other issue.

BA (me):
I'm not really inclined to disagree here. The question of whether there is a god and what that god expects of us does warrant some serious thought.

HH:
Countless numbers of Christian families have sent their children off to schools across America only to see them return as strangers robbed of their faith in God and of the basis for morality and ethics.

BA:
Is this statement grossly oversimplified and biased? Check. Does it demonize alternative worldviews? Check. Does it include an emotionally charged call to protect threatened children? Check. This has all the makings of a good illogical rant.

HH:
Many of these children have attempted to fill the vacuum in their lives through aberrant sex, drugs, and alcohol.

BA:
On the other hand, no one who REALLY believes in God will ever have sex or use drugs and alcohol. Or if they do they'll have the proper sense to feel suicide-level guilt about their vile acts. Hypocrisy aside, I really question Hank's implicit assertion that everyone has a "God-shaped hole" in them, just waiting to be filled. Most people who believe they have one have been raised to believe their lives cannot be meaningful without divine intervention.

HH:
Others have sought to fill this void with material success, which can never satisfy the spiritual needs of one created in the image of God.

BA:
Circular reasoning? Check! Hanegraaf's only evidence that such ephemeral "spiritual needs" exist is that we are created in the image of God, which is what his article ostensibly set out to prove.

HH: "Is there really a God?" Though there are a variety of possible responses to this question, there are three traditional responses that predominate in Western society: (1) God does not exist -- atheism; (2) we cannot know whether God exists -- agnosticism; and (3) a personal God does exist-- theism. This article will demonstrate how, in witnessing to an atheist, one can move from atheism to agnosticism, from agnosticism to theism, and from the concept of an impersonal God to the personal God of Scripture.

BA:
Don't forget "apatheism" (the denial that the question is important). I would also note that "theism" doesn't require belief in a personal god. An impersonal one suits many people quite nicely.

HH:
To begin, atheism involves a logical fallacy known as a universal negative. Simply stated, a person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say "there is no God" from his own pool of knowledge. Only someone capable of being in all places at the same time -- with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe -- can make such a statement based on the facts. In other words, a person would have to be God to say there is no God. Hence, the assertion is logically indefensible.

BA:
Sorry, Hank, but thank you for playing. Though the conclusions themselves are valid, this merely demonstrates the absurdity of giving the atheist the burden of proving that no god exists. Second, in order for the argument to hold water, we must refrain from defining what sort of god we're talking about. If we were to say it is impossible to prove that there is no god who created the primordial fireball and then spent the next 15 billion years hiding from everyone, we would be entirely correct. But it would be wrong to say that we cannot disprove a deity who, for example, loves all people equally, yet chooses to put most of them in a deep pit to be tortured for eternity. These attributes are contradictory, therefore no being can have both attributes at the same time.

HH:
By using arguments like this, you will often find that an atheist quickly converts to agnosticism and is thus making progress rapidly in the right direction. This leads us to the second possible response: agnosticism. In dealing with an open-minded agnostic, an approach I have found effective is to point out that the universe is an effect which requires a sufficient cause, and the only sufficient cause is God.

BA:
Unfortunately, as long as you ignore the fact that it is impossible to make such statements about the universe as a whole, this argument almost makes sense.

But what are the alternatives to the creation of the universe by an omnipotent power?

• 1) Creation by a less-than-omnipotent power (if the universe is finite in extent, then the existence of such a universe does not require an infinite power to create).
• 2) Creation by a tiny intelligent creative force. This is analogous to a kid throwing a small rock off a cliff and starting a massive landslide. The kid was able to cause the landslide not because he is more powerful than the landslide, but because the raw material (potential energy in the rocks) was already there for him to use.
• 3) Creation by committee. There could have been as many Gods as you like involved in such an undertaking (in fact, according to the Mormon theology, there were). Even if, individually, they didn't have the ability to create what we see today, together they might have been able to.
• 4) The uncaused universe.

Hank leaves another important question unanswered: Why should we assume that, while the universe requires a creator, the creator of such a universe does not? The usual answer is that "well, God exists outside of time." This answer is inadequate. First, as best I can tell, the "outside of time" theory was invented for the sole purpose of dodging the question of where God came from. This seems disengenuous at best. Secondly, it smacks of Calvinist predestination. All the choices you will ever make have already been made, and there is nothing you can do to change them. Your salvation or damnation was set before you were ever created.

HH:
As Scripture says, "the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Ps. 19:1).

BA:
The scriptures also declare that snails melt as they move and that bats are "a type of bird (Deuteronomy 14:11-18)." Until the Bible is shown as worthy of my trust, the "openminded agnostic" need not take it at its word.

HH:
It is helpful to clarify that there are only four possible explanations for how the universe came to be. The first is that the universe is an illusion. This ultimately reduces to solipsism -- the theory that "self" is the only reality, that "I alone exist." This view is unacceptable in an age of scientific enlightenment. (Even a full-blown solipsist looks both ways before crossing the street.)

BA:
I would tend to agree. Then again, it is also possible to be a simulationist. The basic premise is that we are all living in a giant computer. This premise would maintain the fact that the universe was an illusion without necessitating solipsism.

HH:
The second possibility is that the universe is eternal. This possibility flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics, which says that everything in the universe is running inexorably downhill from order to disorder, from complexity to chaos. If the universe was eternally old, it would have died a heat-loss death an eternity ago.

I reply:
Again, but with diminished enthusiasm, I'll break out Hank's own "infinite knowledge" argument. In order to make the statements he has, and know for certain of their correctness, Hank would have to know for a fact that no violations of the second law have ever or could ever occur. This means he would either have to know the past and future with perfect certainty, or know with certitude what scientific principles govern the universe.

This is why I don't like using this argument. It's too easy, and flies in the face of the principles of "burden of proof." Here, I think, Hank has a point. I don't believe the universe is infinitely old, though Eric Lehrner (author of "The Big Bang Never Happened") disagrees.

HH:
The third "possibility" is that the universe emerged from nothing. Little needs to be said about the absurdity of this option. Reason tells us that out of nothing comes nothing.

BA:
Please refer to what I said earlier about trying to apply such down-to-earth assumptions to the universe as a whole.

HH:
This position militates against the first law of thermodynamics, which says that energy can be neither created nor destroyed; it can only change forms.

I reply:
I'll give Hank this: He loves his thermodynamics (misapplied as they might be). Modern quantum mechanics seems to demand the existence of "virtual particles," which are created in pairs of antiparticles, which pop into existence and destroy themselves in an instant. Unless Hank understands quantum mechanics better than those working at the cutting edge of physics, then his assertion of the impossibility of "creation ex nihilo sans God" is only his assertion, and his "expert opinion" can be disregarded.

HH:
To say an effect can exist without a cause, one must deny the basis for all scientific investigation and rational thought.

BA:
Not necessarily. Again, quantum mechanics seems to be throwing rational thought for a loop, but nobody has given up on studying these phenomena.

HH:
The fourth (and only tenable) possibility is that the universe was created by God. Clearly, theism -- the belief in a personal God who is the Creator and Ruler of the universe -- is the only viable option on the question of God's existence.

BA:
Can someone explain how he got from "God created the universe" to "this God is also a personal God who rules the universe today and takes a keen interest in human affairs?" It looks to me like Mr. Hanegraaf is trying to cross a chasm in two jumps.

HH:
Once this is established, it can be pointed out that only a personal God can account for human personality, thought, and morality.

BA:
How? Evolutionary theory seems to account for thought and morality quite nicely. For example, we may have evolved morals because acting in certain ways that allowed for cooperation between groups of people provided an advantage over those groups who were entirely unable to cooperate.

HH:
Furthermore, this personal God has manifested Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, who demonstrated His deity through the undeniable fact of the Resurrection.

I reply:
[snicker]. . . So sorry. . . [contorts face until it looks almost somber again] . . . [choke!] BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! I'm sorry for the outburst. While I have difficulty dignifying this absurd and unsupported leap with a response, I will do my best. The "fact" of the resurrection is far from undeniable. The only evidence we have for it, in fact, are the four Gospels and several epistles, all of which are so completely contradictory as to the events surrounding the Resurrection as to discredit themselves. It would be pointless to do a more comprehensive survey of the "facts" here.

HH:
Additionally, God has provided His written Word which can be shown to be divine rather than human in origin.

BA:
As demonstrated by Michael Drosnin, in his scholarly work, entitled "The Bible Code." Sorry, but I've read all too many such demonstrations of the Bible's supernatural origin, and none of them have held water. Right when he gets to the Christian assertions which need the most support, he begins to use argument from authority -- his own authority.

HH:
Although we cannot talk atheists and agnostics into the Kingdom of God, God can use our answers to open their hearts to receive the gospel. Scripture therefore exhorts us to "always be prepared to give to every man an answer" (1 Pet. 3:15).

BA:
Basically, this paragraph is giving Hank's readers permission to stop the conversation if their target makes any objection to the arguments. Since argumentation alone cannot force someone to accept the Christian message, the reader who is faced with objections now has permission to presume that the heart of the objector just isn't open. As for 1 Peter 3:15, I plan to break it out any time an opponent dodges a question.

HH:
(For further insight, my tape "Objections Overruled" and Personal Witness Training: Your Handle on the Great Commission are available from CRI.)

BA:
Thanks, Hank, but I don't think my stomach can take much more laughing.