![\"Right](\"https:\/\/faith-blog-assets.s3.amazonaws.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/13\/20170523133802\/RightVsWrong.jpg\" "\\"Right")
For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. \u2013 Romans 11:36<\/p>\nFor from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. \u2013 Romans 11:36<\/p>\n
In earlier posts in this series, I noted that atheists have responded the same way to the gospel for millennia<\/a> and that mankind actively suppresses the truth<\/a> as Romans 1:18 states.\u00a0\u00a0 A third observation I made when equipping our college students about the new atheists is how all evidence of what exists in this world leads to one conclusion\u2014there is a God<\/strong>.\u00a0 God has inherently designed His creation this way.\u00a0 When one then rejects the obvious conclusion that God exists, then that individual is left with certain holes in his world view that he is unable to fill.\u00a0 This results in significant unanswerable questions.<\/p>\n Specifically evidence such as the existence of concepts of \u201cmorality\u201d and the evidence of existence itself will be inexplicable by denying that there is a Moral Law Giver and A Creator.\u00a0 Once God is ruled out as an explanation, the individual is left with no reasonable answer. The answers to significant life questions will inevitably lead to God. God has set eternity into the heart of man (Eccl. 3: 11).<\/p>\n For example, atheist Dr. Dawkins attempts to answer the question of what warrants morality in his atheistic worldview. Dawkins acknowledges a universal acceptance of right and wrong by society. He senses it. He acknowledges it. But his a priori<\/em> rejection of God leaves him with no reasonable warrant to believe in right or wrong. He ends up giving the very unscientific and irrational warrant that our sense of morality is simply \u201cin the air.\u201d His statement in full is given below.<\/p>\n \u201cHow do I know what is moral? I don\u2019t on the whole. But the point I want to make is that there does seem to be a kind of universal human acceptance that certain things are right and other things are not..<\/em><\/strong> But it also comes from something less easy to define, but which is clearly there. I call it the shifting moral zeitgeist. It\u2019s something that changes from decade to decade. Living as we do in 2007, there will be a broad consensus as to what is right and wrong<\/em><\/strong>\u2026 which characterize we who live in the early 21st century which would not necessarily have characterized our ancestors in this place 200 years ago. The consensus has moved on and I find this a very interesting and fascinating fact which suggests that there really is a kind of something in the air<\/strong><\/em> about what is regarded as moral and it clearly has nothing to do with religion because it doesn\u2019t come from Scripture because Scripture doesn\u2019t change over the decades in the way that our attitudes toward slavery, women, etc. do. There really does seem to be a powerful shifting zeitgeist effect which doesn\u2019t tell you anything in itself but indicates that there is something in the air<\/strong><\/em>— some other force, something which we can understand with sufficient sociological, psychological sophistication. Whatever else it is, it is not religion.\u201d \u2013Dr Dawkins<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/a>How is \u201cIn the air\u201d a reasonable explanation for a universal sense of right and wrong? And why does he not give us an answer with \u201csufficient sociological and psychological sophistication?\u201d Dawkins does not have compelling reasons to believe why morality exists. He continues to manifest the dynamic I mentioned in my previous post<\/a>\u2014the suppression of the obviously evident that there is a Moral Law Giver.<\/p>\n While Dawkins\u2019 God-given sense of morality allows him to entertain a debate with Lennox about the origin of good and evil, in other remarks, Dawkins asserts that his worldview had no foundations for the concepts of good and evil.<\/p>\n \u201cIn a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replications, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky, and you won\u2019t find any rhyme or reason in it nor any justice. The universe we observe is precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good<\/em><\/strong>\u2014nothing but blind pettiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music\u201d \u2013Dr. Dawkins, A River out of Eden<\/a>,<\/em> pg 133 emphasis added.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Christian Dr. Greg Bahnsen dismantles this kind of irrationality in his humorous, classic response to atheist Dr. Stein in a \u201cThe Great Debate\u201d in 1985 at Irvine, CA.<\/p>\n \u201cI mean if there aren\u2019t laws of morality, I can just take out a gun right now and say \u2018Okay Dr. Stein, make my day. Is there a god or not?\u2019 You see if he argues \u2018oh no! You can\u2019t murder me because there are laws of morality\u2019, then of course he\u2019s made my day because I win the debate. That shows that the atheist universe is not correct. But if he says \u2018Oh no, there are no absolute standards; it\u2019s all by convention and stipulation\u2019 and that sort of thing, then I just pull the trigger and it\u2019s all over and I win the debate anyway.”<\/strong> -Dr. Bahnsen, The Great Debate<\/a>.<\/p>\n The common universal ethic that Dr. Dawkins fumbles to explain leads to the Bible\u2019s claim that that God has created mankind in His image as moral beings so that mankind \u201cshows the work of the law written in their hearts\u201d (Romans 2:15).<\/p>\n Finally, in one other demonstration that all evidence lead back to God, Dr. Dawkins regularly admits in his debates<\/a>\/discussion<\/a> with Christian Dr. Lennox that science has no answers for the origin of the cosmos\/life. He regularly claims that science is \u201cworking on it.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 As mentioned here<\/a>, when pressed, Dawkins may be persuaded to postulate intelligent causation (alien origins or a deist type of god). But my point is that when an individual denies God, he leaves himself with no explanation for the origin of what he sees around him. Romans 1:19 states \u201cthat which is known about God is evident within them; for God has made it evident to them.\u201d Thus, when an individual denies the obvious conclusions toward which the evidence leads, he leaves himself with no answers.<\/p>\n Because God is the creator and sustainer of all things it is inevitable that all\u00a0 evidence and answers to life\u2019s significant questions lead back to Him.\u00a0\u00a0 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"