Under Atheism, Life Has No Meaning – Just Ask Atheists

In his presentation from 5:50 to 28:30, William Lane Craig makes use of plentiful quotes from atheists (such as Bertrand Russell, Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sartre) who have thought over the ramifications and logical conclusions of their beliefs, and admit that it leads to an absence of meaning.

As he summarizes at 26:53: “Indeed, it has been the atheists themselves as we have seen who have given the most poignant analyses of the human predicament. Let them speak for themselves. Without God, they tell us, life becomes absurd for it is without ultimate purpose, value or significance.”

BONUS: During the discussion, at 116:30:00 Craig reads a quote by one Steven Pinker. This enacts laughter because the lady he is addressing is Rebecca Goldstein – Steven Pinker’s wife.

Via William Meme Craig:

The Rebel Religion During the Millennial Kingdom

Imagine the world suffused with secular humanism, naturalism and atheism. The supernatural is rejected outright based on those presuppositions.

Consider how people in such a culture would parse the Second Coming of Christ, as He descends from the sky in blazing glory with armies of glorious angelic beings. The military might of humanity’s armies are flicked aside like in the Seven Hour War from Half-Life 2. (Revelation 19:11-21)

Wouldn’t the unbelieving people of Earth view this as a full scale alien invasion? Perhaps the Beast even uses this cover story to rally the armies of men who futilely throw their lives away in ‘defense’ of their planet. Note that Richard Dawkins has bluntly stated that “A non-supernatural Second Coming could be aliens from outer space” – anything but God!

Continuing on, Jesus – ahem, I mean, the ‘Alien Supreme Ruler’ – sets up a puppet government based in Jerusalem, where human collaborators are bestowed unnaturally long lives by the advanced alien techonology (Revelation 20:4-6).

Meanwhile, those subjugated nations which dare to defy the alien conquerers will be punished by inhumane weapons such as disintegrator rays, genetically modified viruses and weather manipulation machines. (Zechariah 14:12-19)

During this time, the long-ignored Holy Texts of Dianetics make a resurgence among the alien-hating human populace. The Sacred Truth of Scientology spreads like wildfire in opposition to the collaborator’s alien-exalting superstitions.

Finally, after untold centuries of this brutal occupation, a Hero arises to rally the humans and retake Earth at long last! With this mysterious but charismatic leader at their head, the ‘Thetan Rebellion’ attacks en masse in an attempt to drive the Alien Supreme Ruler – Xenu himself! – from Jerusalem and planet Earth. (Revelation 20:7-10)

Personally, I demand that Tom Cruise play the lead role of the Hero in the eventual film adaptation. John Travolta can play Collaborator Lieutenant or something. Pics related.

MAKE MORE MODEST CLAIMS

I’ve heard William Lane Craig tell a Naturalist that they since they can’t actually prove that nothing beyond the natural realm exists, they need to ‘make more modest claims’ such as they DON’T KNOW whether anything beyond the natural realm exists.

I feel like this ‘Make more modest claims’ attitude should be more prevalent. It’s a form of humility.

Yes, we might be sure – ABSOLUTELY SURE – that our current position is correct. That it’s true, THE truth. That it’s GOD’S VERY OWN VIEW. And everyone who doesn’t agree is DEFINITELY, even HERETICALLY wrong.

We all know people like that. Or at least, we see them in the comments sections.

But remember a time before you adopted your current views? Were you just as certain you had the truth then? If so, then who is to say you have already arrived at the final, absolutely correct, no further progress needed set of views now?

How about those who differ in their opinions? If you aren’t yourself willing to take a neutral stance and have even the slightest possibility of reconsidering your position, why expect anyone else to?

Stating your beliefs more forcefully, self assuredly and confidently doesn’t automatically mean you are correct Otherwise, those guys who flew planes into the World Trade Center have all of us beat on claims to truth!

WHO ARE YOU, O MAN, TO TALK BACK TO MY INTERPRETATION AND UNDERSTANDING ON THIS ISSUE? (But… Aren’t we all also men/women?)

So I would humbly encourage everyone to ‘Make more modest claims’. Continue to explain what views you hold, and why you THINK or BELIEVE they are correct. (But I fear that it’s too much to ask for fallible humans to entertain the idea that they might be fallible.)

PS. I already expect a bunch of comments to arrive and Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Atheist Holdo Maneuver

When a New Atheist discovers a stale argument but serves it up like its fresh…

Reference for those who don’t catch it:

How The Last Jedi Destroyed The Continuity Of Star Wars [Storycraft]

So the concept of ships impacting things while travelling at lightspeed is indeed set-up in the Star Wars canon. Not to mention that hyperspace/lightspeed travel has been in existence for a long period of time in the Star Wars universe, so it stands to reason, due to External Consistency, that impacts of objects travelling at lightspeed have occurred before.

DETERMINISTIC CALVINISM, OPEN THEISM & ATHEISTIC FANG

For this exercise, we begin with ASSUMING the first premise is true:

1) If God knows the future, we don’t have actual free will (because the future is already set).

#########

Now we examine two different sets of premise+conclusion.

We start with Set A:

2) God knows the future.
3) Conclusion: Therefore, we don’t have free will.

The above is what deterministic Calvinists argue. The Calvinist panelist Chris Date says as much from 12:30 onwards:

########

Next, we look at Set B:

2) We have free will.
3) Conclusion: Therefore, God does not know the future.

The above is the position of Open Theism.

As you can see, both Sets hinge upon Premise 1 actually being true. Hence why it has been stated that Deterministic Calvinism and Open Theism are two sides of the same coin. They just reject different premises that flow from that first Premise 1. (For this post, I’m not going to delve into whether Premise 1 is true, and hence whether Sets A and B are correct.)

#######

Related to the these two Sets and still maintaining the assumption of Premise 1, the following is an atheist twist on it – Dan Barker’s FANG, the Freewill Argument for the Nonexistence of God:

1) If God knows the future, then HE doesn’t have actual free will (because the future is already set).
2) God knows His own future.
3) Therefore, God doesn’t have free will.

TBH I feel this is a silly argument. God cannot change His decisions cos He knows the future? That’s reversing cause and effect. If God changes His decision, the future will change contingent upon God’s choices.

It’s almost like saying just because I know what I want to do in the next 10 seconds, therefore I have no free will. (???)

MUSICAL STYLE – AN ARGUMENT FROM OBJECTIVE BEAUTY

1) There is an objective standard of beauty.
2) If there is an objective standard of beauty, there must be a standard giver.
3) As the only absolute being, the Christian God is the standard giver of beauty.
4) Therefore, that which is closer to the Christian God is closer to the objective standard of beauty.
5) Music is part of the range of subjects that can be described as having beauty.
6) European Classical music arose from a Christian context with Christian motivations.

…

7) Therefore in conclusion, European Classical music is objectively more beautiful than any other genre. 😏

On a related note, here is William Lane Craig making some music recommendations:

#######

14:50 “…things like beautiful music and art and other experiences where we grasp the beautiful, put us in contact with a kind of transcendent reality beyond scientific naturalism.

Scientific naturalism can give you a description of the sunset, of the refraction of the light rays through the atmosphere and the dust and the geology of the surrounding countryside and silver. But it can’t do anything to capture the beauty of the sunset.

And so if we can capture glimpses of this transcendent realm of beauty and value, I think this will prepare our hearts for a transcendent reality like God.”

[You recommended some symphonies and some other things. What did you recommend?]

“Well, I recommended Dvorak’s New World Symphony which I think is just beautiful. And then Rimsky-Korsakov’s Scheherazade which has this violin that just weeps, it is so gorgeous when this refrain comes on with the violin. I find this kind of music just sublime.”

#######

And the compositions he mentioned as follows:

CHANGE MY DETERMINISTIC MIND

TBH I’m surprised I never came up with it earlier.

For an explanation: WHY A CORRECT BELIEF DETERMINISM CANNOT BE RATIONAL

Related:

https://scottthong.wordpress.com/?s=determinism

DOES DETERMINISM ACTUALLY IMPACT ANYTHING?:

ZEUS & GANG VS HADES & GANG!!!

This meme inspired by the remarks at 87:20 onwards of the following:

The bottom of the meme was purposely chosen because Disney’s Hercules is where such a rivalry exists – not in actual Greek mythology.

Please don’t get your factual information from Disney cartoons.

……………………………………..________
………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,
………………………..,.-“……………………………..”-.,
…………………….,/………………………………………..”:,
…………………,?………………………………………………,
………………./…………………………………………………..,}
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
……………/……………………………………………,:”………/
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
…………./__.(…..”~-,_…………………………,:`………./
………../(_….”~,_……..”~,_………………..,:`…….._/
……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….”-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}
………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……”;,,./`…./”…………../
…,,,___.`~,……”~.,………………..`…..}…………../
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-“
…………/.`~,……`-………………………………./
………….`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..,__
,,_……….}.>-._……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
…..`=~-,__……`,……………………………
……………….`=~-,,.,………………………….
…………………………..`:,,………………………`…………..__
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“
…………………………………._……….._,-%…….`
……………………………..,

ONLY ONE ‘RIGHT’ GOD OUT OF MANY

The top half of the following image was circulating as a dumb (probably atheist) meme, so I made the bottom half as a response.

Cold case detective J Warner Wallace debunks the bad argument using the criminal suspect analogy:

Another way to respond is the Divine Council Worldview – many gods do exist, but they are all subject to and are not The Most High, who is YHWH:

WHY GOD AS THE ‘FIRST CAUSE’ MUST HAVE FREE WILL

93:00 “It would have to have libertarian free will, and the reason it would is because there was no prior determinism to lead to that event.“

########

The Image of God: The Kalam & Freethinking Arguments

…

But since this cause exists outside of anything physical, temporal, or material, none of these things could logically cause or force this ultimate cause to do anything. Therefore, this ultimate cause seems to have its own volition or libertarian free will. Apart from anything abstract (which would be causally impotent anyway), only an unembodied mind (or soul) could logically exist “in nothingness,” transcending space-time and all nature.

Think about this: persons are the only types of things that could possibly possess immaterial minds with free will (which is supported by the Freethinking Argument); therefore, we can decipher that the cause of the universe was a personal being. If the cause of the universe is personal, then it is at least possible that “it” can have a personal relationship with other personal beings. You and I are personal beings. Therefore, it is possible that you and I can have a personal relationship with the cause of the universe.