The Absurdity Of Life Without God – William Lane Craig

The following is my own transcription of one of the most powerful lectures that I have ever heard.  I am delighted to see that it is now readily available in both video of the lecture and as a transcript in PDF format.  Since I personally don’t care for PDF if a good HTML source is available – and since this is such a staggeringly powerful lecture – I thought I should make it available in a more usable transcript format.

Every religious believer, and every non-believer, should read this powerful presentation of the absurdity of life without God.

The Absurdity of Life Without God by William Lane Craig, a lecture given at Biola University on 5 March, 2002

(Painstakingly transcribed from tape)

This a topic that is most serious and somber: the absurdity of life without God.

Loren Eisley writes, “Man is the cosmic orphan. He’s the only creature in the universe who asks, ‘Why?’ Other animals have instincts to guide them, but man has learned to ask questions: ‘Who am I?’ ‘Why am I here?’ ‘Where am I going?'” Ever since the Enlightenment, when men threw off the “shackles” of religion, man has tried to answer those questions without reference to God. But the answers that came back were not exhilarating, but dark and terrible: you are the accidental by-product of nature – the result of matter, plus time, plus chance. There is no reason for your existence; all you face is death. Modern man thought that when he got rid of God he freed himself from everything that stifled and oppressed him; instead, he found that in killing God, he had only orphaned himself. For if there is no God, then man’s life becomes, ultimately, absurd. If God does not exist, then both man and the universe are inevitably doomed to death. Man, like all biological organisms, must die. With no hope of immortality man’s life leads only to the grave. Compared to the infinite stretch of time, man’s life is but a brief infinitesimal moment; and yet this is all the life that he will ever know. And therefore every one of us must come face to face with what theologian Paul Tillich has called, “the threat of non-being.” For even though I know that now I exist, that now I am alive, I also know that someday I will no longer exist, that I will die. I will no longer be. And this thought is staggering and frightening; to think that the person I call I, myself, will no longer exist, that I will be no more. It is an overwhelming thought that the majority of us encounter first as children. Most of us simply grow to accept the fact, as we all learn to live with the inevitable. But the child’s insight of horror remains true. As the French existentialist, Jean Paul Sarte, observed, “Several hours or several years make no difference, once you have lost eternity.”

And the universe, too, faces a death of its own, scientists tell us that the universe is expanding, and the galaxies are growing further and further apart. As it does so it grows colder and colder as its energy is used up: eventually all the stars will burn out, and all matter will collapse into dead stars and black holes – there will be no light at all. There will be no heat. There will be no life. Only the corpses of dead stars and galaxies, ever expanding into the endless darkness, and the cold recesses of outer space – a universe in ruins. The entire universe marches irretrievably toward its grave. So not only is the life of each individual person doomed, the entire human race is doomed. The universe is plunging toward inevitable extinction; death is written throughout its structure. There is no escape. There is no hope.

If there is no God, then, man and the universe are doomed like prisoners awaiting execution; we await our inevitable death. There is no God. There is no immortality. And what is the consequence of this? It means that life itself becomes ultimately absurd. It means that the life that we do have is without ultimate significance, value, or purpose. Let’s look at each one of these.

First, there is no ultimate meaning without immortality and God. If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life? Does it really matter whether he ever existed or not? It might be said that his life was important because it influenced others or affected the course of history. But that shows only a relative significance to his life, not an ultimate significance. His life may be important relative to certain other events. But what is the ultimate significance to any of those events? If all of the events are meaningless, then what can be the ultimate significance of influencing any of them? Ultimately it makes no difference. Or look at it from another perspective: scientists say that the universe originated in a great explosion called ‘the Big Bang’ about 15 billion years ago. Suppose the Big Bang had never occurred: what ultimate difference would it have made? The universe is doomed to die anyway; in the end it makes no difference whether it ever existed or not. And therefore it is without ultimate significance. The same is true of the human race; mankind is a doomed race in a dying universe. Because the human race will eventually cease to exist, it makes no ultimate difference whether it ever did exist. mankind is thus no more significant than a swarm of mosquitoes or a barnyard of pigs, for their end is all the same: the same cosmic process that coughed them all up in the first place will eventually swallow them all up again. And the same is true of each individual person; the contribution of the scientists to the advance of human knowledge, the researches of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the efforts of good people everywhere to benefit the lot of the human race, all these come to nothing; in the end they don’t make one bit of difference. Not one bit. Each person’s life is therefore without ultimate significance. And because our lives are ultimately meaningless, the activities that we fill our lives with are also meaningless. The long hours spent in study at the university, our jobs, our interests, our friendships, all of these are, in the final analysis, ultimately meaningless. This is the horror of modern man. Because he ends in nothing, he ultimately is nothing.

But it’s important to see that its not just immortality that man needs if life is to be meaningful. Mere duration of existence does not suffice to make that existence meaningful. Man and the universe could exist forever, but if there were no God, that existence would still have no ultimate significance. To illustrate one science fiction short story told of a space traveler who was marooned on a barren chunk of rock lost in outer space. And he had with him two vials: one containing a potion that would give him immortality, and the other a poison to end his life. Realizing his hopeless predicament, he gulped down the vial of poison. And then, he had discovered to his horror, that he had drunk the wrong vial; he had swallowed the potion for immortality. And thus he was doomed to exist forever in a meaningless, unending life. Now if God does not exist, then our lives are just like that. They could go on, and on, and on, and still be utterly without meaning. We could still ask of life, ‘So what?’ So its not just immortality that man needs if life is to be ultimately significant. He needs God and immortality. And if God does not exist, then he has neither.

20th century man came to understand this fact. Read Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett; during this entire play two men carry on trivial, mind-numbing conversation, while waiting for a third man to arrive, who never does. And our lives are like that, Beckett is saying. We just kill time waiting – for what, we don’t know. In a tragic portrayal of man Beckett wrote another play – Breath – in which the curtain opens revealing a stage littered with junk. And for 30 long seconds the audience sits and stares in silence at that junk; and then the curtain closes. That’s all there is. The French existentialists Jean Paul Sarte and Albert Camus understood this as well. Sarte portrays life in his play No Exit as hell. The final line of the play are the words of resignation, “Well, let’s get on with it.” And thus Sarte writes elsewhere of the “nausea” of existence. Camus also saw life as absurd. At the end of his brief novel The Stranger, Camus’ hero discovers in a flash of insight that life has no meaning, and that there is no God to give it one. The French biochemist Jacques Monot seemed to echo these sentiments when he wrote in his work Chance and Necessity, “Man finally knows that he is alone in the indifferent immensity of the universe.” Thus if there is no God, then life becomes ultimately meaningless. Man and the universe are without ultimate significance.

Secondly, there is no ultimate value without God and immortality. If life ends at the grave, then ultimately it makes no difference whether one has lived as a Stalin or as a saint since one’s destiny is ultimately unrelated to one’s behavior. You may as well just live as you please; as the Russian writer Dhostyevsky put it, “If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted.” On this basis a writer like Ayan Rand is absolutely correct to praise the virtues of selfishness. No one holds you accountable; you might as well simply live totally for self. Indeed, when you think about it, it would be foolish to do anything else since life is too short to jeopardize it by acting out of anything but pure self-interest. Sacrifice for another person would be stupid. Kai Nielson, an atheist philosopher, who attempts to justify the viability of ethics without God, in the end admits, “We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one; reflection on it is depresses me. Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.”

But the problem becomes even worse. For regardless of immortality, if there is no God, then there can be no objective standard of right and wrong. All we are confronted with, in Jean Paul Sarte’s words, is “the bare, valueless fact of existence.” Moral values are either just expressions of personal taste, or else the by-products of socio-biological evolution and conditioning. In the word of one humanist philosopher, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion.” In a world without God, who is to say whose values are right, and whose are wrong? Who is to judge that the values of an Adolf Hitler are inferior to those of a Mother Theresa? The concept morality loses all meaning in a universe without God. As one contemporary atheistic ethicist points out, “To say that something is wrong because it is forbidden by God is perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong, even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable. The concept of moral obligation is unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone.” In a world without God, there can be no objective right and wrong, only our culturally and personally relative subjective judgments. But that means that it is impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise love, brotherhood, or equality as good. For in a universe without God, good and evil do not exist. there is only the bare, valueless fact of existence. And there is no one to say that you are right, and I am wrong.

Thirdly, there is no ultimate purpose without immortality and God. If death stands with open arms at the end of life’s trail, then what is the goal of life? To what end has life been? Has it all been for nothing? Is there no purpose at all for life? And what of the universe? Is it utterly pointless? If its destiny is but a cold grave in the recesses of outer space, then the answer must be yes. It is pointless. There is no goal, no purpose, for which the universe exists. The litter of a dead universe will just go on expanding and expanding forever. And what of man? Is there no purpose at all for the existence of the human race? Or will it simply peter out someday, lost in the indifference of an oblivious universe? The English writer H.G. Wells foresaw such a prospect. In his novel, The Time Machine, Wells’ time traveler journeys far into the future to discover the destiny of man. And all he finds is a dead earth except for a few lichens and moss orbiting a gigantic red sun. The only sounds are the rush of the wind, and the gentle ripple of the sea. “Beyond these lifeless sounds,” writes Wells, “the world was silent. Silent? It would be hard to convey the stillness of it. All of the sounds of man, the bleating of sheep, the cries of birds, the hum of insects, the stir that makes the background of our lives, all that was over.” And so, Wells’ time traveler returned. But to what? To merely an earlier point on the same purposeless rush towards oblivion. One reading this might exclaim, “No, no! It can’t end that way!” But this is reality in a universe without God. There is no hope; there is no purpose. Reflect on T.S. Elliot’s haunting lines:

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

And what is true of mankind as a whole, is also true of each of us individually. We are here to no purpose. If there is no God, then your life is not qualitatively different from that of a dog. That may sound harsh, but it’s true. As the ancient writer of Ecclesiastes put it, “For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. (Ecc 3:19-20). In this book that reads more like a piece of modern existentialist literature than a book from the Bible, the writer demonstrates the futility of pleasure, wealth, education, political fame, and honor, in a life doomed to end in death. His verdict? “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity!” (Ecc 12:8). If life ends at the grave, then we have no ultimate purpose for living.

But more than that, even if life did not end in death, without God life would still be without purpose. For man and the universe would then be mere accidents of chance thrust into existence for no reason. Without God the universe is a result of a cosmic accident, a chance explosion. There is no reason for which it exists. And as for man, he’s nothing but a freak of nature, a blind product of matter, plus time, plus chance. There’s no more purpose in life for the human race than for a species of insect – for both are the result of the blind interaction of chance and necessity. As one philosopher has put it, “Human life is mounted upon a sub-human pedestal, and must shift for its self alone, in the heart of a silent and mindless universe.” And what is true of the universe and of the human race is also true of us as individuals. We are here to no purpose. We are the results of certain combinations of heredity and environment. We’re victims of a sort of environmental roulette. Psychologists following Sigmund Freud tell us that our actions are really the result of repressed sexual tendencies. Sociologists following B.F. Skinner argue that all of our choices are really determined by conditioning so that freedom is an illusion. Biologists like Francis Crick regard man as an electro-chemical machine which can be controlled by altering its genetic code. If God does not exist, then you are just a miscarriage of nature, thrust into a purposeless universe to live a purposeless life. So if God does not exist, that means that man and the universe exist to no purpose (since the end of everything is death), and that they came to be for no purpose (since they are only blind products of chance). In short, life is ultimately without reason.

Do you understand then the gravity of the alternatives before us? For if God exists, then there is hope for man. But if God does not exist, then all we are left with is despair. Do you understand why the existence of God is a question that is so vital to man? As one writer has aptly put it, “If God is dead, then man is dead too.” Unfortunately, the mass of people do not understand this fact. They continue on as though nothing had changed. Consider the story told by Frederick Nietzsche of The Madman, who in the early morning hours burst into the marketplace, lantern in hand, crying, “I seek God! I seek God!” Since many of those standing about did not believe in God, he provoked much laughter. ‘Did God get lost? They yelled. Or, is He hiding? Or, perhaps He’s gone on a voyage, or emigrated! And thus they yelled and laughed and taunted the madman. And then, Nietzsche writes, the madman turned in their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried. “I shall tell you! We have killed him! You and I! All of us are His murderers! But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe up the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually backward, sideward, forward in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night and more night coming on all the while? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? God is dead! And we have killed Him! How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?” The crowd stared at the madman in silence and astonishment. At last he dashed his lantern to the ground. “I have come too early!” He said. “This tremendous event is still on its way. It has not yet reached the ears of men.” People did not truly comprehend what they had done in killing God. And yet, Nietzsche predicted that some day, people would realize the implications of atheism, and this realization would usher in an age of nihilism that is the destruction of all meaning and value in life. “This most gruesome of guests”, he said, “is standing already at the door. Our whole European culture is moving for some time now with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade as toward a catastrophe, restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect.” Most people still do not reflect upon the consequences of atheism, and so, like the crowd in the marketplace, go unknowingly on their way. And yet, when we realize, as did Nietzsche, what atheism really implies, then his question presses hard upon us: “How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?”

About the only solution which the atheists can offer is that we just face the absurdity of life bravely and live valiantly. Bertrand Russell, for example, wrote that “we must build our lives upon the firm foundation of unyielding despair. Only by recognizing that the world really is a terrible place can we successfully come to terms with life.” Camus said that we should honestly recognize life’s absurdity and then live in love for one another.” But the fundamental problem with this solution is that it is simply impossible to live consistently and happily within the framework of such a world view. If one lives consistently, he will not be happy. If he lives happily, it is only because he is not consistent. Francis Schaeffer explained this point well, saying, “Modern man lives in a two-story universe. In the lower story is the finite world without God. Here life is absurd (as we have seen). In the upper story are meaning, value, and purpose. Now modern man lives in the lower story because he believes that there is no God. But because he cannot live consistently and happily in such a world, he therefore makes leaps of faith into the upper story to affirm that life has meaning, value, and purpose, even though he has absolutely no right to since man and the lower story does not believe in God. Modern man is totally inconsistent to make this leap because these values cannot exist without God, and man and the lower story does not have God.”

Let us look again, then, at each of those three areas in which we saw that life was absurd without God, to show how modern man cannot live consistently and happily with his atheism.

First, the area of meaning. We saw that without God life has no ultimate meaning. And yet, philosophers continue to live as though life were meaningful. For example, Sarte argued that one may create meaning for his life by freely choosing to follow a certain course of action. Sarte, himself, chose Marxism. Now this is utterly inconsistent. It is inconsistent to say that life is objectively meaningless and then to say that one can create meaning for his life. If life really is absurd, then man is trapped in the lower story. To try to create meaning in life represents a leap to the upper story. But Sarte has no basis for this leap. Without God, there can be no objective meaning in life. Sarte’s program is thus actually an exercise in self-delusion – for the universe doesn’t really acquire a meaning just because I happen to give it one. This is obvious. For suppose you give the universe one meaning, and I give it another. Who is right? Well, the obvious answer is neither one. For the universe without God remains objectively meaningless no matter how we happen to regard it. Sarte is really saying, ‘Let’s pretend that life and the universe have meaning.’ And that is just fooling yourself. The point is this: if God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless. But man cannot live consistently and happily as though life were meaningless. And so in order to be happy, he pretends that his life has meaning. But this is of course utterly inconsistent; for without God, man and the universe remain without any real significance.

Turn now to the problem of value. Here is where the most blatant inconsistencies occur. First of all, atheistic humanists are totally inconsistent in affirming the traditional values of love and human brotherhood. Camus has been rightly criticized for inconsistently holding both to the absurdity of life, on the one hand, and to ethics of human love and brotherhood on the other. The two are logically incompatible. Bertrand Russell, too, was inconsistent. For although he was an atheist, he was also an outspoken social critic, denouncing war and restrictions on sexual freedom. Russell admitted that he could not live as though ethical values were simply a matter of personal taste and that he therefore found his own views, and I quote, “incredible.” “I do not know the solution,” he confessed. The point is that if there is no God, then objective right and wrong do not exist. As Dhostovesky said, “All things are permitted.” But Dhostovesky also showed that man cannot live this way. He cannot live as though as though it’s perfectly all right for soldiers to slaughter innocent children. He cannot live as though it’s perfectly acceptable for dictatorial regimes to follow systematic pograms of physical torture of political prisoners. He cannot live as though its all right for dictators like Stalin or Pol Pot to ruthlessly exterminate millions of their own countrymen. Everything in him cries out to say that these acts are wrong, really wrong. But if God does not exist, then he cannot. And so, he makes a leap of faith to affirm values anyway. And when he does, he reveals the inadequacy of a world without God.

The horror of a world devoid of value was brought home to me with new intensity several years ago as I viewed a BBC television documentary called “The Gathering.” It concerned the reunion of certain survivors of the Holocaust in Jerusalem where they shared experiences and rediscovered lost friendships. Now I had heard stories of the Holocaust before and even visited camps like Dachau and Buchenwald. And I thought I was beyond being shocked by further tales of horror. But I found that I was not. One woman prisoner, for example, a nurse, told how she was made the gynecologist at Auswitzch. She observed that certain pregnant women were grouped together by the soldiers under the direction of Dr. Mengele, and housed in the same barracks. Some time passed and she noticed that she no longer saw any of these women. She made inquirees: “Where are the pregnant women who were housed in that barracks?” she asked. “Oh, haven’t you heard,” came the reply, “Dr. Mengele used them for vivisection.” Another woman told how Mengele had had her breast bound up so she could no longer suckle her baby. The doctor wanted to learn how long an infant could survive without nourishment. And desperately this poor woman tried to keep her baby alive by giving it bits of bread soaked in coffee. But to no avail. Each day the baby lost weight – a fact which was eagerly monitored by Dr. Mengele. Finally a nurse then came secretly to this woman, and said to her, “I’ve arranged for a way for you to get out of here. But you cannot take your baby with you. I’ve brought a morphine injection which you can give to your child to take its life.” And when this woman protested the nurse said to her, “Look, your baby is going to die anyway. At least save yourself.” And so this poor woman took the life of her own child. Mengele was furious when he learned he had lost his experimental specimen, and he searched among the corpses of the discarded babies until he could find the body to have one last weighing.

My heart was torn by these stories. One rabbi who survived Auswitzch summed it up well when he said “It was as though a world existed in which all of the Ten Commandments had been reversed: Thou shalt kill, thou shalt lie, thou shalt steal, and so forth. Mankind has never seen such a hell.” And yet, if God does not exist, then our world IS Auswitzch. There is no absolute right and wrong. All things are permitted. But no atheist, no agnostic, can live consistently with such a view. Nietzsche himself, who proclaimed the necessity of living beyond good and evil, broke with his mentor, Richard Waugner, precisely over the issue of the composer’s strident German nationalism and anti-Semitism. Similarly, Sarte, writing in the aftermath of the second World War, condemned anti-Semitism. He declared that a doctrine that leads to extermination is not merely an opinion or a matter of personal taste of equal value with its opposite. In his important essay, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” Sarte struggled vainly to elude the contradiction between his denial of divinely pre-established values in his urgent desire to affirm the value of human persons. He could not live with the implications of his own denial of ethical absolutes.

A second problem is that if God does not exist and there is no immortality, then all the evil acts of men go unpunished. And all the sacrifices of good people go unrewarded. But who can live with such a view? Richard Wombrandt, who was tortured for his faith in communist prison, wrote, “The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The communist torturers often said, ‘There is no God. There is no hereafter. No punishment for evil. We can do what we wish!’ I have even heard one torturer say, ‘I thank God in whom I don’t believe that I have lived to this hour when I can express all of the evil in my heart.’ He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.”

The English theologian Cardinal Newman once said that, “If I believed that all of the evils and injustices of life throughout history were not to be made right by God in the afterlife, why, I think I should go mad.” Rightly so. And the same applies to acts of self-sacrifice. A number of years ago a terrible mid-winter air disaster occurred in Washington, D.C. A plane leaving Dulles Airport smashed into a bridge spanning the Potomac River, plunging its passengers into the icy waters. And as the rescue helicopters came attention was focused on one man, who again and again pushed the dangling rope ladder to other passengers rather than be pulled to safety himself. Six times he passed the ladder by, and then when the helicopters came again, he was gone. He had freely given his life so that others might live. The entire nation turned its eyes on this man with respect and admiration for the selfless and good act that he had performed. And yet if the atheist is right, that man was not noble; why he did the stupidest thing possible. He should have gone for the rope ladder first, pushed others out of the way if necessary in order to reach it. But to give his own life for other people for whom he had never even known, all the life he would ever have, what for? For the atheist there can be no reason. And yet the atheist, like the rest of us, instinctively reacts with praise for this man’s selfless action. Indeed I think one will never find an atheist who lives consistently with his system. For a universe without moral accountability and devoid of value is unimaginably terrible.

Finally let’s look at the problem of purpose in life. The only way that most people who deny purpose in life manage to live happily is either by making up some purpose for their lives, which amounts to self-delusion, as we saw with Sarte, or else by not carrying out their view to its logical conclusions. Take the problem of death, for example. According to psychologist Ernst Block, the only way that modern man lives in the face of death is by sub-consciously borrowing the belief in immortality which his forefathers held to. Even though he himself no longer has any basis for this belief, since he does not believe in God. Block states that the belief that life ends in nothing is hardly (in his words) sufficient to keep the head high and to work as if there were no end. The remnants of a belief in immortality, writes Block, modern man does not feel the chasm that unceasingly surrounds him, and will most certainly engulf him at last. Through these remnants he saves his sense of self-identity. Through them the impression arises that man is not perishing, but only that one day the world has the whim no longer to appear to him. Block concludes, “This quite shallow courage feasts on a borrowed credit card; it lives from earlier hopes and the support that they have once provided.” But modern man no longer has any right to that support, since he rejects God. But in order to live purposefully, he makes a leap of faith to affirm a reason for living.

We often find the same inconsistency among those who say that man and the universe came to exist for no reason or purpose but just by chance. Unable to live in an impersonal universe in which everything is the result of blind chance these people begin to ascribe personality and motives to the physical processes themselves. It’s a bizarre way of speaking – and it represents a leap from the lower to the upper story. For example, the brilliant Russian physicist, Zodovitzchen Novakoff, in contemplating the universe, asks, “Why did nature choose to create this universe rather than another?” ‘Nature’ here has obviously become a sort of ‘God substitute,’ filling the role and function of the Creator. Similarly, Francis Crick, halfway through his book “The Origin of the Genetic Code” begins to spell ‘nature’ with a capital ‘N’ – and speaks of natural selection as being “clever” and “thinking” of what it will do. similarly Fred Hoyle, the English astronomer, attributes to the universe itself the properties of God. For Carl Sagan, the cosmos, with which he always spelled with a capital letter, obviously fulfills the role of a God-substitute. Though all of these men profess not to believe in God, they smuggle in a God-substitute through the back door because they cannot bear to live in a universe in which everything is the result of impersonal forces.

And it’s interesting to see many thinkers betray their views when they are pushed to the logical conclusions. For example, feminists have raised a storm of protest over Freudian sexual psychology because, they say, its chauvinistic and degrading to women. And, some psychologists have nuckled under and revised their theories. Now this is totally inconsistent. If Freudian psychology is really true then it doesn’t matter if its degrading to women. You can’t change the truth because you don’t like what it leads to. But the problem is that people can’t live consistently and happily in a world where other persons are devalued. And yet, if God does not exist, then nobody has any value. The only way you can consistently support women’s rights is by belief in God. For if God does not exist, women have no more rights than a female goat or a chicken has rights. In nature, whatever is, is right. If God does not exist, then natural selection dictates that the male of the species is the dominant and aggressive one. In nature, whatever is, is right. But who can live with such a view? Apparently not even Freudian psychiatrists who betray their theories when pushed to their logical conclusions.

Or take the sociological behaviorism of a man like B.F. Skinner. This view leads to the sort of society envisioned by George Orwell in his novel “1984,” where the government controls and programs the thoughts of everybody. If Pavlov’s dog can be made to salivate when a bell rings, so can a human being. And if Skinner’s theories are right, there can be no objection to treating people like the rats in Skinner’s rat boxes – they run through their mazes coaxed on by food an electric shocks. According to Skinner all our actions are programmed anyway. And if God does not exist, then no moral objection can be raised against treating people like human guinea pigs – because man is not qualitatively different from a rat. For both are the result of matter, plus time, plus chance. But again who can live with such a dehumanizing view.

Or finally take the biological determinism of a man like Francis Crick. The logical conclusion is that man is like any other laboratory specimen. The world was horrified when it learned that in camps like Dachau and Auswitzch the Nazis had used prisoners for medical experiments on living human beings. But why not? If God does not exist there can be no moral objection to using people as human guinie pigs. A memorial at Dachau says, “Nie vida,” never again. But this sort of thing continued to go on. It was recently revealed, for example, that in the United States after the war certain minority group persons where injected unbeknownst to them with a sterilization drug by medical researchers. Must we not protest that this is wrong? That people are more than just electro-chemical machines? The end of this view is population control, in which the weak and the unwanted are killed off to make room for the strong. But the only way that we can protest this consistently is if God exists. Only if God exists can there be purpose in life.

The dilemma of modern man is thus truly terrible. And in so far as postmodern man (so called) denies the existence of God and the objectivity of value and purpose, this dilemma remains unrelieved for postmodern man as well. Indeed it is precisely the awareness that modernism issues inevitably in absurdity and despair that constitutes the anguish of postmodernism. In some respects postmodernism simply is the awareness of the bankruptcy of modernity. The atheistic world is insufficient to sustain a happy and consistent life. Man cannot live consistently and happily as though life were ultimately without meaning, value, and purpose. If we try to live consistently within the framework of the atheistic view, then we shall find ourselves profoundly unhappy. If we manage to live happily, it is only by giving lie to the worldview of atheism. Confronted with this dilemma, man flounders pathetically for some means of escape.

In a remarkable address to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science in 1991, Dr. LD. Rue, confronted with the predicament of modern man, boldly advocated that we deceive ourselves by means of some “noble lie” into thinking that we and the universe still have value. Claiming that the lesson of the last two centuries is that intellectual and moral relativism is profoundly the case, Dr. Rue muses that the consequences of such a realization is that one’s quest for personal wholeness or self fulfillment, and the quest for social coherence, become independent from one another. This is because on the view of relativism the search for self fulfillment becomes radically privatized. If each person chooses his own set of values and meaning, Rue says there is no final objective reading on the world for the self. There is no universal vocabulary for integrating cosmology and morality. If we are to avoid what he calls “the madhouse option,” where self fulfillment is pursued regardless of social coherence, and if we are to avoid what he calls “totalitarian option,” where social coherence is imposed at the expense of personal fulfillment, then, he says, we have no choice but to embrace some “noble lie” that will inspire us to live beyond our selfish interests and so achieve social coherence. A noble lie, he says, is one that deceives us, tricks us, compels us beyond self interests, beyond ego, beyond family, nation, and race. It is a lie because it tells us that the universe is infused with value – which is a great fiction. Because it makes a claim to universal truth when there is none, and because it tells me not to live for self interest – which is evidently false. But, says Rue, without such lies, we cannot live.

This is the dreadful verdict pronounced over modern man. In order to live, he must live in self deception. But even the noble lie option is, in the end, unworkable. For how can one believe in these noble lies while at the same time believing in atheism and relativism? The more convinced you are of the necessity of a noble lie, the less you are able to believe in it. Like a placebo, the noble lie only works on those who believe it is the truth. Once we’ve seen through the deception, the lie has lost its power over us. And thus ironically, the noble lie cannot solve our human predicament for anyone who has come to see that predicament. The noble lie option only leads, therefore, at best, to a society in which an elitest group of Illuminati deceive the masses for their own good by perpetuating the noble lie. But then, why should those of us, who are enlightened, follow the masses in their deception? Why should we sacrifice self interests for a fiction? If the great lesson of the past two centuries is moral and intellectual relativism, then why, if we could, pretend that we do not know this truth and live a lie instead? If one answers, “Well for the sake of social coherence,” one may legitimately respond, “Why should I sacrifice my self interest for the sake of social coherence? The only answer the relativist can give to this question is that social coherence IS in my best interest. But the problem with this answer is that self interest and social coherence do not always coincide. My interest and the interest of the herd are not always the same. Beside, if out of self interest I do care about social coherence, the totalitarian option is always open to me. Forget the noble lie, and simply maintain social coherence, as well as my own self fulfillment, at the expense of the personal wholeness of the masses. Generations of Soviet leaders – who extolled proletarian virtues while they rode in limousines and dined on caviar on their country dachas – found this alternative quite workable.

Now, Dr. Rue would undoubtedly regard such an option as morally repugnant. But therein lies the rub; Rue’s dilemma is that he obviously values – deeply – both social coherence and personal wholeness for their own sakes. In other words, they are objective values – which according to his philosophy do not exist. He has already leaped to the upper story. The noble lie option thus affirms what it denies – and so refutes itself.

But if atheism fails in this regard, what about biblical Christianity? According to the Christian worldview, God does exist, and man’s life does not end at the grave. In the resurrection body man may enjoy eternal life and fellowship with God. And biblical Christianity therefore provides the two conditions necessary for a meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life: namely, God and immortality. Because of this, we can live consistently and happily. The Bible affirms that life is ultimately significant because we have eternal life which is the knowledge of God forever. This is the fulfillment of human existence, it is what we were made for. moreover, moral values are rooted in the nature of God Himself, and God’s moral commandments constitute for us our objective moral duties. Moreover the moral choices that we make in this life have an eternal significance because we will be held accountable for them by the holy God. The purpose of life, as the Westminster Catechism states, is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever. And thus biblical Christianity succeeds precisely where atheism breaks down.

Now, I want to be perfectly clear that none of this shows that biblical Christianity is true. But what it does show, I think, is to spell out clearly the alternatives. If God does not exist, then life is futile. If the God of the Bible does exist, then life is meaningful. Only the second of these two alternatives enables us to live consistently and happily.

And therefore it seems to me that even if these two options were absolutely equal, the rational person ought to choose biblical Christianity. That is to say, it seems to me positively irrational to prefer death, futility, and despair to hope, meaningfulness, and happiness. As Pascal said, “we have nothing to lose, and infinity to gain.” The cosmic orphan can come home.

29 Responses to “The Absurdity Of Life Without God – William Lane Craig”

  1. Student Says:

    Thank you so much for this transcript that you did, it was an amazing help! :)

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Appreciate your dropping the note.

    I transcribed it before I was online at home (I’m one of those people who never once spent work time pursuing my own “browsing”).

    But even now, it’s nice to have that incredible lecture presented in a copy/”pastable” format.

  3. Ismail Bozdeveci Says:

    Only if you find some purpose for your life without the guidence of a so called god, it is a life worth take your time. If you need some scary fairy tale to teach you how to behave in life, then why do you have a mind to think? Is it given to you by someone to obey without questioning the reason!

    I have a strict muslim family which I ignored their religion after questioning their ways and I also read the bible and made some research to find out what Christianity is. I know that only truth of life can be revealed through science.

    Be a “HUMAN” and always ask the question “WHY?”. Then you’ll see how ABSURD this article is..

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    “Only if you find some purpose for your life without the guidence of a so called god, it is a life worth take your time.” What an idiotic and trivial statement of narrow-minded ideology that is. BILLIONS of human beings have discovered their meaning as human beings THROUGH their religious beliefs – but you alone know better.

    And the only thing “ABSURD” around here is a fool who thinks a casual dismissal of an article in any way undermines its credibility.

    Again and again, I get attacks like this from the most trivial and puny minds. They don’t bother to offer any evidence or criticisms for their stupid opinions; they just drive by and say, “This is stupid” without having the intelligence or integrity to even attempt to explain why. As such, you are an insult to both science and to human reason.

  5. Ismail Bozdeveci Says:

    Only ones offering evidence or criticism are the ones whom question things through science! And usually believers say “This is stupid, this is this and this is that”. Religions are dogma! You can’t question them. You only believe them! You cannot know, you only believe! Before believing in something you have to know every possible evidence of opposing ideas. Then you have to consider. But religions order you not to question. Because there can be no evidence found for any religion for it is real. Along the article there’s no questioning. You only say this is the result. But showing no way to lead to that result. Only a crowd of empty words.

    “BILLIONS of human beings have discovered their meaning as human beings THROUGH their religious beliefs – but you alone know better” so you say.. Then take a glare at the world around you. Those billions must have done something wrong! All those wars, killings, rate of crime, drugs.. If the majority is right, why is this world such a hellish place now?

  6. Ismail Bozdeveci Says:

    And I don’t know if I say “this is stupid!” But you call me narrow minded, fool, puny minded, insult to science.. Have you offered any evidence or criticim..

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    Your statement that – “Only ones offering evidence or criticism are the ones whom question things through science!” – aside from its glaring grammatical error – is ITSELF a dogmatic position. YOU are the narrow-minded practitioner of religion here. The statement that “only science is a legitimate form of knowledge” itself cannot even possibly be proven by science. What you are mouthing is a religious commitment called “scientism.”

    Christianity – among its many other contributions – provided the worldview necessary for the FORMATION of the scientific method. The scientific method itself, as well as the discovery of every single major branch of science – came from confessing Christians. And the man regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived – Sir Isaac Newton – actually wrote more about Christian theology than on science. So you are simply wrong, ignorant, and the very sort of ideologue you falsely describe religious people as being.

    See Christianity and the Rise of Science

    See Christian foundations of modern science

    See How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and the Success of the West

    As for your contention that religions and religious people are responsible for war, etc. etc., you would have a point – if it weren’t for the fact that atheist regimes were responsible for easily over 100 million deaths in the 20th century.

    You come on this site and damn an article without having given any indication that you even bothered to read it. You certainly don’t provide ANY reasons – even crazy ones – why the article isn’t true BEYOND A CLEAR KNEE-JERK FAITH COMMITMENT TO WHATEVER THE HELL YOU BELIEVE.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    William Lane Craig, the author of the article in questioned, exhaustively interacts with numerous thinkers – and reveals who even the world’s most prominent atheist thinkers affirm his thesis: that human life has no purpose, meaning, or value apart from religion.

    You, in turn, offer the most pathetic form of gibberish.

  9. Ismail Bozdeveci Says:

    I’m sorry for any grammatical errors I made. I am not a native English speaker. Mr. Eden you say you get attacks but you got my intensions wrong. But I have read all the article and for the time I wasted, I thought that I must say something. But I see you very angry for the things I say. It’s so sad. Anyway, I didn’t say religion is responsible for war and killings. You used the term “BILLIONS” to describe the majority, and I mean that throughout the history we saw only a handful of men were right among those billions. Like the example of Galileo. Did the authorities sponsore his researches?

    Useless discussion. You can’t even STAY CALM…

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    If you’ve read the article and think it’s “wrong,” “stupid,” or whatever, don’t just be an idiot and say, “This is full of crap!” Particularly if you’re going to uphold science. Give me some reasons! What did William Lane Craig say that you can demonstrate is false? Be specific. You say, “I thought that I must say something,” but you didn’t say anything at all, did you?

    As for me being “angry for the things you say. It’s so sad” realize something: I didn’t come into your blog and insult your beliefs; that was you. So please don’t have the hypocrisy to portray yourself as a victim of my “anger.” Because that’s simply pathetic. You can count on me to get “angry” whenever some moron barges onto my site and launches a bunch of thoughtless vitriol without even having the intellectual honesty to explain what he/she thinks something is “wrong,” “stupid,” or whatever. So, yeah, it IS a useless discussion – because after your several posts you STILL haven’t said a single constructive thing about the article you attacked.

    You mention Galileo. Let me give you something else to read, that reveals the actual history of Galileo. And by the way, you DO know that Galileo was a devout Catholic, don’t you? And given that you cite him as an authority on “science,” maybe YOU should be a Christian, like he was.

  11. Ismail Bozdeveci Says:

    Without a God there’s a meaning of life! For the thing we call “life” comes out of our genes’ need to carry on their existence, our lives have a purpose as our computers have. A man from 200 years ago has already told people the very meaning of the life, and the scientists have proven most of the theory. Do not look for further “Ultimate Meaning”.

    –“Man is the cosmic orphan. He’s the only creature in the universe who asks, ‘Why?’ Other animals have instincts to guide them, but man has learned to ask questions: ‘Who am I?’ ‘Why am I here?’ ‘Where am I going?’”–

    Man is not the only thinking animal. This is a fact. If you read some science, you will see.

    According to last two paragraphs, happiness and a consistent life are what we have to consider, and without a god, happiness is impossible. Then we have to believe? But ignoring the truths of life makes me dull and unhappy. Then what should I do? Oh I must have never looked for the truth. I must have accepted what my culture and society has given me! Now, I will never achieve the happiness? But somehow, I feel happy and strong…

    I see here that you put this article for people to accept it. Not to discuss. Then I am sorry. I couldn’t handle myself when I saw this “Leave a Reply” thing.

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    As for your first point that life without God has true meaning (glad you finally have one), let me simply quote Craig:
    First, there is no ultimate meaning without immortality and God. If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life? Does it really matter whether he ever existed or not? It might be said that his life was important because it influenced others or affected the course of history. But that shows only a relative significance to his life, not an ultimate significance. His life may be important relative to certain other events. But what is the ultimate significance to any of those events? If all of the events are meaningless, then what can be the ultimate significance of influencing any of them? Ultimately it makes no difference. Or look at it from another perspective: scientists say that the universe originated in a great explosion called ‘the Big Bang’ about 15 billion years ago. Suppose the Big Bang had never occurred: what ultimate difference would it have made? The universe is doomed to die anyway; in the end it makes no difference whether it ever existed or not. And therefore it is without ultimate significance. The same is true of the human race; mankind is a doomed race in a dying universe. Because the human race will eventually cease to exist, it makes no ultimate difference whether it ever did exist. mankind is thus no more significant than a swarm of mosquitoes or a barnyard of pigs, for their end is all the same: the same cosmic process that coughed them all up in the first place will eventually swallow them all up again. And the same is true of each individual person; the contribution of the scientists to the advance of human knowledge, the researches of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the efforts of good people everywhere to benefit the lot of the human race, all these come to nothing; in the end they don’t make one bit of difference. Not one bit. Each person’s life is therefore without ultimate significance. And because our lives are ultimately meaningless, the activities that we fill our lives with are also meaningless. The long hours spent in study at the university, our jobs, our interests, our friendships, all of these are, in the final analysis, ultimately meaningless. This is the horror of modern man. Because he ends in nothing, he ultimately is nothing.

    And just which part of what he says in that para isn’t true?

    For your second point, you’re telling me that if I read some science I will find that animals are conscious of life after death, and that they think about their thoughts? It appears quite obvious that you are taking Craig in the most trivial and literalistic ways, rather than understanding what he is actually saying. When monkeys in the wild start wearing suits and building rocket ships and discussing monkey philosophy, come back to me with your point.

    Craig’s point is that if an atheist is CONSISTENT in his atheism – as many of the greatest atheists in the 20th century such as Jean Paul Sarte and Martin Heidegger were – happiness is impossible. He quotes ATHEISTS to acknowledge that fact, if you read the article.

    And thus he presents Dr. LD. Rue’s “noble lie.”

    Here’s a big thing: if there is no God, then morality – which in EVERY SINGLE CULTURE IS THE PRODUCT OF RELIGION – is a lie, and we should live according to the law of Darwinian survival of the fittest, where might makes right, the fittest survive, and the weak should perish as biologically inferior to the strong. It is fitting at this point to note that every single atheistic society: the Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Chairman Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea under Kim Jong Il, etc. – ever single one – has been murderous and totalitarian.

    For example, you come from an Islamic family, so tell me this: how would it violate Darwinian “morality” for the United States to nuke every single Muslim country on the face of the earth and win the “war on terror” permanently? When confronted with an enemy that threatens us, what does Darwinism say we should do? If you DON’T think every Islamic country should be nuked and the threat eliminated, please explain it to me in terms of “science.” Provide for me the evolutionary basis that we should not kill every single one of our enemies who pose a threat to us, and kill them all before they have a chance to kill us.

    Then, I want you to explain to me – speaking only in terms of Darwinian thought – how Joseph Stalin, who murdered over 40 million of his own people to ensure he remained in power, was a “bad atheist.” That’s your project.

  13. Ismail Bozdeveci Says:

    All you say sounds familiar to me from those people in power at capitalist societies. Yes, they kill muslim too. This proves the religions create you and I discrimination. Science has nothing to do with killings, but religions and nationalism have.

    Natural selection explains the behaviours of the living. Darwin just tried to explain our existence. He did not say, “We do not believe in a God. So morality is out of our dictionaries. You’re free to do anything for your sake!” This is nonsense. Darwinism need not explain Stalin’s slaughters. You try to slander ideas and science with useless models from history. If you try to prove that religion is necessary using some bad examples of the opposing idea, I can write here many more examples of religious murders, genocides.

    What must be understood is any kind of morality can be bent to fit our desires. Here in Turkey, people interpret the Quran that Allah does not order to kill unbelievers (I know that there are many verses that order killings and cihad). But we see that some other muslim rip heretics’ heads off of their bodies in the name of Allah. These people believe in the same god, and they read the same book! Whose interpretation is right? Some people burn witches in Salem? Aren’t they Christian too?

    I know that morality which is bound to fear (religion) is not a solution to bad things happening around us. Your religion, my religion, their religion, and then what? Nations with full of hatred against each other. Shall these people hug themselves? If you ask me, a society with a god sounds like a football team with a lot of fans and some powerful rivals.

    About happiness: I tried to say (maybe I couldn’t, I don’t know) that happiness must not be the only criteria for an individual to choose his actions. For me, to understand the truth of my existence is more satisfying than being happy with a god. Even if this truth will ruin me. And I see nothing irrational with this idea.

    Anyway, you point out wrong things. Maybe, I cannot make myself clear.

  14. Ismail Bozdeveci Says:

    And about the monkeys wearing suits, I noted this because in religious view human is the only thinking species. Only human will suffer the hell or will be accepted into the heaven. At least in Islam. But it is obvious that some animals like “monkeys” and crows can think. They think simply and sometimes they do deceptive or self-sacrificing actions which are surely not instincts. Your approach to my words were very humourous…

  15. Michael Eden Says:

    Wow. Way to utterly duck the question. To argue that Darwin didn’t say something like “I’m abolishing morality” has nothing to do with the implications of Darwinian evolotion de facto abolishing morality by abolishing the God or religion in which name all human morality had a foundation. Unless you can point to early human civilization which has been demonstrated by anthropologists to have evolved a moral system entirely apart from religion, my question has as much force as ever, and I demand that you answer it.

    I’ll ask again:

    What precisely made Joseph Stalin a bad atheist?

    This is no small matter. Unless you can explain that “Joseph Stalin was a bad atheist because…” we can dispense entirely with morality on your atheistic world view. Morality becomes extraneous to the human experience under atheism. So try again.

  16. Ismail Bozdeveci Says:

    For Joseph Stalin to be a bad atheist, he must have done something bad in point of atheist view. What he has done cannot be bind to atheism or Darwinism. He was just a bad politician, and nearly every politician try every possible way to achieve power and to keep it. Not only atheist ones. For centuries most of those politicians ruled their countries with religion. Result is the same.

  17. Michael Eden Says:

    Excellent answer: you just demonstrated that atheism leads to moral nihilism.

    I could show you all day long how Joseph Stalin was a terrible Christian – and in fact did not qualify to be called a Christian at all due to his moral crimes. And I can point to one Scripture after another to justify that claim.

    The reason that every single officially atheist regime has led to murder in the millions and totalitarian oppression is precisely the same reason you cannot explain why Stalin was a bad atheist.

    As Craig contended, life apart from God is without purpose, meaning, or value – and EVERY SINGLE OFFICIALLY ATHEIST REGIME BAR NONE ACTED UPON THAT REALIZATION.

  18. Ismail Bozdeveci Says:

    “And I can point to one Scripture after another to justify that claim.” I would like to see that. Even if those Scriptures define “The Beautiful People”, it is obvious that not many believers read them. Some people tell them what to believe and what is to be done for their belief. So religions are dangerous tools for those in power.

    In totalitarian regimes governments kill people, you say so.. And in democrative regimes people kill people. People kill people because of insufficient sources, or leaders lead them to kill each other. Did you know that in Soviet Russia there had been only “1” serial killer. 93% or so of serial killers in whole world belongs to America. Do you know that most of them have religious sides. In one minute how many people dies in New York? Well, people die anyway. Democrative regimes are no exception. Mass murders go on without the distinction of ideology.

  19. Michael Eden Says:

    Well, let’s see: the first place I’d start is with the Ten Commandments – Exodus 20:13, “Thou shalt not murder.” Then I’d point out that the paradigm of Christianity is Jesus of Nazareth, who never sinned once (or murdered), and who said, “Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you shall find rest for your souls” (Matthew 11:29). I would point to Mark 10:45, “For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Jesus laid down His own life and said there was no greater love than so doing (John 5:13). And according to 1 John 3:16, that is the model for all true believers to follow. I would cite the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22 “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control.” St Paul writes that Christians be imitators of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us (Ephesians 5:1-2). I would submit to you that the paradigm of Christianity laid down His life for others; and that it was Muhammed who took up the sword and murdered his enemies. Jesus described such people as being like their father, the devil, who was a murderer from the beginning; and that there is no truth in such people (John 8:44). And, yeah, I can continue to go on, but I think I’ve made my point. I suppose I should point out that St John made it quite clear about murderers in 1 John 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

    I don’t have to defend Americans, because fewer and fewer Americans are Christians, and any violence you cite stems from that. Jesus said of the final generation, symbolized in the seventh of seven churches (the church of Laodicea), “I know you deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spit you out of My mouth. Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked” (Revelation 3:15-17).

    So, yeah, I’ve got a pretty good case from the Word of God that Stalin was most certainly no true Christian. What do you now offer me that he was no true atheist?

  20. Ismail Bozdeveci Says:

    And this is what I am trying to tell. None of the ideologies or religions try to create bad people. But this is what most of the people are. None of these doctrines make people good. People have to find out what is good or evil by themselves. Every idea can be used as a tool for evil.

    You talk about atheism like it is a religion. But atheism has no commandments. It’s the outcome of science. What Darwin had done was looking for answers to explain the existence. As I told before, someone has to break down all the walls to find the truth. This is the only way. Can you ignore this truth? But believers were very afraid of his researches, because his findings could prove that all religions were some fairy tales. Excuse me but I don’t really get how someone can believe that human fell from heaven after eating an apple. I mean, is this more credible?

    What I told about America was just an answer to your quotations about totalitarian regimes. It is not about religion. Well, maybe a little. And I forgot to add, what do you think about the atomic bombs that killed 220.000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What were good Christians doing while this was happening? It is the most devastating terrorist attack of the history if you ask me.. And this has nothing to do with atheists.

    The architect of our Turkish Republic was also an atheist. His name is Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Did you ever heard about him? Serious amount of our 98% Muslim Turkish society think he was the greatest person in history.

    Did you know that in 1972 and 1980 thousands of Marxist revolutionist young people were killed by hanging or clandestine other ways by the right-wing military government in Turkey after two coup d’états. What would you say about murder of a 17 years old person by hanging him?

    Stalin is a true atheist. There’s no doubt to that. I have to say that I never approved what Stalin did. I am more a Trotskyist, and he was assassinated by an agent of Stalin. Trotsky was a true atheist too.

    I think you just see the examples that will justify your ideas.

  21. Michael Eden Says:

    First of all, you acknowledge that Stalin was a true atheist, and that “morality” (i.e. deciding not to murder 40-50 million human beings is really nothing more than a societal construct that has no genuine validity. Murder is simply a brute fact of human reality on your atheistic view, a part of the fact that we are animals and absolutely nothing more than animals. So let us then embrace the nihilism and die a mass death in a blaze of atomic fire. And, of course, as Craig stated, there is no ultimate meaning, purpose, or value in any of it anyway.

    It is a darned good thing that humans have religion, or it would be the “survival of the fittest” “jungle-rules” “kill-or-be-killed” life of atheism.

    Atheism IS a religion. Any religion has a set of issues that it answers, and atheism answers the exact same questions that all other religions answer. The very fact that you call yourself an “atheist” is an implicit proof that you are trapped within religion, and identify yourself accordingly. The fact that you are not intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that is not my concern.

    Atheism has a theology, which answers questions about God. Atheists answer the question by claiming that there is no God, but only the universe itself. On this it is no different than other atheistic religions (and they ARE religions) such as Theravada Buddhism (the most pure form of Buddhism practiced by Gautama himself). You are simply ignorant if you think not believing in God somehow rules you out as being religious.

    Every religion offers a cosmology, a story as to how the universe came to be. Again, atheism has an answer to this religious question.

    Every religion has an anthropology, answering the question as to what is the purpose and nature of man. Again, atheism has its own answers to this religious question.

    Every religion has a cosmology, an answer of ultimate destiny of the human spirit and the universe. And, yes, atheism offers its own religious answer.

    You may think you aren’t religious, but that is only because you are too ignorant to allow yourself to realize just how religious you actually are, and what a faith commitment atheism actually is (“Once upon a time all matter, energy, time, and space just popped into being, caused and created by nothing!”). We might have different answers to a mathematical question, for example, but one thing is very clear: we are both talking about math.

    Science uniquely came out of Christianity, and depends upon the Christian worldview for its presuppositions. Apart from religion in general, and Christianity in particular, science would have never even got off the ground. I already pointed this out to you, and provided articles on the subject, in an earlier comment. I would further point out that science has only mapped out less than 1% of the human brain, and can’t even directly account for 90% of the mass of the universe – yet you foolishly claim that science has answered all questions and somehow rules out God.

    In order for science to even get off the ground, certain things had to be believed in advance:
    1) the existence of a theory-independent, external world.
    2) the ordinary law-abiding nature of the external world.
    3) the knowability of the external world by the human mind.
    4) the existence of truth and the existence of falsity.
    5) the laws of logic, and the validity of human logic.
    6) the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our environment.
    7) the adequacy of language to describe the world.
    8) the existence of values used in science (e.g., I should test theories accurately and report my results honesty).
    9) the uniformity of nature and induction.
    10) the existence of numbers.

    But your atheism can’t even BEGIN to get off the ground toward any of these presuppositions necessary for science. To illustrate the sheer absurdity of your position, let me quote Gleason Archer, from page 55-56 of his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties:

    But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

    On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.

    Atheists are parasites: they take a superior worldview and the tools that worldview developed, keep the parts they like, and then claim credit for them while they deny the superior worldview that made it all possible in the first place.

    And even apart from the problem of the source, origin, and subsequent rise of science – and the impossibility of such apart from Christianity and religion – you have another problem that is virtually as problematic. I wrote an article about it citing Immanuel Kant and the limitation of human knowledge. In short, All observations are subjective, including those by scientists. Therefore scientific conclusions are not objective. Further, the human mind is finite, and cannot by its very nature be capable of the type of all-encompassing knowledge you claim. The very claim of “scientific rationality” itself is nothing more than a presupposition – because human rationality is guided along the lines of dominant theories that are themselves socially constructed.

    So when anyone like you comes along and presumes to tell me that science rules out God, I frankly laugh at your trivial stupidity, your rabid faith commitment to a warped ideology, and your determination to think only in ideological terms. It is only because God created man in His own image, only because as part of the imago dei God gave man a rational mind, only because God created the world for man, and enabled man to appreciate and study and learn about God’s creation, that we have science at all. That is why the first scientists said that they were thinking God’s thoughts after him, why they claimed to be admiring and studying God’s handiwork. And fool that you are, you presume to think it rules out God?

    I’m not going to talk about Islam or Turkey, since Islam is fundamentally evil (you can thank your terrorists for revealing that factoid, as well as see my previous comments about Muhammed who murdered and committed genocide as opposed to Jesus of Nazareth, the true source of peace) and I’m not going to give a country that is responsible for a massive Armenian genocide that it is too fundamentally wicked to acknowledge the benefit of any credibility.

    During the first century of Christianity and Islam – when both religions were at their purest forms – there is such a stunning contrast it is unreal. Christianity was in the process of taking over the Roman empire – the mightiest empire in the history of the world – not by conquest with the sword, but with purity of love and the willingness to die as martyrs for the truth. Hundreds of thousands, and likely millions, of Christians died in testament to the reality of their faith. VERSUS Muhammed and Islam, which embarked on the greatest campaigns of slaughter ever before seen. Murderous hordes of Muslims poured across Africa (and wiped out the Christians; Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, had lived and taught there), across Spain, and across Europe. 100 years after the death of Muhammed, in 732 AD, Muslims had poured all the way across Europe killing and murdering – finally to be stopped by Charles Martel on the OTHER side of Europe in France. Sorry, but Islam is more like Stalin than anything else. The wars of the Crusades were started by Muslims who attacked and tried to take Byzantium, forcing the emperor to seek aid from the Pope in the West. No Muslim invading hordes, no Crusades.

    Let me rather provide you with wisdom from founding fathers who actually were wise on the vital need for religion, and the warnings they provided as to what would happen to society if their warnings were unheeded:
    “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
    – John Adams

    “…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
    – George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

    “Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.”
    – Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

    “The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.”
    – Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

    “Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”
    – Charles Carroll (signer of the Constitution), Letter to James McHenry,November 4, 1800

    “Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.”
    – Life of Gouverneur Morris, Vol III

    “Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity…in short of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.“
    – Samuel Adams, Letter to John Adams, October 4, 1790

    “In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes, and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government. That is, the universal
    education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible.”
    – Benjamin Rush, “A Defense of the Use of the Bible as a School Book”, 1798

    “In my view, the Christian Religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…no truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
    – Noah Webster, Reply to David McClure, Oct. 25, 1836

    “Information to those who would remove (or move) to America”: “To this may be truly added, that serious Religion under its various Denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practised. Atheism is unknown there, Infidelity rare & secret, so that Persons may live to a great Age in that Country without having their Piety shock’d by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his Approbation of the mutual Forbearance and Kindness with which the different Sects treat each other, by the remarkable Prosperity with which he has been pleased to favour the whole Country.”
    – Ben Franklin, 1787 pamphlet to Europeans

    “Independent of its connection with human destiny hereafter, the fate of republican government is indissolubly bound up with the fate of the Christian religion, and a people who reject its holy faith will find themselves the slaves of their own evil passions and of arbitrary power.”
    – Lewis Cass, A Brigadier-General in the War of 1812, Governor of the Michigan Territory, a Secretary of War, a Senator, a Secretary of State. The State of Michigan placed his statue in the U.S. Capitol’s Statuary Hall.

    “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    “Yes, we did produce a near perfect Republic. But will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    “I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens…”
    – George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

    “Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.”
    – John Adams, Letter of June 21, 1776

  22. Ismail Bozdeveci Says:

    Funny. What do you expect from a nationalist Hitler like mind which only think his own race and his culture is the only supreme ones. Unlike you, I don’t ignore what my ancestors did. But you are brainwashed like most of my society are. Isn’t it lovely that these same accusations you make are what my people think for you too. I have never heard from anybody here that Muhammed killed the heretics in the name of Allah. But I heard that The Crusaders had done what you told about Muhammed.

    You seem like have no respect to anybody but yourself.

    I don’t believe in anything. I only know, and other than what I know, I don’t care. Until what I don’t know is proven, it is not real to me. So I ignore to believe in anything. Anything that have no answer to question “WHY” means nothing to me.

    I see you have no idea what natural selection is. Human brain can’t be a result of chance. This is absolutely a stupid idea. But again, you try to justify your belief. It is obvious that you complain about natural selection by who he is stronger kills the weak, then lives on. So those molecules in your brain followed the same process too. That’s why it took millions of years.

    “Every religion offers a cosmology, a story as to how the universe came to be. Again, atheism has an answer to this religious question.” This is not a religious question, and atheism has no answer for it. Science has the answers, atheism is an outcome.

    “Every religion has an anthropology, answering the question as to what is the purpose and nature of man. Again, atheism has its own answers to this religious question.” These questions has nothing to do with religion. These questions were religions thousands of years ago. Because there was no technology to answer them. And these questions were nice tools to fool people. Again, the natural selection answers the purpose and nature of life. For natural selection has an explanation to this question, there’s something called atheism.

    Anyway, I wish I had time to answer everything. But I am getting sick of your insults. You have to learn some morals from your religion. But you fail to learn anything, like the majority do. I hope you see heaven one day. Take care.

  23. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ll just say if you are getting sick of insults, you’d better not look at a mirror. Because you insult yourself with your patently ridiculous views.

    I respect truth, and despise lies. And I don’t feel like I have to handle with kid gloves those who drink them and spit them out.

    Pardon me if I continue to mock you as the kind of gargantuan colossal hypocrite who begins by labeling me for “my Hitler-like mind” and then concludes by saying, “I am getting sick of your insults.” It’s not just your garden-variety intellectual hypocrite that can perform that kind of act: it is truly world-class. And if I may further point out, it is world class melodrama as well.

    Tell you what, Ismail, I’ll help you out: I’ll ban you so you don’t have to worry about answering my charges (which you never did, and which are clearly too difficult for you to deal with anyway). Your “Hitler-like mind” attack just crosses a line that I don’t allow.

    Enjoy your fundamentalist atheist religious nonsense somewhere else.

  24. J.W. Wartick Says:

    Thanks for transcribing this. I absolutely love William Lane Craig, one of my favorites. In debate he is unmatched. I appreciate this blog greatly, I’ll have to check out more later when I have more time.

  25. Michael Eden Says:

    Thank you, J.W.

    Bill Craig is one of my heroes as well. I had come to greatly admire him due to his incredible debating skills. But after I took a course from him (I believe it was called ‘God and time’) I came to marvel at his humility and willingness to spend time with his students. Every day after class, he would have lunch – with every one of his students invited to dine with him.

    A brilliant and godly man.

    I transcribed the lecture for my own use after hearing Craig deliver it at Biola University. At some point it occurred to me to post it. Subsequently to my posting it, I found an Adobe/pdf file. But it’s nice to have in a format that allows editing (e.g. using bold face or color to highlight certain portions) as well as formatted copying/pasting.

  26. AgeOfReasonXXI Says:

    Craig is one of the most existentially insecure and self-centered persons I’ve ever seen. Nothing makes sense to him unless God apporves of it; no project, icluding life iteslf, is worthwhile unless God rewards him after death! Life is absurd unless God tells him what to live for! Humanism, caring for others for their own sake, self-sacrifice are concepts totally alien to Bill Craig! He calls self-sacrifice stupid if it’s not compsensated by God with some kind of a reward, which, of course, means it’s not self-sacrifice at all! He doesn’t even understand what morality is, or simply doesn’t believe in it. What he calls morality is just prudence in disguise: for him moral actions are pointless unless they’re in his best interest and he get his reward in the end! That’s the whole point of his “moral accountability” arg. Craig totally lacks any comrehension of what autonomy, courage and indeed sacrifising your own well-being for others, means!
    The most irritating part, is that Craig assumes everyone is as abject and self-serving as he is! This profoudly stupid article, with Craig’s pathetic whining, is the perfect illustration of what a deeply confused, servile maggot he is. But I guess when someoen like him, who’s spent his life on his knees at his Master’s feet, could never undertsand how there can be individuals to whom it’s life WITH God that is ABSURD. And it is Big Brother, who robs you of the opportunity to make YOUR own decision about YOUR own life (autonomy is punished for an eternity!), and to determine yourself what you should live for, or die for, that life is meaningless and pointless! It’s only when God is Dead, man is not a slave, but free, and thus his life is not meanigless and futile.

  27. Michael Eden Says:

    You undercut your own thesis, and demonstrate what a hypocrite you are.

    You talk about “Humaism, caring for others for their own sake.” But it isn’t long before your own heart reveals itself, as you call Craig “a deeply confused, servile maggot.” You sure don’t care for Bill Craig for his own sake, do you? If Craig were drowning, you would mock him as he went under for the third time.

    And yet I personally know Bill Craig, and I know that he would NEVER label you the way you so callously and uncaringly label him.

    In other words, you in your own words and in he darkness of your own heart that humanists are NOT what you falsely claim they are, and that Craig is right.

    You provide another contrast with Bill Craig, a man who would find no greater honor than “spending his life on his knees at his Master’s feet.” You, on the other hand, mock that God. You stand in judgment of him, deeming yourself greater than He is. You claim that your autonomy/independence from God is some kind of virtue.

    J. Vernon McGee perhaps put it best. He said, “Now you might have a better plan than God. But what you don’t have is your own universe.”

    Out of mindboggling arrogance, you deem yourself the greater than God, and stand in judgment of Him. But one day it will be God judging you. And yes, by HIS standard.

    For the record, what Craig does in this article is demonstrate that – on the humanist’s view – sacrificing yourself to save someone else would be as meaningless and empty of a guesture as playing tidliwinks. And from a Darwinian view it IS stupid, because sacrificing yourself is the antithesis of Darwinian “survival of the fittest,” is it not???

    If there is no God, then we are nothing but a cosmic accident that will be swallowed up. And there will be no difference to the cold universe whether we ever existed at all. So what does any noble sacrifice – or any nobility at all – mean??? Versus the meaning such acts have given an eternal God who gives man eternal life and eternal reward.

    The three convicts who tortured, raped, and murdered (by burning to death) a wife and two daughters were “free” in your sense. Sorry, but you can keep your freedom.

    I, on the other hand, am free to spend my life on my knees at my Master’s feet – a Master who has nail-scarred feet from loving me so much He suffered to death to save His servant.

  28. Aardvark Says:

    I’m not sure why what Dr. Craig is saying is so upsetting to atheists. As my family members never talked of their personal beliefs, I never really questioned anything about the meaning of life, if there’s a God, etc. The question just never seemed to come up in my mind. I was always just focused on playing the next video game, watching TV, playing with my pets, going to school, etc.

    One day it did, and I quickly came to the same conclusion of this article.

    As a non-religious person, I can honestly admit that, if there is no God, that my disgust for rape is no different than a vegan’s disgust at eating meat, and my desire for a peaceful orderly society can be no better or correct than someone’s wish for anarchy. When we tell our children they are special, we are lying to them, unless we also add in “in my opinion” or “to me” to the statement. They cannot be inherently anymore special than a snail or a tumor.

    Why is this so hard for others to admit? Dr. Craig isn’t saying that admitting this means you’re going to go out and eat babies or cry yourself to sleep at night.

    Even respected and famous atheists like Dawkins will claim there is no such thing as evil, then go and condemn God/The Bible/Catholic priests for being evil, rather than just saying “X does stuff I personally don’t like.”

    This makes no logical sense to me. Its like he is self-deluding himself to make himself feel as if he can somehow be morally superior to another human.

  29. Michael Eden Says:


    Very good comment. Very profound realization.

    In my own case, I too came to a similiar conclusion to your own – and of course, to Bill Craig’s.

    In my case, it occurred to me that, if there wasn’t a God, I could do anything – anything – and there would be nothing either right or wrong. Society would have a bunch of rules, and maybe so, maybe not, hold someone accountable to those rules (i.e., hold black people accountable but not white? Or poor or unconnected people accountable but not rich or accountable people?), or don’t hold them accountable. And whatever was the case, it didn’t matter. Because that society’s rules themselves would be arbitary, and whether or not it held one group of people accountable over another would also be arbitary. And it occurred to me that I could be a serial rapist, and it wouldn’t really be “wrong.” It would just be one society arbitarily holding me responsible to arbitary rules.

    But in my case, Aardvark, I realized that everything in my soul screamed out that that was wrong. I simply could not fathom a universe in which there were no moral absolutes whatsoever. I could not imagine a universe in which gang rape as as good as romance.

    And I realized that there had to be a God.

    And that prompted me to begin a search that resulted in my embracing Christianity.

    I didn’t simply pick Christianity out of a hat; I carefully looked over virtually every major world religion. And Christianity ended up standing alone. Only Christianity has Christ.

    I could write volumes here about the evidence for the empty tomb, etc. But to put it in the briefest summary of all, every single religion has to deal with two problems: the knowability of God and the holiness of God. By knowability of God, I mean, how is it that limited human beings can know anything about a transcendent Creator God? And by the holiness of God, I mean, how can we possibly have fellowship with a perfect, holy Being? And no religion in the history of the world addresses those problems like Jesus Christ and Christianity.

    The two names of Jesus are the ultimate answer, Aardvark.

    First, there is the name Immanuel, which means “God with us.” That was what Isaiah propheseid that we would call the coming Messiah who would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14). And Isaiah 9:6-7 tells us that this would be no mere human child; He would also be uniquely God. God would assume a human nature. Jesus is “God with us” because Jesus is the eternal Son of God. He knows God because He IS God. And He could reveal God to man perfectly because He assumed a human nature and revealed God to us. According to John 1:1-3, it was Christ, God the Son, who created the universe. And when you read Genesis 1:27, you realize that Christ created man in His image so He could one day assume human image Himself. And to understand this even better, please read Philippians 2:3-11.

    Then there is the holiness of God. And the name “Jesus” is the answer to that dilemma: “Jesus” means, “Jehovah is salvation.” You find by reading the Scriptures that Christ Jesus came to live a perfect life where we could not, and to bear our sins upon Himself, and then die in our place. And just as He rose from the dead, so we can die to sin and be raised in the newness of life through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.

    No other religion even begins to answer these problems. Only Jesus Christ. Only Christianity. That’s why Jesus said, “No man comes to the Father, except by Me” (John 14:6). Jesus would have been a nut to say this, unless He was exactly who He claimed to be: God with us, come to be the salvation of the human race.

    I applaud your reaching the incredibly valid conclusions that you have reached thus far on your journey, Aardvark. But I pray that journey doesn’t end where it is. At this point, you are where the existentialists cited by Craig were at. They were brilliant men, but they were trapped by their own wills, and they simply could not and would not bow the knee to their Creator.

    But there truly is a God-shaped hole in every human heart. Augustine put it this way: “Lord, you have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in you.” Pascal said, “What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and unchangeable object; in other words by God himself.”

    We were designed to worship God. If we don’t worship God, we will surely worship somthing else. But we can only be ultimately happy and fulfilled when we worship what/Who we were designed to worship.

    We were created in the image of God, the book of Genesis tells us. And it is becasue of that imago Dei that we have the moral sensibilities that we have: we KNOW some things are right and some things are wrong. That is why Paul wrote Romans chapter 1 the way he did. Paul noted that God’s eternal attributes have been cleary perceived. Paul said that what can be known about God is plain, because God has shown it to us. It’s also why we understand the concept of eternity – which would be like understanding a square circle if we were to die with our bodies – because God set eternity in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

    Keep seeking eternity. Jesus said, “Seek and you will find.”

    Just like I did.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: