This is a good one at the blog of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. He’s famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the mind-boggling Creation Museum.
The title of ol’ Hambo’s wondrous post asks Can Dawkins Disprove God in 5 Steps? You know who Richard Dawkins is, so this should be fun. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and Hambo’s scripture references omitted:
Can the idea of a Creator God be easily dismissed in just five steps? Well, atheist and anti-theist Richard Dawkins certainly thinks so!
Wow — Dawkins is not only an atheist, he’s also an anti-theist! Hambo says:
He recently appeared on a Norwegian-Swedish television show called Skavlan where he quickly dismissed the idea of God by ticking off on his fingers five arguments for God. Dawkins starts by equating God with fairies, and then says “the onus is not upon an atheist to say why there is not something, the onus is on a theist to say why there is.”
That’s a fair description of the burden of proof. He who makes an assertion has the burden of coming forward with evidence to support it. Hambo brushes it aside by saying:
Well, Dr. Richard Dawkins, the onus will actually be on each person on judgment day when he stands before God. And no excuses will be enough when we stand before Him. In the end, every person will bow before Christ and acknowledge Him as Lord. You can either do so voluntarily now or by compulsion later.
Whammo — Hambo tells Dawkins what he can do with his burden of proof! It won’t do him any good when he’s writhing in agony in the Lake of Fire, and Hambo is looking down on him from a fluffy cloud, laughing. Let’s read on:
Dawkins then says that “there simply are no reasons for the existence of a God.” But, of course, this doesn’t mean there actually aren’t any reasons for God’s existence. It simply shows his anti-God bias. He then mentions a few of the common arguments used to demonstrate that there is a God.
This is the fun part:
Dawkins begins with the argument from design. Now, Scripture is clear that everyone is without excuse for not believing in God because His creation clearly shows that He exists. But Dawkins dismisses the powerful argument from design in nature simply by saying that we should expect design because that’s what Darwinian natural selection does, “it makes them look as though they’re designed.”
Here’s how Hambo handles that one:
But what he never explains is how natural selection — a process that only works by decreasing or re-shuffling existing genetic information — is supposed to add the massive amounts of new information that are required to get the complexity we see today from a simple single-celled organism over millions of years. How do you get from simple pond scum to highly complex people without adding massive amounts of new genetic information? You can’t!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! All biologists know and can demonstrate How One Gene Becomes Two Different Genes. Here’s more:
Dawkins next dismisses personal testimony by saying that people hallucinate or are fooled with relative ease.
Yes, they are. What’s Hambo’s response to that? He tells us:
Now, subjective personal experience does need to be weighed carefully, but what I would like to ask Dawkins is the same question Bill Nye was asked during our 2014 debate: where did consciousness (which is needed for our experiences) come from? Nye was at a loss to explain this “great mystery” as he called it and Dawkins likely would be too. Of course, God’s Word tells us exactly where consciousness (and everything else!) came from — God Himself. And, furthermore, in a godless world, how do you even know what truth really is when you have no objective standard for determining truth? Who is to say who is right and who is wrong?
Don’t mess with ol’ Hambo! Moving along:
Next is the argument of the first cause. This argument, in a nutshell, states that everything must have a cause, including the universe. Now, Dawkins dismisses this argument by saying that if God is the first cause, then where did God come from?
That’s the traditional response — and a good one — to an ancient argument. But Hambo is ready for it:
Frankly, it’s a silly response. God is outside of space and time — in fact, He created these things. He didn’t have a beginning and He will have no end. … If He needed to be created, He wouldn’t be God. But God doesn’t need a Creator; He is self-existent.
Hambo is making a fool of Dawkins! One can only drool in admiration. Here’s the next one:
Dawkins then explains that Darwin shows how everything got here without the need for God.
Hambo is ready for that:
But Darwin was simply wrong because everything we see in observational science confirms the history of the universe from God’s Word, not Darwin’s ideas — kinds reproduce according to their kinds; we don’t see new genetic information being added to produce brand-new features; life only comes from other life, never from non-life. Life did not originate by itself; it was created by our all-wise Creator.
Isn’t that great? The last argument involves Pascal’s Wager:
Lastly, Dawkins addresses the so-called Pascal’s wager, which says that it’s better to believe in God, live a godly life, and be wrong when you die than to reject God and die and go to hell. He says that this is a “silly argument” and that there is no way of knowing if you’ve bet on the right god or not.
You don’t think that will stop Hambo, do you? He’s the worlds holiest man, and he knows infinitely more than Dawkins. He says:
But I submit that only the God of the Bible makes sense of this world. God alone has left us a coherent Scripture that does not contradict itself and is historically and scientifically accurate in all it says.
Having crushed all of Dawkins’ arguments, Hambo concludes with this:
My heart breaks for people like Dawkins who are utterly lost and who, unless they repent and believe in Christ, will face an eternity separated from God in hell. All of their seemingly clever arguments against God will amount to nothing when they stand before His judgment throne.
So there you are, dear reader. Dawkins knows better than to debate with a formidable intellect like Hambo. And now you do too.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.