Dear atheist libertarians;
Evangelicals are often mocked in this country, despite the fact we have the largest concentration of Evangelicals of any country in the world. This mockery most often comes from the left. This banter was recently on full display with another round of Hillary’s leaked emails. Emails between her and her director of Communication showed that they got a good chuckle at the expense of Evangelicals for not being sophisticated enough. We are often depicted as being simple, or ignorant flat earthers, which is beyond bizarre, considering in the Book of Isiah written about 650 BC. Chapter 40, states that the earth is spherical and refers to “the circuit of the earth. That’s is 2,000 years before Columbus and the secular scientist jumped on board. Who are the stupid flat earthers? This ridicule I have now heard from secular libertarians. Christian Libertarians, like myself, claim to reach their positions by using unbreakable reasoning and logic and an ultimate goal that the rights of the individual are supreme and that using force against peaceful people is always wrong. All libertarians largely agree on this, however, when it comes to the topic of religion, the argument hits a major T in the road. Christian Libertarians like Ron Paul, believe that our “rights come from our Creator” and are inalienable “…they have nothing to do with government granting them to us” This is a logical position. Since other men didn’t grant us our rights other men can’t take our rights from us. This is the reason that the US has had one constitution for well over 200 years and the Soviet Union had 4 in about 50 years. The Soviets didn’t believe in God, so rights aren’t inalienable, hence other men can take your rights away. Although atheist Libertarians somehow got to the same point as me in terms of the non-aggression principle and individual rights it makes no sense how they got there. If morality, ethics and the right to human life are not guaranteed by some greater Being. How would the atheist libertarian defend their position? I would imagine most atheist, and feel free to correct me, are Darwinist or some variant of, meaning they believe in the junk science of macro-evolution if this is true and we are just space dust if we all just bacteria and this all evolved by an accident. If there is no god and we all just accidents by nature, we all are not equal. Some are more developed and evolved than others. If this is true, then morally would not the more evolved have a moral obligation to rule over the less evolved? Just like humans rule over the lesser animals. Should not the more evolved have an obligation to rule over the lesser animals? Libertarians claim to use reason and logic and looking at the evidence to make up their minds. Let’s take a look at the evidence.
Scientifically, the evidence for creation is overwhelming, it’s not just that the Bible told us the earth was spherical and had a circuit in the earth literally thousands of years before secular science did. It’s so much more than that. Former NASA leader, self-proclaimed agnostic and Founder of the Goddard institute Robert Jastrow said “Now we see how the astrological evidence leads to a Biblical view of the origin of the world.” Jastrow has gone on to say “Astronomers now found the have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven by their own method, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the trace of every living star,every planet, and every living thing and they have found all this has happened as a product of forces they can not hope to discover”
Consider the following:
Consider these facts. The trilobites were one of the first animals to “evolve” it has the most complex eye ever. The eye is one of the most complex organs to evolve.
If the gravitational force was altered by a number that is point 35 zero’s than a one different our sun would not exist, thus neither would we.
If centrifugal force of planet movements did not precisely balance the gravitational force nothing could be in orbit around the sun.
If the universe had expanded at a rate 1 millionth more slowly than it did. Expansion would have stopped and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars could have formed.
If the rotation of the earth took longer than 24 hours temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If they were shorter atmospheric wind conditions would be too great.
There are 122 constants in the earth occurring as calculated by the Astrophysicist Hugh Ross. The odds of all of these 122 constants occurring at the same time is point .1 after 10,138 zeros.
We call also look at the obvious, we have the solar system, the ecosystem, the reproductive system. Systems imply order, order implies intelligence, and intelligence implies a creator. Moreover, anything that is created by definition has to have a creator.
Despite all of this the only thing the atheist/Darwinist has to go with is a system of fossil record dating, where we date the fossils by the rock and the rock by the fossil that is the definition of circular reasoning. As well as an inability to identify one species becoming another species, which is the long and short of Darwinism. The ability to reason is proof for creation itself, as Darwin pondered if we have the mind of monkeys why should we trust any of our thoughts. Would you let a monkey do your taxes? Do open heart surgery? Of course not! That type of intelligence and ability to reason can only arrive as a result of design. This and saying everything happened millions or billions of years ago so it can’t be observed. If it can’t be observed it’s not scientific, as the scientific method requires something to be observable. Oh yea! Didn’t dinosaurs die 65 million years ago? Why was the soft tissue of a T-Rex discovered? Why do the atheist libertarians continue to defend such positions? Is it because they have simply bought, hook line and sinker into the public school indoctrination?
Atheists believe there is no objective morality, which means human rights don’t exist which means libertarianism has not a leg to stand on. Which brings us to the flawed philosophical view is. If absolute rights don’t exist than human rights and individual rights don’t exist either. If we are not endowed with natural rights from our creator, where else could rights possibly come from? If rights don’t exist then is it wrong to violate the equal rights of others? If not then by who’s standard? And where did this standard come from?
Consider other shockingly flawed reasoning of the atheist. If something has a beginning than it is finite, the finite presupposes the infinite. If something has a beginning then it must have been created and anything that is created must have a creator. Please explain atheists?
Let’s try this one:
If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic, then he is using another circular argument because the scientific method is dependent upon logic, that is, reasoned thought applied to observations. If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised, and the atheist has nothing to work with. Try to break that one atheists? Is your head spinning yet?
But hey atheists will use logic to try and disprove God’s existence. How can that be? In doing so they assume absolute laws of logic and absolute can only come from a theistic worldview. Since their worldview does not allow for absolutes.
I will leave you with these if the world came into existence and has a beginning, that leaves us with only two options either something created everything out of nothing or nothing created everything out of nothing? Which is more logical?
My personal favorite for the existence of God is the legalistic stance. Atheists will often say you can’t prove the existence of God, well if this is the only standard that you can’t prove any crime ever because you weren’t there and even if you were your eye witnesses testimony is void. How do you know George Washington was the first president, how about Lincoln as the 16th. How can we prove anything if we don’t take eye witness accounts into consideration? Eyewitness testimony is usually considered the best kind of evidence. Let’s examine the legalistic evidence. Suppose the chargers we are looking at are Jesus rose from the dead and the Resurrection is true. I hear the atheist snickering already.
A skeptic of the resurrection, Simon Greenleaf put the Harvard Law School on the map. He wrote the three-volume legal masterpiece, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which is still regarded as “the greatest single authority in the entire literature of legal procedure The U.S. judicial system today operates on rules of evidence established by Greenleaf. While teaching law at Harvard, Professor Greenleaf stated to his class that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was simply a legend;
Greenleaf later investigated into the validity of the Gospel of Mark, Mathew Luke and John and concluded that the admissible evidence emitted thereby was sufficient to prove in any fair court of law that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was indeed fact. Greenleaf reasoned that copies of the original Gospels extant (i.e., known to be in existence) in his time were authentic. Let’s examine the evidence. There are 12 eye witnesses who stories all corroborate. With no reason to make up such a story. The 12 eyewitness faced ridicule, torture, and death if they stood by their testimony. Surely if the 12 had joined forces and made this who thing up at least one would have backed out, and said I am not dying or being tortured for some ridiculous lie we all just made up. Especially considering Peter had already denied Jesus, why would he then put his life on the line to protect a lie that he made up about the same person he denied? During the Agony at the Garden in Luke Chapter 22, Jesus is at the point where he is sweating sweat and blood. This disease later became formally known as Hematidrosis. How Could St. Luke know of such a stressed caused condition that wasn’t known of at that time unless it was an accurate depiction. In the face of all of this evidence, Professor Greenleaf leaves us with this quote.
“Of the Divine character of the Bible, I think, no man who deals honestly with his own mind and heart can entertain a reasonable doubt. For myself, I must say, that having for many years made the evidences of Christianity the subject of close study, the result has been a firm and increasing conviction of the authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Bible. It is indeed the Word of God”
If after all this any rational libertarian, because progressives have waved bye-bye to logic and reason long ago, would like to tell me which fact it is I have gotten wrong, or want to have an honest fact based discussion on this I am all in.
Libertarian Galatians 4:16 