Ben Seewald is a Christian married to Jessa Duggar who belongs to a family featured on a TV show called 19 Kids And Counting
Dr Jason Lisle graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in
physics and astronomy and minored in mathematics. He earned a master's
degree and a Ph.D. in astrophysics at the University of Colorado. Dr.
Lisle specialized in solar astrophysics and has made a number of
scientific discoveries regarding the solar photosphere and has
contributed to the field of general relativity." He currently works with other Christian fundamentalists at the Institute for Creation Research.
On May 7th, 2015, Jessa uploaded to You Tube, a video in which her husband, Ben Seewald, interviews Dr Jason Lisle about the existence of god. In her description of the video Jessa wrote: Ben poses this question and Dr. Jason Lisle gives a profound answer!
Transcript below
Original video here:
About the transcript:
It should be pointed out that it is not always easy to get our thoughts in order during an informal discussion and there will be many occasions when we use a lot of umms and ahhs to give us thinking time while we search for the correct word to use. At other times we will start a sentence only to have another idea pop into our head - and that sets us off in another direction so that later, when the sentence is transcribed, it looks rather convoluted and sometimes a bit silly.
For those reasons I have deleted most of the umms and ahhs, and tidied up a couple of the more convoluted sentences so they are easier to read, but the context hasn't been altered in any way.
On the other hand some of the sentences are so convoluted that I left them as they are in the video for fear that my 'corrections' would alter the speaker's intent.
So here's the transcript:
(My comments in red.)
Seewald: Hi, I'm here with Dr Jason Lisle at the Institute for Creation Research and so, Dr Lisle, I want to come across as an atheist, alright? Or somebody that really is skeptical of god, alright? So one question that we might get a lot is 'How can you prove to me god really exists?' I mean we got all this science over here, and stuff, but, you know, does god really exist? Where's the evidence? Where's the proof?
Remember that question: How can you prove prove to me god really exists?
Dr Lisle: In a way its like a fish asking for evidence for the existence of water. It's something that's all around that he couldn't exist without - not that god is the universe or anything like that, I'm not a pantheist - but nonetheless, the evidence for god is ubiquitous, it's everywhere.
You'll often hear uneducated teenage Christians offering this kind of 'proof' for god's existence: "If you want to see god just look at a sunset," or "You can see god in a baby's smile."
You would, however, expect something a bit more substantial from an astrophysicist, but that, nevertheless, is how he begins the discussion!
One thing is for certain: the question has not been satisfactorily answered at this stage.
In fact Romans 1 tells us that god has revealed himself to everyone and what that means is there really is no such thing as an atheist. There are those who profess to be atheists but in their heart of hearts they know there is a god because god has revealed himself to everyone. He's hard-wired us to know he exists. He's hard-wired us in such a way that when we look into the universe we immediately recognise it is the handi-work of god, and not just a god - THE god.
Three things:
(1) The atheist is asking for proof that the god described in Romans 1 exists - and the astrophysicist says the proof for that god's existence can be found in Romans 1. That's a circular argument and not worth a pinch of shit.
(2) The astrophysicist is calling the atheist a liar. The atheist says "I don't believe in god," and the astrophysicist says, "Yes you do."
(3) The astrophysicist says we know "in our hearts" that God exists while Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, there is no God." Which is it?
We recognise god and so I don't really have to give new evidence to a professing atheist. All I have to do is to expose his suppressed knowledge of god because, you see, in Romans 1 again, it tells us that the reason that unbelievers profess that they, you know, that they say there is no god, etcetera, etcetera, it's not because they don't know, it's because they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, the bible says.
Same problems:
(1) The astrophysicist says the proof that the god described in Romans 1 exists, is the claim made in Romans 1 that god exists!
(2) And this time, not only is the astrophysicist calling the atheist a liar, he is also saying that the atheist is an 'unrighteous' liar.
They know god but they are holding down that knowledge of god, even from themselves, and sometimes they're partially successful in convincing themselves that they don't believe in god. So what I would do is I would point out that the way they behave and the knowledge that they have shows that in their heart of hearts they really do know god and they really do believe in god - in their heart of hearts.
Still not a skerrick of proof for god's existence but, for the third time, the astrophysicist calls the atheist a liar.
One example of this would be morality. I would point out that my secular friend who says "Ooh, there is no such thing as god," nonetheless he believes in right and wrong.
Remember that Seewald introduced an hypothetical atheist who asked for proof that god exists? Well no proof has been forthcoming and now the astrophysicist is moving the goal posts. He is trying to avoid the burden of proof by changing the atheist's question into a statement of fact. He is now claiming that the atheist has categorically declared "there is no such thing as god." In fact the hypothetical atheist made no such claim. The hypothetical atheist asked a simple question and is still waiting for an answer.
But the astrophysicist doesn't have an answer so he casually changes the question into a completely different statement of fact - and he does so because it allows him to avoid his responsibilities and to shift the burden of proof onto the atheist.
He believes that some actions are morally commendable and others are morally despicable - but how would that be if there's no god?
In this sentence (and the one before) the astrophysicist is saying that all morality comes from god and therefore, if the atheist claims to be a moral person then he is simultaneously admitting that god exists.
But wait. The astrophysicist still hasn't proved that god exists so he cannot claim that morality comes from god. He must first prove god's existence, and only after he has done so, can we go on to discuss the source of our morality.
If the universe is just chance and our bodies are just the result of evolution we're just basically a chemical accident!
Here the astrophysicist takes 150 years of scientific endeavor and casually tosses it aside as a complete waste of time and effort. He implies, also, that scientists are claiming that evolution is the result of chance events and chemical accidents! That is simply not true.
The important thing to notice though, in the context of this discussion, is that the astrophysicist is actually trying to muddy the water. He is introducing the subject of evolution in the hope that we will forget that he has not yet answered the original question and proved that god exists. We won't fall for that trick. We will insist that question be answered.
Well what one chemical accident does to another is morally irrelevant. I mean when baking soda and vinegar react and they fizz up, that's just what they do. You don't get mad at the baking soda, you know: "Bad baking soda you shouldn't have fizzed up like that." It's just chemistry doing what chemistry does.
In the first sentence in this section, the astrophysicist is still trying to denigrate atheists with the implication that they have no morals. He's being subtle, but that's what he is doing.
He is also implying that atheists behave like spoiled children; they get mad when people talk about god; they get mad when baking soda fizzes up; they get mad about anything and everything - there's just no reasoning with them.
But take particular notice: still no proof that god exists.
And so the fact that people get upset when someone violates a moral code, it shows that in their heart of hearts they do know that there is a god who has set rules for us; the rules that are the same for all of us because we're all made in his image.
No, the atheists are not saying they know god exists, they are saying they DO NOT believe god exists (and would the astrophysicist please produce his proof for god's existence).
We all answer to god. God will hold us accountable for our actions.
Here the astrophysicist is assuming the very thing he is trying to prove. He still hasn't proved that god exists, but now he is saying that god does exist and we will be in trouble if we do not recognize that fact.
Morality makes sense in the Christian world view. It does not make sense in the atheistic world view.
That's another topic for another day. Right now we are still waiting for proof that god exists.
You know one of the objections of course, that sometimes atheists will give is: they will say, "Well if god exists why is there all this evil in the world?"
Again, another topic for another day. Let's see the proof for god's existence before we talk about the problem of evil.
I would point out that if god doesn't exist there is no such thing as evil and so the fact that there is evil in the world is actually proof of the existence of god - because nothing would be morally right or wrong apart from a god who has set standards for behaviour for all of us (and one who will hold us accountable for our actions).
An interesting set of claims with not a skerrick of evidence to support them.
In an atheistic world view right and wrong is nothing more than personal opinions. Like when you say, "I don't like anchovies on pizza," that has the same moral value as "murder is wrong" to an atheist. Those are the same kind of statements: It may displease you but that's all you can say.
Complete and utter bullshit. It is hard to believe that an educated astrophysicist could stoop so low in his efforts to denigrate atheists.
And so morality is one example of many that I could pick that shows that even the atheist in his heart of hearts does know the biblical god.
And now he's gone back to his opening remarks and declared that atheists are liars.
(Still no proof for god's existence though.)
Seewald: So even when they're presenting that question they're operating on a theistic world view almost presupposing that god does exist in order to ask this question: if god exists then why is there evil in the world?
We have already noted that it was the astrophysicist, not the atheist, who assumed the very thing he was trying to prove (that god exists) and now Seewald casually ignores the fact and says it is the atheists who are making the assumptions!
No, the hypothetical atheist (introduced by Seewald himself remember) has made only one request - prove to me that god exists - and so far there has been no answer.
Dr Lisle: That's exactly right - the way Van Til put it (and Bahnsen following after him): The atheist is like a little child sitting in his father's lap, slapping his father and spitting on him and insulting him and so on. He's only able to do it because his father is supporting him.
Holy crap. This is getting ridiculous!
And the atheists are like that. They're using god's laws of logic. They're using a sense of morality that god gave them in order to argue against the very god who makes such things possible.
Here we go again. The astrophysicist is once again assuming the very thing he is trying to prove!
There is no way he can refer to god's logic and god's morality until he has actually proved god's existence - and he certainly hasn't done that.
Seewald: Wow, absolutely amazing.
Yeah, "amazing" is definitely the word that describes this discussion.
I've gotten to listen to the great debate - Dr Bahnsen versus Dr Gordon Stein - that happened several years ago
[30 years ago actually, in 1985] and that was really interesting. I had to listen to it a few times because, you know, they're you know, pretty smart. So I had to look up some of those big words but that was really interesting how, really, every time Dr Stein would point out, you know, "Well religion is the cause of all this evil in the world," and different things like that, Dr Bahnsen would say, "Hold on, hold on, is there really evil in your world view? You're just presupposing that god exists. You're borrowing from my world view in order to combat my world view." And so yeah, it kinda really gets to the root of the matter.
And instantly, just seconds after the astrophysicist has committed the logical error of assuming what he is trying to prove, Seewald casually turns it all backwards and declares that the atheists are presupposing that god exists!
And I know there is a lot of also scientific evidence - we are at the Institute of Creation Research and there is a lot of really --- all science just points to the validation of the Genesis account and so ah, check it out...
Ah, thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think I'll bother.
End of transcript
And now to answer the question in the title of this post:
Yes, it is very likely that you are smarter than an astrophysicist (when that astrophysicist is Dr Jason Lisle).
