Logic / O'Haire

	There  is a rule of logic which is known as the "law of  the excluded middle."  Quite simply, it says that  every  precisely stated  proposition is either true or it is false.  There  is  no middle ground.  For example, if I point to an animal and say that it is a dog then my statement is either true or it is not.
	In 1987, creationists Wayne Jackson and Bert Thompson debated evolutionists Paul Ricci and Brian Myres.  In his portion  of the presentation, Jackson applied the rule of the excluded middle to the origin of the universe.  First he stated that the universe is either eternal or it had a beginning.  It is easy to see  that this is true.  Jackson quoted prominent scientists to demonstrate that  the  universe is not eternal.  But,  more importantly,  he appealed  to the second law of thermodynamics which  states  that things in our universe are running down or growing old.  Thus the only logical conclusion is that the universe had a beginning.
	Jackson's second suggestion was that, if the universe had  a beginning,  it either created itself or it was created  by  something or someone else.   According to expert testimony as well as the  first law of thermodynamics, the universe could  not  create itself.    This law states that matter is being  neither  created nor destroyed.  The only logical conclusion is that the  universe was created by someone or something else.  For the past few studies we  have been demonstrating that, according to scientific  facts, the universe could not have created itself.
	As  his third point Jackson proposed that, if  the  universe bears the marks of intelligent design, then it has  a  designer.  Since  the  universe does bear the marks of a designer,  Jackson concluded,  then  it had a designer.  He pointed to  examples  of design such  as  the human eye and brain.   Don't  forget  that Charles  Darwin admitted that the design of the eye required  the existence of a creator.  He simply rejected the idea of a creator on  faulty  theological  grounds and not  because  of  scientific facts.
	By  the  way, Ricci and Myres avoided like  the  plague  any discussion  of the origin of the universe.  Although both  signed the statements which clearly outlined the topics to be  examined, Ricci tried to make it look like he had been caught off guard  by the discussion.
	"Resolved: The universe and all within it is best  explained on  the basis of creationism" is the statement that Ricci  agreed to discuss in the negative.
	"I did not think this was going to be a discussion about God and about the evidence for God," Ricci commented,  "but  rather about  evolution and the lack of evidence for it or the  positive evidence for it."
	The bottom line was that Ricci was unable to negate anything that Jackson presented.  Either the universe is eternal or it had a beginning.  Since it is not eternal, it must have had a  beginning.  If it had a beginning, either it created itself or it  was created by someone or something else.  Since it did  not  create itself, it had to have been created by someone or something else. So logic demands the existence of a creator.
	Of  course,  this still doesn't  resolve  Charles  Darwin's problem.  His rejection of a creator was not based on logic  but rather  on an incorrect theological viewpoint.  The fact is  that many atheists base their beliefs on the same thing.  Their  motivation is emotional and not logical.
	They suggest that the concept of eternal punishment in  hell is inconsistent with the idea that God is all-loving.  They  propose that the existence of evil in the world is also inconsistent with  the concept of an all-loving God.  It is interesting  that, in a society overrun with shouts of individual rights, the  atheists  are  willing to overlook God's dedication to the  right  of every individual to be a free moral agent.  Without an opportunity to make a wrong choice there is no freedom to make the correct decision.  The existence of hell means we have the right to make right  or wrong decisions. And, oddly enough, the only way  there can be such a thing as evil is if there is a God.  If there is no God,  then there is no evil in the world.  The existence of  evil PROVES the existence of God.
	Dr.  Thomas  B.  Warren has conducted with  at  least  three humanists debates concerning the existence of God.    In  these presentations Dr. Warren demonstrated quite convincingly that, if there  is no God, then there is no morality.  This does not  mean that atheists are necessarily bad people.  But it does mean  that they  are  not governed by any fixed higher law.  As  Dr.  Warren pointed  out, without God there must be no condemnation  of  what the  Nazis did to the Jewish people during WWII.  If there is  no God, then every society (and ultimately every individual) is free to decide what is right and what is wrong.  The Germans were  not subject  to  the  laws of the United States.  And  it  was  their choice whether or not they would accept any  so-called  international law.  What the Nazis did was not in violation of the  laws of  their  government  or of the society  in  which  they  lived.  Therefore it was not wrong.  But what the Nazis did WAS wrong. It was  wrong  because  it violated a law higher than  that  of  any single country.  It was wrong because it was immoral.  But  without  God  there is no such thing as morality or  immorality.  The fact that wrong exists proves that God exists.
	The  founders of our country recognized that we must  submit to higher rules.  Our Declaration of Independence is based on the fact  that individuals are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with  certain inalienable rights.  Once we deny the existence of that creator, we also deny the existence of those rights.

	Perhaps the most vocal opponent of God in this country is  a woman known as Madelyn Murray O'Haire.  On at least one occasion she was  a guest on the Donahue show.
	The first thing that might strike a person about O'Haire  is the hatred and belligerence she exudes.  But just as  astonishing is  the way she throws out totally false statements,  especially when someone like Donahue is around to back her up.
	With almost a sneer on his face, Donahue read a quotation in which President George Bush expressed how happy he was that, as a Gallup poll revealed, 90 percent of Americans believe in God.
	"I wish it were 100," the president commented.
	O'Haire  attacked the president for not meeting with her  to discuss matters,  and she made a comment about his  attitude  in view of the fact that "he knows that at least 11 percent (of  the people) are atheists."  What she was implying was that the president  had said 100 percent of the Americans believe in God,  when he obviously stated that he wished that it were 100 percent.
	Besides,  it  is  false that 11 percent of  the  people  are atheists.  Just because a person does not believe in God it  does not mean he or she is an atheist.  Most people who do not believe in God are agnostics.  That is, they do feel they do not know whether or not there is a God.
	O'Haire  stated flatly that if we would eliminate  what  she calls religious deductions the government would  have  so  much money  that  it would no longer have to  tax  individuals.   Of course,  this statement is totally false.  She didn't even  begin to try to back it up.  But it went unchallenged.
	"Anyone who reads the Bible from cover to cover," she stated later, "cannot believe it, cannot accept it...it is that bad."
	There is, obviously, no statement in the world which can  be more untrue.
	A  member  of the audience expressed that he  did  not  feel O'Haire was mentioning the positive things done by religion.
	"There is none," she responded immediately.
	Another person asked about significant contributions made by religion throughout history.
	"I  feel  we would have had a man on the moon  in  the  year 300," O'Haire replied, "if the Greco-Roman  empire  could  have continued  with their emphasis on science,  and  that  religion, particularly  Christianity has set back the world at  least 1500 years."
	O'Haire later pointed out that the thing which satisfies her  most when she hears that 95 percent of the people in America  are Christians  is that, according to her, we have more wife  abusers than any nation in the world.  She said that children are  abused more  in this nation than in any other nation in the world.   She stated  that we have higher crime rates than any other nation  in the  world.  (Notice how she puts the number at 95 percent  when she wants to attack Christianity.)
	Perhaps it is poetic justice that, within a day-or-so of the Donahue show, the radio carried a story about the problems  that Amnesty International is having in many countries in dealing with the  massive number  of occurrences of  policemen  and soldiers raping people in their custody, since rape isn't even  considered that big a crime in those countries.  Once again,  she is  guilty of  making  a false statement.  Maybe we should recall  that  the founders  of Soviet communism believed that lying was  even commendable  when done for the good of the cause.  But,  then,  that was  an atheistic ideology.  And where there is no God, there  is no such thing as truth and lies.
	What  is  the truth?  On June 25, 1962, the  Supreme  Court, with prompting from O'Haire, ruled that school prayer was  unconstitutional.  During the following 12 months reading of the Bible was also banned from the classroom.
	Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but since 1963 pregnancies have increased 533 percent for girls between the ages of 10  and 14.   There has been a 160 percent rise in the number of  single-parent  families.  Violent crime has gone up 544 percent.   Scholastic Aptitude Test scores have steadily declined.
	No, things are not the way they are in America because 90 or 95 percent of the people are Christians.  It is, sadly,  because 90  or 95 percent are not what they claim to be.  They no  longer live in a world of right and wrong.  They live in the never-never land of  the excluded middle.  And it just can't  be  that  way.  Either something is true, or it is false.
	And the Bible is the truth which can set us free.

Unless otherwise noted, "Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE(R), (C) Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977. Used by permission."