Monday, November 6, 2017

Why I'm An Atheist - 13 Reasons & Arguments For Atheism



I recently saw a tweet on my mentions after an account that follows me replied to the person. My tweets are filtered so I only see those people who I follow.  Most of the time, I amnot aware that atheists message me.

Anyhow, this person is an alleged atheist who believed my book "Atheism Is Stupid" has no scientific content. Ironically, this person sent a tweet to a blog post he/she wrote where he/she shows a lack of understanding of science, philosophy and theology.  Here is the tweet below and the content from the blog link.  My replies will be in bold.  Enjoy this easy refutation of atheist misconceptions!






http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2017/10/why-im-atheist-13-reasons-arguments-for.html




<<1) The traditional notion of god isn't coherent

In order to even consider the possibility that a god exists, we first need a coherent concept of god. The traditional notion of god in classical theism is that of a timeless, changeless, immaterial mind, who also must be infinitely good, infinitely wise, and can do anything logically possible. There are some variations on this concept, but almost all traditional or classical theistic gods have these basic characteristics. The problem is that a timeless, changeless being by definition cannot do anything; it's necessarily causally impotent and nonfunctional. Change requires time, and time requires change. This is logically certain. And to create something, one must do something. Doing requires a change, regardless of whether that change is mental or physical. A being that cannot do anything cannot be omnipotent. As a result, the traditional notion of god is self contradictory. The theist's only resort here is special pleading. That's why I like to get all theists to agree beforehand that god is not beyond logic. That is, god cannot do the logically impossible or be the logically impossible. Once a theist agrees with this, they've cut themselves off from special pleading as an option. Some theists think god is atemporal before creating the universe, and temporal after creating the universe. But it isn't logically possible to exist timelessly and then suddenly jolt yourself into time out of your own will, because your will was timeless and frozen. It couldn't change into the state to want to change.

The failure of theists to come up with a coherent description of god is enough by itself to warrant atheism, but there's many more reasons to think no gods exist.>>


Sacerdotus:

The author here runs on a strawman argument. He simply does not understand the concept of God. The author assumes that God is subject to his terms or the terms of the understandings of man; that is to say, how we perceive and understand everything. He claims that theists resort to special pleading to address what he claims to be contradictions.  However, he is doing exactly that. He argues that change requires times and fails to back this up. We know from cosmology that there was no time prior to cosmic inflation. Time is a product that came into existence after the "big bang." Despite this, a change did take place. If change did not take place, there would have been no "big bang" event. Moreover, the author fails to understand that God is a being, not a mere concept. This being is beyond all, transcends all.  No theist, no atheist, no theologian or pope can ever truly understand God or explain Him. St. Augustine tried and experienced a vision of his angel as a young boy who was at the shore trying to put the ocean in a small hole in the sand.  The boy went to and fro collecting water in a shell until St. Augustine stopped him and inquired as to what the boy was trying to do. The boy said he was trying to put the entire ocean in the hole he dug. St. Augustine brushed it off as a something that came out of a babe's mouth and explained that it was not possible for the ocean to be poured into a small hole. The boy replied that neither can he put the entirety of God into his mind.  


<<2) Since the universe is eternal no god could not have created it

Since god is considered the creator and sustainer of the universe, it's helpful to point out that the universe doesn't need a creator or sustainer because it's eternal—even if it has a finite number of moments in what we'd consider our past. That's because eternalism is true. Special and General Relativity both entail that every moment of the universe—the past, present, and future—all physically exist in an eternal block universe, a 4 dimensional spacetime manifold. An eternal universe cannot by definition be created, since it didn't begin to exist in the regular understanding of begin to exist (which assumes presentism is true).

Now it would be foolish of me to make such grand claims without providing any evidence why eternalism is true. That would be making a faith claim, like the religious do. Well I've written several arguments for why eternalism is true, perhaps more than any other blogger online.

For logical arguments on why Special Relativity entails eternalism click here:

Does Special Relativity Entail Eternalism? Part 3 - The Logical Argument

For General Relativity click here:

Does General Relativity Entail Eternalism?

And if you deny eternalism, there's a steep price you have to pay:

Here's What You Have To Believe In Order To Deny Eternalism>>


Sacerdotus:

Here the author makes a huge mistake. He shows his science illiteracy by claiming that the universe is eternal. The universe is not eternal.  Our universe began at the big bang from a singularity and will end after it runs out of usable energy in about 15-20 billion years from now. This is called the "heat death." Some physicists believe that the universe will probably contract back into a singularity. They call this the "big crunch." In any event, our universe is not eternal; never was and never will be.  Moreover, the universe is still expanding. To say that it is eternal makes no sense since eternity indicates the reaching of absoluteness.  The universe is not at the point of expanded absoluteness.  Clearly, the author has no grasp of cosmology or physics.  The use of the content in the links he posted, along with his inferences demonstrates this. In fact, the late and great scientist, Carl Sagan stated this about the absurdity of atheism and the idea that no God exists:


Our universe had a cause.  It is contingent upon an antecedence that existed prior to and external to it. I address more of this in my book "Atheism In Stupid."  In reality, atheists simply substituted a conscious agent/designer with an unconscious one (http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/10/atheism-is-stupid-iv.html). 



<<3) Causality doesn't exist in the way we think it does

The failure of all the "first cause" cosmological arguments for god result from naively taking our everyday notions of how we see the way the universe works and extrapolating from that huge metaphysical first principles. Given that the universe is eternalistic as per (2) above, fundamentally speaking, there are no causes in the way we traditionally speak of them. There are simply just worldtubes or particles in spacetime, and one point on the worldtube doesn't really "cause" a later point on the worldtube to exist because all points in the worldtube exist. The proper definition of causality given how the universe really is is therefore the relationships of intersecting worldtubes as they precede or intertwine with one another in spacetime; they're a description of the relationship between patterns and boundary conditions. This is why the notion of causality outside space and time makes absolutely no sense and there is no evidence for it whatsoever. At the fundamental level, the word "cause" really should be replaced by the word "explanation" or "relationship."

Therefore, all the theological "first cause" arguments fail because they all assume an antiquated concept of causality that has been falsified by modern science.>>



Sacerdotus:

Again, the author does not understand causality nor cosmology. Our universe had a cause.  There is no dispute on this.  With the exception of one or two physicists, the consensus is that the universe had a cause.  Albert Einstein once believed that the universe was static and eternal.  He was proven wrong by Monsignor George Lemaitre who discovered cosmic inflation or the "big bang theory."  The author is appealing to ignorance in this argument.  On its merits, it falls apart when vetted against cosmology.  The "first cause" cosmological argument for God does not fail at all.  It can only fail if and when cosmologists locate what exactly triggered the "big bang" and if that trigger lacks contingency.  To date, no such thing has happened.  In fact, recent studies by CERN show the fact that the universe's existence does not make sense (see: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2017/10/cern-study-universe-should-not-exist.html).  In the early moments of the "big bang," there was anti-matter and normal matter.  These two should have annihilated themselves taking away with them the entire universe before it even expanded.  However, this did not occur.  Our universe has remained stable and continues to expand allowing for the anthropic principle to take fold.   To claim that the universe had no cause and was just there is absurd and disregards the laws of thermodynamics within a closed system.  



<<4) The big bang does not say the universe came from "nothing"

Many people falsely assume the the big bang entails there there was a state of nothingness, and then *poof* you get a big bang. That's not what it says. That's not even what inflationary theory says. They both simply say that there was a first moment when time=0. There wasn't anything prior to that; there was no state of "nothing" from which everything came out of. And since space and time are tied together, as Einstein showed, with no space prior to time=0 there was no time either. So you can say that the universe always existed, in the sense that at every moment of time the universe exists. There is no time when the universe didn't exist. In this sense, the universe is omnitemporal. That means there was always something. Somethingness is the ontological default, and not nothingness.

Now of course it is always possible that there was spacetime prior to the big bang. If there's an infinite amount of spacetime prior to our universe's big bang, then the question of how do you get something from nothing is moot. And if there is a finite amount of spacetime prior to our universe's big bang, the same principle applies to the absolute origin.

So the first cause arguments not only get causality wrong, they get the big bang wrong as well. As a result, all first-cause arguments from apologists ranging from Aquinas to William Lane Craig fail for this reason.>>



Sacerdotus:

And again, the author shows his/her ignorance of cosmology.  The universe did, in fact, come from "nothing." Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin's calculations have demonstrated this.  He is not alone. Other physicists such as Hawking, Kaku and even Krauss have posited that the universe came from nothing.  As with everything else in physics, theories continue to be studied.  Nevertheless, the consensus among physicists is that the universe did come from nothing.  Some posit that the universe was the size of a proton and somehow contained the necessary gravitational force to begin expanding into what it is today.  The idea of something coming from nothing seems mindboggling.  However, it is not. Since gravitational energy is negative, it is, therefore, zero in a closed system.  Matter is naturally positive and when added to the energy of gravity, it is equal to zero.  Because of this, the existence and formation of a closed system universe where something comes from nothing is possible and does not violate the laws of conservation.  The mathematics is clear and contradicts the author.  Our universe did, in fact, come from nothing.   It is understandable why some alleged atheists without a physics background can get confused.  The word "nothing" in physics is also used to describe quantum fluctuations such as virtual particles.  Neither Aquinas nor William Lane Craig has failed.  In fact, Aquinas was ahead of his time.  Had he known quantum physics or cosmology, his arguments would have been even stronger, scientifically speaking, since he pretty much nailed it despite using philosophy.  



<<5) Argument from core theory

Scientific knowledge has advanced to the point where we can be very confident there is no soul having any effect on us.

The 5% of the universe that makes up ordinary matter are made of fermions and bosons. Bosons make up force fields. An example would be the Higgs field, which gives particles matter. Fermions make up the objects of matter that you and I are made of.

There are basically only three kinds of matter particles and three forces that you and I are made up of. Protons and neutrons, which make up the nucleus of atoms, and orbiting electrons, are the three matter particles. Then there are the three forces in the Standard Model: the strong and the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism. The strong force binds the nucleus of atoms together (and the quarks that make up protons and neutrons), the weak force allows interaction with neutrinos and are carried by W and Z bosons, and electromagnetism binds electrons with the nucleus.

Then there's gravity, for which we use the General Theory of Relativity to describe. Gravity is a very weak force and is very simple: everything pulls on everything else. It could be said that gravity isn't really a force per se, but is rather the curvature of spacetime. Regardless, it's just easier to describe it as a force. There are two other generations of fermions but they decay rather quickly and aren't particularly relevant for describing the stuff that you and I are made of and interact with.

So that makes up everything you experience in your everyday lives, without exception. When we combine all this knowledge into a single theory, we get what is called Core Theory. It was developed and named by Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek. And there's an equation that describes Core Theory:

Given the truth of Core Theory, which every experiment ever done is compatible with, there are further consequences for one's worldview. And that is, in what worldview are the reality and consequences of Core Theory most compatible with? Naturalism or theism? I'm going to argue that naturalism is by far more compatible with Core Theory than theism is.

So we can argue:

Any non-metaphoric version of a soul requires a force that has to be able to effect the atoms that make up your body (lest our bodies and behavior be fundamentally explained purely physically)
Core Theory rules out any possibility of particles or forces not already accounted for within it that can have any effect on things made of atoms (like people).
Core Theory is true.
Therefore, no non-metaphoric versions of a soul that have effectiveness on things made of atoms exist.
Naturalism entails that there be no souls that have effectiveness on things made of atoms.
Almost every version of theism does claim human beings have such souls, including every major religion.
Therefore, the probability of Core Theory and naturalism is greater than the probability of Core Theory and theism. All things being equal, this makes naturalism more likely than theism.

In other words, the probability of Core Theory being true on naturalism is greater than the probability of Core Theory being true on theism. It's more expected. This is thus an evidential argument, not a logical argument. Where CT=Core Theory, N=naturalism, and T=theism:

Pr(CT ⋀ N) > (CT ⋀ T)

Or more simply:

Pr(CT & N) > (CT & T)

Since most religions include a some notion of dualism where humans have a soul (even Thomistic hylomorphic dualism still posits an immaterial "intellect" having causal effect on the physical body), from modern science have very good reasons to think no souls of any kind exist. The burden of proof would be on any person who believes a soul or intellect that has a causal effect on the body. The theist, for example, denying this would have to show how a soul can effect the body without violating the law of the conservation of energy and momentum.

For a full description of the argument, see The Argument From Core Theory>>



Sacerdotus:

Science has made no such statement on the soul. In fact, many physicists and neurologists are acknowledging that there exists some form of immaterial energy that controls the body or gives life to it.  Physicist Penrose conducted studies and came to the conclusion that the "soul" may exist within microtubules in brain neurons after he discovered quantum vibrations which account for randomness and behave as an algorithm within the human person. The topic is still under discussion among physicists and neurologists. Moreover, the author is wrong when he/she claims that 5% of the universe is made up of fermions and bosons.  In fact, the number changes.  Sometimes there are more.  Sometimes they are equal, and so on. Any given matter particle will produce and absorb many particles within its existence.  Because of this, we can surmise that there are more bosons than fermions. This static percentage that the author gives is nonsense. In regards to the Core Theory, the author is resorting to special pleading. He/she argues that because particles and forces account for each other, then there can be no room for any metaphysical interaction between the aforementioned. This is simply bad science.  To date, physicists have not discovered all particles and forces in the universe.  If this were the case, CERN would have shut down a long time ago.  In fact, new particles are being discovered nearly every year. There is still a lot we do not understand on how our universe works. In fact, just last year, the large hadron collider discovered other particles and forces that operate apart from those in the Standard Model. This poses a big threat to the ideas presented in the Cord Theory (see: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2016/03/physics-standard-model-wrong.html).  

The collider discovered many discrepancies with the B Meson particle.  B Mesons are subatomic particles that are made up of bottom antiquarks. They can be heavy or light. In light of this, the author's argument falls apart. Science has made no statement against the existence of the soul.  As stated, physicists and neurologists are currently studying the concept of the soul and have not ruled it out. Clearly, we have had cases of people who have been declared deceased only to come back to life later on. We know that within 4 to 7 minutes after death, brain cells begin to die due to lack of blood flow. Despite this, these people come back to life. All of the material was present. All of the atoms were present and operating within the parameters the Core Theory describes, yet at one moment the body was dead and the next, it was alive.  Why is this?  Clearly, there is something else at work that is not material, yet affects the material.  May I add that Frank Wilczek never used his theory to disprove the soul. This inference comes from atheists who distort science in order to push a false narrative.  Ironically, Frank Wilczek in his book "The Lightness of Being" wrote, "When matter appeared from nowhere, it was a sure sign of the miraculous, as when Jesus served the multitude from six loaves of bread (http://www.lightnessofbeingbook.com/inside_Chapter1.html)." He is a Catholic but identifies as an Agnostic, according to some sources. 

This syllogism becomes null with the variables I added. 
Pr(CT ⋀ N) > (CT ⋀ T)

Or more simply:                             Null because Ǝx (ct(A(x) & n) ^~ >(Ct(A(x) & T)

Pr(CT & N) > (CT & T)



<<6) Libertarian free will is incoherent

Libertarian free will requires at least 3 things: (1) We are in control of our will; (2) Our mind is causally effective; (3) In the same situation we could have done otherwise. But logically that's impossible, because:

P1: Our thoughts (mind or will) is either caused or uncaused, no other option is available
P2: If our thoughts (or whatever caused them) are caused we cannot be in control of them
P3: If our thoughts (or whatever caused them) are uncaused we cannot be in control of them
P4: It is logically impossible to choose our thoughts
P5: Being in control of our thoughts (mind or will or whatever caused them) is a requirement of libertarian free will
C: Therefore libertarian free will is logically impossible

Many people upon hearing an argument that free will is false will immediately respond with the view that if there is no free will we won't be able to be logical, and thus arguing logically that there's no free will is self refuting. But this gets it precisely backwards. It's actually because there is a causal connection between events—a connected relationship that our thoughts can make sense at all. This causal relationship (using the definition of causality I've given above) is the only way our thoughts and ideas can have a connection with the world around us.

In order for our thoughts to be truly free in the libertarian sense, they'd have to be uncaused, and something uncaused will have no necessary connection to anything that came before it. It would have to be just a coincidence that they had any connection to reality. Furthermore, you cannot by definition have control over something uncaused. So libertarian free will would require your thoughts to be metaphysically random and spontaneous eruptions with no causal connection to reality. Thus only determinism can actually make sense of having thoughts that reliably correspond to reality.

The implication of this argument is astounding. If libertarian free will is logically impossible, that means god can't have libertarian free will. A god with no free will is not a god any traditional theist would recognize as god. God would be omnipotent, yet have no free will.

(The Kalam Cosmological Argument's first premise "Anything that begins to exist has a cause" also entails determinism, which negates free will.)

For the full logical argument see here: Logical Argument Against Free Will

In addition to this, there's plenty of neuroscientific evidence against free will.>>


Sacerdotus:

Here, the author makes so many mistakes.  He/she claims that if our thoughts are caused or uncaused, that we cannot control them.  This is ridiculous. He/she fails to take into account that our control is the cause. The fact that you and I can think of anything at any time, shows we are in control. The act of doing so shows the cause: our will in unison with the neurological structure of the brain. The author here is thinking in a linear sense and is completely ignorant of physics; particularly m-theory. We are in space and time, they have an effect on us. We exist in 4 dimensions (possibly up to 12) and are limited to them. We cannot perceive the others. To sum it up, string theory is the idea that particles are strings existing within and interacting with different dimensions. For example, string theory posits that what I am doing now is just one of the many outcomes within "reality." In this dimension I am blogging, in another, I could be blogging but chewing gum, etc etc. All of this can happen at the same time or at different times. You can test this with something that refracts light and a flashlight. When you put the beam on it, the light will "split" into parts pointing at different points. It is the same light, but they are at different points in space and time and in different dimensions. You can observe this because you are outside of that light, but if the light were conscious it would not be aware of this and would only be aware that it can exist at its respective point. In light of this (no pun intended), we know free will exists. Moreover, free will exists at an atomic level. Electrons and other particles behave in a random manner which allows for free will.  This is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  Nothing in the universe is deterministic.  One of my former instructors, renown professor Dr. Kaku explains here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiM.   Determinism is not taken seriously by most philosophers, less by physicists.  Here is a piece from philosopher Huemer:

"A related idea is that the practice of reasoning is implicitly governed by the rule that one ought to form only justified (rational) beliefs and avoid unjustified beliefs; if one in no way accepts this norm - for example, if one regards arbitrary beliefs as no less to be preferred than rational beliefs- then one is not engaged in genuine reasoning. If this is right, then the determinist, insofar as he attempts to rationally defend his position, must accept at least some normative principles governing his assertions and thoughts. These normative principles may prove difficult to reconcile with determinism (indeed, the acceptance of any normative principles at all may be irreconcilable with determinism). The following deduction shows one way of bringing out the problem: 1. We should refrain from accepting unjustified beliefs. (Premise; presupposition of reasoning.) 2. To say that one should do something implies that one can do it. (premise) 3. So we can refrain from accepting unjustified beliefs. (From 1, 2) 4. Assume that hard determinism is true. Then what we actually do is the only thing we can do - that is, what can be done is done. (Assumption, definition of hard determinism.) 5. Therefore, we have no unjustified beliefs. (From 3,4) 6. Many people believe in free will. (Premise.) 7. So the belief in free will justified. (From 5,6)."




<<7) Brute facts are unavoidable

There is a famous trilemma in philosophy called the Münchhausen trilemma which states that all explanatory chains will have to terminate in one of three options when providing an explanation or proof of anything:
The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts
When explaining something and you go down the line of the explanatory chain you will eventually have to resort on one of these three methods. Either your explanation will be circular, it require an additional explanation ad infinitum, or it will terminate in an axiom which itself has no further explanation.

Since the traditional notion of god in classical theism is that of a timeless, changeless, immaterial mind, who also must be infinitely good, infinitely wise, and can do anything logically possible, then all of god's will and desires must exist timelessly and eternally in an unchanging, frozen state. That would mean that god timelessly and eternally had the desire to create our particular universe, and not some other universe, or no universe. God doesn't think in temporal order, as we do, weighing the pros and cons of each option, with the possibility we could have decided differently. No. God's desire to create our particular universe was eternal and unchangeable, just as his entire mind is. Here's why this is a problem. Our universe is not logically necessary; it didn't have to exist. Every theist would agree with that (that's why they claim god had to create it). But if our universe is not logically necessary then there's no logically necessary reason god had to desire it be created it. Nothing compelled god to do so or even desire to do so. So why then does god exist timelessly and eternally with the desire to create our universe, and not any other universe, or no universe at all, if each of those other options are just as logically possible, and yet also not logically necessary?

Another way to put it more succinctly is this: Why does god timelessly and eternally exist with desire X rather than desire Y, when neither desire X or Y are logically necessary or logically impossible?
The Münchhausen trilemma, along with this dilemma, show that brute facts not only make sense, they're unavoidable even if we posit god's existence. Thus we could argue more formally:

The traditional notion of god in classical theism is that of a timeless, changeless, immaterial mind, who also must be infinitely good, infinitely wise, and can do anything logically possible.
All of god's will and desires must exist timelessly and eternally in an unchanging, frozen state.
That would mean that god timelessly and eternally had the desire to create our particular universe, and not some other universe, or no universe.
Our universe is not logically necessary; it didn't have to exist, and god didn't have to create it.
The theist would have to show that it was logically necessary for god to create our particular universe in order to avoid eventually coming to a brute fact.
There is no way to answer this question, even in principle, with something logically necessary.
Thus at least one brute fact must exist even if god exists.

Another way to look at this problem is another example of god's contradictory nature, and this is especially true on the Thomistic conception of god the Catholic Church espouses.

(1) God's nature is necessary
(2) the choice to create this universe is part of god's nature
(3) the choice to create this particular universe is not necessary

So god's nature is both necessary and not necessary. Since Thomists argue that god's will is identical to his substance, it's therefore identical to his essence. And since they claim god's essence is necessary, and yet it isn't necessary for god to will this particular universe, god's nature entails a contradiction for being both necessary and not necessary.

But no theist can argue successfully that it is logically necessary for god to have willed our particular universe. Since it's not logically necessary for god to have eternally willed our universe rather than another one, or no universe, the principle of sufficient reason requires that god's eternal will be explained by something contingent (which will lead to either an infinite regress of contingent explanations) or something else that is logically necessary. And since the logically necessary option is not available to the Thomist, the only two realistic options are an infinite regress of contingent explanations, or a brute fact. See the logical flow chart below for a better understanding.



Theism, particularly its Thomistic version, can't even stay consistent with its own metaphysical first principles.

For the full logical argument see here: Why Brute Facts Are Unavoidable

All this and I haven't even gotten to the problem of evil yet. Now the version of the argument from evil I find most inspiring is an argument from natural evil.>>


Sacerdotus:

Here the author shows his/her ignorance of philosophy and even plagiarizes a Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma). The author argues that God has an immutable nature, then there was no need to create a universe. This is just a silly argument. God created the universe out of love. The creation is not necessary for Him, but it is for us because we exist in it. As a kid, I had an ant farm. I had no need for it in regards to survival. I had it because I wanted to care for ants and learn from them. Similarly, God has no need for a universe or humanity; not even the angels.  He created them simply to share His love. A married couple has no need to have children. They do so because they want to start a family and share their love with their children. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:


295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God's free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: "For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created."142 Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: "O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all"; and "The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made."143

The author relies on a strawman when making this fallacious argument and even distorts St. Thomas Aquinas.  Aquinas' Argument form Necessity illustrates argumentatively the contingent nature of all that exists in relation to God its creator, not the other way around. Moreover, the author claims that God created only one universe. We simply do not know this. For all we know, there can be multiple universes that God has created and chose not to reveal to us. Similarly, there may be even other intelligent species on other galaxies that God created and chose not to reveal to us. We simply cannot speculate for or against the aforementioned. In the Bible, it says that God "rested," not that He stopped creating (Genesis 2:2-3).  We can see the sophism that author relies upon to make his/her poor arguments against God. 




<<8) Omnibenevolence is incompatible with the natural evil of evolution

The late Christopher Hitchens often argued that any creator to this world is either incredibly incompetent, incredibly indifferent, or incredibly cruel. I agree.

When you look at the full picture of evolution and you consider the 3.5 billion years during which this unfolding drama played out, when there were millions and millions of species that evolved only to be snuffed out and pushed into evolutionary dead ends, and during which time there was at least 5 mass extinctions in which some 70-95 percent of all the living species on earth at that time went extinct, I'm being asked by theists to believe that this was all part of a divine creator's plan who was sitting back and taking pleasure in watching millions of species (whose evolution he allegedly guided) get wiped out one after the other, and then starting all over again, and then wiped them out again and repeated this process over and over, until finally getting around to evolving human beings – which I'm told was the whole purpose of this cruel and clumsy process.

I created an evolutionary argument against god a few years ago, where I analyze the logical possibilities between the suffering required by evolution with the popular belief now among scientifically inclined theists that god used evolution to create human beings. We can argue:

If god chose to use evolution as the process by which he created human beings and all other forms of life, then god knowingly chose a process that requires suffering that is logically unnecessary.
If humans are the product of gradual evolution guided by god, then at some point during the process the soul appeared.
Once human beings had souls, they could be rewarded in an afterlife for the suffering they endured while they were alive.
If higher level primates are capable of third level pain awareness (knowing they are experiencing pain) then our pre-human hominid ancestors did too and they did not have souls.
This means god chose to create humans using a method that knowingly would involve conscious suffering that was not logically necessary.
An all-good, perfectly moral god who is incapable of unwarranted cruelty would not create beings that could consciously suffer in a way that was not logically necessary.
Therefore, the traditional notion of god who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good does not exist.

Most theists when hearing this argument will try to refute it one of a few ways. One way they'll do so is to say that god had morally sufficient reasons for allowing the suffering of evolution. They won't usually give any specific reasons, but they'll insist, god has them. This combines a level of skeptical theism with something like a soul building theodicy. But the suffering I'm talking about here affects animals as much as humans, and animals traditionally have no soul in Abrahamic theism. If they did, animal sacrifice would be that much more immoral, and it's commanded by the Abrahamic god. (See here for a critique of the "God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering" theodicy.)

Furthermore, since animals are usually unaware of the deeper questions of why they're suffering, they have no ability to grow morally from any of it. They lack the intellect to grow but still have the capacity to suffer. C.S. Lewis wrote in The Problem of Pain, "So far as we know beasts are incapable either of sin or virtue: therefore they can neither deserve pain nor be improved by it." Suffering also afflicts humans in ways that make little sense to soul building. It afflicts babies, the righteous and unrighteous, those spiritually fulfilled and unfulfilled alike.

If omnibenevolence is compatible with millions of years of beings suffering that couldn't be improved by it, then what isn't compatible? What logical argument shows exactly what an omnibenevolent being can and cannot do? Is a billion years of suffering compatible? What about a trillion? Without a logical doctrine it makes the term "omnibenevolence" meaningless and unintelligible.

And any creator god does not merely allow suffering — suffering is built into the design. God is unavoidably directly responsible for all natural suffering in the universe:

(1) God (an omnipotent, omniscience, omni-benevolent being) exists.
(2) Natural evil exists.
(3) God is the creator and designer of the physical universe, including the laws that govern it.
(4) Natural disasters, and the evil they cause, are a direct byproduct of the laws that govern our universe.

In other words you can't claim that god is the creator and designer of the physical universe, including the laws that govern it — which is what every theist insists — and not also accept that natural evil is a direct byproduct of those laws. Natural evil cannot therefore be due to demons tinkering with god's plan. Demons would be the ones who actually created and designed the universe if that were the case.

So the suffering and haphazardness of the evolutionary process gives us good reason to believe there can be no omnibenevolence and therefore no traditional notion of god (which many theists say is the only kind of god that can exist). Furthermore, the fact that libertarian free will is incoherent prevents the theist from using the "free will defense" as an argument against moral evil. Take that away, and they've got nothing.

For a full description of the argument, see the Evolutionary Argument Against God.>>


Sacerdotus:

Here, the author cites Christopher Hitchens regarding a creator who is "cruel, incompetent etc." This is a common argument used by atheists which they believe is strong, but it really is not. The argument is very bad as it assumes that God is subject to our interpretation of morality or what is ethical. The author then argues that evolution somehow proves God does not exist or is cruel. This is a typical ridiculous argument made by alleged online atheists who do not have a grasp of science or theology. The idea that since mass extinctions occur in nature and that this proves God does not exist or is cruel is extremely silly. The author proceeds to make claims that the process of evolution is cruel and clumsy. Any evolutionary biologist would laugh at the idea. Natural selection is not a clumsy or evil process. Those organisms with the best genes and ability to survive are the one who do so. This makes perfect sense. In school, those who study hard pass while those who do not, fail. This does not make a teacher or school clumsy or evil. The author argues that "God knowingly chose a process that requires suffering that is logically unnecessary." We see here the poor argumentation made by the author. He/she assumes that suffering is a concept that is part of nature.  It is not. Suffering is a social construct. It is a word that we give to a particular experience which we describe as unpleasant. What is suffering exactly?  Philosophers debate this all the time.  Is suffering when a child is forced to eat vegetables? How so? Are not vegetables good for the child? I make this point to show that we must define suffering properly and place it in the proper perspective.  The author uses it in a fallacious way when he/she applies it to the evolutionary process. Moreover, the author fails to acknowledge that sin brought death and suffering to the world (Genesis 3:14-19; 4:1-15, Romans 5:12,  Romans 8:20-22). God did not create suffering or evil. These are not real things that exist in nature.  They are the privation of what is pleasant and good. Similarly, darkness is not a real thing that exists. It is just the absence of light which does exist. Any mass extinctions or disappearance of species of earth is not "suffering" or "evil." These are just the consequences of real processes that happen in nature. The idea that suffering invalidates God's omnibenevolence is based on poor reasoning.  I wrote in my book Atheism Is Stupid an extensive refutation of the so-called "Problem of Evil." In the refutation, I wrote, 


"The ‘problem of evil’ is not so much a problem of evil existing in a world created by an omnibenevolent God; rather, as more of a problem with understanding who God is, what good and evil are and their ontological application."

This is what the author is doing. The consequences of what we call "Natural Evil" have no bearing on the omnibenevolence of God. When God created everything, He described it as "good (Genesis 1:31)."  This was, of course, before the fall of man. I go more in detail in my book Atheism Is Stupid regarding the problem of evil and why it makes no sense.  If this author would have read my book, he/she would not have made such a fallacious argument. When atheists make these kinds of arguments, they run on the premise that they understand how a universe is to be created and run. We can see here why their arguments fail. It is special pleading on full display. What mortal can dare dictate the terms on how a universe is to run?  It makes no sense.  Many of us do not even understand our own lives. How can we even dare attempt to put conditions on God or the creator of the universe? The Bible itself asks who has known God's mind or has been His counselor (Isaiah 40:13, Romans 11:34). It is just absurd for the author to claim that the universe must operate on his/her perception and understanding of suffering and when it is necessary. Evolutionary psychologists often describe suffering and pain as part of survival. If organisms did not experience pain or suffering, they would not be able to adapt and survive. This is a "good" when we put it in perspective, not cruelty. Psychologically speaking, organisms learn via operant conditioning. We experience a stimulus and process it.  This stimulus may be pleasant or unpleasant. Again, the aforementioned words are social constructs and their applications vary based on experience, circumstance and perception. For example, eating hamburgers can be pleasant. However, it can also be unpleasant if it causes indigestion or cardiovascular problems. The existence of a hamburger is not evil or cruel. To say that it is because it can cause something unpleasant is just absurd. Moreover, to claim that God is cruel because it may cause something unpleasant is just plain stupid. 



<<9) No god of any religion is compatible with the ontological argument for god

Another extremely simple and effective ontological argument I originally found on SkepticInk can be used to easily refute any one particular god and is great at disproving Christian, Jewish or Islamic gods using the same basic deductive logic all theists already use:

God is the greatest conceivable being.
I can conceive of a greater being than Yahweh.
Therefore, Yahweh is not God.

This doesn't disprove god per se, but it shows that none of the concepts of god in any existing religion can even meet the standards of greatest conceivable being, and therefore none cane be god.>>

Sacerdotus:

This is another ridiculous argument.  To suggest that no God of any religion is compatible with the ontological argument for God is just silly. The Ontological argument for God from St. Anselm posits that since we can conceive the idea of greatest conceivable being, then God must exist since our minds allow for this conception. The argument is strong on that point but weak on others. It does beg the question as to why we can think of such a great being.  However, it can also leave it open to conceive any other entity as being great, i.e "Flying spaghetti monster or Russell's Teapot."  The author attempts to capitalize this by claiming that any religion can formulate any great being.  He/she uses Yahweh as an example.  He/she writes:

"God is the greatest conceivable being.
I can conceive of a greater being than Yahweh.
Therefore, Yahweh is not God."

The problem here is common among alleged online atheists when they often ask "Which God?" On many Tweets, blogs, and other social media postings, one can see alleged online atheists claim that there are over 3,000 gods and ask which one is the one or the real one. They do this to illustrate that not every religion can be right since there are so many gods. I address this in many of my tweets:




I even made a podcast on this years ago:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sacerdotus/2014/05/09/the-3000-gods-argument




While there are many names that many religions give God, this is simply because primitive man tried his best to define and name God. There is only one God.  There is only one Creator. However, man has tried to name and define Him based on his experience and cultural limits. The Catholic Church describes this as "shadows and images" which are a preparation for the fullness of Truth found in the Gospel; namely, Jesus Christ. The Catechism says.


843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

Christians and Jews called God "Yahweh" because that is how He presented Himself. The name is more of a description than an actual name. Moses being raised by Egyptian royals learned about their many gods. The Hebrews at the time were henotheists. This means that they believed in God while acknowledging the gods of others as existing or possibly existing as well. Because of this influence, Moses asked God who is he to say sent him. God replies, "I AM who AM" or "Yahweh. (Exodus 3:14)."  By stating this, God is describing Himself as the One who really is. The ultimate absolute being who exists without depending on anything or anyone else to exist.  God is.  He had no beginning and will have no end. To claim that Yahweh does not exist because another religion describes Him as Allah or El is just a poor understanding of theology and the Bible.  All religions today pretty much have a consensus on the attributes of God, ie all-powerful, all-good etc.  This is why the pope can pray with leaders of other faiths.  There is only one God out there listening!  The difference is based on how man calls upon Him and how He defines Him. 

The author even acknowledges that his argument does not disprove God's existence. This speaks volume of the poor reasoning.   



<<10) Euthyphro's trilemma

Starting with the Euthyphro dilemma we can ask, "Is something good because god commands it, or does god command it because it's good?" If something is good because god commands it, then god’s commands can be arbitrary. God could command genocide and slavery, and they would be morally good merely because god commanded it. And if god commands it because it’s good, that means there’s a standard of good that exists independently of god. Either way, the theist has a problem. Either morality is arbitrarily decided by god, or morality exists objectively and independently of god. The theists is in a dilemma.

But — the Euthyphro dilemma is actually not the end of the conversation, because there is technically a third option. The theist can claim it’s a false dilemma and that god commands something because god is good. They can say god is the standard of moral values: goodness and god are the same. But there’s a problem with this. This third option only opens up a further dilemma. If the claims is that god is the source of the good, I can ask, "Is god good because of the properties that he has, or are the properties that god has good because he has them?" Basically, if god is good because he’s loving and kind, then those properties are good independently of god, and thus goodness and morality would have to exist independently of god. But if the properties god has are good because god has them, then god has to be good logically prior to any properties he has, and that makes god’s goodness unintelligible. How can god be good prior to being loving or kind, or having any good making properties?

So the Euthyphro dilemma really is just a starting point that terminates in a trilemma for the theist. The theist cannot attempt to ground morality in god without hitting this trilemma:

Show that morality is arbitrarily decided by god.
Show that morality exists independently of god.
Make a circular argument.

It's a bit like the Münchhausen trilemma above. If the theist insists that morality cannot exist independently of god, their only alternatives are to say morality is arbitrarily decided by god, or make a circular argument. This means the theist has no logical basis for saying god grounds morality or that god is needed for morality or that the atheist has no basis for morality, objective or not.>>

Sacerdotus:

Here the author recycles the banal Euthyphro's dilemma which is geared towards polytheism, not monotheism. The dilemma posits whether or not good exists independent of God.  Does God ordain something as good because it is independently good or is it Good because God ordained it as so?  This is pretty much the dilemma posited in Euthyphro's thought experiment.  The author assumes that the theist has a problem when trying to address this. In reality, the atheist is the one who has the problem. God is good.  God is the fullness of goodness and love.  God is love (1 John 4:8). Goodness and love do not exist as separate entities from God. As stated before, when God created everything, He said that it was "good." This means that God is the one who defines what is a "good." The goodness of something does not exist independently of God. Call to mind what I wrote before about pleasure etc being social constructs. In light of this, what is good and evil is often defined by man in different ways based on circumstance and experience (ie hamburger example). 

This is why God brings good even out of evil. To us, we interpret things as good or evil based on experience and circumstance.  However, to God who is absolute good, evil does not present itself in the manner that we perceive it because God can bring good out of evil. The author asks, "How can god be good prior to being loving or kind, or having any good making properties?"  The answer is simple, God is the absolute good. Being loving or kind is a manifestation of that good.  The same applies to us. Our goodness is not dependent absolutely on our actions.  We can be good without showing it.  A student can be good at math without having to show off to others his or her math skills. A Catholic nun or Buddhist monk can be good without having to go out and hand out sandwiches.  The latter is just a manifestation of goodness. There is no trilemma or dilemma as the author suggests.  What we see here is a strawman argument based on the author's lack of reasoning and knowledge on ontology.  



<<11) Religious belief is product of the brain

We have evidence that the sense of god is a neurochemical brain state that has evolutionary underpinnings.

Evolution has embedded the predilection to notice patterns and to invoke agents when there aren't any, in a phenomena known as patternicity and agenticity, respectively. Our hominid ancestors lived in a world of danger, and they weren't yet the top of the food chain. If a noise was heard in the grass it was better to assume it might be a dangerous predator than just the wind. If they were wrong, they made a false positive, that is they incorrectly thought something was there that actually wasn't, and no harm was done. If, however, they assumed it was just the wind and it turned out it was a predator, they made a false negative, that is they incorrectly assumed there wasn't something there when there was, and they likely lost their life as a result of it. So evolution has made it so that false positives are much better to have than false negatives.

What does all this mean? It means that seeing patterns and agents that aren't there is hardwired into our brains by evolution, and this forms the basis for why we tend to attribute random, natural events as being the product of intentional agents. This manifests itself into the belief in spirits, demons, angels, ghosts and gods. "The problem we face is that superstition and belief in magic are millions of years old," writes skeptic Michael Shermer in The Believing Brain, "whereas science, with its methods of controlling for intervening variables to circumvent false positives, is only a few hundred years old."

This means that we have a naturalistic, evolutionary basis for why we believe in gods. It isn't a mystery why most people and most cultures believe in gods. Science explains it. It's called the hyper active agency detection device. (For any claim that it's a just so story, read here.)>>


Sacerdotus:

Here, the author relies on terminology from Michael Shermer. Shermer borrowed these ideas from cognitive psychology which posts the phenomenon of pareidolia and so on. The author then describes how patternicity and agenticity developed via evolution to allow for greater survival against predators and the like.  The problem here is that the author and Shermer distort science to push a narrative that is self-contradictory.  They claim that seeing patterns and agents that are not there is hardwired into us. We, in turn, say they are ghosts, angels, gods and so on. Now, look carefully at what the author wrote, "What does all this mean? It means that seeing patterns and agents that aren't there is hardwired into our brains..."  Do you see the problem here?  The author makes a huge contradiction. How can one detect patterns and agents that are not there?  In other words, how can one assign a conceptual pattern to patterns and agencies that are not there? This makes no sense.  Both the author and Shermer rely on special pleading to make the claim that these undetectable patterns and agencies "manifest into belief in spirits, demons, angels, ghosts, and gods." The truth of the matter is that we are all hard-wired to believe in God, not ghosts, spirits or anything else.  Scientist Graham Lawton who is an atheist himself has stated that atheism is naturally impossible. It simply does not exist.  This scientific view is supported by another atheist scientist, Pascal Boyer. Now let us assume that this author and Shermer are correct. We believe in gods because of evolution. The idea does not make any sense. Evolution prepares an organism to survive in nature. The key word is nature. It will not benefit an organism to look for patterns and agencies not found in nature when actual natural dangers exist. In other words, it is not possible for organisms to evolve to believe in supernatural agencies and patterns unless the organism was preexposed to them and this allowed for evolution to process the tangible stimuli. The author and Shermer inadvertently acknowledge the existence of the supernatural via their arguments. 



<<12) All the arguments for god fail

As I wrote in my original post, you cannot use intuition to make metaphysical principles, like everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is why all the arguments for god fail. They take human level perception and understanding of the way the world works and extrapolate from them gigantic metaphysical principles. Science tells us the universe never began to exist in the sense of popping into existence out of nothing. Nothing never existed, and the whole history of the universe is ontologically real. Furthermore, causality is just the relationships of events in spacetime. It's not anything like Aristotle thought of it. So all variations of the "first cause" argument fail, be it the Kalam Cosmological Argument or Aquinas's unmoved mover. The argument from contingency fails because it assumes the principle of sufficient reason, and my argument above shows that brute facts are unavoidable. Furthermore, the first premise of the KCA, that everything that begins to exist requires a cause, actually negates free will. If my actions and intentions all require causes, then they're causally determined. To say that my soul causes them only pushes the cause back one step.

The Fine-Tuning Argument I don't think gets off the ground because of the incompatibility of an omni-god with the unnecessary conscious suffering of evolution. This argument also makes it appear as if god himself must conform to the laws of physics and can only create a life-bearing universe just one way. If god can do anything, he should be able to create such a universe an infinite number of ways, and even create ones that contained life but weren't fine tuned for it. That would actually be evidence for god.

The Moral Argument is negated by (10) above, and although there are too many version of the Ontological Argument to mention, they all involve either claiming that if a maximally great being is possible, then it therefore must exist, or if a maximally great being is conceivable, it would be better for it to exist than not exist, and so it therefore exists. The OA fails for a number of reasons. First, given the logic backing up the OA, if god is by definition the greatest conceivable being, then I can easily conceive of a being greater than Yahweh, or Allah, or any other conceived deity, and so therefore none of these gods can exist. The OA therefore actually disproves the god of Abraham.

Moreover, the moral argument and the ontological argument are incompatible with one another. If god is the standard of goodness by which all moral truths are measured by, then to use that same standard to measure the criterion by which we determine what a maximally great being is, it makes the ontological argument totally circular. God is being presumed in order to determine what is god is. Otherwise, how would the theist arrive at the idea that being all-loving is maximally great? And what standard would they be using to determine what an all-loving being can and cannot do? This would all have to be determined without presupposing a standard that is ontologically grounded in god, and would thus have to exist independently of god's existence.

So it appears we've got a catch-22 here with the ontological and moral arguments. I can't see how a theist can have it both ways.

Those are the most common and the most sophisticated arguments for god that exist. Although there are many others, they all fail due to incorrect understandings of science, or they have internal contradictions and/or contradictions with other arguments.

For refutations of Thomistic arguments, see here.>>



Sacerdotus:

The author claims that all arguments for God fail. This is simply not true and is why atheism is on the decline worldwide. It is nearly extinct in Russia! Atheism has no answers, only misconceptions.  Everything that begins to exist does, in fact, have a cause. To say otherwise is to be ignorant of science and philosophy who rely on the principle of causality. The author him/herself is a product of causality. His parents copulated which allowed for fertilization. At conception, the author came to be. He began to exist as a separate organism on this earth. To say otherwise is nonsense and disturbing. I have already demonstrated that the universe did come out of nothing.  The author is simply not well-informed on science. His statements show his lack of knowledge. I refuted his "brute facts" easily using science and philosophy.  Had the author done his/her homework, he/she would not have made this post showing such disdain for facts. The premise of KCA does not negate free will. I have demonstrated this using physics and philosophy in my previous refutations. 

The author's criticism of the Fine-Tuning argument shows that his/her own arguments need fine-tuning.  His/her criticisms are based on misconceptions, poor understanding of science and philosophy, and a heavy reliance on special pleading. The author presents him/herself as the authority or archetypal source for how a universe is to be created and run.  Nothing in the fine-tuning argument suggests that God could only create the universe in one specific way. This is just nonsense from the author.  The author claims that the Moral Argument is negated by his premise listed in 10. However,  I have demonstrated his argument to be faulty. He/she simply lacks the understanding of science, philosophy, and theology to adequately make a strong critique of the moral argument.  The same is done with the ontological argument. The author claims to have refuted it, in reality, the author simply showed his/her poor understanding of the argument and how it applies to theology.  There is no contradiction or circular argument. The author's ignorance is the problem here when vetted against philosophy, theology and the arguments themselves. In a rush to "refute" the arguments, the author failed to understand them and address their points. What we see is the author pushing a narrative based on misinformation and misconception. 



<<13) All religions appear man made

Religious texts are all internally inconsistent, they all fail to be corroborated by history and archaeology, and they all contain the flawed cosmology and superstition endemic of their day. The Bible isn't even consistent on why suffering exists, it's also extremely vague on the details of heaven and it contains several books in the New Testament that aren't even considered authentic (e.g. 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, etc.). Before I did research into the authenticity of the Bible, I thought most of its stories were at least historical to some extent. To my surprise, they weren't. Most of the Old Testament stories are entirely mythical and are backed up by no evidence at all. The evidence we do have concerning the history of the Ancient Near East, falsifies the narrative. The New Testament wasn't written by any eyewitnesses who could have known Jesus and bears numerous signs of interpolation, alteration, geographic errors, and parallels with Near Eastern mythology that it appears to be in the genre of historical fiction. The Qur'an is filled with numerous contradictions and is inconsistent not only with science but with itself. And since it claims to be the literal word of god and not just inspired by god, it therefore must be false.

If there was indeed an all-knowing creator who revealed himself, why would he do it in such a way that contained all the ignorance extant of that time? Why not include a few detailed verses about something like evolution, DNA or germs which no one knew about at that time? The excuses I've heard for this vary and are all laughable. Some theists say for example, that god wouldn't to give us too much evidence, because then we couldn't reject him. What?!? So god purposely makes his revelations ridiculous and unbelievable to test our faith? This is just an apologetic attempt to make the religion unfalsifiable by arguing that the less evidence we have and the less plausible it sounds, the more it's got to be true. It's not worth any intelligent person's consideration.

Other religions like Hinduism, Mormonism and Scientology are self-evidently false to anyone with a decent education in science, philosophy and history. Buddhism and many other Eastern religions are less like religions and more like philosophies with a religious aspect, without a deity. Still, some versions of Buddhism for example contain absurd metaphysics like reincarnation that are obviously false. There are hundreds if not thousands of other world religions that share the same self-evident falsehood that Hinduism and Mormonism contains and many of them serve more as a cultural glue that bonds members of an ethnicity together, but nonetheless, all contain false beliefs left over from our superstitious nature. The most plausible worldview that contains a god to me is deism, but with deism you still have the problem of how a deistic god can create an eternal universe, that's why I'm not a deist. And for pantheists, they just call the universe god. It's semantic.>>


Sacerdotus:

Not all religions are man-made. Only Judaism and Catholicism can describe themselves as revealed religions. God directly founded them. Judaism began with Abraham and Catholicism via Jesus Christ who is the Son of God and the second person of the Holy Trinity.  The author makes the suggestion that religious texts are inconsistent and fail to be corroborated by history and archaeology. This is simply not true. The author is clearly working with misconceptions and not facts. Israel has many archaeological sites that prove the events of the Bible. To reject them is to reject science and foster antisemitism. The tomb of David is there, the sites holy to Judaism and Christianity are there. They are all verified by archaeologists, historians, and biblical scholars. Just last year, the University of Tel Aviv release a study that showed that the writers of the scriptures were not illiterate goat herders and that their content corroborates with discoveries in archaeology (see: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2016/04/illiterate-bronze-age-goat-herders.html).  Just recently, the story of Joshua's battle at Gibeon was confirmed by the journal Astronomy & Geophysics (see: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2017/11/scientists-bible-records-actual.html).  There are many more sources one can find online that show that the events of the Bible are historical and supported by hard evidence and documentation. Nothing in the Bible is contradictory. The Bible is a collection of books written at different points in time, by different people and to different audiences. The contradictions atheists claim exist are due to their lack of comprehension of the literary styles and the methodology of how to interpret ancient texts. I can guarantee that this author has never taken any biblical studies course. He or she is relying on banal arguments circulating on the internet which is never vetted against scholarship. 

The author asks, "If there was indeed an all-knowing creator who revealed himself, why would he do it in such a way that contained all the ignorance extant of that time? Why not include a few detailed verses about something like evolution, DNA or germs which no one knew about at that time?" This question shows a poor understanding of the term Divine Pedagogy. Divine Pedagogy is the idea that God guides man throughout history, slowly revealing Himself based on man's level of understanding and abilities. Think of it as Star Trek's "Prime Directive." In the franchise, the Prime Directive exists to prevent advance cultures from interfering in primitive ones. God reveals Himself to man based on his lived experience. This makes sense due to man's paranoia when encountering new things or alien things. Take the age of exploration for example. When White European men landed in the western hemisphere, some native tribes mistook them as gods. The experience of pale face humans riding on huge animals we call horses must have been frightening.  If that made a huge impact on man, imagine if God appeared to man as He really is? How many people will be scared out of their wits? Imagine the panic!  God reveals Himself to man based on his lived experience. This is why Jesus came as a poor baby and lived as a commoner. He could have come with pomp and circumstance, but He chose to do it in a humble way to show that God understands us at all levels.  God loves man and wants man to be with Him for eternity to live in bliss and love. Knowledge of DNA etc will not bring about this end.  Moreover, who is to say that God did not reveal the knowledge that we have now? All knowledge comes from God. However, knowledge of the natural world will do nothing to make man good or holy. Grace and our response to it is what matters in the scope of things. I assume and hope that God will reveal how He made the universe at the end of time. This would be awesome. God is too awesome to be processed all at once. Human beings are finite creatures with finite minds. It is impossible for the finite to process the infinite.  This is why we are hard-wired. Atheists are not immune to this.  This is why they seek God as well. It makes no sense for someone who denies the existence of God to be fixated on something he/she believes does not exist. 

<<Summary

I've outlined 13 good reasons why I'm an atheist above. Many of them are unique to me, and perhaps, never been argued before. I am confident that each is true and that together they make an awesomely powerful case against theism that goes far above and beyond a reasonable justification for atheism. Argument (1) by itself is enough to justify one's atheism. Combine that with arguments 2-13 and you have what I see as an irrefutable case that there is no god, and that naturalism is true. When theists complain that atheists are incapable of bearing any burden of proof, they've never been to my blog. Atheists are certainly capable of making positive arguments for atheism., and this blog post is the proof.>>



Sacerdotus:

The author outlined 13 bad reasons to be an atheist. I have shown why these arguments failed when vetted against reason, science, philosophy, and theology. The facts are simply not on the side of atheism. Only the cognitively lethargic would believe that these 13 arguments presented by this atheist author refute God or religion. They do the contrary. They show that Atheism Is Stupid, which is the conclusion I came to after being an atheist most of my life and why I chose the words at the title of my books. There exists no atheist who can make a strong argument for atheism. Atheism is a fictitious premise that runs on misconceptions as fact. It distorts science and philosophy to meet its ends of deception and ignorance. My book refutes this author's arguments more deeply as well as other commonly used arguments. I recommend you get a copy and learn why Atheism Is Stupid when vetted against science, philosophy and so on.  

For more info on my book: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2015/12/my-book-atheism-is-stupid-on-sale.html



4 comments:

  1. Hello Sacerdotus

    you got a post reply to your above argument. Will you reply back?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Already did. It was easy. "AtheistntheCity" is not well-educated. His/her replies entailed restating what I already refuted along with attacking me personally. This author clearly lost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some of your responses presupposes a tensed theory of time, while what your responding to argues for a tenseless theory of time. As a result, the responses which do presuppose this don't hit their mark.

      Delete
  3. Hi. will you post your new reply or pass over web link (yours new rebutal)? Cheers

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.

Labels

Catholic Church (456) God (309) Atheism (239) Jesus Christ (212) Jesus (208) Bible (174) Pope Francis (165) Atheist (145) LGBT (130) Science (117) Liturgy of the Word (104) Christianity (84) Rosa Rubicondior (76) Pope Benedict XVI (73) Abortion (71) Gay (65) President Obama (56) Prayer (54) Vatican (39) Physics (38) Christian (37) Philosophy (36) Blessed Virgin Mary (33) New York City (33) Christmas (31) Psychology (31) Women (29) Biology (28) Politics (28) Liturgy (26) Baseball (25) Religious Freedom (23) Pope John Paul II (21) Space (21) Holy Eucharist (19) NYPD (19) Pro Abortion (19) priests (19) Evil (18) Supreme Court (18) Child Abuse (17) Pro Choice (17) Evangelization (16) First Amendment (16) Police (16) Protestant (16) Donald Trump (15) Health (14) Death (13) Astrophysics (12) Christ (12) Marriage (12) Priesthood (12) Blog (11) Pedophilia (11) Racism (11) Poverty (10) Illegal Immigrants (9) Theology (9) Vatican II (9) Autism (8) Divine Mercy (8) Human Rights (8) Muslims (8) Personhood (8) September 11 (8) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Easter Sunday (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Gender Theory (7) Gospel (7) Jewish (7) academia (7) Apologetics (6) Barack Obama (6) Big Bang Theory (6) Humanism (6) Morality (6) Pentecostals (6) Traditionalists (6) Babies (5) Cognitive Psychology (5) Cyber Bullying (5) NY Yankees (5) Spiritual Life (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) CUNY (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Eucharist (4) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (4) Holy Trinity (4) Podcast (4) Pope Pius XII (4) Evangelicals (3) Hispanics (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Sacraments (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Death penalty (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Hell (2) Massimo Pigliucci (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Catholic Bloggers (1) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Eastern Orthodox (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1) Pope Paul VI (1)