Top 10 Most Common New-Atheist Arguments: And Why They Fail (Part A)
Nov 7, 2015 07:11:05 #
11/06/2015 Top 10 Most Common Atheist Arguments, and Why They Fail
http://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/
I write very little in the area of Christian vs. atheist apologetics anymore.
It seems that many atheists today (some like to use the title New Atheists to distinguish them from the more profound philosophical atheists of yesteryear) have very little to add to the discussion.
To be fair, the same goes with most Christian apologists.
However, I thought it would be fun to comment on the ten arguments I hear the most.
My hope is that it will help expose some of the more obvious problems with them and maybe help both sidesatheists and Christians aliketo move on to more interesting debate material.
Okay, here we go:
1. There is no evidence for Gods existence.
There is at least one major problem with this line as it is typically presented.
One often hears, there is no evidence for God, therefore Christians believe in fairytales, (or something to that effect) when what is actually meant is more like, there is no physical proof of Gods being in the physical world, therefore Christians believe in fairytales (since all real things for the atheistic-materialist are assumed to be physical).
The fact that Christians have never claimed to believe in a physical God as merely one more physical being among all other physical beings in the universe does not stop these sorts of atheists from thinking they have laid waste to 40 centuries of religious thought, experience, and refinement with the mere mention of this evidentiary boogieman. It rarely occurs to them that such physical proof would actually run 100% counter to Judeo-Christian theistic claims.
Their argument against a physical God is actually applauded and defended by Christians.
Simply put: Christianity believes in a immaterial God, thus to demand material proof of His existence is nonsensical.
This fact is not, of course, proof that the Christian claim is true, but merely proof that with such attacks the atheist has not even begun to swing in the direction of Christianity.
However, if what they mean is something more like, There is no logical evidence of Gods existence then the straw man suddenly becomes a brick wall.
The logical arguments for God are vast and time tested against some of the greatest minds of all time working tirelessly against them.
They are well-known arguments and can be easily found online or in print, but let me give one quick example. I recently read someone who claimed that I conceded the atheists argument that God is not real since the faith teaches He is not physical.
Let me help those who might struggle with this idea using a quote from David Bentley Hart: Why cant there be a physical explanation of existence?
Because anything physical is, by definition, something that exists. So there cannot be a physical cause of existence. The faith claims this non-physical, yet real, entity is God. His absolute existence is more real than physical existence by order of priority.
But besides logical arguments an additional reason why atheists often fail with this approach is because they run up against Christians with living experiences with God.
There is no amount of speculative babbling from the uninitiated that can oppose the one whose faith is built on a living subjectivity to the presence of God.
On these matters Kierkegaard had it right in objectivity there is no t***h for the single individual; the t***h is subjectivity.
2. If God created the universe, who created God?
This is one of the more peculiar arguments Ive ever come across. Those who use this charge as some sort of intellectual checkmate have simply failed to grasp what Christians understand as eternal. It is an argument usually levied once a theist posits that God is required for the existence of the universe (an absolute upon which all other things exist by way of contingency).
Some atheists then shift the weight over to the theist saying, Well then who created God? (which demonstrates a failure to understand God as the source and ground of being, follow this link for more.)
God, Santa, Tooth Fairies, and Spaghetti Monsters
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/god-santa-tooth-fairies-and-spaghetti-monsters/
What is a Christian to do with such a question? God is the antecedent of all things in creation and is eternal. If God had a Creator then His Creator would be God. God is God precisely because He does not have a creator.
For those who would cry Special Pleading at this must defend the alternative, which is strictly illogical, that of absolute contingency and/or unconditional conditionality of the physical universe (assuming they believe in the eternality of nature; if not, if they believe the universe had a beginning, then they must defend an even more fantastic illogical leap, that of just-thereness of the universe, which differs very little from pure magic).
But the belief that God is eternal is not special pleading to begin with for the simple fact that the subject matter is something truly unique, justifiably special. If one cannot claim that at least one thing is Absolute, or Necessary in philosophical parlance, then reality as we know it is irrational.
Better to be wrongly accused of a logical fallacy then rightly accused of a logical absurdity.
3. God is not all-powerful if there is something He cannot do. God cannot lie, therefore God is not all-powerful.
Bang! Owned.
Not so fast. This argument would be fantasticdevastating maybeif God was more of the ancient Greek god persuasion, where the gods themselves were subject to fate and limited to their specific roles in the cosmos.
The Orthodox doctrine of God is much different. Christians (at least Orthodox Christians) view Gods ontology as subject to His perfect free-will. Why is He good? Because He wills to be good. Why does He not lie?
Because He wills to be honest. Why does God exist as Trinity? Because He wills it. He could just as easily will to not exist. And yes, He could just as easily will to lie. The fact that He doesnt is no commentary on whether He could.
(Note: Due to the immense amount of discussion that this point has raised, one clarifying statement is worth noting. An argument based on strict logical word games can render the idea all-powerful, or omnipotent self-defeating.
When one considers the juvenile question, Can God create a rock so big that He cant lift it? this point becomes clear. But in reality, such an argument winds up further solidifying what Christianity means by an all-powerful God.
For the Christian it simply means that all power and authority are Gods. Following the logical word game above forces the believer to make a redundant proclamation in order to remain consistent: God cannot overpower Himself.
But this fact is anything but confounding, it merely stresses the point that there is no power greater than God, so much so that one is forced to pit God against Himself in order to find His equal.)
4. Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
What I love about this well-worn atheist argument is that it actually serves to demonstrate how vastly different a belief in God is to these myths and imaginations.
When one honestly assesses the Judeo-Christian doctrine of God he will find multiple thousands of years of human testimony and religious development; he will find martyrs enduring the most horrific trauma in defense of the faith; he will find accounts in religious texts with historical and geographical corroboration; etc (these fact are of course not proofs, but rather evidences that elicit strong consideration).
Pit this against tales of the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and Spaghetti Monsters and one finds the exact opposite: no testimony or religious refinement, no martyrs, no historical and geographical corroboration, etc. Instead, one finds myths created intentionally for children, for point making, or for wh**ever. Its straw-man argumentation at its worst.
Again, just to be clear, testimony, martyrs, geography, etc., are not proof that God exists, but rather proof that comparing faith in God to faith in fairies and Santa is totally different.
5. Christianity arose from an ancient and ignorant people who didnt have science.
Indeed, those ancient, ignorant people who believed in the virgin birth of Christ must have believed it because they did not possess the knowledge of how babies were born. Goodness.
The virgin birth of Christ was profound and of paramount concern to the ancients precisely because they understood that conception was impossible without intercourse.
Ancient man considered the virgin birth miraculous, i.e., impossible without divine action (and at the time most people scorned the idea), and the same could be said with every miraculous story in Scripture.
Indeed ancient people did not have the Hubble telescope, but they were able to see the night sky in full array, something almost no modern person can claim (thanks to modern lighting which distorts our ability to see the full night sky).
On average, ancient people lived much closer to nature and to the realities of life and death than many of us moderners.
In terms of a living relationship with these things the ancients were far more advanced than we are today, and this relationship is essentially the nature of religious inquiry.
If people lack religious speculation today, maybe it is because they spend more time with their iphones and Macs then with nature. Maybe.
But the claim that Christianity was viable in the ancient world because it was endorsed by wide spread ignorance is a profoundly ignorant idea. Christianity arose in one of the most highly advanced civilizations in human history.
The Roman Empire was not known for its stupidity. It was the epicenter of innovation and philosophical giants. I would wager that if a common person of today found himself in a philosophical debate with a common person of first century Alexandria, the moderner would be utterly humiliated in the exchange.
http://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/
I write very little in the area of Christian vs. atheist apologetics anymore.
It seems that many atheists today (some like to use the title New Atheists to distinguish them from the more profound philosophical atheists of yesteryear) have very little to add to the discussion.
To be fair, the same goes with most Christian apologists.
However, I thought it would be fun to comment on the ten arguments I hear the most.
My hope is that it will help expose some of the more obvious problems with them and maybe help both sidesatheists and Christians aliketo move on to more interesting debate material.
Okay, here we go:
1. There is no evidence for Gods existence.
There is at least one major problem with this line as it is typically presented.
One often hears, there is no evidence for God, therefore Christians believe in fairytales, (or something to that effect) when what is actually meant is more like, there is no physical proof of Gods being in the physical world, therefore Christians believe in fairytales (since all real things for the atheistic-materialist are assumed to be physical).
The fact that Christians have never claimed to believe in a physical God as merely one more physical being among all other physical beings in the universe does not stop these sorts of atheists from thinking they have laid waste to 40 centuries of religious thought, experience, and refinement with the mere mention of this evidentiary boogieman. It rarely occurs to them that such physical proof would actually run 100% counter to Judeo-Christian theistic claims.
Their argument against a physical God is actually applauded and defended by Christians.
Simply put: Christianity believes in a immaterial God, thus to demand material proof of His existence is nonsensical.
This fact is not, of course, proof that the Christian claim is true, but merely proof that with such attacks the atheist has not even begun to swing in the direction of Christianity.
However, if what they mean is something more like, There is no logical evidence of Gods existence then the straw man suddenly becomes a brick wall.
The logical arguments for God are vast and time tested against some of the greatest minds of all time working tirelessly against them.
They are well-known arguments and can be easily found online or in print, but let me give one quick example. I recently read someone who claimed that I conceded the atheists argument that God is not real since the faith teaches He is not physical.
Let me help those who might struggle with this idea using a quote from David Bentley Hart: Why cant there be a physical explanation of existence?
Because anything physical is, by definition, something that exists. So there cannot be a physical cause of existence. The faith claims this non-physical, yet real, entity is God. His absolute existence is more real than physical existence by order of priority.
But besides logical arguments an additional reason why atheists often fail with this approach is because they run up against Christians with living experiences with God.
There is no amount of speculative babbling from the uninitiated that can oppose the one whose faith is built on a living subjectivity to the presence of God.
On these matters Kierkegaard had it right in objectivity there is no t***h for the single individual; the t***h is subjectivity.
2. If God created the universe, who created God?
This is one of the more peculiar arguments Ive ever come across. Those who use this charge as some sort of intellectual checkmate have simply failed to grasp what Christians understand as eternal. It is an argument usually levied once a theist posits that God is required for the existence of the universe (an absolute upon which all other things exist by way of contingency).
Some atheists then shift the weight over to the theist saying, Well then who created God? (which demonstrates a failure to understand God as the source and ground of being, follow this link for more.)
God, Santa, Tooth Fairies, and Spaghetti Monsters
https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/god-santa-tooth-fairies-and-spaghetti-monsters/
What is a Christian to do with such a question? God is the antecedent of all things in creation and is eternal. If God had a Creator then His Creator would be God. God is God precisely because He does not have a creator.
For those who would cry Special Pleading at this must defend the alternative, which is strictly illogical, that of absolute contingency and/or unconditional conditionality of the physical universe (assuming they believe in the eternality of nature; if not, if they believe the universe had a beginning, then they must defend an even more fantastic illogical leap, that of just-thereness of the universe, which differs very little from pure magic).
But the belief that God is eternal is not special pleading to begin with for the simple fact that the subject matter is something truly unique, justifiably special. If one cannot claim that at least one thing is Absolute, or Necessary in philosophical parlance, then reality as we know it is irrational.
Better to be wrongly accused of a logical fallacy then rightly accused of a logical absurdity.
3. God is not all-powerful if there is something He cannot do. God cannot lie, therefore God is not all-powerful.
Bang! Owned.
Not so fast. This argument would be fantasticdevastating maybeif God was more of the ancient Greek god persuasion, where the gods themselves were subject to fate and limited to their specific roles in the cosmos.
The Orthodox doctrine of God is much different. Christians (at least Orthodox Christians) view Gods ontology as subject to His perfect free-will. Why is He good? Because He wills to be good. Why does He not lie?
Because He wills to be honest. Why does God exist as Trinity? Because He wills it. He could just as easily will to not exist. And yes, He could just as easily will to lie. The fact that He doesnt is no commentary on whether He could.
(Note: Due to the immense amount of discussion that this point has raised, one clarifying statement is worth noting. An argument based on strict logical word games can render the idea all-powerful, or omnipotent self-defeating.
When one considers the juvenile question, Can God create a rock so big that He cant lift it? this point becomes clear. But in reality, such an argument winds up further solidifying what Christianity means by an all-powerful God.
For the Christian it simply means that all power and authority are Gods. Following the logical word game above forces the believer to make a redundant proclamation in order to remain consistent: God cannot overpower Himself.
But this fact is anything but confounding, it merely stresses the point that there is no power greater than God, so much so that one is forced to pit God against Himself in order to find His equal.)
4. Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
What I love about this well-worn atheist argument is that it actually serves to demonstrate how vastly different a belief in God is to these myths and imaginations.
When one honestly assesses the Judeo-Christian doctrine of God he will find multiple thousands of years of human testimony and religious development; he will find martyrs enduring the most horrific trauma in defense of the faith; he will find accounts in religious texts with historical and geographical corroboration; etc (these fact are of course not proofs, but rather evidences that elicit strong consideration).
Pit this against tales of the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and Spaghetti Monsters and one finds the exact opposite: no testimony or religious refinement, no martyrs, no historical and geographical corroboration, etc. Instead, one finds myths created intentionally for children, for point making, or for wh**ever. Its straw-man argumentation at its worst.
Again, just to be clear, testimony, martyrs, geography, etc., are not proof that God exists, but rather proof that comparing faith in God to faith in fairies and Santa is totally different.
5. Christianity arose from an ancient and ignorant people who didnt have science.
Indeed, those ancient, ignorant people who believed in the virgin birth of Christ must have believed it because they did not possess the knowledge of how babies were born. Goodness.
The virgin birth of Christ was profound and of paramount concern to the ancients precisely because they understood that conception was impossible without intercourse.
Ancient man considered the virgin birth miraculous, i.e., impossible without divine action (and at the time most people scorned the idea), and the same could be said with every miraculous story in Scripture.
Indeed ancient people did not have the Hubble telescope, but they were able to see the night sky in full array, something almost no modern person can claim (thanks to modern lighting which distorts our ability to see the full night sky).
On average, ancient people lived much closer to nature and to the realities of life and death than many of us moderners.
In terms of a living relationship with these things the ancients were far more advanced than we are today, and this relationship is essentially the nature of religious inquiry.
If people lack religious speculation today, maybe it is because they spend more time with their iphones and Macs then with nature. Maybe.
But the claim that Christianity was viable in the ancient world because it was endorsed by wide spread ignorance is a profoundly ignorant idea. Christianity arose in one of the most highly advanced civilizations in human history.
The Roman Empire was not known for its stupidity. It was the epicenter of innovation and philosophical giants. I would wager that if a common person of today found himself in a philosophical debate with a common person of first century Alexandria, the moderner would be utterly humiliated in the exchange.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.