This was a team article by Jodie Bishop, Scott Walton of Disciples of YHWH in Christ and, and Ken Ammi, with an introduction by Don Veinot from the Midwest Christian Outreach and it was originally posted here.
Some Atheists propose arguments that they believe demonstrate that God does not exist. Yet, those tend to fixate on one particular view of God, namely monotheism. Thus, even if they were successful, which they are not, that does nothing to demonstrate some sort of god or gods do not exist.
Perhaps the Mormon gods exist or perhaps the Hindu view that everything that exists is god is true. So in reality, the best they can do is to argue for Agnosticism (which is akin to “weak Atheism”).
Yet, even when they argue against a monotheistic God, some of their arguments do not hold against Trinitarian-monotheism—which is the view from which this article is written biblical Christian theology. Thus, we will not defending generic “religion” nor vague “theism” but only biblical theology.
Oddly enough, they have to draw from biblical theology in order to attempt to argue their case. In other words, they must beg, borrow, and steal from the very view against which they are arguing and so they end up sawing off (or attempting to do so) the very branch upon which they sit.
The “10 Logical Proofs” undergoing examination were proposed within a video titled “God Does Not Exist 10 Logical Proofs” by the Crunch YouTube channel.
Note that the assertion is not that evidence is provided but rather, proofs and that is it not against belief in God but definitively positively affirms that “God Does Not Exist.”
Now, the title refers to “proof” but the intro refers to “evidence, “In case you deny the existence of the Almighty and somehow lack evidence to support your side, we have you covered.”
Moreover, it is asserted that the “10 logical reasons” (a change from the title’s reference to “10 logical proofs”) “will shake some believers!”
One thing that haunts the entire video (and all of Atheism, in fact) is that it is premised on logical but this is not really a premise, actually, but a merely jumped to conclusion with which they are beginning.
On Atheism, logic is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there is no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand that others do so either: this alone utterly collapses any and all Atheist missionaries endeavors.
On Atheism, there is no universal imperative for accidentally and temporarily existing apes to only hold to facts, based on truth, based on reality, mitigated by logic within an existence wherein facts, truth, reality, logic, and apes are all accidental-period, full stop.
Also, the video refers to “Using EVIDENCE” and “Using LOGIC” and while Atheists can use logic, that is merely a subjective personal preference (based on hidden assumptions that should be exposed). Likewise with evidence or proof: they may subjectively assert that we ought to based our view on evidence and proof but, again, that is a mere preference on the level of demanding that their favorite ice-cream flavor truly is the one that everyone should prefer. They must begin by first justifying a demand for evidence or proof via a premise form their worldview.
Proof/reason #10 “Poorly Designed Universe”:
This is elucidated thusly, “Don’t the theists say that God is perfect and the creator of the Universe? Well then why did he design the universe and his babies in such poor fashion?”
Unsure what is meant by “his babies”—humanity, perhaps. The assertion of God having “design[ed] the universe and his babies in such poor fashion” merely presupposes that such is the claim when, it is not. We affirm that God is perfect and the creator yet, this does not require the creation to be perfect (only God). The Bible teaches that the creation is fallen (Gen 3) so that “Disease and malfunction” were not created by God but are a result of the fall—and are redeemable, which they are not on Atheism.
Now, even if it something is poorly designed, it is still designed which requires a designer, God in this case.
Engineers construct “parts that are designed to ware out” such as brake pads: we do not (or should not) examine worn brake pads and conclude they were not designed, we recognize that waring is their purpose (to the point that the metal a few layers in is of a different sort so that they cause that horrible grinding sound that alerts us to that they need replacing).
This objection is flawed since it is evidence for God’s existence and not his non-existence. This amounts to a fallacy of false refutation (ignoratio elenchi).
#9 “God of the Gaps”:
Elucidation, “could you explain the idea of God of gaps that is your argument of his existence? You somehow prove God’s existence by pointing out phenomenon that science can’t explain and hence they are facilitated by God.”
This is not a biblical claim. Rather, all that science can explain and cannot explain argues for God’s existence. The premise for the scientific method. A rational being created a rational creation and populated it with rational creatures who could rationally discern it.
When considering creation we do not argue that we do not know ergo, God, but rather, we base our views on what we do know.
For example, the universe’s various functions (including biological functions) are based on preexisting information, the only known source of information is mind, so that this mind is what we call “God.” Thus, this is not based on gaps but on observation.
Thus, the existence of science is evidence for God’s existence.
#9 is a straw–man argument—a straw-God argument actually.
#8 “Inconsistency of Religions”:
Claim, “The reason we all have different views of him is that he does not exist.”
This one is utterly myopic since, for example, “different views of” God result from various sources such as that some are misled by false teachers, are rebellious and do not want to submit to God, etc.
Thus, this one did not consider anthropology, particularly biblical anthropology which has us as fallen and naturally rebellious.
We affirm that biblical theology, in part, due to truths from evidence, logic, and arguments (which are like proofs).
#8 is tantamount to arguing that since there are literally an infinity of possible answers to 2+2= ergo, 4 is not the only one right answer.
It is like arguing that many gods are claimed ergo, no gods exist. By definition God would be the ultimate being and by further definition there can only be one ultimate ergo, there is a God and only one God (who that is would be another issue).
If witnesses to an armed robbery have differences in their testimony to the police does that mean there was no robbery?
Consider The Titanic witnesses: some said it sank whole, others that it split. If we take this as a logical argument it is a non sequitur since that people have different views of God only proves that people have different views of God not that God does not exist.
#7 “Creation of the World”:
Claim, “one widely accepted trait of the Almighty is that it is he who created the entire universe some 6,000 years ago. That being said, it should be evident that nothing on the planet is older than this time frame.”
Some believers do not conclude that biblical theology affirms a young Earth creation timeline. Many accept the age of the universe is around 14 billion years and do not find it in conflict with their faith or the Bible.
Thus, this would be more about (one particular) view of the Bible, not about God’s existence.
Again, all of these will go back to that they have no premise: what does it matter if some accidentally and temporarily existing apes have a mistaken view of the age of the universe or the Earth within a universe wherein adhering to reality based truthful facts is not a universal imperative?
This is another straw-man since it is a supposed “widely accepted trait” but not a proof of God and even if science proved the universe to be 14 billion years old, it would not follow necessarily that God does not exist (non sequitur) since the age of the earth—young or old—does not disprove the existence of God. If one claims to be 6 years-old but is actually older, does that mean they do not exist?
#6 “Existence of Evil in the World”:
Claim, “When believers say that there is a God, a power which is noble and good then do they forget the existence of evil in the world? Be logical, when God loves us so dearly then why does he allow evil to exist?”
Just as with logic, this merely presupposes what is “evil,” that is it to be avoided, condemned, etc. Of course we do not forget the existence of evil rather, we say evil evidence for God. How so? Because it is only by God, who is the standard of good, that we know what is evil—a standard which Atheists lack.
God uses the evil that does exist to bring about good (salvation). The crucifixion of Christ was the most evil deed ever. Yet, it made salvation available to all who will trust in Jesus—by grace, through faith. That is the greatest good for us and demonstrates God’s love for us.
This was a false, pseudo, refutation since the existence of evil does not prove the non-existence of God so that this was another non sequitur.
Now, if someone converts to Atheism they will find that “evil” still exists-and now they do not even have God to blame for it anymore. God’s existence implies that evil is redeemable, in a manner of speaking.
On Atheism evil, pain, and suffering are for nothing-except that the evildoer gets to enjoy themselves and transcendently gets away with it. Yet, it is not quite the case that on Atheism evil, pain, and suffering are for nothing since it gets plugged into Atheistic evolution which has it assisting in ridding us of the less fit so that it benefits evolution.
Thus, Atheism makes evil, pain, and suffering even worse and so evil, pain, and suffering are some of the best reasons for rejecting Atheism-and Atheistic evolution.
You see, there are various problem-s or evil-s and Atheism has its own problem of evil-even if some Atheists are informed enough to reply with “What is this ‘evil’ you speak of?!?!”
Darwin despised that one insect would lay eggs within the body of another and that the hatchlings would eat their way out of the host body. Well, guess what, that still happened regardless of his views on God.
Moreover, Atheists will first complain that God does nothing about evil and will then complain about what He does about it (judgments, hell, etc.).
A personal example from Ken is that I LOVE my kids and, for example, stood by doing nothing about it when one of them was stabbed even though I could have put my years of martial arts training towards preventing it. That’s right folks: when one of them was a newborn I allowed a nurse to stab his little, sensitive, foot with a needle since his blood sugar levels had to be checked.
I, his essentially omnipotent father, allowed that pain and suffering because I knew better. As an experiment, when he was 1.5 years old I explained that to him, he wiggled a bit and walked away. Of course, he had no idea what I was talking about much, I suspect, like when Job demanded to know “Why, why, why!” and God began with “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?”
#5 “Morality needs no religion”:
Claim, “Looking at the behavior of a believer and an atheist, you’d see that there is little to no difference in their morality.”
Riotously, “that there is little to no difference in their morality” would imply a common standard, not a common result of accidents.
Technically, “morality” as referring to the “mores” which merely describes whatever people happen to do vs. “ethics” as referring to the “ethos” which actually prescribes what people ought to do-this is an “is” vs. “ought” issue.
Yet, that can get semantic since some term what was just defined as ethics/ethos as “universal” or “objective” or “absolute” “morality.”
Thus, this is not just about labels but about recognizing two levels: disagreement and agreement. People disagree on the mores since they are situational, subjective, intrinsic, tentative, etc. but agree on the ethos since it is universal, objective, extrinsic, absolute, etc. Such is why everyone (regardless of chronology, geography, or theology-or, lack thereof) have agreed on the ethos.
We do not claim that God or Christian faith is required for one to behave in a kind, loving way since we were all created in God’s image and come front-loaded with His communicable attributes so that we contain His ethos.
But God, who is all-loving, is the standard by which we judge behaviors as good or evil. Thus, God grounds the existence of ethical obligations and duties. Yet, people still have a God-given freedom to act in an unethical manner whether they accept God or reject Him.
Atheists lack a ground for ethics so that, for example, if a priest molests a child, we all agree it is wrong (even the priest, who would first seek to justify his actions to himself: making evil good in his own mind). But we have a standard by which to judge it as evil. Also, we do not claim, nor does the Bible teach, that being a biblical makes one ethically perfect. As it has been said: Christians are not sinless but they should sin less.
Consider that just because U.S. citizens commit murder does not mean that murder is not illegal in the U.S.
Now, in the U.S. abortion is legal murder and the ethos is evident in that pro-abortionists have spent years arguing that it really is not since they know that it is. Like the priest, they had to talk themselves into believing that they overcame that hurdle since the ethos placed that hurdle in their way.
That people, whether believers or unbelievers, are free to act in either good ways or evil ways proves freedom of action, not existence or non-existence of God.
It also proves that ethics exists (as an objective fact) since Atheists also acknowledge good and evil.
Thus, ethics is evidence for God not against God (false refutation) and to argue that bible believers commit evil acts ergo, God does not exist is a compounding of a non sequitur and a straw man.
#4 “Religion Runs in families”:
Claim, “Religion runs in family. If we ask you about your religion, there is a 99% chance that you follow the religion of your family because that is what you have been taught…
The mere scenario of tightly bound family religion questions the truth in it because you can analyze facts but not fables. It can also be seen as a belief sustained by social pressure or even threats!”
Again, “questions the truth in it” within a propose existence wherein adhering to truth is not a universal imperative. This is also a genetic logical fallacy since it seeks to discredit by attacking the source and even if belief is sustained by social pressure and by threats it does not follow necessarily that God does not exist.
If our parents taught us to count does that invalidate mathematics?
While it may be a tu quoque, it is, “also true of atheists”: or “some” Atheists just like it is true of “some” religious people but not of others.
This touches upon that Atheist literally think that they are more evolved than thou, they may have been raised in religious homes but have found the one true truth: praised be nothing!
The Bible does not teach blind ignorance but to test all things, to look for evidence, to seek out wisdom and knowledge, to speak the truth in love, and encourage all people to examine the evidence and use logic and critical thinking to decide.
Thus, many of us have examined the evidence and have faith in Jesus because of the evidence (biblically, “faith” refers to coming to a conclusion based on prior knowledge).
#3 “No evidence of existence”:
Claim, “Largely saying there is not much evidence to prove the existence of God. Well if God is there, then why is there no proof of him being there?”
Step one is for Atheists to justify their demand for evidence or proof—after which comes complex issues of what actually does count as evidence, upon what Atheist premise can it be examined, accepted, rejected, etc., etc., etc.
Note that, just like Bertrand Russell (and Richard Dawkins who parroted him), the video admits that there is evidence of or for God but that there is—subjectively—“not enough” based on his personal preferences that are based on hidden assumptions.
Note that this one jumps from referring to “evidence” to referring to “proof” and admits evidence (even if subjectively “not much”) but positively affirms (without evidence) that there is no proof.
#3 denotes ignorance of centuries of thinking regarding God and the natural world. Some Atheists say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so why does that not apply to God (even if we momentarily grant absence of evidence)?
By that logic just because you have not found any evidence for God compelling, it does not mean He does not exist. It is not a PROOF. And then there is the issue of evidence versus whether one subjectively finds such evidence compelling or not.
Now, bible believers have provided evidence and proofs of God for centuries: for example, various cosmological arguments (Kalam, Leibnizian, etc.), design arguments, ethical arguments, ontological arguments, etc.
The video admits to design (however poor) and ethics, which supports these arguments in favor of God’s existence. These arguments take as evidence, the universe and things found within it: design, information, order, purpose, ethics and duties, and so on.
In other words, all of reality is evidence for God’s existence because of the specific nature of this particular universe—while on Atheism, reality is accidental.
Parroting Carl Sagan, some Atheists assert that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet, there is no standard of extraordinariness so this is just another subjective exercise to allow the Atheist to merely wave their hand and slap any and all evidence away with a mere, “Not extraordinary enough!”
By the way, would not extraordinary design require an extraordinary designer?
#2 “Common Consent”:
Claim, “One of the major reasons for believing in the existence of the supreme power is that most people believe it. Is it even logical to say that since a phenomenon is accepted by the majority, it must be true? We doubt that!”
Most people agreeing that the sky is blue may not ultimately mean that it really is blue but is a safe enough bet. In other words, the argumentum ad populum does not guarantee that the populum have a faulty view but only that accepting a view merely based on the populum is what is or may be problematic.
Just as with logic and evidence, the statement here ends with “We doubt that!” but that which “We” doubt or do not doubts is not a standard, it is merely an emotively subjective declaration.
While we are at it, should we doubt something just because the populum agrees on it? Surely millions of people have claimed experiences with God (miracles, visitations, etc.) and unless each of those have been examined then one can only conclude that ALL of those people were mistaken -delusional, deceptive, ignorant, misunderstanding-if we presuppose that God does not exist. Ergo, that would be arguing in a circle.
The Bible does not say that we ought to believe in God because of majority opinion nor have any of the best biblical theologians have made this argument. Rather, the Bible says that God’s existence can be seen from the evidence found in the natural world (Psa. 19) and even some of God’s power and attributes can be known by us from the nature of the creation, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Rom 1:20).
This was a straw man since it is not an argument made by Bible believers, or even most theistic religions. Even if one can find some theists who argue that God exists because most people believe he exists, it does not follow that God does not exist (non sequitur). It is also a hasty generalization to apply it to all theisms generally.
#1 “No Growth in Religion”:
Claim, “a decade ago there had been so many things that we had no knowledge about but are now a part of our life. That’s how we have evolved and our knowledge about science but can we apply the same thing to God? We guess not because we are still stuck with beliefs and ‘facts’ that have been in circulation for centuries.”
Atheism has utterly nothing to do with science and science has utterly nothing to do with Atheism.
This one is what I term an argumentum ad chronologicum: “have been in circulation for centuries” ergo, false.
2+2=4 has been circulated for centuries so does the mere passage of time demand that we reject it?
We are “stuck” with the same facts about God because God has revealed Himself finally and completely in the person of Jesus Christ who is God in the Flesh.
As aforementioned, God is also revealed in the natural world and God is revealed in the text of the Bible, the canon of which has been closed for two millennia.
While these basic facts about God have not changed, our understanding has increased as more and more theology students have earned their PhDs and done research and written books, archaeology has revealed more and more about the cultures that produced the Bible which also gives us insights into the deeper meaning of the biblical text—even though God’s word has always been perspicuous.
In fact, on a biblical worldview, all advancements in scientific knowledge deepen our understanding of the natural world which is God’s creation. Most of the modern scientists were Bible believers seeking to better understand God’s creation. So the growth of scientific knowledge has also contributed to growth in our knowledge of God.
Now, this was another strange argument since if our knowledge of God does not increase, it does not necessarily follow that God does not exist (another non sequitur).
Likewise, has there been growth in our knowledge of atheism? If not, does that make atheism false? The basic facts of logic have not shown any growth since they were described by the Greek philosophers over two millennia ago.
We still use modus ponens and modus tollens and say “Socrates is a man.” If there has been no growth in logic, if we have been stuck with the same facts and beliefs about basic logic for millennia, does that mean logic is false? Obviously not. Rather this video is using faulty logic.
PS:
Claim, “What do you believe in; science or God?”
The question, “What do you believe in; science or God?” seems to derive from the imminent philosopher from the movie “Nacho Libre,” the guy who stole day old “cheeeeps” from orphans, who said, “I don’t believe in God, I believe in science” which is a text-book classic world class case of a false dichotomy.
We believe in God and “believe” in science. The study of the natural world is the study of God’s creation: the search for causes and the ability to make that search is evidence for God who is the explanation for the origin of the universe and of life, for the laws of physics, and of logic, the uncanny applicability of mathematics to the natural world, the fact of ethical duties and obligations which atheists also recognize, why there is something rather than nothing, etc.
These evidence God, God is the uncaused first cause: as even those same Greek philosophers understood when they spoke of the unmoved mover.
God created chronology, linear time, whereby effect follows from cause—linear time, boy oh boy I tell ya’: it’s just one thing after another!
Summary:
Grade F on knowledge of biblical theology and attempted employment of logic.
We agree that all claims should be evaluated by evidence and logic, as we have done in this article.
Not one of the 10 points is logically sound and commit formal and informal logical fallacies such as non sequiturs, false refutations, hasty generalizations, straw men/straw God, etc.
The 10 statements failed to provide logical arguments or evidence or proof that God does not exist.
Also employed were flawed tactic common to Atheists such as attacking “religion” rather than any specific rational description of a religion such as biblical theology. Also, if any flaw is found in any one religion, all religion is thereby rejected. And hasty generalization.
Moreover, we encountered two startling admissions for an Atheist to make namely, that the universe is designed and the existence of objective good and evil.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.