Arguments On Atheist From Apologist Dad

[ConureDelSol]

My dad sent me his powerpoint he uses to teach about atheism in his apologetics class. I'm only going to post his arguments here, he had some tips about how to speak to atheists too that I will post in the Lion's Den.

 

There is evil in the world, therefore God does not exist.

• Aside from the discussion of what constitutes evil and what justifies an atheist to have a standard of morality, that which is called evil in the world may very well have a purpose. For example, the evil of sending Jesus to the cross resulted in the redemption of Christians. Therefore, we could see an example of an evil that has led to greater good. Furthermore, many philosophers and theologians have discussed this through the centuries and the common consensus is that to say that God does not exist because evil in the world is an invalid argument.
  
• If evil in the world means that God does not exist, then does the existence of good in the world mean that God does exist?
  
• By what criteria do you, an atheist, judge what is evil? At best, your atheism can only provide a relativistic moral system. You have no objective standard by which you can judge what is right or wrong. All you can do is say that you think something is evil or that you believe it is evil. At this point it becomes nothing more than your opinion of what evil is and why God does not exist because of what you define as evil.
  
• Atheists will often raise such issues as murder, child-abuse, etc., as examples of evil in the world. At this point, it is best to admit that such things are evil but that you know they are evil because God, in the Bible, declares them to be such. Again, point out to the atheist that he has no standard by which to judge the morality of either the Bible or society.
  

Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.

• Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of those laws.
  
• Some might say that if all things can be explained via natural laws then it means there is no evidence for God.
  
• But, can all things be explained by naturalism? No, because naturalism has not explained all phenomena known today, nor can we assert that all things in the future will be explained by naturalism because we do not know all phenomena that can and will occur. Therefore, it is not a fact that naturalism can explain all things. To say it can, is a statement of faith. Therefore, God is not negated via naturalism.
  

I have not seen sufficient evidence for God's existence.

• To say you haven't seen sufficient evidence for God's existence is a more intellectually honest position, but it is really a form of agnosticism which maintains that God is not known or knowable while admitting the possibility of God's existence
  
• If a person has not seen sufficient evidence for God, then it means he has not yet seen all evidence and there might be sufficient evidence. This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person is really agnostic concerning God and his atheist position is inconsistent with his statement.
  

The Cosmological Argument

• Things exist
  
• It is possible for those things to not exist
  
• Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
  
• There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
  
• Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things that is capable of creating the universe
  
• The uncaused cause must be God.
  

The Transcendental Argument

• The Christian worldview states that God is absolute and the standard of truth.
  
• Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.
  
• Man, being made in God's image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them.
  
• Therefore, the Christian can account for the existence of the Laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them.
  
• Atheists do not like this series of statements and they often mock after hearing it. Nevertheless, it is a good conversation starter and puts the atheists on the defensive.
  

How does the Atheist account for the laws of logic?

• Logical absolutes exist such as the Law of non-contradiction: "something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time." Also, "something cannot bring itself into existence." Ask the atheist to give a rational reason to account for the existence of the laws of logic.
  
• If the atheist states that the laws of logic are mutually agreed upon conclusions, then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote." In other words...
  
• The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples' minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory.
  
• If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.
  
• If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
  
• If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with.
  
• If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
  
• Therefore, the atheist cannot account for the laws of logic from his atheistic worldview.
  

Another version of the Transcendental Argument

• The laws of logic exist
  
• The laws of logic are conceptual by nature since logic is of the mind, and not a physical property.
  
• The laws of logic are transcendent; that is, they are always true no matter where you are in the universe or when you are in the universe. This means that the laws of logic transcend space and time.
  
• Since the laws of logic are transcendent, absolute, and conceptual by nature, there must be a transcendent and absolute mind that is authoring these laws of logic.
  
• That transcendent and absolute mind is God.
  

Atheists will use logic to try and disprove God's existence, but in so doing they are assuming absolute laws of logic and borrowing from the Christian worldview.

• The Christian worldview maintains that the laws of logic are absolute because they come from God who is Himself absolute
  
• But the atheist worldview does not have an absolute God
  

 

Thought you guys might be interested in discussing his arguments.

[oddbird1963]

My first observation comes from "There is evil in the world, therefore God does not exist."

 

The argument is not stated correctly. He bypasses the assertion that god is supposedly ommipotent, omiscient and perfectly loving.

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

 

And his statement ". . . the common consensus is that to say that God does not exist because evil in the world is an invalid argument." is unsupported and irrelevent. I don't even think it's factual.

 

The presence of evil in the world disproves the Christian god (for Christians who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing , loving god). It doesn't disprove lesser gods who are limited and /or capricious.

 

I have not seen sufficient evidence for God's existence.

I don't think he understands clearly what atheism is. Yes. I am an atheist because I haven't seen sufficient evidence for God's existence. Therefore I don't believe in this god. Why should I? No one's given me sufficient reason to believe. Is it possible I'm wrong? yes. But I have no reason, other than theistic terrorism, to consider the matter further.

[ConureDelSol]

My first observation comes from "There is evil in the world, therefore God does not exist."

 

The argument is not stated correctly. He bypasses the assertion that god is supposedly ommipotent, omiscient and perfectly loving.

 

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

 

And his statement ". . . the common consensus is that to say that God does not exist because evil in the world is an invalid argument." is unsupported and irrelevent. I don't even think it's factual.

 

The presence of evil in the world disproves the Christian god (for Christians who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing , loving god). It doesn't disprove lesser gods who are limited and /or capricious.

 

I have not seen sufficient evidence for God's existence.

I don't think he understands clearly what atheism is. Yes. I am an atheist because I haven't seen sufficient evidence for God's existence. Therefore I don't believe in this god. Why should I? No one's given me sufficient reason to believe. Is it possible I'm wrong? yes. But I have no reason, other than theistic terrorism, to consider the matter further.

 

I agree with what you said on the evil argument. I'm curious what his view is about agnostic atheism or if he gets as confused as I tend to between that and agnosticism.

[mymistake]

• If evil in the world means that God does not exist, then does the existence of good in the world mean that God does exist?
  
• By what criteria do you, an atheist, judge what is evil? At best, your atheism can only provide a relativistic moral system. You have no objective standard by which you can judge what is right or wrong. All you can do is say that you think something is evil or that you believe it is evil. At this point it becomes nothing more than your opinion of what evil is and why God does not exist because of what you define as evil.
  
• Atheists will often raise such issues as murder, child-abuse, etc., as examples of evil in the world. At this point, it is best to admit that such things are evil but that you know they are evil because God, in the Bible, declares them to be such. Again, point out to the atheist that he has no standard by which to judge the morality of either the Bible or society.
  

 

All of what Oddbird said on this plus:

 

-The existence of good in the world proves that there can be no all knowing, all powerful and all evil god. We live in a world with both suffering and joy; both pleasure and pain.

 

-If life is a dream then the people in life who appear to exist and appear to struggle and suffer are not really enduring evil. However such an idea requires a boat load of ad hoc explanations and Ocham's Razor can cut through then rather nicely. Yet who doesn't suffer themselves? So even without observing the suffering of others and subjectively empathizing with them we all experience our own personal suffering. If a being choose to cause that suffering then that was evil.

 

-No we do not know things because the Bible states they are so. Knowledge comes from objective evidence of fact. The Bible making statements about God is human belief which is subjective.

[oddbird1963]

The Cosmological Argument

1. Things exist
   
2. It is possible for those things to not exist
   
3. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
   
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
   
5. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things that is capable of creating the universe
   
6. The uncaused cause must be God.
   

 

This line of reasoning doesn't really grasp what recent cosmology is telling us. It is not possble for those things to not exist. Matter can neither be created or destroyed. It can be converted from one form to another. But the chair I am sitting on has always existed, just not in the same form. The stuff that it is made of has always existed. As one theoretically follows the components of this chair back in time when it's atoms were formed in some now defunct star somewhere , and even further back to the time of the big bang, it seems that there was only one "cause," if there was even a cause to the great expansion which has been labeled the big bang.

 

So it is correct that there cannot be an infinite regression. However there seems , for all we can tell, to be a finite regression and no reason to think that the singular tiniest of grains known as the universe hadn't always existed.

 

So, I agree with the first premise. # two - not really. Those things will always exist in some form.

 

Number three is unestablished.

 

Number four is correct, but irrelevant. There doesn't seem to be an infinite regress of causes for existence.

 

Number five - Change must to "might" and he might have something. But he'll have to do a better job of demonstrating.

 

Number six - non-sequter. There might be an uncaused cause which is only a causer and not a god. Like an infinite, eternal mindless ignition switch. There's no reason to prefer that kind of "god" over the kind of god he is presupposing to be true.

[oddbird1963]

How does the Atheist account for the laws of logic?

• Logical absolutes exist such as the Law of non-contradiction: "something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time." Also, "something cannot bring itself into existence." Ask the atheist to give a rational reason to account for the existence of the laws of logic.
  
• If the atheist states that the laws of logic are mutually agreed upon conclusions, then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote." In other words...
  
• The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples' minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory.
  
• If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.
  
• If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
  
• If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with.
  
• If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
  
• Therefore, the atheist cannot account for the laws of logic from his atheistic worldview.
  

 

I think the writer confuses "absolute morals" or "absolute truth" with absolute logic.

 

First, what "laws of logic" is he talking about?

Does he mean 1) Law of contradiction, 2) law of excluded middle 3) principle of identity? Or , does he mean something else?

 

Aren't these laws discoverable by observing the way things work in the universe? So isn't he just begging the question of what or who is behind the universe?

 

And so far, hasn't he failed in the task to refute atheists about the existence of god?

[♦ ficino ♦]

How does the Atheist account for the laws of logic?

• Logical absolutes exist such as the Law of non-contradiction: "something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time." Also, "something cannot bring itself into existence." Ask the atheist to give a rational reason to account for the existence of the laws of logic.
  
• If the atheist states that the laws of logic are mutually agreed upon conclusions, then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote." In other words...
  
• The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples' minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory.
  
• If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.
  
• If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
  
• If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with.
  
• If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
  
• Therefore, the atheist cannot account for the laws of logic from his atheistic worldview.
  

 

I think the writer confuses "absolute morals" or "absolute truth" with absolute logic.

 

First, what "laws of logic" is he talking about?

Does he mean 1) Law of contradiction, 2) law of excluded middle 3) principle of identity? Or , does he mean something else?

 

Aren't these laws discoverable by observing the way things work in the universe? So isn't he just begging the question of what or who is behind the universe?

 

And so far, hasn't he failed in the task to refute atheists about the existence of god?

 

Conure, it's fascinating to see what your father has prepared about Christian apologetics. The arguments you paste in from his power point are classic Christian apologetical arguments and have been addressed often. I'll just chime in to what oddbird and MM said.

 

All the stuff about logic is part of the Christian Transcendental Argument for God (=TAG). There have been discussions of it on Ex-Chr before. I remembered this thread:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/12356-blowing-tag-out-of-the-water/page__hl__manata__fromsearch__1

 

If the link doesn't work, try searching in the search box for "transcendental."

 

The Christian is right that the fundamental laws of thought such as what oddbird cited are axiomatic. The Christian is either confused or disingenuous to demand that the atheist prove the laws of thought or account for them. That's because the Christian and the atheist both use those laws, usually without thinking, in order to make meaningful statements. Without them, you annihilate all discourse. Any attempt to prove or account for them already makes use of them.

 

When I was first saved I was talking with a fellow student who was an atheist. I claimed that God is above the laws of logic, since he created them. She asked me if I thought something in some other realm can be A and not-A at the same time and in the same respects. If you do, she went on, I might as well just get up and walk away because all statements then would be true, so nothing would have any meaning. That shut me up. (I didn't deconvert until years later, though!)

 

Asking someone to give account for the laws of logic, acc. to what your dad wrote, seems to mean asking the person to explain what they are based on - i.e. to justify them. But you cannot do that without already using them. That's why they are axiomatic to human thought.

 

The Christian may want to trade presuppositions, i.e. "we presuppose God, and that guarantees the laws of logic, while you presuppose a materialistic universe that doesn't guarantee logic or morals or..." Wrong. In the structure of the atheist's AND in the structure of the Christian's reasoning, the laws of thought are axiomatic for both - otherwise they could not reason or say anything meaningful. The Christian and the atheist alike must recognize that not everything can be demonstrated. Otherwise, there would be an infinite regress of demonstrations. The laws of thought, as Aristotle said, are first principles.

 

I hope this helps on TAG - but search around on this site. It's come up before and lots of people have given good answers.

[ConureDelSol]

How does the Atheist account for the laws of logic?

• Logical absolutes exist such as the Law of non-contradiction: "something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time." Also, "something cannot bring itself into existence." Ask the atheist to give a rational reason to account for the existence of the laws of logic.
  
• If the atheist states that the laws of logic are mutually agreed upon conclusions, then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote." In other words...
  
• The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples' minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory.
  
• If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.
  
• If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
  
• If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with.
  
• If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
  
• Therefore, the atheist cannot account for the laws of logic from his atheistic worldview.
  

 

I think the writer confuses "absolute morals" or "absolute truth" with absolute logic.

 

First, what "laws of logic" is he talking about?

Does he mean 1) Law of contradiction, 2) law of excluded middle 3) principle of identity? Or , does he mean something else?

 

Aren't these laws discoverable by observing the way things work in the universe? So isn't he just begging the question of what or who is behind the universe?

 

And so far, hasn't he failed in the task to refute atheists about the existence of god?

 

I'm not sure if he talks about it in class or not. This is just some of the material he teaches.

 

About TAG, I will take a look at other arguments. Thanks ficino!

[Ouroboros]

So the laws of logic didn't exist until God created them? Sounds silly to me.

 

Btw, who created fuzzy logic?

[Foxy Methoxy]

 

Btw, who created fuzzy logic?

 

Muffiel, the Archangel of Fuzz

[Ouroboros]

Btw, who created fuzzy logic?

 

Muffiel, the Archangel of Fuzz

But who created Muffiel?

 

Ceiling Cat... obviously.

[Foxy Methoxy]

Btw, who created fuzzy logic?

 

Muffiel, the Archangel of Fuzz

But who created Muffiel?

 

Ceiling Cat... obviously.

 

Whoa! All hail the almighty fuzzball.

[freeasabird]

Your father writes as if he has never even spoken to an atheist about their reasons being being so.

[mymistake]

Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.

• Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of those laws.
  
• Some might say that if all things can be explained via natural laws then it means there is no evidence for God.
  
• But, can all things be explained by naturalism? No, because naturalism has not explained all phenomena known today, nor can we assert that all things in the future will be explained by naturalism because we do not know all phenomena that can and will occur. Therefore, it is not a fact that naturalism can explain all things. To say it can, is a statement of faith. Therefore, God is not negated via naturalism.
  

 

This is irrelevant. We have no objective evidence for God. Naturalism is not required. The burden is on those who claim God exists to provide evidence that God exists. They fail to meet that burden. If God is outside of our natural laws, outside of our spacetime, cannot be detected in any way and effects of God cannot be detected in any way then God might as well not exist for God is meaningless.

 

 

I have not seen sufficient evidence for God's existence.

• To say you haven't seen sufficient evidence for God's existence is a more intellectually honest position, but it is really a form of agnosticism which maintains that God is not known or knowable while admitting the possibility of God's existence
  
• If a person has not seen sufficient evidence for God, then it means he has not yet seen all evidence and there might be sufficient evidence. This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person is really agnostic concerning God and his atheist position is inconsistent with his statement.
  

 

This is special pleading. There is a remote possibility that billions upon billions of gods exist. Why is your father's God the one that gets special consideration? Each of these billions of possible gods would have the same chance of being real and all are equally unsupported by objective evidence. Also there is much misunderstanding about the meaning of agnostic. It turns out that everybody who has ever lived is without knowledge that God exists. Agnostics are those who are simply willing to admit they don't know.

[LivingLife]

Perhaps invite your dad here to hone his debating skillz.

 

A few of us could give him a run for his money.

 

Too many presuppositions IMO.

[♦ ficino ♦]

How does the Atheist account for the laws of logic?

• Logical absolutes exist such as the Law of non-contradiction: "something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time." Also, "something cannot bring itself into existence." Ask the atheist to give a rational reason to account for the existence of the laws of logic.
  
• If the atheist states that the laws of logic are mutually agreed upon conclusions, then the laws of logic are not absolute because they are subject to "vote." In other words...
  
• The laws of logic are not dependent upon different peoples' minds since people are different. Therefore, they cannot be based on human thinking since human thinking is often contradictory.
  
• If the atheist states that the laws of logic are derived through observing principles found in nature, then he is confusing the mind with the universe.
  
• If the atheist appeals to the scientific method to explain the laws of logic then he is using circular argumentation because the scientific method is dependent upon logic; that is, reasoned thought applied to observations.
  
• If logic is not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with.
  
• If logic is not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
  
• Therefore, the atheist cannot account for the laws of logic from his atheistic worldview.
  

 

I think the writer confuses "absolute morals" or "absolute truth" with absolute logic.

 

First, what "laws of logic" is he talking about?

Does he mean 1) Law of contradiction, 2) law of excluded middle 3) principle of identity? Or , does he mean something else?

 

Aren't these laws discoverable by observing the way things work in the universe? So isn't he just begging the question of what or who is behind the universe?

 

And so far, hasn't he failed in the task to refute atheists about the existence of god?

 

Good point! The atheist could set the Christian's Bible on fire and then ask, is your Bible on fire or not on fire at the same time and in the same respects?

[ConureDelSol]

Your father writes as if he has never even spoken to an atheist about their reasons being being so.

 

Though he teaches apologetics I have never seen him actually debate an atheist. I doubt he ever has. I'm willing to bet this is just all what he was taught at Moody Bible Institute.

 

Perhaps invite your dad here to hone his debating skillz.

 

A few of us could give him a run for his money.

 

Too many presuppositions IMO.

 

I'm not quite ready for him to read my other posts. If he saw this site he would know immediately that I am his daughter. My name and avatar sort of give me away. That being said, I wish I could have him debate you all and see if he takes his own advice for talking to atheists.

 

He has a long history of making up BS and insisting that he's right. That's why I was surprised by his advice in the Lion's Den.

[LivingLife]

I think theists mistakenly think atheists are simply rebels that have not heard the "true gospel" I have seen this on many forums and we always have to educate them on their own doctrines and the origins of those doctrines.

 

Once they start seeing we can cite scripture as good if not better, I imagine they panic. When I was still a woo I encountered an atheist and had a great discussion, his knowledge was awesome and then he trew me a curve ball. Only when I saw his intro thread which was mandatory, I disovered he was atheist. At the time I was a universalist but still questioning. There is probably few sects I have not investigated.

 

The fundies are the easiest to debate and they avoid melike the plague on another forum as they know my biblical knowledge surpasses theirs, many also know me from my theist days. I have also seen a few deconversions take place. If you have the dope, you just keep educating them on their religion, it becomes self illuminating for lack of a better word.

[ConureDelSol]

My Biblical knowledge is not nearly as good as dad's. I really can't get through the Bible. It's just so disgusting. The furthest I've gotten is Leviticus. That doesn't include all the random verses I read while in church.

[mymistake]

My Biblical knowledge is not nearly as good as dad's. I really can't get through the Bible. It's just so disgusting. The furthest I've gotten is Leviticus. That doesn't include all the random verses I read while in church.

 

Then you are lucky that you never tried to read Numbers. Ugh!

 

These are the exact number of men in each tribe. No formula or guess or estament was used. Every man was counted. And from the tribe of Sliverman there was 189,300. And from the tribe of Yebed where were 45,800. And from the tribe of Yood there were 214,800. And from the tribe of Seinfield there were 54,300. And from the tribe of Levi there were 14,050.

 

It's a holy miracle! God made it so that every tribe has a population divisible by 50 even though every man was counted. Glory be to God who can't be bothered to cure cancer or teach us medicine but demonstrates His great glory through population levels that end in zero.

[Ouroboros]

The most common word in the Bible... "begot" (as in "And Blurburbedurp begot Schlamamberberx")