Quick Responses to Atheist Objections #2

                                                         +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

Welcome to part 2 of answering atheist objections. If you missed part 1, here's a link to get you up to speed.
Now, off we go:

2. "God's existence is proven by scripture."

This argument presupposes its premise. People believe in scripture and place value in the words because they already believe in the religious principles the text describes. There is no inherent value to the Bible, Quran or any other religious text; these documents are not self-authenticating in any way.

(Since when does proving something's existence or non-existence depend on whether written documents can authenticate themselves? If I were to tell you America broke away from England and I presented the Declaration of Independence as proof, why would you ever reject it on the basis the document itself can't prove  that's what it actually says? Even if you could, does that mean I should reject what he just said because his words are not self-authenticating?

As far as this "people place value on what they already believe", how do you explain the Bible's call to be skeptical of claims, including [but not limited to] Jesus calling on people to test the Scriptures to check what He says, to test the spirits, and in some cases even states not everything in it is self-explanatory?)

In fact, many factual inaccuracies and inconsistencies can be found within religious texts themselves. For example, the Bible contains two separate creation stories, each of which provides a very different explanation. Similarly, there is no historical, archaeological or scientific evidence to support many of the stories in the Bible and the Quran.

(While I can't speak for the Quran, I do know the claim of the Bible having inaccuracies and inconsistencies has been debunked long ago. In fact, all--and I mean ALL--claims along those lines are ALWAYS a result of either poor translations, taking the verses out of context, or poor scholarship. 

To prove this, here's a link that helps explain some common supposed contradictions.)

Ultimately, religious texts are infinitely fallible because they are man-made products of whimsy, poetry, mythology and some history woven together into a new whole. The texts in the Bible have been gathered from many oral sources over thousands of years and compiled arbitrarily into a single document; it's hardly surprising that the narrative would be so inconsistent. Other religious texts have similarly convoluted histories.

(Then doesn't that mean an equal and better case can be made his stand is also fallible, especially since experts don't agree with his reason, and furthermore don't think the thousands of years is a hinderance? Doesn't it seem like his is just chronological snobbery and nothing more?)

Aside from the problems with individual texts, there's also the obvious issue that the very presence of multiple scriptures negates the authenticity of any single religious document. It's impossible for every religious book to be true; it's highly presumptuous to assume that one's own preferred scripture is the single "true" scripture while all the others are false accounts. It's far more likely that every religious book is equally fictitious and unreliable.

(How does it negate it? Do fans of every NFL or NBA team claiming their team will win the championship negate the fact only group will be proven right? How does "impossible for all to be right" equate to "all are equally wrong?" Since when is it illogical to conclude if your stand is right, then others must be wrong? Isn't that what the author is doing? 

And how come no library or book store or online shop puts religious texts in the fiction section? Could it be the rules governing book genres don't agree with him? I'd love to hear a good answer to this, but out of the 800 atheists I've asked, none of the 800 could come up with a believable answer.)

Quick Responses to Atheist Objections #1

                                                +AJPM+

THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:

The other day, I was going through atheist publications to come up with ideas for posts and I came across a work called Why There is No God by Armin Navabi. In it, he addresses 20 common theist reasons for why one should believe in God and tries his best to refute them to no real avail.

I'll try my best to put all 20 takes on here in due time but for now, I found a collection of some online and I'll tear each one apart by showing why they don't make that much sense.

Before I do, I want to first share a quote from Sherlock Holmes in the story The Sign of the Four:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

I want you to think long and hard about that quote, because a) you'd be surprised by how many atheist arguments fall apart in light of this quote and b) while we can figure out what is so by what something is, we can also figure it out by what isn't so.

So on with the pathetic atheist argument with my response in red:

1. "Science can't explain the complexity and order of life; God must have designed it to be this way."

First, when considering this position, it's important to recognize the difference between complexity and design. Complexity itself does not require an intelligent creator. It's easy to impose a design upon things that exist by chance or developed through a natural process like evolution.

(First off, notice how Navabi states a difference exists between the two but does not explain what that difference is. Complexity generally means to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways. Design is the creation of a plan or convention for the construction of an object or a system. Now in light of these, how can one say complexity does not require an intelligent creator? Don't buildings require extensive blueprints? Don't watches require specific parts to function? 

Second of all, notice the slight of hand in the statement: he wants us to think science can answer the how. Here's the major problem: when someone says science can't do something, what they mean is science can't answer the why, as in why it operates this way and not a different way. In other words, they're asking a question science itself is not equipped to answer.)

To an extent, this argument gains traction because of wide misunderstanding of science and especially evolution. Everything in the universe conforms to certain simple scientific rules that have been repeated over billions of years. While this can be awe-inspiring, it by no means suggests a creator.

(How? You just admitted there are scientific rules in place. How did they get there? Was the rule's discoverer the same person who placed it as a rule of existence? If not, was it there before they discovered it? How long was it there? If they didn't put it there, then who or what did? Since he also admits rules are repeated over several years, how long do they have to be repeated before we no longer need further repetition to accept it? On what basis should we accept it? What misunderstanding is he talking about? Doesn't it seem more like he doesn't understand what people mean when they say science can't explain something?)