We took a look at one atheist’s arguments for the non-existence of God after we read BG’s post the other day. What is presented as arguments are simply rehashed rhetoric, denials, and statements from unbelief. Nothing was presented that supported their arguments.
You can read them in full if you like at this link. Here are some of those arguments along with the Christian thesis statement drawing the response, followed by our comments:
#1. “Science can’t explain the complexity and order of life; God must have designed it to be this way.”
Failure to understand the scientific principles guiding the creation and development of the universe does not mean that a deity must exist to explain the natural world.
Those scientific principles cannot be verified and violate the core principles of observation and replication. Science has failed to observe and replicate one claimed universe and life development act.
Scientists do indirect observations and replication but do not use the same type of samples as they claimed existed at one time to conduct their experiments. Their experiments are all smoke and mirrors.
Origins is outside science’s scope and complexity demands a designer and creator. The odds of life forms developing as science has claimed are so astronomical that they are absurd to consider to be true.
#2. “God’s existence is proven by scripture.”
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.
Here the atheist is using faulty information to try and refute the Christian thesis. There are NOT two different creation accounts in the Bible. There is one and the second chapter of Genesis provides more details for the only creation act.
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.
This is exactly what the theories of Evolution & the Big Bang are. Why are atheists accepting one man-made concept while rejecting those they accuse of being man-made? if they do not like man-made theories, accounts, etc., (although the Bible is not man-made) why are they accepting a man-made account for life’s development?
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.
No proof that is true and this is just an excuse to reject the biblical content. We have textual evidence that statement is not true.
#3. Some unexplained events are miraculous, and these miracles prove the existence of God.”
It’s curious to note that the miracles performed by an “all-loving” and benevolent God so often involve sparing a handful of people from a tragic accident, devastating disaster or deadly disease. God is rarely held accountable by believers for all of the deaths that occur when people are not saved by a “miracle.”
This argument does not disprove that miracles are from God. Nor does it prove that miracles are not supernatural in origin. It is a useless argument based on nothing but denial as well as showing the atheist does not understand God or how he works.
Miracles do not overrule the verse where it is said it is appointed unto man once to die. The ‘refutation’ is an argument from nonsense and absurdity.
#4. Morality stems from God, and without God, we could not be good people.”
So-called “moral” behaviors, such as altruism and reciprocity, are not inherently human. In the natural world, they can be observed in a variety of animal species, especially social animals. Science shows that such behavior has an evolutionary benefit: creatures who learn to interact well with their kin will have a stronger likelihood of survival and passing on their genes.
Yet, does the atheist realize that the animals have no idea what they are doing nor know that their actions are considered moral or immoral? They are acting on instinct not learned moral teaching that has a source.
Where is the mechanism that is the origin of morals? The atheist and his evolutionary scientist friends have yet to produce one iota of evidence that morals are sourced outside of God.
All of this means that, from a scientific viewpoint, morality does not stem from God. Instead, it has its roots in brain chemicals and is supported by strong cultural conditioning. Parents pass their morals along to their children, and individuals take social cues regarding “right” and “wrong” behaviors from friends, family, media influence and more.
This is just subjectivity in action. The atheist making this argument still has not provided a legitimate source for those moral codes. he just denies that God is the source and tries to avoid proving he is correct.
Science has not proven that morals do not come from God. It is just trying to expel God from life and create fake sources for things it cannot explain. Also, that atheist seems to have forgotten the lessons from history that once morals become subjective, evil reigns.
The Japanese behavior in WW2 is a prime example of what subjective morals do to other people. We can point to a myriad of historical examples of what happens when morals become subjective.
Morals are objective and come from an objective source or there are no morals at all.
#5. “Belief in God would not be so widespread if God didn’t exist.”
This type of claim is called an “argumentum ad populum” or “appeal to the majority,” and it’s simply not true. Many beliefs are popular or widely held without being true, and things that are true exist whether anyone believes in them or not.
Like evolution and the Big Bang theories. Those theories are believed as true by millions of scientists and other people yet no one can verify that they are true. In fact, they aren’t true. People would not have a religious belief if God did not exist.
Try to have a belief in something that does not exist and then try to get billions of people throughout history to create alternative beliefs to that one central belief. it does not work. There would not be fake religions if God and true Christianity did not exist.
#6. “God answers prayers; therefore, he must be real.”
Just as miracles are impossible to prove without resorting to unreliable anecdotes, the power of prayer is certainly not supported by science. Belief in prayer relies on confirmation bias.
Another argument from denial and unbelief. He needs to prove that God did not answer prayer. He does not so his argument is moot.
The rest of the arguments are cherry-picked examples that follow along the same lines as the above. The result of this short examination is that the atheist has no solid or legitimate response to the existence of God. They are just in denial and use statements and declarations of unbelief to make their points.
His arguments follow the strawman and other logical fallacies unbelievers use against Christians. He presupposes that God does not exist and builds his arguments on that pre-determined conclusion.
He also creates faulty arguments that have nothing to do with the topic and predetermines that science is correct because he agrees with science’s conclusions. God does exist and the Bible gives us the information we need to build our faith and know how to live right.
Without the existence of God and the Bible, no one but a few would survive the evil that would come every human’s way. In Noah’s pre-flood time, people rejected the existence of God and the instructions he gave the pre-flood civilization.
The result was not a moral law-abiding society but one that only thought of evil every day. You take God away and you do not get godly morals or godly results. You get evil destructive influence without anything to ward them off and protect you and your family.
Atheists think they have a better way yet most of them live by biblical rules, not atheistic rules. There are no atheistic rules except to lie when they want, cheat when they want, and kill if they need to. Without the biblical rules, man would have no idea of what morals are.
They would not have any idea of what is right and wrong and Nineveh in Jonah’s time provides the evidence for that statement. You do not get a moral society from following immorality and subjective rules.
theologyarchaeology 