Atheists Just Don’t Get The Argument For Morality!

*Sigh*- yes, more religion stuff, but this really needs addressed. The “Argument For Morality” has been summed up in different ways, but I like William Lane Craig’s version of it:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values exist

3. Therefore, God exists.

Now, I personally find this argument to be very convicing. (1) is undoubtadly true in my opinion. An “objective moral value” is a “moral value” (e.g. the value that “Act X is wrong in situation Y”) that is true and correct and if anyone makes a counter claim, they are simply wrong. For example, if I say that toruring a child for fun is morally correct, I am wrong, or if I claim that preventing the Holocaust is morally wrong, I am speaking falsly.

However, in the absense of a moral law giver, there is simply no reason to believe that this is the case. Morality is really a socially evolved system that is beneficial yet, in the end, meaningless. Over time our species (i.e. homo sapiens) has come to believe that the killing of a child is an action that should simply not be done. Yet, if there is no objective moral law binding us, why should it not be done? Because it hurts people? So what? What is wrong with hurting people? You may say “It is just wrong, and thats that”- by by doing this, you are affirming that objective moral values DO in fact have existence.

However, while I personally find this argument convincing (I believe that objective moral values exist), I dislike using it against smart atheists. This is because they are willing to concede that morality is NOT objective. This is fine to do- you would be false in making that claim, but it has been made and very convincingly too- it usually involves coming up with an elaborate moral theory like utilitarianism for example.

STUPID atheists however (the kind of atheists you find angrily blogging on the internet who have never read a philosophy book in their lives) just don’t get this argument. THEY usually respond to this argument by saying:

“Well I know an atheist who rescued an orphan from a house fire! HE was good! If an atheist can be good, then God isn’t needed for morality! You fail!!!

*Sigh again*- If you happen to be an atheist reading this who has used this response in the past, let me tell you now:

YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT

We are not saying that “you must believe in God to be moral”.

We are saying that “objective morality wouldn’t EXIST if God didn’t exist”

If you use the objection above, this is the kind of logic you are subscribing to:

“Oxygen-ist: I believe in oxygen!

A-oxygen-ist: What? You retard! Prove that oxygen exists!

O: Okay, fine: Are you familiar with the argument from respiration?:

1. If oxygen doesn’t exist, people cannot respire

2. People respire

3. Therefore, oxygen exists

A: Thats a crap argument! Many people I know don’t believe in oxygen and they manage to respire just fine! Therefore your argument is wrong!”

See why I get frustrated with you guys

Kicking The Crap Outta “Atheism vs. Religion” Part 7

Chapter 7

Disproving Bryan’s Refutations Against Popular Christian Arguments.

This chapter basically proves that Bryan simply has no idea when it comes to the arguments for God’s existence. I will now demonstrate this:

1. Bryan’s treatment of the Cosmological Argument

Bryan objects to this argument for three reasons:

1. The Cause of the universe would have to be more complex than the universe itself.

2. The Cause of the Universe must itself have a cause.

3. The argument is merely a “god of the gaps” argument, positing a gap in our scientific knowledge and claiming “goddittit lol!”.

Now lets lay out the argument before we interact with Bryan’s criticisms of it:

(Premise 1)- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

(Premise 2)- The Universe began to exist.

(Conclusion)- Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Because this cause created all space and time, it must transcend space and time. It must therefore, be immaterial or timeless. Only two things in existence can possibly fulfill this criteria:

(a) abstract objects

(b) an unembodied mind

But (a) cannot be true, as part of what it means to be abstract is that the object cannot stand in causal relations. Therefore, (b) is true. The cause must also be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence. Because it is timeless, it cannot have been involved in a causal relationship from its existence, because causal relationships require time to be sustained. Therefore, if the cause was caused it couldn’t be timeless and thus could not be the source of time. Therefore the cause must be uncaused.

Now, in light of the argument, lets look at Bryan’s objections in turn:

1. The Cause of the universe would have to be more complex than the universe itself.

First of all, this isn’t even necesarrily true. Causes can be less complex than their effects. For example, an avalanche (a complex effect) can be caused by the simple movement of a few snow particles (a simple cause).

Secondly, why does this even matter? Who cares if the cause is more complex than the effect? Does it actually make any difference?

2. The Cause of the Universe must itself have a cause.

My question is “why?”. The argument states “everything WITH A BEGINNING has a cause” and I showed that the cause cannot have a beginning, therefore it cannot be caused.

3. The argument is merely a “god of the gaps” argument, positing a gap in our scientific knowledge and claiming “goddittit lol!”.

This is not true. The argument does not require any gaps in the scientific knowledge- it has little to do with science, other than offering scientific evidence to support premise 2. It identifys the logical requirement for the universe to have a cause and identifys the logical properties of the cause. These properties suffice to demonstrate that the cause is a god. No gaps there.

2. Bryan’s Treatment Of The Moral Argument.

Bryan finds the moral argument insulting- probably because he doesn’t understand it. He seems to think that the argument is “we have conciouncess, therefore God exists”. But thats not the argument at all- the argument is laid out below:

(Premise 1)- If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist

(Premise 2)- Objective moral values exist

(Conclusion)- Therefore God exists

Its hard to see which premise Bryan is attacking- he merely seems to make fun of the notion that a conciounce proves that God exists. But that isn;t the moral argument he is making fun of.

3. Bryan’s Treatment Of The Teleological Argument

Bryan seems to think that the teleological argument is as follows:

“This universe is so complex that it must have been created. Life as it is couldn’t have happened from Evolution.”

He then proceeds to make fun of the argument. The problem is, this ISN’T what most philosophers mean when they refer to a “teleological argument”. What Bryan gives us is the crudest, weakest form of the argument that could possibly be produced.

Firstly, the most popular forms of the argument are to do with PHYSICS not biology, specifically the fine tuning of the universe.

Secondly, even biological forms are far more complex than Bryan would have us believe and deal with complicated themes such as irreducibal complexity and the Design Inference, all concepts that Bryan has probably never even heard of.

In conclusion, Bryan’s treatments of the arguments are crap- end of.

Now, all I have to do is respond to Bryan’s replies. *Sigh*, more time wasted. I really need to take a break from all this arguing.

Kicking The Crap Outta “Atheism Vs. Religion” Part 6

Chapter Six

Religion Doesn’t REALLY Hinder Science
I’m starting to wonder if theres any point in continuing this series. Bryan’s book didn’t make QUITE the storm on bebo that I thought it would- indeed it doesn’t appear to have had many views since the last time I looked at it, a couple of weeks ago. Still, I said I’d do this, and I’ll go through with it. Just for the bant.

In chapter six, Bryan gives us his reasons why he feels religion hinders science. The first instance he cites is that of stem cell research. There are a couple of things he fails to tell us though-

1. The issue is the use of EMBRYONIC stem cell research i.e. harvesting human embryos for research purposes. Stem cells can be easily extracted from other cells that are not unique humans and much succes has been seen in this particular, non-controversial area.

2. The issue is not strictly a religious one- indeed some atheists are against this research. Religious people naturally align with them, because we see human life as God-given and precious. The point is, human embryos are

(a) unique human beings- they have a unique set of chromosomes

(b) display the seven signs of life

Scientifically speaking, they are living human beings. Now imagine I told you I wanted to kill living human beings to help cure diseases. You would be appalled.

But Bryan objects:

“you’re killing more cells when you scratch youre arm, should we make that illegal too?”

The difference is, Bryan, the cells in your arms are not, scientifically speaking, unique human beings. Just because these humans do not look like us and can not KNOW that they are dying, doesn’t make killing them okay. Besides, thats just stupid logic. If I killed you Bryan, I’d only be killing the amount of cells I kill after a lifetime of armscrathcing- should we place a limit on arm scratching as well as banning murder? When your logic leads you to permit yout own murder, you KNOW you need better logic.

Bryan then claims that Creationists want Creation taught in school instead of evolution- this is actually not true. The leading creastionist organisation Answers in Genesis has frequently mentioned that it does not want creationism to be forcibly taught in schools. Bryan’s criticism of creationists is just uninformed. “Inherit the Wind” is a film that is filled with historical innacuricies and its highly telling that Bryan learns currant events from Hollywood blockbusters.

He then goes onto claim that Christians are against the teaching of Globel Warming, once more with no evidence- all the Christians I know believe in global warming, and they all want to see something done about it, so I have no idea where Bryan gets his “knowledge from”.

And he talks of how evolution is not believed in- tell me this Bryan, since when has public non acceptence of a theory hindered the theory in academic circles? You write yourself that evolution is widely believed. Creationists do nothing to “hinder science”- they are entitled to their own views and I suggest you learn some tolerance. And what of those Christian scientists helping to further the discipline? Francis Collins? Dennis Alexander? Come on Bryan, even Sir Issac Newton was a Christian (even though he was a heretic) and there were far more Christian scientists out there.

As you can tell, I’m getting tired of this. Thankfully, theres one more chapter to go, and I can hopefully go back to blogging about something fun(ny). A girl I know in real life wants me to write another one in the same vein as “Some October At Me” cause she found it funny and it;d be nice to do so.

Anway, heres a message for all us bebo-debaters:

I made it at this mildy amusing site:

http://ruletheweb.co.uk/b3ta/bus/?s1=There+Probably+Is+a+God&s2=Now+Get+Off+Bebo&s3=And+Get+A+Girl+Friend

Go on, have some fun and see the word “penis” written on a bus! Until next time, goodbye!!

Kicking The Crap Outta “Atheism Vs. Religion” Part 5

Chapter 5

Some More About Atheism

Well, its been a while since I’ve posted on this topic, basically because I can never be assed to do so. Everytime I go on the laptop, I talk to friends, read stuff and I find myself debating atheists now on bebo’s “Atheism Rocks” band. This is actually THE most rational atheist page on bebo (the rest is New Atheist garbage) and I recently chimed into the discussion with the Kalaam Cosmological argument (i.e. the proper form of the argument I laid out in my “discovering God via logic” series). I’ve learned a lot more about the argument, having read critiques of it by actual philosophers, and reading a defense of it in Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig and Philosophical Foundations For The Christian Worldview by Craig and J.P. Moreland, so I wanted to get out there and debate it. So far, I think I’ve neatly countered every reaction against it, so much so that a couple of atheists over at Atheism Rocks are now trying to drum up a strange theory involving an anti-universe with the direct opposite laws of physics that somehow created our universe. It really is a ridiculous theory and I brought up serious concerns with it, none of which have been answered so far (one was answered, but very poorly. I pointed out why it was a poor answer and they admitted it was, but said the theory wasn’t fully drawn out yet. Strange, he seemed VERY sure of his answer when he first posted it.) It really shows what lengths atheists are willing to go to to avoid God, even coming up with dreafully incoherent pseudoscientific theories. So much for rationality.

And speaking of incoherency and ridiculousness, we must review Bryan’s chapter “About Atheism” which should really be ” a factless rant on religion and its dangers”.

He firstly makes the claim that atheists believe that there is no evidence for the supernatural. This is false, as Bryan’s “favourite atheist writer” Sam Harris, happens to believe in a spiritual realm- he just happens to have a huge stick up his ass when it comes to God and religion. Needless to say, there IS evidence, but Bryan clearly doesn’t understand it judging from his treatment of three theistic arguments in a later chapter.

He also claims that the theory of evolution is profound evidence for naturalism. For those that do not know, naturalism is the metaphysical view that there is nothing in existence beyond nature- everything can be reduced to scientific explanation. Bryan clearly doesn’t see the problems his view brings to morality, but the point is evolution, like any other scientific theory says nothing about the existence of supernatural things. How he sees at as evidence of naturalism is beyond me.

He then goes onto explain how atheists can be good without God.

I agree with him- sortof.

On my view, good and evil actually exist, therefore of course an atheist can be a relativly good person. But on Bryan’s view, there is simply nothing beyond nature. If this is so, what is “good” or “bad”? What do we mean to say that the Holocaust is morally wrong?  Surely there can be nothing called “good” or “evil” actually existing. Saying that “the holocaust is morally wrong” is merely a reflection on your feelings towards the topic. But so what? The Germans certainly had no problem with it. Why should we accept your opinion? I may not like the Holocaust, but I also hate peas- should we then ban peas? What IS murder anyway? Its merely stopping chemical reactions that give a certain arrangement of particles a feeling of “life”. In 70 years, this feeling will have gone anyway. In 100 years, everyone will be gone. Soon the entire universe will have gone out of existence. It literally doesn’t matter what we do to other people. There is no reason why we shouldn’t harm others. That may sound disgusting, but its true- morality is an illusion, and eveb atheistic philosophers will tell you that.

Bryan then tells of his perfect world without religion and this is just foolishness. Read for yourself:

“If we were all to abandon our myths, accept the truth, and become secular, imagine if the world was like that. Theyre would be cures for Leukemia, cancer, HIV, ect.”

What?! All our diseases would be suddenly cured because religion disapears?!

“People would value life more, no longer depending on an afterlife, the world would get treated with the reverence it deserves, which would help with Global Warming, discrimination on religious grounds would be nonexsistant.”

Oh come on. This is just…ugh, I don’t have a word for it. How could anyone actual believe this crap? There have only been a few secular countries in history- one has been the USSR. Hmm yes, that one went well- communist China? Tiaman Sqaure anyone? Atheistic countries are actually WORSE than countries that tolerate religion, in fact they have the WORST human rights record of all the countries in the world.

He then claims that Darwinaina Evolution has someone CURED the world and made it a better place!! HELLO! Ever heard of social darwinism? No? Well Hitler certainly had- the word “holocaust” mean anything to you? Bryan actually appears to believe that our world has become more peaceful thanks to evolution. Sure Bryan, just ignore those two massive world wars that had nothing to do with religion. Just ignore political complexities in wars in the past- its easier to simply blame it on the lack of a biological theory. Pathetic.

He then goes on about how atheists don’t have to be afriad of God. Well good on you. You now only have to face the fact that, in 70 years time, everything you’ve ever done will be forgotten, pointless,a waste of time. The universe doesn;t care about you, and soon everyone who ever did will have lost their existence. You, and me, are worthless, simply another pointles re-arrangement of particles if your beliefs are true. If I’m wrong, I will never find out- if you are, you WILL find out…and it won’t be fun when you do.

Kicking The Crap Outta “Atheism Vs. Religion”: Part 4

Chapter 4

Why There Just Might Be An All Loving God Looking Out For You

After two chapters of Christianity shattering and one of exposing the dangers of religion, Bryan takes a pot-shot at all theistic faiths when he attacks the concept of an All-Loving God existing alongside evil.

“The Problem Of Evil” exists in many forms, some of them quite persuasive, all of them emotionally appealing. We have all had our own “problems of evil” and we often struggle to believe that there is an all-good, all-loving force behind this universe who is watching over us. Yet “The Problem of Evil” is more than an emotional argument from outrage- rather it attempts to demonstrate that the existence of God is unlikely or impossible due to the very existence of the moral and natural evil that disrupts our happiness constantly. The least persuasive form of the argument, which is the form that Bryan uses, used to be the most persuasive, challenging believers over the ages to come up with inventive “theodicies” (theories that attempt to explain why God allows evil to exist) yet it is largely considered in the philosophical community to be dead and buried. This is the so called “logical problem of evil” which attempts to show that it is logically impossible that an all-loving God and evil can co-exist.

This appears to be the route that Bryan takes. He states “There isn’t an all loving God that wants you to be happy and protects you. There can’t be, and if he did, why would he create and allow such evil to happen in this world, never intervening on the sake of humanity?”.

Bryan clearly believes that there is a direct logical contradiction between the phrases:

1. An all-loving, all-good God exists.

2. Evil exists.

It should seem obvious to us that there are no EXPLICIT contradictions in the above statements. There must be some explanation as to why they contradict. If these explanations are not good, then there simply IS no logical contradiction between the two statements and Bryan will either have abandon his argument completely, or revert to a more compelling *evidential argument from evil* which seeks to demonstrate that the existence of an all-good, all-loving God is UNLIKELY (but not impossible)  given the existence of evil.

Bryan makes the assumptions that:

(a) God can create any possible world that he likes

(b) If he is all-loving and all-good he would prefer a world with no evil over a world with evil.

(c) God in the Bible has promised believers that he will “protect” them from all evil.

If all these statements are true, then it logically follows that God cannot co-exist with evil. If the first two statements are false, but the last one is true, it follows that the God of the Bible does not exist, as believers constantly encounter evil, either in their day to day lives or through persecution for their faith. However, if any of the first two statements are POTENTIALLY false, then there is still the chance that God can logically exist.

It must be stressed- even if I can only give unlikely reasons for the falsity of Bryan’s assumptions, it still shows that they are not necesarrily true and that it is not logically impossible for God to exist. It is a different matter entirely which reasons are likely or not as this will turn into an “evidential” argument…and that is not what Bryan is giving. All I have to do is show that its POSSIBLE that God can co-exist with evil.

Lets examine Bryan’s first assumption:

(God can create any possible world that He likes)

He assumes that since God is omnipotent, He can actualise a world in which everybody freely chooses to do the right thing and abstain from evil. Notice that people must “freely” do these actions, otherwise they are mere robots and a loving God would not allow us to be mere robots as that prevents us from being free creatures.

However, is Bryan correct in thinking this? I think not. Lets suppose for the sake of argument that liberterian free will (i.e. the ability to freely choose) exists. This means that God cannot cause humans to make certain choices, because if He caused the choice, it would cease to be a real choice. In other words, a forced choice doesn’t logically exist, because the two things are incompatibal like a square circle.

Here is where an adequate understanding of “omnipotence” comes in. Omnipotence (all power) merely means that God has the power to do anything logically possible. This means that even if God is omnipotent He cannot do the logically impossible, which includes forcing people to make free choices. Since we ARE free, God has no control over our choices and he cannot actualise a world where everyone chooses to do the right thing, as it is logically impossible. All he can do is refuse to actualise a world in which evil choices are made. But this would mean we wouldn’t exist, which is surely a bad thing?

It is thus possible that every actualisable world which contains free choices is a world with sin and evil. This mere possiblity shows that God and evil are not logically incompatibal.

This alone is enough to disprove Bryan’s overall conclusion, but it would be helpful to take it further and examine his second assumption to see if it is correct as well:

(b) If he is all-loving and all-good he would prefer a world with no evil over a world with evil.

Is this statement necesarrily true?

No, it is not. It is possible, as we know from our own experiences, to have morally sufficient reasons to permit suffering, for example disciplining a child so that they mature. In Bryan’s response to my rebuttal to chapter one he states:

“without suffering we couldn’t appreciate happiness”

It is possible that God allows us to suffer so that we build character, or for some other reason that only God knows of because of His omniscience.

It is possible that Bryan can re-group after these criticism and complain that whilst God and small-scale evil are compatibal, the huge extent of evil in this world is completely unjustifiable and many people don’t build character because of their suffering. But is it even impossible for God to co-exist with large-scale evil?

In answering this, we may look back to the “Free Will Defense” I offered for disbelieveing the first assumption. It is possible that God has in fact actualised the world with the least amount of evil. It is possible that if God created this world any differently, then MORE evil would exist or, if less evil existed, so too would less good. God, having “middle knowledge” (i.e. knowledge of the things that free creatures not only could but WOULD do in any given situation) has actualised the world with the greatest balance of good and evil.

Now Bryan and indeed some of you may be shaking your head now and saying that this is all very unlikely- but if you are, then you are missing the point. If you wish to make the claim that it is UNLIKELY that these situations apply by all means do so. But then that only proves that I have defeated the logical version of the argument- and that is all I set out to do. If you wish to use an evidential argument against God’s existence, by all means do so in your response and I will have a go at attacking that.

So we have demonstrated that it is logically possible that an all-loving and all-good God can co-exist from evil and so we have refuted the claim that suffering proves with certaintly that God is imaginary. However, what of Bryan;s final assumption which directly attacks the God of the Bible?

(c) God in the Bible has promised believers that he will “protect” them from all evil.

The answer to this one is simple- it is an unwarrented assumption. Bryan has not shown us any verses from Scripture that gives us this impression. I challenge Bryan to provide such a verse, but he must bear in mind the verses context- if his assumption is to be warrented, then the verse must clearly state that believers are absolutly exempt from suffering in any situation. If the verse does not do that, then it fails to justify his assumption.

So we have shown that all three of Bryan’s assumptions are at least possibly incorrect and so the non-existence of the Christian God cannot be deemed logically certian.

I would also like to point out that I have never encountered any argument about children surviving plane crashes as proof of God. You are definitly not representing the mainstream Christian thought on the logical problem of evil by presenting then refuting THAT crappy argument. Whatever Christian offered you that argument has clearly not thought the issues through.

He also makes the irrelevant claim that the Bible teaches you to stone a child from something as simple as talking back. This obviously seems barbaric, but it isn’t as barabaric as Bryan would have us think. Once more he fails to provide a citation, although I’m quite sure of what verse he is on about. I’ll wait till he quotes the verse before responding further.

Thanks for reading! Oh, and thank you Bryan for your responses! I will adress them after I am finished addressing your original book!

Goodbye!

Kicking The Crap Outta “Atheism Vs. Religion”: Part 3

Chapter 3

The Problem With Bryan’s Reasons For Thinking Faith A Problem

What a horrendous chapter name. Anyway, this is a response to the chapter in which Bryan criticises faith for more pratical reasons. Obviously after the combined attack of chapters one and two, Bryan thinks that he has levelled any chances of Christianity being true, therefore the falseness of Christianity is to be assumed in this chapter. However, as I have demonstrated, both the previous chapters offer no good reasons for us to assume this premise also. If Christianity is true, then the “faith” will solve THE biggest problem, i.e. that of an eternity without God.

The first *problem* that Bryan cites on behalf of Christianity is the widespread belief in Hell, although he does give a false account of it, claiming that it contains “a demon that torments you mercilessly for an infinate ammount of time”. There is no-where in Scripture that makes this claim. But that it besides the point. Is the teaching of Hell a *problem* with faith? I have a few things to say regarding this:

Firstly, if Hell is infact an actual location, then telling people about it is nothing but a GOOD thing. But Bryan clearly doesn’t believe that it exists. What then of people warning you about Hell if it in fact does not exist? I still think that the warnings are intrinsically good.

Lets imagine that Bryan has reason to believe that a hitman is after me. Now, in reality, there is no such hitman, but Bryan has a strong conviction that there is and so he warns me of it. Is Bryan’s warning a *problem*? Is it *bad* or *evil*? I think not.

The teaching of Hell may cause some problems- it might distress someone who believes that their family member is going there. It may scare children. These are not problem if Hell is real, but if it is not I will admit that these are problems. However, the teaching of Hell, even if it isn’t real, can do good. It can cause people to lead good moral lives and to abstain from acts that may cause much harm. Also, if someone believes in Hell, chances are they will believe that they themselves are not going there and that they are going to Heaven or a similar paradise. This cannot be a bad thing, because it gives a person hope and comfort in the knowledge that they will live forever and that some of their deceased relatives will also. Belief that someone else is going to Hell, while distressing, can also increase compassion for others and can lead Christians to “witness” to others via “Acts Of Random Kindness” or other life enhancing methods.

Bryan also seems to think that religion offering millions of people hope is a problem as well. Why he should hold this opinion is beyond me.

Once more Bryan goes on about young Earth/anti-evolution issues hindering science, yet I have demonstrated that these are not necessarily part of Christianity nor do they really hinder science all that much. Creationists tend to differentiate between two different kinds of science- “Origins science” and what they effectivly believe is “real science”. Life enhancing science is “real science” and Creationism is not sceptical of it. If creationists managed to completely destroy “Origins science” it wouldn’t effect our well-being at all.

He then talks of Muslim terrorists blowing themselves up. Fanaticism is a big problem, but anti-religious fanaticism exists also- just look at China or the Soviet Union. If Bryan can condemn the religious position because of fanaticism, then he must also damn his own viewpoint.

Christians also have their fanatics- Bryan cites the KKK and he even notes that they use scriptural support for their position. Sadly, Bryan doesn’t ask whether or not their theology is good. And I can personally attest, that having viewed their official website, it is most certainly not. Little does Bryan know, there is no more than 1,000 members of the KKK left in the entire world. He also forgets that the Civil Rights movement was headed by Martin Luther King Jnr, a Christian, and Malcome X, a Muslim and that the Abolitionist movement was headed by a Christian.

He then gives this quote:

“An excellent point Sam Harris makes in his book ‘The End of Faith’ is that people of diffrent faithes have animosity towards other people’s faith and therefor cannot respect it due to their belife that the other person’s faith will lead them to he11. It’s this exact thing that causes religous turmoils and conflict, among other factors.”

Allow me to modify his quote:

“People who are anti-religious like Bryan have animosity towards other people’s faith and therefore cannot respect it due to their belief that the other person’s faith will lead to 9/11 and the KKK. Its the exact same thing that caused the Cambodian massacre of religious people, the horrible persecution in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and other countires, among other factors”

Bryan further critisises Islam by criticising the law in Islamic countries. I’m not going to defend Islam however, because I don’t believe it, but we shouldn’t judge it solely by this one unjust law. We should instead look at other things that Islam may have done for good.

“In Africa, countless number of Africans are perishing cause the catholic church, lead by the pope, has been trying to bann the use of condoms, discouraging Africans to avoid their natural and innate desire to fornicate. This has caused lascivious Africans to transmit AIDS to one another and as a result of the ignorant endeavors of the catholic/christian church, thousands are dieing.”

No figures here, but if abstinance was practised there would be no problem. And as far as I know, the Catholic church hasn’t “banned” condoms in those countries, as if it has any political power there, they simply refuse to send the condoms in or provide funding for them. Before Bryan judges, may I ask- how many condoms has HE sent to Africa? the Catholic Church probably prefer alternative methods to prevent the spread of AIDS. Truthfully, I havn’t provided any, but Bryan has also failed to provide figures or evidence for his assertion, so we’re on equal ground as far as I can see.

Bryan then goes onto complain about the sexual abuse. I assume he’s referring to the priest/alter boys contraversy, but he also claims it happens in every religion to “thousands” of children. Such a claim is obviously ridiculous and irrelevant in any case, because religion itself didn’t cause this to happen. The only child molestation case I know of in my local area centred around a sweet shop owner. Is Bryan going to write a book next entitled “The Problem With Sweet Shops?”

He then claims that deranged Christians murder children to protect them from Hell. I’ve got three letters for him: “wtf”? When has this EVER happened? And I’m not talking about isoltated incidents- if it warrents the attention you’re given it, it better be widespread. “This thinking has been the inspiration for the murder of many young children”- he claims. What?!

He goes on to attack the Bible yet again without any citations: “In addition to all these massive problems we can credit religon with, the bible is also extreemly s3xist;”. He doesn’t tell us where the Bible is sexist except for these vague paraphrases:

“it goes so far as to say that women must keep their head down in church at all times. But wait, it get’s worse, the bible goes on to say that women are to be ’submissive’ to men and that men should allways be in full controll”

I know exactly what verses he is talking about, but unless he cites them, I cannot be sure. He fails to take into consideration the context of the verses (both historical/social and literary) and exagerates them completely. No where are men told to “always be in full control”- thats bull, pure and simple.

He then comes off with this little gem:

“Christians seem to suggest that eve was stupid and nieve for eating the fruit after god told her not to. Then they say that the only reason adam ate the fruit was because he was sacraficing himself to prevent seperation between him and eve.”

No, it is YOU who is reading Eve’s stupidty into the verse, not us. It is YOU who is being sexist here. I have never heard anyone make any such claim involving Adam and Eve. No Christian theologian today claims this. But then Bryan wouldn’t know this, as he admitted to me that hes never read a Christian philospher or theologian (in fact, he’d never heard of any of todays most famous ones).

Now, he goes on to extrapolate that these passages alone are the reason why women across history were denied certain rights. But this is merely sheer speculation on his part, an assertion without evidence. I can easily make the claim that women have no rights because people think that Evolution teaches that men are stronger creatures than women. I have no evidence, and its almost certainly not true, but I’m on exactly the same level as Bryan evidence wise.

He complains about the plight of women trying to become priests, yet this is confused reasoning. According to Bryan. religion is evil, therefore more priests can only be a bad thing. If there are no women priests, there will be less priests, therefore the exclusion of women can only be a good thing. I’m also unaware of any problems caused by this rule on a large scale. I’ve never heard of any plight of women to become priests. Bryan just sees a “men only” thing and assumes there to be a problem. I can easily claim that the existence of urinals has caused problems because women can’t use them even though they want to.

He then cites the “witch burnings” as a problem with medieval times, yet where is the evidence that these even occured? The only witch trials I am familiar with are the Salaam Witch Trials, and these occured long after the medieval period. Only 100 or so people died, and they were caused by human greed and NOT purely religious motives.

We can compare this irrational killing of people due to beliefs to Camodia on behalf of Pol Pot.

Witches were killed because of Christianity, as they were thought to be evil, even though they wern’t. 100 people died. Therefore, Christianity is evil.

Religious people were killed because of anti-religious ideas, as they were thought to be evil, even though they wern’t. Millions of people died. Therefore, anti-religious ideas are more evil than Christianity.

Yasee Bryan? The sword cuts both ways! And while Christianity has so much GOOD on its side (including, but not limited to, hospitals, charity, personal fulfillment, and believe it or not, the development of the scientific method) anti-religionism has done NO good whatsover.

He then drags up all the wars that were started in the name of religion. He cites the War in Iraq and the Second World War as religious wars, which is clearly screwy and is a claim that has no basis in reality. Also, Vox Day, the infamous Christian blogger has shown in his book “The Irrational Atheist” that only 123 wars in history were caused by religion. He got this information from the “Encyclopedia of Wars” by Charles Philips and Alan Axlerod. This is less than 7% of the wars in all of history. The damage is on a large scale, but not as large as Bryan would like is to think, and it certianly doesn’t trump the incalculable good that religion has done for society.

In closing, it must be noted that I needn’t have bothered with this chapter. Whether or not religious causes problems has nothing to do with its truth value. But I like this little thing called “truth” and so I will try to uphold it as much as possible.

I’ve written on this issue before, mainly in relation to a debate that was held in our school over the proposition “Religion Causes More Problems Than It Solves”. Before Bryan responds (which he said he would) I would ask him to read these two posts I link to:

http://xmasfish.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/the-mass-debate-wheydidnt-go-down/

http://xmasfish.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/review-the-mass-debate-im-sick-of-that-joke/

Thanks for reading and goodbye!

Kicking The Crap Outta “Atheism vs. Religion” Part 2

Chapter 2

“Strong Evidence For Evolution…But So What?”

In Chapter two, Bryan makes the case for Darwinian Evolution. In a book arguing for atheism over religion, this seems like a slight waste of time. Obviously implicite in this chapter is the notion that if Darwinian Evolution is true, this somehow refutes all religion. I’m sorry to say, but it doesn’t. Christianty is compatibal with Darwinian Evolution and is not the “alternative” to it.

It is true that Christians and atheists have claimed that Genesis is incompatibal with Evolution…but this is only if innerency is necessary for Christianity to be true. I have shown that this is not the case at all.

However, I am an innerentist, so I will not simply accept that Genesis got it wrong. I believe that it is historically accurate AND that Evolution is true. Many other people embrace this view also, including William Lane Craig.

But Bryan simply hasn’t given us any reason to think the two systems of thought are incompatibal. I was planning on demonstrating on how they are, but Bryan recently told me he would respond “in detail” to this series, so this post is more of a challenge than anything else to Bryan to show how Christianity is incompatibal with Evolution.

I’ll get back to the beating when I examine chapter 3. Until then, good-bye!

Kicking The Crap Outta Atheism Vs. Religion: Part 1

Chapter 1

“Why Bryan’s Reasons For Not Believing In God Are Crap And Why You Shouldn’t Trust Him”

It is interesting to note that while the chapter claims to give reasons why Bryan doesn’t believe in God, i.e. why he is an atheist, he merely sets out to explain why “it’s virtually impossible for the Christian God to exsist.” He doesn’t seem to realise that, having disproved YHWH the God of the Jews and Christians, he still has the possibility of a deistic, or even an Islamic God staring him in the face. It is also interesting how Bryan doesn’t interact with the classical arguments given for God’s existence. We see no mention of the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, or Argument from Morality. It is almost as if Bryan has never heard of these arguments…

The first criticism we get of the Christian God is a surprisingly week, emotional claim. “I was never happy as a Christian, therefore it’s not true!” would be a good summary for this opening attack. Such a complaint would be a good response to the so called “Prosperity Gospel” a heretical movement that spreads the lie that God wants us all to be happy and content in life, without any problems. Yet is this the Biblical God? A simple reading of the lives of the Bible’s greatest heroes will remedy this self-centred notion- look at the life of David, Elijah, Daniel, even Jesus himself. Where is the happiness in their lives? Now don’t get me wrong- I’m not saying that God is a miserable celestial being who wants us all to frown instead of smile and spend our days cutting ourselves to MCR records. He is obviously loving, and wants us to experience joy. The problem is, for the first 70 or so years of eternity, we will be living in the *real world*, a sin torn place where happiness is few and far between. We will have problems and we will have to deal with them, Christians and atheists alike.

Bryan cites Matthew 7:7 as supporting his “prosperity” understanding of the Gospel.

The verse is as follows:

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened up to you.”

The problem is, this verse is traditionally understood as referring to salvation. How Bryan thinks this verse means that God will grant our every wish like some kind of genie is beyond me.

This heretical and unbiblical understanding of Christianity led Bryan to doubt his faith

And research other worldviews including “Evolution” which he claims is “the alternative to the Bible” While I’m sure many Christians would agree with him (as I once did) it is simply false. It is possible to believe in Darwinian Evolution and the Bible. The viewpoint is known as “theistic evolution” or, as I prefer, “Evolutionary Creationism”. The view was popular when Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” was first published and remains an orthodox option for Christians today and is endorsed by scientists such as Francis Collins and Dennis Alexander, and theologians like Van Till. I plan on writing an exposition of Evolutionary Creationism as a semi-rebuttal to the chapter in which Bryan presents evidence for Darwinian Evolution.

Bryan also appears to be narrow minded, as he appears to have never sought out the Christian side on the argument. He admitted to me when we argued over Bebo that he has never read a book by a Christian philosopher or theologian.

Bryan also appears to have the false notion that if he defeats biblical inerrancy, then he has defeated Christianity. He claims that “contradictions…prove that there’s no way some omniscient God did write [The Bible]”. Apparently “An all-knowing God definatly didn’t write the Bible, if he did why are there so many passages in the Bible that conflict with others?” Furthermore “The Bible is littered with contradictions that prove God could not have written it, showing an all-knowing God the Bible claims is all-knowing actually isn’t. “

One question though: how does Bryan know that an omniscient God would necessarily want his Word to be completely error free? Now, I am an innerrantist (meaning I believe that the Bible is without error) because I think that it is more plausible that an omniscient God would write the Bible without error. However, I don’t think that God mechanically wrote the Bible through a possessed author. It is certainly logically possible that people saw a vision from God then wrote it down themselves and that is what is meant when the Bible claims it is “God breathed”. Just because we find an error in the Bible doesn’t make the Christian God non-existent: Having said that I have never seen a contradiction or error in the Bible, even though Bryan tries hard to present one.

Bryan also recommends “The End Of Faith” by Sam Harris- I would recommend this detailed rebuttal to “The End Of Faith” as written by “Nick Phoenix” (not real surname) a Christian apologists who operates a blog, and moderated TheologyWeb:

http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2008/09/page/3/

The review begins on this page, but you will have to click “newer entries” at the bottom to continue reading.

Bryan then goes on to make a big fuss over the fact that the Universe cannot be 6,000 years old. What Bryan doesn’t realise is that these young Earth views are not in any way central to Christianity- one can be a Christian and not be a young earth creationist. Indeed, while many Christians criticise Darwinian Evolution, most of them believe in the commonly accepted age of the Earth and Universe. The controversial 6,000 figure rests on two premises:

1. That the Creation Narrative in Genesis describes 6 literal 24-hour days
2. The genealogies in Genesis are complete

I think that (1) can be shown false, although I will deal with that in the chapter on Evolutionary Creationism. But (2) is almost certainly false. The ancient Hebrews were well known for leaving out huge gaps in their genealogies. Therefore, we have no good reason to accept that the Bible teaches a 6,000 year old Earth.

Bryan further betrays his ignorance of modern Christian thought with this little quote: “Mathematically, mathematicians have proven that the Big Bang is proveable, that the universe doesn’t need a creator to exsist”

What Bryan doesn’t realise is that The Big Bang theory has been disputed more by atheists than Christians. This is because of the scientific support it lends to the idea that the Universe began to exist, which supports Cosmological arguments for God’s existence. Previously the Universe was perceived as eternal, but now we have a beginning point. But if the Universe began, surely something must have caused its existence? After all, things just don’t pop into existence out of nothing. I would like to refer Bryan to my blog series “Discovering Blog Via Logic” which explains this argument in more detail:

http://xmasfish.wordpress.com/category/discovering-god-via-logic-series/

Bryan then complains that the Old Testament God is “a vindictive, totalitariast, prejudiced, murderous God that should not to be worshipped, but feared.” However, he lends no Scriptural proof to this common misconception until later, so until I get there all I have to say is “no He isn’t”. He goes on about religion and fear with the ridiculous notion that teaching Hell to children is “child abuse”. Firstly, no it isn’t. I was taught about Hell from a young age and I can tell you that I suffer no mental or physical defects at all. Try telling a young child instead that when he dies nothing happens- he is gone, all of his efforts wasted. Tell him that what he does ultimately has no significance as the Universe will eventually cease to exist. That’s more loving, eh?

Anyway, this argument proves nothing about God’s existence at all, except for the brief claim that “God’s plan must be to coerce people by invalid threats into accepting him.”

Hmm no. Maybe we deserve eternal punishment, not for rejecting God, but because we actually sin an awful lot? “But I only sin sometimes! Why eternal punishment?” I hear people cry. Well, if you go to Hell, you will still be conscious and you will continue sinning for eternity, thereby justifying your eternal punishment. I say this with the thought that I too deserve this fate in mind, so don’t think I’m turning Fred Phelps on you.

Other theories of Hell shed interesting light on this topic- for instance, many have argued that contextually, the Bible portrays Hell as, not a place of fire and torture, but as a place of eternal shame. This makes Bryan’s objection all the more silly if true:

“How can a loving God allow me to feel shame for all the wrong things I’ve done, even though he died horrendously to prevent me from feeling this shame?”

For the record, I don’t subscribe to any particular view of Hell- all I know is that I don’t want to be there! But the “shame model” looks attractive and here is an exposition of it by Glenn Miller, a Christian apologist who operates the “Christian think-tank”

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part2.html

“Speaking of biblical contradictions, the Bible mentions jealousy, anger, hurting people, all as sins, yet in the Bible God has a proclivity to commit all these things. So much for the message of the Bible being a unified, consistent message”

Another quote from Bryan without scriptural support but I will give one example of how sceptics often cry “contradiction” this way.

Exodus 20:5 does indeed describe God as jealous…but is this the same “jealously” as is described as sinful? I will now quote from JP Holding who is talking about this very passage:

“The word for “jealousy” in this form is used less than half a dozen times in the OT, and always is used to describe God. Nowhere is this word described as a sin. A related word is used to describe a husband who worries that his wife is walking out on him (Numbers 5). Sarna (Exodus commentary, 110) notes that the root of the word means “to become intensely red” and that it can refer to ardor, zeal, rage, or jealosuly. Paul knows of a godly jealousy (2 Cor. 11:2), so is this a sin as we understand it? Jealousy is part of God’s nature because it is demanded by who He is — He is the only being who can indeed say He has a right to be jealous, since He is the only one who truly deserves utter respect and devotion. Malina in The New Testament World [126-7] adds that in the context of an honor-based world, jealousy was “a form of protectiveness that would ward off the envious and their machinations.” It is a behavior that an honorable person is expected to “exhibit towards that which he or she is perceived to possess exclusive access.” Thus for God to be jealous here is not a vice in context, but a supreme virtue and demonstration of His concern for Israel. (For more, see here.) [Off Site]”

Bryan then goes on to critique the story of Noah raising three objections:

1. Noah was too old to build the ark
2. Two of every animal could not fit on the Ark
3. Noah’s Ark couldn’t survive the sea, because it was made of wood

However, these objections are not good ones for various reasons:

1. We are never told in Genesis that Noah built this Ark himself. If we are, it would be helpful if Bryan cited the passage
2. This objection is true if the flood was global. However, it is plausible that the Flood was, in fact, a Local Flood. This “Local Flood” theory is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word for “Earth” in the account is “eretz” which is more often than not translated as “land” in the local, non-global sense.
3. Actually, wooden ships can sail. Just look at the ancient world for flip sake.

Bryan ridicules the Virgin Birth as scientifically impossible, however he doesn’t seem to be familiar with the concept of a “miracle”. Does he really think that the ancients weren’t smart enough to realise that men are required for a child to be conceived? Even Mary herself appeals to her virginity when told by the angel that she will give birth. She is shocked and surprised because it is not a natural event.

A good definition of a “miracle” can be summarised as follows: “An event which cannot occur due to the natural causes present”. This means that miracles require SUPERNATUAL causes- i.e. if God exists, the Virgin Birth is more than a possibility.

Bryan then goes back to criticising the morality of YHWH by appealing to those obscure O.T. Laws. His objections fail even before we consider the passage for two reasons.

Firstly, this argument is nothing more an “argument from outrage”- “I don’t agree with this, therefore it is wrong!” It doesn’t prove anything about God, other than that Bryan doesn’t like the way He operates.

Secondly, if atheism is true, we have no basis for calling an action “good” or “bad” beyond personal opinion. But if that is true, then who cares what Bryan thinks about God- arguing over whether or not God is “good” or “bad” is just as pointless as arguing over whether Coke or Pepsi tastes better.

However, we can “rationalise” this passage, which is as follows:

“Deuteronomy:21-10:14:”Suppose you go out to war against your enemies and the Lord your God hands them over to you, and you take some of them as captives. And suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her and want to marry her. If this happens, you may take her to your home, where she must shave her head, cut her nails, and change the clothes she was wearing when she was captured. She will stay in your home, but let her mourn for her father and mother for a full month. Then you may marry her, and you will be her husband and she will be your wife. But if you marry her and she does not please you, you must let her go free. You may not sell her or treat her as a slave, for you have humiliated her.”

Bryan objects that not only is the woman married against her will, but she is separated from her husband. However, if she is a captive, then her husband is more than likely dead, so that objection fails. Secondly, he fails to appreciate what marriage actually WAS back then. It was necessary for the woman to survive and continue her lineage. Unless someone married that woman, she would have nothing else to do. This is not the modern times we are talking about- this is the ancient near east where society was constantly on the brink of anarchy and people have certain roles to fulfil. That the woman was needed to bring up the children while the man provided for the family wasn’t sexist- it was logical and necessary. If that law was for today we may be repulsed by it- but its not. It was for ancient Israel only.

Nevertheless, his argument here is summed up in the last sentence of the paragraph:

“I can’t approve of such a being”

In the end it’s all down to his opinion.

The chapter ends with Brian recommending certain books such as “The God Delusion”. I may as well end this chapter by making it known that I plan on reading and reviewing the God Delusion too in the future…probably during the summer holidays when I have more time.

In the end, Bryan has given us no good reason to suppose that the Christian God, or indeed any God, does not exist. Thanks for reading!

Bebo Controvesy Leads To New Series

Ok, I’ll admit to this. I’ve spent my time recently debating atheists over Bebo…one such atheist is “Bryan” who has written a book entitled “Atheism vs. Religion” that is gaining prominence on the bebo religious “scene”. He is promoting it on atheist sites and has been given space to post chapters of it on “Creation vs. Evolution” which not only betrays the supposidly “objective ideals” of the site, but also fools people into thinking that its a good refutation of Christianity because its featured on an otherwise rational page.

So what am I going to do about this? Well, I plan on writing a series directly rebutting every point he makes and showing how in the “fight” he is presenting, religion clearly wins. Then I’ll link to the rebuttle on the page where the book is featured. Hopefully people will read it and see Christianty as a rational option worth pondering at least. The series will be hosted on my blog primarily, but I’m thinking of making a bebo-book out of it too.

Anway, the series will be rather violently entitled “Kicking The Crap Out Of “Atheism Vs. Religion”"

Its coming soon!

P.S. Atheism vs. Religion by “Bryan” can be found here:

http://www.bebo.com/atheismvsreligion

You MAY need bebo to view this page.

I’ve already had some impact. One of his chapters used to be called “Psycological Evidence Against God” until I pointed out that it didn’t actually provide any evidence to do with psycology at all and was really just “The Problem of Evil” all over again. The chapter is now called “Why there isn’t an all-powerful God looking out for you”.

A-Level Philsophy vs. My Argument For God

Some history behind this post: “my argument for God” is a misleading title, because:

(a) It implies that I invented it: I didn’t- I stole it from William Lane Craig who developed it from a muslim scholar named Al Ghazili who lived in the Medieval period.

(b) It implies there is only one argument for God’s existence- theres far more. There’s at least 4 more that I find convinving and about two dozen more that I’ve never really investigated. Theres a couple that arn’t convincing. And thats just arguments for a being named “God”- theres better evidence in my opinion that verifys Christianity in particular.

The “a level” part comes from the fact that today I discovered an a-level philosophy of religion textbook in the library while I was asking the camp librarian something. Its written by the usual no-names that write textbooks, so theres no point in listing authors. I had a wee read through it, in particular where it addresses the Kalaam Cosmological Argument which is what my “Discovering God Via Logic” series was based on. You can find part one of that series here: http://xmasfish.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/discovering-god-via-logic-part-1/

You can find the rest of it yourself, you lazy ****

Anyway, the authors of the book don’t appear to find the arguments for God convincing, but they are obviously trying to be objective as possible so they never come right out and say it. But if they DON’T find the arguments any good, and the objections they present in the book are the reasons why, then I think they are wrong to take the opinion they do.

The first objection brought against the argument is that they claim that propnents of the argument are “inconsistant”. We apparently appeal to the impossibility of the infinite as evidence that the Universe began to exist and that there cannot be an infinite amount of finite causes, yet we affirm that God Himself is infinite.

This objection fails for two reasons:

1. Even if it could be demonstrated that actual infinites can exist, it doesn’t destroy the argument entirely. The impossiblity of the infinite is only ONE argument for the fact that “The Universe began to exist”- there are three more arguments:

(a) That an actual infinite cannot be formed by addition. In other words, maybe infinity can exist, but we can never reach it by adding one thing to another. If the Universe has always existed, then there has been an infinite amount of events, but we would have to reach infinity by adding each event up. This is impossible, therefore the Universe cannot have existed for ever.

(b) Big Bang Cosmology basically scientifically proves that the Universe began to exist and whether or not infinite can exist doesn’t matter

(c) Again, entropy scientifically shows how the Universe must have a beginning and infinite doesn’t even come into the equation.

2. The “actual infinites cannot exist” argument only applies to physical things. God is not a physical thing. Therefore, its not inconsistant at all to think that actual infinites cannot exist, but God is infinite. The textbook only breifly offers this response vaguely with the phrase “Supporters of the argument point out that God is unique and the laws of nature do not apply to God”

The next objection comes from two of the greatest atheistic philosophers in history, David Hume and Betrand Russell.

Hume asks the question: “How can anything that exists from eternity have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time and in a beginning of existence?”

We can forgive Hume for thinking this way because he wrote it in the year 1779, but modern science has shown that he is simply wrong. The Universe hasn’t existed for eternity. It clearly had a beginning.

Hume also claims that even if the Universe did begin to exist that it needn’t have a cause. He claimed that just because humans have mothers, the Universe needn’t. This is an astounding admission and it greatly confirms my faith in God. The greatest atheistic philosophers response to the argument is basically that the Universe popped into existence from nothing. But surely its impossible for something to come from nothing: “out of nothing, nothing comes”. Hume seems to see the Universe as something different from physical objects, but this difference is simply arbitrary. What makes the Universe different from any physical object? Especially if you believe, as Hume does, that the Universe completely physical.

Russell has a similar response “the universe is just there and thats all”, again denying that the Universe began to exist. Yet science directly contradicts this statement that Hume made in and around the 40s. This was the time when the Steady State Theory was around, so Russell be forgiven for thinking this, but hes still wrong.

The book actually offers the Steady State theory as a possible objection to the argument. For those that didn’t do GCSE physics, this is the theory that the Universe has existed forever…its actually more complex that this, but the point is, as the book rightly says “The Steady State Theory has generally been rejected in favour of the Big Bang theory”. Actually “generally” is too mild a word. “Completely” would be more accurate.

The book then mentions that Quentin Smith, who was talked about in part 4 of my series “uses Quantum physics to demonstrate the possiblity of things existing without a direct cause”. A couple of things must be said in addressing this point:

1. This quote seems to refer to Smith’s idea that the Universe popped into existence out of nothing. However, in his last debate with William Lane Craig, which is linked to in my series, he appears to have completey revised his views, instead adopting the queer notion that the Universe actually caused itself. Smith is scheduled to debate Craig this year in 2009, so we’ll have to wait and see to find out what he believes now.

2. It refers to certain complex events within’ Quantum Mechanics, were particles are observed comming in and out of existence in the so called “Quantum vacuum”. This is complex stuff, but there are two popular interpretations of this observation. The most popular is called the “Copenhagen interpretation” which states that the particles are “uncaused”. However, the other interpretation is just as sound mathematically and scientifically and it states that there is a cause…we just don’t know what it is yet. To be fair to Smith though, we will imagine that the Copenhagen interpretation is true.

3. Well, the first thing to state would be that this could not apply to the existence of the Universe. Some physicists in the past have tried to claim that this effect brought about the Universe, and atheists are fond of this theory, but its wrong. I participate from time to time on a debating board called www.theologyweb.org under and I contacted a user known as “Shadowmaster” who is in reality a well regarded Quantum scientist about an atheists claim that Quantum events caused the universe. He said:

“Your adversary is full of smelly stuff. Atheists would like to believe that “quantum fluctuations” can explain the origin of the universe, but they do not. In fact, one must have a universe to begin with in order for there to be quantum fluctuations.”

So these Quantume events, while interesting, tell us nothing about the origen of the Universe.

4. Lastely, these events are not a case of something “popping into existence out of nothing”- the particles are formed because of the “Quantum vacuum”…which is a huge sea of fluctuating energy. The particles couldn’t exist without this energy. So they do not come from “nothing” at all.

The final objections comes under the heading of conclusion and is another thought from Hume who claims that even if there was a First Cause of this Universe, it could be a material cause rather than God. This objection fails however, because the First Cause having created all time cannot be itself made up of time. Material requires time to exist, so the cause cannot be material.

The chapter then ends for some reason by a view of a man named “Brian Davies” who claims that the Cosmological argument is a good argument, but it does not demonstrate that a god exists. I beg to differ. In the final part of my “Discovering God” series, I unraveleld some of the necesarry attributes of Cause No. 1 and we found that it couldn’t be any other being BUT a god.

So there you go…the Cosmological Argument survives the best attacks an A-level philsophy textbook can throw at it. God exists. Bye!