Sunday, August 7, 2011

Tim, The Christian's Reply: Did Andrew The Atheist Admit That The World Was Created?

I am quite astounded by your response to my assertion that the atheist cannot explain the origins of the world because instead of addressing the argument you choose instead to insult me. I make no apology for the argument because it is obviously a valid one. You say that you need scientific proof to believe in something, yet I give you an argument from science, and you criticize me for making it.  Christians are often criticized for not being open minded.  In this case, I do not think you are being open minded.  I provide a legitimate argument and you dismiss it without seriously dealing with it.

I think at the outset, it is helpful to clarify what I am actually arguing and the purpose of the argument.  All I am arguing is that it is more rational to believe that there is a Creator. I believe I provided evidence of such.  I am NOT saying that because the atheist cannot disprove the existence of God then there must be a God; thus, I am NOT making an argument from ignorance. I am making this argument because (a) you have said that the only truth you are willing to accept is so-called scientific truth; and (b) despite extensive reading on the subject, I have never heard a legitimate rebuttal from an atheist.  Also, it is important to note that this has nothing to do with evolution.  I believe that the two are not incompatible, that is, it is rational to believe that the world is created and still believe that evolution occurred after the creation.

1. You are right that this is a common argument for the existence of God.  This is because Christians simply cannot comprehend the atheist's position because it is so inconceivable to believe that a world as complex as ours came from chance.  A child looks at Monet and he does not think that Monet just happened to appear on the canvas in a random display of color; the world is much more complex than a Monet painting, yet the atheist would have us believe that the world is simply good luck.  Yet, you try to say that my argument is not rational.  It is more rational to believe that a "Higher Power" created the world.

2.  Although you are trying to mock the argument by using Thor as an example, by admitting that it may have been Thor who created the world, you are admitting that the world was created by a "Higher Power.  This is not a comparative religion blog. I thought the purpose of this blog was for us each to present arguments concerning the existence of God.  Once you accept that a Higher Power exists, I will happily provide you with arguments as to why I think the Christian God is the right one, but that is a completely different argument.

3.  I am not sure what type of argument you are looking for. I am not sure that you will legitimately accept any argument.  I will happily provide you with why I personally believe in God, but I feel like you will completely discount my personal beliefs as opinion so I am not sure that is helpful.  To a large extent you are correct in that I do not believe in God based on the argument that God created the world. On the other hand, when I see a beautiful sunset, millions of stars, or the beauty of the world under the ocean, it strengthens my belief in God. We Christians believe that, "the heavens declare the glory of God."

In conclusion, it seems to me that you have admitted that the world is created.  If not, then provide me with an argument for why it is more rational to believe that the world occurred by chance than that the world created.  Finally, please clarify that you really do want me to share my personal beliefs, and if so to what end?


  1. Tim, I appreciate how you are pushing back here. I would only correct your statements about it being "not by chance" to "not by chance alone". You do say elsewhere that evolution can fit within a Christian view, to which I agree. I have been frustrated in the past by Christians who accept chance in quantum physics, but not in evolution. However, I am also likewise frustrated that atheists cannot see that the intricacies of the universe exceed the capacity of chance.

  2. Wouldn't clarifying the purpose (and each of your expectations) of the blog have been something that should have been sorted out, oh, say BEFORE ya'll started the blog. I'm interested in hearing each position however, if it becomes a gripe-fest that each is not playing by the self-created (and not discussed with the other writer) rules of the blog then this reader is out!

  3. Tim, this IS an argument from ignorance, no matter how much you would like it not to be. I'll re-state, using your phrasing for better clarity: If I cannot show that the universe has NOT been created, it is rational to believe the universe HAS been created. That is your argument. That is the argument from ignorance. That's why there is no need for me to address the premises of the argument. It is based on bad logic. It is bad thinking. Even IF the premises are ALL CORRECT, the conclusion is flawed because the logic is flawed. You cannot make a sound argument using invalid logic.

    I'm not insulting you. At least, I don't mean to do so. Yes, I was disappointed we turned so quickly to standard apologetics, but I think I'm over it now. I did a blog on this once. It may seem thatI dismiss your argument out-of-hand, but the fact is that I have heard this argument SOOO many times already, that it's rebuttal is elementary. I've done this before, you see. I've had this conversation dozens of times. If a criticism of atheism is that we repeat the same thing over and over again, it's because we encounter the same arguments from believers, over and over again. The arguments don't change; neither do ther rebuttals.

    This is why I opened with how much you know about apologetics. This argument AND its rebuttal are Apologetics 101.

    But thank you for stating that this argument is only convincing to those who are already convinced. That is my primary objection to apologetics: NO ONE believes because of them.

    So I'd like to know what you, Tim, DO find convincing about your beliefs. Not what you DON'T find convincing, but what HAS convinced you that god exists. Don't worry about convincing me. Just state your case. YOUR CASE. Not someone else's case.

    Finally, I want to say that if you WANT to continue down the path of apologetics, you may. I'm over it. I'll have the conversation with you, too. It seems some people in the peanut gallery have not heard them before, so I'm willing to go through them again with you. I apologize for not allowing such a discussion in the first place. I'll pay my dues.

  4. Mel M: You give Tim and I WAAAAAY too much credit. This blog was created out of a post I made at Empire Avenue that turned into a blog on my page. Tim suggested it; I agreed. That was it. We never really discussed what we wanted to do with it or how we wanted it to unfold. Perhaps we should have. I think we were both very excited to do this, and just didn't think it through.

    However, if you think we are NOT going to be engaged in a gripe-fest, you've never seen one of these debates before. Surely you've seen the posts from the troll. That is what happens when you debate religion.