I have been debating a Pastor on twitter now for some time and I was getting nowhere. After lost of anger and frustration I asked him for his single best argument for god. I wanted the best he had to offer and the one thing that would convince me I was wrong. He sent me back the following which he admittedly pulled from another source. I've decided to attempt to answer it, but could use any help you all would be willing to supply. I figure if I show him his best arguments are flawed then he will have no reason to continue to bombard my email and twitter and I will have won a small victory. Well, here it is:



The purpose for sending you this email is to show you that believing in
a God is not a blind faith, but rather a logical faith. A faith in
which all the empirical facts back up the belief that God exists.  I
ENCOURAGE YOU TO BE OPEN MINDED WHILE READING THIS AND I'LL BE OPEN
MINDED WITH YOUR ARGUMENTS AS WELL. PLEASE READ THIS GATHERING ANY
QUESTIONS IN YOUR MIND SO THAT YOU CAN RESPOND. I WILL ANSWER EACH OF
THEM RATIONALLY.

This is a three part cumulative argument, starting with the weakest and
ending with the strongest. The first, although it doesn't prove that
God exists, shows how an atheist lives inconsistently with their
belief. The second lays down all the empirical facts and shows that the
best explanation for all of the facts is that God exists.  And the
third is the scientific argument which shows that even science points
to a God. Keep in mind that no presumption made can be proved as true
for CERTAIN. I'm simply showing you that the belief in a theistic
universe is the best explaination for the world's existence. The
scientific theories that I will use to back up the argument for the
existence of God have not yet been disproved and are all backed up with
strong evidence such as the Principle of Causality,  the Big Bang
Theory, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. IF YOUR PRESUMPTION THAT
"THERE IS NO THEISTIC UNIVERSE" IS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC THEORIES OTHER
THAN THE THEORIES JUST MENTIONED, PLEASE TELL ME AND EXPLAIN, BUT FIRST
READ THROUGH WHY I THINK THEY POINT TO GOD.

I) Psychological Argument For The Existence Of God.
Either God exists or He doesn't.  If God doesn't exist then there are
three things that are true.
    A) Life holds no ULTIMATE significance. Even if you argued that
there is significance in
   your life such as the enjoyment of doing anything you want, it
would not be the Ultimate significance because everyone who has lived
or will live in the future will eventually end up in the grave. Even if
reincarnation exists everyone will still die and become nothing because
the world is slowly deteriorating down to nothing itself.
   B) Life has no value. Everthing is permissible. There is no such
thing as right and wrong because there is no all knowing and all
powerful Creator to define what is good and what is bad. It becomes
society who tries to define it. What does that matter though if the
people making laws define right from wrong. They are just as human as
any other person in the world. The only thing that truly exists is
personal preference. What Hitler, Stalin, or any other mass murderer
did was not wrong at all. They simply had a different personal
preference than you do. The point is, you shouldn't tell anyone that
they are wrong or even right because they aren't either of those
things.  You can believe that its wrong, but you have no place to
ground it. People can do anything they want to do without getting
punished for their actions if the world lived consistently with the
belief that God doesn't exist.
   C) There is no purpose to life. Life has no ultimate goal. There is
no reason for living. Sacrifice for someone else's life would be stupid.

This argument shows that an atheist lives inconsistently with their own
belief.  If a murderer who believed murder to be ok, came into your
house to brutally murder you and your family, would you think that HE
is wrong to do that? If you said no, that he isn't doing any thing
wrong, then you would be living consistantly with your beliefs. But if
you said yes, then you would live as if there were objective morals.
But if there is no god to define objective morality then there is only
subjective morality. So by saying it is wrong makes it only your
opinion, but not the murderers opinion. You would be "pushing your
morality on him" which is the opposite of what you believe. You
probably believe that "it is wrong to push your morality on another
person." Even that statement right there is another objective moral
statement.  In other words you express your opinions, but don't always
live by them.

II) Probable argument.
Scientist say that if you have a group of facts out there, you should
have a paradigm that best explains these facts. Here are the facts that
everyone who's sane would agree on.
    A) Religious experience
    What ever culture you go into, people are incurably religious. In
every culture you see three things.
         1) Everyone, except the atheist, worships a being higher than
themselves.
         2) Everyone has a morality they cannot keep.
         3) Everyone is psychologically unsatisfied. People feel an
emptiness in themselves that they want to fill. If the material world
was the only thing that existed and if all your material needs were
met, you should be satesfied right? But how come people who have the
most wealth are usually the most unhappy. They constantly want more and
more.
         And how can you explain the millions of people in the world
who say they have felt the closeness of God in their lives? I
personally am included with them. I have felt God's presence in my life
on a consistent basis. Now how can you rationally explain that without
God's existence?
    B) Miracles.
    There are many people in the world who report seeing miracles. In
other words there are people who say that they saw a situation occur
where there is no naturalistic explanation for it. I personally know
people who have had miraculous situations occur, such as immediate
healings. You might argue that science will someday explain those
things, but right now you can't explain them. The best explaination is
God, because if God created the world then it wouldn't be hard to
believe that he can intervene supernaturally in this world.
    C) Morality
    How do you explain where guilt comes from? How do you explain why
all people in the world have this feeling called a conscience that
seems to tell them that something is wrong, such as murder. How come
people feel a heavy weight on their emotions called guilt when they do
something wrong, such as lie and steal, and the best thing to do to
take the weight off themselves is to tell the truth and/or ask for
forgiveness. If God doesn't exist, then how could you rationally
explain all that?
    D) Design
    First of all, explain the existence of the world. How can you have
something and not nothing? We see a world so complex that it looks like
someone designed it. It has an incredible amount of order to it. If you
walked on a beach and saw the words "I love you" written in the sand,
would you say, "Isn't it funny how the water by random chance formed
those words in the sand." No, you would think that some person wrote
those words themselves. If you took apart a computer and examined the
complex parts, would you say, "Isn't it funny how a building with
mechanical parts exploded and by random chance came together and
created this computer." no, you would think that an intelligent
designer spent his time to put the computer together. But how come you
see a world full of more complexity and order then every man made
structure put together and you assume that no intelligent designer
created it? A single strand of DNA has more information on it then the
whole Encyclopedia Britannica. You can't even explain it without God.
    Tell me, have you ever seen design and never a designer? You might
say that science will explain these questions in the future. Do you
think then that the belief in God's existence is stupid? I'm just being
what any truly rational person should be, looking at the facts and
choosing the best explanation for all those facts. That's how any
scientific hypotheses works. But you still don't want to believe in
God. You are simply not being a rational person with any of the facts
that we have.  You just don't want to believe it, not for intellectual
reasons, but because you just don't want do believe it period, with no
evidence on your side.

THESE THINGS ARE OUT THERE AND THEY NEED AN EXPLAINATION FOR HOW THEY
EXIST.  NO ONE CAN BE ABSOLUTLY CERTAIN OF HOW THESE THINGS CAME TO BE.
YOU CAN ONLY FIND THE BEST EXPLAINATION, WHICH IS WHY I BELEIVE IN A
THEISTIC UNIVERSE.

III) The Cosmological argument
    A) Principle of Causality:  Everything that comes to be needs a
cause. All science is built on the principle of causality. If it didn't
exist then we would have to remove the word "because" from our
language. How could we really talk without it?
    B) Since something cannot come from nothing, something has to be
eternal. It's either God or the World.
    C) In 1929 a man named Edward Hubble discovered that the redness
of the stars showed that the universe was constantly expanding
equilaterally in all directions. He said that the best explanation for
that is that there must have been a point in time, called the Big Bang
theory where the universe was nothing and then came to be.
    D) To further the evidence for the universe having a beginning,
there is the scientific law, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. It says
heat moves from hotter bodies to cooler bodies until there is an
equilibrium. In other words the universe is constantly winding down
until there is a heat death in our universe. That just goes to prove
that if the world was eternal then heat death would have already
occurred, but since it hasn't occured yet, the universe had to have a
beginning. You might say, "Maybe new heat is being put into the
universe. But the 1st law of Thermodynamics goes against it because it
says that there is no new energy being put into the universe. Since
everything that comes to be (the world) needs a cause, the best
explanation for this is God. Because there is only two explanations
that we see exist. 1. God, and 2. the World.  God is the best
explanation between the two.

PS. I borrowed alot of the material from Matthew D Combs who has years
of experience defending the faith. Please read through these which I'm
sure you've gone through most of these arguments many times.

Tags: Argument, Best, Theist

Views: 30

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

that being said, people like this are not worth debating with because they will never change your mind, and you will never change theirs.
Same old shit from the theists. I'm offended that this preacher actually thinks that atheists lack morals. First of all, morality doesn't come from god, or the bible, or else we'd still be stoning children to death for talking back to their parents. As far as meaning is concerned, god isn't needed to find meaning in one's life. It's a completely subjective experience. If you want meaning, go out and find it.

He also makes the statement "Everyone is psychologically unsatisfied." I'd like to see the proof for that claim. Besides, it's a logical fallacy known as "begging the question." The proposition it sets out to prove is assumed to be true in the premise.

He goes on further to say, " And how can you explain the millions of people in the world who say they have felt the closeness of God in their lives?" Classic "appeal to ignorance." Another logical fallacy.

I could tear every single argument apart, but I won't, for the sake of brevity. Complete and utter garbage. But what else would you expect from a theist?
As far as I can see there is absolutely no need to even debate the points as they are all underpinned by a false premise - that science is capable of testing supernatural claims.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the God your pastor refers to is a supernatural entity of some kind. Science depends on, at the very least, the assumption of methodological naturalism. Naturalism precludes the supernatural. Thus science can neither disprove or prove any supernatural deity.

Having said that, all of his claims are basically a rehash of the same old tired crap that has been circulating the apologetics community in the last few years. Thirty minutes on youtube could give you all the rebuttals you ever need.

RSS

  

Forum

Ken Hamm at it again

Started by Noel in Small Talk. Last reply by Erock68la 1 hour ago. 2 Replies

Disorders of Sex Development

Started by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp in Small Talk. Last reply by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp 2 hours ago. 7 Replies

It happened

Started by Belle Rose in Atheist Parenting. Last reply by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp 3 hours ago. 75 Replies

Living freely.

Started by Quincy Maxwell in Society. Last reply by Ed 5 hours ago. 22 Replies

Deepak's challenge

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Gregg R Thomas 5 hours ago. 25 Replies

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 5 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service