Response to: "Existence of the God of the Bible"

Introduction

I hate to give away the punchline,
but it's something like this.

This is a response post to "Existence of the God of the Bible". I'll be discussing the original author's points one-by-one.  Usually, I'll quote the text of the original article first, then follow it up with commentary on the quality (or lack thereof) of the presented evidence.  Once in a while, I'll interject with [square brackets, bold, and italics].

Here it goes...

Existence of The God of the Bible

This is only an introduction to the main arguments for God’s existence.  Obviously, much more can and has been written.  First, the question of evidence for God’s existence is not a matter of some evidence being for God’s existence and some being against.  It is whether or not the existence of God explains all of the evidence better than the alternative (that, is, that there is no Being higher than us).

If that's the test for existence, you're already tilting the playing field  strongly in theist's favor.  You've eliminated a huge array of potential gods and lowered the burden of proof to just "better explanation than no god".  Imagine if we applied that same low threshold to a murder trial. "The defendant is guilty if it seems more likely that he did it than didn't do it."

Second, we say that one’s own understanding of the concept of God is one strong piece of evidence.  This is something which most people have no problem understanding even though most people also have a natural tendency to want to reject God (as I once did and all of us actually do by nature).  This tendency shows that belief in God is not a matter of wishful thinking.

I accept that the concept of "God" exists.  That doesn't mean that the actual thing envisioned in the concept exists.  I have a concept of Zeus and Poseidon and Ra and Harry Potter.  Yet no reasonable person would suggest that my "own understanding of the concept of Harry Potter is one strong piece of evidence" for Harry Potter existing, would you?! This tendency does not even remotely show that "belief in God is not a matter of wishful thinking." And I don't even follow the "logic" which would imply to the author that it does.

Third, there is the fact that you or anything else exists, since, as a contingent being, your existence must ultimately have come from some Necessary Being.  

Huh? Is this a feeble attempt at the first cause argument? There are a great many well known problems with it which are commonly taught in Freshman level philosophy.

Fourth, there is the amazing intricacy and capabilities of even simple forms of life.  For example, a common house-fly is a far more advanced flying machine than anything we have been able to design.  To say that the emergence of such life did not require design, but only mindless natural forces operating over a vast period of time violates the principle of Occam’s Razor, which says that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.  The naturalistic explanation can only be surmised, never observed.

False. Evolution is a well established, relatively simple scientific theory that has vast  explanatory powers for complex life. It describes how complex organisms form over time by a process of random mutations and natural selection. The fact that the author thinks evolution is too complicated does not invalidate an entire field of modern science. Evolution is so simple and effective that it is even used in engineering (genetic design algorithms).

But we constantly observe how the application of intelligence on matter produces complex items.  Indeed, in the absence of efforts guided by intelligent purpose, the natural tendency of matter is to go from order to disorder (as anyone who never cleans their house will easily recognize!).

This is tap-dancing near the second law of thermodynamics, which even Answers in Genesis lists in its "arguments to avoid" section.  Simply put, the tendency of matter towards disorder only applies to closed systems. Since the sun provides energy to the Earth, we are NOT in a closed system, and the second law of thermodynamics does not apply.

Fifth, the dominant belief today that the universe ultimately consists only of mindless matter/energy in time cannot explain the existence of us as people and any of our knowledge, experience or values (including all ethics). 

Why not?  It's clear that consciousness is a gradient -- from the simple consciousness of a fruit fly to mice, dolphins, gorillas, and humans.  Knowledge resides in our brains, as every neuroscientist will tell you.  Our brains are made of "mindless matter/energy".  Your computer has "mindless energy" too yet it can appear to think.

Sixth, ethics can only be arbitrary unless there is a Higher Standard.  The only reason good and evil are not arbitrary is because goodness is God’s Nature as The Perfect Being.  Anything which contradicts or opposes this is evil.  (I would add that the only reason God can truly be self-sufficient as a Person is because He is relational within His ow/n Being as multi-Personal.  This shows the superiority of Christian Monotheism.)

This is such a mess.

• First, it's not an argument for the existence of a god, but simply an insult to your opponent:  those of us who don't believe a god exists.  It's the age old "where do you get your morals if not from god?" taunt. 
• Second, it shows a juvenile view of right and wrong. "Anything against my god is evil". And I suppose you're going to tell us what you think your god wants. And Islam will tell us what their god wants. And they're not the same. And that's where holy wars come from.

To assert that an ultimate "Higher Standard" determines right from wrong sets aside nuances of specific situations and the limitations of an individual's knowledge / information which all bear on the "arbitrary" judgement of right from wrong.  And of course, each individual's values determine how that person will select the best among multiple good things or the least bad among multiple bad things

Even if one were to claim that all of our experience as human beings is only an illusion, this still wouldn’t eliminate the fact that we still exist as real subjects of the illusion!  And, taken to its logical conclusion, the anti-Theistic alternative absurdly posits an empty universe of objects with no knowing subjects.  In other words, your existence as a human person disproves the Materialism/Empiricism of Atheism.  For example, unless we existed as more than physical chemistry, a person looking at their own brain chemistry could only be described as chemistry somehow viewing itself!  This is the “reductio ad absurdum” of Materialism (also known as Naturalism, which is supported by the equally-flawed epistemology of Empiricism).

This seems to be a straw-man (solipsism isn't atheism) followed by who knows what "empty universe of objects with no knowing subjects" is supposed to mean.  So no, my existence as a human person does NOT disprove Materialism, Empiricism, or Atheism.   Note also that materialism and empiricism are not atheism. Each one is a  unique concept. As an electrical engineer, I see no problem or issue whatsoever with your "chemistry viewing itself" attempt at "reducto ad absurdum". It works just fine and in no way challenges materialism, naturalism, or empiricism.

Downhill Slope

As you'll see, the last couple paragraphs of the blog entry are basically insults to non-believers and preaching. It's crash and burn for this guy.

All of these things point to the necessary existence of The Creator God described in the Bible.  They are not necessary proofs in the respect that God’s existence needs to be established by proof.  God is not a theorem.  He is The Ultimate Fact.  [snort]  In fact, even logic itself is not explainable without the existence of The One True God (as the way His Mind works and the way ours is supposed to work because we have been made in His likeness).  So, God must exist or else we couldn’t prove anything.

You've posited without evidence that your god is responsible for these things, then turned around and made the absurd assertion that their existence is evidence of your god.  This is the logical equivalent of: "Mermaids make seashells so seashells prove the existence of mermaids."
I'll just ignore the baseless claim that "God is not a theorem. He is The Ultimate Fact". I'm sure you believe that's true, but your belief doesn't make it true.
Finally, you've wound yourself around the axle of logic with a Sye Ten Bruggencate style "you're not allowed to have logic unless you accept my god" argument. Next, you'll be saying "I don't do Bible study with atheists."   It's patently absurd to everyone but believers who blindly accept your initial premise: that god is responsible for logic. You've not established that to be true, merely claimed it without the slightest shred of justification.

Thus, all of these “proofs” are not really proofs, [FINALLY, something I can agree with.  Oops. I should finish the sentence … ] but “evidence after The Fact” of something which is above all proof: God’s inescapable existence.  [awwwwwww. It started out so good] But most people “can’t handle the truth!” that God exists because they want to be the god of their own lives [Insult your opponent time?].  The Bible calls this our “sinful nature”, by which we are naturally-inclined to reject God. [Who cares what the Bible says, you haven't proven god exists yet!!]  This is despite the most direct piece of evidence of all: the fact that all of us inevitably and inescapably know The One True God in our hearts, but suppress this knowledge. [LMAO]

Calling this last bit a "fact" doesn't make it an actual fact. Rather, it's just a claim from your particular holy book and doctrine.  As an atheist, I can say with confidence that it's wrong, and so is Paul when he says anyone who leaves Christianity wasn't a Christian to begin with.
Nevertheless, the author has gone off the rails from what started as a rational explanation for god's existence. He is now just spewing his personal dogma. Well, let's see what's next.

Many reading this will undoubtedly deny that you already know God exists, just as you will likely resist where all of the above evidence points. But that is simply you acting according to the basic characteristic of mankind, as the Bible alone explains it: because you were born as a member of a rebellious race of sinners.  Only God can change this, but all of us are culpable for not seeking Him and asking Him to open our hearts, eyes and minds so that we can get to know Him and so that we can be saved and transformed.  The Gospel found in the Bible explains this and has led millions to The Greatest Blessing possible: the peace and joy of knowing that I have been forgiven of my sins and that my Creator loves me with perfect love.

That's silly. The author's argument is bad  because the author's argument is bad. Trying to lay the blame for your bad argument at your reader's feet is just further embarrassing yourself. Your Bible was written millennia ago by anonymous authors you believe to be "divinely inspired" for no other reason than the church told you that's what it is. I reject that claim until adequate evidence is provided too.
Blah blah blah preaching.

I hope and pray that you will truly consider all of this and find the same Blessing which I found 32 years ago.

You've wasted 32 years of your life praying to a god which doesn't exist. I hope you can escape this fallacious thinking some day, but I don't hold out much hope.  You seem to be in pretty deep. 

Speaking for God

I've spent over year now debating theology with Christians and Muslims. One thing that's constant is that they'll make a claim about God without an ability to back it up. Then they get upset when I tell them the claim is baseless. Yet they cannot point to an objective fact or means to validate their claims.

In a nutshell, this is one of the foundational problems with religion: In religion, the church is created to represent an absentee God for the believer. Since nobody can communicate with God, your church, synagogue, or mosque tells you what he is like and what he wants from you.

At this point, some religious believers might be thinking "that's not true! The [Name of holy book] is the word of God!" But of course, that holy book simply supports or is supported by the aforementioned religious organization. Regardless of the religion, there are many different interpretations of the holy book which quibble over details ranging from acceptance of gays to the divinity of Jesus or Mohammed. Of course none of the beliefs are based in objective evidence, so it's impossible to resolve these disagreements. The disagreeing groups simply aren't equipped with (or aren't willing to use) the critical thinking skills necessary to resolve their disagreement. They seem unable to even see the foundational epistemological failures that explain why their groups cannot agree.

The process by which churches make these claims about the nature and desires of God is gradual and subtle. It's done through sermons, songs, and discussions with other church members who also accept the dogma. Through this process, religion is helping to define the believer's expectations for what God is like. When the believer then communicate with God through "prayer," their mind forms plausible responses from this shared vision of God. Humans are VERY good at imagining conversations. The imagined interlocutor is convincing enough that people believe their imagined God might be real.  Of course they're prepared for this delusion by being taught they need to "listen carefully" and "God will speak to them." This handy guide provides a nice template for how the delusion is cultivated.

First, Christians should build relationships with other Christians

The belief spreads best if you're surrounded by people who support your belief.  Since there's no objective evidence, developing a social group is the best way to convince yourself.

A Christ follower should spend daily time reading the Bible, mulling over the messa and praying for ways to make scripture’s lessons into a lifestyle. 

Repetition and meditation helps solidify a common belief

By adding prayer for others and himself to this daily quiet time, the Christian will find it easier to turn away from their own self-focused desires, and advance God’s priorities to first place. 

Believing they're helping other people helps believers feel like this repetitive action isn't as selfish as it really is,

 Christians should actively seek opportunities to tell others about what they are learning from and about God.

The best way to follow through with a commitment is to publicly affirm it.  This makes the believer be more committed to the beliefs. Turning away from the commitment after publicly affirming it is socially awkward.  To avoid this embarrassment, a believer will tend to shun any self-doubt. or at the very least conceal this doubt from fellow believers. The end-result is a community which can more strongly reinforce the religious dogma of the sect.

It is through this mechanism that these God beliefs flourish. Each believer thinks theirs seems rational because they're surrounded by people with nearly identical beliefs. The belief which cannot be supported by any rational or objective means is supported by the echo chamber of the social group instead. When confronted with a differing belief or a different religion, there's no way to resolve the different subject of gods each group has independently created.  

So what happens? Christian theologians review Muslim work and find all the logical and factual flaws in their religion and say, "Ha ha Islam is false!" But of course, Muslim scholars do the same for Christianity. The leaders of each religion are capable of critical thought and logical evaluation of other beliefs. But for their own favorite belief, they're unable or unwilling to apply the same standards. This is the part that I don't understand.  

How can intelligent people be oblivious to their own double-standard? I suppose it takes effort to evaluate one's own deeply held beliefs, but that's an essential part of being an honest person.

I Didn't Choose to Become Atheist

A Symbol of one of the many Christian sects: The opulent Roman Catholic Church
"Basilica di San Pietro (notte)" by Eugene Pivovarov - Own work. Licensed under CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Basilica_di_San_Pietro_(notte).jpg#/media/File:Basilica_di_San_Pietro_(notte).jpg

Within religious circles, it's common to move between churches to find the one which best fits one's subjective personal preconceptions about the world. From this social construct, theists often ask me why I chose atheism.

To many atheists, this question is offensive.  Unlike a decision to switch among the roughly 40 thousand Christian sects, atheism is a rejection of the core assumptions central not just the Christian sects, but all religions. I didn't decide the communities were all a waste of my time. It wasn't that I couldn't find a version of Christianity that aligns well with my political and scientific beliefs.

Rather, I left Christianity because there's no convincing evidence that any gods exist.  My own sense of honesty is one of my central cherished values.  I simply couldn't maintain my personal standards for honesty and still tell people I thought there was a god. I continued to attend church for many years as I drifted away.  But participating in the Apostle's Creed became a emotionally painful exercise that left me feeling like I had sacrificed my personal honesty to fit in. Singing hymns became similarly uncomfortable.

Of course, I could just sit out from these major portions of the service,but this seemed like some sort of rebellious protest. That wasn't it at all, and I didn't want to give that false impression either. In the end, I left the church because I didn't want to be dishonest anymore.

Honesty

"… these forced communal chants make skeptics feel like an outcast for sitting out or a liar for playing along. "

Photo by Jason Wohlford, used without modification under a Creative Commons 2.0 License.

As I stop and reflect on what bothered me the most about religion, it was the lack of honesty with ourselves and the congregation. This was most glaringly apparent in the certainty with which we claimed to know that Presbyterian dogma was True. This had a euphemism: "faith."

Faith was held up as an ideal to achieve, and rational skepticism was shamed. People with reasonable doubts were described as "losing faith" or "struggling with faith." This euphemistic language is clearly intended to attach a negative stigma to the people honest enough to look with rational skepticism at the extraordinary claims which formed the foundation of Presbyterian beliefs.  Faith is a goal to achieve, meant to imply that it's not just okay, but actually good to claim to have certainty about things for which you have no evidence or rational justification to believe.

This frequent communal statement of certainty known as "the apostles Creed" was recited at each and every Presbyterian worship service I ever attended. Something about a large sanctuary filled with many hundreds of people saying the same thing helped make us doubters feel silly for our rational doubts. And I suppose that's the crux of my problem with religion. It works to quell rational doubts in its members by weekly shows of unity in belief. When this culture is part of a person's social networks, the idea of turning against the group becomes frightening at an instinctual level.

It's bad enough that the church tells people what to believe. What's worse is that they instruct the congregation to recite an affirmation of belief that is provided by the church. For years, as my parents dragged my skeptical ass to church, I felt dishonest for even playing along with this ruse. I won't go to church with them anymore because these forced communal chants make skeptics feel like an outcast for sitting out or a liar for playing along.