Common Logical Fallacies Used

*** "You can't trust anything the Bible says, it was written thousands of years ago by farmers, fishermen, and shepherds!" ***

That is actually two logical fallacies rolled into one: "Chronological Snobbery" (rejecting an idea based solely on when it was originated) and "Ad Hominem" (focusing on the people making the argument, instead of on the argument itself).

*** "I know the Bible is inspired because the Bible says so. And I believe what the Bible says because it is inspired." ***

This is "Circular Reasoning."

*** "Religion is evil. Religion requires mindless faith. Religion is responsible for so many evil acts in the world." ***

This is a huge example of the "Hasty Generalization" fallacy. Lumping all religious people together, from all varieties of organizations, faith, and belief systems, and labeling them "Religion," and declaring that they all commit evil or are part of an evil entity. 

It is also a classic case of "Straw Man" fallacy-- arguing against a monolithic entity or group which doesn't even exist, and then claiming you have refuted every religious person.

*** "We should only accept scientific evidence as truth, and not philosophical claims." ***

This is a "Self-Defeating Claim," because the claim itself is a philosophical claim, therefore, if you accept this philosophical claim demanding that you reject philosophical claims, you must also reject this claim. It destroys itself.

In addition, science itself is based on numerous philosophical ideas, so rejecting philosophy as truth means rejecting science as truth as well.

*** "We have used logical, rational thinking to arrive at the conclusion that logical and rational thinking are, in reality, illusions, which do not provide accurate pictures of reality." ***

First, this is "Self-Defeating:" If you've refuted the idea of rational thinking by using rational thinking, you have invalidated your own finding, because you discovered this using a flawed, invalid method (rational thinking).

Second, you cannot claim to know the reality of something, if your conclusion is that we do not know the reality of things.

Lions, Gorillas, Androids, and God

Popular atheist arguments against God include:

"Yahweh, as described in the Bible, cannot be good because a good God would never kill women and children."

"My moral values are far superior to Yahweh's morals in the Bible!"

Yet, atheists do not impose human moral values and obligations upon lions, gorillas, or grasshoppers. We don't put a lion on trial for "murdering" a gazelle or even a human. We don't put a gorilla on trial for "murdering" a fellow gorilla. The reason for this, is because atheists realize that moral values do not apply or work the same way across different species.

In addition, if we humans were to invent a race of androids like "Data" in Star Trek the Next Generation, we would program our moral values into the androids, and we would reserve the right (as creator/inventor) to deactivate the androids if they began to interfere or impact our lives negatively, began hurting people, or even if they began destroying our property or other androids. (A similar example would be the right of a society or government to arrest, punish, or put to death dangerous criminals)

Both of these principles (the acknowledgement that moral values don't apply the same across different species, and the right of a creator of androids to deactivate dangerous ones) should be pretty self-evident, even among atheists. I know I would be very interested in seeing atheists make any logical arguments against these two principles.

Now apply these principles to Yahweh-- Yahweh (if He exists) is a different species than we are, and therefore, we know that we don't have the right to impose our human moral values and obligations on Him. In addition, assuming He exists, Yahweh created us and governs us, thus giving Him the right to "deactivate," "arrest," or "put to death," any evildoers that He deems dangerous.

Once we get atheists to agree on these two principles, they end up losing many of their moral arguments against Yahweh or against any other "God." But if atheists still cling to those arguments even after admitting they are faulty, they are showing their double-standards, illogical thinking, and desperation.

Another key point: In order for atheists to claim moral superiority over the God of the Bible, they must be using a separate (3rd party) standard or umpire of morality, by which they are judging Yahweh "inferior" to their own moral values. But, when asked about this, atheists will acknowledge that no such standard of morality exists in reality. All moral values are subjective and relativistic within the worldview of atheism.

One more thing: If atheists are not under moral obligation to save gazelles from lions or to save every gorilla from being attacked by another gorilla, then why would Yahweh be under moral obligation to save every human, especially since the Bible says that comparing God to humans is like comparing humans to grasshoppers?

If atheists feel no guilt in killing insects or killing cows, pigs, chickens, etc., then why should God feel guilt in killing human beings?

The Case For Theism

The Case For Theism

"Theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life." ("God" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)

The most common claim that I see atheists making on Twitter, is that "NO EVIDENCE" exists in support of belief in a God.

This blog post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an Initiator. Atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.

Now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an Initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.

And... here... we... go:

1:) Many leading scientists, including Stephen Hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the Singularity/Big Bang. Time itself did not exist, and then it came into existence. Things can only naturally happen by cause-and-effect within time. So the very event of time itself coming into existence, is a "supernatural" event (something beyond or outside of the natural course of cause-and-effect).

2:) The universe and earth appear to be very unlikely and improbably fine-tuned to support life. Even Stephen Hawking and other leading scientists admit this.

(So far, we have the universe coming into existence by a means that is beyond the natural cause-and-effect, and we have very improbable fine-tuning for life, both pointing toward the existence of an Initiator beyond our universe)

3:) Science has never observed life naturally developing from non-life on its own, therefore, the scientific position would be to assume that it did not naturally happen on its own (This points to either an Initiator/God or to extraterrestrials seeding and engineering life on earth and beginning evolution).

4:) The existence of a "Cosmic Mathematician" (Mind beyond our universe) would explain how a universal working system of mathematics just happened to be built into the universe.

5:) A worldview with an Initiator and "Law-Giver" building moral values into His creatures makes more sense with our experiences of moral obligation, guilt, and our sense of justice. Without the existence of a "Law-Giver" or "3rd party objective moral umpire," then right and wrong are merely the subjective opinions of each person.

6:) A worldview with an Initiator building into His human creation's brains, the ability to discern true from false, fits better with our view of reality, and with our assumption that our brains are giving us truthful, accurate information.

7:) Things humans deeply desire actually exist, for example: food, water, sexual partner, money, even the ability to fly (by creating jets, planes, etc). The desire of a "Higher Power" is deep in humans, going back hundreds of thousands of years, and in every part of the earth.

8:) Atheists admit that the basis for accepting logic, math, and moral obligations, is the fact that a large majority of human beings experience these things and intuitively know them to be true. A majority of humans have also experienced a "Higher Power" or spiritual things, and the answer to silent prayers.

Let me know what you think.