Skip to content

Is Criticizing God or The Bible A Valid Argument Against Gods Existence? or “On The ‘There Is No God And I Hate Him” Part 2

I recently saw an argument I’ve seen many times before: “If God is so good why does He command genocide in the Bible?!”

I asked, as I always do, “how is that an argument against Gods existence?” More often than not I receive no answer. Other times it’s either irrelevant snark or an attempt to side-step by saying something like “That’s not meant to be an argument against God, it’s an argument against religion”.

Does that response make sense? Lets use deductive reasoning, where if the premises are true, then the conclusion naturally and necessarily follows.

P1) If the Christian religion entails a belief in the existence of God, and subsequent following of God, than arguing against the Christian religion is an argument against Gods existence.

P2) The Christian religion is a belief in the existence of, and subsequent following of God.

C) Therefore an argument against the Christian religion is an argument against Gods existence.

So we can therefore with all confidence ask “How is a criticism of Gods character, or Christian belief, an argument against Gods existence?”.

Quantum Vacuums, Nothing, and Krauss’s Conundrum

Some arguments against the Kalam Cosmological Argument say things like:

“Virtual particles have no cause/they just appear in a quantum vacuum, which is ‘nothing'”
“A quantum vacuum is ‘nothing'”
“The universe started with a quantum vacuum”

Let’s tackle these in order.

Virtual particles appear in a quantum vacuum, or vacua, because there may be more than one, when energy fluctuations in the quantum vacuum/vacua cause particles to appear which quickly disappear. The fluctuations within the quantum vacuum are the cause.

Now lets take a look at the claim–championed by Lawrence Krauss, that a quantum vacuum is “nothing”.

“Nothing” is the lack of existence and anything existing. A quantum vacuum exists within and is part of the natural world, Moreoever, as mentioned before, there can be quantum vacua–more than one. Anything you can count is certainly not “nothing”. To say that one can count a thing which does not exist is absurd.

Now lets look at Krauss’s conundrum. Lets oblige Krauss and say that the very first thing was a quantum vacuum, from which the universe began. This brings up two big problems for Krauss.

1) If we say the quantum vacuum always existed, that would be saying that a natural thing has existed forever, committing the fallacy of a infinite regress, an impossibility.

2) If we say that the quantum vacuum appeared at some time in the past, we have to posit that a natural thing appeared from literal nothing. If there was no natural cause or event to create the quantum vacuum–and in literal nothing there is not–that would mean the quantum vacuum appeared UNnaturally, or supernaturally. And that’s exactly what Krauss is so desperately trying to avoid.

On “What Can Be Asserted Without Proof Can Be Dismissed Without Proof”

The late Christopher Hitchens is often quoted as saying “what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof”. Does this statement have any value in favor of atheism? Let’s use critical thinking and unpack this statement to find out just where it leads us.
Read more…

On “We’re Both Atheists, I Just Go One God Further Than You”

The statement “we’re both atheists, I just go one god further than you” is a common argument heard from many atheists. Many atheists may then reference gods of mythology such as Mithras, Thor, ect. and say the Christian is an atheist in respect to all other supposed gods, just not the one God of the Bible.

Does this argument have any value in favor of atheism? Let’s use reason and critical thinking to unpack this argument.

Read more…

On The “There Is No God And I Hate Him” Argument

Many atheists and anti-theists, neither of whom believe there is a God, will bring up objections to God such as this rant, taken from a facebook “note” of a self-proclaimed anti-theist: “Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption… Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of (bad stuff) you’d expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would’ve been out on his all-powerful (derrière) a long time ago.”

Famous atheists such as the late Christopher Hitchens are known for these types of objections that many Christian apologists and philosophers call the “there is no God and I hate Him” argument.

Read more…

On “You Can’t Prove A Negative”

“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof” – Christopher Hitchens

“One of the most effective devices is to encourage debate, but within a system of unspoken presuppositions that incorporate the basic principals of the doctrinal systems. These principals are therefore removed from inspection; they become the framework for thinkable thought, not objects of rationale consideration.” – Noam Chomsky

A common reply that many atheists give when asked about evidence for atheism is “you can’t prove a negative”. Does this response have any validity? Using reason and critical thinking we’re going to look at three things that (ironically) point to the negative.

Read more…

Is Christianity A Fallacious Legacy?

Today, we’re offering a brief lesson on an atheistic argument that’s quite common: The argument that a Christian believes in God only because his or her parents believe(d) in God. Does this argument have any value in favor of atheism?

While this argument may have some truth to it–after all, many Christians grew up with one or more Christian parents– it does absolutely nothing to disprove the existence of God, and so effectively does nothing to fault a Christians belief in God.

Many atheists will often say something like “You/others only believe there’s a God because your parents believed”.
Read more…

Blind Faith and Atheism

The purpose of this article is to bring to light the reality that atheists are not devoid of “blind faith”. Its purpose is not to do so with the intent of demeaning the intelligence of atheists, but rather to point out a fundamental flaw of the atheistic argument that atheism only believes that which can be shown or proven by science, and that science has the ability to show and prove all things in reality. This articles intent is to break the false hold and false belief that many atheists have that they do not in fact have “blind faith” or hold to things that cannot be shown or proven by science.

Having said that, it is vitally important to understand that the intent of this article is not to promote “blind faith” in Christianity, nor to dismiss science or the scientific method. Christianity is indeed a rational belief when all the evidence is taken into consideration. Science, and the scientific method, are rational to accept for proving many, though not all (as we will soon see in this article) things.
Read more…

Solomon and Monogamy

Many people will point to the Old Testament, especially concerning Solomon and his many wives and concubines, and say the Bible in fact does not promote a monogamous relationship, or at least the Bible is inconsistent in its message concerning marriage.

So does Solomons many wives and concubines dismantle the Biblical notion of monogamy?

It is true that Solomon had many wives and concubines. So on the face value of an initial look into the part of scripture that mentions it, it appears that the Bible does not promote a monogamous relationship “across the board” as it were, but seems to at least make exceptions.

At first look.

At first look into scripture at that recorded time in history.

Let’s go deeper.

Read more…

A Follow-Up To “Letter To An Atheist”

Someone responded to the “Letter To An Atheist” post on the Christian Apologetics Alliance website (apologeticalliance.com) and I started to reply. What happened was that my reply became over 600 words, so I decided to just make that reply a new post, a follow-up to “Letter To An Atheist” that adresses the issue of intellectual integrity. Here it is:

It’s intellectually easy to continue to question that which we already dispute. I think we find an intellectual “comfort zone” in doing that. The problem is it makes us intellectually lazy, and an unfortunate byproduct of that is we become intellectually dishonest with ourselves. We begin to ignore and set aside the authentic journey of discovery.

I think it’s intellectually vital that Christians, and especially those who would categorize themselves as Christian apologists, become familiar with the works of Hitchens, Dawkins, Ehrman, etc, and not ignore any point or statement they make. To look into what they say with the intellectual integrity of not summarily and arbitrarily dismissing what they say, but to take a good hard look at their statements and consider all the possibilities from a rational, reasonable, and fully educated point of view.
Read more…