The New York Times Just Tried to Disprove God — Here’s the Fatal Flaw in Their Case
By: Sye Ten Bruggencate
God is real. He is the author and creator of logic and science. All rely on God to make whatever argument they choose to make. Atheists are simply deniers of reality.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
This week, the New York Times published an article by Peter Atterton, a Professor of Philosophy at San Diego State University, titled: “A God Problem,” with the byline: “ Perfect. All-powerful. All-knowing. The idea of the deity most Westerners accept is actually not coherent.” Sadly, the people responding to Atterton’s article have taken his bait. They have defended belief in a “god” that is subject to the laws of logic, rather than THE God that is Lord of them.
In Romans 11:36 we read that from God, through God and to God are all things. What do all things include? Logic, truth, science, morality, and in fact, ALL things! Since all of these things belong to God, it is not a stretch to conclude that they don’t belong to anyone else.
Imagine a nation that owned all of the weapons and ammunition that existed. Then, another nation with no weapons at all wanted to challenge them to war. When would they be able to start the war? It would begin when the nation with the weapons and ammunition gave some to the nation with none. It might be kind to hand over some ammunition, but I suspect it would be considered an act of treason.
What is Atterton’s main objection? “The concept of God is not coherent.” He is assuming a standard of rationality that God apparently does not meet, but where does he, as an Atheist, get that standard?
According to any Atheistic worldview, man is but the advanced by-product of primordial soup. In that worldview, our brains are highly evolved meat machines, and our thoughts are merely the results of time and chance acting on matter. As Doug Wilson writes:
If this is true then the difference between your thoughts (the atheist’s) and mine (the Christian’s) correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically.
My question to Atterton would be: “Where do you get the absolute laws of logic by which you call anything ‘not coherent’ when, according to your view, our thoughts amount to nothing more than brain barf?”
Of course, that’s a rhetorical question – we know exactly where he gets logic from – God.
It ought to be sufficient to know that logic comes from God by His declaration in Scripture. I am loath to expand on that as all too often, people take the explanation as the reason for this truth rather than on God’s own Word, nevertheless, I will.
The laws of logic are understood to be universal (apply to all people at all times everywhere), immaterial (not made of matter), and invariant (do not change). God in His Word is known to be universal (Psalm 139:7-10), immaterial (John 4:24), and invariant (Malachi 3:6). Now I am not saying that God IS logic, but indeed He is logical — and we, as Christians, have a worldview in which universal, immaterial, invariant things can and do exist. Logic in the Christian worldview is a reflection of the thinking of God.
How does evolved pond scum know anything to be universal? How does evolved pond scum account for any immaterial entity? On what basis does evolved pond scum expect anything to not change?
It is not logically incoherent for an all-good God to exist and for evil to exist. Indeed, the Atheist would have to prove that God could not have a morally justifiable reason for evil — something they simply cannot do. The point, however, is that of the two of us, the Christian is the only one who could have a problem with incoherence as we are the only ones with a worldview that justifies the laws of logic by which we call anything incoherent. I’m not going to give the Atheist the tools that God has given us, to argue against the Lord that I adore. I am not going to hand over weapons and ammunition so he can attack my worldview. I simply will not do it.
Atheists often claim that the burden is on the Christian to defend the existence of God, yet they borrow the foundations for the rationality of their objections from the very God they are objecting. They claim that Atheism is merely a lack of belief, and they have no burden of proof since they are not making any positive claim. Linguistic revision on the definition of atheism aside, their lack of belief carries with it the positive claim that they can have rationality without God. Prove that positive claim, Mr. Atheist.
Back to Atterton’s article in the New York Times: “The concept of God is incoherent.”
What is the typical response? “Oh ya, well let me show you that God is in fact coherent!”
Granted, some Christians may have difficulty reconciling certain attributes of God, and some responses to Atterton have (in most cases poorly) addressed them (I even bring it up on the streets on occasion).
But those are questions more suited for a Bible study, not reasons for handing our weapons to the unarmed.
When someone brings an objection to God’s existence, we want to take that objection at face value and refute it on merit. I believe the desire to do so is sincere but ends up defending belief in a “god” that I don’t believe in and, hopefully, the person offering the defense does not believe in either. We make God subject to the objection of the Atheist, rather than Lord of all.
Earlier I said that my response to Mr. Atterton would be: “Where do you get the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic from that you appeal to when you call the concept of God “not coherent?” I have been engaging unbelievers for a number of years, and have asked that question on many occasions. One can see by their responses why Scripture describes them as “fools,” not in a name-calling sense to insult their intelligence, but in the sense of their willful rejection of the God they know exists. The more I do this though, the more I see that giving such a response is also to be fooled by them; wasting our time to philosophically prove to them the God that Romans 1 tells us they already know exists.
Brothers and Sisters, we need to stop wasting our time – myself included — and simply point them to Jesus. The argument is already won. Refutations don’t save souls. Ask them if they want to know how to be made right with God before they die. If they don’t, move on.
—
Sye Ten Bruggencate is a Christian Apologist in Ontario, Canada. He has taught apologetics throughout North America and in the U.K. and engages non-Christians in formal debates and on the streets. His documentary films include “How To Answer the Fool” and “Debating Dillahunty.” Sye can be reached via his website www.proofthatgodexists.org
Tags
Who is online
264 visitors
So where is the proof of God? Sorry but asking someone to prove something doesn't exist is as dumb as it gets.
"Prove God DOESN'T exist!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Fine..
"Prove Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Tinkerbell, Bigfoot, 6 foot tall invisible flying pink elephants etc... don't exist.."
*crickets*
Why is it that theists so often invent strawman arguments?
Atheism is indeed the lack of belief. There is no burden of proof to not being convinced there is a god. Simple.
The author (Sye) invented the claim that rationality can only exist with its God and immediately tries to shift the burden of proof. Sorry Sye (the notable presuppositionalist) you do not have the authority to assign the inverse of your claims to others. Now if you hold that rationality can only exist with your God (i.e. this is foundational to your beliefs) then it is up to you to support your claim.
No one can prove God exists. No one can prove God doesnt exist.
People should believe whatever they want to about it.
Yes, it is baseless (and thus absurd) for someone to claim knowledge of a god or to claim that no god could possibly exist.
I completely disagree.
I'm not sure what there is to disagree about. If it cannot be proven either way then people should believe in their own conclusions.
I will explain my comment.
You said that people should believe whatever they want about god(s). I disagree. People should not believe what they want about any topic. What they should do is try to believe what is correct (true). Pursue the truth (as best one can) based on objective reasoning and sound evidence and avoid believing based on mere desire.
For example, many people believe that Trump is 'Making America Great Again'. If I said to you that people should believe that because they want to, you would (appropriately) disagree. The reason for your disagreement would be that they are believing a falsehood that they want to be true instead of digging deeper to find the truth.
Excellent analogy.
You should reread my comment (carefully this time).
America has ALWAYS been great, Crooked donnie had NOTHING to do with America being great
NOT everyone believes in your God or any God. God has NOTHING to do with America
No, he/she does not.
yes it is, i just hope John can agree
We can prove that Donald Trump is a lying idiot. We cannot prove that there is no God.
I dont object to people thinking that Trump has created a good economy, or is ending wars in the middle east, or is trying to control immigration. I object to people thinking that someone who has lied thousands of times, and is a KNOWN crook, liar, bigot and moron is fit to hold the office of president of the United States.
Not in the slightest.
Sorry, it's not a good analogy.
The point I made is that people should not believe anything because they want to but rather believe what is correct (true). I offered the example of:
(Note that you changed this to 'lying idiot'; let's not change what I wrote.) So if someone wants Trump to be 'Making America Great Again' would you say that they should believe that? (After all, one cannot prove that Trump is not making America Great Again given the claim is vague and subjective.)
Indeed, our own HA has offered this very belief:
Should HA believe this because he wants to? (We all know you would answer this 'no'.) So clearly people should not believe things merely because they want to (even if the belief cannot be proven wrong).
People believe the Bible is the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent god. One can demonstrate that the Bible is errant and contradictory yet to most believers this demonstration is not proof (it is rejected via confirmation bias). One cannot prove (to believers) that the Bible is not the divine word of a perfect God even though it can be shown to be imperfect as a conclusion of basic logic.
So should people believe the Bible is the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent god because they want to? Should they then believe that homosexuality is an abomination, that slavery is not immoral, that the entire planet was engulfed in a flood wiping out all forms of life except that floating on a wooden ark, that all human beings are descendants of a directly created Adam and Eve? Just because they want to? After all, no way to prove to them these words from God are not true.
Or should people try to believe what is true (as best as we can determine truth) rather than what they want?
I SAID
I dont object to people believing Trump is making america great again based on poilicies, if that is what they believe. I object to people who say he is fit to hold the office when there is over whelming evidence that he is not, unless you think a known liar crook bigot and moron is fit to hold the office.
Which has nothing to do with the point I made and deflects from the question I asked.
Do you think they should believe Trump is making America great again merely because they want that to be the truth??
Should people try to believe what is true (as best as we can determine truth) rather than what they want?
If everyone's approval of Trump was based only on his policies I would not disagree with their right to that opinion or what they SHOULD believe.
But using Trump as an example just throws another element into it, and it is not analogous to believing in God. Many people believe in Trump based on notions that are provably false.
We will have to agree to disagree about this.
John, obviously, one should believe what is true over what one wants.
The problem is, people tend to believe because they want to (or are indoctrinated to) or because it's emotionally appealing. They tend to not care about what is factual or actually true. It's willful ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty.
Nice of to finally admit that. Although, I dont know anyone to have made such a claim. I'd say actually knowing something is better than merely believing.
You offer only assertions, with no evidence.
No surprise to anyone.
To the point of this being both boring and sad. Not only is this an admission of a complete lack of understanding of evolution but it illustrates that there is zero interest in actually learning about the science. It is disheartening to see individuals in the USA with all of our resources and availability of quality education engage in willful ignorance.
I have, in the past, even provided a Christian website (biologos.org) which is run by scientists who are Christian and who offer excellent instruction to Christians on science (in particular, evolution). Why would someone willfully ignore this? This site was founded by Dr. Francis Collins — one of the most famous geneticists of modern times (and a devout Christian).
For example, here is biologos' introductory series on evolution . And here is the first video on evolution . Very well done and scientifically accurate.
So odd.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This...
Well said Gordy.
[Removed]
Thank you.
A faith based on no evidence is not well-reasoned, including belief in eternal life.
"Reasoned faith" is an oxymoron, especially since there's no evidence to substantiate it or support any claims based on nothing but faith!
I'd call that downright delusional. Certainly illogical and irrational at the very least.
I think it is silly to think that the mods would lock an educational article / video from biologos.org It is a very credible site. If you do seed from it, I recommend seeding a scientific article.
But I was not suggesting you seed from the site, rather that you learn from the site. Get an infusion of actual science rather than the crap sources that feed you cynical slogans such as: 'random chance pond scum'.
Life started off as single cell organisms (best we can tell). So yes primordial life will be tiny and primitive with humble beginnings. Now learn about how evolution works given an extant form of life.
What if it turns out that only those who worship Zeus will go to the Elysian Fields, and everyone else goes to Hades?
Fair enough?
Do you find atheists wishing you harm? Ever read what you write? You apparently believe that God would condemn atheists to eternal damnation (infinite punishment for finite offenses) and you cavalierly deem it to be fair. Fair? You cannot deliver a shred of evidence supporting the existence of the God of the Bible yet this God, per you, would inflict the most unspeakable horrors on people who are not convinced (due to the total absence of evidence) that this God exists.
Nice. The Christians I know (my friends and family) are decent people who would never deem such a fate as 'fair'.
It was an analogy, not a treatise on mythology. And you have no evidence that yours is any less counterfeit than theirs.
You consider this fair treatment for not being convinced (given no evidence) that the Christian God exists?
[Discuss the seeded content not members of this site please]
Like most believers I am confident HA thinks his views are correct and that differing views are flawed. In Christianity alone there are thousands of different views on what God is, wants, intends, etc. Every distinct view arrogantly holds that it is truth. It is amazing (to me) that people cannot recognize that the profound disagreement on even what the Bible says illustrates that nobody can claim they have the truth (and that the Bible itself is not divine).
Faith, belief, whatever is nothing more than wishful thinking, based on emotion, irrationality, or just outright delusion. There is no objective evidence for any god. Beliefs are based off the assumption there is one. But nothing logical, rational, or objective.
It's just an excuse to hide behind genocide.
There's a part of me that feels sorry for these people actually. To be so brainwashed they want to weaponize and harm others. What a warped placed to be. Wrapped up in Jesus concepts only to defy them consistently.
I cannot express what real freedom is when you set mythology aside, see it for what it truly is. I'm so happy that is long behind me with that confusion. And the cool thing is, I still walk away with a Jesus conciousness. It's a survival mechanism. Do good, be good. Do no harm.
What happens to this New Jerusalem when our Sun turns into a red dwarf and destroys the earth?
I don't know why these people even want eternal life. Eventually it would get extremely boring - especially since you'd only consist of energy and wouldn't be able to do much.
Another biblically based denial of modern science?
Modern science certainly contradicts certain religious/biblical claims. If the bible is the work of god (it's not), then any contradiction is a limitation on god.
What a very strange way to twist what I wrote.
Here is how you should have understood my point:
On one hand we have modern science and the undeniable evidence that it works (and works well).
On the other hand we have an ancient book that is replete with contradictions and errors.
I suggest that those who take their reading of the Bible over well established science (such as evolution, cosmological dating, genetics, geology, physics, etc.) are not thinking critically.
If there is a God then God (as in creator of the known universe) most definitely would preempt science. The Bible, however, is not God nor is the God character defined by the Bible God. It is at the very best a character imagined by ancient men with pens. This is evidenced by the fact that they defined this God as perfect, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal and the arbiter of objective morality and then proceed to contradict these attributes routinely in the included stories. One thing we can hold true with logic is that a contradiction means falsehood. The Bible cannot both be imperfect and the perfect word of God; the Bible is not divine. Given the Bible is not divine, it has no credibility as the source of information on what would be the grandest possible entity.
If a creator of the universe does exist, it remains unknown. People can pretend to know (and even have a relationship with) such a grand entity but the evidence (over centuries now) indicates that they are just kidding themselves. So when people like you or Ham deny well established science because it clashes with your biblically based beliefs I see wishful arrogance that (amazingly) denies modern knowledge so as to cling to a comforting and entirely unevidenced belief.
So, no, I am not at all saying that modern science limits the creator of everything. I am saying that the Bible (and all of its inventions) are man-made and extremely dated and cannot hold a candle to science in terms of explaining reality.
Very well said, as usual TiG.
Unfortunately, your eloquence will most likely be lost on those who prefer mere belief over actual logic. I suspect any reply to you will essentially be the intellectual equivalent of "nuh-uh."
My comment will not even be read.
No doubt.
I never said beliefs would be going away. Some people are firmly attached to their delusions. So what's your point? How about evidence for your god's existence, which you repeatedly fail to provide!
I think so.
Not so sure about economics and politics, but regarding religion we are quite far apart.
Yes, I am aware of that.
That is it? You announce that you are going to continue to post? I think we all know that so what is the point of making such an obvious declaration?
Yes, I doubt anyone is unaware of that.
Yup
What a wonderful comment.
My father was both a Believer and a man of science. He found a happy medium between the two that worked for him.
He was a talented aerospace engineer who spent his life giving God the credit for his intelligence. But when asked about topics like evolution, he always said, "It's difficult to argue with the fossil record." He knew the difference between faith and facts, and helped others find their own happy medium.
How can anyone have the last word when you constantly resurrect your dead articles. Most articles have a natural life span with an implicit DNR but you insist on bringing them back to life.
Result: Zombie articles.
It's perverse.
it certainly does seem like the thumper claptrap gets resurrected every 3 days here
Cry me a river! he posts disingenuous BS, makes claims as fact without any supporting evidence, then deflects or ignores any rebuttal to his BS. Some of us merely call him out on it and challenge his claims. That's not harassment!
Feel free to log a complaint with the mods then.
When you try to pass off a belief as fact and/or ignore anything which contradicts it, that invites challenge! And rightfully so.
Simple FW. When unfounded claims are made they will be challenged. If the claims are not made, the challenges to said claims would not exist. See?
Fine with me if you keep your speculations to yourself.
I do not speculate on HA's beliefs; I respond to his stated claims. Pay attention.
That's merely your opinion.
He certainly lacks any other kind of credibility, considering he continuously makes spurious or unsubstantiated claims and fails to respond to challenges against them.
I really don't care what you do.
What speculation? Be specific! TiG and others are simply responding to HA's claims.
Clearly you just think you know. Your comments prove otherwise.
Still just an opinion all the same.
And being it's a PERSONAL belief, it should be kept PERSONAL.
Yes.
Absolutely!
Such sanctimonious arrogance!
Good!
It's equally annoying and pretentious!
The existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god itself automatically limits free will.
Then let him (or you) actually prove he exists! That will go a long way towards establishing a belief. Any "message" otherwise is not only unconvincing, it's just BS!
Or maybe secularists just mind their own business and not get in peoples faces about religious beliefs! Perhaps certain theists should try that too!
Has your sports team resulted in the slaughter of millions?
I'm pretty sure it didn't mean by the sword. Seems Islam is following in the steps of Christianity.
The way your "message" is spread does that as well.
And I have read is book and find him to be judgmental, malevolent and childish. Not worth worship.
Then don't get upset when a Secularist denounces your belief and terrorist threats.
If your "beleif" is worship this god or you will burn in hell then, yes, it's a terrorist threat.
Your specific beliefs are a minority on the planet. Logically most everyone on the planet (now and in the past) are in Hell per your beliefs. That alone should give you pause (although I know it will not).
I didn't say he doesn't exist. I said he is the equivalent of a spoiled child that will (and already has) destroy his "creation" if he doesn't get his way. I also implied that this "gods" followers are on the same level as ISIS with the terrorist threats of "worship or face eternal damnation".
Your "insurance" is from a book that has more edits than a hollywood movie script. Not to mention that a significant amount of the content of this book has been taken from older religions.
It's a worldview based on observable evidence. Genetics isn't a conspiracy theory, you know.
Unless he has changed his mind, HA has claimed (in the past) that evolution is pseudoscience and is a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists.
Ugh.....
It's literally the, "everyone else is wrong, I am right" argument. SMH.
What makes you smarter than worldwide biological science?
See, here's the thing... we know that isn't true.
Minor changes add up to major differences over time. We can literally look at DNA these days. We can literally observe the genetic blueprints for organisms and compare them with others. We can literally see shared, inherited ancestry across various species. It's not speculation, it's fact. Denying it at this point is deranged and perverse.
DNA sequencing has been a game changer. For example, it used to be thought that pigs were the closest relatives of hippos, but genetic analysis showed that the closest living relatives of hippos are, in fact, the cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises). It showed that they all diverged and descended from a common ancestor about 50 million years ago -- a placental mammal that was almost certainly semi-aquatic. Their genetic relation to pigs is older and thus more distant.
Hippos spend most of their time in water. They can even give birth and nurse their young in water, just like whales do. They only leave the water at night to feed on nearby grass, which is probably why they still look like land animals (legs are much more useful for them than flippers would be).
Cetacean DNA and hippo DNA show close common ancestry and descent with modification -- literally the definition of biological evolution -- and in this case is a glowing example of "macro" evolution.
Now we sit back and observe the confirmation bias infused response.
One cannot reason with an individual who thinks evolution is a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists.
Keep showing off your ignroance regarding evolution and science in general, especially since the general scientific community disagrees with you and has actual empirical evidence to support evolution. What do you have to discredit evolution? More empty claims?
A case of believing what one wants to be true rather than objectively following the evidence to wherever it leads.
People tend to ignore evidence in favor of belief, or erroneously equate belief with evidence. It's a sad mentality.
It does seem pointless. It's just hard sometimes to let such blatant nonsense stand unchallenged, especially when it's about a physical, material, real-world thing like biology that truly can be observed, studied, and understood.
Nonsense should never pass unchallenged, especially when actualooking facts or evidence (or just plain logical reasoning) contradicts it.
I think we should always challenge nonsense.
Who told you that?
After all, that presumes the existence of God and then goes on to presume logic and science are impossible without this presumed God. You have uttered a grandiose claim and have offered absolutely nothing in support of this claim.
What credible evidence do you have of that? Because, there are shitloads and shitloads of real verified credible evidence to the contrary proving that the creation myths in the Bible are all children's fairytales!
Claims without supporting evidence are simply jaw flapping. When one makes claims and is challenged to back up said claims and then returns to simply repeat the claims, the claimer's credibility drops (if possible).
Unfortunately, some people don't seem to care about logic, facts, or their own credibility. They just spew the same nonsense over & over. Like a chat version of a robo caller.
His comments sort of remind me of the Daleks from Dr. Who...
Dalek: Our greatest enemies, the atheists, liberals and Democrats, have left the planet Xeros. They are once again in time and space. Dalek Supreme: They cannot escape! Our time machine will soon follow them! They will be exterminated! Exterminated! Exterminated!Dalek 1: Align and Advance! Dalek 2: Advance and Attack! Dalek 3: Attack and Destroy! All Daleks: Destroy and Rejoice! All Daleks: Our God is Real! Our God is Real! Destroy and Rejoice!
But God is a myth, science is fact based. We can prove, with science, many things but God is not one of them.
Believing that is fine, you are free to believe whatever the hell you want, but don't try to pass it off as fact.
Intelligent design was created because even the most devout Christians could no longer deny that the life on the this planet is the result of billions of years of evolution. It's their effort to admit they're wrong, without admitting they're wrong, (regarding evolution).
You want some proof of evolution? I know you won't watch it because it would blow a hole in your belief system...
But....
Not only sad, but dangerous.
I love his continuing education of Carl Sagan's Cosmos. This is what the search for truth and logic has brought us. Facts. No mythological fairytales need apply. How damn exciting to unravel these genetic code mysteries.
This is true, and something history has time and again proven.
And exactly why we can't let that ugly history repeat itself. It's a dead end road for everyone.
It's amazing isn't it!
Unfortunately, that is a realism.
Yes, it probably is a waste of your time to try to do that which you have repeatedly shown yourself unable to do.
[Removed]
[Removed]
So have you changed your mind on the worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists part? You still hold that evolution is pseudoscience. Is it still a conspiracy too?
Which argument? Which battle?
He's just making more throwaway statements, not meant to further meaningful discussion.
Your comment was vague. There are any number of arguments / battles that one could have in mind given this topic. Typically I have found that vague responses are used when the author knows a specific comment could not survive a challenge.
Where has been God been? There are reports of him in the old testament, but we have not heard from him in a long time
All I know is I'm going to be thankful for the life I live and for the lives others live and pray all goes well or gets better for all those who live on this earth and I'm going to pray until the day I die to a power that I feel is greater than I am, or, for that matter, is greater than any other power that exist today or has every existed for all time.
I'm going to try to live my life to best of my ability according to the 10 commandments as I see them to not be commandments, but a pretty good way to live this life I have been granted here on this earth. If it all turns out I have something when I pass away, I consider that a real benefit. I'm not a religious person who attends church every Sunday or even that often, but I believe those who have faith in God and live accordingly without prejudice toward others are blessed during their lives in the here and now. I don't believe in hell. So you can say, "You're not a very good Christian". I never said I was. I just said I'm not all that is and I believe there is a power much greater than all of us.
I've never been much for debating ones faith or non-faith in a God. I am just me and when I leave this world I will be gone. I hope those left behind realize I had faith in a power that I can't explain or prove, but I feel this power has pulled me through some pretty rough times in my life as I've seen it do for others.
You know, whatever gets you through the night. Whether it's a belief in divinity or a bottle of Jack Daniel's. Just don't harm others with it and we're good!