The Best Argument Response
Answers in Genesis thinks they have the ultimate answer to all the atheist’s responses to the existence of god.
Today I have the pleasure or should we say the distaste of seeing a post on the AiG website called “Chapter 27: What Is the Best Argument for the Existence of God?”. Now this title itself is an intriguing topic given that usually AiG asserts that “god is true because the bible says so, and the bible is true because god said so” which as we all are well versed is a circular argument. AiG is known to only pontificate that if it violates the bible it has to be false then they continue to try and force science to explain whatever scripture says has to be true. While this may satisfy many of the believers, most skeptics will find this distasteful at best if not just out right a form of willful ignorance. Science stands whether it violates your beliefs or not, pure and simple. But this is far past the point and we need to stay on topic as the AiG article is no short discussion, and their one sided viewpoint will become nauseating at times. So lets begin.
In the Beginning . . .
The introduction to their article calls out many common arguments christians use to explain the existence of god. We have heard all of these arguments before and AiG was even kind enough to place then atheist response to most of these claims. Most of the atheist responses were close to accurate and I will not bother at this time to correct the subtle issues I have with the wording.
This feels very promising. We might actually be seeing some on the conservative christian camp understand that their arguments are not just true because they posit them and that many people, not just atheists, require evidence for claims made outside of their bias. But after I got through the responses I was so far from the truth I almost gave up and walked away. For the reader I will stay and will try and make sense of their article so that you will be saved the time of having to dissect it for all your religious relatives and friends that will soon posit that “AiG has figured it out” or “Wow I never thought of it this way”. The very next paragraph they make the statement
Wait a minute! They just claimed their statements were fact. How do they know this? They just throw this sentence in there and provide no proof as to the why they are facts. Or maybe we just need to read a little farther. Within the next couple of sentences say this.:
So if these “hypothetical” conversations do not prove that god exists, but these “hypothetical” conversations are facts, how do they not prove god exists? This has to be an inverse of a circular argument. Maybe we will call it the black hole argument.
They go on to posit that atheists explanations were reasonable. But how reasonable you ask? AiG then tells their readers that the reason that the atheist’s explanations were only reasonable because of their world view. *Sigh* I get it. AiG thinks that because we have a different world view then they do, that the “facts” have to be different and can mean different things based on how their world view allows them to interpret them. Yes, you may go ahead and face palm now if you have not already. Or hell go ahead and do it again. AiG claims it is the different philosophies of life that cause the “facts” to mean different things to different people. This argument sounds familiar like they used it before, maybe when Ken Ham was debating Bill Nye? I mean just because science does not fit his world view Ken Ham asserts that there is “historical” and “observational” science. And here again we see AiG assert that facts can be true for both world views even if they differ.
Building a Straw-man
It only gets worse from here. The next two paragraphs do not actually discuss facts but rather they make a claim about atheists but fail to present why this is true. They then build upon their claim without actually addressing that their claims may not be correct. Lets see: Wow we could have guessed that this was coming. I bet you won’t guess what they proclaim next:
If you guessed that AiG would tell their readers that the bible is evidence for belief in god then you would be correct.
AiG will continue their claim by doubling down and telling their readers that they will expose atheist’s inconsistencies. And how do they do this you ask? Well the answer should be obvious. They build a straw man. They want to claim that atheists know there to be a god (of the bible) and they are just denying him (or her?) and the only way they can claim this is by using the bible.
But wait there is more. AiG then tells their readers to watch for “behavioral inconsistencies”. Now I have never heard of this logical fallacy before, so I went to the inter webs looking for answers. Within nano seconds, I was presented with a correction. Google wanted to correct my “behavioral inconsistencies” to “behavioral consistencies”. I guess behavioral consistencies is a psychological term used to describe behavior patterns that can help predict what will happen based on how someone reacted before. So why does AiG try and fit their own definition into their article? Well because their world view says they can. What AiG was trying to say is that atheists HAVE to know god because the bible says so, and that by behaving morally they are acting according to the bible. But AiG must forget about the god commanding the murder of innocent children in 1 Samuel 15: 3, “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
I digress though. After AiG tells their readers that atheists can only be moral because morals come from god, they then tell their readers that atheists can only be logical because laws of logic have to come from a law giver. And we can only guess who that law giver must be. In stead of giving explanations as to why their position is logical, all AiG does is make claims that atheists can only exist because god and their bible say so.
Coming Full Circle . . . Literally!
Now let’s back track. AiG claimed that they had a great argument for the existence of god and they thought all the atheists responses were valid criticisms of typical christian arguments.
AiG also claimed that both views were valid, and the only determining factor was that their world views differ. They also go on to say that an atheists world view is ill-fated because it has no premise to stand on. Finally they conclude that denying a god, is just further proof that a god exists.
So what will the final nail in the coffin be? The Transcendental Argument for God of course. This argument states that not even rational thought could exist without the prerequisite that a god had to have created it. AiG continues to tell the reader that atheists will deny this argument because they do not understand it. But if we stop to examine this argument, we will yet again see another circular argument being postulated by AiG. Hopefully their readers at some point stop to examine whether or not AiG is looking at the arguments or if they want to continue to walk around with their fingers in their ears ignoring the refutations and ignoring when everyone points out their fallacies.