Atheism: An Assertion Isn’t an Argument
Greg Koukl reminds Christian parents that students need space to ask questions and search out answers, then provides a specific example of how he responded to a student who made a case for naturalism and atheism.
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
————— CONNECT —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time – (855) 243-9975. If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: https://www.str.org/broadcast.
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
There is another point to add. As relates to the assumption of uniformity of cause and effect the Christian view makes more sense. We believe in a God who holds the world together and keeps everything working consistently. They believe that it is all random, so there would be no particular reason to assume the uniformity of cause and effect. If everything came from nothing, which would violate cause and effect, looking at nature from a cause and effect viewpoint (science) would not make any sense.
Thanks for another thought provoking post.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Are you saying that you don't really find flaw with the logical arguments used but you don't agree they are strong enough arguments to prove the assertion? I don't see anything wrong with this if it is true. I believe that this is where personal faith or belief comes in to accept it as true.
I have come to the limit of my ability but want to thank you for your input and aid in helping me to understand.
Please post links to arguments for atheism if you know of any good ones.
@imkluu
What if there wasn't any programmer behind the program, what then?
I am not really using quantum theory at all (just really for analogy), and I defined the field as eternal so it doesn't need a cause in the exact same way that god doesn't need a cause.
Think of the field operating like a quantum field. Virtual particles are created in the field, borrow some energy, and then they disappear, and in the same vein, universes come into existence, borrow some energy, and then they disappear.
@VeryEvilPettingZoo In my way of thinking the definition of God and that of a Unicorn are very different. God is the greatest conceivable being whereas unicorns have many observable qualities that need not have to be and so allow it to be proven to be improbable. Logic can show that the greatest conceivable being is necessary or at least cannot be dis-proven whereas a unicorn can only be proven to be improbably but still possible.
@imkluu Only a force is needed, no will or intelligence…that's the point, and you know it. You're just being argumentative. The most brilliant minds on the subject tell us no agency is required anywhere. But you claim to know differently?
@VeryEvilPettingZoo Your comments go way above my head. I can't even follow your arguments. I don't know if what you say is reasonable or some kind of psychobabble. (not that I am accusing it as being just that I am not educated enough to understand you.)
But I have only heard atheists argue against theist arguments and not present any of their own other than the one about evil that try to prove atheism as the better worldview. Please post some links to any arguments
@WestonPDX100 How can it be a natural force if there was no nature before the creation of the universe. Also I did not anthropomorphize. I only mention a sentient being. It need not be anything similar to a man.
@MaximumAxiom With your computer analogy I would say that the computer programmer and creator of the computer was God not the computer.
I am not sure but I think that the quantum theory explains how the universe works not how it came into being. For something to start it needs a cause and for something to begin without any outside force it needs a choice to be made which gives evidence to some form of intelligence.
@imkluu
If the universe was a computer program would you call the computer generating us god? I wouldn't if the computer had the level of sentience of modern computers.
For instance something that could explain the origins of the universe is a large eternal field that operates like a quantum field (which has no will of its own by the way, not in any meaningful sense). Which would make it mindless and purposeless. I think it would be ridiculous to define this as a god.
@imkluu The force that kicked off the big bang doesn't need to be an 'entity' or have a will. It just has to be a powerful, natural force. No anthropomorphizing required.
@MaximumAxiom Granted it does not give proof to the God of any specific religious belief but it gives an argument for an outside force that is extremely powerful, immaterial, eternal or at least outside time, with a will of its own to cause a change in what was before the Universe came into being. Until something else can prove more precisely what this is, we might as well call such an entity God since it fits the general description.
@imkluu
I really don't think there is any evidence that directly points to a "god." I might be willing to grant you that there is evidence that points to an external cause of the universe, but it is quite a logical leap to assume that that external cause is meaningfully defined as god.
Problem of Divine Hiddenness. I hope your mind is blown because this is another argument (not for atheism, but a general argument against a deity like the problem of evil). There are plenty of other arguments in the same vein that put Christianity in bad spot, even if they don't have flashy names like Kalam, Teleological, or Transcendental (problem of heaven, issues with free-will, issues with Adam and Eve, issues with the Devil and god's attributes, etc.).
How is it possible that Christians in today's day and age can be so woefully ignorant that they don't even know what apologetics even is?
While the word itself is not used, the Bible is chock full of commands for us to know what we believe and why, and to be able to explain it to others. It's why we're here on earth!
This boggles my mind.
@imkluu Theory is based on evidence. As far as I know there is no evidence to support any theory of the origin of the universe.
Providing a speculative argument is fine, in the absence of a working theory. But let's call it that, speculation.
@WestonPDX100 Is basing a theory on evidence speculation? It seems if that is true then many of the accepted theories in science could be considered speculation. I dont know what you may mean by good evidence. But given any evidence, for me the answer might be, "I don't know but based on the evidence I would think it is…" Not giving any possible argument helps no one. While giving an argument may help someone to the actual answer.
@STRvideos Aren't any discussions on the origins of the universe entirely speculative? Isn't the rational position in absence of good evidence "I don't know"?
Good video.I’ll share this with my Apologetics class.