I am indeed glad that I came across an article to which I can write an easy response and in the same time, it would help a lot of people by reading it. You can read the original article here.
The writer tries to show some ways by which an atheist can be intellectually stumped. I will do nothing but what I usually do, check the given ways’ validity and see if it really fulfills the purpose. I will copy and paste the main points from the article and will not copy his elaborations of that particular point, you can read it by going to the link I gave it earlier.
“1 – Ask how they know that God has no reasons for allowing evil.”
This is, as the writer refers, a response to the common atheistic argument, ‘the problem of evil’. I am not arguing for the ‘problem’ of evil anyway, I will just try to give you an idea that why this question is nonsensical. Firstly, this is a question regarding a type of knowledge of the negative. An opposite type of question can be asked to the theist, “How do you ‘know’ that God has any reason for allowing evil?”. Whatever the answerer may say, he will not ultimately refer to a kind of ‘knowledge’, the answer will always be based on some kind of ‘belief’. Because neither side can show any evidence for their claim.
The answer to the question will be simply ‘We don’t really know that‘. But that answer given, the problem of evil is still a problem, because you can’t solve a philosophical problem by just imagining that there maybe some kind of purpose for this allowing, because that is ultimately an ad-hoc explanation and based on wishful thinking.
“2 – Ask what they would accept as evidence for God’s existence.”
This is a comparatively good question. The evidence will be, of course, an empirical evidence of an event which can be honestly claimed as supernatural. This is, of course, not possible for theists yet. Because they always tend to hijack scientific theories and natural happenings and call them supernatural and later, they get stumped by new scientific explanations. Logical evidences are another way to prove God’s existence, but unfortunately some of the supposed ‘logical’ arguments for God has been refuted and is being refuted by many ways, after all, I am a part of that movement. It all at last comes to the end point that the existence of God is unlikely.
The best way to prove God’s existence is to prove the divinity of religious texts. Like presenting some valid verses of Bible and proving it to contain such true informations which could not have been known in that time. It has been tried however. But unfortunately those arguments turn out to be either fallacious or dishonest as demonstrated by some of my friends’ blogs and perhaps I will try to address them and respond to them in my later articles.
Ultimately, if you do not find evidence for God’s existence, then that is not the fault of the atheists’, it just means that the existence of God is unlikely.
“3 – Ask if they would believe in miracles if they saw one.”
I don’t know about other atheists, but if I saw something that can honestly be claimed as a miracle and realize that in no way science can address it, I will believe in it. The problem is, most of the theist take random events and call them miracles, that’s why most of the time they are unsuccessful and unconvincing.
“4 – Ask them if the cause of nature could be natural”
This is question begging. The question presumes that nature began to exist, or in some sense, nature has a ’cause’. The most common elaboration of this argument is that ‘The universe did begin to exist’. But can the universe be honestly claimed as nature itself? Or is it just a part of nature? There is no supporting evidence that the universe can be referred as the entire nature, multiverse is a scientific prediction, and it is a completely natural thing.
I don’t want to elaborate in this point more because I must avoid to be technical. The only response would be that this question is based on faulty assumptions.
“5 – Ask if they believe that people who do bad things deserve to be punished”
Since morality is a human conception, and I have refuted the ‘argument from morality’ here. I, according to human morality, think that they should be punished. But since death itself is a punishment and a kind of ultimate non existence, no one is needed to punish someone after death.
These five reasons the writer gave, as I demonstrated, are just fallacious question begging. The only thing that truly made me laugh is the the last sentence the writer wrote,”Atheists are afraid to comment on this article because they are stumped by all of these questions.”.
And I think it will make you laugh too.
Thanks for reading and understanding if you did, have a nice day, and if the day is about to finish, good night.
Our facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Refuting-God/106401523032141