Many people who generally cared about this site, both online and offline, are seeming to be pretty annoyed by my frequent periods of complete absence from it. I confess that it is indeed a bit strange, but I cannot help it. However, when I am here and have the time to write an article long enough, it is quite predictive that I will. Of course, I can’t write much profound stuff right away, I have done too much of thinking these days, so I think I should pick up something simple for record. This article will be a response to a old article(it gave me much to ponder about when I first read it) of Eric Hyde’s blog titled ‘Top 10 common atheist argument, and why they fail‘.
A point to note here is that I will not defend all of the 10 arguments he attacked, but only some(precisely 2) of them, as they seem to be a bit worth of interest to me. This is not to show any disrespect to the author or to his points, but just to say that I don’t really have any interest in those points, just as a fact. I will possibly respond to more of his points in later articles. Some may ask that why am I taking so much of a mess to refute a single set of claims, well, that’s my situation, I cannot do any better as I don’t have enough time. Hope you will understand.
Okay, here we go;
1. There is no evidence for God’s existence.
As he goes on explaining why this point fails, he slightly twists the essence of the point. He explains, as his first objection. That atheists mostly claim ‘physical’ evidence for God’s existence, which is irrelevant because Christians never claimed God to be a physical being. There are some problems with this objection. Firstly, it makes some assumptions; (1) if a claim is about the existence of a supernatural being or a nonphysical being, we should not ask for physical evidence for its existence and (2) if there is no physical evidence for a non-physical being, it does not necessarily mean that they are fairy-tales.
While I cannot very much object to the second assumption, or should I say hidden premises, I have some objections to it. But I think I should attack the weakest point first, which is the first assumption.
A Christian God is a person who quite often(kind of ‘scary’ often) interacts with the physical world. For example, if one claims that he has seen a ghost, he must provide some evidence to support his claim. Like, say, his room was locked from all angles, but the inside is ruined up. Or if one has a supernatural friend, he flies him up in front of everybody from a open field etc. Which definitely show that they have some kind of a point. I am essentially talking about miracles here, but not that kinda weird miracles theists often present. I am asking for a definitive miracle which can point to exactly one direction. Like in the night sky, the stars are arranging themselves to form the word ‘Christ’ or making a worldwide broadcast about him in the air. A Christian God is not an immaterial being who lives with his hands closed being isolated. He is a God who interacts, communicates with being in the physical world. So, why is there no trace of God anywhere if he does stuff here so often? That actually points us to the conclusion that God is intentionally hidden, and that kinda suggests something about God’s love.
So, looking for physical evidence for an immaterial being is only nonsensical if the being is supposed not to interact with physical stuff, but in the case of theistic God, this demand is more than justified.
Logical evidence for God’s existence. He claims that there are so insanely powerful logical evidences for God which can easily be found in online sites or in print. Come on! You can also find many arguments for the ‘flat earth model’ in online or in print, that does not mean they qualify as ‘evidences’. There are no logical arguments for God which is yet to be refuted, I have attempted to refute some of them in my blog, there are thousands of refutations in the internet and even in print(which would be ‘evidences’ by your reasoning). This is a kind of ridiculous objection, there are points for my position in the internet and in print, so if you say I have no evidence for my position, you fail.
Also, ‘Why the cause of the physical world can’t be physical?’ being a ridiculous question in itself, there is no proper justification of the claim that there has to be a ’cause’ for the physical world, that the physical world is contingent and not necessary. Theists generally point to the Big Bang theory in order to defend the claim. But it fails as Big bang actually says nothing about any beginning. The big bang theory isn’t “Nothing….BANG….The Universe”, it is “The Universe as a singularity…..BANG…..inflation”, theists are certainly inclined to resort this theory into the Creation-Ex-Nihilo model, and I see no reason for it except confirmation bias.
2. If God created the Universe, who created God?
Yeah, you know, all that ‘eternal’ stuff. I will not point to Eric’s point this time. All I will do is to explain the problems which most apologetic defenses against this question have. First, ‘there has to be a first cause’ is not a logical step to take, it is a fallacious claim in itself, it is special pleading. More specifically, it is special pleading to avoid infinite regress. It is basically asserting an infinity to avoid another infinity, which is quite ironic. The whole idea of a first cause is based on special pleading, which the author justifies by saying that special pleading for a necessary being is permissible, but there doesn’t have to be a special being in the first place, infinite regress is just fine, at least fine if you go with the rule of causation, which I don’t but assume in this article. Some theists oppose the idea of the infinite regress by saying that if there was an infinite number of causes, we could not have reached the presence. But hey! The same applies for God! If God is eternal, he couldn’t have made this universe, he could not have reached the point at which he made the universe, because he existed ‘infinite’ periods in the past and so will exist to the future. The theists here will say that God is beyond logical analysis, so we have to commit another special pleading, but so is an infinite number of supernatural causes!
To be honest, I made the above para as simple as possible, so don’t get annoyed by too straight forward in-a-sentence arguments. The purpose of the question ‘Who created God’ is in fact to show how the idea of a necessary being is flawed. You can’t respond to it by repeating your concept again, because that’s the concept it is addressing.