Some Atheistic Arguments Answered
By Wayne Jackson
(http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/405-some-atheistic-arguments-answered)
"In establishing the case for the existence of God, we attempt to present clear reasoning that will lead to a rational conclusion, namely, that the universe, mankind, etc., are not self-explanatory. Rather, logical minds must conclude that a Supreme Being exists. In our approach, we are affirming a proposition for which positive evidence exists."
We have our main points, 'Case for the existence of God', 'Clear reasoning' and 'rational conclusion'. That rational conclusion being that a Supreme Being exists!
I'm not sure of the significance of the 'self-explanatory' bit is though? Is a rock self-explanatory? I think that this might be a bit of rhetoric, implying that atheist 'doctrine' is that the Universe is self-explanatory, perhaps.
"Atheism, on the other hand, is a totally negative system."
I think that this 'point' would be just as good a place for old Wayne to tell us 'case closed' and be done with it, as any other point, but we'll move along.
" It denies much and affirms nothing."
Atheists deny the existence of gods and that's that. What Wayne seems to want is an affirmation of God.
" It robs one of hope and offers emptiness in exchange,..."
As an atheist, I'm hopeful of different things, but once again Wayne seems to be thinking of some kind of 'fullness' which he feels that only God can offer.
".. asserting that there is no transcendent Cause for the universe, and that man is a fortuitous combination of molecules."
Sounds bad for atheists until you 'remember' that he's just defining atheists at this point, painting them in a dismal light.
" Morality does not exist..."
Ahh, now a lie, an outright barefaced lie.
".., or if it does, man, as his own god, determines its nature."
Followed by other horn of a false dilemma. Apparently there either is no morality OR man is 'being god'. Certainly men determine the nature of morality, but Wayne slips in that we need to be in 'god mode' to do it. He sets it up that Either God defines morality or 'man in god mode' defines morality, distancing morality from being a set of customs for the benefit of society.
"Atheism is a philosophical system of contradiction and confusion."
Bold statement. How does 'There are no gods.', become this system of confusion etc.?
" Atheists do, however, attempt to argue their case."
I thought Wayne said that he was going to prove his case. Now he seems to be taking his 'case' as a 'given', 'proven'?
"In this article, we will analyze two of the popular arguments employed in defense of atheism."
Wow, Wayne is setting his bar as low as he can go here, proving to his own satisfaction that a couple of atheist 'attempts to argue their case' don't measure up to his standards.
"Non-Design Negates God?"
Atheist, we 'hear' in this three and a half word sentence attempt to disprove the tautology of 'Designer therefore design, design therefore designer.'
"In contending for the existence of God, theists utilize the design argument, which postulates that where there is purposeful design, there must be a designer."
Panache anyone? I feel as if I'm being panache-pied in the face with all this 'contending' and 'utilizing' and 'postulating' of a silly 'definition' argument(purposeful design implies designer).
"That this type of reasoning is valid is not in doubt,..."
Rolling on the floor, laughing my fucking ass off. A word game, 'design' therefore 'designer'.
" especially for those who respect the authority of the Scriptures (which an atheist obviously would not)"
Paint your opponents as disrespectful and anti-authoritarian, WHILE painting the Bible AS a respected authority! (double whammy)
".., since it is employed by an inspired writer. Paul, in his epistle to the Roman saints, declared:
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse (1:20)."
But this is an appeal to authority and hardly the logical evidence that Wayne was touting earlier.
"Thus, we may argue logically:
Premise #1: If the universe evinces purposeful design, there must have been a designer. "
Indeed if anything at all 'evinces' purposeful design, it must, BY DEFINITION have a designer. But you are simply posing the question AS the answer.
"Premise #2: The universe does evince purposeful design."
No, it doesn't.
"Conclusion: Thus, the universe must have had a Designer."
Wayne is simply repeating the word game, 'purposefully designed things have a designer', when the question of whether the universe IS designed IS the question. No God, no design.
"The basic point of contention, from the atheistic vantage point, would be the minor premise."
PANACHE alert! Waynes couches his second premise as 'minor', as if we've already proven from the tautology, "Purposefully designed things have a designer!", that the Universe IS purposefully designed!
" The infidel denies that the universe reveals purposeful design."
More panache! 'The infidel' no less! What a joke. And of course he finally reaches the nub of the argument. No, Wayne, you don't 'get away with' saying that there must be a design because there's a God, and there must be a God because the Universe is designed by HIM, and try to pawn that off as logical evidence.
"He feels that he can reverse the argument and make his point against the existence of God."
Why would anyone feel the need to reverse this circular argument?
" He would reason (incorrectly) as follows:
Premise #1: If the universe evinces traits of non-design, there is no Designer.
Premise #2: The universe does evince non-design.
Conclusion: Thus, the universe had no Designer."
What? Why would any atheist try to reverse a circular argument?
"The atheist’s argument is invalid for several reasons."
I'm thinking that Wayne has said 'atheist' when he's meaning 'straw man' here.
"In arguing our case for design, we are not obligated to show obvious design in every single feature of the universe."
Wayne wasn't obligated to write any of this drivel. Looking at some exact opposite ludricous point of view and claiming that this is(must be?) what atheists think is devious because Christians are likely to agree that Wayne's 'opposite' argument must be what 'the atheist' thinks, and we can all laugh at 'the atheist's' silly point of view now.
"We need only a reasonable number of sufficient evidences to establish design, hence, a Designer."
We haven't been exposed to ONE in this monologue.
" Here are two vital principles that must be kept in view:
It is possible that an object possesses purposeful design but that its design is not recognized by the observer. "
Are we down to asking ourselves if it's 'possible' that there 'might' be a God now?
"It is possible that an object once clearly reflected purposeful design, but that through the process of degeneration, its obvious design has been erased. "
Wow! Wayne seems to be readying an escape hatch against any evidence of anything that, if designed, are BADLY designed!
But, there was truck-loads of panache, and disdain. Not so much 'proof' though. No doubt 'faith' steps in to pose as 'proof' later in Wayne's "Case for the Existence of God!"
