I´m sure you remember when I pretended to be a Muslim, Buddhist or Catholic, and answered (or countered) Norman Geisler´s "Questions for Atheists, Agnostics and Non-Christians". This week, I´m going to pretend to be an atheist. I mean, according to the broad definition of "atheism" popular in the cyber-atheist subculture, I might actually be one (although my good friend Vishnu simply considers me an a-Lakshmi-ist). I might agree with some of the arguments I spin below, while others are perhaps weaker. Still, it´s a funny thought experiment I´m doing just to kill some time on a slightly chilly Friday morning!
1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?
This is not a "question", but an accusation, charging the atheists with being close-minded. I suppose an atheist could respond: "Yes, brother, I´m willing to consider evidence for Krishna´s existence, since I´m not absolutely sure God isn´t an 8-year old child with blue skin playing a magic flute in an enchanted forest".
2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?
The first question is funny. Well, yes, *by definition* intelligently designed things have been intelligently designed by an intelligent designer. That´s what intelligently designed means, you know. The second question is badly put: there can be intelligent design "in" the universe, even if there is no designer "of" the universe. In the same manner, there can be watches "in" a meadow, even if the meadow as a whole isn´t designed.
3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?
This seems to be correct, but Geisler tacitly assumes that the "cause beyond the universe" is really a transcendental personal creator-god. So the atheist response should really be "no", since Geisler cannot be interpreted literally here (which is funny for a literalist).
4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?
5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?
This is just an attempt to make the atheist look silly. Note also that according to the Bible, God has shown himself several times! Which makes sense: why would a god who is interested in human affairs hide himself from his people? So what is the evidence that these epiphanies really happened as stated? Or happened at all?
6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?
This assumes that atheists believe that something really did come out of nothing. While there are atheists who try to argue in favor of that position (yes, really), Atheist Ashtar does not. Note also the false dichotomy! Why are the only two options "the universe just popped into existence one shiny morning" and "the universe was intelligently designed by a ancient Canaanite volcano-god with a penchant for smiting Amalekites"? (See what I just did there?)
7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?
Once again, this is an attempt to portray atheists as silly. Does Geisler really believe that any atheist-materialist denies that "something presently exists"? The "something" that "must have always existed" could be the universe (or "multiverse").
8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)
No, since the first one-celled animal was itself a product of prior evolution. And no, no amoeba has "as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas". Not sure what that statement could even mean. I doubt amoebas carry information about English reign-lengths, the battle of Agincourt or the Blitz in their DNA, and I also somehow doubt that is what Dawkins means! Here is a scary idea (scary for the theist): what if Nature *can* generate advanced information, while humans - who think they are so clever - can only imperfectly mimic these vast and complex natural processes?
9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?
No, since we aren´t familiar with any mind great enough to produce the entire universe. We *are* familiar with limited minds, embodied in matter, which ulimately die. And while they can design objects from matter, they can´t create matter ex nihilo.
10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?
11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?
I´m tempted to just retort "what about natural evil" at question 10. What Geisler really means is of course whether there is anything wrong anywhere *in human society*. He also has it exactly backwards: if humans wouldn´t know what´s wrong *prior* to a formalized moral law, they would never understand that law, even if it was revealed amidst fire on a mountain top by a god who shan´t be named. From this follows that the moral law comes from humans. It´s based on a combination of sociality and compassion. Yes, every law needs a lawgiver, but the Moral Lawgiver is a human (for instance, Solon).
12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?
No, I wouldn´t. But then, I don´t really understand the question. What on earth is a "model universe in a science lab"?
13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?
More silliness. The universe isn´t a "ball"! If the universe is eternal and infinite, no, it doesn´t need a "cause". It just is. (Compare God.) Also, Geisler is conflating "cause" and "intelligent cause". A small glass ball could have a cause that´s non-intelligent, perhaps volcanic activity (of the non-Yahwic kind) combined with erosion, or something like that.
14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?
This seems to be correct, but the "non-finite" cause could be purely natural. Our universe may have been caused by some fluctuations in the multiverse...
15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?
The universe isn´t fine-tuned for human life. Or any life. But even if it was, this fine-tuning seems very limited in its effects. Most of the vast expanses of space are lethal to life, certainly for humans. And how did the "preplanning" look like? Did God send the meteorite that killed the non-avian dinosaurs 66 million years ago, so mammals could radiate into new ecological niches? Did he let the birds survive so we could fry chicken-wings? (What´s wrong with T-Rex steak, I wonder?) At best, the fine-tuning argument proves that the universe was "designed" by a capricious, perhaps malevolent, deity. Congrats, you have just proven Gnosticism!
Besides, you haven´t explained where Cain´s wife comes from!
No comments:
Post a Comment