We are taking a look at an atheist’s blog post entitled,
“The Five Best Reasons Not to Believe in God“
In my previous post I dealt with his argument for “Suffering“.
As I tackle his arguments, you can click on the links below and see if he has made a more compelling argument. As always, I am advocating for the God of the bible, not the multitude of other gods for which I agree, there is no evidence for. Let’s get started.
- There is No Evidence for God
- Belief in God is Illogical
- Suffering Negates His Existence
- We Don’t Need God
- Life is Better Without God
4. We Don’t Need God
We have come to argument 4 of our posters reasons why God doesn’t exist. Though by his own admission this reason is irrelevant to God’s existence.
This isn’t exactly an argument against the truth of God, but it is a reason to stop worrying about him. We don’t require God – he is an unnecessary addition to the universe, and it can get along perfectly well without him
I believe his first two reasons not to believe God exists are really his only legitimate arguments, and I think they were very weak, unsupported and unpersuasive. Of course you are the final judge on that. Conversely, I believe that there is persuasive evidence to believe that God does indeed exist. Do you remember the logical argument from my previous post [Illogical] about the universe having a cause?
- Premise 1: Anything that begins to exists has a cause
- Premise 2: The universe began to exist
- Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause
It follows that if the universe has a cause, that cause must be uncaused, outside everything that is caused, and immensely powerful.
- Premise 1: If the universe had a cause, and is finely tuned for intelligent life
- Premise 2: Natural processes cannot cause anything if they do not exist
- Premise 3: The cause of the universe must be uncaused, intelligent and immensely powerful
- Conclusion; Therefore an uncaused, immensely powerful intelligence exists
The poster claims that God is not necessary, but I would argue that God is not only necessary but sufficient for the universe to exist.
Although this reason is only an opinion, given that the writer has not presented “one iota” of evidence showing how the universe could have come about, or can exist without God, he makes some claims I would like to address.
His Other Claims
Paragraphs 2 & 3 of his post
Morality
- God is not needed for morality and morality didn’t start with the bible
- We don’t need commandments or threats of damnation to make us do what is right
Where is his evidence for the origin of morality? He doesn’t cite any. This is a common theme through his entire blog post. My question to our blogger is who sets the standard for morality? Is morality subjective or objective?
SUBJECTIVE MORALITY
I would argue that morality is objective and not a human construct. It is rooted in God’s unchanging character. If it is not, then morality is subjective and continually influenced by changing popular culture. In Germany when non-Aryan’s were subjectively categorized as Untermensch [subhuman], it lead to the death of six million Jews. Subjective morality becomes what ever you can get a majority of people to say it is.
Our blogger presents no alternative to the origin of morality, so how can he argue it is not from God? How can he be sure morality is not imprinted on our digital DNA coding in every cell?
Romans 2:14-16; Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right. And this is the message I proclaim—that the day is coming when God, through Christ Jesus, will judge everyone’s secret life.
If we are no different than animals and right and wrong are only a result of evolution then there is no wrong. Who’s to say my wrong is any more right or wrong than yours? If there is no standard by which to measure morality than anything goes.
U.S Law and Rule Have Nothing to do With the Bible
The writer says he can prove that the United States has little if not anything to do with the bible and cites the U.S. Constitution.
To prove this I need only point out that most Western states operate on the basis of a constitution and the rule of law and have nothing to do with religion or the Bible. Killing someone has legal consequences, and most normal people with a conscience regard it as wrong without the need for a cosmic force to tell them.
The influence of Christianity on American culture from its very inception is undeniable. Below are excerpts from the Mayflower Compact (1620) and a United States Supreme Court decision (1892). There are multitudes of documentary examples of the influence Christianity has had upon the formation and structure of the United States governing and legislative bodies.
Mayflower Compact
Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, …
hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, … we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November, … 1620.
143 U.S. 457 (12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226)
RECTOR, ETC., OF HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. UNITED STATES.
Decided: February 29, 1892
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for the United States.
Mr. Justice BREWER delivered the opinion of the court.
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, ‘Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; * * * not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.’ And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: ‘The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. … and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors.’…
…Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: ‘We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy,…
U.S. Declaration of Independence
…Coming nearer to the present time, the declaration of independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that thet are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…
[Cornell Law School; Legal Information Institute, law.cornell.edu]
Our bloggers closing comment while sounding scholarly, I believe to be more lipstick and mascara rather than foundation. My next post will be commenting on his final reason for not believing God exists, and that is, “Live is Better Without Him”.
Though his reasoning thus far has been void of any support, I will give him the last words, though I am not convinced he understands what sufficient and necessary conditions are.
whilst certain individuals may derive comfort from a belief in God – as is their right – this is neither a necessary or a sufficient condition for living a good life.
If you enjoy or find this content interesting, please comment below, hit the “LIKE”button, and the “SUBSCRIBE” button so you will be notified of new posts.
Thank you,
Robert J.
The OVERCOMMER 