Proof – Of The Desperation Of Christian Apologists

You can not prove (or disprove) the existence of God through philosophy, logic, argumentation or debate.

Figures lie, and liars figure – and words, and those who wield them, are not much better.

I once had a mathematics professor who had some spare time after one lesson.  He erased two blackboards.  At the top of one, he wrote x = 1.  He then wrote a simple binomial equation beneath it. Below that, he began to add factors – multiplying, dividing, squaring, till the seventh equation was fairly complex.

At the top of the next board, he began to solve and simplify – each equation becoming less complex, until the seventh line solved, to show that x = 2.  😕  I thought that I followed the sequence, and my buddy, the numbers nerd later assured me that I did – we all did.  The teacher had just proved something that was observably false.

The Arguments For The Existence Of God

The Cosmological Argument: An argument for the existence of God based on the observation that, since every known thing in the universe has a cause, which can only be God.

The Moral Argument: An argument for the existence of God which reasons that there must be a God who is the source of man’s sense of right and wrong.

The Ontological Argument: An argument for the existence of God that begins with the idea of God as the greatest of beings that can be imagined. As such, the characteristic of existence must belong to such a being, since it is greater to exist than not to exist.

Teleological Argument: An argument for the existence of God which reasons that, since the universe exhibits evidence of order and design, there must be an intelligent and purposeful God who created it to function in this way.

The Cosmological Argument – every known thing in the universe

Mealy-mouthed, and weasel-words, which only prove a narrow mind, and a pile of assumptions and pre-suppositions.

It is possible that there are things within the Universe which have no cause.  Just because they have not been observed does not prove them impossible or nonexistent, or limit the choice to ‘only God.’  It seems likely that the Universe itself has no cause.  It floated about, apparently forever, in the timeless, spaceless Meta-verse that God is supposed to “exist” in.  But the Universe is palpable, observable, malleable, and measurable, while God cannot be proved to exist beyond the hopes and faith of religious believers.

The Moral Argument:

Reason: to think or argue in a logical manner.
to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.
to think through logically,
There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of ‘reasoning,’ thinking,’ ‘logic,’ or ‘facts’ in this unproven claim.  It denies Atheists’ claims that they are Good Without God, and ignores the observed fact that most Atheists are ‘good’ and moral, while many God-botherers fill prisons and divorce courts.

The Ontological Argument:
Like many Christian arguments, this one starts at the desired conclusion, and works backwards to somehow justify it.  There is no suggestion, no evidence, much less Proof, that there is a “greatest being,” and even if there is, there is no indication that it is the Christian God. As the argument even says, it’s all based on imagination.

Teleological Argument:
Apophenia is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things. The term was coined by psychiatrist Klaus Conrad in his 1958 publication on the beginning stages of schizophrenia. He defined it as “unmotivated seeing of connections accompanied by a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness”. He described the early stages of delusional thought as self-referential, over-interpretations of actual sensory perceptions, as opposed to hallucinations.  Such meanings are entirely self-referential, solipsistic, and paranoid (Emphasis mine)—”being observed, spoken about, the object of eavesdropping, followed by strangers”.  Pareidolia is a type of apophenia involving the perception of images or sounds in random stimuli..

It is considered poor form and bad manners to say that religious people are crazy, but it seems that portions of their delusional, unsupported beliefs, must fall within the parameters of the clinical definition.


9 thoughts on “Proof – Of The Desperation Of Christian Apologists

  1. Jim Wheeler says:

    Nature, meaning all forms of biological life, is, obviously, immensely complex. How this could arise without a creator seems impossible, hence, there must be one. But, such a creator must then itself be even more complex! Richard Dawkins, in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, argues persuasively that the answer is that the mechanism of evolution (as I interpret it) is built into the properties of matter. If this is so, then finding life on other planets would prove it. However, we would still would not know what became before the Big Bang. I think that great philosopher Donald Trump said it best: “It is what it is.”


    • Archon's Den says:

      Even if we find life on other Solar planets or moons, or eventually, extra-solar worlds, the Thumpers will still insist that ‘God’ put it there.
      Even more amusing is the claim from some that, if we are visited by beings from another star-system, they will arrive already having read and believed The Bible. 😆 😯


  2. Jim Wheeler says:

    How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


  3. Jim Wheeler says:

    I submit that comparing science to religion is apples to oranges. Religion is ideology, science is methodology, something quite different.


    • Archon's Den says:

      I agree, but many Apologists continue to claim that they are the same, to gain some sort of equivalence in the arguments – Atheism is a Religion – Atheists need more faith to believe than Christians. 😳


  4. RaPaR says:

    All of these arguments are ludicrous. Christian apologists have been turning cartwheels for 2 thousand years trying to meet any semblance of evidence for the existence of God and for a real life Jesus. Eventually the absence of evidence MUST BE evidence of absence (another datum apologists just love to argue!) There is absolutely no extra-Biblical evidence of a man named Jesus and, given the events and circumstances that supposedly occurred during his “lifetime”; masses meeting and celebrating his kingship in Jerusalem, raising people from the dead, etc. it is simply impossible that no other contemporaneous writers mention it anywhere.

    As for the existence of a “god” in the form of a human with all the frailties and personality disorders of a human, and the absolute lack of any material evidence, any reasonable, rational person has to discount that out of hand. The whole idea is laughable.


    • Archon's Den says:

      The complaint-du-jour is, Do you think that you (personally, and all Atheists) are smarter than me? ‘Smart’ is impossible to define, or measure, and is totally irrelevant to the argument. Some incredibly intelligent people have done-thought-said-believed some incredibly stupid stuff, while folks who need to have instructions for using shoe-laces read to them, are amazingly successful.

      I don’t know if my IQ is as high as Matt Dillahunty’s. It’s high enough to get me into MENSA, but what made me, and keeps me, an Atheist, is skepticism, logic and a lack of desperate egotism. 👿

      Liked by 1 person

      • RaPaR says:

        I often cite N.T. Wright & Dr. Francis Collins as two extremely brilliant people that buy into this nonsense and I simply do not understand how or why. What is it that switches off their logical facilities when this topic is brought up? Could Collins, for instance, have become so famous for his cutting edge knowledge of genetics, etc. without the use of his logic and reasoning? I think not.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s