Many cite internet videos, forums, blogs, etc. as a major reason* *2012-13 survey conducted by the Fixed Point Foundation: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/listening-to-young-atheists-lessons-for-a-stronger-christianity/276584/
What is internet ATHEISM? What is internet ATHEISM? Popular level arguments and assertions which may have apparent rhetorical force, but often contain logical/ factual mistakes and are usually built upon a lack of relevant philosophical knowledge/understanding What is internet ATHEISM? Popular level arguments and assertions which may have apparent rhetorical force, but often contain logical/ factual mistakes and are usually built upon a lack of relevant philosophical knowledge/understanding What is internet ATHEISM? Popular level arguments and assertions which may have apparent rhetorical force, but often contain logical/ factual mistakes and are usually built upon a lack of relevant philosophical knowledge/understanding What is internet ATHEISM? Popular level arguments and assertions which may have apparent rhetorical force, but often contain logical/ factual mistakes and are usually built upon a lack of relevant philosophical knowledge/understanding What is internet ATHEISM? Popular level arguments and assertions which may have apparent rhetorical force, but often contain logical/ factual mistakes and are usually built upon a lack of relevant philosophical knowledge/understanding internet Atheism arguments internet Atheism arguments Rhetorical Arguments
internet Atheism arguments Rhetorical Arguments Scientific Arguments internet Atheism arguments Rhetorical Arguments Scientific Arguments Philosophical Arguments internet Atheism arguments Rhetorical Arguments Scientific Arguments Philosophical Arguments Historical Arguments internet Atheism arguments Rhetorical Arguments Scientific Arguments Philosophical Arguments Historical Arguments Our Strategy Our Strategy We can be better equipped to respond to internet atheism by breaking down the arguments or assertions and taking time to stop and think Not only must we honestly announce that pain and work are the irremovable and irreducible accompaniments of genuine learning but we must have no fears about what is over the public s head. Whoever passes by what is over his head condemns his head to its present low altitude; for nothing can elevate a mind except what is over its head Mortimer Adler RHETORICAL ARGUMENT 1 I just believe in one less god than you. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
That s like saying to a marathon runner, I just believe in one less form of exercise than you do. When you understand why you don t perform every available exercise you ll understand why I don t perform any! That s like saying to a marathon runner, to pretend that [belief in God] is subject to the same sorts of objections that might be presented against the gods of Olympus is simply to miss the central point of 2,500 years of philosophical reflection on the question of God s existence and nature. Edward Feser I just believe in one less form of exercise than you do. When you understand why you don t perform every available exercise you ll understand why I don t perform any! RHETORICAL ARGUMENT 2 Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. Science causes widespread death and destruction Science causes widespread death and destruction Religion helps the poor, sick, and needy Science causes widespread death and destruction Religion helps the poor, sick, and needy
Government protects the innocent Government protects the innocent The private sector steals from the innocent Government protects the innocent The private sector steals from the innocent Government kills the innocent Government kills the innocent The private sector helps the innocent Government kills the innocent The private sector helps the innocent
RHETORICAL ARGUMENT 3 Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do simple claims require simple evidence? Do simple claims require simple evidence? 2) What is meant by extraordinary? Do simple claims require simple evidence? 2) What is meant by extraordinary? Is it the TYPE of evidence? Do simple claims require simple evidence? 2) What is meant by extraordinary? Is it the TYPE of evidence? This results in logical problems Do simple claims require simple evidence? 2) What is meant by extraordinary? Is it the TYPE of evidence? This results in logical problems Is it the AMOUNT of evidence?
Do simple claims require simple evidence? 2) What is meant by extraordinary? Is it the TYPE of evidence? This results in logical problems Is it the AMOUNT of evidence? That s precisely what we have! Do simple claims require simple evidence? 2) What is meant by extraordinary? Is it the TYPE of evidence? This results in logical problems Is it the AMOUNT of evidence? That s precisely what we have! Is it the REPEATABILITY of evidence? Do simple claims require simple evidence? 2) What is meant by extraordinary? Is it the TYPE of evidence? This results in logical problems Is it the AMOUNT of evidence? That s precisely what we have! Is it the REPEATABILITY of evidence? Many unrepeatable things are accepted SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT 1 Empirical science is the only means of knowing truth about reality. Everything else is merely opinion. Empirical science is the only means of knowing truth about reality. Everything else is merely opinion. Is THAT claim empirically verifiable? Empirical science is the only means of knowing truth about reality. Everything else is merely opinion. Is THAT claim empirically verifiable? Empirical science is the only means of knowing truth about reality. Everything else is merely opinion. Atheists who think they are arguing from purely scientific premises never really are. They are, without exception, arguing from metaphysical assumptions and usually unexamined ones at that that are first read into empirical science and then read back out, like the rabbit the magician can pull out of the hat only because he s first hidden it there. Edward Feser SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT 2 Quantum physics proves that the universe can come into being uncaused out of nothing. Therefore, we don t need God.
SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT 2 Quantum physics proves that the universe can come into being uncaused out of nothing. Therefore, we don t need God. 1) A quantum vacuum is not nothing 1) A quantum vacuum is not nothing Commits the fallacy of equivocation 1) A quantum vacuum is not nothing Commits the fallacy of equivocation The modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum nothing. The quantum mechanical vacuum is not truly nothing ; rather, the vacuum state has a rich structure which resides in a previously existing substratum. Physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle 2) Quantum physics assumes physical laws and physical reality 2) Quantum physics assumes physical laws and physical reality But neither quantum uncertainty nor any other theory of physics is or could be the reason [that something must exist], for quantum mechanics and all the other laws of physics presuppose the existence of a concrete physical reality that behaves according to those laws, so that such laws cannot coherently be appealed to as an explanation of that reality. Edward Feser
PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT 1 If everything needs a cause, then who caused God? PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT 1 If everything needs a cause, then who caused God? these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion There is no version of the cosmological argument that says everything has a cause There is no version of the cosmological argument that says everything has a cause One version says that whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause There is no version of the cosmological argument that says everything has a cause One version says that whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause Another version says that CONTINGENT things need a cause
There is no version of the cosmological argument that says everything has a cause One version says that whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause Another version says that CONTINGENT things need a cause Philosophically, we know that God neither began to exist, nor is He contingent There is no version of the cosmological argument that says everything has a cause One version says that whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause Another version says that CONTINGENT things need a cause Philosophically, we know that God neither began to exist, nor is He contingent Therefore, God does NOT need a cause PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT 2 Atheists can be moral without believing in God, therefore God is not necessary for morality. 1) The issue is NOT whether atheists can BE moral (good) 1) The issue is NOT whether atheists can BE moral (good) Atheists experience gravity without believing in a God who created it 1) The issue is NOT whether atheists can BE moral (good) Atheists experience gravity without believing in a God who created it Likewise, atheists experience moral reality without believing in the God of its foundation 1) The issue is NOT whether atheists can BE moral (good) Atheists experience gravity without believing in a God who created it Likewise, atheists experience moral reality without believing in the God of its foundation 2) The issue IS whether atheists can JUSTIFY the existence of objective morality
1) The issue is NOT whether atheists can BE moral (good) Atheists experience gravity without believing in a God who created it Likewise, atheists experience moral reality without believing in the God of its foundation 2) The issue IS whether atheists can JUSTIFY the existence of objective morality Much of the moral law can be known apart from any acknowledgment of God 1) The issue is NOT whether atheists can BE moral (good) Atheists experience gravity without believing in a God who created it Likewise, atheists experience moral reality without believing in the God of its foundation 2) The issue IS whether atheists can JUSTIFY the existence of objective morality Much of the moral law can be known apart from any acknowledgment of God The actual existence of the moral law requires God PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT 3 Christianity requires faith which is belief in spite of the evidence. PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT 3 Christianity requires faith which is belief in spite of the evidence. Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. Richard Dawkins 1) This completely misunderstands biblical faith 1) This completely misunderstands biblical faith Reason is believing something because it has been demonstrated 1) This completely misunderstands biblical faith Reason is believing something because it has been demonstrated Faith is believing something on the basis of authority
1) This completely misunderstands biblical faith Reason is believing something because it has been demonstrated Faith is believing something on the basis of authority 2) We use reason to determine if we should trust a claimed authority or not 1) This completely misunderstands biblical faith Reason is believing something because it has been demonstrated Faith is believing something on the basis of authority 2) We use reason to determine if we should trust a claimed authority or not Consider how you know most of what you know about various subjects 1) This completely misunderstands biblical faith Reason is believing something because it has been demonstrated Faith is believing something on the basis of authority 2) We use reason to determine if we should trust a claimed authority or not Consider how you know most of what you know about various subjects Consider every time you visit your doctor PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT 4 Why should we think that God is the cause of the universe? PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT 4 Why should we think that God is the cause of the universe? Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion 1) Philosophically, we can show that the cause of the universe is: 1) Philosophically, we can show that the cause of the universe is: UNCAUSED & NECESSARY since it is the cause of everything that exists other than itself
1) Philosophically, we can show that the cause of the universe is: UNCAUSED & NECESSARY since it is the cause of everything that exists other than itself IMMATERIAL since it caused all matter 1) Philosophically, we can show that the cause of the universe is: UNCAUSED & NECESSARY since it is the cause of everything that exists other than itself IMMATERIAL since it caused all matter TIMELESS since it caused time 1) Philosophically, we can show that the cause of the universe is: UNCAUSED & NECESSARY since it is the cause of everything that exists other than itself IMMATERIAL since it caused all matter TIMELESS since it caused time NON-SPACIAL since it caused all space 1) Philosophically, we can show that the cause of the universe is: UNCAUSED & NECESSARY since it is the cause of everything that exists other than itself IMMATERIAL since it caused all matter TIMELESS since it caused time NON-SPACIAL since it caused all space 2) Thus, we have an uncaused, necessary, immaterial, infinite cause of the universe 1) Philosophically, we can show that the cause of the universe is: UNCAUSED & NECESSARY since it is the cause of everything that exists other than itself IMMATERIAL since it caused all matter TIMELESS since it caused time NON-SPACIAL since it caused all space 2) Thus, we have an uncaused, necessary, immaterial, infinite cause of the universe This sounds like a good starting definition of GOD HISTORICAL ARGUMENT 1 Emperor Constantine invented Christianity at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. 1) Council of Nicea was convened to settle the Arian controversy regarding the deity of Christ
1) Council of Nicea was convened to settle the Arian controversy regarding the deity of Christ Arias questioned the previous 300 years of nearly unanimous affirmation of Christ s deity which caused church division 1) Council of Nicea was convened to settle the Arian controversy regarding the deity of Christ Arias questioned the previous 300 years of nearly unanimous affirmation of Christ s deity which caused church division Constantine was after imperial unity 1) Council of Nicea was convened to settle the Arian controversy regarding the deity of Christ Arias questioned the previous 300 years of nearly unanimous affirmation of Christ s deity which caused church division Constantine was after imperial unity 2) The canon of Scripture was not a topic of dispute at the Council 1) Council of Nicea was convened to settle the Arian controversy regarding the deity of Christ Arias questioned the previous 300 years of nearly unanimous affirmation of Christ s deity which caused church division Constantine was after imperial unity 2) The canon of Scripture was not a topic of dispute at the Council NT canon had been largely affirmed from the beginning 1) Council of Nicea was convened to settle the Arian controversy regarding the deity of Christ Arias questioned the previous 300 years of nearly unanimous affirmation of Christ s deity which caused church division Constantine was after imperial unity 2) The canon of Scripture was not a topic of dispute at the Council NT canon had been largely affirmed from the beginning Origen likely listed all 27 NT books 100 years before the Council of Nicea HISTORICAL ARGUMENT 2 We have no reason to believe that one dead body behaved in a manner that no other dead body ever has before or since. 1) If God doesn t exist then the resurrection is nonsense
1) If God doesn t exist then the resurrection is nonsense Comes back to philosophy (If God, then miracles) 1) If God doesn t exist then the resurrection is nonsense Comes back to philosophy (If God, then miracles) We have a historically accurate NT text 1) If God doesn t exist then the resurrection is nonsense Comes back to philosophy (If God, then miracles) We have a historically accurate NT text 2) Minimal F.A.C.T.S. provide solid evidence for the resurrection 1) If God doesn t exist then the resurrection is nonsense Comes back to philosophy (If God, then miracles) We have a historically accurate NT text 2) Minimal F.A.C.T.S. provide solid evidence for the resurrection Fatal cross, Abandoned tomb, Conversion of the disciples, Transformation of James, Saul became Paul 1) If God doesn t exist then the resurrection is nonsense Comes back to philosophy (If God, then miracles) We have a historically accurate NT text 2) Minimal F.A.C.T.S. provide solid evidence for the resurrection Fatal cross, Abandoned tomb, Conversion of the disciples, Transformation of James, Saul became Paul The resurrection has the most plausibility, explanatory scope, explanatory power, and less ad hoc assertions You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon, or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. C.S. Lewis It isn't arguing for God's existence that's hard. It's clearing away the gigantic pile of modern intellectual rubbish that keeps people from properly understanding the arguments that's hard. Edward Feser
Recommended RESOURCES RECOMMENDED APPS Recommended RESOURCES Southern Evangelical Seminary Apologetics Study Bible CrossExamined.org (Frank Turek) New Testament iwitness Resurrection iwitness STR Quick- Reference App RECOMMENDED APPS Recommended RESOURCES RECOMMENDED BOOKS Southern Evangelical Seminary Apologetics Study Bible CrossExamined.org (Frank Turek) New Testament iwitness Resurrection iwitness STR Quick- Reference App