HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

Chapter 3, Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 1, Change must be caused by a being that doesn’t change for nothing changes itself. God doesn’t change at all for he is perfect.
 
Reason Says
There should have been nothing for nothing comes out of nothing. It is easier for nothing to exist than something to exist. So why does this being exist? 
 
Because it caused a change from what should have been. It exists while nothing should exist. So God then contradicts the argument where it says that nothing changes itself or by itself. God is an energy that has the power to change. The argument does not prove the God of the Christians who is not made of the power of change but who gives the power of change. It gives us the force that became the universe at the big bang.
 
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 2, Nothing causes itself so all things must depend on something that is uncaused, an uncaused cause of all things
 
Reason replies:
But why is there a God when there might have been no God? Why couldn’t there have simply being nothing. It is easier for there to be simply nothing than for anything to exist. Something caused God then after all. If nothing causes itself then there cannot be such a thing as an uncaused cause. It is extreme dishonesty of the authors to use this argument which has been laughed at for at least four centuries.
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 3, For things to come into being and go out of being there must be a cause of this that is just there and doesn’t come into being or go out of being
 
Reason replies:
Nothing goes out of being. It merely changes. Bodies die and become compost.
 
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 4, There are different degrees of goodness in the world so there must be a being that is perfect goodness to make all this goodness
 
Reason replies:
There are different degrees of evil in the world so there must be a God like being with perfect evil. If there are two Gods that contradicts your Christian faith.
 
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 5, An intelligent mind like God must have designed all things for there is no design without a designer
 
Reason replies:
A designer could have been made or evolved by chance after matter came into being.
 
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 6, The universe had a beginning so it had a cause. The cause can only be God.
 
Reason replies:
This is perhaps taking advantage of the big bang theory and perverting it to say that the universe came out of nothing and had a beginning. What if God made a spiritual force, a force that cannot be detected by science for it has laws and a nature different from anything in the universe? Maybe it became the universe at the big bang. The big bang does not help the idea that the universe came from nothing and does not help the notion that the universe was created by God.
 
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 7, All things depend on other things to exist. There must be something that doesn’t depend on anything else to exist that makes all other things exist.
 
Reason replies:
Argument 1, 2, 3, 6 are only different versions of this one. You can’t change something without causing motion, creating a cause and so on. If God depends on nothing to exist but himself then why not hold that some substance that depends on nothing but itself turned itself into the universe? Why not hold that the ultimate energy that makes up the universe is the uncaused cause?
 
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 8, The universe is not one thing but countless things working together and only a God could set that up
 
Reason replies:
This is another version of argument 5 that God is the designer. There is a lot of chaos in the universe and the universe is not several things working together. Some things work together in it. The argument is as silly as saying that there is one human race working together.
 
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 9, Miracles show that God exist but they must take place in some religious context to show this
 
Miracles are not a proof for God but a sign or clue.
 
Reason replies: 
Is a clue enough when people follow a faith that demands that you be willing to die for it and tell people they are at risk of going to eternal hell for it?

 

The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t investigate and declare authentic, miracle claims outside this Roman Catholic context so for it to say that miracles show its teaching is from God is for it to lie for it ignores anything that doesn’t fit what it wants to believe. So miracles are going to be ignored if they fall outside the God context or religious context according to this Handbook. This translates as, “Miracles are not evidence for what we believe unless they fit what we believe”. That is a totally bigoted and dishonest and even approach.
 
 
Thankfully the Handbook shows us that it is up to us to decide if a miracle is a sign or not. In daily life, we all interpret signs and clues differently from others. It is a natural and nice thing about being human. It follows then that Christians should not make as much of the resurrection of Jesus as a sign as they do.

 

Miracles, changes in the law of nature such as a statue coming to life, are said to prove that God exists.

But it is more likely that the witnesses are lying or deceived than that such a change really happened because making mistakes and telling lies is commoner. So, it seems that a miracle may only be believed if it is irrefutable.

When a miracle is accepted as a true miracle it is only accepted because there is no evidence against it. But once you do that you have to believe all miracles and it is not that hard to create a fake but irrefutable one. One could be done to prove that there is a weak devil but not a God.

God cannot do miracles to prove his existence for then he would be stupid for it won’t work. He would be doing silly miracles if he does them so we would not know what to make of them and their implications. Moreover, when belief is not a free act God would not need to present miracles as evidence for religion.

The Handbook of Christian Apologetics claims that though it gives a proof from miracles for God that there is no proof from miracles for you have to believe in God before you can interpret the miracle as a sign from him (page 65). From this it follows that there is no evidence that God has spoken even if God exists. Yet this incoherent book devotes some chapters to proving that God has spoken in Jesus and in the Bible! It could be that God is not all powerful and has only very limited power left to change nature and so he uses it sparingly though he has the power to change hearts which is a different power. In that case, miracles are only intended to steer the domino effect of events in the world in a new direction and are not meant to be messages of what doctrine is true though they are taken to be messages. The Church just guesses that miracles support it and is lying when it uses them to pull in the converts. This argument counts against any argument for God from religious experience. It is extreme blasphemy to say that Jesus was God if you deny that miracles are proof for anything for then you might as well say your grandfather was God and you need very good evidence before you can make such an assertion.  
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 10, We experience the universe as intelligible so it must have been made by an intelligent being
 
Reason replies:
The universe is full of mysteries we cannot understand. The universe is intelligible or it wouldn’t exist but nobody has a good enough mind to vindicate this intelligibility.
 
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 11, Our limited minds can discover eternal truths but our minds are not eternal so there must be an eternal mind God that helps us to discover such truths
 
Reason replies:
Does the fact that our minds can discover abstract truths, that is truths that are only concepts, prove that our minds are only concepts?
 
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 12, We have the idea of a God with unlimited perfection. We are imperfect beings and so couldn’t get that idea unless God put it in us so there must be a God
 
Reason replies:
We know that numbers get better in the sense that they get bigger every time you go up a number. Does that imply that there must be a number with unlimited perfection?
 
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 13, Anselm’s ontological argument and variations is put in but only for completeness the book says, and not because it is valuable
 
Reason replies:
Anselm thought that if you think of God as that that which a greater cannot be thought you will see that God must exist for then he wouldn’t be that than which a greater cannot be thought if he didn’t exist.
 
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 14, We believe in moral obligation, that is the idea that we can use our free will to carry out our duties. We couldn’t believe in that unless it were true and only if God made us can it be true. Robots cannot have moral obligations and that is what we are if God didn’t make us.
 
Reason replies:
But if God didn’t make himself which you admit then how do you know he is set up right? We know that things like murder are wrong and nothing can change that. We don’t need to assume a God to be able to believe that it’s wrong. Besides if we get our belief that murder is wrong from a belief and that is what God is, and not knowledge then we cannot be expected to be too sure that belief is wrong. To turn away from knowing that murder is wrong and preferring to believe it over God, is proof that belief in a good God is evil.
 

 

The argument that goodness implies a perfect God is anserine. If nothing – no God, no universe – at all existed there would still be some good in that! If we believe in God then we cannot logically prove that existence is better for us for we could all be thrown into Hell when we die. If there is no God and we die and that ends our existence then clearly we can prove logically that existence is better.

The moral argument for God is unsound. It says that there can be no good and evil unless there is a God who makes rules for us. But this denies the existence of good and evil for it says they are just concepts that God has invented. In fact, even if there were no God or anything it is good that there are no babies suffering. It would still be wrong hypothetically to make babies suffer. The argument itself is evil for tries to pin good on God when good should not be. Its an insult to use suffering - even hypothetical suffering - to engineer a religious doctrine. If the argument were right it would give no excuse for believing in God. If God invents right and wrong then it is not immoral to say he does no such thing or that he is a fiction and if he persecutes us for that then he is the bad guy. The argument really means that there is no God unless we invent rules and say he gave them to us. It enables you to invent morals and say God is doing it. Even if you teach that stealing is wrong, it does not mean you are banning it because it makes sense to. If it is true that stealing is wrong, that does not mean that you are telling the truth that you ban it because it is wrong. You could still be like an inventor. Inventing does not mean you are telling lies. Inventors of lies will have overlaps with the truth. And they need that to help their lies become believable.
 
The men of God ask then for a disgraceful amount of faith in themselves from you! Those who do not preach morality because it is the truth are in fact vindictive for morality demands punishment if you break the rules.
 
Another disgusting thing believers do with the moral argument is that they only tell you a bit about it. The most important stuff is never mentioned. It is not as simple as it looks and the argument has many consequences.
 
If the moral argument is so great, and if it grounds our morals and our moral beliefs, then it should be emphasised above the other arguments. But it never is. Its always treated like an afterthought! If the argument is right then that treatment is abominable.

 

Page 77 says that the idea of evolutionists that life began in pool is mad for it could never have started off what led to the Sermon on the Mount. But we know that the cells in that pool should not kill one another which would evolve into morality if they knew what they were doing. Morality comes from ought and ought is independent of morality. The insane person ought to be harmless even though morality has no hold on him. The idea of identifying what is bad comes from our advanced awareness. This awareness could have been developed by chance and the result would have to be belief in right and wrong.

Then this evil book denies that religion and morality are independent on the grounds that divorcing them would be akin to saying that God is amoral. Then it insists that goodness does not have the reality it would have if there is no God for he would not just be good but he would literally be goodness. More nonsense.

Then it says that God cannot invent morality because that would mean there is no morality and that it makes morality out to be just power and not goodness.

Then it dares to reject the view that God commands good because it is good for that means that goodness is independent of God and God has to obey it. So it affirms then that God invents morality though it tries to make out that he is the origin of all real good.

The answer it gives to the contradiction is that goodness is dependent on God’s eternal nature which means that God is goodness and love. He is literally these abstract things. This is called rational but it is anything but. We cannot understand it. And even if there were no God or anything it would still be true that it is wrong to murder. So what the authors of the Handbook are doing is condemning the idea of a God who invents morality and smuggling it back in the back door.

Others say that reason cannot tell us what right and wrong are so God has to reveal them to us. Christians hardly ever agree on what is right and what is wrong. If reason cannot reveal what is right and wrong then it cannot reveal that God is good so why should we trust him? His asking for our trust would be wicked. The doctrine puts us at the mercy of false prophets who invent evil and vicious rules.
 
The moral argument shows no faith in morality at all. It is a crutch with which one tries to develop faith.


 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 15, There must be a God for we all have a conscience however dimmed it may be and he must have put it in us.
 
Reason replies:
The computer has a conscience that bringing up a spreadsheet program when requested to bring up a word-processing programme is wrong. Conscience is simply information about things you shouldn’t do.
 
 The argument from conscience in the Handbook of Christian Apologetics says that since my conscience could not come from nature for nature is below me and is non-intelligent, or from me because it is a pain to me and because there is no reason why I should decide what is right and bind myself to follow it or from society for it has no provable right to tell me what to do leaves only God has having the right to tell me what to do and put a conscience in me. So my conscience proves that there is a God.

This argument is so bad that horrific is not the word for it.

Conscience is geared towards survival. It is a help for you to live in this world. You cannot live without one. To say that I cannot decide what should make me happy or society cannot impose its values on me for my and its happiness and welfare is really to say that morality is not about goodness but about causing suffering. For if happiness is good we can work out appropriate behaviour from that and the mind will afflict us if we wander from the path to happiness for we are built to be happy. Page 77 agrees with Kant that it is silly to say that you can lay moral obligations on yourself for that is like saying you can bind yourself and still be the one bound. You can for as my book, The Gospel According to Atheism, proves that you can work out what you should bind yourself to. It has to do with respecting yourself and not some God.

Conscience is not a pain most of the time. We want it and we want others to have it. Conscience can be wrong so it is not the voice of God.
 
Some argue that the protests of conscience come from nowhere it seems so God must be the source (page 62, Arguing with God). They say that what I see around me does not tell me what is wrong but the voice inside my head does. But the voice is created by memory so though it is true that what is around you has not told you it is true that what WAS around you has told you. Conscience is just an intellectual activity like seeing a sum as wrong and as I said it is caused by the desire for happiness.


Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 16, We only have desires that can be fulfilled and we desire God so there must be a God.
 
Reason replies:
Dire. If we are so keen on God why are most people not very religious? Why are most bookshops full of novels and stuff with few religious and devotional books? We only want a God to fill the materialistic gaps in our lives and the rest of the time we live as if he were not important.
 
Some people say there is a God because they feel there is one. Is there a Santa Claus because you feel there is one? These people are silly though they describe their feeling as sensing God’s presence or as becoming aware of him.  Feeling you want to believe in God can lead to you feeling there is one.


Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 17, Beauty and ascetic experience proves there must be a God. We are told that we either see this one or we don’t.
 
Reason replies:
What they really mean is we must feel there is a God. Feelings are no good.
 

It is argued that beauty shows that God must exist. But beauty is subjective. It is caused by the way nature makes us enjoy and nature need not have been established by God. An alien covered in warts and eyes with forty-foot long tentacles would think that a similar monstrosity is beautiful and that flowers and human beings are hideous. It has been said that our enjoyment of beauty has no value in the Darwinian scenario of survival of the fittest and since it is not needed a God must have made us to enjoy it (page 93, The Puzzle of God). But if you see no beauty then how are you going to fight for survival? Beauty is anything that attracts us not just nice pictures and scenery.
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 18, So many people experience the love and power of God that they can't be wrong that there is a God.
 
Reason replies:
Why do you think people worship idols? Don’t they feel the presence of their god in the idol? Most human beings have been idolaters and sun and moon worshippers. They preferred these gods to the God of the Christians.
 
Other people believe that God exists because they have seen visions or have heard him speaking to them. But they invariably believe in deceiving demons and in absurd doctrines so they are hardly worth listening to. Demons might pretend to be God and tell you some wonderful spiritual truth to push you towards doing something that will maximise evil but which looks innocent to you and everybody else and which could be innocent in itself. When God lets the demons deceive at all why should we take any message as being his message? It is blind faith to take it and blind faith is malign. The revelations of God are altar calls that call upon one to sin. Trustworthy aren’t they? Their excuse is that God only permits the deception of those who want to be deceived. But then it isn’t real deception is it?

 

Those who talk about experience of God say they "see" him around them and in their lives every day. But this idea implicitly accuses non-believers and the non-religious of closing their hearts against God. It is not loving to insinuate that over a being that might not exist.
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 19, Most people have worshipped God and it is unlikely that they were and are wrong to think God exists.  The argument from universal belief goes, “Most people have been believers in God which makes it likely that God inspired this belief and that he exists.”
 
Reason replies:
Most people have been pagans and practiced superstition. Most believers today believe they can control God by refraining from walking under ladders or whatever. What they believe in is not God but a caricature.

Most people have believed and believe that sin is the most fun and in an evil two-faced God. The God of Islam has predestined millions to sin. The Roman Catholic God preserved Mary from sin without infringing her free will which he would not do for anybody else so he is really doing much the same thing. The Bible says that man and woman are totally depraved and hate God and his will by nature. It denies the validity of the argument.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Argument 20, I should believe in God in case I am doing him an injustice by not honouring him and its better for me if I believe in case I am wrong.
 
Reason replies:
What if Buddha was right that honouring God would be dangerous? And a truly good God will care only about what you do, not what you believe as long as it encourages you to do good. And you can honour God without believing in him.

 

Pascal’s wager says that if you believe in God and obey you will go to Heaven and that if these do not exist you will at least have a lived a good life. It says that believing in God is the best bet. But it presupposes that God would put you in Hell forever for not believing in him. That is a serious error for sincerity cannot ever be justly punished. In this world, the sincere man who believes that fire will not burn should not get burned even though his sincerity will not stop him getting burned. The wager is really saying that it is better to be a believer and practice the disguised hatred of religion than to be a decent Atheist! Pascal would have said that faith and love go together but faith or love is not possible if you only believe to save your own skin and not to please God. That is just saying you would hurt him if you had the guts. The crafty Handbook of Christian Apologetics says that Pascal can be salvaged by changing the argument to, “If there is a God I owe him my devotion so I should believe in God and revere him even if I don’t know if there is one and just in case”. First of all, you can love this God without believing in him. This vicious argument is saying that you cannot please the God you don’t believe in with sincerity. Second, you cannot believe without evidence and trying to believe such that would not be ethical. If you could believe in him it would not be just in case so the argument contradicts itself. The assumption that you are only moral if you believe and obey God is intolerant and scandalous.

And besides, you cannot believe in every religion and God that makes vindictive threats to be on the safe side! Pascal was a dishonest man.
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Jesus promised that all who seek God will find him
 
Reason replies:
This is trying to accuse the person who doesn’t see that God exists of not really wanting to see it. The Handbook has rehashed old arguments for God that have been conclusively refuted centuries ago and which are scoffed at by most philosophers and theologians today. There is no possibility of deciding other than that the authors of the handbook are telling lies. 

 

Finally

 

What use is evidence for God when God is a self-contradictory concept? To look for evidence for what is incoherent is madness for evidence presupposes coherence and rationality.

These proofs have nothing to do with proving God but just prove human credulity. Religion and its leaders are taking advantage of the people. They have an audience that is gullible when it comes to belief in God.