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 5, Four Problems of Cosmology

Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
 
The Greeks argued against the Christians and Jews that God couldn’t make things out of nothing for out of nothing nothing comes.
 
To this we say, this law only applies to nature but God is not tied down to natural law
 
Reason says,

Even God cannot make something from nothing. Suppose he has and uses the power. It must be made of something. The only thing it could be made of is his own power. It is made of God’s energy and not out of nothing.
 
He is not making things from nothing but turning his power into something where previously there was nothing. The Greeks were right.
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says


To this we say that, infinite or unlimited power can bring something out of nothing for the difference and distance between something and nothing is infinite or unlimited. Only God has this power for God is infinite.
 
Reason replies:


It is true that it would take infinite or unlimited power to bring something out of nothing that does not mean that it is possible for something to come from or be made out of nothing.
 
If an infinite being like God makes something out of nothing it makes something that is not part of itself. Then it is not a being without limit any longer.
 
God = Infinite, so there is nothing existing but God
 
If God is not X and X exists then God is not infinite.
 
You simply cannot believe in God without believing in pantheism (that all things are God) which is simply what the brightest believers in God in the world have been saying for centuries.
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says

To this we say that God making out of nothing makes sense for it is only saying that things were made out of nothing by a cause. It would be nonsense to say that anything can just pop into existence out of nothing without a cause.
 
Reason replies:

It is more rational to believe that something can pop into existence from nothing than to say that God made all things out of nothing. Why? Because you are still saying it popped into existence from nowhere for you deny that God made all things from himself. If God causes his own existence then he must have been made out of nothing anyway. It is better to say that all things popped into existence than to say they popped into existence and then posit that a God who couldn’t have had anything to do with it did. The book is gibberish.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
 
Since God made all things it shows we have no rights over God and also that we owe him everything and nothing really belongs to us – not our time or our money or our thoughts. All belongs to him.
 
Reason replies:


This opens the road for religious leaders to claim that God wants people to give them their property for it is his. Most religious leaders do lead people astray – even believers in one true faith know that so why not in this way? A person who requires belief in his existence but gives no proof of his existence has no right to claim ownership of your house. And so it is with God.
 
Religion claims to represent God. It claims the right to hurt people if God authorises it to for God knows what he is doing though we all mightn’t think so. This doctrine that we have no rights over God is inexcusable. If a child had no rights in relation to a school, even a good and caring school, would that be right? It forbids the child to see if he or she is being badly treated. It’s evil and exploitive.
 
God could have used evolution with survival of the fittest to produce man
 
No caring God would make man using such a long and awkward and cruel method.
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says

We deny that miracles violate the principle of the uniformity of nature for it translates as miracles are against the principle that miracles do not happen. What we should be doing is not dogmatically saying miracles are impossible but look at the evidence to see if they are possible.
 
Reason replies:


Miracles are either against the law of nature or they are not. If they are against the law of nature then clearly God set up natural law and changed his mind and broke it. This would be a God who can’t do his job and makes mistakes. It is not the Christian God who is almighty and who knows all things and who makes no mistakes. If miracle for example a communion wafer bleeding is not against the law of nature then it could be a break of the law of nature. Believers may assume that it is not, to be able to say that God was responsible for it. But they will have to admit that the miracle might testify to God if it is not a violation but that if it is a violation it in fact disproves God! If we have to guess that a miracle is a sign then it is not a sign and it is useless. You cannot say, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God because he did miracles.” You would have to say, “I believe in Jesus Christ and that is why I believe in his miracles”. So in other words, miracles are not evidence at all for you make up your mind without them. We conclude then that to say miracles are evidence for religion is dishonest. Religion even with miracles is just pure blind faith. Blind faith is based on feeling not faith or trust. Its bad. Feelings are dangerous to depend on. And blind faith is not faith at all – its just pretending to believe.
 
Even if we do not say miracles are impossible the fact that miracles do not prove what religion says they prove remains true. The failure of miracles as evidences shows there is no reason at all to believe in one religion over another except laziness and prejudice.
 
Miracles do deny the uniformity of nature. If no miracle ever happened except the one where Jesus rose from the dead after being dead three days then we can be less sure that the person who killed an innocent victim really did so and wasn’t possessed or a demon was pretending to be him. Reality is so important that anything that undermines, however slightly, our perception of it as uniform is to be condemned as evil.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says


Miracles do not violate the laws of nature. A school principal does not go against the class timetable by cancelling a class. Same principle.
 
Reason replies:


The timetable is only a plan and because of necessity the plan has to be broken occasionally for a greater good. Yes the timetable is being gone against. Miracles do violate the laws of nature.
 
If they are explainable by natural law then they do not prove a God. Aliens could be doing them.
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says

Miracles are said to be maximally unlikely but how do you know what is unlikely? You don’t.
 
Reason replies:


It is unlikely for your great grandmother to win a gold medal at the javelin throwing in the Olympics. Is it less likely or more likely that she could get a miraculous cure for osteoporosis? Less likely obviously. Again the authors are lying to us and trying to trick us. They know fine well that life cannot function if we believe that we don’t have an idea about what is likely or unlikely. They want to avoid the claim that if you make an extraordinary (that is an extraordinarily unlikely) claim people are entitled to demand perfect and extraordinary evidence from you. To say that a statue of Mary floats in mid-air by itself is a far more serious claim than that you have been left twenty billion pounds by a long lost relative for it is more unusual, more unlikely and uncommon. The amount of evidence you would need for the miracle would be staggering and you would be entitled to be extremely sceptical. No miracle claim has ever provided good enough evidence. They know that and that is why they object that we don’t know what is unlikely if we say that miracles are maximally unlikely. It is to keep us from seeing that. We say the evidence is never good enough, not because of prejudice but because of how outrageous the claim is.
 
The book is accusing those who think miracles are unlikely of being arrogant and thinking they know it all. But in a world where the vast majority do not see miracles is it not those who say miracles are not unlikely but likely who are being arrogant? How can you say that death is the end of life if you can’t say it is unlikely for the dead to rise in the next few minutes? Do you see what they are saying?
  
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says

When we hear of a miracle from a decent and good person and the miracle seems so good and fitting we should consider believing it. We should suspend our natural scepticism about such claims.
 
Reason replies:

Lots of holy people have been guilty of pious frauds in order to get people to believe in religion and convert.
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says

A scientist who proves that somebody was inexplicably cured of AIDS is not being a non-scientist by supposing that God worked this cure for he did his best to find a natural cause and didn’t.
 
Reason replies:


As long as he says it was God in his private capacity and not as a scientist. The scientist cannot bring dogma for the scientist is to test theories and explanations to the uttermost in but has to say that it might have been God or something else.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says


Miracles do not imply that God set up the natural laws and then was forced to change them as if he made mistakes.
 
Miracles do not insult God and if they did how do we explain God answering prayer?
 
Reason replies:
 
God answers prayer without any visible miracle or interference with nature. God can use natural law to answer prayer. If God was as good at influencing people to see the truth as he was at answering prayer he wouldn’t need to do miracles. To say he does miracles is to insult him.
 
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says

Satan could do miracles pretending to be God but we can tell who is doing the miracles from the context and setting.
 
Reason replies:


Yes he could according to the Bible. Satan could pretend to be a holy angel and work many cures and conversions in support of the best religion in the world while planning for the whole thing to be exposed as a sham thus discrediting the religion. He won’t be obvious if he has any brains. As for this context thing it really means, “Such and such a miracle didn’t really happen or can be ignored for it doesn’t fit what I believe”. Faith in so far as it is based on miracles is really selfish arrogance not godliness or righteousness.
 
There are sinister insinuations underneath all miracle claims as we shall that makes them more likely to be Satan’s work than God’s if there is a choice between the two. The good fruits cannot excuse anything. Do the good fruits of a murder excuse the murder?
 
To answer that God won’t let Satan do miracles that look as good as God’s leads to the following problems. Most miracle stories that look good have been rejected by the Church and supposed to have been anything but God’s work. Religions sharply disagree on what good is or what is true. To accept a miracle as being from God and a sign for you would mean that you are saying, “This fits my idea of what is good and true so the miracle is from God.” That attitude is very disrespectful to God. It is being concerned with yourself and not him. The Bible says that God lets strong delusions visit those who won’t have the truth and presumably those who have the truth but want it for bad reasons and says Satan pretends to be an angel of light.
 
Satan is not going to do a miracle that puts him in a bad light especially when God is stronger than he. Satan’s miracles will look good.