Christian Author Who Says Atheists “Accidentally Prove God Exists” Is All Wrong

[phands]

Of course he's all wrong...that is self-evident. it's how egregiously he's wrong that is noteworthy....

A number of Christian websites are promoting a video by anti-gay Christian apologist Frank Turek all about the six ways in which atheists “accidentally prove God exists.” You’re not going to believe this… but he misses the mark.
Turek, who claimed several years ago that he was fired by the technology company Cisco for his opposition to same-sex marriage in America, has previously tried to explain why God allows evil to happen and why the Bible doesn’t mention dinosaurs. Now, he’s claiming to be able to show that atheists prove that God is realjust by their very existence.

In his book, “Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case,” Turek argues that much of the reasoning put forth by those attempting to disprove God is fundamentally contradictory.
In a new video posted to his Facebook page, Frank addresses the logical framework commonly used by atheists by taking us through a simple acronym: CRIMES. Causality, Reason, Information and Intentionality, Morality, Evil and Science.
In a short and snappy exposition of each element, Turek highlights the major flaws in atheist reasoning.
​

Faithwire, the Christian Broadcasting Network, and others may be willing to take Turek’s claims as gospel (pun absolutely intended), but let’s submit them to a bit of old-fashioned skepticism.
Here are his six reasons, along with my responses:

Go read the responses at http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...s-accidentally-prove-god-exists-is-all-wrong/

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.debunking-christianity.com/search?q=turek

John Loftus's Debunking Christianity Blog has done an extensive multi-part critique of Turek's book. It is basically pre-suppositionalist dreck.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://www.debunking-christianity.com/search?q=turek

John Loftus' Blog has done an extensive multipart critique of Turek's book. It is pre-suppositionalist dreck.

 

[steve_bank]

Christians always seem desperate to shore up their faith.

 

[abaddon]

Causality. Theists cannot distinguish between anthropomorphic projections and causes. Therefore they cannot determine anything about anything, but just illustrate the pattern-seeking behaviors of their own minds.

Reason. Theists cannot reason worth a shit. Anyone that defers reasoning to a greater being than themselves has given up on it.

Information. If information needs to be created by a mind, then that explains how theists create so little of it. Their intentions tend to make it misinformation. So whatever bit of mind they've got, it's not connected to any divine reason.

Morality. Theists have fucked each other over quite a lot through history regarding their objective morals.

Evil. Theists cannot understand the argument; the word "evil" confuses them. Atheists do not argue that a metaphysical made-by-God evil disproves God. It's subjective suffering that disproves there's a benevolent God.

Science. Theists expect chaos if a mind doesn't direct everything. They imagine against the evidence that 'matter can't do it'. It's the mind projection fallacy again, among a few other cognitive biases.

 

[Lion IRC]

CRIIMES. That's snappy.

Causality, Reason, Information, Intentionality, Morality, Evil and Science.

Morality and Information are the two most problematic for atheism/atheology.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

http://www.debunking-christianity.com/search?q=turek

John Loftus' Blog has done an extensive multipart critique of Turek's book. It is pre-suppositionalist dreck.

Presuppers are an interesting group. I remember years ago getting into a discussion with a couple. Their schtick was "Existence exists." The word "Existence" had become this thing they objectified as something corporeal. It was really corny, a glimpse into our primeval past. Yes, they are real fruits.

 

[Copernicus]

CRIIMES. That's snappy.

Causality, Reason, Information, Intentionality, Morality, Evil and Science.

The snappy acronym is "CRIMES", not "CRIIMES". He combines "Information and Intentionality" into one letter.

Morality and Information are the two most problematic for atheism/atheology.

The only thing missing here is some explanation of why you believe that. Authoritarian-based moralities are arbitrarily based in some authority, which is espoused by clergy or the believer's private interpretation of holy doctrine. Theism implies no consistent morality. That's why some believers can murder and torture people with the blessing of their gods, whereas such acts are condemned by the gods of others. And it is easy to explain intentionality as a natural evolutionary development in embodied brains. No divine intervention needed for that.

 

[Lion IRC]

The only thing missing here is some explanation of why you believe
that

You want me to rehash Frank Turek's claims here?
There's a link in the Op.
I'll happily argue the case but there won't be anything you haven't heard before.

 

[steve_bank]

I guess we are guilty of CRIMES against theism. Science is evil, I heard that before.

I had a conversation with a new grad in engineering from the UW. He said he had been approached on campus by anti science Christians who said he needed to abandon engineering.

 

[Copernicus]

The only thing missing here is some explanation of why you believe
that

You want me to rehash Frank Turek's claims here?
There's a link in the Op.
I'll happily argue the case but there won't be anything you haven't heard before.

I must have misunderstood, but was it Turek or you who said that "Morality and Information are the two most problematic for atheism/atheology"? I thought that you might have some reason for singling out those two "CRIMES" as the most problematic. I don't recall Turek focusing on those two as being more problematic than the others.

 

[phands]

The only thing missing here is some explanation of why you believe
that

You want me to rehash Frank Turek's claims here?
There's a link in the Op.
I'll happily argue the case but there won't be anything you haven't heard before.

I must have misunderstood, but was it Turek or you who said that "Morality and Information are the two most problematic for atheism/atheology"? I thought that you might have some reason for singling out those two "CRIMES" as the most problematic. I don't recall Turek focusing on those two as being more problematic than the others.

So....LIRC states plainly that he has nothing new to say, and given that all the previous "arguments" have failed, I think that's an admission of defeat.

 

[Lion IRC]

The C.R.I.I.M.E.S. arguments haven't failed. Wishful thinking doesn't defeat arguments phands.

CRIIMES. That's snappy.

Causality, Reason, Information, Intentionality, Morality, Evil and Science.

Morality and Information are the two most problematic for atheism/atheology.

The only thing missing here is some explanation of why you believe that

You want me to rehash Frank Turek's claims here?
There's a link in the Op.
I'll happily argue the case but there won't be anything you haven't heard before.

I must have misunderstood, but was it Turek or you who said that "Morality and Information are the two most problematic for atheism/atheology"? I thought that you might have some reason for singling out those two "CRIMES" as the most problematic. I don't recall Turek focusing on those two as being more problematic than the others.

Well I think they are all problematic for atheist counter-apologists for exactly the reasons Frank Turek outlines. But (without going into the details of arguments themselves) you want to know why I think those two in particular stand out.

OK.

1. Morality.
Even if you disregard the AvT context of the moral argument, (for or against God) this is still a highly contentious/controversial field of secular philosophy. If there was general consensus among non-theists regarding the existence of OMV and a scientifically (biology) supported ethical framework/epistemology, then I might think differently. But atheists are all over the shop on morality - because they refuse to concede to anything transcendent. Frank Turek rightly challenges atheists to justify how and why they believe something is a human right, and why something else is "wrong" - given that primate emotions are just chemical reactions and subjective opinions are just impulses. (Consider phands vociferous hatred of religion. If there's no God, then phands' religious opponent can simply ignore his opinionated white noise because, in the law of the jungle, no individual primate's subjective opinion really matters in the long run.)

2. Information.
Atheism/atheology has to account for the apparent and recognisable existence of what we call "information" which is a placeholder word for something that is intricately connected to teleology/volition (personal beings). So much so that it's actually used as a defining metric for distinguishing intelligent life in outer space (SETI).
A universe full of chaotic, unintelligible gibberish would conform to the idea of undesigned, random chance. 10,000 monkeys accidentally typing a Shakespearean Sonnet wouldn't make any difference because there would be nobody who recognised it, and even if there were, they would know it was unintended. But when we (as sentient beings) observe DNA we recognise that it is coded information. If we found DNA code in a time capsule drifting thru our corner of the galaxy, we would almost certainly regard that as a sign of deliberate, intelligent design - not meaningless random gibberish accidentally typed by one of 10,000 monkeys.

 

[Opoponax]

A considerably less well thought out line of bullshit coming from some hack who is either too dim or too stubborn to understand the arguments of his opposition is not more convincing than the great Christian/Catholic philosophers of yester-century.

One of the good things about being a cagey, older heathen is that you know you've heard it all before and can simply proceed to check off the "Wrong!" boxes for the stupid arguments these people make. What's discouraging about having been at it so long is that you discover the well of human spiritual bullshit is apparently bottomless. This Turek stooge could've picked up any number of reputable books atheists have written and in a few days came to an honest understanding that his ideas are more full of shit than a pet monkey.

The question that always baffles me though, is why. That is, why vomit forth long disproven nonsense or ideas that can be knocked over with a throw-pillow? You want to prove your god exists, fucking prove it. Find a way. Do something no one's ever done before. Use the scientific method; use mathematics.

You can't prove unicorns exist by insulting horses, or by stating that horses exist; you have to produce a unicorn. What you don't fucking do is superglue a party hat to a horse's forehead and then claim to have proved the existence of unicorns.

Fucking clowns. The whole lot of these dipshits.

 

[steve_bank]

The C.R.I.I.M.E.S. arguments haven't failed. Wishful thinking doesn't defeat arguments phands.

The only thing missing here is some explanation of why you believe that

You want me to rehash Frank Turek's claims here?
There's a link in the Op.
I'll happily argue the case but there won't be anything you haven't heard before.

I must have misunderstood, but was it Turek or you who said that "Morality and Information are the two most problematic for atheism/atheology"? I thought that you might have some reason for singling out those two "CRIMES" as the most problematic. I don't recall Turek focusing on those two as being more problematic than the others.

Well I think they are all problematic for atheist counter-apologists for exactly the reasons Frank Turek outlines. But (without going into the details of arguments themselves) you want to know why I think those two in particular stand out.

OK.

1. Morality.
Even if you disregard the AvT context of the moral argument, (for or against God) this is still a highly contentious/controversial field of secular philosophy. If there was general consensus among non-theists regarding the existence of OMV and a scientifically (biology) supported ethical framework/epistemology, then I might think differently. But atheists are all over the shop on morality - because they refuse to concede to anything transcendent. Frank Turek rightly challenges atheists to justify how and why they believe something is a human right, and why something else is "wrong" - given that primate emotions are just chemical reactions and subjective opinions are just impulses. (Consider phands vociferous hatred of religion. If there's no God, then phands' religious opponent can simply ignore his opinionated white noise because, in the law of the jungle, no individual primate's subjective opinion really matters in the long run.)

2. Information.
Atheism/atheology has to account for the apparent and recognisable existence of what we call "information" which is a placeholder word for something that is intricately connected to teleology/volition (personal beings). So much so that it's actually used as a defining metric for distinguishing intelligent life in outer space (SETI).
A universe full of chaotic, unintelligible gibberish would conform to the idea of undesigned, random chance. 10,000 monkeys accidentally typing a Shakespearean Sonnet wouldn't make any difference because there would be nobody who recognised it, and even if there were, they would know it was unintended. But when we (as sentient beings) observe DNA we recognise that it is coded information. If we found DNA code in a time capsule drifting thru our corner of the galaxy, we would almost certainly regard that as a sign of deliberate, intelligent design - not meaningless random gibberish accidentally typed by one of 10,000 monkeys.

Drop the hand waving. Considering the long history of moral failures of Christianity right up through today you can not possibly argue that Christianity as a whole has any moral superiority over anything. Across all sects. The pope is trying to hang onto the image of papal moral authority in the face of the obvious.

As to information, what are you babbling about? Christianity has a long history of thought control and suppression of ideas, right up to today.

You can rightly argue modern atheist regimes like the Soviets and Chinese communism are no less oppressive.

That is why COTUS has both freedom of religion and speech along with a firewall preventing govt from implementing religion.

The COTUS prohibitions against govt making laws promoting religion and religious tests for office were enacted to protect minority Christian sects against majority Christians. It was not protection of religion from atheist attack. Tjroughout history tje major threat to a Christian has been other Christians.

 

[Rhea]

What's discouraging about having been at it so long is that you discover the well of human spiritual bullshit is apparently bottomless. This Turek stooge could've picked up any number of reputable books atheists have written and in a few days came to an honest understanding that his ideas are more full of shit than a pet monkey.

The question that always baffles me though, is why. That is, why vomit forth long disproven nonsense or ideas that can be knocked over with a throw-pillow? You want to prove your god exists, fucking prove it. Find a way. Do something no one's ever done before. Use the scientific method; use mathematics.

You can't prove unicorns exist by insulting horses, or by stating that horses exist; you have to produce a unicorn. What you don't fucking do is superglue a party hat to a horse's forehead and then claim to have proved the existence of unicorns.

Fucking clowns. The whole lot of these dipshits.

Absolute truth. These people all think they have something NEW! To say, and they never do just the most basic research for prior discussions to avoid looking like a toddler with a new vocabulary word.

And yet they still try to “PROVE!” Their nonsensical god with these explanations that they think are new - and aren’t new (aren’t even explanations).

 

[Rhea]

In many ways it reminds me of those sycophants who claim they know a celebrity. Trust me, I now him. He’s got this house, I’ve seen the house (pretend you don’t notice the other people who claim they’v seen the house and describe it differently!). I’ve talked to him and I know what he wants! (pretend you don’t notice the other people who claim they’ve talked to him and describe it differently!). I can help you meet him. Okay, not today, but I’ve met him. I can help you meet him, just, well, I can’t actually introduce you, but if you stand on this hill with binoculars, and imagine you can see through those trees, then you can imagine you’ve met him, too.

Honest, I totally know him personally. He’s my good friend. But, well, I can’t actually introduce you...

 

[Jobar]

http://choosinghats.org/2012/02/some-thoughts-about-the-impossibility-of-the-contrary/

It boils down to "you can't be right because that would mean I am wrong." The method is ancient, indeed Biblical.

Trouble is, it can also be used to argue for any other religion, including the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It's basically a means to ignore rational argument, and claim whatever you believe is true.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Right, who needs science. If you're Christian and you need bus fare, go to a lake, catch the first fish you can, and it will have your bus fare in its mouth. Just like in Matthew!! But try getting a friggin' ichthyologist to back you on that plan. They won't. Because they don't believe on Jeebus. Friggin ichthyologists.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Gods are just ghosts. Lots of people claim to experience ghosts. It's not really a claim deserving of much consideration. Show me your ghost already.