Paul's Fallacious Argument for the Existence of God

[Unknown Soldier]

Many of your typical "village Christians" will argue for their God's existence by pointing to the world and saying something like: "Just look at it--there must be a God because I see his work in it." One of the first Christians who argued for God that way was Paul of Tarsus who wrote in Romans 1:20:

Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse..

One must wonder how invisible things can be seen. Be that as it may, Paul is telling us that since he perceives God's works in nature, then there are God's works in nature. God's works require God, so God exists. Of course, if Paul does in fact see God's works, then he's right: God does and must exist.

Now, like any exposure to an argument for God, we have been presented with a lot of words, yet we have not been presented with God. So what's wrong with this picture? Paul's logical error is his concluding that since he perceives God's handiwork, then he must be seeing actual handiwork that originated with God. Obviously, others don't perceive that supposed handiwork. So how is Paul's perception any more accurate than the perceptions of those who don't see what he sees? Paul doesn't say, and there is no good reason I know of to conclude that Paul actually sees what others miss. In fact, based on Paul's story in Acts and his epistles, he may well have suffered from paranoid delusions and visual and auditory hallucinations. As a result, we have good reason to doubt that what Paul saw existed anywhere aside from his deluded thinking.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Christian:
"Look! Puppies, kittens, flowers and cute baby bunnies! There must be a God!".

Atheist:
"Look! Guinea worms! River blindness worms! Cholera and Amoebic dysentery! Malaria and Tsetse flies! If God is supposedly good, and as per Bible, merciful and compassionate, why do these things exist? Or original sin, Satan and devils?".

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Christian:
"Look! Puppies, kittens, flowers and cute baby bunnies! There must be a God!".

In the Watchtower Jehovah's Witnesses maintain a column entitled: "Was it Designed?" To the best of my memory, I never saw a segment of that column devoted to disease or poisonous snakes.

Atheist:
"Look! Guinea worms! River blindness worms! Cholera and Amoebic dysentery! Malaria and Tsetse flies!

Not too long ago I brought a Jehovah's Witness's attention to the Jehovah's Witnesses claiming that Jehovah must be the creator of cells. (You can read the article here.) When I asked the Jehovah's Witness if Jehovah created cells, he refused to answer. Maybe it was just a coincidence, but I just got done pointing out to him that if Jehovah created cells, then he created cancer cells.

If God is supposedly good, and as per Bible, merciful and compassionate, why do these things exist? Or original sin, Satan and devils?".

The standard answer is to blame our first parents, Adam and Eve. I remember my Dad being upset about something and exclaiming: "Why did Eve eat that stupid apple?!"

Anyway, to come full circle, Paul didn't bother to mention anything about these things in Romans 1:20. When you invent a God, you must be careful what you say about that God!

 

[excreationist]

Christian:
"Look! Puppies, kittens, flowers and cute baby bunnies! There must be a God!".

Atheist:
"Look! Guinea worms! River blindness worms! Cholera and Amoebic dysentery! Malaria and Tsetse flies! If God is supposedly good, and as per Bible, merciful and compassionate, why do these things exist? Or original sin, Satan and devils?".

Well there is this other Romans verse:

Romans 8:22
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

So according to Christianity there was a curse from the talking snake, etc. And that is the origin of those bad things you said.

From the YEC organisation Answers in Genesis: (I didn't read it though)

Why Did God Make Viruses?

If God created everything good and with a purpose, why are there disease-causing bacteria and viruses in the world?

answersingenesis.org

It's all about free will rather than making humans love God like robots.

 

[Rhea]

It's all about free will rather than making humans love God like robots.

Do you believe in heavn?
Do you believe people will be robots in heaven?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's all about free will rather than making humans love God like robots.

Do you believe in heavn?
Do you believe people will be robots in heaven?

If there's a heaven I can only hope that Gort is in charge.

 

[excreationist]

It's all about free will rather than making humans love God like robots.

Do you believe in heavn?
Do you believe people will be robots in heaven?

I don't believe in Heaven (or the physical resurrection of Jesus) but apparently in Heaven Christians would never ever sin again so they'd be somewhat like robots....

 

[Gospel]

It's all about free will rather than making humans love God like robots.

Do you believe in heavn?
Do you believe people will be robots in heaven?

I don't believe in Heaven (or the physical resurrection of Jesus) but apparently in Heaven Christians would never ever sin again so they'd be somewhat like robots....

Blah. My wife would argue that everything that gives rise to sin on earth would be replaced with virtue in heaven. Our limited knowledge from living in the earth realm prevents us from imagining/knowing what heaven would be like. She also claims that we'd have free will it just so happens everyone in heaven agrees to use said free will to worship God endlessly.

 

[Ephesians]

Many of your typical "village Christians" will argue for their God's existence by pointing to the world and saying something like: "Just look at it--there must be a God because I see his work in it." One of the first Christians who argued for God that way was Paul of Tarsus who wrote in Romans 1:20:

Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse..

One must wonder how invisible things can be seen. Be that as it may, Paul is telling us that since he perceives God's works in nature, then there are God's works in nature. God's works require God, so God exists. Of course, if Paul does in fact see God's works, then he's right: God does and must exist.

Now, like any exposure to an argument for God, we have been presented with a lot of words, yet we have not been presented with God. So what's wrong with this picture? Paul's logical error is his concluding that since he perceives God's handiwork, then he must be seeing actual handiwork that originated with God. Obviously, others don't perceive that supposed handiwork. So how is Paul's perception any more accurate than the perceptions of those who don't see what he sees? Paul doesn't say, and there is no good reason I know of to conclude that Paul actually sees what others miss. In fact, based on Paul's story in Acts and his epistles, he may well have suffered from paranoid delusions and visual and auditory hallucinations. As a result, we have good reason to doubt that what Paul saw existed anywhere aside from his deluded thinking.

Paul's argument isn't complicated and it really comes down to common sense. The universe looks designed; therefore, it is more likely than not that it is designed. It's how the vast majority of people think up until they become a person who doesn't like the implications of God existing.

 

[James Brown]

Paul's argument isn't complicated and it really comes down to common sense. The universe looks designed; therefore, it is more likely than not that it is designed. It's how the vast majority of people think up until they become a person who doesn't like the implications of God existing.

But that line of thinking is tricky. By the same token, the Earth looks like it is large, stationary, and orbited by a small bright sun.

 

[Ephesians]

Paul's argument isn't complicated and it really comes down to common sense. The universe looks designed; therefore, it is more likely than not that it is designed. It's how the vast majority of people think up until they become a person who doesn't like the implications of God existing.

But that line of thinking is tricky. By the same token, the Earth looks like it is large, stationary, and orbited by a small bright sun.

Does it? Perhaps to some it does.

But let's say that to most people the earth is apparently stationary, large, and orbited by a small bright sun. Without a defeater for this appearance, these people are perfectly rational in believing that the earth is in fact stationary, large, and orbited by a small bright sun. And it'd go further than that. The people who ignore this appearance are being irrational because the appearance is in and of itself evidence. We use this kind of evidence every single day in almost all aspects of life.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Paul's argument isn't complicated and it really comes down to common sense. The universe looks designed; therefore, it is more likely than not that it is designed. It's how the vast majority of people think up until they become a person who doesn't like the implications of God existing.

The origin and state of the world we live in is not "common." That's why common sense is often inadequate to know why the world exists or why it has the traits it has. Flat-earthers, for example, argue that common sense dictates that nobody could be on the other side of a spherical earth because they would be standing upside down!

But yes, the idea of a God is rather creepy. Nevertheless, I accept all horrors if they truly exist, and that includes God if she truly exists.

 

[Ephesians]

Paul's argument isn't complicated and it really comes down to common sense. The universe looks designed; therefore, it is more likely than not that it is designed. It's how the vast majority of people think up until they become a person who doesn't like the implications of God existing.

The origin and state of the world we live in is not "common." That's why common sense is often inadequate to know why the world exists or why it has the traits it has. Flat-earthers, for example, argue that common sense dictates that nobody could be on the other side of a spherical earth because they would be standing upside down!

I agree. God is not common.

But I never said God is common. I said that it's common sense that the universe appears designed; therefore, one should assume it is designed until an adequate defeater for this appearance is given.

The earth doesn't appear to be flat, which is why most people throughout history didn't think it was. It's a common misconception that most people from antiquity thought the earth was flat. But even if the earth did appear flat to most people, they'd be perfectly rational in thinking it is flat until an adequate defeater were given. And they'd be irrational to ignore this appearance in light of the absence of a defeater.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I agree. God is not common.

I didn't say how "common" God is, whatever that might mean.

But I never said God is common.

Yes. I know.

I said that it's common sense that the universe appears designed...

Am I allowed to say that the cosmos does not appear designed? The universe looks to me like it is undirected and lacks any kind of purpose. So I can easily defeat Paul's argument and your argument by simply contradicting it. What can be asserted without proof can be denied without proof.

...therefore, one should assume it is designed until an adequate defeater for this appearance is given.

I say make no assumptions at all until we know the answers to our questions. If we do make assumptions without knowing those answers, then we should honestly and humbly admit that our assumptions may be wrong.

The earth doesn't appear to be flat...

It sure does look flat in some places.

...which is why most people throughout history didn't think it was.

How do you know? Did you take a poll?

It's a common misconception that most people from antiquity thought the earth was flat...

The people who wrote the Bible are exceptions. They believed in a vertical cosmos with Sheol below the earth and pillars holding up the flat earth from below. Above the earth was the firmament holding up an ocean. A real creator would never bungle cosmology that badly, but a God created by crafty and ignorant men might well make such errors.

But even if the earth did appear flat to most people, they'd be perfectly rational in thinking it is flat until an adequate defeater were given.

They might be rational, but they would be wrong. Reason alone has proved many times to be inadequate to arrive at the world's secrets. That's why the "world looks designed" argument fails.

And they'd be irrational to ignore this appearance in light of the absence of a defeater.

We have at least one such defeater! We have modern geology, biology, astronomy, and cosmology to defeat the design argument.

 

[Ephesians]

We have at least one such defeater! We have modern geology, biology, astronomy, and cosmology to defeat the design argument.

Scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms design. So much so, in fact, that there's an emergent Simulation Hypothesis.

How do you know? Did you take a poll?

No, I just read history books and anthropology. Is it news to you that most people didn't think the earth was flat?

The people who wrote the Bible are exceptions.

No, they didn't think the earth was flat either. Those are called metaphors.

They might be rational, but they would be wrong.

But the point is they'd be rational. We should all be rational, right Unknown Soldier?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms design.

No it doesn't.

So much so, in fact, that there's an emergent Simulation Hypothesis.

I never heard of it.

How do you know? Did you take a poll?

No, I just read history books and anthropology. Is it news to you that most people didn't think the earth was flat?

I'm not sure what most people in antiquity thought about cosmology. It's hard enough figuring out what living people think much less those who lived long ago.

The people who wrote the Bible are exceptions.

No, they didn't think the earth was flat either. Those are called metaphors.

So if a Bible passage is obviously wrong if interpreted literally, then you interpret it metaphorically to save your faith. May I say that God is just a metaphor?

They might be rational, but they would be wrong.

But the point is they'd be rational. We should all be rational, right Unknown Soldier?

Yes, we should be rational enough to admit that evidence proves us wrong.

 

[Ephesians]

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

I never heard of it.

There's a lot you don't know.

I'm not sure what most people in antiquity thought about cosmology.

Maybe you should go do some research on how prevalent the flat earth idea was in the past, and then come back to me. Do some 'Truth Seeking,' lul.

So if a Bible passage is obviously wrong if interpreted literally

No. When you read something, anything, you're supposed to take into account the author's likely intention, cultural and historical background, and context clues while employing textual analysis. If I tell you that you're a hot girl, then does that mean I think your temperature is high? No, obviously not. When the aforementioned is taken into account, then it becomes clear what is a metaphor and what isn't in the Bible. If you think the authors of the Bible literally thought the earth was on pillars, then you may be a dumb dumb. I don't think you believe that though. I think you're purposely straw-manning the Bible because you're too scared to take it head-on.

Yes, we should be rational enough to admit that evidence proves us wrong.

I already covered that. If you have a defeater for the appearance of the universe being designed, then you should change your mind about the universe being designed. But you don't seem to have that defeater. You claim you do, but you don't.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

I never heard of it.

There's a lot you don't know.

That's very true. Is it safe to assume that there's little you don't know?

I'm not sure what most people in antiquity thought about cosmology.

Maybe you should go do some research on how prevalent the flat earth idea was in the past, and then come back to me. Do some 'Truth Seeking,' lul.

The issue of cosmological beliefs in antiquity isn't terribly important to me, but I understand that smart people like the Greeks discovered not only that the earth is spherical but calculated its circumference to an accuracy off by only a few percent. Aristarchus used sticks and their shadows to make that estimation. And while the Greeks were making those kinds of discoveries, the Bible writers were busy telling us that the stars would fall from the sky which as we now know is impossible.

So if a Bible passage is obviously wrong if interpreted literally

No. When you read something, anything, you're supposed to take into account the author's likely intention, cultural and historical background, and context clues while employing textual analysis.

The Bible writers' likely intention was to pretend they spoke for an invisible man in the sky. Their cultural and historical background was primitive and superstitious. Checking the context, they meant just what they said.

How's that?

If I tell you that you're a hot girl, then does that mean I think your temperature is high? No, obviously not.

Your meaning isn't so obvious. I would need more information to know what you're talking about. A girl can be literally hot as in having a temperature or being in the sun for an extended period of time.

When the aforementioned is taken into account, then it becomes clear what is a metaphor and what isn't in the Bible. If you think the authors of the Bible literally thought the earth was on pillars, then you may be a dumb dumb. I don't think you believe that though. I think you're purposely straw-manning the Bible because you're too scared to take it head-on.

Let's take a look at a relevant passage from Psalm 75:3:

When the earth totters, with all its inhabitants,
it is I who keep its pillars steady.

I see nothing at all in the context to conclude that the pillars mentioned here are mere symbols. So rather than use an apologetics' approach to assume otherwise, I say we take the meaning to be just what it says: The psalmist believed the earth rested on pillars. I'd be a true "dumb dumb" to read into the text what isn't there. To do so is only necessary if I want to believe everything the Bible says is true.

But don't feel bad; it was very common for people in antiquity to have a lot of beliefs based on their primitive mythology. The Jews were not alone in that regard.

Yes, we should be rational enough to admit that evidence proves us wrong.

I already covered that. If you have a defeater for the appearance of the universe being designed, then you should change your mind about the universe being designed. But you don't seem to have that defeater. You claim you do, but you don't.

I have the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution to defeat primitive and superstitious assumptions.

 

[Ephesians]

Is it safe to assume that there's little you don't know?

You tell me, big guy. What do you think?

The issue of cosmological beliefs in antiquity isn't terribly important to me

That’s odd considering you’re critiquing the cosmology of the authors of the Bible.

And while the Greeks were making those kinds of discoveries, the Bible writers were busy telling us that the stars would fall from the sky

Depending on what verse you’re talking about, ‘star’ may be referring to a spirit being (e.g. angel) or a celestial object. Why you’re presuming ‘star’ is referring to something like our sun is beyond me. Are you not familiar with the phrase ‘shooting star’ or ‘falling star’? A shooting star or a falling star is a meteor and not a ball of nuclear fusion.

which as we now know is impossible.

On top of what I’ve already written, are you not familiar with metaphor or figurative speech? I’m beginning to wonder if you’re trolling.

The Bible writers' likely intention was to pretend they spoke for an invisible man in the sky.

I know what you think their intention was, but you also don’t know much. I mean… you’re having difficulty with phrases like shooting stars and falling stars.

Checking the context, they meant just what they said.

I believe they meant what they wrote too. The issue is you don’t understand what they wrote, so you have no way of telling what they meant.

Your meaning isn't so obvious. I would need more information to know what you're talking about.

Full stop. If I told you that you were a hot girl, then you’d need more information to determine that I’m referring to your looks and not your temperature? Therein lies the problem. Your comprehension level. This may be why you’re having trouble understanding the Bible. If you’re genuinely interested in understanding the Bible, then I recommend Michael Heiser’s work.

“When the earth totters, and all its inhabitants,
it is I who keep steady its pillars.”
I see nothing at all in the context to conclude that the pillars mentioned here are mere symbols.

Which is extremely odd. It’s obvious to me that this is figurative speech because the earth doesn’t ‘totter’ and it’s not on pillars. What’s more, this verse comes from Psalms. ‘Psalms’ means song or poem. And the verse is from “Do Not Destroy. A Psalm of Asaph. A Song.” Taken altogether, I think it’s safe to assume that this is figurative speech.

I have the Big Bang Theory

Big Bang cosmology doesn’t explain the apparent design of the universe. If anything, it actually makes it all the more impressive because the initial singularity was a state of infinite entropy that was in possession of highly improbable life-permitting cosmological constants. BTW. The Big Bang theory was originally devised by a Catholic priest, lul.

Theory of Evolution

As I’ve written previously, pointing to evolution is like pointing to a car factory in response to somebody mentioning the appearance of design in a car.