It is not the declaration by God which defines our moral standard. It is His own essence, which is purely moral, and has this imprinted essence on our hearts. This is why every human being knows the difference between right and wrong. It is an unchanged, unchanging, unchangeable law.

Though there are times that we do not realize how negative an action is until it is indicated to us. I might have never realized how selfish the exploitation of lust is if the Bible never indicated it to me. Likewise, followers of Islam may have never realized that lust is evil unless their holy book indicated it.

However, in many instances throughout the Qu’ran, lust is dangled in front of characters. For every Muslim man is promised an unlimited number of untouched dark-eyed damsels, meant to satisfy their sexual urges for eternity. Lust is regarded by Islam as an evil desire, yet their eternal kingdom seems to composed of it.

No, you do not understand. It’s not evil in Heaven.
Even if I grant that it is not the evil ‘version’ of lust in Heaven, it is still lust on earth. Muslim men are still driven by the promise of lustful fulfillment. They stand in hypocrisy as they believe the Qu’ran in its’ entirety; they condemn lust yet are willfully motivated by lust.

Further, I do believe that the God of Islam has set a poor example through Muhammad. This ‘prophet’ was allowed to fulfill all of his sexual desires on earth, including the desire to become betrothed to a six year old, and consummate the marriage when she was nine.(Muhammad being sixty at the time.)

The God of Islam allowed Muhammad to do this because he looked favorably on Muhammad. If the exploitation of lust is indeed an evil practice, then it stands to reason that any righteous entity would hate it, because the purely righteous hate all that is evil.

Alas, instead of hating it, the God of Islam rewards with it. He told Muhammad essentially that because he loved him, he will allow him to commit this evil deed. Does this sound like an omnibenevolent entity, to reward a good deed with an evil deed? To offer an afterlife of lustful fulfillment?

Before you accuse me of distorting the context, I must indicate that I do not want to know what context is appropriate for a sixty year old man to have intercourse with a nine year old girl. Let me tell you a little about how Jesus Christ behaved in a very similar context.

As opposed to having sex with children(Qu’ran 65:4), Jesus commanded that we never cause them harm, or cause them to sin. (Matthew 18:6)

As opposed to commanding that people murder non-believers, (and Muslims who were friends with non-believers) (Sura 5:51), Jesus commanded that we love our enemies, and let them go about their business should they decline the Good News (Mark 6:11, Matthew 5:44).

After telling his followers to attack a weak Jewish city, Muhammad was poisoned (Sura 48:1). After telling His followers to love each other, Jesus was tortured to death.

I greatly prefer the love of Jesus Christ to lustful offerings and violent campaigns of Muhammad.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

Qu’ran: Don’t bother warning the disbelievers. Allah has made it impossible for them to believe so that he can torture them forever after they die. 2:6-7
Bible: Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him. Revelations 3:20

Qu’ran:“Allah taketh away their light and leaveth them in darkness, where they cannot see, Deaf, dumb and blind.” 2:17-18
Bible:“The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see.” John 9:11

Qu’ran: Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don’t kill them.) 2:191-2
Bible: But I say unto you, love your enemies. Matthew 5:44

Qu’ran: ‘A’isha reported that Allah’s Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine. 8:3311
Bible: But if anyone causes these little ones to sin, or brings them to harm, I tell you that it would be better if they never lived. Matthew 18:6

Qu’ran: War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216
Bible: Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. John 14:27

Qu’ran: Those in the Fire will cry out to those in heaven, saying: “Pour water on us.” But Allah has forbidden that to disbelievers. 7:50
Bible: The afflicted and needy are seeking water, but there is none, and their tongue is parched with thirst. I, the LORD, will answer them Myself, as the God of Israel I will not forsake them. Isaiah 41:17

Qu’ran: A prophet may not take captives until he has made a slaughter in the land. 8:67
Bible: You shall not kill. Exodus 20:13

Qu’ran: Those who deny Muhammad’s revelations will be destroyed. 25:36
Bible:If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

I will be the first to confess that I am not a pile of machinery whose emotions and personal desires are absent. Rather I am an American man, and when I began to ask myself whether God existed, I did have a predisposition toward Christianity.

Though obviously, to wield this fact as an argument against the truth of the Christian doctrine would be tantamount to committing what is referred to as the fallacy of genetics. One cannot refute a view by indicating the origins of that view. If I learned that the evolution occurred in a comic book, obviously my source of inference is not good. But that does not prove the evolution therefore did not occur. Similarly, my predisposition toward Christianity does not negate the truth of the Christian doctrine.

Moreover, I would say that I am a person who responds well to reason. I do not think that if there were valid arguments in favor of Islam, I would merely disregard them or plug my ears. It is something that would, and has, received consideration. But upon doing my best to put emotions aside and consider the issue, I am persuaded that the typical Islamic objections to Christianity are worthless. But that is not something that this article aims to demonstrate. Rather, this article aims to demonstrate that there are overwhelming reasons to dismiss Islam as untrue.

I will formulate my objections to Islam in what is called syllogistic format. That means that I am going to draw a conclusion based on a set of premises. An example follows.

1 – All men are mortal.
2 – I am a man.
3 – Therefore, I am mortal.

I explain this exercise a bit more thoroughly in my article, How To Identify Fallacious Reasoning . But when analyzing a syllogistic argument such as this one, there are two things that one must consider. Are the premises true? and Does the conclusion follow from the premises? If the answer to both of those questions is “yes,” then the conclusion is necessarily true.

The God Of Islam Is Morally Inadequate

A Muslim to whom I spoke recently assured me that God is the Most High. This properly reflects that Christians and Muslims typically agree that God is necessarily, a maximally great being.

But what does this entail? As the greatest conceivable being, God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and he must be all-loving. This summarizes this first premise in my argument.

Premise One: 1 – God is necessarily all-loving.

If God has any love, then God must be the ideal standard by which love is measured. His love must be infinite, for if it is not infinite, God’s essence is necessarily limited. If God’s nature is limited, then he ceases to be God. So God must have infinite love.

This is the basic philosophy of God. If we could conceive of a being that loves more than God does, than that being would be greater than God, and therefore would be God. So it would be impossible to concede that God does not love everybody, for we can conceive of a being that does love everybody.

Moreover, it is not only that we can conceive of a being that loves more than God. There are figures even within the human race who have expressed tremendous love toward the world, and thus, if God does not love everybody, even those people have greater love than he does. Therefore, man would be greater than God in this way. But this is obviously a logical absurdity.

Premise Two: The God revealed by the Qur’an is not all-loving.

Jesus said the following. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love only those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Consistently throughout the Qur’an, it is affirmed that Allah does not meet the standard that Jesus outlined. He falls short in this manner and therefore also neglects to meet the necessary prerequisites that being God entails. Just take a look at these rather awkward verses.

“God loves not the unbelievers.” (III. 33)
“God loves not the impious and sinners.” (II. 277)
“God loves not evildoers.” (III. 58)
“God loves not the proud.” (IV. 37)
“God loves not transgressors.” (V. 88)
“God loves not the prodigal.” (VI. 142)
“God loves not the treacherous.” (VIII. 59)
“God is an enemy to unbelievers.” (II. 99)

Over and over, the Qur’an affirms that God does not love the sinner. His love is partial, conditional, and must be earned. Only when one expresses love for Allah, will Allah love you. Thus Allah never seems to ascend passed the mark of the tax collector and the Pagans who only greet their own people. I just cannot persuade myself that this is an adequate display of a being called Most High, for he is not most high. There are men who love their enemies, even when that enemy hates them. In this respect, they are higher than the God of the Qur’an.

As Islamic scholar Darood Akbar, in his book The God Of Justice writes, “Unqualified divine love for mankind is an idea completely alien to the Qur’an. Nowhere do we find the idea that God loves mankind. God’s love is conditional.”

(Does the God revealed by the Bible love everybody? See my article, Why I Am Not A Member Of Westboro Baptist Church)

Conclusion: Therefore, The God revealed by the Qur’an is not God.

Remember the two questions that are used for analyzing syllogistic arguments. Are the premises true? I think the answer is very clearly that they are true. Does the conclusion follow? Yes: this argument was formulated in a deductive format. This means that the conclusion is underlying in the premises waiting to be derived by the rules of logical inference.

In summary, I argue as follows.

1 – God is necessarily all-loving.
2 – The God revealed by the Qur’an is not all-loving.
3 – Therefore, the God revealed by the Qur’an is not God.

The God Of Islam Is Unjust

Premise One: God is necessarily just.

God, as a maximally great being cannot have evil in his sight. This seems to me to be self-evidently true. The wicked must receive justice for their sins. If God does not give justice to the evil-doer, his benevolence is compromised. If his benevolence is compromised, he ceases to be God.

This makes sense of the coming of Jesus. We are all criminals; impure and wretched in God’s sight. Since God is wholly righteous, He must give us justice for our atrocities. We all deserve justice, because nobody is without sin.

But God loved the sinner and humanity so much that he would not watch them perish. Instead, he became a man, Jesus of Nazarath. Jesus led a life of moral perfection; he was without sin. For this crime, the world hated him. They captured, beat, and tortured him to death.

When Jesus died, God’s wrath and justice was executed in him. He absorbed the punishment that we deserve for our sins. So despite that we are guilty, God will dismiss our case; we will avoid God’s punishment and avoid Hell, and instead, receive the gift of everlasting life.

The Christian concept of salvation succeeds in providing justice to the treacherous, and mercy for those who come in to it. It is in proper alignment with the concept that God must render justice.

Premise Two: The God revealed by the Qur’an is not just.

In contrast, the Islamic concept of salvation does not succeed in maintaining alignment with the concept that God must render justice. The Islamic concept of salvation is that if one’s good deeds outweigh their bad, then, their salvation awaits them.

There are two critical problems with this plan of salvation. The first is that it does not do justice for the wicked. Even if somebody does much more good than they do evil, the evil that they do was unpunished. The God of Islam turns a blind eye to the sins of his people, and this is where his benevolence fails. For an omnibenevolent being could not let sin be unpunished.

Imagine in a court of law, the defendant rises and states, “Your honor, I broke every law that you can name. But you see, my good deeds outweigh by bad deeds. Moreover I am very sorry for my bad deeds.”

I cannot imagine that this would exonerate the man of his crimes, even before the standard of a human judge. But this concept is one that is allegedly applied to an Almighty Judge, whose standards are much higher than ours. The sinner must receive justice, and the concept of salvation in Islam does not offer this justice.

The second problem with this plan of salvation is that it is unreachable. Who can stand before the Lord and truly say that our good deeds outweigh our evil deeds? As inherently flawed human beings, every instinct that we have leans in the direction of evil. If everybody could read my thoughts, I would never spend time with anybody. Our very thoughts, I think, are sinful. Our desires are treacherous and aplenty. Only a liar could say that his good deeds outweigh his evil deeds.

Conclusion: Therefore, The God revealed by the Qur’an is not God.

Remember the two questions that are used for analyzing syllogistic arguments. Are the premises true? I think the answer is very clearly that they are true. Does the conclusion follow? Yes: this argument was formulated in a deductive format. This means that the conclusion is underlying in the premises waiting to be derived by the rules of logical inference.

In summary, I argue as follows:

1 – God is necessarily just.
2 – The God revealed by the Qur’an is not just.
3 – Therefore, the God revealed by the Qur’an is not God.

Conclusion
As a consequence of the nature of God that it proposes, and the concept of salvation, there are good reasons to think that Islam is not true. As a student of philosophy, it is clear that Islam is both inadequate and unfulfilling.

I recently posted on twitter, “The question of who designed the designer? is to philosophy, as why are there still monkeys? is to evolution.” But I think that there is another example of anti-intellectual complaints in a particular field which atheists are constantly guilty of using. To say God committed evil in the Old Testament is to theology as why are there still monkeys? is to evolution.

There are two aspects of this issue which need to be analyzed. There is the philosophical aspect and the theological aspect. I will begin with the philosophical aspect by offering an excerpt from my article, Human Rights On Atheism And Evolution.

There are several atrocities which have led thinking atheists into the clutches of nihilism, and, in the words of Bertrand Russell, there is no atheistic solution.

If evolution and atheism are true, then we are completely lost in moral relativism. For, as I have stated many times before, if I deem something a moral abomination, and another deems something morally indifferent, who is right? In the absence of an objective standard of morality to appeal to, neither of us is truly right, or truly wrong. Therefore, no mans’ standard of morality can be objected to.

Most atheists, I would say, do agree that absolute moral values do not exist; that it is all relative. The problem with this is that it is blatantly inconsistent with moral opposition to the Old Testament. For it affirms that there are absolute moral values, and the Old Testament collides with them. On pain of irrationality, the atheist both confirms and rejects absolute moral values.

My second point is in regard to the theological exegesis which indicates that God is revealed as evil in the Old Testament. I would begin by saying that there is not a thorough unbiased exegesis in favor of that position. Owners of these pages are not theologians, nor do they have any understanding of the scriptures that they are writing about.

Rather these are sort of face value interpretations which if challenged and defeated, they usually will not concede the point even when the interpretation that they have offered is patently incorrect. Without more delay, the scriptures that they usually (neglect to) analyze fall in one of three categories.

First Category: Prophecy
Psalm 137: Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks.

I do not deny that this is a fairly grim scripture. But it is usually distorted to suggest some sort of biblical immorality despite that when analyzed it cannot be interpreted in such a manner.

This is not a prayer, or a statement of personal vengeance. It is rather a prophecy. It is a statement of events that will unfold in the future, but says nothing about how the author or how God feels about these future events.

It is comparable to when Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem. Jesus was not pleased with the fall; it was just a prophecy.

Second Category: The Sin Of Man
… is asymmetrical with the sin of God. The Prophets that are within the Bible and who came in to God did commit sin. But that is not to say that such a sin is endorsed by the Bible, or that it reflects the God which they prey to.

Third Category: God’s Justice
If it is the case that the God of the Old Testament exists, then it follows that the legislations which he offered are the best means for fulfilling his ends. This was, of course, to strengthen the faith of the inhabitants of ancient Israel, and to maintain what Peter the apostle described as “A Call To Holy Living”.

But God allowed humanity to live under what might have been improper legislation, to fulfill ends that he knew were more important than the legislation. It is comparable to the book of Job, where God allowed Job to be attacked by the devil. He allowed bad things to happen for a greater good. So long as it is even possible that there is a greater good that God was steering the Israelites toward, this argument does not work. Since it is the case that it is possible, it follows that in fact, this argument does not work.

Moreover I would say that this argument, if maintained, is question begging in favor of atheism. If God does not exist, then there is no morally sufficient reason for the strange and seemingly unjust legislations of ancient Leviticus. But to assert that, in fact, there is no morally sufficient reason is symmetrical to asserting that God does not exist (because if God did exist, one could not know that there existed no such reason). But to assert that God does not exist, in an argument meant to prove that God does not exist is a textbook example of circular reasoning.

Conclusion
While this might not have been the most thorough examination of Old Testament stories, I would recommend the book Is God A Moral Monster? By Doctor Paul Copan. It thoroughly analyzes the stories and events that I only briefly touched on.

I do find it so bizarre that the most widely championed book against the existence of God, (The God Delusion) is based on a central argument that is demonstrably fallacious. “Who designed the designer?!” demands biology professor Richard Dawkins. Even worse though, this was not merely dismissed as the ravings of a mad mad. It is echoed by every internet atheist that I encounter.

I might on another occasion dissect the reasoning behind the constant repeat of such poor philosophy. It may just be ignorance. But that is not the point of this article. The point is (and I am certain that it has been done numerous times in the past) answering Dawkins accusation, that the God hypothesis is insufficient in explaining the origin and design of the universe because it immediately raises another tough question, namely, ‘who designed the designer?’

I am confident that argument would be universally rejected if not for the atheism that it implies. We recognizes explanations all of the time, and we do so without asking the additional question of the explanation of the explanation. I will adopt Dawkins’ principle and apply it to something else in demonstration of this point.

If somebody crossed a field and found a pile of ashes, with Dawkins’ principle in mind, this person would be forced to concede that they are not justified in inferring fire as a cause of the ashes, because they do not know what caused the fire. Before they infer a fire, from ashes, they must, within Dawkins model, find an explanation of the explanation (find out what caused the fire.)

Alas, unlike Professor Dawkins, I submit that one would be amply justified in inferring a fire from a pile of ashes, even if they had no idea where the fire came from. The question of “what caused the fire?” can simply be left open for further inquiry. However it would be completely absurd to propose that this open question negates justification of the observation that fire is the best explanation for the ashes. This is the pitfall of Dawkins argument; he makes a most elementary mistake in asserting that you need an explanation, of the explanation, before recognizing an explanation as the best.

Similarly, the question, “but how do you explain the explanation?” in response to the Cosmological Argument fails to undermine the explanation, because you do not have to have an explanation of the explanation before recognizing that an explanation is the best. The question of the explanation of God can simply be left open for further inquiry. But upon further inquiry, what do we find? Well the argument which leads to this objection actually internally answers the question. As the cause of time, it is beyond time. In saying this, I mean that it is eternal.

Now that is not blindly saying that he is eternal to evade this objection, but it is a necessary consequence of the argument. So that objection does not work for two reasons. 1 – Before recognizing an explanation as the best, you do not have to have an explanation of the explanation. 2 – The explanation of the explanation is necessarily that it is eternal.

Finally, Richard Dawkins has offered this bad objection in response to The Teleological argument (the argument from the complexity of the universe). Dawkins explains that God as an explanation is more complex than the world that he is trying to explain, and therefore does not explain anything. Moreover, God would also fall victim to Ockham’s Razor (the principle that shaves away complex solutions). But that is simply out of ignorance. It confuses what is referred to as “complexity of structure” with “complexity of function”. The mind itself is remarkably simple, while the minds’ productions can be remarkably complex, and this is where Dawkins is confused.

So from neither God’s existence nor his level of complexity follows a need for another creator, and therefore the central argument of The God Delusion offers no grounds to doubt the existence of God. It is nothing more than a product of philosophical misunderstanding.

Still, I await the devastating critique of religion alleged to have been offered by Richard Dawkins. Instead all I have found is a book of terrible philosophy which outlines a central argument that unless the reader has an emotional motivation for abiding can easily be dismissed as silly. (See my article titled ‘Who Designed The Designer?’)

This is far from a bias examination. Gentlemen like Doctor William Stenger, despite that he is wrong, raises a formidable intellectual opposing case. But Richard Dawkins critique of religion and the philosophy of God is dubious at best. He is quite clearly a laymen in matters of philosophy. Which is why I find it so perplexing that his book is so popular.

It is my opinion that it comes down to purely iconic atheism. He is a great biologist, and thus I have no qualms about deferring to his opinion in matters of biology. He is also, for what my opinion is worth, a skilled writer. It is in these two elements, and perhaps matters such as his popularity or his rather likable personality that people are willing to blindly follow his word. It gives me little hope for humanity that we accept the teachings of those we admire without a second thought. ‘The God Delusion’ if considered philosophically should have never made it onto the open market, because quite frankly, upon examination it is glaring that a biologist with no grasp of philosophy wrote it.

Not the worst of the unfounded philosophy within Dawkins’ work (That title is of course reserved for the central theme of his books.) are his jests. I would not even bother criticizing something such as this, but it just so often repeated, and I think people are actually persuaded by it. “We are all atheists,” he asserts. “Some of us just go one God further.”

Dawkins has publicly stated that the means of his body of work serve an end that is converting everybody into an atheist. I am not sure what tricks he has up his sleeve, but throughout his work, I find nothing so potent. However it does seem that in abiding his own definition of an atheist, his work is complete. Everybody is an atheist in that nobody believes in every god.

It is a bizarre form of atheism to concede that God exists. But that is exactly what Richard Dawkins proposes. I believe that the Christian doctrine is reflective of reality and I believe in God, yet, according to Dawkins, I am an atheist. How in the world does he get away with this?!

Imagine the dialogue wherein one person explains that they are an atheist and the other person replies, “But do you believe in God?” This is utterly absurd. It’s like some bizarro universe or something you might hear on Opposite Day. It is logically inept. Yet it is what Richard Dawkins proposes and it is what is widely regarded as sound logic.

I do wonder what else we might find in the world that Dawkins imagines. In this universe of atheists believing in God and everybody saying goodbye upon arrival and hello upon exit, what else do we find? Perhaps we will find that refutations of the Kalam Cosmological argument are validated.

I have no problem discussing religion with atheists. However I do become a bit annoyed when I hear Richard Dawkins work repeated. Only because it becomes grossly apparent that the person that I am speaking with is not thinking.

Atheists: want to discuss religion or the philosophy of God? I’m up for it. But please do not approach me with the rhetoric that Richard Dawkins imagines.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

Somebody came across my recently article, “An Argument Against Materialism From Immaterialism” and offered their analysis. I will keep his twitter handle withheld unless he explicitly asks otherwise. My original statement is plain, his is italic and my response is bold italic.

There are truths throughout our world that science cannot prove, for the simple
reason that science assumes them. I will begin by dissecting the truth that is truth itself.
True; logical axioms for example.

>Truth is immaterial in that it exists independently of whether anybody agrees
>with it or not. In demonstration of this I offer this scenario. If all human
>There are truths throughout our world that science cannot prove, for the simple
> reason that science assumes them. I will begin by dissecting the truth that is
> truth itself.
True; logical axioms for example.

> Truth is immaterial in that it exists independently of whether anybody agrees
> with it or not. In demonstration of this I offer this scenario. If all human
> beings in the world died tomorrow, the truth would be that there are no living
> human beings, despite that we would not be there to agree with it. Consensus
> does not define or negate truth. In the words of Winston Churchill, “Truth is
> incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. Hate may deride it. But at the end of
> the day, there it is.”
Correct.

> I submit that the nature of relative truth is self-refuting. For if you apply
> the statement “All truth is relative,” to itself, the question that imposes
> itself is “Is that a relative truth?” If this statement is a relative truth,
> then obviously, it is not wholly true and therefore cannot be trusted. If it is
> not a relative truth, then it contradicts itself in that all truth must be
> relative. Truth must exists because we cannot even say that truth does not
> exist without contradicting ourselves.
Correct.

> Further, there are mathematical truths that exist independently of whether
> anybody agrees with them or not. Science does not prove them, but rather, it
> operates under the assumption that these immaterial truths exist. It is on this
> foundation that I claim that the scientist who tries to prove that materialism
> is true cannot justify his own method.
Correct, if you’re talking about logical axioms. Mathematics does in fact
prove mathematical truths (from simpler mathematical / logical truths).

> Rather than proving materialism, science only further confirms the existence of
> the immaterial, as it operates on the assumption of immaterial mathematical
> truths. In conclusion, if you agree that 2+2=4 independently of whether anybody
> agrees or not, then you cannot hide from the falsehood that is materialism.

Yes and no. We’d have to go into mental masturbation about what “exists”
means. I don’t think anyone sees materalism as the rejection of the claim that
2+2=4 regardless of who thinks so. If you wish to define it that way, then
you’re attacking a position that no one really holds.

> Finally, I contend that morality is objective and is therefore an immaterial
> element pointing directly at the existence of God. I do understand why the
> atheist becomes frustrated upon this point. That is not to say that I think
> they have a good point, but rather that I think they become frustrated because
> it is so easy to walk into self-contradiction when contending that morality is
> subjective.

Morality is objective, yes. But you have not made any argument to support
your claim that morality being objective means it “points directly at the
existence of God”, any more than “2 + 2 = 4″ points at the existence of God.

> For instance, the atheist cannot claim that an action like torture or rape is
> more moral than another. The atheist cannot assess the moral difference between
> Hitler’s ethics and modern American ethics, because there is no objective
> standard on which to judge them. On an atheistic view, it was simply a hiccup
> in the course of our evolution. Hitler’s actions were not moral abominations;
> they were nothing more than a man acting in poor etiquette; in the words of
> William Lane Craig, like the man who belches at the dinner table.

Actually an atheist is perfectly qualified to make this judgment. “Hitler’s
actions caused massive suffering” is an objective statement. It’s worth
examining your claim that there is a definite dividing line between
“etiquette” and “morality”. In fact it’s much more consistent to realise that
both of these things exist on the same scale. If I know you prefer
chocolate ice cream to vanilla, and I give you vanilla anyway, I am objectively
creating a worse reality than if I had given you chocolate. In this case the
difference is rather trivial so we tend not to use such an emotionally-charged
word as “immoral” to describe it. Likewise, towards the other end of the scale
we have acts like those of Hitler or Moses, causing massive suffering to
huge numbers of people. But where exactly along this scale does “morality” begin?
The question doesn’t seem to produce anything of value; it’s like asking “where
does ‘large’ begin”? So saying “[Hitler et. al] were nothing more than a man
acting in poor etiquette” is in a sense true, but it has as much relevance as
saying “a galaxy is nothing more than a grain of sand”, just because both
objects fit into the same scale by having “size”.

> Despite the belief that they are forced to submit to, atheism’s adherents
> continue to speak the language of objective morality. I can appropriately sum
> this argument in this manner: if you agree that modern ethics are an
> objectively moral progression from Hitler’s ethics, then you inescapably agree
> to the immaterial truth that is objective morality.
I’m ok with this.

I am glad that you agree on the first fold of my argument; that truth, mathematics, and morality are in fact all objective in that they exist independently of whether anybody agrees with them or not. That is precisely what I intended to display.

However it is odd that you agree that morality is objective but go on to say that it is difficult to distinguish the line between etiquette and morality. I think they are quite different studies, but my only point was that on atheism there is no distinction between the two.

You demonstrate this point quite properly for me by your comparison of etiquette and morality with small and large. You hold this position, yet you go on to say that you agree that morality is objective. Yet these two positions contradict each other. Morality is either sliding, or it is objective.

> There are two folds of this argument that need to be acknowledged. The first,
> which I have outlined is that immaterial elements exist. I contend that this is
> explicitly in contrast with materialism, and therefore, one must be true, while
> the other must be false.
You haven’t proved they’re not abstract though.

> However I think as I have demonstrated, there are immaterial elements, because
> we cannot even say there are not without walking into contradiction. In light
> of this and since there is no logical contradiction of the proposition that
> materialism is false, it follows that materialism is in fact false.
You haven’t proved they’re not abstract though.

I find your format a little condescending. It would be more efficient to write “You did not prove that they are not abstract,” only once. It would even more efficient if you distinguished when it is that I am attempting to prove they are abstract. Perhaps your inability to distinguish that is precisely why you overlooked it.

> In expansion of this, I believe that the three realities, namely truth,
> mathematics, and morality are best explained by theism and cannot be explained
> by atheism. I submit that on atheism, there is no reason for an abstract
> immaterial to impose itself upon us.

Let’s look at “truth”. What are some of the most fundamental truths? How
about “if a statement A is true, then the statement (not A) is not true”; ie,
if two statements contradict each other, they cannot both be true. Or “if A is
true, and B is true, then (A and B) is true”. It’s generally accepted even
among theists that God himself is subject to these laws in the same way we are.
Hence, theists accept the proposition that “God cannot create a four-sided
triangle”, even if they do not accept this as a contradiction of his
“omnipotence”. If they do not accept the proposition, they must open
themselves to ridiculous questions like “why does God not just make everyone
behave perfectly all the time, without detracting at all from free will?”. So
where do the logical axioms come from? Not from God; he is subject to them,
they are not subject to him. It seems the only sensible conclusion is that
they are as you say, abstract. Can they “impose themselves on us”? Well, yes;
they determine what is and isn’t possible.

I have two points to make. The first being that the argument does not aim to show that God is the immaterial personality, just that an immaterial personality is required. So whether God fits satisfyingly to you in this instance is simply irrelevant.

Secondly, this statement is in stark contrast with the philosophy of God. God is not victim to logic and all of the elements that define Him, but rather, these elements abide within God. I find it rather silly to propose that because God cannot do what is logically absurd, that He is impotent. This is just pitting elements of God’s infinity against itself. It’s like the old ‘unstoppable force’ versus ‘immovable object’. Except in this instance, God is both. It’s like asking: if God were in a fight with himself, who would win? It’s just a silly question, and quite frankly, even if I grant it for charity, it does absolutely nothing to refute my claim that the immaterial is grounded in a personality. It only offers the possibility that these personalities are beyond God.

So if “A being true implies that
(not A) is not true” does not depend on a personal being, why should “2+2=4″,
or indeed, any fact based on a combination of logical reasoning and observation?

This is just your reciting of what you regard as truth.

> There is no reason that we should be compelled to oblige truth or morality
> unless they are in themselves personal entities or grounded in a personal
> entity.
Not sure what “oblige truth” or “oblige morality” really mean.

Might I suggest a dictionary. -.-

> Consider the number four. It has no bearing on us at all, because it is merely
> an abstract immaterial. Consider another persons’ immaterial thoughts. They are
> only imposed upon us when a personal decision is made to do so. To impose the
> immaterial on us is a personal action and thus requires a personality.
This doesn’t make much sense.

I would really just be repeating myself if I said it again. Certainly, even if you disagree with the point, you cannot possibly be unable to grasp this.

> In critical expansion, I explain that it would be impossible for the immaterial
> to interact with the material unless the material had an immaterial essence.
> Atheist physicist Doctor William Stenger agrees on this point, as he indicated
> in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis. I think Doctor Stenger is right.

Not sure this makes much sense either. For this point to support your argument
you’d need to claim that the fact that a particular (physical) shape can’t be a
four-sided triangle proves that the shape has an “immaterial essence”, which would
be a rather difficult claim to justify.

That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the immaterial cannot interact with the material. This is reflective of the old alleged contradiction of God’s attributes. Basic philosophy refutes it in saying that human beings have an immaterial essence. Obviously described as their soul. Therefore there is no contradiction there.

However I agree that the immaterial would not be able to interact with the material unless the material had an immaterial essence. I cannot conceive of any reason that anybody should disagree with this.

You affirm that the immaterial exists in truth, mathematics, and morality. You may not be persuaded that a personal action taken by these immaterial elements requires a personality. However, upon the given philosophy, that the immaterial cannot interact with material, and on atheism, there is absolutely no reason that the immaterial should be able to interact and affect you. Therefore you must either reject the existence of the immaterial (or acknowledge that you cannot grasp it) or challenge one of the most firmly held positions of philosophy.

> On this foundation I submit that the atheist must maintain that not only do
> human beings lack an immaterial essence, but they must also maintain that if
> there are objective immaterials such as truth or morality, we cannot grasp
> them, because as Doctor Stenger reminds us, the immaterial cannot interact with
> the material.
>
> Therefore, the atheist must take opposition to the first fold of my argument -
> that any immaterial elements exist, thus rendering truth, on the view that they
> must assume, completely subjective and based on individual genetics. If atheism
> or materialism is true, they cannot even say that it is true because to say
> that it is true would be to affirm the existence of an objective, immaterial,
> personally grounded entity called truth.

You’ve just smuggled “personally-grounded” in that last sentence without
adequate justification. Here’s another problem for you: consider a possible
world in which there is no god. (I assume you’re willing to concede that this
does not entail a logical contradiction. To make it really easy, let’s say
there is no conscious life in this universe at all). If your claim about truth
were correct, then in this universe, it would not be “true” that there were no
god, even though, in fact, there would be no god. This seems to defeat your
point.

Not at all. If theism is indeed true, and God is the source of truth, there is no reason to believe that in this bizarro universe that you have imagined that truth would exist. So while we can apply what we regard as true to the other universe, it does not follow it would have to adhere to our version of truth.

> I think there remain only two possible options for the atheist. They can either
> affirm their ability to grasp the immaterial by affirming their immaterial
> essence; traditionally referred to as the soul. But by doing so, they also
> affirm the existence of objective truth, and that entails an immaterial
> personality. The second option is that they could also deny that truth exists,
> to which the simple question that would be imposed is, “is that true?”
>
> Either way, they walk into self-contradiction, and therefore, the statement
> “atheism is true” is self-refuting.

In conclusion, I don’t think you’ve proved anything. Your article is mainly
word play on “immaterial” and “existence”, with nothing that really connects
these “immaterial entities” to a personality beings in the world.

In summary, I find these notes rather unintimidating, to say the very least. You fail to, and indeed even refuse to address the very core of my argument, that being the need for a mind behind an action. You further refuse to recognize the point that I raised about the immaterial interacting with the material, and remarkably, your motivation for dismissing these two arguments were grammatically influenced. Which, in all humility, I state that I am quite skilled in that field. So to your “This does not make sense,” I can only reply, “Yes it does.”

You either dismissed it because you were unable to grasp it, rendering you completely unqualified to offer a critique in the English language, or you simply had no answer for it. I am fairly certain that it is the latter. If I were to grade your review, and to honestly account for your refusal to dissect the central issue, and the short-sight that you applied to issues that were for the most part, irrelevant, I could only fairly offer an F.

This is not the devastating critique that you thought it was. In fact it is rather insulting that you would think I would be taken in by it.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

I think it would be in poor etiquette if I neglected to introduce this topic before discussing it. However, I would not spend much time doing so because if you are unfamiliar with the burden of proof topic, this issue is irrelevant to you.

God’s existence has been proudly embraced by some and mocked by others. Men have murdered other men because they could not agree about the nature and essence of God. While there are still many terribly misguided folks who believe that God wishes them to commit evil, I think the modern western man has escaped the trenches of such a poor theological position. Now, the question ‘Does God Exist?’ can be civilly answered by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and indeed, our atheist friends, and nobody will be hanged after the discussion.

For those of us who answer, “Yes, God does exist,” we understand that if we are to submit this statement, we ought to be able to defend it if and when it is challenged. Similarly, I contend that for those who submit the statement, “No, God does not exist,” ought to be able to defend it when challenged. In contrast, many of them believe that if all of the evidence for God’s existence fails, they are justified in concluding that God does not exist.

But in underlying partnership with this comes an additional question, namely, does the absence of evidence for God’s existence suggest evidence of absence? The opposition replies ‘yes’ but often does so without adequate justification. This is crucial question, because if absence of evidence is in fact not evidence of absence, then even if all of the evidence fails, it could still be the case that God exists.

Therefore, if the opposition is to adequately justify answering ‘no’ to the question of God’s existence, they must either demonstrate that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, or provide a different form of evidence of absence.

I am willing to concede that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. But I have simply never heard a strong argument or even a coherent argument in favor of it. In fact, I think I have a knock-down argument against it.

Imagine a possible world wherein God exists, but He does not provide empirical evidence of His existence. Unless there exists a logical contradiction between God’s existence and His neglect of providing the empirical evidence, then God’s existence is possible even in a world with absolutely no evidence of His existence.

Therefore those who maintain that in the actual world, there is absolutely no evidence of God’s existence must face the problem of demonstrating alternative evidence of absence.

Now, this does not mean that anybody is required to believe in God. They can, as they have sheepishly described, ‘lack a belief in God’. But in the absence of evidence of evidence of absence, they may not jump from a lack of belief to the assertion that God does not exist, except by faith.

This can be summarized by offering two options to the opposition.
1 – Provide a logical contradiction between God’s existence and the absence of evidence for His existence.
2 – Provide evidence of absence.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

You are the accidental byproduct of nature. As an overgrown germ, your life has no intrinsic worth, nor do those within your kin. All of the emotions that you feel, all of the worth that you give them is illusory. For they are overgrown germs, just as you are. They are just as worthless as you are.

In a relatively short time, you will perish. Your children will offer stories of you in an effort to recreate your personality. Alas, similar to a game of telephone, it will become more distorted as the generations pass. Eventually, recollections of your life will devolve in recollections of recollections of your life. It can be taken as certain: a time will come wherein nobody will know that you ever existed.

One might reply that you affected the human race in a positive manner; that while your memory has faded into irrelevancy, your positivity carries on. But to this I can only reply that this will perish as well. Mankind’s extinction can be taken as invariable. The sun will incinerate the earth and all of its’ inhabitants in a relatively short time. Any minor role you might have played; whether you fed hungry children in the continent of Africa, pulled an old man from a burning car, made your neighbor feel welcome, in the final analysis, renders completely irrelevant. Empty space will reign the universe, and all traces of your existence, your DNA, your studies, and your good works will be forever forgotten.

Perhaps another life will form somewhere else in the universe and evolve with a completely different set of ethics. Perhaps they will believe that we ought kill, that we ought steal, we ought lie, that we ought serve ourselves. Perhaps they will be born with inherent knowledge of their mortality, and thus, also born into the philosophy that aligns most coherently with the truth of mortality, namely, that we ought to live exclusively for the self.

If there is no immortality, then any impulse to rescue a human being would be a foolish endeavor. It is merely a byproduct of the herd altruism, and thus, to abide it, is to act in the benefit of the herd. But as a highly evolved species, we know better than to blindly trust our instincts, for they quite often suggest that we do what is not in our best interest.

MSNBC recently carried the story of a man who blindly followed his instincts. Christopher Willden saw an overturned vehicle caught in a river. Two young girls were being rapidly carried downstream. Without a thought for himself, Willden plummeted into the rushing water and saved the girls.

Upon examination, Willden’s actions become one of stupidity. He jeopardized his very mortality in obeying primitive instincts. If the risk entails ceasing the exist, we ought to be aware, as highly evolved primates, that such an impulse that would dictate that we execute it is the mere byproduct of our evolution, no less than a pre-inclination toward rage.

We have no real obligation to each other, but rather, it would benefit the self further if we trained ourselves to become indifferent toward the suffering of others, lest we find ourselves acting in the wretched stupidity that is self-sacrifice.

In conclusion, I cannot conceive of any reason that on naturalism, an action like self-sacrifice would be anything other than foolish.

To read more of my articles, go to my Christian Articles section by clicking here

This is one of my favorite arguments. Not necessarily because I find it more convincing than the argument from cosmology or fine-tuning or the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. It is one of my favorite arguments because typically, atheists live inconsistently with their declared stance of moral relativism.

What is moral relativism? Moral relativism is the view that the merit of all moral positions are a consequence of biological evolution. As the lion, the bear, the goat or the chicken will evolve with a set of morals, so do humans. Morals are a tool in the struggle for survival and reproduction. They are subjective to every individual, but there is no overriding set of morals for human beings any more than there is an overriding set of morals for other members of the animal kingdom.

Therefore our moral intuitions are not an appeal to something deep or transcendent. They are not an appeal to an absolute authority. When we say that rape, persecution, restriction of freedom, tyranny and oppression are wrong, what are we saying? What does it even mean? It is an appeal to one mans’ evolved set of ethics; an offspring of his tabula rasa; his nature and his nurture. But every man can derive intuitions from that, and they often conflict. If I deem something a moral abomination, and another man deems that same action morally indifferent, who is right? In the absence of a transcendent standard to appeal to, neither is truly right or wrong.

But on atheism and biological evolution, this is the definition of morality. Morals are an evolved and evolving tool for survival. If God does not exist, then there is no reason for man to appeal to morals as though they were a relevant tool for deciding their actions or condemning or judging others. Ours is just like that of the wolf pack, who will develop what appears to be ethical principles for the betterment and survival of the pack. We have adapted this herd morality, for survival, but any deeper meaning is a mirage.

Why Does God’s Existence Change That?
A problem similar to this was expressed by Plato in his dialogue known as Euthyphro. The question that has derived from it is: is an action moral because God decided it was moral, or did God decide it because it was moral? This is essentially asking if morals are something that God is subjected to as well.

God, so defined as a maximally great being cannot be subjected to anything beyond himself. It is within God’s nature that pure goodness abides. As a maximally great being, God is the standard by which all goodness is measured. Morality is an expression of God’s goodness. So, necessarily, something is good as a consequence of God.

Therefore, necessarily, if God exists, morality is an expression of his holy nature. In contrast, if God does not exist, there is no comparable system of ethical objectivity.

What do I mean by ethical objectivity? To steal a quote from Jonathan McLatchie’s article on this topic: By “objective” morality we mean a system of ethics which universally pertains irrespective of the opinions or tastes of human persons: for example, the holocaust was morally wrong irrespective of what Hitler and the Nazis believed about it, and it would have remained morally wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and compelled everyone into compliance with their values.

Most atheists do acknowledge that on their view, morals cannot be objective in this way. But some acknowledge that a system of moral relativism is unlivable, and ergo have fabricated systems of natural ethical objectivity, each of which fail.

Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape
Doctor Harris’ book is among the collage published by the ‘New Atheism’ regime in the last decade. He is the author of several books in his attempt to refute arguments for the existence of God, specifically, Harris specializes in the moral argument for God’s existence. In his book, he has attempted to provide a moral ontology, comparable to that of the existence of God, but applicable to an atheistic worldview.

Doctor Harris has attempted to assert that the flourishing of human beings is the standard by which all morality is measured. That so long as human beings are flourishing or working toward the advancement of the species, they are acting morally. Essentially, Doctor Harris is asserting that the property of acting morally, is identical to property of human flourishing. But even in his book, there is no defense of this radical view. In contrast, there are what Doctor Of Philosophy, William Lane Craig, describes as a knock-down argument against this view.

If we could find a situation wherein the height of human flourishing was an act of immorality, it would follow necessarily that human flourishing is not identical to morality as Doctor Harris explains. But there are several situations that reflect precisely that. Consider the Nazis; they endorsed the extrapolation of the flourishing of human beings.

Further, it was discovered in this last decade that completely unknown to them, folks of minority status were injected with drugs and tested to the end of fulfilling some experimental necessity. This devastates Doctor Harris’ moral landscape because such testing does advance human flourishing. Unless it is the case that injecting human beings with drugs against their will is moral, it contradicts his landscape.

Even at the height of human flourishing, evil abides. From this it follows necessarily that human flourishing, and morality, are not identical properties.

Doctor Louise Antony’s Appeal To Intelligence

This, as well, is very common among atheists who appeal to objective morality. Essentially, it is the view that morality just exists, and that’s all. It is the view that any intelligent, sentient life should know of a transcendent value system even if God does not exist.

The problem with the view that morals just exist, and that’s all is that it does not offer an ontological basis for those morals. Doctor Antony attempted to offer one in saying that morals are known through intelligence. Well, she is right. Very often, people will come to know morals through intelligence.

But also, intelligence leads to immorality very often. Intelligence can produce atom bombs, weaponized smallpox, advanced deception, and much more. If it were the case that intelligence was an ontological foundation for morality, the term evil genius would be like the term square circle. It would be a contradiction in terms. But obviously, that is not the case.

What Doctor Antony explained is moral epistemology. She explained how it is that we come to know morality, but provided no basis for us to believe that it is objective. If we should just believe in morals, arbitrarily, then we are left in a state of anti-intellectualism. We know the source of moral values and duties on atheism: biological evolution. There is no reason as a consequence of any intellectual pursuit on atheism, for moral values to be objective. To affirm them anyway is to live inconsistently.

Professor Shelly Kagan’s Committee

I was not going to include this one because it is not very often defended. But I do find it amusing. Doctor Shelly Kagan has defended the idea that moral values and duties are objective, even on biological evolution. The ontological foundation for these objective moral values and duties? Doctor Kagan has imagined that a hypothetical committee of a perfected version of human beings has gathered together and decided what is right and wrong.

I think most of us will find this less than convincing, to put it mildly. The most detrimental difficulty, I think is obviously that it does not actually offer a foundation for objective morality. Similar to Doctor Antony’s attempted foundation, Doctor Kagan has offered an explanation for how human beings come to know morality, but not an objective foundation for it.

If this were to be taken as an objective foundation, there are a number of difficulties. The first is that there is no such committee. It is just a product of Doctor Kagan’s imagination, and there is no reason to think otherwise. In an excerpt from an article by Doctor William Lane Craig, he wrote: Asking how such ideal persons would behave might, once more, be a helpful guide to discerning our moral duties (like asking “What would Jesus do?”), but a non-reality cannot be the ontological foundation of some reality.

Further, and critically, Doctor Kagan’s moral landscape assumes what it is trying to prove. I take this excerpt from the University Of Carolina Writing Center to make what I am saying more clear.

Examples: “Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.” Let’s lay this out in premise-conclusion form:
Premise: It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.
Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally acceptable.

If we “translate” the premise, we’ll see that the arguer has really just said the same thing twice: “decent, ethical” means pretty much the same thing as “morally acceptable,” and “help another human being escape suffering through death” means something pretty similar to “active euthanasia.” So the premise basically says, “active euthanasia is morally acceptable,” just like the conclusion does. The arguer hasn’t yet given us any real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, she has left us asking “well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable?” Her argument “begs” (that is, evades) the real question.

Doctor Kagan’s foundation for morality is like this. It assumes a perfected, or ideal committee of people, without defining perfect, or ideal. It assumes that such perfection exists, without providing any foundation for it. It essentially assumes a standard of morality and applies it to the committee, despite that this standard is precisely what the committee is deciding. This ontological foundation is guilty of begging the question in favor of naturalistic morality.

Conclusion
If atheism and evolution are true, then morality is just an aid to survival and the propagation of DNA. There can be no foundation for objective morality in an atheistic worldview. But such a worldview is in head-on collision with what we all know this world is. Nobody, not even atheists, live as if their moral intuitions are not objective. I invite you to read the following of my articles in demonstration of this point.

Are Zombies Evil?
Prochoice Abortion Versus Atheism