Blog break 5: Bad apologetics

Folks, a christian apologist claims in one of his posts that we atheists are not any different when it comes to cherry picking bible verses. I think I need help here, when is using a bible verse cherry picking? The accuser claims further that we [atheists] never venture out of the OT for fear of finding some teachings of Jesus we may not like for their moral value like when he curses a fig tree out of season or calls others brood of vipers or even worse in the sermon on the mount when he preaches it is blessed to be poor? Well, I got news for you. We don’t cherry pick.

Your accuser is here

In this post he claims talking about evidence with us is a waste of time. Last time we had the discussion on evidence with theists, it came down to see around you that is evidence of god and look at the bible it says it is the word of god and the bible is true because god says so in the bible. Beyond that all other evidence involved is quoting William L. Craig and Platinga, two apologists that it is my opinion their beliefs are far removed from the beliefs held by most other christians.

You know you are reading bad philosophy when you see an argument presented thus

. Matter cannot create itself
. Matter cannot preexist itself
. Matter cannot be eternal nor infinite
the author fails to mention the premise that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. In his argument he has created a strawman and so he is on a roll through and through, there is no beating him. He knows mentioning this important premise puts into question his other premises.
To make his case, he presents the Cosmological argument presenting it as evidence. He writes
. Everything material that begins to exist has come into existence because of an external cause.
. Matter is not eternal
. An infinite regress of cause does not exist
. Matter requires an eternal immaterial Creator
In his first premise, this can’t be said of the universe. He nor me simply do not know and will never know. The premise is also not true because radio-active decay occurs without a discernible cause and the same is true to quantum fluctuations.
I don’t know what evidence he has to support premise two. As far as we can tell if matter can’t be destroyed the only option is it is eternal.
Premise 3 is wrong on two counts. Infinity is a place holder, a term we use to represents large numbers to say it doesn’t exist then you must have performed poorly is mathematics or you attended a creationism school. The second thing that is wrong with this assertion is it can’t be applied to the universe, we can apply to human constructions but when we want to apply it to the universe, we are way out of our depth.
The conclusion in 4 above does not follow from the premises. A case hasn’t been made to warrant a creator and while we are it at it, how does an immaterial creator create what is material? At what point do they interact?
I have seen ridiculous statements, but this will get the trophy as the most ridiculous of the week!
As things stand right now, atheists have no basis for the world-view that they hold.
Atheists are simply believing what they believe on blind faith. And in this case, faith would mean, believing something in the teeth of the evidence to the contrary.
I don’t think this statement requires further comment from me.
For those of you who have time, you can visit his site for entertainment, the link is provided in the body of the post.

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

24 thoughts on “Blog break 5: Bad apologetics

  1. themodernidiot says:

    statement 1-cherry picking: yeah, you do. we all do. the entire bible makes for a very long quote. (btw-all sermons are cherry picking.) his argument is just a fallacy anyway.
    statement 2-only use the OT: false.
    statement 3-waste of time: then why do it? shut up already.


    • makagutu says:

      Indeed, the bible would make for a long quote. I read from this his argument is he wants us at every instant to provide a verse that confirms and one that goes against a particular claim we make. What will result is a situation that helps show that if god was the author of the bible then he suffers from MPD or he wouldn’t have given blantantly conflicting verses.


  2. Mordanicus says:

    Your analysis is excellent, so I have nothing to add!

    His premisses are not evidently true, why can’t matter not be eternal? If this would be true, can we say that god cannot be eternal? If so, there is a problem.

    Why can an infinite regress not be possible? It is not against logic.

    Has that guy met every atheist? Probably not, so he cannot make such strong claims. If one shows that two bible verses are contradicting each other, than it is not necessary to study all bible verses in order to question the authority of the bible.


    • makagutu says:

      The argument against infinite regress is advanced mainly by WLC in his Kalam Cosmogical Argument that this apologists claims as his own. If they can’t conceive an infinite regress it doesn’t mean it is not possible.

      He claims to have discussions with atheists. I can’t say where because on his posts their are no comments unless he deletes them after some time.


  3. ladysighs says:

    I am glad there are folks like you who like to deal with…rather let’s leave out the LIKE and just say deal with the apologeticers.
    I know it must be done and they must be unmasked as they deal from a stacked deck. They believe they have all the trump cards. Pick a card any card. Pick a cherry any cherry.
    I play a pretty good hand of bridge and I have trumped many a wiseacre (ace) with a deuce. And I will pick what cherries I want and won’t hesitate to toss out the rotten ones.


    • makagutu says:

      I think it is important for those who will come after us to be able to find a refutation for bad arguments, lies and innuendos and claims to a higher truth that neither one can prove to exist.

      And I can’t go quoting the whole bible when I want to show that god doesn’t know why we suffer when I can get a verse from Job that confirms this statement or when I want to talk about vanity and I can find a verse in Ecclesiastes!


      • ladysighs says:

        Agreed. The arguments must be presented as a reasonable piece of response. The come-afters must reason through the reasonable piece of reason before they engage, but they should not have to reinvent the reason. America need only be discovered once to know it is there.
        Me and Meme saying “All is BS” isn’t exactly reasonable although it is the truth. 🙂 lol


  4. john zande says:

    “Everything material that begins to exist has come into existence because of an external cause.”

    Wow… Off to shocking start right there. With such a stupid statement like that i’m thinking this guy might be William Craig’s off-stage fluffer.


  5. aguywithoutboxers says:

    “Atheists are simply believing what they believe on blind faith.” That’s the definition of theists. They have no concrete or tangible basis or proof of their particular belief system aside from faith. Atheists believe what they believe based on evidence. Good argument, my Kenyan brother. Much love and naked hugs!

    (I know you left that one alone for a reason. However, I couldn’t resist the temptation of inserting my “blind faith!”)


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s