What are some good comebacks for atheistic argument?

Answer 1

Contributions from Contributors:

(1) A painting assumes a painter. Creation assumes a Creator.

(2) Something cannot come from nothing. And as there is such a thing as entropy, what is in existence could not have existed for all eternity. It could not have just come from another natural cause, for then we'd be asking about that.

(3) It had to come from a supernatural cause - an entity that could cause, but not itself be caused.

(4) Perhaps tell the village atheist the are no atheists in hell.Once there, they will realize there is a God. Crude, but true?

Another Perspective

There are no good comebacks for any atheist argument because "good comebacks" need to rely on faith and speculation that something supernatural simply "must have"created everything. That is an assumption, not a good comeback. Your question is unanswerable. Going from a painter who can be easily viewed painting to a supernatural creator who is assumed by some to have created everything in the universe is a very wide, unsupportable stretch. We have all seen painters so we don't "assume" them at all. We know there are painters. We have proof we can see and touch. We do not know where we came so why assumeanything? That's faith and speculation. But . . . we sure have answered a lot of questions that baffled the ancients. We have identified millions of natural causes. We're closing in.

Answer:

Here are a few:

1) Teleological Argument: The universe has design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic view. From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of cosmology, the voice of God is heard. God's existence is the best explanation for such design.

2) Anthropic Principle: The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.

3) Sensus divinitatus: The innate sense of the divine exists within all people. People and cultures of all time have, by nature, sensed a need to worship something greater than themselves. No ancient society ever existed that did not believe in a supernatural power.

4) Tradition: There are events in human history which cannot be explained without God. Many people have their subjective stories that bend them in the direction of theism, but there are also historical events such as the Giving of the Torah, which are underpinnings for the belief in God.

5) Pascal's Wager: Belief in God is the rational choice, due to the consequences of being wrong. If one were to believe in God and be wrong, there would be no consequences. However, if one were to deny God and be wrong, the consequences are eternally tragic. Therefore, the most rational choice is not agnosticism or Atheism, but belief in God.

6) Why is there reality rather than nothing? Aside from God's creating it, there are only five options:

a) The universe is eternal and everything has always existed.

- Even atheists have abandoned this possibility, especially because it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

b) Nothing exists and all is an illusion. There is no reality. There is only nothing.

- This possibility, it should be obvious, is completely self-defeating. In order to even make such a proposition, the subject has to exist in some sense. If all is an illusion, where did the illusion come from? Even the solipsist, who does not believe in the existence of other minds, has to explain the genesis of his own mind.

c). The universe created itself. This is the idea that the universe and all that is in it did not have its origin in something outside itself, but from within.

- Like with the previous two, this makes a logical absurdity. It would be like creating a square triangle. It's impossible. A triangle by definition cannot be square. So creation cannot create itself as it would have to pre-date itself to create. The pre-dated form would then need a sufficient explanatory cause, ad infinitum.

d) Chance created the universe. The odds of winning the lottery are not very good; but given enough time, everyone will win. While the odds of the universe coming into existence are not very good, given enough time, it could happen.

- This option is a sleight of hand that, like "survival of the fittest," amounts to nothing, because it implies that "chance" itself has quantitative causal power.

The word "chance" is used to describe possibilities. It does not have the power to cause those possibilities. It is nonsense to speak of chance being the agent of creation of anything, since chance is not an agent. What are the real chances of the universe created by chance? Not a chance. Chance is incapable of creating a single molecule, let alone an entire universe. Why not? Chance is no thing. It is not an entity. It has no being, no power, no force. It can effect nothing because it has no causal power within it. It is a word which describes mathematical possibilities which, by the curious flip of the fallacy of ambiguity, slips into the discussion as if it were a real entity with real power, the power of creativity." (R.C. Sproul, Not a Chance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999.)

e) The universe is created by nothing. Simply put, nothing created the universe.

- The problem here is that it is either a restating of option #1 (the universe is eternal) or fails due to the irrationality of #4. In our current universe, the law of cause and effect cannot be denied by sane people. While we often don't know what the cause of some effect is, this does not mean that there was no cause. When we go to the doctor looking for an explanation for the cause of our neck pain, we don't accept the answer "There is no cause. It came from nothing."