William Lane Craig Comments on the atheists arguments for God existence

Actually, it's surprising how little argument they [atheists] offer. I hear all the time that atheism wins by default – in other words, if there aren't any good arguments for God, then atheism automatically wins. So many of these fellows don't offer any arguments for atheism; instead, they just try to shoot down the arguments for theism and say they win by default. In reality, however, the failure of arguments for God wouldn't do anything to establish that God does not exist. The claim that there is no God is a positive claim to knowledge and therefore requires justification. The failure of arguments for God would leave us, at best, with agnosticism, not atheism. ~ William Lane Craig

I would like to add a little commentary to this, if I might: To elaborate further, to believe that God does not exist, the atheist would have to be all-knowing. He would have to know for certain that God was not hiding in a nook or cranny somewhere in the universe. Of course, it is impossible to know everything, so the atheist could not possibly prove that God does not exist. So, even if a Christian failed to offer sufficient evidence for God's existence, this doesn't prove that the atheist is right and there is no God; it would only prove that we don't know if there is a God or not.

Comments

  1. HeuristicsSaturday, September 5, 2009 at 4:00:00 PM EDT

    Proving a negative is very possible.

    Example:

    1. If Obama is president then unicorns do not exist.
    2. Obama is president.
    3. Therefore unicorns do not exist.

    This is a perfectly valid proof of unicorns non-existence (though it is not sound, but soundness is not required for the formulation of proofs). Another approach (one that would be more sound) would be to pinpoint a contradiction in the definition of the entity one is trying to show the non-existence of or showing that predictions made from existence of the entity does not correlate with measurements.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Christiana SzymanskiWednesday, September 9, 2009 at 1:31:00 PM EDT

    You use an example that you admit is not sound and then say, "but soundness is not required for the formulation of proofs." So even though you believe that my arguement is not sound, that does not mean that I do not have proof. Also, all of the examples that I've seen of this sort are not sound. They are just "straw men" set up so that they can be easily knocked down and the formulator of it won't have to believe what he doesn't want to believe. I am aware of the "If this, then this" arguments for the non-existence of something, but much of this is based solely on speculation when we don't know something for sure.

    I would offer another example: Have you ever seen a "spirit"? Can you prove that it does not exist? Not on the basis alone that you haven't seen one! You'd have to consider the stories of those who claim they have seen a spirit. But since you haven't seen one that doesn't mean that a spirit does not exist. Now, you can BELIEVE that a spirit does not exist for whatever reason, but you can't prove it unless you yourself have seen that spirits do not exist. That is the point I was trying to make: If one wants to say that God does not exist, he can only be absolutely sure after he has seen every aspect of the universe. What if God was in a different "corner" of the universe by the time that someone arrived at the other "corner"? He can't arrive there and claim that because God is not there, God does not exist! Rather, he would have to examine every single corner and nook and cranny (simultaneously, because what if God raced off ahead of you?) before he could reach any conclusion at all. Now I'm sure that many people believe that there is no God, but that doesn't mean that He doesn't exist; anyone who claims such would have to actually "know" that He doesn't exist -- He would have to have seen with his own physical eyes from searching every corner of the universe that God does not exist.

    There is a well-known joke that illustrates my point:

    The teacher was going to explain evolution to the children.
    The teacher asked a boy: Tommy do you see the tree outside?
    TOMMY: Yes.
    TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?
    TOMMY: Yes.
    TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.
    TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.
    TEACHER: Did you see God up there?
    TOMMY: No.
    TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. Possibly he just doesn't exist.
    A girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions.
    The teacher agreed and the girl asked the boy: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?
    TOMMY: Yes.
    LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?
    TOMMY: Yessssss! (getting annoyed by this time)
    LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?
    TOMMY: Yessssss!
    GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?
    TOMMY: Yes
    GIRL: Do you see her brain?
    TOMMY: No
    GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in school, she possibly may not even have one!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

All comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Please keep in mind that the topics are not open to debate; however, I do allow (and encourage) friendly discussion and dialogue. Check out the comment policy for details before commenting. Thank you for visiting!

Popular Posts

Did Pontius Pilate actually exist?

Image
Antonio Ciseri's painting of Pontius Pilate presenting Christ to the crowd. For years, skeptics have claimed that Pontius Pilate, the one responsible for Jesus' execution, was nothing more than a mythical figure. Is this true? And whether or not it is true, what is the significance of this? The implications of this are simple: if Pontius Pilate, did not exist, then the critics are right in stating that the Bible is in error. However, if he did exist, then it proves once again that the Bible is accurate in its details. Let's begin by examining Matthew 27:2. It reads, "And when they had bound Him, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor." Was Pilate really a governor? Luke 3:1 seems to agree: "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea , and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias t...
Read more

April Fools

Image
Today is April Fool's Day. While I am not too enthralled with the idea of playing tricks on people, I wanted to share a little story with you all (no offense meant to those to whom it refers): An atheist complained to a Christian friend, "You Christians have your sacred holidays, such as Christmas and Easter. Jews celebrate their national holidays, such as Passover and Yom Kippur. But we atheists have no recognized national holidays. It's unfair discrimination." His friend replied, "Why don't you celebrate April first?" On a more serious note, I would like to remind you all that we are called to be "fools for Christ" (1 Corinthians 4:10). This does not mean that we are to act stupid in the name of Christ; rather, it means that we are to go about God's business -- even if it makes us look like fools in the process. Today is as good a day as any to go out and spread the Gospel, to be a fool for Christ!  P.S. Don't forget : The Online ...
Read more

Quote of the Week: Ravi Zacharias On The Problem of Evil

Image
"When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. What is your question?" ~ Ravi Zacharias, in response to the objection, "There cannot be a God, because there is too much evil in this world"
Read more