CADRE Comments

A Rational Look at Christianity; Basing Reason in Truth

A new, short (less than 10 minutes) video is available on YouTube entitled 5 Reasons God Exists. It does a pretty nice job of touching upon five of the classic arguments for the existence of God. It serves as a nice introduction to the cosmological, teleological and other arguments that have been used for many centuries to support such beliefs.

Before any skeptics write telling about how the video doesn't answer objections A, B, C, D, etc., it should be noted that this is a very short overview of these five classic arguments. It is not intended to be an exhaustive overview and analysis of each of the arguments. I expect that any video that would seek to exhaustively cover and analyze any one of these five arguments would need to be at least two hours in length to do a reasonably good job. Moreover, raising objections about the arguments made in this video doesn't mean that the objections haven't been countered elsewhere as every objection I have ever encountered to these arguments has been.

Still, I certainly think that this is a pretty good introduction to these arguments for the sake of starting conversations about God's existence.

4 comments:

It is a good summary from your perspective, but I'm sure it's hard for you to understand how ignorant it sounds to skeptics (I'm not trying to offend you here). I find it odd that the evidence mentioned is actually evidence to disbelieve, if we ask ourselves what God could've done to show himself to us.

We didn't need a brain. The universe should not be explained by science. Christians should be the best people. Prayer should be scintifically testable. To see what evidence I would need to believe see here.

'Before any skeptics write telling about how the video doesn't answer objections A, B, C, D, etc., it should be noted that this is a very short overview of these five classic arguments. It is not intended to be an exhaustive overview and analysis of each of the arguments.'

Pretty much the same approach that 'The God Delusion' takes to these arguments.

John,

With all due respect, when you say it's "hard for [me] to understand" something, it just shows your typical arrogance. That arrogance is reflected in the idea that God should have to do something in a particular way to establish to your satisfaction that He exists. Why stop with those arguments that what would prove it to you is if people didn't have brains? Why not say, "what would convince me of God's existence would be if people could fly without wings"? Same thing.

"Pretty much the same approach that 'The God Delusion' takes to these arguments."

From The Big Bad Wolf, Theism and the Foundations of Intelligent Design:

In short, Dawkins delivers a feast of fallacies in The God Delusion, including: wishful thinking (supposing that the odds against the spontaneous formation of life are less than 1 in 109), equivocation (over the anthropic principle), data picking (Jonathan Richardson berates Dawkins for ‘Detailing a selection of believers, largely consisting of clearly-deranged nuts rather than his scholarly equals’[196]), ridiculing anything he cannot understand (on the apparent assumption that there must therefore be nothing to understand) and various ad hominim attacks, from name-calling (e.g. ‘dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument’[197]) to ‘poisoning the well’ (e.g. tendentiously talking about ‘Phillip E. Johnson who leads the creationist charge against Darwinism in America’[198] and ‘creationist Michael Behe’[199]). As we have seen, Dawkins also attempts to advance a tautology as an explanation and contradicts himself on several occasions.

Not quite the same.

Use of Content

The contents of this blog may be reproduced or forwarded via e-mail without change and in its entirety for non-commercial purposes without prior permission from the Christian CADRE provided that the copyright information is included. We would appreciate notification of the use of our content. Please e-mail us at christiancadre@yahoo.com.