Sunday, October 21, 2012

All Arguments For God Refute God - Critique

"Rubicondior" in the blog All Arguments For God Refute God claims that arguments for God somehow refutes God.  Is this really the case?

Let's examine:

"Rubicondior" writes:
"You have to pity religious people who get their religion from a book."

I would say this is not entirely true.  Books are "sacred" whether they are religious or not.  Books are recorded thoughts, if you will.  They contain the knowledge of an individual or society within its pages.

As we know, "everything must be in writing."  From contracts, to rules, to laws, even to meeting minutes; they all must be in writing in order to be valid and relied upon when needed.   This is why many religions have texts that detail their beliefs.   This provides a source that can be accessed by those interested in the religion.  

"Rubicondior" continues:

"Well, that isn't much good because no holy book has ever managed to convince anything like a majority of people so it can't have been written by an omniscient god. Besides, it should be manifestly obvious to anyone that no book or mere piece of writing can be proof of it's own truth, not even when it claims it is, otherwise anyone could create truth merely by writing it down and saying it's true. For example, this blog is all true because I said so and I should know, I created it. Convinced?  So, no holy book alone can be proof of a god."

If this claim were true, then how did religion spread so fast, in particular, Christianity?  The Bible holds the record of the most popular, most published and well distributed book ever in human history.  This book or collection of books has brought faith to millions of people in all periods of time.  All continents on Earth have been exposed to this literature and the result was Christianity becoming the largest religion on Earth.  It is absurd and foolish to claim that no holy book has convinced a majority of people.  The Bible is even highly regarded by many pioneers of Science.   Explorer Christopher Columbus even used it to calculate his journeys which led to the European discovery of the "new world."

I disagree with "Rubicondior's" suggestion that "no book or mere piece can be proof of its own truth."  In school we use textbooks, in colleges we use journals and other sources in order to present truth in a particular field.  The Bible is no different.  It presents the Truth of God.  Man is free to accept or reject it.  The popularity of the Bible is testament to its importance.

"Rubicondior" can claim that a blog is true, but its readers can tell otherwise by researching particular claims.  I myself have shown that many things on the blog are not true.  This would be hard to do with the Bible because one must read the Bible properly in order to comprehend its real meaning.  Any literal interpretation will open the door to doubting it.  History has shown that the Bible has been enough proof of God for millions.  "Rubicondior" must not be well read in history.

"Rubicondior" writes:

"Well, that isn't much good either because any god which needs evidence outside its holy book obviously can't write a good enough book to convince people, so its power must be limited. Therefore the claims of omnipotence in the holy book mustbe false."

God never wrote any book as one would write a book with a pen or computer.  The Bible is the inspired word of God written by men.   The Bible did not fall from heaven, nor did God sit and pen the literature down on scrolls.  His Spirit moved writers to put into words His will for the salvation of man.  The "word" or Logos describes how God has influenced human history towards the goal of salvation.  The suggestion that because a book does not convince people, then it must be false is fallacious.  People are entitled to their opinions regarding anything.  One may like sports another may not.  Either of the aforementioned do not dictate whether a sport is likable or not.

"Rubicondior" concludes:

"So that just about does it for all the arguments followers of any god can muster and yet they both refute the god. The book manifestly isn't enough on its own, yet having to rely on anything else refutes the claims about the god in the book.
Who'd be religious eh? No wonder religious people have such an allergy to evidence and need to rely on 'faith', i.e. believing something they know isn't true.
[Note to religious people: Don't let me hold you back but if you try to argue that this logic doesn't hold, you will be arguing that all the other religions are true too. Sorry about that but that's what happens when all the different religions have to use each others arguments to try to prove they are the only true religion.]"

Again, people will hold any opinion regarding any particular thing.  It takes an objective mind to analyze any piece of evidence and come to a conclusion without a filter.  I know of no religious people who are "allergic" to evidence.  Many offer to debate atheists as I have done with "Rubicondior" who simply bowed out for obvious reasons.  See 

Faith is not believing something that is not true.  This is a fallacious statement made by Mark Twain.  In order for this statement to hold, one must know for a fact that what is being believed is indeed false.  To date, no Atheist has proven that there is no God.

The Atheistic position is pretty much taken on faith.  There exists no Atheist who has incontrovertible proof that God does not exist.  Many have tried to discredit God's existence by the use sophistry in arguments; however, those arguments have all been challenged and dismantled by those who believe in God.      




  1. Still no original ideas? Still have to be all over Rosa and her original thought? You're very sad, Miguel.
    Signed: NEO

    1. See the rest of my blog. Rosa does not have any original thoughts. Rosa just copy and pastes old arguments that have been debunked centuries ago. Your blind obedience to Rosa is what is sad indeed. Must you be a follower?

  2. God very cleverly never allows us to know enough about him to be able to confirm his existence. He seems to want to remain forever the God of the gaps.

    1. Not at all. How can finite creatures fully comprehend the infinite? The issue is with us, not Him.

  3. Not to mention that the Bible is only that part of Apostolic tradition which got written down. Even Scripture says that it's not the whole story. Our faith is based not on a book, but on a Person, and the accounts of the the trustworthy holy people who knew Him firsthand, and experienced Him. Once we are willing to open our mind and heart, we experience Him too. I was an atheist just like Rosa, I know.



