AiG Goes Mental
Answers in Genesis has to be the best resource for atheists everywhere in showing just why Christianity is nonsensical claptrap. Read this article they present attempting to refute atheism. It couldn't be a better propaganda piece for atheism if it had been written by the Freedom from Religion Foundation as a caracature piece. It is circular reasoning (and therefore not reasoning at all) at its best. Even a devout Christian who reads this would have to say that if their belief system were based on this argument, then they would have to reject it. Let's take a look at it:
For an article that is trying to show all logic comes only from God, they sure violate many laws of logic. Let us work at this backwards. Here we are introduced to their basic premise: God is the source of logic, denying God denies logic therefore no atheist can use logic without proving God. Genius!! The small problem with this, is of course it follows no law of logic at all. The two things are independent. The existence/non-existence of God is one issue, the existence of logic is another. The two are independent. AiG tries to make them interdependent. In the above quote we see that clearly. Logic exists and is known to all. Christians know God exists and is the source of all. Therefore, according to them, logic must come from God. It would be like me saying People exist, and chickens exist. Thus since we have fried chicken, then humans must have made chickens. Fried chicken is the product of humans, as is domesticating chickens. But chickens themselves are not. The two are related but not independent.
Many atheists believe that their worldview is rational—and scientific. However, by embracing materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology. In other words, if atheism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything!Here’s why:
Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement “My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot” is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory. [Links are from the original article]
Likewise, it is true that many people believe in God. But that does make God real. People use logic to ascertain the existence of God. But that is not relevant. People possess the ability to determine and use the rules of logic. So just because all those things are true, does not mean that the obvious and only conclusion is that God created logic. All it means is that logic created God. Because all we have is that humans created God, and humans possess logic. Any other conclusion is flawed and not based on those very rules of logic they claim to prove God.
But it only gets better:
Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.
Here we slip into two more logical fallicies. First the change from some abstract god to the "biblical God." I mean we all knew it was coming, but what is the logical foundation of it? Going from the idea of some all-powerful creative being to the God of the Bible is certainly a leap. Why are they one and the same? Couldn't it just as easily be some other god who created the laws of logic? That is the first mistake in this quote. It is probably the worst, but also the most forgivable, as the biblical God is the only God those at AiG are interested in, so we knew that that would be the "obvious" solution.. Second is the "nature" or concept of the laws of logic. They are unchanging. But does that have anything to do with the bible's depiction of God as unchanging? What if the Bible says that God does change? If God does change, then by those very same laws of logic, then the unchanging laws of logic cannot possibly come from God.
So let us turn to the Bible and see if God changes: Exodus 32:14, "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." So God changed his mind. His thought process was reversed according to this passage. Then by the "logic" of the AiG, the laws of logic can also be reversed as well. If logic only comes from the mind of God.
[Update:] Exodus 32:14 (KJV) should be directly compared to the AiG's citation of 2 Timothy 2:13. (Note: the NKJV of the exodus quote is equally as revealing, as it uses the word "relented" instead of "repented"; and relenting is more clearly showing of the "changing of God's mind") Thus we have even more proof that the AiG argument is flawed, if God changes, then how can his laws be unequivically called unchanging.. according to the bible no less.
Here is a shocker: Scientists, logicians, mathematicians, rationalists, freethought itself, all agree that logic is based on unchanging rules. So here we have our basic problem. According to the AiG, the "biblical God" is the source of logic, using the human idea that God is unchanging, yet the bible states that its God is changing. So the god of the bible cannot be the source of logic as presented by the logic of the AiG. Maybe some other god can, but not the God of the Bible. I just wonder if those at the AiG will now abandon their "biblical God" now that it is proven that HE cannot be the source of logic, based upon their very own views on the laws of logic.
If you want more fun, continue reading the AiG article. It is certainly good for a laugh and an excercise in logical fallacies.