The rest is very, very long, very, very silly, and very, very wrong.
Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically SoundBy Yomin Postelnik Monday, June 9, 2008
One of the beautiful aspects of self evident truths is that they can be proven on both the simplest and the most complex of levels. By contrast, to make an argument for what is in fact an illogical fallacy, one must use plenty of skill, sophistry and remain beholden to a dogmatic protection of what is really an illogical position.Yet even after a detailed case is made for the illogical side of the argument, it can instantly be deflated like a balloon with the simplest poke of clear logic. It can also be attacked piece by piece with even greater skill and logic, stemming from a steadfast pursuit of the truth.
Nowhere does the above hold more true than with regard to the existence of a Divine Creator. Proof of a conscious Creator is readily available. The simplest proof (yet one that no atheist has ever been able to counter effectively) is that a universe of this size and magnitude does not somehow build itself, just as a set of encyclopedias doesn’t write itself or form randomly from the spill of a massive inkblot.
The atheist, on the other hand, needs to build a plausible case for this irrational scenario. But first, let’s examine how irrational it is:
No one in their right mind would claim that 10,000 hundred story buildings built themselves from randomness, even over time. Yet those who doubt the existence of a Creator believe that an entire universe, containing all of the billions of elements necessary for life to form, may have come about without a builder. As such, they give credence to billions of times more coincidences to having come about.
I was going to heap a little scorn upon it, but my philosophy and theology aren't quite up to snuff, and besides, Martin Wagner took it apart quite neatly over at The Atheist Experience. It's worth a read, if only so you can see what debate about the existence of god is supposed to look like. Further, the original author, Yomin Postelnik, swoops through with a cut and paste from some discussion thread somewhere that I have no desire to read. Knock yourselves out, though. There's another post on Postelnik's drive-by (on which he drives by yet again), and he's taken down a peg again. And then there's some libel. Enjoy.
I want to talk about the basic premise of Postelnik's article, and I'm only going to use it as an example. I've copied his text, but given him credit, and provided a link to the original, so I think I'm safe from plagiarism charges.
But the idea of "irrefutable proof" is what has me gobsmacked.
Why do apologists feel the need to provide proof? Why do they resort to the tools of the "enemy"? What's the matter with them?
The whole point of god is faith. Faith. That means to believe something without evidence. Without proof. And, for modern theists, to believe something despite mounting evidence that you're wrong.
The basic strength, if you wish to call it that, is faith. Proof never once enters into the picture, and god says once or twice in the NT that he will not provide evidence. If you need proof, you're screwed. God's not in the miracle game anymore. (Relevant passages can be found here, at Debunking Christianity.)
So why do they keep smacking their head against the proverbial wall, trying to find evidence for the proverbs so near and dear to their deluded little hearts? As Wagner clearly showed at The Atheist Experience, there's no there there, no whiz in the cheeze, and no sound reason for believing in god. The strength of a secular worldview is the reliance on evidence, on reason, and on verifiable experience. Apologists are whining, because the evidence is on our side, but arguing over evidence denies one of the fundamental characteristics of religious faith.
Why can't they see that? Somebody tell me.