H
happyrain
Guest
Some atheist on YouTube sent me the following video:
youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
How do I refute these claims?
youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
How do I refute these claims?
- Status
N
Newbie2
Guest
Couldn’t get the link to work. 
P
PhilVaz
Guest
<< How do I refute these claims? >>
Handbook of Christian Apologetics
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology
does the job. As for God and Darwin, several books:
Chance or Purpose by Cardinal Schonborn
Creation and Evolution by the conference with Pope Benedict XVI
Evolutionary Creation by Denis Lamoureux
Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? by Denis Alexander
This atheist’s ideas might explain why some people believe, but it doesn’t refute the evidence and arguments for God and Christianity, which are sound arguments. There are also plenty of religious experiences and miracles that need to be explained. William Lane Craig would crush the guy as well. No doubt.
Phil P
Handbook of Christian Apologetics
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology
does the job. As for God and Darwin, several books:
Chance or Purpose by Cardinal Schonborn
Creation and Evolution by the conference with Pope Benedict XVI
Evolutionary Creation by Denis Lamoureux
Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? by Denis Alexander
This atheist’s ideas might explain why some people believe, but it doesn’t refute the evidence and arguments for God and Christianity, which are sound arguments. There are also plenty of religious experiences and miracles that need to be explained. William Lane Craig would crush the guy as well. No doubt.
Phil P
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
I think you might have better luck if you said what specifically you’re trying to refute. If you’re looking for a point by point critique of a one hour video, you’re probably out of luck. But if there are specific points he makes that you disagree with, you might want to try posting quotes of what he said and seeing if anyone has a way to respond to them.
It’s hard to say how to respond without knowing what exactly you’re trying to refute. If you want to show that evolution does not exist at all, I don’t know what to tell you. I think the evidence that evolution happens is pretty overwhelming (although our understanding of evolution has certainly been revised in some ways since Darwin’s time), but if you’re trying to argue against evolution in general, I’m sure you could search the forums and find some arguments. If evolution does exist, it makes sense that there is some evolutionary basis for so many people believing in God.
However, the existence of evolution does not prove that God does not exist. God could be using evolution as his means of creation. So if the person you are talking with is trying to use this video to show that God does not exist, I’d respond by saying that the video doesn’t show that at all. The video merely shows that belief in God would have arisen even if he does not exist. If God does exist, it would make sense that he would give us a biological predisposition to believe. So I think all the video shows is that the claim that the only possible explanation for religious beliefs is the actual existence of God is false; it does not show that God does not exist.
I think that atheists on youtube often don’t understand Christian theology that well. I think you’d be better off using your time to read books or articles by intelligent people on both sides of the God debate. Too many people just read something by Lee Strobel or Richard Dawkins and don’t realize that many of the arguments in their books have problems. I think the best way of arguing your side of things is to understand the best arguments from both sides. If you try to argue with atheists before becoming well informed you may end up confirming their stereotypes. If you come up with good counterarguments, the atheist might be forced to do more research of their own.
I agree with Phil that William Lane Craig would destroy this guy. Craig knows how to argue for Christianity as good as anyone and I think it might help you to listen to some of his debates. I also suggest reading the articles on this site. If you want to try to understand the arguments on the other side, there are plenty of articles by atheists at infidels.org (Warning: as the title indicates it’s an atheist website) and I would also suggest reading Atheism Explained by David Ramsay Steele, who lays out his case without the militant attitude that you find in books by Hitchens or Dawkins. Hope this helps.
It’s hard to say how to respond without knowing what exactly you’re trying to refute. If you want to show that evolution does not exist at all, I don’t know what to tell you. I think the evidence that evolution happens is pretty overwhelming (although our understanding of evolution has certainly been revised in some ways since Darwin’s time), but if you’re trying to argue against evolution in general, I’m sure you could search the forums and find some arguments. If evolution does exist, it makes sense that there is some evolutionary basis for so many people believing in God.
However, the existence of evolution does not prove that God does not exist. God could be using evolution as his means of creation. So if the person you are talking with is trying to use this video to show that God does not exist, I’d respond by saying that the video doesn’t show that at all. The video merely shows that belief in God would have arisen even if he does not exist. If God does exist, it would make sense that he would give us a biological predisposition to believe. So I think all the video shows is that the claim that the only possible explanation for religious beliefs is the actual existence of God is false; it does not show that God does not exist.
I think that atheists on youtube often don’t understand Christian theology that well. I think you’d be better off using your time to read books or articles by intelligent people on both sides of the God debate. Too many people just read something by Lee Strobel or Richard Dawkins and don’t realize that many of the arguments in their books have problems. I think the best way of arguing your side of things is to understand the best arguments from both sides. If you try to argue with atheists before becoming well informed you may end up confirming their stereotypes. If you come up with good counterarguments, the atheist might be forced to do more research of their own.
I agree with Phil that William Lane Craig would destroy this guy. Craig knows how to argue for Christianity as good as anyone and I think it might help you to listen to some of his debates. I also suggest reading the articles on this site. If you want to try to understand the arguments on the other side, there are plenty of articles by atheists at infidels.org (Warning: as the title indicates it’s an atheist website) and I would also suggest reading Atheism Explained by David Ramsay Steele, who lays out his case without the militant attitude that you find in books by Hitchens or Dawkins. Hope this helps.
A
andy120
Guest
Peter Kreeft:
His premise is that our brains create religion. Might I suggest that our brains would therefore create atheism in much the same way? This flaw in his premise invalidates his other assertions.
He explains that children have a sense of a god before being told one exists, and credits this to a natural desire. Therefore, he says, our brains desire to create religion, with the implication that religion is then made up. This is a non sequitur because other conclusions can follow that evidence. For example, a Christian would explain that phenomenon by saying that because man is made by and for God, we have an innate desire to know Him.
At one point he suggests that our country was built on certain values, and that Guantanamo is in violation of those values. By asserting that a value, namely the humane treatment of prisoners, is ‘good,’ he is asserting a moral absolute. To assert a moral absolute suggests that the absolute comes from a higher power (otherwise we would just be creating our own values, which would be relative to personal opinion, time, place, or attitude). To claim some sense of moral superiority (as he does in condemning Guantanamo), he contradicts his claim that the human mind and pure evolution is the highest power.
We should pray for him and all those who do not believe in God, that in their search for the truth they may find He who is truth Himself.
A couple of observations…
His premise is that our brains create religion. Might I suggest that our brains would therefore create atheism in much the same way? This flaw in his premise invalidates his other assertions.
He explains that children have a sense of a god before being told one exists, and credits this to a natural desire. Therefore, he says, our brains desire to create religion, with the implication that religion is then made up. This is a non sequitur because other conclusions can follow that evidence. For example, a Christian would explain that phenomenon by saying that because man is made by and for God, we have an innate desire to know Him.
At one point he suggests that our country was built on certain values, and that Guantanamo is in violation of those values. By asserting that a value, namely the humane treatment of prisoners, is ‘good,’ he is asserting a moral absolute. To assert a moral absolute suggests that the absolute comes from a higher power (otherwise we would just be creating our own values, which would be relative to personal opinion, time, place, or attitude). To claim some sense of moral superiority (as he does in condemning Guantanamo), he contradicts his claim that the human mind and pure evolution is the highest power.
We should pray for him and all those who do not believe in God, that in their search for the truth they may find He who is truth Himself.
- Status