Christianity vs. Atheism: A response to VanCoffeeChick

I reply to the criticisms of Christianity presented by VanCoffeeChick in her video "Christianity: Why I don't Believe".

For those who want evidence against Santa:
http://hem.passagen.se/linus.thand/stuff/santa.html
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Christianity
• atheism
• Vancoffeechick
• apologetics
• christian
• atheist
• athiest
• athiesm
• harris
• dawkins
• hitchens
• craig
• moreland
• christian apologetics
• christianity vs atheism
• theism
• theism vs atheism
• agnostic
• momoseth2

[shadywolf91]

I noticed in your video at 1:09 that you said "There is no evidence against god." however there is no evidence to support your god.

[momoseth2]

@shadywolf91

In fact, shadywolf, there is. The kalam cosmological, teleological, ontological, axiological, Christological, transcendental, and Leibnizian cosmological argument are just a few, not to mention the argument from consciousness, argument from reason, the Plantigian argument from a proper basis, the evolutionary argument against naturalism, and Pascal's Wager.

[shadywolf91]

@momoseth2 Leibnizian cosmological argument and Plantigian argument are nonexistent according to Google so I would like for you to explain them to me. Argument from consciousness is subjective and quite frankly seems like circular reasoning. Evolutionary argument against naturalism is the belief that there are no supernatural entities or processes. So that actually goes against any deity. Pascal's wager is a narrow-minded joke of circular reasoning.

[momoseth2]

@shadywolf91 Liebniz: It's more commonly called the argument from contingency

Plantingian: The argument from a proper basis, I just looked, does have a wikipedia page

Consciousness: It is based on the objective reality of human consciousness. It reasons from consciousness to God.

Evolutionary: What? No the argument shows the incompatibility of evolution and metaphysical naturalism

Pascal:Just talk and rhetoric. I cannot recall ever reading anyone accusing it of circular reasoning.

[momoseth2]

@shadywolf91 Liebniz: It's more commonly called the argument from contingency

Plantingian: The argument from a proper basis, I just looked, does have a wikipedia page

Consciousness: It is based on the objective reality of human consciousness. It reasons from consciousness to God.

Evolutionary: What? No the argument shows the incompatibility of evolution and metaphysical naturalism

Pascal: Just talk and rhetoric. I cannot recall ever reading anyone accusing it of circular reasoning.

[firegod001]

@momoseth2 None of those arguments make any sense whatsoever. Try any of them on me, and let's see how it works out for ya.

[firegod001]

What a dumbass video. Aren't Christian apologetics tired already of using the special pleading fallacy to say that their particular god doesn't apply, when there is nothing factual to show that to be the case? How convenient. Your circular logic has no place in a real debate. Leave that to those who use actual facts and logic, instead of starting with blind faith, and using whatever one can find to try to justify that blind faith. It's preposterous.

[fdasherv]

So god is intangible? Let's see...that would...contradict the ENTIRE bible! Nice fail, but keep trying.

[evilgenius2003]

Just ridiculous cont again....

10.) Actually Christians are supposed to put non-believers to death for our wicked non-belief.

11.) See above

12) Crusades? Oh, and of course there was that little holocaust thing a few decades ago...

13.) That's because you are delusional.

14.) So, then you must believe that everything exists including all the other gods of all the other religions... What makes you think you got the right one?

15.) I can show you science, you can't show me god.

[evilgenius2003]

Just ridiculous cont....

7.) HA! You don't know anything of the characteristics of god! God is a smallish fellow who smells like marmalade... I know because my invisible friend Steve created him. Prove me wrong.

8.) almost all wars have something to do with religion... And I hope you weren't counting Nazi Germany as atheistic... cause you'll have to do your math again if you were.

9.) All I can do is laugh at this one... Atheists can't call oppression immoral because we don't believe in god?

[evilgenius2003]

Just ridiculous...

1.) Virgin birth of Mithra... should be real easy for you to confirm

2.) So the other half do believe in a young earth... So your saying only half the Christians are stupid.

3.) Prove to me there is no Santa! Where is your evidence against Santa!

4.) Even with just the "kinds" you couldn't fit enough food.

5.) There is not enough water on the planet for the flood of the bible to have occurred.

6.) They deny "macro-evolution" which IS speciation over a longer time frame

[Armyof1993]

I am probably going to get blasted on this forum for this, but I agree with momoseth that religions and philosopihies DON'T start wars, rather, wars start by dictators and the like hijacking them for their own political purposes. (Good example would be the Militarist Japanese Government hijacking Bushido and Shinto for there own nefarious purposes)

[trampledone]

the fact still remains, there is no such thing as god until a believer can bring forth concrete evidence...and non have.

[shadywolf91]

@momoseth2 And yes I am aware that the evolutionary argument against naturalism is against metaphysical naturalism, how does this give evidence to the existence of your god?

[shadywolf91]

@momoseth2 Argument against Ontology cont...

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore, God does not exist.



[shadywolf91]

@momoseth2 The argument from a proper basis, is referring to fideism which states that faith and reason are separate. This is one of the weakest straw man's I have ever heard. Faith is the belief in a supernatural power, and no amount of belief makes something a fact. I would say this is your weakest argument, but it isn't even an argument. To say that faith provides evidence of your God is a fallacy because faith only exists in the imagination of people.

[shadywolf91]

@momoseth2 An argument against Ontology Melbourne philosopher Douglas Gasking (1911–1994) stated:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

[shadywolf91]

@momoseth2 Morals aren't objective so by the logic of "Since they exists, so does he" God do not exists. I shouldn't have referred to Christology as a joke however I did refer to Christology as a joke because it does not give evidence for the existence of the Christian God, only if Joshua existed or not. Then it would have to give evidence that he is the son of god witch is currently impossible. How does logic require God's existence? By definition it does not.

[shadywolf91]

@momoseth2 Last, Pascal's wager. You're right; it isn't circular reasoning I got it confused with the free will argument. Anyway it's still narrow-minded in the fact that it ignores all other religion's hells and punishments. For Example, Christianity and Islam. Both say you must believe in the teachings of Joshua or Muhammad respectively, and both say that you will be punishing believing in the other.

[shadywolf91]

@momoseth2 If I'm correct argument from contingency goes something like A1 Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.

A2 If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

A3 The universe exists.

T1 The universe has an explanation of its existence.

T2 Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

#2 is a fallacy because it simply makes an assumption "that explanation is God"

And #1 is questionable.

[shadywolf91]

@shadywolf91 Discrediting Ontology Cont... 5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. Therefore, God does not exist.

[shadywolf91]

@momoseth2 As to the Kalam, you say it is the most well verified principle within metaphysics. However according to physicists Victor Stenger, quantum mechanics disconfirms the first premise of the argument, that is, that something can not come into being from nothing. I'm not saying metaphysicians are wrong, I'm saying that the Kalam is. You never explained how Teleology gives evidence to the existence of a god you just said it did.

[momoseth2]

@shadywolf91

Kalam: The first point is perhaps the most well verified principle within metaphysics. Could you give one counterexample? The cause must be immaterial, timeless, spaceless, powerful, and personal.

Teleology: Does not rely on ends and purposes, but on fine tuning.

Ontology: Look up the modal ontological argument

Moral: God is the foundation of objective moral values. Since they exist, so does He.

Chistology: Why?

Transcendental: What? Logic itself requires God's existence.