The purpose of this forum is single-minded: TO DEBUNK THE ANTI-ATHEIST APOLOGIA, BY MATT SLICK, OF 'CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY' (CARM).
AtheistExile.com challenges all freethinking members to debunk any or all of the key points presented below. If you're going to reply to debunk these arguments, I highly recommend you read the complete, original, copy. Visit CARM at http://carm.org/cut-atheism
Matt Slick (I'll just call him 'Slick' from now on) starts off by reassuring his gullible readers that 'Dealing with atheists is actually easy to do.
Dealing with atheists is actually easy to do. They don't have any evidence for their atheism, and they can't logically prove there is no God. They can only attack the Bible and attack Christians' ideas of God. But, if you listen to them, you can soon find that their logic has many holes in it.
Slick provides 'statements' for copying and pasting into chat rooms.
Please understand that these are not 'stoppers.' But, they can be challenging to atheists. Also, see how long it takes before they become condescending.
Under the heading of 'Ways to attack atheism', Slick suggests things like:
Your reasons are based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?
If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then are you holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then isn't that simply faith?
You cannot know all evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no evidence for God.
If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Under the heading of 'By using logic' (guffaw!), Slick suggests the following 'logic':
The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?
Everything that was brought into existence was caused to exist. Can you have an infinite regression of causes? No, since to get to 'now' you'd have to traverse an infinite past. It seems that there must be a single uncaused cause. Why can't that be God?
Next, under the heading of 'The Universe exists', Slick demonstrates that he's not up-to-date with modern cosmology. His ignorance of science makes this part of his apologetics easy to refute. He makes claims like: 'Something cannot bring itself into existence'; and 'What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.' He should watch the Lawrence Krauss lecture, 'A Universe from Nothing', available here on AtheistExile.com at http://www.atheistexile.com/2011/11/16/a-universe-from-nothing/. Slick also displayed his ignorance by stating things like 'the universe is not infinitely old' and 'there must be a single uncaused cause'. You're right, Slick. But not because 'God did it'. The universe is not infinitely old because time does not exist in a singularity, therefore time started with the Big Bang; and there IS a single uncaused cause . . . quantum fluctuations. It seems the old adage is true: 'Nature abhors a vaccuum'. As Lawrence Krauss points out, 'Nothing is more unstable than nothing'. The Big Bang was inevitable. The cosmological scales of time and space in the universe will give you a migrane headache, Slick, if you simply use common sense alone attempt understanding. Like it or not, you'll also have to also understand and use physics. Intellectual laziness is no excuse for denying scientific explanations.
Under the heading of 'Responding to atheist statements about God', Slick whips out his logic again.
If you say that atheism is simply lack of belief in a god, then my cat is an atheist
you either believe there is a God, or you do not, or you are agnostic. You cannot remain in a state of 'lack of belief'.
If you also lack belief in invisible pink unicorns, why don't you go around attacking that idea?
You cannot logically state that there is no God because you cannot know all things so as to determine that there is no God.
There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God's existence through science.
Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.
Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.
God is the only Supreme Being who is unchanging, eternal, holy, and Trinitarian in nature. He alone possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. He alone brought the universe into existence by the exertion of His will.
Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence because your presuppositions don't allow it.
When the atheist complains, ask him to logically explain the existence of the universe. Point out that opinions and guesses don't count.
Slick continues instructing his readers with:
Saying the Bible is full of contradictions does not mean it is so. Can you provide a contradiction that we can examine in context?
And this gem of Intelligent Design propaganda, denying evolution . . .
That depends on if it is micro or macro. Micro variations occur, but macro variations (speciation) have not been observed. The best we have are fossils and they have to be interpreted. Besides, there are plenty of gaps in the fossil record.
Have you read any books that discuss the contrary evidence to evolution? If not, then how can you say you are educated enough to say it is a fact?
If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws
To say there are no absolute truths is an attempt to state an absolute truth. If your statement is true, then it is self-contradictory and not true, and you are wrong.