Atheist are Illogical?

There is a web site by Carl Cantrell that calls atheist irrational and illogical, It seemed like a challenge to me. Let's look at me and my beliefs first.

 

I state here and now that I do not presume to know if there is or is not a God. I am like everyone else, I don't know. I don't care either way. I don't think there is one, maybe even hope there isn't one. Why? cause if there is, then he cares little or nothing about us! as I have said before, we are just ants to torture. I don't think that not believing in God is either illogical or irrational as Carl states. I don't really believe in creation, I think evolution is a more probable theory, I don't claim that science is correct on all theories on it, in fact it may be wrong on a lot of things, they are after all theories and speculation, the only way to truly know would be to travel back in time. I know most believers of creation will point out this fact to discredit evolution, but they use theories and speculation in creation to. Evolution has more evidence to back it up, but creationist point out that God could have made that too or as Carl says on his site, God could have evolved us. not really, not if you believe the Bible. I won't argue the merits of evolution, scientist more knowledgeable are out there for that.

Let's look at Carl - He has a bunch of impressive credentials and he states in his introduction that he is open minded and just wants to know if there is or isn't a God before he shows up at that pearly gates. Sorry Carl, you may never truly know the truth, even death may not provide the answer. He seems to believe that the reason some people don't believe in God is because they can't grasp the concept of an all powerful being, that because we can't do what would be required to create a universe, then God couldn't and there fore we don't believe in God. Not believing in God, I can state that this is not true, there is lots of things I can't do, that doesn't make me not believe others that can do them don't exist. I like the analogy of a worm he uses, he says that just because a worm can't grasp the concept of us doesn't mean we don't exist. true, but what if the worm worships us as a God and it's creator? we are not the worms God or creator, it would be misguided in it's faith, are we? Who is above God? Surely the theory that there is someone above God can not be proven false, so he must exist. Carl states that he is open minded, but then he says he believes in creation science, the theory that God created man. This is not open minded, it is faith. Well enough about him, let's look more at his theory's on the web site.

On the top page he states the he tries to be objective and open minded, I will be the same, even though I think he isn't being totally objective. I mostly agree with him on questioning common knowledge and accepted ideas, you shouldn't just always follow the herd. Seeing that something like 80%+ believe in God, I guess I'm not following the herd. He says that scientists only look at a small part of the picture and don't look at it as a whole, he wants to look at the whole picture, We'll see.

I will skip most of the sections on the site as they don't deal with God, most are just theories and hypothesis on his beliefs of science. I also will not post a complete rebuttal all at once, there are over 60 pages and I haven't read them all so keep checking back

I will skip to the page on Atheism since it is far down on the list of articles.

 

The Religion of Atheism

re·li·gion n.
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

As I stated on the main site, I don't think that atheism falls into any of those categories, but as (in print) white is considered a color when it is actually a lack of color, I'll let that stand. The questions he asks atheists on whether they know that science can't prove that God doesn't exist is rather stupid, maybe Jessica Simpson may be unaware of the fact, but I doubt that any atheist would. It would be like me asking a Catholic if they were aware that the church can't prove the existence of God. They would of course tell me that belief in God requires faith. If I told you that God was a turtle, you can't really disprove that can you? It's hard to disprove something that requires faith, not a logical argument.

It further states that if after asking the question and explaining the fact that science can't disprove God, If the atheist still doesn't believe, he is being stubborn and disregarding what science says and if the atheist knows that science can't disprove God but still doesn't believe then they are just being irrational. This really makes no sense, science doesn't say that God exists or that God doesn't exist... belief in God STILL requires FAITH. Just because you can't disprove that God is a turtle doesn't make God a turtle! According to the site there are just two beliefs that are rational and logical, either you are unsure that God exists or you believe he exists because of the evidence. Why would that be the case. I have looked over the site and have not found any evidence, just speculation, conjecture, theories and hypothesis, I'll have to keep looking. He states the same thing twice to drive the point home I guess. Using his logic, since science can not prove or disprove God, the only rational and logical belief would be to be unsure of Gods existence. let's move on,

Next is stated something rather obvious, to prove God exists you need evidence or direct contact and he can never be disproved. This shows at least that he understands that God, ANY GOD, is impossible to disprove. Atheism is again called irrational and illogical while Christianity is called logical and rational. then there is the if it is possible for God to exist then he can influence our lives and bla bla bla. He is considered the almighty isn't he/she/it? of course all that is possible, just as the turtle in my back yard could be the almighty. The next argument is that God could communicate with us, I would hope so if he/she/it is the almighty, but I haven't been contacted yet! And know of no one that has, then again it is also possible that he can't (and this would seem an argument for Gods existence), We can not communicate with other lower species, not even with some that are considered advanced like apes or dolphins! Not even the ones we have created, (dolly the cloned sheep, genetic mutations, etc.) Maybe he exists but isn't as almighty as we would think. Going back to the worm that views us as it's God, does it wonder why we don't communicate with him? On miracles, I agree that they are possible, it's a miracle that Jessica Simpson remembers to breathe! Just because you don't believe in God doesn't necessarily mean you don't believe in miracles. It also goes on to say that if God can't be disproved then it is possible that the prophecies and miracles in the Bible could have happened and that you have to be open minded. But then, is the site open minded? would he be willing to accept the possiblity that God doesn't exist? looking around the rest of the site seems to indicate an unwillingness to do that.

Let's look at some of the other pages on the site.

 

Creation Feasibility Analysis

Here is an argument about whether life can be formed from raw matter. It says that evolutionist claim creation isn't possible. Not sure if this is correct, I wouldn't say that, but I'm sure some might, likewise I have heard creationist claim evolution isn't possible, that we can't possibly be descended from apes. I don't argue that life can be created from raw elements, it has been done already, who created life is what we are talking about, whether God, or just naturally is the question. The food for thought really isn't much of a thought, we can already breed stocks of animals and plants, I really see no need for creating life on another planet, not everyone on earth would go to it, it would probably start as a small colony and grow from that, no need to deplete earth's ecosystem.

Probability Analysis

This page focuses on two parts and a few smaller sections, I read the first part and skimmed the rest. I need to address the first part to explain skipping the second part. This page sets up a good argument that the Bible is more of a historical document. It is flawed in that it is assumes that because some of the places and facts in it are correct, then everything in it must be correct. Using this logical, if I read a Steven King book, does that make it fact? He uses real places and facts in his books too, they must be historical documents right? With this meager evidence, it goes on to look at Exodus as fact in the second part . This shows that open minded is not what this is as it basically uses this to prove Gods existence. I am not a Bible scholar and will not argue the second part and the theories in it except to say it is speculation and only applies if you believe everything in the Bible is fact. That also makes the Note, Comment and Hmmmm...? sections speculation and as it states 'His belief'

In The Beginning

Here the site tries to explain how God created the universe, it is interesting and I enjoyed reading it, but it is just a theory with little proof and since I'm not a scientist I can't determine the validity of the theory. It does of course, assume the existence of God, No open mindedness here.

DNA Requires Creation

Not being a scientist, I won't dispute the validity of the statements on this page and I won't take issue with his calculations, I'll admit I don't quite get this theory. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. But to say that having one base strand disproves evolution is a bit much, Why would God be the only possible answer? Maybe life isn't as easy as the web site seems to suggest? If just one base began to evolve why would nature use different bases? Some people think that since there are so many stars there must be life on other planets, some believe just the opposite. just because a planet can support life doesn't mean it has life. so just because a different base could be life doesn't mean it will. there may very well be other bases on other planets, or even some on ours and we just haven't found it. If I am understanding this argument correctIy then I like this argument, if the math is correct then it is a very good argument, touchè

The Fossils

Here is another page where scientist are critized for hypothesizing on the fossils.and for their theories on evolution, what the site forgets is that they are doing the same. Not much offered here.

A General Analysis of Evolution

Evolution breaks Entropy, the second law of thermodynamics so that means evolution is not possible because entropy is a proven fact. hmm, using science to disprove science, a novel approach. Let's get to it then, this is a tough one. Entropy states that left to natural processes, absolutely everything degenerates to the lowest possible level and since evolution requires that (the sites words) left to natural processes everything will evolve to the highest possible level, it breaks the rule of entropy and evolution is therefore proven false. I am not an expert on thermodynamics or evolution, so I am not sure if this is the correct interpretation of the rule. I'll just use common observation. Entropy may be correct, but can this be applied to life? Life seems to break rules, I don't think all the rules are set in stone. It is easy to see that this doesn't hold true in the way it is interpreted, just put a seed in the ground and you will see this theory fall apart. If true the seed would begin rotting away, but most likely, if the seed is good, it will grow, this can not be considered degenerating to the lowest possible level, it will eventually die and degenerate. On ecology, it states that the ecosystem is fragile and that evolution would require radical change that would result in the destruction of the ecosystem and therefore it is further proof against evolution. Can you actually say that with a straight face? Evolution takes time, it is not radical change, maybe the ecosystem evolves also? Another thing, I don't think that the ecosystem is as fragile as the site would have us believe, the human race has probably done more damage to the ecology in the last hundred years then has been done to it since the beginning of time and while it may lead to it's destruction eventually, it hasn't yet, and 100 years is very short in the context of the universe and I would consider it a much more radical event then evolution. So clearly that doesn't truly hold water. Again, not much open mindedness here

 

Well that is it for now, the site is interesting and I'll write more on it and it's theories later