“What is atheism?
Atheism is rejecting belief in any form of unseen divinity.”
You know, when the first words of an argument are ridiculously factually incorrect (and
weirdly confusing) (“That's actually...
I'm not even mad - that's amazing!
Hmm.”) it’s probability best to walk away, but if everyone walked then the wielder would
feel impenetrable, and so, consider this an act of charity…
This is Atheism is Over – Debunked.
“The atheist denies the existence of a creator, of divine revelation, and of resurrection.”
One of the first “mistakes” that theists make (and I put the word “mistake” in
quote marks because it's often not one) is to strawman atheists by insisting that their
position is something other than what it is, and so let me clear that up.
A “theist” is “Someone who believes that at least one god exists”, and an "a-theist”
(with the prefix “a” meaning “non”, “not” or “without”) is a “non-theist”.
That’s it.
An atheist is simply “Someone who isn't convinced that a god exists”.
There’s no denial of “unseen divinity”, resurrection or indeed anything.
It’s a non-belief; a non-position; and really, it shouldn’t even be a word!
“What is the proof that there is a creator?
There are many proofs.”
Yeah, and I’ve already addressed nine of which you’ve presented in a previous video.
“But we will focus on two: the first is called proof on the basis of existence, and
the second is called proof on the basis of providence.
What is meant by proof on the basis of existence?
Everything is temporarily originated – it came into existence after it was non-existent,
so it must have had an originator.”
So first off, due to the Law of Conservation of Energy, we know that when something comes
into existence (be it a pocket-watch or a sandstone) it doesn’t do so from non-existence;
it does so via the rearrangement of already existing matter.
A sandstone, for example, doesn’t just puff into existence ex nihilo… it comes into
existence due to fragments of minerals compacting over time.
And secondly, note that the “originator” or “creator” of sandstones is the unconscious
laws of nature (and not a conscious being), because theists like to jump from something
to someone without sufficient reason, and this is but one example.
“This means we have 10>124 proofs that a creator exists.
This number constitutes the overall number of molecules with their functional activities
throughout the universe.”
… For crying out loud, what orifice did you pull that number from?
To justly say that “This number constitutes the overall number of molecules with their
functional activities throughout the universe” you’d have to first observe the entire universe
(which you haven’t), and then account for every single molecule (which, by extension,
you haven’t).
This is absolutely ridiculous.
“By the way, this number is huge!
It means 10 followed by 124 zeros, so everything that originated and entered the sphere of
existence is a proof that there is a creator.”
And again, while we can arbitrarily call whatever caused something to “come into existence”
its “originator” or “creator”, we can’t just assume that this creator is a
“someone” rather than a “something” (and we certainly can’t assume that it’s
a very specific someone, can we?).
That wouldn’t be even remotely logical.
“That is why many verses of the Qur'an bring the creations into focus.
Allah says, "Say, look at whatever exists in heaven and on earth, but signs and warnings
do not benefit the unbelievers".
Yeah, and the Buddha says “The wise know that anyone in the world who places his trust
in the dharma can say, 'I am born of dharma, created by dharma, an heir of dharma,' no
matter what caste he was born into”… quoting a book doesn’t validate an invalid fallacious
argument.
“Allah also says what means ‘Do they not ponder about their own selves?’
Allah has created the heavens and the--” Yeah, and again, Zeus says “My brothers,
we were forged in victory; a victory that ended the Great War and brought forth the
reign of Mount Olympus.
Born from the depths of the Underworld, rooted in the River of Souls, our mountain emerged
out of the chaos”… quoting something doesn’t make it true!
“He also says what means ‘Have they not--” Right, I’m going to skip the rest of the
quranic quotes within this video, because Merciful Servant doesn’t include them to
bolster his arguments, he includes them to preach to the choir…
“So everything that has originated is in itself a direct proof that there is an originator.”
No, it’s not.
So far as we know, nothing (at all) came into existence from absolutely nothing, and, again,
we know that complex things (such as sandstones) can (and do) emerge from unconscious natural
processes.
“What is meant by proof on the basis of providence?
It means that everything ultimately in existence, starting from the quarts (which are the smallest
subatomic particles ever allocated) up to the galaxies carries an extent of functional
complexity.”
Functional complexity, huh?
This sounds suspiciously like a rendition of Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy…
“This means that each has a specific and specialised function, and a functional complexity
necessarily means a grade above mere existence […] So everything around you is designed
in a special method so as to carry out a special function.
Hence, everything around you carries a functional complexity, and this complexity is a proof
of origination – which means that it must have had an originator!”
Okay, so the emphasis on complexity requiring a more complex creator does indeed make this
a version of the Watchmaker Analogy (which is an insanely popular argument, and one that
I’ve already addressed in great detail).
However, I’ll of course address it here too, but before I do, here's the rest of Merciful
Servant’s rendition: “An example of this is the lamp.
This is a functional complexity.
The electric lamp is made up of a coil, a lead wire that connects electricity to the
coil, inert gas that protects the coil, and does not affect it or the electricity.
A glass bulb that prevents the entry of air or the exit of the inert gas, which would
otherwise burn the coil.
And finally the base of the lamp, which connects the lamp with the socket, and ensures the
passage of the electrical current.”
So Merciful Servant is using a lamp where Paley used a watch, but the argument is exactly
the same – it’s the assertion that complexity requires a more complex creator.
“Here the electric lamp demonstrates a system of complexity that cannot be dismissed or
simplified.
Since is carries a rudimentary rational indication to the mastery of the manufacturer, then the
one who denies the masterful formation of the lamp or assumes that it originated by
chance is the one required to fetch a proof to his assumption.”
So there’s a great many flaws with the Watchmaker Analogy (or in this case the Lamp Analogy),
and I think the best way to expose them is to first simplify the argument, and so, here’s
it’s syllogistic form: premise 1, the light bulb is complex; premise 2) the light bulb
had a creator; premise 3) the human is complex; conclusion; therefore the human had a creator.
Now while complexity does not necessitate an even more complex creator (as already demonstrated
in reference to sandstones), let’s just assume that it did; that the human must’ve
had an intelligent creator because the human has “functional complexity” – what then?
Well,since it would follow that the creator of humans must itself be even more complex,
we'd have to ask, who created the creator?
And who created the creator’s creator?
And so on and so forth.
You see, the assertion that complexity requires a more complex creator is self-refuting because
it necessitates an infinite regress; it necessitates turtles all the way down.
Now many theists respond to this criticism by asserting that their god is a special case
that doesn’t require a more complex creator, but this is simply Special Pleading, and to
anyone who actually cares about truth it’s not nearly good enough.
Moving on, the Lamp Analogy is entirely predicated on a False Analogy Fallacy, because it insists
that because two things share one quality in common (which in this case is complexity),
they must also share another quality in common (which in this case is a creator), when this
simply cannot be logically inferred.
It’s as fallacious as asserting that because the light bulb is complex, and because the
light bulb was invented in 1879, therefore because the human is complex, it too must’ve
been invented in 1879.
Just because two things have one thing in common, this doesn’t mean that they share
another thing in common.
Another damning flaw with this argument that's worth mentioning is that is commits a False
Cause fallacy.
It does this because it asserts that complexity can only be caused by a creator, when not
only has this not been proven to be the case, it’s actually been proven not to be the
case.
As said earlier, the sandstone is complex, and yet we know it wasn’t created by a conscious
creator – it was created by a collection of unconscious natural processes, and the
same is true of the earth, the moon, and the sun.
“While having a diverse array of lamps can never be a proof that it is all just mere
chance, using this same rationalisation, we can deduct that a creature with all this functional
complexity (the human being) must have had an originator […] So, if you look at the
four components of the lamp and deduce that it must have had a maker, and you do not realise
that you too must have had a maker, then the problem is in your way of thinking.”
So notice Merciful Servant’s emphasis on mere chance being the only other alternative
(“Just mere chance”); because in doing this he’s committing a Black and White Fallacy;
he’s presenting two possibilities as if they are the only, without justifying why
they’re the only.
And what’s worse is that he’s completely ignoring a third possibility… that being
evolution by natural selection.
You know, the very bedrock of biology that’s supported by every field of study that confront
it; such as anatomy, palaeontology, geology, embryology, neurobiology, medicine and genetics.
Without getting into it too deeply, when an organism is conceived it receives a copy of
its parent’s DNA, but sometimes the copy is imperfect (and we label these imperfections
“mutations”); now if that mutation gives the offspring a greater chance of surviving
and reproducing than its counterparts, then it will be more prevalent within the next
generation.
And thus, nature can (and indeed does) produce evermore complex organisms (and, again, it
does so unconsciously).
And the last point I want to make is that the reason we can infer that lamps are created
by intelligent agents has nothing to do with complexity.
It’s because we have countless examples of lamps being created by intelligent agents,
and none being created without one; but in contrast, we have inferred countless examples
of species emerging from natural selection, and none being created from an intelligent
designer.
“Allah says what means--” No…
“Allah says, in the--” Please, stop it…
“Hence, existence (proof of the basis of existence) and regulating creation (proof
on the basis of providence), are both rational evidences to the presence of an originator.”
Hence, these two “proofs” of Allah, and with it Merciful Servant’s assertion that
“Atheism is Over” is debunked.
Likewise to most theistic arguments, this has been nothing more than a mere repackaging
of outdated (and already debunked) arguments.
Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the view, and an extra special thank you to my
wonderful patrons and those of you who’ve donated via PayPal.
Together, we’re truly making an impact, and for that, you rock!
Until next time my fellow apes, until next time.