Skip to content

Itschristopher's Blog

Just another site

100 Reasons Why God Doesn’t Not Exist #4

The article I’m responding to is Begging the Question: Miracles and Nature, just one in a series of posts about “Why God Doesn’t Exist.”

The original article talks about how Christians like to use the fine-tuning argument to prove the existence of God (i.e. without God we wouldn’t have such an orderly, finely-tuned universe) while at the SAME TME saying that miracles performed by Jesus also prove God (i.e. actions that defy the laws of the universe).  You can’t say the laws of the universe prove God’s existence, and then say the lawlessness of God also proves His existence.  It’s circular reasoning to say that either lawfulness or lawlessness both prove God.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Well, first I’d like to thank the author for his honest attempt at representing the argument by Christians; he truly evaluates it for its merits and downfalls, portraying it for what its worth.  Okay, that was sarcasm, I’m not sure if you knew that.  …now you know.

There’s a few issues that he fails to acknowledge, however.  The first is that IF God exists, then of course everything that happens is a result of God.  God’s very existence, at least as depicted from the traditional Judeo-Christian perspective, demands that nothing would contradict his existence, and that all evidence would point to Him.  So yes, “no matter what happens, miracle or not, God will be credited.”  Sorry, that’s just what is logically demanded on the assumption that God exists.  When discussing whether or not God exists, we have to take 2 different assumptions and go from there: 1) If God exists then we would expect _____ and 2) If God does not exist then we would expect ____.  McCormick, the author, thinks that it is fallacious to presume God and then account for his activity, but this just isn’t true.  The better approach is to evaluate BOTH perspectives to see which one better accounts for our reality.

OK.  Now…does a miraculous God contradict an orderly universe?  Let’s first discuss what a miracle is.  Hugh Ross, a Christian apologist, talks about two kinds of miracles: transcendent and nontranscendent.  Transcendent would be considered supernatural, like Jesus walking on water, whereas non transcendent would be divinely directed natural means, something that has a natural explanation, but obviously came from God.  This could be like the plagues in Egypt , where there is a scientific explanation, but when you have a person prophesying the phenomena (Moses), and it actually occurring as he said, the timing of the events and their affectation are clearly divinely guided.  What about transcendent miracles though?  Well, I think I can simply say: It’s God.  He has the power to manipulate and create anything.  So his own creation is easily manipulated.  When healing, is it magic?  Or is it a rapid manipulation of molecules or atoms into a different state?  God could easily not directly defy the laws he created and manipulate matter.  He could perform transcendent miracles without violating any of the laws of physics and so forth, because they would be isolated in a small location.  Or He could create an orderly, finely tuned universe and intermittently bend some laws in order to make His presence more known.

 Miraculously enough, I can have my cake and eat it too.


%d bloggers like this: