More Unreflective Atheistic Arguments

Hal Flemings
halflemings1@Yahoo.com
Hebrew Language instructor for San Diego Community College
3198 Willow Tree Lane
Escondido, California 92027

Key words and phrases: Extinction, recycling, false gods, miracles, resurrection, Darwinian resurrection,
supernatural

Argument from the History of Extinctions

Some atheists have argued that the extinction of so many life forms across millennia argues against the
idea that they were created by an Intelligent Being, typically called God. They reason random events
could produce such results over time but why would an Intelligent Creator? And If a God stands behind
the history of living things here on the earth, were not their deaths wasteful and evidence of a God with
poor planning skills? This anti-god criticism presents to us with another unreflective argument. In the
commercial world there are many productions and processes which consist of elements or parts which
have short term but necessary functions. In the 21 st century we have witnessed a major emphasis on
recycling which admits to the temporary use of material objects and the reformulation of said objects
into new useful entities. Does the existence of vast deposits of disposable or used objects prove that no
intellect was involved in their coming into existence in the first place? Many things are designed to have
short “lives” or short term utility. Often the used, nonfunctioning products are reinvented and serve
other functions. In human systems, recycling is not considered wasteful but efficient. Looking at nature,
the science of Physics tells us that matter can be neither created nor destroyed and that the total energy
of an isolated system remains constant, thus conserved. There are natural cycles which involve parts
that have meaningful but short term functionality and utility. It is myopic to single out a part of an
ongoing process or cycle and call its loss, in the process or procession, wasteful or ill-designed.
Furthermore, it is narrow-minded to see a whole series of entities with short existences and not see the
larger picture showing a collective functionality and purpose.

The Variety of Proposed Gods, Which Evidently Are Unreal, Calls into Question that a Real
God Exists

On occasion quite sophisticated atheists proclaim that just as it is evident that Zeus, Thor, Odin and the
Cookie Monster do not exist as gods, there is no reason to believe that any other proposed god exists.
This popular challenge to those who hold that a God exists is another unreflective argument. Consider
the following story:

-1-
 Henry Mortimor was found shot to death in his living room. Several people are suspects. His brother
George Mortimor has had a hostile relationship with Henry and stood to inherit a family fortune if
his brother preceded him in death. Henry’s wife, Harriet, openly despised Henry and had a
$1,000,000 life insurance policy on him with her being the sole beneficiary after his death. George
Snodgrass was a business associate of Henry and stood to become sole owner of their lucrative
business if Henry preceded him in death. Not to be overlooked was Henry’s neighbor, a single man
named Nathan Merodach, who was passionately in love with Henry’s wife. What if after a fairly
thorough investigation, it was clear that neither George Mortimor, nor Harriet Mortimor nor
George Snodgrass and yes, not even Nathan Merodach could have murdered Henry? Would
that mean that any other suspect, in time, would be equally found innocent? It turns out
that Henry was murdered by a burglar named Benny LaMonte.

In the story just presented all of the suspects were human and each was cleared of responsibility for the
death of Henry Mortimor, except Benny LaMonte. In the criticism that says that Thor, Odin, Zeus and
the Cookie Monster have been cleared of being responsible for creation, it would be premature to rule
out Jehovah.

In times past, various ideas reigned on the cause of earthquakes. In ancient Japan, there was a popular
myth that earthquakes were caused by an extremely large catfish named Namazu who inhabited the
center of the Earth. Every time Namazu thrashed his tail an earthquake resulted. Crossing the ocean to
South America, the Maimas of Peru believed their god caused earthquakes whenever he walked on the
Earth and took count of those who worshipped him. Citing another view, Greek philosopher Aristotle
felt sure that earthquakes were caused by wind currents within the Earth’s surface. Fortunately,
inquiring minds did not give up the search for the true cause.

To the point, our experiences in the Forensic Sciences, Medicine and other scientific disciplines
repeatedly tell us that just because we have ruled out certain causes does not mean we have ruled out
other possible and even similar causes.

“The Existence of a God Who Created The Universe Implies that Miracles Are Real and That
Would Be Unscientific”

When devout Jews or Christians cite passages from the Bible which report the resurrection of dead
people, the separating of the waters of the Red Sea so that multitudes of people could cross from one
side to the other etc. , atheists are amused that any critically thinking person could believe such things

-2-
actually happened or could happen. With the utmost presentation of seriousness, atheists boldly state
that such acts are contrary to our common experience, a violation of scientific laws, and consequently
should be neatly placed in the same locus as fables, myths and fantasies. On the surface, this criticism
seems to be reasonable.

In the early part of the 20th century, the sciences of astronomy and physics produced evidence that the
universe had a beginning. That beginning was subsequently understood to involve the origination of
mass, time and space. Interestingly, before the general scientific community wrapped its arms around
this understanding of the universe, it vigorously taught, in the spirit of Aristotle, that the universe had
no beginning. Of course, if it had no beginning, there was no need for a creator God. At that time few
seemed bothered with the concept of a universe that went back forever in time. However, when
evidence gathered to show the cosmos did have a beginning, it was then accepted absent any
theological connections. We are now told the universe arose out of nothing. That translates to the
verbal formula: From nothing something came. If nothing is “something” from which something could
come, then it takes place in a scheme of reality before the scientific laws that regulate the universe.
Whatever the foundation out of which the universe emerged it is the source of mass, space and time.
Further it is logically the case that that foundation is not limited by mass, space and universe time. If a
Mind, a God, created the universe, then He preceded the mass, space and time that followed and it
would logically mean He cannot be measured by the demands of space, mass and time. Given that
conclusion, it would be foolish to conclude that such a God could not control the laws of nature to
accommodate his wishes. Miracles viewed from that perspective are not “unbelievable” but understood
to be possible. Even humans who are products of creation have learned how to manipulate, to some
extent, the laws of nature and produce phenomena that ancient peoples would have declared were
“miracles.” Airplanes, televisions, telephones, X-ray images and computers transported back in time
two millennia would result in terrifying cultivated and educated peoples! They would have considered
them “miracles.”

Interestingly, with or without the belief in a Creator God even the matter of being resurrected becomes
believable under these conditions. Evolutionary scientists who are atheists tell us that conscious life
unfolded through undirected processes and natural selection across time. Well, if conscious life can
appear without a God, without a Conscious Being, then what would prevent the “stuff” and “process” by
which it came into existence in the first place from happening again? Would we call this a “Darwinian
resurrection”? In any case, the possibility of “miracles” has not been ruled out—even viewed from a
purely scientific vantage point.

At issue, though, is the claim that we live in a natural world that is glued to scientific laws which allow us
to predict outcomes and that a supernatural world would not have this character. Standing on that
thinking, it would seem that processes or events that create meaningful outcomes not being glued to
scientific laws would be “supernatural.” If we can agree with that conclusion, then we could raise the
question: What about DNA sequencing for the production of various biotic materials? The specificity of
the sequences does not depend on certain physical or chemical laws—which would naturally produce

-3-
“mantras” rather than different meaningful “messages,” Would this meet the requirement of being
“supernatural” since it does not follow the regularity of natural laws? Would this “irregularity” which by
our common experience has been tied to intelligence not be a phenomenal argument for the existence
of a Creator God?

Conclusion

The obvious passion that some atheists bring to this discussion like the passion found on the other side
certainly is evidence of conviction but not evidence of truth. It is not sophistication, eloquence or
presence that ought to settle debates nor cleverly crafted invalid arguments but the best evidence
whether or not it is popular or even maintained by illiterates.

Thanks to Bill McManigal and Michael Hall for their suggestions.

-4-