20 Apologetics Arguments, Demolished.
Ugh, guys, amateur apologists are just the worst! A very belligerent Trumper Christian on Twitter created this to obliterate atheists. I thought it was ridiculous, so I took ten minutes to reply--not kidding, it was ten minutes. I timed myself.
I wish he'd numbered these, but hopefully you get the idea.
Here is the reply I sent back to him. I'll upload the text so you can see the links:
1. Misunderstanding of “nothing.” See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing
2. Non sequitur; also, assertion without evidence. Some models say it began; others think it’s been bouncing in and out of existence for a while. http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point
3. Assertion without evidence, and completely nonsensical to boot.
4. Assertion without evidence; argument from ignorance.
5. Argument from ignorance; attempt to shoehorn the Christian god into the equation.
6. Ignorance of what scientific laws are. They are not meant to “create anything from nothing.” https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html
7. Non sequitur; it does not follow that one requires a causal explanation for a non-static universe.
8. Another informal fallacy; it does not follow that laws of math and physics imply the existence of any supernatural beings. You’re jumping again from point A to point ZZZ. A lot of steps must happen in between that you’re missing, probably because you simply have no training in science.
9. Fine-tuning as an argument got debunked yonks ago. https://theconversation.com/peer-review-the-fallacy-of-fine-tuning-2540
10. Another informal fallacy as well as a display of monumental ignorance. No definition of “barren” compared to “rich,” and this assertion depends utterly upon nobody ever finding any Earthlike planets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets
11. Argument from Gosh Isn’t Earth Pretty. Does not follow to the Christian god.
12. Get your news from real sites, not from Creationist blather sites. This link amply refutes your claim: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
13. The Cambrian Explosion isn’t really much of an explosion. It’s been long refuted. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
14. DNA is not a “computer code.” That’s a misunderstanding Creationists push to make life sound more like it was designed. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html
15. Argument from ignorance. Your inability to understand consciousness doesn’t imply the existence of your god.
16. Doesn’t follow. Human dignity, sanctity of life, free will, purpose, and meaning have nothing to do with the supernatural. I’d be especially reticent to assign the Christian god any role in these, since the Bible is steadfastly seen opposing all of them regularly. Non-Christians certainly enjoy all of these traits without any affiliation with the Christian god.
17. Doesn’t even make sense as an assertion, and certainly whatever you’re aiming for is probably another non sequitur based upon your own limited understanding.
18. Assertion without evidence. We don’t know Jesus existed. We don’t know what happened to the founder of the religion. The Bible makes a number of assertions, but it’s wrong about a lot of things.
19. Arguments are not evidence. Repeating arguments doesn’t make them more valid or true. Further, nobody HAS to make an argument for “God doesn’t exist.” That’s not our job. It’s your job to prove he exists. And if this list of fallacies and non sequiturs and streams of ignorance are all you’ve got, you failed.
20. Your subjective experiences are obviously very valid to you. But they are meaningless to anyone else. Basing one’s opinions on feelings isn’t a very wise idea, but you do you. You believe nonsense for no good reason, however, and I’m not buying your product based solely upon your feelings. I need evidence to believe in anything. You don’t have any.
POSTSCRIPT: I did this to prove a point to you. You failed. Utterly. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You are a typical belligerent culture-warrior ruled by emotions and feelings—and anger at your tribal enemies. But I’m not obligated to refute your childish talking points and attempted zingers. Nobody is.
This wasn't a perfect rebuttal. I should have hammered harder at his lack of understanding about "nothing," because Creationists almost never understand what it is they're arguing against when they talk about "nothing." (Nor do they ever realize that Creationism is literally poofing stuff out of existence from "nothing!") Another paper, cited by Thanks4AllTheFish, deals more extensively with non-Big-Bang models of the universe's origins.
I could also have talked more about falsifiability, asking how on earth he'd even prove some of his assertions false. Falsifiability is a game-changer for humanity's quest for knowledge.
And I definitely could have drilled down on point 20 with him strawmanning. Nobody is refuting his personal subjective opinion of Christianity. Nobody cares enough about what he thinks to do that. That's not what we do. He feels very strongly that his beliefs are based upon reality. Fine. I believe that he feels that way. But the reasons he's offering others to persuade them to adopt similar beliefs are not compelling to anybody. They certainly wouldn't compel him toward belief in any other gods, if they were offered to bolster claims about, say, Osiris being real. (And yes, they could all apply to any gods. Try it out.)
But for ten minutes' work, maybe not bad. It's incredibly easy to demolish apologetics, once you can put these charlatans into perspective and are decently well-versed in spotting basic fallacies.