Is Christianity more logical than atheism........?

[Youssarian]

Is Christianity more logical than atheism? I would say so.

The atheist cannot answer questions such as, "What is the purpose of humanity?"; "Where did the universe come from?"; "Where do the concepts of good and evil come from?"; and others.

The origin of the universe, I believe, is best answered by the existence of a powerful, creative mind that we know as God. The explanation for the impossible fine-tuning of the universe can best be explained by God. There are many attributes of the universe and our solar system that cannot be greatly changed without it either being unable to exist, or unable to be inhabited. It's more reasonable to say a creative mind did it than random chance. Our desires for purpose and hope can best be explained by the existence of God.

And perhaps the hardest thing for the atheist to knock is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If the Gospels were merely fiction or falsified in any way, well, the events that the Gospels claimed happened took place in very populated areas. The crux of our faith - the death and resurrection - took place in Jerusalem around Passover. Surely if it were false, there would have more than enough people around to say "It didn't happen!" and Christianity would have stopped in its tracks. But in fact, the Resurrection is basically impossible to disprove. The existence of Jesus and the early church are verified by historians, governors - and even satirists. I can think of no reason, outside of theological or philosophical bias, to find Christianity to be less logical than atheism. To be an atheist, you need to assume you know enough about the universe that you can reasonably say there is no God. But how can anybody seriously make that claim?

[Rainn]

Is Christianity more logical than atheism? I would say so.

The atheist cannot answer questions such as, "What is the purpose of humanity?"; "Where did the universe come from?"; "Where do the concepts of good and evil come from?"; and others.

An atheist can answer those questions like anyone else, the answers just wouldn't include a god. Whether they are correct or not is a different matter.

The origin of the universe, I believe, is best answered by the existence of a powerful, creative mind that we know as God. The explanation for the impossible fine-tuning of the universe can best be explained by God. There are many attributes of the universe and our solar system that cannot be greatly changed without it either being unable to exist, or unable to be inhabited. It's more reasonable to say a creative mind did it than random chance. Our desires for purpose and hope can best be explained by the existence of God.

And perhaps the hardest thing for the atheist to knock is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If the Gospels were merely fiction or falsified in any way, well, the events that the Gospels claimed happened took place in very populated areas. The crux of our faith - the death and resurrection - took place in Jerusalem around Passover. Surely if it were false, there would have more than enough people around to say "It didn't happen!" and Christianity would have stopped in its tracks. But in fact, the Resurrection is basically impossible to disprove. The existence of Jesus and the early church are verified by historians, governors - and even satirists. I can think of no reason, outside of theological or philosophical bias, to find Christianity to be less logical than atheism. To be an atheist, you need to assume you know enough about the universe that you can reasonably say there is no God. But how can anybody seriously make that claim?

Not at all. An atheist only needs to not believe in a god.

But you seem to be arguing that Christianity is more logical than atheism because it has more answers. But are those answers correct? Just because you have an answer, doesn't mean it's correct.

[Rainn]

I think that one of the real defensive moves of Atheism is that it stands for nothing. If you don't "believe" in a god... bam you are an atheist.

And so, there is no real great way to debate an atheist because they have no belief structure that sets them apart. You can't find out what they believe unless you talk to an atheist and then there is nothing to stop him from contradicting himself in any way he chooses because his beliefs hinge on nothing or anything. Also, his beliefs might be completely different from the next atheist you meet.

For instance, i know an atheist who doesn't like Christianity because God is evil and his followers have caused wars and death. When i confront him with Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, (all atheists) who have mathematically killed more people in like ten years than than the crusades did in 200 years... he has no response and that is fine. He can say... well they were not real atheists... or there is a greater population now... or it is still a better system... or those guys were crazy (implying he is not) And I have no recourse because Atheism has no standard above or beyond that there "is no God". My friend also believes in aliens. Probably because he is lonely or needs some sort of higher power. I really don't know.

It is a great built in defense. Where as, everything I believe i have to back up with the bible or i look like an idiot to this guy and even then he won't budge an inch.

The idea is that the individual asserting the positive claim holds the burden of proof. So, if your goal is to substantiate your belief then it must be backed up by evidence.

[Rainn]

Of course it makes more sense than atheism. It explains the root of our suffering condition as humans. It tells a story of a loving Father who tries to tell His children, over and over again, "Stay away from the evil stuff, it'll kill you!"

Where as atheism says that there is no good or evil, we're creatures of evolution and instinct. Our emotions are related to our animal past, our sense of pain related to being an animal of prey in times long past. As we learned to use tools, like the femur bone of a fallen animal, to defend ourselves. Our ancient ancestors worshiped stone idols, and other such things. Therefore, religion sort of evolved like we humans did over time, they reason. The whole atheist plot is spelled out in films such as "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "The Planet of the Apes". It's not hard to imagine these sci-fi gurus out there thinking of plots that don't include a God. Always notice though, how their general message is that we humans are causing our own suffering... And they're right! But not for the right reasons.

Either God exists, or He doesn't. It all boils down to choice, what you want to believe. I could tell my atheist friend a million times about how loving and caring God is, but he wouldn't listen, he made up his mind. Just plant seeds and lead by example.

Oh and I forgot to mention, how exactly this ties into the question at hand? Easily put, only one must be true if you are going to put them in competition with each other. Both can't be entirely true. By putting this question as a competition between Christianity and atheism, you're basically giving credit to atheism. You can't win that fight. Sorry. Their logic will always trump yours. Trust me... lol.

We're getting into epistemology, which is a discussion of its own. However, I will say that I cannot choose to believe something. Either a claim meets ones epistemic criteria for what constitutes justifiable belief causing them to believe it, or it does not and they do not believe it.

[Youssarian]

An atheist can answer those questions like anyone else, the answers just wouldn't include a god. Whether they are correct or not is a different matter.

Alright, I must reword my statements. They do have answers, but are they sufficient? Are they correct? I wouldn't think so.

Not at all. An atheist only needs to not believe in a god.

Specifically, to say "There is no God," thus be atheist, you need to know enough about the universe to be able to reasonably make that claim. But again, how can you know that?

But you seem to be arguing that Christianity is more logical than atheism because it has more answers. But are those answers correct? Just because you have an answer, doesn't mean it's correct.

I'd say the answers are correct.

[DurbanDude]

Is Christianity more logical than atheism and if so why do you believe that Christianity is more logical than atheism?

Christianity is more logical, however not quite proven enough that atheists can't find some excuse not to believe it. Because the earth is filled with false alternative reasoning, it still requires faith to believe in Christianity.

The fossil record shows an explosion of life in the sea and on land. Evolution's explanation that DNA increased in size from 1 million base pairs to 3 billion base pairs is difficult to fathom because mutational increases in the DNA usually cause damage and are rarely slightly favourable. The most logical projection from observed DNA mutations is general extinctions over time, which is what has been happening, to equate mutations in DNA with explosions of life in the ancient past seems to be merely a hypothesis, not even slightly observable in reality. ie there is absolutely no evidence for evolution just because of this one point.

The bible shows an extreme tendency to leave a good record of proven prophetic fulfilment. Which shows it is an inspired book. The book of Daniel is good proof of this, because Daniel was known to be written a few hundred years BC and yet Daniel predicted the rise and fall and interaction of kingdoms and even the first coming of Jesus with perfect accuracy.So did Jesus predict the destruction of Jerusalem. So I would say that Christianity is more logical, even though its not a matter of logic, but faith that draws us to Christianity.

The way I see it, before we become Christians we have a more logical and more eternal part of us that is lying dormant and does not rely on the brain at all. This is known as our spirit. Now why rely on the limited biological brain with its ability to be swayed by pre-conceptions and to think its way around the truth? We have something greater and even more intelligent lying dormant within us, and when this eternal spirit comes across truth, it responds well to it. Our spirit becomes excited and wishes to embrace the truth when it hears the truth, but our minds can prevent our spirits from doing this, and our minds can reject the truth. This is what happens everytime someone hears about Jesus, they either recognise the truth deep within their souls, and embrace it, recognising the higher authority than the brain thats confirming the truth in our spirits, or they reject the gospel. To me it always makes sense to listen to the higher intelligence communicating more on a spiritual level, that makes our spirits alive and confirming great truths. This is true life, compared to relying just on the brain, which is logically faulty. the brain is designed to interaction with emotions and with a strong tendency to keep confirming our previous conclusions even if that requires hanging tenaciously onto limited logic. Thus the greatest minds can conclude incorrect conclusions just because creativity and preconceived ideas and intelligent comebacks can sometimes override pure evidence.

[Rainn]

Alright, I must reword my statements. They do have answers, but are they sufficient? Are they correct? I wouldn't think so.

Why not? I'm not even sure which answers you're addressing. It seems as if you are saying any answer without "god" posited, is by default incorrect.

Specifically, to say "There is no God," thus be atheist, you need to know enough about the universe to be able to reasonably make that claim. But again, how can you know that?

Atheism does not necessitate proclaiming "there is no god". However, there are certain god concepts that can be outright dismissed based upon how they are defined, and I would think you'd agree with me on this (unless you believe in every single god that has been defined). Depending on the definition of the god, an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. As just an example. If I tell you I am hold a pencil in my hand, and you look at both of my hands and notice that they are both open and holding nothing at all, you could positively conclude that I am not holding a pencil. Why? Because the claim is a claim that necessitates evidence of me holding a pencil (like me actually holding a pencil), and if that evidence is absent then you can conclude the pencil is too.

I'd say the answers are correct.

Why? And what are those answers?

[the rookie]

An atheist can answer those questions like anyone else, the answers just wouldn't include a god. Whether they are correct or not is a different matter.

Are you an atheist?

[BrianW]

He's not a Christian that's for sure.

[Youssarian]

Why not? I'm not even sure which answers you're addressing. It seems as if you are saying any answer without "god" posited, is by default incorrect.

Question: Is there objective purpose to life?

The atheist would answer either say "No" or "I don't know." This essentially says that we as humans are bereft of meaning, purpose, and value. The universe is set to die many eons from now, and if anything we do remains until that time, as it stands even that will come to nothing. A very bleak outlook indeed.

However if you notice, we all seem to want some kind of purpose, some reason for being here. We ask, "Is there all there is in this life?" The atheist could say we make our own purpose. Fair enough. We all have goals to accomplish in this life. I want to be a writer and programmer some day. But without a framework of objective purpose, meaning, and morality, all we do comes to naught.

The Christian answer is that yes, we do have a purpose. That provides the better, more coherent and logical explanation. Instead of "all is fair play because we're all doomed anyway," it gives us reason to get up in the morning and do something with this life. But objective morals, purpose, and meaning can only be found in God.

Question: Where do the concepts of good and evil come from?

I think the better wording for my question is, "By what standard do we measure good and evil?" There's basically two options. First we could say that good and evil are things made up by humans. That runs the problem of ultimately being relative. What's good for you is good for you, and what's good for me is good for me. By this atheistic, God-excluding reasoning, good and evil don't actually exist outside of a person's mind or a group's consensus. Torturing babies for fun is only bad if you think it's bad.

Do you think there are such things as good and evil? Even if you did, then how could you try to force your idea of good and evil on anyone else, since it's all relative? You wouldn't have the right to stop the torturer because even though you think it's evil, that person may say it's alright.

The better explanation for the root of good and evil is a standard that exists outside of us. A moral lawgiver, if you will. But can inanimate objects tell us what's right or wrong? Of course not. The better explanation is a personal outside standard. Which we call God.

Question: Where did the universe come from?

There's an age old argument out there called the Kalam cosmological argument which I think fits here. It begins on a couple of factual premises and from there concludes the most likely source of the universe's existence.

Premise 1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Simple enough. I began to exist because my parents reproduced and I was conceived. A computer doesn't exist until somebody puts it together. Things which go from not existing to existing had a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Big Bang theory. We went from not existing to existing.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Something made the universe. We didn't just pop into existence out of nowhere. But what made the universe? Whatever it is, it needs to exist outside of space and time. It cannot be made of matter or energy. Since it's not material, it can't be changeable. Only two things fit this description. Abstract objects such as numbers and mathematical laws, or unembodied minds. Well, I'm sure we'll both agree that abstract objects can't make anything happen; that's their definition. When did the number seven make, say, a flower pop into being? By simple process of elimination we find the best cause for the universe is the mind, which we call God.

Sure there's the idea of the multiverse but it has issues. First of all, where is the evidence??? We can't peer outside of our own universe. If it's out there then at least for now, we can't know. Second, it's sooo much more likely that if a universe did randomly come into being in the multiverse, it shouldn't be one where we could exist. It's enormously improbable. Third, the multiverse itself must have a beginning. In 2003 three cosmologists created the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. It states that any universe (or multiverse!) that is, on average, in a state of expansion MUST have a beginning. So if the multiverse is expanding and creating new universes, what is the origin of the multiverse? This shows the multiverse doesn't eliminate God, it just pushes back the chain of creation one step.

Atheism does not necessitate proclaiming "there is no god".

What is your definition of atheism? For me it is the belief that there is no God. After all its roots are 'a-' which means without, and 'theos' which means God.

However, there are certain god concepts that can be outright dismissed based upon how they are defined, and I would think you'd agree with me on this (unless you believe in every single god that has been defined).

I'm with you there.

Depending on the definition of the god, an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Indeed.

As just an example. If I tell you I am hold a pencil in my hand, and you look at both of my hands and notice that they are both open and holding nothing at all, you could positively conclude that I am not holding a pencil. Why? Because the claim is a claim that necessitates evidence of me holding a pencil (like me actually holding a pencil), and if that evidence is absent then you can conclude the pencil is too.

Agreed.

Why? And what are those answers?

As I have said in the past, there is reason to believe that God exists. There are philosophical arguments - I've laid down a couple in this post - to believe so. There is also the existence of Jesus Christ. His life, death, and resurrection is definitely enough to believe that God exists. Jesus was not a fairly tale. There are men outside the Bible who speak of him - Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacticus, Pliny the Younger, and the Toledoth Jesu, to name a few. The writings of the Bible itself are corroborated by archaeological finds and when you get in the nitty gritty, you see that you can't make a very good alternative explanation to the resurrection. With the existence of God a sound thing, it's obviously more logical to follow Christianity.

[exiledchristian]

Is Christianity more logical than atheism and if so why do you believe that Christianity is more logical than atheism?

NO - Some if not most Christians believe everyone came from Adam which is similar to evolution,the hypocrisy with that is the condemnation of evolution,yet the believing of the doctrine that everyone has their ancestry with Adam....

[BrianW]

Am I the only one who has noticed the OP joined the site, made one post and hasn't even been back to see what kind of answers he got or if anybody tried to answer him?

This is one of those logic puzzle questions that trolls love to throw out.

[Youssarian]

Am I the only one who has noticed the OP joined the site, made one post and hasn't even been back to see what kind of answers he got or if anybody tried to answer him?

This is one of those logic puzzle questions that trolls love to throw out.

However it looks like the OP is indeed a Christian, if the testimony link in his profile means anything.

Indeed. Meh, I need the field experience.

[Rainn]

He's not a Christian that's for sure.

At first I was puzzled by this post. It felt like I was doing something wrong. It turns out I am. I went back and re-read the rules, but I didn't read the sticky post in "Christian Answer" sub forum until jsut now. I'm breaking rule 3 which states

3. Non Christians may post in the Special Forums section of this Message board. Outside of the Special forums section you may post in Introductions, Prayer Request and Chat to moderator's. Please read the specific rules for each forum before posting.

So I apologize and will humbly bow out. However, I'd like to address Youssarian's post in the Areopagus section, if that's OK. It's a very insightful post deserving of a response.

In any case, I hope I offered some insight without disturbing the peace, so to speak.

[BrianW]

That post was in direct reference to your profile page in which you marked "No. I am not a Christian."

If you would like to post a response to Youssarian's post in this thread we can make an exception in this case I think. I hate to just let a discussion hang in this way and you are right, it is a very insightful post.
In case you missed it I would also like to point out DurbanDude's post (#21) as I thought that it was quite good and insightful as well.

After that you'll have to restrict yourself to Special Forums section of this Message board I'm afraid.
You can also make another thread on the subject on the Special Forums board if you like.

Thank you for understanding.