| Text
| - 1970.0
- For a segment which purports to offer answers to difficult questions, this may be the most ridiculous answer in the entire series. Setting aside the fact that the historicity of Jesus is far from established, this response amounts to an assertion that Adam and Eve were real because the Bible says so. The circular reasoning involved should be obvious. Even if one accepts that Jesus was an historical figure, there's no evidence that the genealogies listed for him are accurate, especially when the two genealogies listed for him are different and contradict each other.
- This is an example of begging the question, as the point which he's attempting to prove is contained in his premise. Anything created must have a creator, but he hasn't demonstrated that what he means by "creation" is actually a creation. The appearance of design, purpose or complexity alone is not sufficient to posit an intelligent creator.
When he asks questions like, "When you see a building, how do you know there was a builder?", his answer is "The building is absolute proof of the builder." This avoids the important question about how we recognize design. He's relying on common sense and a lack of critical thinking, to support the idea that this is a natural, obvious and reliable assumption.
In truth, we recognize that the building is designed because we have an abundance of evidence that supports that conclusion and no evidence to support the idea that buildings are naturally occurring. We possess, or can attain by research, empirical evidence about the history of a given building; who designed it, who built it, what methods they used, etc. We can also learn about the general history of buildings and other structures, throughout recorded history. All of this evidence, and more, in conjunction with a lack of evidence supporting the idea that buildings occur naturally, lead us to the reliably supported conclusion that a given building had a builder. We're not always consciously aware of this process, as we've come to trust our intuition without constantly analyzing why this trust is deserved.
Considering a human, for example. We know that humans are the result of a natural process . Science has proven to be the most reliable method for explaining reality and its reliability supports the position that, until evidence to the contrary is presented, natural explanations exist for all phenomena. Ray, and others, aver that the natural world must have a supernatural, intelligent creator...a position wholly unsupported by evidence.
Additionally, when humans create things, they use pre-existing material. To compare the creation of the universe by a god to the creation of objects by humans is to imply that this god used pre-existing matter to do it. This, of course, still leads one to ask, "where did this matter come from?"
- Despite this claim, neither Ray, nor anyone else, has presented a "scientific" proof of the existence of God. This accomplishment, which may be definitionally impossible, would be the most significant scientific accomplishment in human history. It would be front-page news and the subject of considerable media coverage...all people would convert overnight. However, because there are dozens of religions, this is clearly not the case.
- This appeal to emotion is an attempt to make Christians feel guilty, and deserving of severe punishment, for failing to proselytize. Christianity includes a number of different doctrinal beliefs and not all Christians agree with the particular evangelical obligations and methods advocated here. Ray and Kirk cite various theologians and Biblical passages, though they offer no other justification for their particular exegetical interpretations.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)