The argument is that a perfectly Loving God who has created this perfect world would not create worms that eat children's eyes. Thus, a perfectly Loving God doesn't exist.
So this "argument", is based on a strawman fallacy - distortion of someone else's argument or view by exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's position, it's much easier to attack their view and present your own position as being reasonable; but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
The fact is, that God created various forms of life according to their kinds, with the ability to reproduce and fill the earth (Genesis 1:21– 22, 24–28). This view includes the concepts that God had purpose in what He created and that it originally was very good (Genesis 1:31; Isaiah 45:18). Disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and "bad bugs" like the worms referenced are descendants of that which was non-harmful. We now live in a fallen world, and all creation “groans” under the consequences of our sin (Romans 8:22).
Why would a loving God "create" a worm that destroys children's eyes? This is what is known as a loaded question - a complex question that contains an assumption or accusation that the person being questioned is likely to disagree with, or a question that has a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty.
The most famous example is: Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes, and at best, you are a former wife-beater. But this is the tactic used; the question assumes that God created the worm in question. But, He didn't.
Furthermore, the question posed by those in the vid is valid; if one thinks that only the physical exists [i.e. Philosophical Naturalism] - and thus every event/action in the world must be the result of the interaction of particles in antecedent physical states, in accordance to the physical laws - how can they say that anything is bad or evil? All actions/events are just the result of unguided, unintentional, unintelligent, purposeless, goalless process.
So in their worldview, how can anything be said to be bad or good?
A further problem is, how can they say that they are reasoning or thinking critically - defined as "careful thinking directed to a goal" [per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] if they have no dominion of their thoughts? They cannot make any molecule act in a manner inconsistent with the physical laws; i.e. their thoughts must come via interaction of particles in antecedent physical states in accordance to the physical laws. Again, all actions/events [including human thought] are just the result of unguided, unintentional, unintelligent, purposeless, goalless process.
Thus, Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting as a physical-only model of the world cannot account for human reasoning - i.e. goal-directed thinking.
Rationality Rules seems to assume Philosophical Naturalism, which leads to used two self-refuting statements; the existence of morality and the existence of reason are not grounded in Philosophical Naturalism. Rationality Rules used that plus two logical fallacies to try to refute Christianity. So, FOUR fatal errors in one short vid - an interesting strategy by a You-tuber by the name of "Rationality" Rules.
[this assumes that Rationality Rules is a Philosophical Naturalist - but given his vids with regard to miracles, it's likely true]
No comments:
Post a Comment