Thought on Denying Eye-Witness Testimony

This ‘Thought’ was inspired by the following post:


As is the case with some atheists, the man who broadly and/or strongly rejects the trustworthiness and reliability of eye-witness testimony on the basis of studies and/or scientific findings which allegedly show its unreliability is a self-undermining fool, for in order to rationally believe and accept and trust a study or scientific finding, a person must not only trust the eye-witness testimony of the people who did the study, and those who reviewed and edited the study, and those who reported the study, etc., but a person must also trust his own sort of eye-witness testimony to himself concerning seeing the study, remembering the study, and so on; thus, to reject eye-witness testimony in a broad and/or strong way is to simultaneously reject knowledge, rationality, and science altogether….it is, in other words, utter folly.


A Comment about Atheism & Open-Mindedness

The Out Atheists says:

“Exactly one thing ive learned is theists are WAY more scared to say i dont know. i find atheists are the first to answer a question with “i dont know, but some day well find out”

Apart from the horrendous grammar and punctuation–a forgivable, but also an easily remediable fault–I must say that I find this comment quite humorous. Why? Because it is the exact opposite of what I have found. Consider:

How did life originate?

Atheist: Well, it had to be naturalistically…God definitely did not do it.

How did the universe originate?

Atheist: Well, it had to be naturalistically…God definitely did not do it.

How did consciousness originate?

Atheist: Well, it had to be naturalistically…God definitely did not do it.

And so on and so forth.

See, the atheist is willing to say “I don’t know…” only while sneaking in “…but it absolutely had to be a natural event (even though we have no evidence for it being a natural event)” through the back door. So the atheist is not some open-minded person willing to admit that he does not know; rather, he is a close-minded dogmatist who is only willing to say “I don’t know” so long as he does so while simultaneously whispering “but I absolutely know it was a natural event.” Thus, the atheist is no more open-minded than the theist who says “God did it, although I don’t know how He did so.”

And so, the moral of the story is this: Don’t buy atheist bullshit about them being so vastly open-minded and intellectual humble, because they aren’t.

A Further Thought on the ‘Who Created…’ Game

It is the case that if the atheist seriously mounts the “Well then, who (or what) caused God?” objection against theism, then the theist can just as readily mount the “Well then, who (or what) caused the universe?” objection against the atheist; and it should be pointed out that this game is much worse for the atheist than the theist, for while it is easy and natural to demand a cause for the universe–there does not, after all, seem to be anything necessary about the universe’s existence–the fact is that it is absurd to ask for the cause of a being which must, by definition, be uncaused in order for the being to be what it is (for God, to be the greatest conceivable being, which He is, must be uncaused, for all other things being equal, an uncaused being is greater than a caused one) and thus while it makes sense to ask for a cause of the universe, it does not make sense to do so for God.

Thought on the ‘Who Created God’ Objection

Note that if the atheist truly believes that the ‘Who (or what) created God?’ question is a knock-down retort against the theist, then the same atheist should realize that the ‘Who (or what) created the universe?’ question is an equally devastating objection against the atheist, and thus the atheist gains no advantage over the theist in posing this causal question, for both the atheist and the theist seek after some ultimate first cause; and note further that if the atheist can claim that the universe has no cause and is just a brute fact, then, by parity, nothing stops the theist from using this defense as well, so the ‘who caused…’ question, if actually taken seriously–and it should not be–is as allegedly deadly to atheism as it is to theism.

Thought on Christianity and Calling It Truth

One of the things that I truly dislike–although I admit to doing it myself from time-to-time–is when Christians call Christianity a “faith” or “their faith” or “the Christian faith”, for while the Christian is indeed faithful and trusts in the Lord (which is the true meaning of ‘faith’), the fact of the matter is that Christianity is first-and-foremost the Truth; and so, even if only for propaganda purposes, forget calling Christianity the “Christian faith” and call it what it truly is: the Christian Truth.