The Ice Swan: A Logical Rebuttal to Atheism

Last week a close friend who has been nothing but a devout follower of Christ his entire life approached me questioning his faith in God. For the past two months he had been listening to a prominent atheist and anarchist named Stefan Molyneux on youtube. Stefan is a debater and has gone on in length about the past and current evils by government and religious organizations that he also sees as instigators of force. His arguments are appealing to the rational mind even if his conclusions aren’t always comfortable or agreeable.

stefan

– Atheist Stefan Molyneux

The premise of Stefan’s argument against a creator is as old as man. “If I can’t prove it rationally then he doesn’t exist and if he doesn’t exist then I need not concern myself with the issue.” The demand then becomes “prove to me that god exists and do it without all that mumbo jumbo that you call faith, do it without manipulating my feelings. Those aren’t reliable anyway.”

Not being able to trust your feelings about God and being faced with such a demand for indisputable proof is an intimidating position that many good people are finding themselves in in our culture. It doesn’t hurt to establish a better rational argument for a creator. I will attempt to do just that.

In physics class I learned that molecules will behave seemingly irrational as individual units. This means that when a substance such as water is heated that the vast majority of the molecules will speed up, some will stay the same speed and a tiny minority will slow down or even stop. Microscopically the reaction by each molecule is random but unless you are only dealing with a few molecules then knowing this doesn’t seem to have much value because large bodies of molecules will statistically do what you want every time.

I asked my teacher then. “So if I were to pour a drop of water on a hot pan then theoretically it isn’t impossible for it to freeze?” He rolled his eyes at me and answered “yes, but you would never see that happen with so many molecules, you could use the whole ocean on that experiment and never get close.” It’s like the people that say if you have one hundred billion apes just banging on keyboards for half an eternity that you will eventually get the full work of Shakesphere with no errors. Perhaps in theory. In theory I could pour a gallon of water on a hot pan and get an ice sculpture in the shape of a swan.

By any measure our planet is unique. We have never encountered an atmosphere so perfect to life as our’s is. Earth isiceswan the perfect distance from the sun, any further and we would all freeze, any closer we would burn up. The moon is just the right size and distance to create tides in the oceans. We have abundant water that cleans itself, we have a magnetic field that keeps out harmful radiation. These are just a few, scientists have determined some 200 parameters for life.

As amazing as the planet is life is even more incredible. There is no hard evidence to support the theory that life can happen by accident. We only know that it is there. Not only do we have life but there are intelligent (enough) people that can debate abstract ideas and create things themselves.

Science teaches us that the Earth so far as we know is unique in our Universe. When we peer out into stars and view the planets we have not found one in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that meets all the life supporting standards that Earth does. We have not found a single other one.

Life itself is so rare that even if we were to find a planet with life supporting standards that meet ours then we have to find life there too. What are the odds of that? Maybe one in a million? Less? We haven’t even been able to reproduce life from scratch in labs. Then that this life morphed into every else? That theory has holes too.

my pet ape Now if I were to hand an atheist a sculpted ice swan and tell him that it was created by accident from dropping an ounce of water on a hot pan that would be more likely than his explanation for his own existence. If I were to hand an atheist like Stefan the copies of all of Shakespeare’s works and say “this was made by my pet ape randomly banging on a keyboard; enjoy” then that would be still be more likely than a human brain existing by some strange series of coincidences. You must condition yourself to go into a state of denial that deep.

Atheists like to suppose that they are rationally superior for denying the Creator yet they deny the evidence pointing to him with such determination and against such incredible odds. Science has provided us with Occam’s Razor, the theory with fewer assumptions is usually right. As for me, I find that the explanation of a writer is more likely than the monkeys.

 

Besides, taking terrible profile pictures, Jeremy also who works with libertarian think-tank Libertas Institute of Utah and is a graduate in Political Science from the University of Utah

Besides, taking terrible profile pictures, Jeremy also who works with libertarian think-tank Libertas Institute of Utah and is a graduate in Political Science from the University of Utah

About the Author

Jeremy Cordon

Besides, taking terrible profile pictures, Jeremy also works with libertarian think-tank Libertas Institute of Utah and is a graduate in Political Science from the University of Utah

1 Comment on "The Ice Swan: A Logical Rebuttal to Atheism"

  1. If you’re trying to stoop to the level of logical debate, don’t logic so poorly. Below, I link some of your logical fallacies. What makes religion beautiful is its lack of evidence, that we believe and structure our lives around something we cannot prove to another. This post is poorly written.

    http://imgur.com/a/u81Rl

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*