A. L. de Silva's Critique of Christianity

(Smash Wrench)

Registered Member
Yay my first post! ^^;

I thought this has some pretty potent arguments against God's existence. Christians: try and prove each of them wrong, if you can. ;)

He/she is a buddhist by the way, though the arguments can stand for athiests and such aswell. You *might* want to print it out to read.
http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/bsq/budchr0.htm

The Existence of the Universe
In their attempts to prove God's existence, Christians will sometimes say "The universe didn't just happen, someone must have made it and therefore there must be a creator God." There is a major flaw in this argument. When it starts to rain ~e do not ask "Who is making it rain?" because we know that rain is caused not by someone but by something - natural phenomena like heat, evaporation, precipitation, etc. When we see smooth stones in a river, we do not ask "Who polished those stones?" because we know that the smooth surface of the stones was caused not by someone but by something - natural causes like the abrasive action of water and sand.

All of these things have a cause (or causes) but this need not be a being. It is the same with the universe - it was not brought into being by a God but by natural phenomena like nuclear fission, gravity, inertia, etc. However, even if we believe that a divine being is needed to explain how the universe came into existence, what proof is there that it was the Christian God? Perhaps it was created by the Hindu God, the God of Islam or one of the gods worshipped by tribal religions. After all most religions, not only Christianity, claim that their God or gods created the universe.


The Argument from Design
In response to the above refutation, the Christian will maintain that the universe does not merely exist but its existence shows perfect design. There is, a Christian might say, an order and balance which point to its having been designed by a higher intelligence, and that this higher intelligence is God. But as before, there are some problems with this argument.

Firstly, how does the Christian know that it was his God who is behind creation? Perhaps it was the gods of non-Christian religions who designed and created the universe.

Secondly, how does the Christian know that only one God designed everything? In fact, as the universe is so intricate and complex we could expect it to need the intelligence of several, perhaps dozens, of gods to design it. So if anything the argument from design proves that there are many gods, not one as Christians claim.

Next, we would have to ask, is the universe perfectly designed? We must ask this because if a perfect God designed and created the universe, then that universe should be perfect. Let us first look at inanimate phenomena to see whether they show perfect design. Rain gives us pure water to drink but sometimes it rains too much and people lose their lives, their homes and their means of livelihood in floods. At other times it doesn't rain at all and millions die in drought and famine. Is this perfect design? The mountains give us joy as we see them reaching up into the sky. But landslides ~nd volcanic eruptions have for centuries caused havoc and death. Is this perfect design? The gentle breezes cool us but storms and tornadoes repeatedly cause death and destruction. Is this perfect design? These and other natural calamities prove that inanimate phenomena do not exhibit perfect design and therefore that they were not created by a perfect God.

Now let us look at animate phenomena to see whether they reveal perfect design. At a superficial glance, nature seems to be beautiful and harmonious; all creatures are provided for and each has its task to perform. However, as any biologist will confirm, nature is utterly ruthless. To live, each creature has to feed on other creatures and struggle to avoid being eaten by other creatures. In nature, there is no time for pity, love or mercy. If a loving God designed everything, why did such a cruel design result? The animal kingdom is not only imperfect in the ethical sense, it is also imperfect in that it often goes wrong. Every year ~lions of babies are born with physical or mental disabilities, or are stillborn or die soon after birth. Why would a perfect creator God design such terrible things?

So if there is design in the universe, much of it is faulty and cruel. This would seem to indicate that the universe was not created by a perfect all-loving God.


The First Cause Argument
Christians will sometimes say that everything has a cause, that there must be a first cause, and that God is the first cause. This old argument contains its own refutation, for if everything has a first cause then the first cause must also have a cause.

There is another problem with the first cause argument. Logically there is no good reason to assume that everything had a single first cause. Perhaps six, ten or three hundred causes occurring simultaneously caused everything.


Miracles
Christians claim that miracles are sometimes performed in God's name and that the fact that this happens proves that God exists. This is an appealing argument until it is looked at a little more closely.

While Christians are quick to claim that because of their prayers the blind could see, the deaf could hear and crooked limbs were straightened, they are very slow in producing evidence to back up their claims. In fact, some Christians are so anxious to prove that miracles have occurred at their prayer meetings that the truth often gets lost in a flood of wild claims, extravagant boasts, and sometimes even conscious lies.

It is true that things which are unusual and difficult to explain do sometimes happen during religious events - but not just for Christians. Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, etc. all claim that their God or gods sometimes perform miracles. Christianity certainly does not have a monopoly on miracles. So, if miracles performed in God's name prove the existence of the Christian God, then miracles performed in the name of numerous other gods must likewise prove that they too exist.

Christians may try to overcome this fact by claiming that, when miracles occur in other religions, they are done through the power of the Devil. Perhaps the best way to counter this claim is to quote the Bible. When Jesus healed the sick, his enemies accused him of doing this through the power of the Devil. He answered that healing the sick results in good and if the Devil went around doing good he would destroy himself (Mk 3:22-26). Therefore the same could be said for the miracles performed by Hindus, Jews or Sikhs. If these miracles result in good, how can they be the work of the Devil?


The Argument for God's Necessity
Christians will often claim that only by believing in God will people have the strength to deal with life's problems, and therefore that belief in God is necessary. This claim is apparently supported by numerous books written by Christians who have endured and overcome various crises through the power of God. Some of these books make highly inspiring reading, so the claim that one can cope with problems only with God's help sounds rather convincing - until we look a little more deeply.

If this claim is true, we would expect most of the non-Christian people of the world to lead lives of emotional distress, confusion and hopelessness while most Christians through their faith in God would be able to unfailingly deal with their problems and to never need to seek help from counsellors or psychiatrists. It is clear, however, that people from non-Christian religions and even those with no religion are just as capable of dealing with life's crises as Christians are sometimes even better. It is also sometimes the case that people who are devout Christians lose their faith in God after being confronted with serious personal problems. Consequently, the claim that belief in God is necessary to cope with and overcome problems is baseless.

The Testimony
After everything else has failed, the Christian may finally try to convince us that God exists by appealing to the emotions. Such a person will say, perhaps quite truthfully, "I used to be unhappy and discontented but after giving myself to God I am happy and at peace with myself." Such testimonies can be deeply moving, but what do they prove? There are millions of people whose lives became equally happy and meaningful after they embraced Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam. Likewise, there are no doubt many people whose lives have not changed for the better after they became Christians - the same weaknesses and problems sometimes remain. So this argument, like all the others, does not prove the existence of the Christian God.

- - - - - - - - -

The Problem of Free Will
For the religious life to be meaningful we must have free will, we must be able to choose between good and evil. If we do not have free will we cannot be held responsible for what we do.

According to Christians, God is all-knowing - he knows all the past, all the present and all the future. If this is so, then God must know everything we do long before we do it. This means that our whole life must be predetermined and that we act not according to the free exercise of our wills but according to our predetermined natures. If we are predetermined to be good we will be good and if we are predetermined to be evil we will be evil. We will act not according to our will or choice but according to the way God has already foreseen we will act. Although Christians will insist that we do have free will, God's omniscience simply makes this logically impossible. And that people will act only as God determines is verified in the Bible

If people are evil it is because God has chosen to make them evil (Rom 1:24-28) and caused them to disobey him (Rom 11:32). If they do not understand God's message it is because he has made their minds dull (Rom 11:8) and caused them to be stubborn (Rom 9:18). God prevents the Gospel from being preached in certain areas (Act 16:6-7) and he fixes long before it will happen when a person will be born and when he or she will die (Act 17:26). Those who were going to be saved were chosen by God before the beginning of time (ii Tim 1:9 Eph 1:11). If a person has faith and is thereby saved, their faith comes from God, not from any effort on their part (Eph 2:9-10). One may ask "If a person can only do what God predetermines them to do, how can God hold them responsible for their actions?" The Bible has an answer for this question.

But one of you will say to me: "If this is so, how can God find fault with anyone? For who can resist God's will?" But who are you, my friend, to answer God back? A clay pot does not ask the man who made it: "Why did you make me like this?" After all, the man who makes the pot has the right to use the clay as he wishes, and to make two pots from one lump of clay, one for special occasions and one for ordinary use. And the same is true of what God has done (Rom 9:19-22).

So apparently in Christianity a person's life and destiny are due purely to the whim of God and as mere humans we have no right to complain about what God has decided for us. The idea that we are all predetermined is quite consistent with the idea of an all-knowing God but it makes nonsense of the concept of making a' effort to do good or avoid evil.


The Problem of Evil
Perhaps the most potent argument against the existence of an all-powerful, all loving God is the undeniable fact that there is so much pain and suffering in the world. If there is really a God of love who has unlimited power, why doesn't h put an end to all evil? Christians try to answer this question in several ways.

Firstly, they will say that evil is caused by man not God and that if only ma would follow God's commandments there would be no pain, evil or suffering. However, while it is true that evils such as war, rape, murder and exploitation ca be blamed on humans, they can hardly be blamed for the millions who die each year in earthquakes, floods, epidemics and accidents, all of which are natural; events. In fact, according to the Bible, the germs that cause hideous diseases like TB, polio, cholera, leprosy etc. and all the misery, deformity and suffering to which they give rise, were created by God before he created man (Gen. 1:11-12).

Another way Christians will try to explain away evil is to say that it is God's punishment for those who do not follow his commandments. However this implies that terrible things happen only to bad people, which is certainly not true. We often hear of painful sicknesses or disasters befalling good people including good Christians, and likewise we often hear of really bad people who seem to have nothing but good fortune and success. So it cannot be said that suffering and evil are God's way of punishing sinners.

Next, Christians will say that God allows evil to exist in the world because he wants to give us the freedom to choose good over evil and thereby earn salvation. Evil, they will say, exists to test us. At first this seems to be a good explanation. If a man sees someone being beaten up by a bully he has a choice between turning away (doing wrong) or deciding to help the victim (doing right). If he decides to help then he has been tested and found good. However, as we have seen before, an all-knowing God must already know what choices a person will make so what is the point of testing us? Also, even if suffering and evil exist in the world to test us, couldn't an all-loving God think of a less cruel and less painful way to do this? It seems unloving and unfair to allow pain to be inflicted on one person so that another person can have the opportunity to choose between good and evil.

Some Christians will try to free God from responsibility for evil by saying that it is not created by God but by the Devil. This may be true but again if God is so loving why doesn't he simply prevent the Devil from doing this? In any case, who created the Devil in the first place? Surely it was God.

By this stage the Christian will start to get a bit desperate, shifting the argument from logic to pragmatism. He will say that even though there is suffering in the world we can use it as an opportunity to develop courage and patience. This is undoubtedly true but it still does not explain why an all-loving God allows babies to die of cancer, innocent bystanders to be killed in accidents, and leprosy victims to suffer deformity and pain. In fact the existence of so much unnecessary pain, misery and evil in the world is very strong evidence that there is no all-loving all powerful God.


Why Create?
Christians claim that God is perfect, that he is complete in every way, but if God really did create the universe this would prove that he was not perfect. Let us examine why. Before God created the universe there was nothing - no sun, no earth, no people, no good or evil, no pain - nothing but God who was, according to Christians, perfect. So if God was perfect and nothing but perfection existed, what motivated God to create the universe and thus bring imperfection into being? Was it because he was bored and wanted something to do? Was it because he was lonely and wanted someone to pray to him?

Christians will say that God created everything because of his love of man, but this is impossible. God could not love humans before he created them any more than a woman could love her children before she had conceived them. God's need to create indicates that he was dissatisfied in some way and therefore not perfect. Christians might then say that God created spontaneously and without need or desire. However this would mean that the whole universe came into being without purpose or forethought and therefore it would mean that God was not a loving creator.

The Problem of the Hidden God
Christians claim that God wants us to believe in him so that we can be saved - but if this is so why doesn't God simply appear and perform a miracle so that everyone will see and believe? Christians will say that God wants us to believe in him out of faith, not because we see him with our eyes. However, according to the Bible, God in the past performed the most awesome miracles and often intervened dramatically in human affairs so that people would know his presence. So if he did so in the past, why doesn't he do so now?

Christians will say that God does perform miracles today (healing, solving personal problems etc) but being stubborn and evil most people refuse to believe. However these so-called miracles are individual and rninor and leave much room for doubt. If God performed a really impressive miracle which could have no other possible explanation, then most people certainly would believe.

According to the Bible when the Israelites wandered in the desert for forty years, God fed them by making food fall regularly from the sky (Ex16:4). During the 1980's, several million Ethiopian Christians died slowly and painfully from starvation due to a prolonged drought. God had then the opportunity to make food fall from the sky, as the Bible claims he did in the past, in order to prove his existence, his power and his love. Buddhists would say that God did not manifest his presence because he does not exist.
 
Last edited:
Isnt strange that you address your post ONLY to christians as if only christians believe in God ?? :rolleyes:
 
But the argument is only directed towards the Christian God o.o; The Gods of other religions are erm...different. (Except maybe Catholic?)
 
This article is not very well thought out. In certain places she assumes what Christians believe, and then she uses invalid arguments such as the universe being created by nuclear fission. The universe could not be created by natural means, since without the universe nature does not exist. Her arguments given for design are worthless, because mankind sinned ruining the perfect creation order. Nor are her arguments against free will or evil any better, since they assume what Christians believe and the existence free will anywhere implies the possibility of evil. The proof for the existence of the miracles is overwealming. So much so that if they were anything but miracles then then they would be believed.
 
okinrus said:
This article is not very well thought out. In certain places she assumes what Christians believe.
I dont think she makes any unreasonable assumptions. Every "assumption" she makes is something that ive heard from at least one christian before.
The universe could not be created by natural means, since without the universe nature does not exist.
Not necessarily, scientists are still undecided about that.
Her arguments given for design are worthless, because mankind sinned ruining the perfect creation order.
But mankind is just part of that "perfect creation order" how could we have been the ones to ruin it?
The proof for the existence of the miracles is overwealming. So much so that if they were anything but miracles then then they would be believed.
Care to back that up?
 
We humans look at the very last interation of the process, and from the time scale of a human, life shows intelligent design. That is, if WE wanted to design something like a lion, you would have to be some kind of super genious. From this we extrapolate a super genius god. What we do not see from our time scale is the millions and millions of small tragedies, the small imperfections that environmental circumstances weeded out. Life is harsh, only life that happens upon a good design or strategy survives.

I think the major difference in the two philosophies (creation vs. evolution) can be summed up with this question: There is a creative principle in the universe, is it essentially passive and impersonal, imbedded somehow in the structure of matter/space/energy as in buddhism, taoism, and evolutionary theory, or is it active and personal, directing things like a person would, as in religious theology?

I have heard people point out how perfect the earth's place in the universe is, how it is the perfect distance from the sun for liquid water to form, but not too hot for it to evaporate, how the atmosphere is self-regulating and perfect for us to breathe, how rare all these conditions are, and how this means someone must have set it up this way, it is too perfect to be random. But, consider this, only under these conditions would life have arised to ask this question.


It was a good answer that was made by one who when they showed him hanging in a temple a picture of those who had paid their vows as having escaped shipwreck, and would have him say whether he did not now acknowledge the power of the gods,—‘Aye,’ asked he again, ‘but where arethey painted that were drowned after their vows?’ And such is the way ofall superstition, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, orthe like; wherein men, having a delight in such vanities, mark the eventswhere they are fulfilled, but where they fail, though this happens muchoftener, neglect and pass them by. (Bacon 1620)
 
I dont think she makes any unreasonable assumptions. Every "assumption" she makes is something that ive heard from at least one christian before.
Yes, I'm sure I've heard many things from many atheist that you don't agree with. Christians, in general, are fairly freeminded people. A fundamentalist will have vastly different beliefs than a liberal Christian, so debating topics such as free will or what not depends whether the person is a Calivinist, Armenian, or believes in open theology.

Not necessarily, scientists are still undecided about that.
No, if one believes the universe(this includes everything that exists) was created, then it would have to be supernatural, since the natural is clearly part of the universe. Nevertheless, there are scientist who have proposed that the universe has always existed. This is besides the point, though.

But mankind is just part of that "perfect creation order" how could we have been the ones to ruin it?
Free will. One cannot believe in free will, yet at the same time not say that evil is possible. In fact, one who believes in free will must believe in the infinity of evil that is possible.

Care to back that up?
There are many more, but I will just post a few. The matter concerns what we believe. Extraordinary things do occur, but people do not want to believe. If 70,000 people said they saw a orange car, then you would probably believe them. But as soon as one mentions "miracle" then no one believes, since they do not want to believe.
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.fatima.org/story1.html">Fatima</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.zeitun-eg.org/">Zeitun</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.theeucharist.com/miracles.htm"> Eucharist miracles</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.padrepio.com/">Padre Pio</a></li>
</ul>
 
If 70,000 people said they saw a orange car, then you would probably believe them.
If 70,000 people saw an orange car, I have to believe that's what they saw. However, it may have actually been a yellow car, seen under a red light.
 
If 70,000 people saw an orange car, I have to believe that's what they saw. However, it may have actually been a yellow car, seen under a red light.
So, it's possible that those at Fatima and Zeitun saw something, but not something supernatural? I almost got this book that had accounts of 36 Eucharist miracles, one of which showed a paper with about thirty signatures of those who witnessed the event. Are these people lying or actually seeing something?
 
At Fatima, the case relies on the report of three children. Children are notoriously unrelyable witnesses, and believe in ghosts.
As far as Zeitun, they saw a woman on the roof, perhaps it was a real woman. Did anyone bother to go up and check? All kinds of strange things happen that are natural, ball lightning, for instance.
 
At Fatima, the case relies on the report of three children. Children are notoriously unrelyable witnesses, and believe in ghosts.
Well, I'm speaking of the 70,000 who saw the miracle of the sun. Overall, I see no reason to reject the children's witness, and Lucia has not denied it, though she is in old age now. If it was odd that 70,000 were mass delusional, it's even odder with the circumstances of the occurence.

As far as Zeitun, they saw a woman on the roof, perhaps it was a real woman. Did anyone bother to go up and check? All kinds of strange things happen that are natural, ball lightning, for instance.
If it was a real women, then there would be no way for her to get down from the roof since there was a large crowd. The Egyptian authorities checked to see if it was caused by a projection or what not.
 
I think these "miracles" are a good example of people believing what they want to believe. Even if there was no rational explanation for these events, scientists work on averages and trends. If a scientist measures something 100 times and the result is always around 4.5 except for one time when it measures 49.02, they will reject the odd result and conclude 4.5 is the true measurement. A religious person or those skeptical of science, might think that the odd measurement is the most interesting one, and attempt to explain just that one.
 
I think these "miracles" are a good example of people believing what they want to believe.
I don't deny that it's what I want to believe, though you do want to believe in the opposite. Correct? The corrabolated evidence along with the verified healings would suggest that a supernatural event occurred, something that is contrary to our normal understanding.

A religious person or those skeptical of science, might think that the odd measurement is the most interesting one, and attempt to explain just that one.
I think implicit in the belief in the supernatural is the belief that it rarely occurs.
 
okinrus said:
I don't deny that it's what I want to believe, though you do want to believe in the opposite. Correct? The corrabolated evidence along with the verified healings would suggest that a supernatural event occurred, something that is contrary to our normal understanding.

I think implicit in the belief in the supernatural is the belief that it rarely occurs.
----------
M*W: okinrus, something supernatural is only something that we human's cannot explain. I believe in mass hallucination. It's caused by brain chemicals like the DMT molecule. Someone make the comment about these phenomena being a "reflection" of some kind. Now, I'm not a sci-fi buff or anything like that, but when I read the word "reflection," I pondered for a moment how that could be an interesting and NATURAL phenomenon, yet since we don't have the technology to understand this natural phenomenon, we simply call it SUPERNATURAL. The idea of "reflection" in the universe really makes sense to me. Sound echoes for eternity. At some point, of course, we can no longer hear it echo, but that doesn't mean it's not heard somewhere in the universe, etc. Then I thought, reflection of an image possibly goes on forever, too. We reach a point where we can no longer see it, but somewhere out there in the universe, perhaps it can be seen in a distant place. I don't know, but I do believe in eternity. We just can't quite explain eternity either. What if we're ALL nothing but reflections in the universe. Maybe somewhere out there in a distant galaxy we are being reflected from Earth.
 
Back
Top