Logic ...

Hello Everyone,

I'm here again continuing my series on God vs Atheism or Creation vs Darwinian Evolution. In this post I will touch on logic. What seems logical and illogical. What Atheists/Darwinist perceive as logical and illogical. Now, what I will be discussing here is more of what has been discussed before but using it in a logical way and pointing out the differences between the logical views of Creation and God to the illogical views of the Atheist or Darwinist. Their illogical use of facts and words, and the claims they make that seem so far fetched. Lets begin shall we?


Thought process...

It's hard to comprehend the thought process of an Atheist/Darwinist because it's so unsystematic that it is difficult to find the logic within their arguments. As a matter of fact it is down right impossible. Where Atheist/Darwinist often fail at is of course their reasoning. You see, they have none. They ask illogical questions like, "Could God create a rock so big he could not lift it?" The question is self defeating. The question violates a logical principal known as the law of the excluded middle which states that a = 'not a'. How much power would it take to make a = not a? See how illogical the question is? That is a question I have been asked many times before and frankly my reply is "That question is so illogical that it has no baring on this discussion." This question is a set up, it distracts from the real question "Does God exist." The person posing this can "Can God lift a rock" question is not interested in the existence of God but intent on trapping the Christian. Since as Christians we believe that God is all powerful, then the question is set up to make one think, that 1. If God is all powerful then he can create a rock so big. 2. If he can't lift the rock then he's not all powerful. It's not a logical question. What they are really asking is this.."Can God can't?" Can God can't do something? The question is absurd and flawed. Only an Atheist/Darwinist who is illogical would ask such an illogical question.

As you can see it's an illogical thought process. Here are a few more questions that I have been asked by Atheists/Darwinist. I just also want to add that some of these answers to their questions took a lot of thought and research. Because I wasn't about to answer them with.."I don't know."
I was asked.."Can God create a being who's actions he can not predict?" No, then God would not be sovereign in certain ways. Another one I've been asked is. "Can God create a place where he can not be?" No, then he would not be omnipresent. The bible states that God upholds all things. See, Atheist have a flawed logic that has no real basis for their beliefs.



Illogical reasons why they don't believe in God..

In a recent debate I had with an Atheist/Darwinist, he gave me reasons as to why he did not believe in God. Here are his reasons.

"Finally, I would like to tell you why I do not believe in a God. A God should in my opinion, in order to actually be a God, be perfect and infallible. In Genesis, I understand (perhaps incorrectly) that God produces man in Gods image, thus man is perfect? And in general that all things God creates, animals included, are perfect. So my problems are: Human fetuses grow clearly visible tails. Until the 8. Week, at which point it starts disappearing again, although some few are born with an actual tail. To me this more than indicates that we share an ancestor with a tailed being, a sort of ape. At the same time, I could never understand why a God would make fetuses with tails, which are of no use."

Notice where he talks about babies growing tails within the womb of their mothers. He indicates that is an example of a common ancestry with a tailed being. Where he sees it as a common ancestry, I see as a common designer, but wait, earlier in our discussion he said..that we did not evolve from apes, but an ape type. 1. There is no evidence to this day that supports that theory. 2. If we did not come from apes then we must have come from an all human line, in which would refute the Darwinian belief that we all came from apes. So then who was our ancestor? Was it an ape or not? Their answer is.."It's ape like." That's not an answer nor is there evidence to support it. Another thing, not all humans are born with tails and the odds of that happening are slim. It is a mutation and not a beneficial one. Darwinist believe through BENEFICIAL mutations that we evolve into a higher species. Problem here, if we are to evolve into a higher species then having a tail would be backwards. Since we can not evolve backwards. So, a human with a tail is not evidence enough to prove Darwinian Evolution. So, here his logic has failed him. Now I would also like to touch on his first statement that God must be perfect to create the perfect being and then he asks "Were perfect?" What he fails to understand here is Adam made a choice and that choice he made ruined us all basically. Because of mans sin and free will, we are not perfect. Only God is perfect. I'm going to touch more on this subject soon in my post called "Free will." I did relay all this to him. But I will also say that we are not perfect only God is perfect. At the time of Adams creation God did not have to send his son to die on the cross, because there was no sin, no imperfection. And since we are imperfect that separates us from Gods perfection. Therefor Christ coming down to bridge the gap between our imperfections to the perfection of God. Again, I'll touch on this more in a later post.


Here is another reason why he does not believe in God. Now, Atheist/Darwinist believe that we have no need for some of our body parts or what they call vestigial organs. For example they believe we don't need all our toes. Problem, without our toes we would not be able to run very well and lose balance.

"Similarly, modern day whales, f.x. the Greenland whale, have a rudimentary pelvis. Whales have no legs, thus a pelvis is of no use to it. I could never understand why God would have made whales with a useless hip-section."

Remember God doesn't create things for no reason. Everything has a reason. Now, this section is a little forward in which I speak of the sexual organs of these magnificent creatures of God's creation. So, please do not be offended, it was used to describe their use, and if you look at it this way, God created these organs for this purpose.

My response:
"The pelvic bones of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known.

In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus.

The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion."

So, as you can see what he believes to be "vestigial" I believe that God created them for a purpose.


This next one is probably one of the silliest or most illogical reasons I have ever read. He states..

"Now, these are only a few examples. Other examples are that the "perfect" human eye has a blind spot, and that giraffes have 6 meters of tangled nerves, resulting in an inability to say anything (they're mute)"


Now, here's the problem with his example or reason I should say. He talks about the human eye being flawed. This is a statement made by Atheist/Darwinist for years and yet, they refuse to answer the simple question posed to them by making this statement. Let's go ahead and start with the claim that the human eye is "imperfect" Now, remember something..Atheist/Darwinist will only believe in what their told to believe by Atheistic scientists, who put their personal beliefs before science. I'm going to quote from Atheist/Darwinist Michael Shermer, he states..

"The anatomy of the human eye, in fact, shows anything but 'intelligence' in its design. It is built upside down and backwards, requiring photons of light to travel through the cornea, lens, aquaeous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells before they reach the light-sensitive rods and cones that transduce the light signal into neural impulses—which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain...."

Now, quickly, I will pose the question. He says the eye shows no intelligence, yet...he can see with it can he not? Of course, then the design of the eye works. Now, he's saying how wrong the eye is built, now he's comparing that to what? If you're going to say that the human eye is built wrong, you must compare it not an animals eye but to another humans eye. Guess what? They can't. They keep making illogical assumptions about how the human eye is flawed yet, having nothing to make the comparison. You can not compare a bad apple to a good orange, yes they both are fruits, and are both round. They both have seeds, but one is designed to be an orange and the other an apple. They both grow on trees, but they also have different properties to them. They are designed for a specific need. So to properly evaluate a bad apple you must have a perfect apple to make the comparison. Now, here is what I like to call a desperate attempt to validate their "bad eye" belief.

Mr. Shermer goes on to state..
""An intelligent designer, working with the components of this wiring, would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality. No one, for example, would suggest that the neural connections should be placed in front of the photoreceptor cells -- thus blocking the light from reaching them -- rather than behind the retina."

Funny thing, he talks like he knows how to create a better eye. I would challenge Mr. Shermer to go ahead and create a better eye. (Science has made several attempts and FAILED.) All so Mr. Shermer, why don't you call your eye doctor and have him rewire your eye and see what happens. Odds are, you're going to be blind.


They also make these assumptions.


"The result of this design is a blind spot in the human eye. The Mollusc eye has better vision and no blind spot."

People, the Mollusc is a snail. Now, snails die when you pour salt on them. Do you hear them complaining? It's not logical to compare a human to a snail. Here's the problem with arguing the errors of the eye to the perfect eye of the mollusc. If Darwinian Evolution were true, that means we came from simplicity to complexity, then why is it that the eye of the mollusc a more simple creature's eyes are far better than our own? I will tell you why, because we are designed according to our own species.

They also give this example..


"David Hitt asks an interesting question: "we are surrounded by examples of eyes at all stages of development, from the highly developed (but still flawed) human eye to simple light sensitive cells on some creatures, and everything in between. If they were created, why would God limit some creatures to poor sight and give good sight to others?"

This question or statement assumes that all creatures have a need for perfect sight. That is not true. The reason for it, and I'll say it again..is because we are designed according to our kind, and our needs.


One more..

"Turtles see in 4 primary colors whilst humans only see in three. The turtle therefore also has a better eye than a human."

Here's my response to this. So?? Do you hear anyone complaining that they don't see that 4th primary color? NO. This argument is more like that of a whining or jealous child. I'm reminded of the feisty Verruca Salt from Willie Wonka, who wanted everything better than the other kids or wanted more then what they had, because she felt she deserved it. This argument does not disprove the existence of God, but more proves that those who complain are more like that of an ungrateful child. It has no logic at all.


Now, I would also like to get back to the second part of the reasons the young Atheist/Darwinist gave me. If you recall he mentioned the eye and it's flaws. But he also mentions the giraffe. Here he states...


"hat giraffes have 6 meters of tangled nerves, resulting in an inability to say anything (they're mute)."


Now, here's my question. Since when do giraffes have any kind of need to say a word?? Anyone? He's basically saying that because giraffes can't talk, then that is part of the reason why he doesn't believe in God. Does that make much sense? NO. I will go into detail on a few things regarding the giraffe. Why is it that only this animal is designed the way it is? Let me show you what I mean.

Why is the heart of the Giraffe so big? Because the neck of the Giraffe extends so high into the air, the heart must contain an extraordinarily strong pump to force the blood from the lower body to the highest reaches of the brain. Thus, the first capability unique to the giraffe is a heart that is also a most powerful pump.

However, when the giraffe lowers its neck to drink, the blood that is circulating in its neck will suddenly come rushing down by the force of gravity. This sudden rush of blood is so strong, it would quickly cause the giraffe to suffer a brain aneurysm, killing the animal instantly. Therefore, the second capability is that spigots are built into his neck arteries that instantly close down whenever the animal lowers its neck to drink water.

However, when the giraffe abruptly raises its head after drinking, the blood would flow so rapidly downward through the force of gravity that the animal would suffer a sudden loss of blood to the brain, thus causing him to pass out cold. However, God has built a third capability that prevents this from occurring. The brain has a sponge-like material just behind the brain that has gradually been absorbing blood all the time the giraffe has been drinking. When the giraffe suddenly raises his head, that blood very slowly drains out of the brain, thus keeping the giraffe from passing out, while the spigots open up and the blood begins to flow naturally.

Three very complicated, but cooperating capabilities had to come together at once in the giraffe.

The Giraffe also by itself utterly disproves Evolution.


Now, you see where the Atheist/Darwinist fail to use their logic. It is logic that points to a divine creator, an all knowing, all loving God. I'll show you one more argument,and I'll make this one quick. This is another debate by a gentleman by the name of Matt, who debated an Atheist.


Atheist: As to religious arguments I haven't found one that can stand up to the logic of atheism.
Matt: Are you a strong atheist or a weak one?
Atheist: Never heard of a weak atheist.
Matt: I’ll explain. A strong atheist states that there is no God. He knows there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort.
Atheist: Then I am a strong atheist.
Matt: Then you know there is no God?
Atheist: As much as knowledge can tell us yes..Maybe it's you who have to catch up on your atheism... Agnostic fits the description pretty well of a weak atheist...
Matt: That is what I said...which are you?
Atheist: I am a strong. Characteristic human thought, coupled with hope is what religion boils down to, the unexplained tried to be explained...
Matt: So, you know there is no god?
Atheist: Yes.
Matt: How can you know that?
Atheist: It's a reasonable assumption. If you want a definitive answer. Does any Christian bother to look in the dictionary to what truth actually means? There is no 100% anything. Only close to it.
Matt: Then you cannot KNOW there is no God. Your strong atheism is illogical.
Atheist: Let's look at Christianity. It runs on faith. Faith is not logical. It gives credence to unicorns, goblins and thing s that go bump in the night.
Matt: Nope. The subject is your atheism. Please don't try to change the subject.
Atheist: The subject can jump where ever.
Matt: Your atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know there is no God.
Atheist: I will defend, but also place in attack. Try to defend faith
Matt: One subject at a time....You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical.
Atheist: You can never see all evidences but that does not mean there is a god.
Matt: Correct.
Atheist: No, that means there is not enough information for a conclusion. So we make assumptions as best we can according to our knowledge...
Matt: But you must concede that your claim to strong atheism (that you know there is no God) is not logical.
Atheist: My knowledge of the human brain leads me to believe there is no god...
Matt: Then that means there MIGHT be a God, because you don't know all the evidence. Therefore, you must logically be an agnostic.
Atheist: And so must you... But you picked a side.
Matt: Then it [your atheism] is not logical, but only assumptions you base your atheism on. Your atheism is untenable.... You must admit that agnosticism is more logically viable. If you admit that, we can discuss my faith.
Atheist: I'm not ignorant to say I don't use faith. But only the usage of faith in a situation that remains provable.
Matt: So, are you agnostic or atheist? which is it?
Atheist: Atheist.
Matt: You've lost the argument. Sorry...
Atheist: Wrong. What you're doing is a ploy. You bring me over.. but you stay the same. Either you must move over as well or the argument is mute in the first place. One can not keep faith and call his beliefs logical. For a bit I will stray over to the agnostic side. But I am willing to state instances where I believe prove my contention that there is no god.
Matt: You have been cornered.... It is not logical for you to claim strong atheism. You have not seen all the facts. Therefore, the possibility of God's existence is real. Therefore, you must admit that agnosticism is more logical in this situation.


Now, I don't know if you noticed but there are two problems with the Atheist. One was his tactic. He tried to divert the conversation away from the error he makes regarding his atheism. Two, he inadvertently admitted that it takes faith to believe there is no God.


In conclusion, you have seen the arguments that Atheists/Darwinist make. They use no logic, but what they do use is a blind faith. As our Christian faith is built on what we experience, and that experience is salvation, for Christ is our foundation in which our faith is built upon. Where the faith of an Atheist, has nothing to build on. It is a faith built on sand and not evidence or logic. Our faith stands on the word of God, proven through out history. It is all logical.



I hope you enjoyed this post, I know this was one of the longer ones. I hope you found it interesting. My next post in this series will be on Science and Pseudoscience. Thank you for reading. Remember, logic is a understanding. To know, to understand your purpose, your reason. To see logically that it takes an infinite mind to understand who you are. The logical thing to do, is to seek He who created you and allow Him to show you who you really are.

God bless...