Examining The “Best Argument for the Existence of God” by Dr. Jason Lisle.

There are certainly plenty of organizations that promote a belief in a god beyond any given church or mosque or synagogue. One such organization that has never ceased to baffle me is the now infamous Answers in Genesis.

Little more than a repository for bad ideas, Answers in Genesis has garnered a sordid reputation of late. Heavily criticized for promoting pseudoscience by the National Academy of Science, the Paleontological Society, the Geological Society of America, the Australian Academy of Science and the Royal Society of Canada as well as other creationist organizations.

Despite it's dubious reputation, Answers in Genesis is persistent in its efforts to promote a belief in a very literal interpretation of the god of the Christian bible. To that end, Dr. Jason Lisle presents what he considers to be the best argument for the existence of that god (https://answersingenesis.org/is-god-real/what-is-the-best-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/). So what is the best argument for the existence of god in Dr. Lisle's opinion?

Dr. Lisle opens with a hypothetical conversation between an atheist and a Christian. My initial question is why Lisle targets atheists specifically? An atheist simply does not believe in god, but there are many other Christians and Christian organizations that do not view AiG's young earth creation “model” (wild speculation would be a better term for it). So why present this as a case of Christian vs atheist when it's really Dr. Jason Lisle vs. anyone who doesn't agree with him?

There are Christian scientists and they would not view the opinions of AiG to be even remotely scientific. On some level, I suspect that Lisle knows this. But rather than admit that his position is not grounded in science, Lisle attempts to cast this hypothetical conversation as a matter of belief in god. It is as if Lisle is trying to remove the middle ground, stating that the Christian world view must match his own young earth speculation. In other words, if one does not accept the wild ideas and baseless assertions concerning the nature of the universe and god that Lisle does, one cannot be a Christian.

Never the less, Lisle does seem to recognize at least some of the limitations of classic apologetics. Or at least he does in this hypothetical conversation:

Christian: “Everything with a beginning requires a cause. The universe has a beginning and therefore requires a cause. That cause is God.”

Atheist: “Even if it were true that everything with a beginning requires a cause, how do you know that the cause of the universe is God? Why not a big bang? Maybe this universe sprang from another universe, as some physicists now believe.”

Christian: “The Resurrection of Jesus proves the existence of God. Only God can raise the dead.”

Atheist: “You don’t really have any proof that Jesus rose from the dead. This section of the Bible is simply an embellished story. And even if it were true, it proves nothing. Perhaps under certain rare chemical conditions, a dead organism can come back to life. It certainly doesn’t mean that there is a God.”

Christian: “I have personally experienced God, and so have many other Christians. He has saved us and transformed our lives. We know that He exists from experience.”

Atheist: “Unfortunately, your personal experiences are not open to investigation; I have only your word for it. And second, how do you know that such subjective feelings are really the result of God? The right drug might produce similar feelings.”

While the counter points made by Lisle's hypothetical atheist are limited and don't get to the heart of the matter, they at the very least show that Lisle admits that, as lines of reason, they are not enough to be considered conclusive when it comes to determining if god exists.

Or rather Lisle admits that, to anyone other than himself said reasoning is not enough. Despite the responses of his hypothetical atheist, Lisle seems to think that the arguments he rebutted himself, are still valid.

“It should be noted that all the facts used by the Christian in the above hypothetical conversation are true. Yes, God is the first cause, the designer of life, the resurrected Christ, the Author of Scripture, and the Savior of Christians. Yet the way these facts are used is not decisive. That is, none of the above arguments really prove that God exists.”

So why keep them around? In science, whenever an argument or an idea fails, it is cast aside to allow new avenues, ideas and methods of reason and experimentation a shot at deriving data and reaching a conclusion. If a premise is shown to be wrong on some level, it is changed in favor of gaining more accurate and useful data.

Despite admitting that he has no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ (or of Christ's existence at all) and that using the bible as verification for god's honesty is a circular argument, Lisle still maintains his position on them. Why?

A reasonable and rational mind, one open to new findings or discoveries, casts aside data that is not useful or even fraudulent. Why hang on to the excess baggage of misinformation and logical fallacies? Especially when you have already conceded that said baggage does not help your case.

“Some of the above arguments are very weak: appeals to personal experience, vicious circular reasoning, and appeals to a first cause. While the facts are true, the arguments do not come close to proving the existence of the biblical God.” 

The arguments are true, yet the are very weak? They don't prove the existence of a god, but they are still used to prove the existence of a god?

“Nonetheless, for each one of these arguments, the atheist was able to invent a “rescuing device.” He was able to propose an explanation for this evidence that is compatible with his belief that God does not exist.”

The hypothetical atheist was able to present a counter point to each one of your arguments based on an understanding of the nature of evidence. Dr. Lisle even took on the role of the hypothetical atheist and countered the “Christian” points he made. If you admit that there is no empirical evidence that corroborates the biblical account, or that to refer to the bible in such a manner is a logical fallacy, then why refer to the bible in the first place?

Further more, the hypothetical atheist could very easily be a rationalist, skeptic, historian or even a scientist. The atheist could even be a Muslim, Jew or even another Christian who simply does not agree with you.

That Dr. Lisle's hypothetical arguments fail has nothing to do with god's existence. Arguments stand or fall on their own merit and Lisle has shown how and why these arguments fall, but he still insists they are viable.

“The Christian in the above hypothetical conversation did not have a correct approach to apologetics. He was arguing on the basis of specific evidences with someone who had a totally different professed worldview than his own.” 

If an argument or a piece of evidence is valid and worth consideration, then it should not matter what your “professed worldview” is. Scientists and people interested in what can be shown to be true, rationalists and skeptics alike, come from all walks of life. Differing cultural viewpoints, societies and whether you believe in god or not have no baring on what is actually true and can be shown as truth. There is no “rescuing device” for worldviews when truth is at stake. If you value truth, you will make accommodations for your worldview. You may even change it. Smart people are good at reconciling what they believe in with what reality tells them.

So with that hypothetical out of the way, Lisle offers his real argument. Nothing hypothetical, straight and too the point. His first premise:

“God Doesn't Believe in Atheists- The bible teaches that atheists are not really atheists.”

So apparently using the bible to confirm the god there in is a circular argument, but using it to deny the existence of people who don't believe in the bible, isn't ludicrous. Thanks for that clarification.

“The Bible teaches that atheists are not really atheists. That is, those who profess to be atheists do ultimately believe in God in their heart-of-hearts. The Bible teaches that everyone knows God, because God has revealed Himself to all (Romans 1:19).”

So rather than actually present a case for god, Lisle instead just asserts that everyone believes because the bible says so.

Remember that this isn't a circular argument according to Lisle. But using the bible to prove god exists is a circular argument.

With one passage of the bible, Lisle is content in his assertion that everyone who has ever lived knows god exists and that I, as an atheist, would rather lie to everyone I love and to myself about it. Well since I obviously can't be trusted according to Lisle, why do I lie to myself?

“The answer may be found in Romans 1:18. God is angry at unbelievers for their wickedness. And an all-powerful, all-knowing God who is angry at you is a terrifying prospect. So even though many atheists might claim that they are neutral, objective observers, and that their disbelief in God is purely rational, in reality, they are strongly motivated to reject the biblical God who is rightly angry with them. So they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. They convince themselves that they do not believe in God.2 The atheist is intellectually schizophrenic—believing in God, but believing that he does not believe in God.”

So I am lying to myself because I want god to be angry at me?

Again, with nothing but the bible, Lisle claims to know me better than I know myself. And he is unwilling to go further than this.

"Therefore, we do not really need to give the atheist any more specific evidences for God’s existence."

At the risk of being flippant, how is this any different that Lisle plugging his ears, shutting his eyes and yelling; “I am right, you are wrong!” until he is blue in the face? There is no reason to take him at his word. Lisle refuses to show us anything but a bible passage. A passage from a book filled with things we know and can show to be wrong. And he considers this to be valid.

This is not evidence. This isn't even a premise. This attempted character assassination committed in the height of arrogance and intellectual dishonesty. It is from a book brimming with falsehoods that Lisle's arrives at a forgone conclusion that he refuses to examine from any angel beyond his presupposition. And to make matters worse, this line of reasoning fails utterly as evidence since it is completely unfalsifiable.

There is no way to determine the validity of this statement, though I can assure you Lisle is dead wrong. He has constructed a circular argument in favor of his bias in order to support a conclusion he will never evaluate.

No, Dr. Lisle, there is no gentleness or respect on your part here. You've just labeled me and great number of people in this world as liars because we do not accept the same nonsense you do.

So from this non-premise, Lisle continues:

“Exposing the Inconsistency- Because an atheist does believe in god, but does not believe that he believes in god, he is simply a walking bundle of inconsistencies.”

It seems that, rather than present a case for god's existence, Dr. Lisle would rather just insult atheists.

“Because an atheist does believe in God, but does not believe that he believes in God, he is simply a walking bundle of inconsistencies. One type to watch for is a behavioral inconsistency; this is where a person’s behavior does not comport with what he claims to believe. For example, consider the atheist university professor who teaches that human beings are simply chemical accidents—the end result of a long and purposeless chain of biological evolution. But then he goes home and kisses his wife and hugs his children, as if they were not simply chemical accidents, but valuable, irreplaceable persons deserving of respect and worthy of love.”

First of all, I demand to know who Lisle is referring too? I have yet to hear of anyone with any knowledge on the subject or any person who loves his family deem humans to be nothing more than “chemical accidents.”

Our lives have value because they are limited, not because of god. We are social animals, drawn to each other by our very nature. And we are not the only animals like this. But Dr. Lisle seems to think that life only has value if it is spent believing in something that is not evidently true.

"Consider the atheist who is outraged at seeing a violent murder on the ten o’clock news. He is very upset and hopes that the murderer will be punished for his wicked actions. But in his view of the world, why should he be angry? In an atheistic, evolutionary universe where people are just animals, murder is no different than a lion killing an antelope."

Again, he could not be more wrong. We are able to identify what is wrong with murder because we place a value on life. That value does not come from a god. It comes from the realization that this is the only life we have.

Remember that Lisle is not presenting a case for god here. Rather he is attempting to dehumanize atheism. So instead of being objective, Lisle would rather scare you with a straw-man of atheism and (to an extent) evolution.

“The concepts that human beings are valuable, are not simply animals, are not simply chemicals, have genuine freedom to make choices, are responsible for their actions, and are bound by a universal objective moral code all stem from a Christian worldview.”

No it doesn't. Moral codes have been in place long before Christianity was ever established. Civilizations in China, Mesopotamia, Greece and all over the world existed before Christianity did. And somehow they were able to achieve not only functionality, but also awe-inspiring works of art, architecture and even science. They were able to achieve such ends without Christianity. Are we expected to believe they did so thinking that they were nothing more than amoral chemical accidents? Were they able to establish such great civilizations while operating under the assumption that murder was permissible?

This is disgraceful on the part of Lisle. And to make that worse, he offers no line of reasoning to back up his baseless assertions.

Further more, if Lisle is to be believed and that morality stemmed from Christianity, then he should be able to name at least one moral action or precept that he can achieve solely because he is a Christian and I cannot explicitly because I am not a Christian.

“Why should there be an absolute, objective standard of behavior that all people should obey if the universe and the people within it are simply accidents of nature?”

Because it is beneficial to us to have a standard. We would not have gotten as far as we have without such a standard. And we certainly did not get such a standard from the god of the bible. Because that god condones heinous atrocities and lets acts of cruelty and capriciousness be committed in its name.

Now I refuse to identify any standard as absolute and unquestionable. Such a prospect seems a tad unreasonable given my limited nature. But I can, at least, identify a moral standard. And I do this with no belief in god. An action or concept can be considered moral if it maximizes happiness, well being or health, or if it minimizes unnecessary suffering or harm, or if it does both.

You will not find belief in god, or even god's existence, necessary to hold that moral standard. And I can show how holding such a code can be beneficial.

“Of course, people can assert that there is a moral code. But who is to say what that moral code should be? Some people think it is okay to be racist; others think it is okay to kill babies, and others think we should kill people of other religions or ethnicities, etc.”

Apparently, Dr. Lisle is familiar with the actions god condones. He just doesn't consider them moral. The blatant hypocrisy here, that Lisle should identify murdering children as immoral while at the same time supporting a book that condones that action in numerous passages, defies credulity.

And this still isn't a case for god or even a case for god-centric morality. This is a scare-tactic. One that has no basis in reason or evidence and yet one that Lisle thinks is viable.

From not presenting a case for a god based on morality, Lisle goes on to not present a case for god based on logic.

“Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the way He thinks. They are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities, because God is an immaterial (Spirit), omnipresent, unchanging God who has all knowledge (Colossians 2:3). Thus, all true statements will be governed by God’s thinking—they will be logical.”

Yet another baseless assertion that Lisle feels he does not have to justify. And he is just going to march with it. Lisle doesn't feel he has to justify or validate any of his conclusions. He is not even trying to hide his bias or his presupposition. As far as he is concerned, he is right because he feels his book says he is right.

Setting aside the circular argument he commits here, the bible never once makes mention of any kind of logic, or means, or methodology with which to identify what is logical. The bible is filled with impossibilities, sheer absurdities and fails to comport with any history or science. How does a book where snakes and donkeys can talk, where light can come before a light source, where a man can be made from dirt, a woman from his rib, where the laws of nature can be readily and routinely suspended for no reason and leave no trace of such suspension, how can such a book be considered logical?

"However, the atheist cannot account for laws of logic. He cannot make sense of them within his own worldview."

How about they are demonstrable, verifiable and identifiable independent of bias, culture, creed and doctrine? Again, a worldview makes no difference over whether or not something is true. Truth can be shown. It can be measured. It can be backed up and supported.

Unless you are Dr. Lisle.

“You cannot pull a law of logic out of the refrigerator! If atheistic materialism is true, then there could be no laws of logic, since they are immaterial. Thus, logical reasoning would be impossible!”

We can measure the strength of logic. In this case, Dr. Lisle seems to think that the only way the universe makes sense is because of a god he refuses to show exists cares about what he thinks. There is no such thing as “atheistic materialism.” There never was. Dr. Lisle is conflating a set of terms to mean something it doesn't in an effort to poison the well.

Dr. Lisle has no interest in making a case for god. He's already decided he'll believe whatever his bible tells him. Rather than verify the voracity of his claims, Dr. Lisle wants to instead muddy the waters by twisting terms.

Atheism has never been anything more than not believing a god exists. Materialism can be a philosophy and it can also be a methodology. Methodological materialism is a methodology that is rewarding an full of potential. But Dr. Lisle would rather you abandon it and associate it with being irrational.

But Lisle is correct on one thing. Materialism will never prove, believe or condone a god's existence. And that is because methodological materialism is better known by the name that carried us through the dark ages.

The scientific method.

That's right. Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph. D. in astrophysics from the University of Colorado does not want you to accept science. He would rather you believe his fear-monger and turn to his god.

"No one is denying that atheists are able to reason and use laws of logic."

Actually, Dr. Lisle, that is exactly what you are doing. You have already attacked the character of everyone who does not believe your baseless accusations to have any merit. You postulated that all atheists secretly believe, but lie to themselves for a reason that is both baffling and insulting.

“The point is that if atheism were true, the atheist would not be able to reason or use laws of logic because such things would not be meaningful. The fact that the atheist is able to reason demonstrates that he is wrong. By using that which makes no sense given his worldview, the atheist is being horribly inconsistent.”

Again, we can show, measure, quantify, or identify something logical and this surpasses worldviews. There is no “atheist” worldview, but even if there was, it would not matter. God or no god, the rules of the game, the logic of the universe applies. And beyond a very liberal interpretation of a handful of vague passages from a book full of things we know are wrong, Dr. Lisle does not even attempt to show how logic stems from the god he refuses to show or provides evidence for.

“How could there be laws at all without a lawgiver?”

Because the “laws” of logic and nature aren't edicts that were decided. They are aspects of the universe we can observe and measure and demonstrate. Dr. Lisle commits an equivocation fallacy. The laws of the universe are not the laws of the land made by society.

And where he's not committing to a fallacy of equivocation, Dr. Lisle commits to an argument from ignorance.

“The atheist cannot account for (1) the existence of laws of logic, (2) why they are immaterial, (3) why they are universal, (4) why they do not change with time, and (5) how human beings can possibly know about them or their properties.”

First off, why is it the job of a random atheist to do this? Second, even pretending that we can't account for logic (though I think I have by now) how does that justify belief in god or the assertion that god exists?

Lisle still has not produced a case for god beyond wild speculation of vague bible passages.

“But of course, all these things make perfect sense on the Christian system. Laws of logic owe their existence to the biblical God. Yet they are required to reason rationally, to prove things. So the biblical God must exist in order for reasoning to be possible. Therefore, the best proof of God’s existence is that without Him we couldn’t prove anything at all!”

I fail to see how. It does not demonstrate a god or that logic stems from a god. Nor does it show why Lisle's god in particular is the correct one as it seems any passage from any book that refers to a being with above average wisdom could be the arbiter of logic by Lisle's reasoning. Further more, an argument only works as proof if you can show it's premise to be functional, which Lisle refuses to do. Rather he compiles this baseless assertion on top of the already baseless assertion that we all “know” that god exists somehow merely because the bible says so.

And if that were not bad enough, Lisle compounds his arrogance and intellectual dishonesty and laziness by reinforcing the absurd sophistry indicative of biblical literal-ism. Namely that if god isn't right, than nothing is right. Nothing can be shown or demonstrated and any exercise in scientific endeavour is worthless no matter what it might yield. To Dr. Lisle, it does not matter if something is true or not. Belief must come first for anything to matter regardless how wrong or unreasonable that belief might be.

“Though the transcendental argument for God is deductively sound-”

I hope I have shown why it isn't, but for the sake of clarity:

1- It is an argument from an assumed conclusion and a bias, where rather than following the evidence, it leads evidence that isn't really there to the conclusion.

2- It commits to several logical fallacies, including circular reasoning by using the bible to reinforce the claims of the bible, an argument from ignorance where in logic can only be explained by a god and an equivocation fallacy, conflating the laws of logic into laws of human societies.

3- It does not actually demonstrate a god, let alone any specific one.

“-not all atheists will be convinced upon hearing it.”

I wonder...

“But the atheist’s denial of God is an emotional reaction, not a logical one.”

Atheism is not now, nor has it ever been, a denial of god's existence. It is a rejection of a premise that has been shown to be without merit, form, reason, rational, evidence or logic. It is not out of a wish to anger a god that I reject it's existence. It is because proof of that god's existence has not been forth coming.

Dr. Lisle had an opportunity to present proof and instead opted to be arrogant, dishonest and lazy. I find his argument to not only be weak, but also disparaging of anyone who does believe in god. If you are a Christian, Dr. Lisle does not speak well of you. He is encouraging you to never question, to not think critically and, when challenged, to plug your ears and shut your eyes and wait for the challenge to go away.

I do not find this compelling in even the slightest. I would rather Dr. Lisle be honest and not pretend that he knows more than he does simply because a book has given him that idea.