SG made an excellent essay, as I noted yesterday, and here is his answer to me on links to blogs:
thanks. I made that change.. I don't know of another blog. But you can copy and paste and make changes as you see fit and link it or put it to whatever you want.
I thanked him gently, am awaiting his answer on whether to expand SG into his name, and here is his actual essay:
The argument used by atheists is that there are so many religions in the world, some websites, report as many as 4200 or so, that the probability that one religion is right is equal to the amount of religions in the world. Now first, 1/4200 odds or whatever the estimated religions are, for coming to a religious truth is an exaggeration, because these so called different religions come under groupings of main religious ideas, thus there can be many dialects of the same language. This high number stat is looking at each religious name as all being separate totally distinct religions and religious viewpoints rather than potentially some being different dialects of the same religion. In fact, many of these religious titles come under more generalized categories, so there could be many nuances or dialects of the same religion, as there are many denominations in Christianity, yet it’s all Christianity, many different versions of Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. In reality they can be condensed to an exceedingly smaller number once we categorize them more broadly, showing the atheist’s argument is an exaggeration. In fact, all these religions fall under one of 4 worldviews on religions (Pantheism, atheism, theism, polytheism), making the probability of general religious/metaphysical truth ¼.
Additionally, there is no good reason to exempt Secular Humanism from these probabilities. Since Secular Humanism, which includes evolutionism, atheism and agnosticism has been declared to be a religion by the courts then it too is under the same probabilities of being true as the non-secular religions, making the probability of atheism just as equally improbable, whatever those probabilities may be.
Furthermore, when one appeals to probabilities, the assumption is that all the different religious viewpoints are equally probable of being true, but there is no way one can know that as an atheists. What knowledge would you have to suggest they are all equally probable? As atheists, they deny supernatural revelation, so would have no means or mechanism they would be privy to, thus could not know that by reason of naturalism. In various systems, number of possibilities are not always weighted equally, since in many systems these possible outcomes are not determined by random chance. If certain outcomes are more probable than alternatives, then we can’t weigh them equally. For example, if you flip a coin there is an equal chance of getting heads or tails, but if a regular, knowledgeable horse gambler who knows horses well and often wins bets on a horse, in a race of 10 horses, the probability of him winning is 1/10 only if the gambler, horses and jockeys all are equal in ability, but if some horses and jockeys are better, and the horse gambler is a better more knowledgeable gambler and knows which horses and jockeys are better, than the probability is no longer as high as 1/10, so he has a better chance of being right by his advanced knowledge. In fact, this is the basis of the odds system in horse racing on the original odds at the outset of the race and why some horses have better odds than others. This means not all odds are equal even if there are numerous alternatives. Hence, alternative religions don’t mean equal probabilities of being true for each.
A thesis of 1/4200 or whatever is only valid if the outcome is determined by random chance, but that is an assumption one can’t justify and is also denied by the proponents of religious viewpoints in which you are debating against. How would one know they were wrong? One might argue that they know they are wrong because they have different religious viewpoints, but that is to beg the question whether these viewpoints are purely random.
Now let’s apply that same logic and statistic theory atheists employ to another field to see if it consistent! For example, the probabilities of getting the finetuned ratio between the electromagnetic force and gravity was altered more than 1 in 10 ^40, which is astronomically higher than any probability presented for religions being true, but that precise constant is what is featured in the electromagnetic force and gravity, allowing for a life permitting universe. And yet as high as those odds are against getting within that range, it is within that range, so here we are. If it was random chance we shouldn’t have a universe, but we do. Should I assume that probabilities for this finetuning that permits a life bearing universe so astronomical, that we should deny the truth that we live in a life permitting universe? Of course not. Yet that is just what atheists do with the religious probability argument. Denying the specific truth because probabilities, yet as an atheists/naturalists one must believe that finetuning is due to chance, not design, since that would mean God exists, yet atheists would believe it did happen by chance even given the 1 in 10 ^ 40 probabilities against such, but ironically deny people can come to truth about religion with such exceedingly lower probabilities (1/4200), showing a total inconsistency on their part. They simply don’t apply the criticism to other venues, but if they did, they should see its fallacious nature. However, the most plausible explanation for overcoming the 1 in 10 ^ 40 odds of the electromagnetic constant falling into the correct range to permit a a life bearing universe is that the correct range is not due to chance at all, but due to design. Therefore, the system is rigged by the designer, making the other possible outcomes not equal, explaining why the electromagnetic force fell into correct range to begin with. Given the finetuning constant, design is the best explanation over chance, meaning God does exist, and if he does than coming to religious truth would not be random either, just as finetuning wasn’t! It is reasonable to think that if God exists, he can and would make himself known and his truth to those that seek him. Jesus says such in his famous Sermon On the Mount accepted even by skeptical scholars. “Ask it shall be given, seek ye shall find and knock and it shall be opened unto you.” In fact, so does Jeremiah in the Old Testament. “Ye shall seek me and find me when you shall search for me with all your heart.” Why don’t all come to the true God in proper relationship? They don’t seek him in truth (Romans 3:10-13), but seek a god, a religion, a comfort, an accountability system or no accountability at all (as atheists don’t), or an acceptance by their family or culture, or something palpable for their own beliefs and lifestyles, or permission to do as they please (as atheists do). If you never get past those things, you will not be seeking God in truth, but if you do seek the Lord for his own sake, no strings attached, the God that designed this universe evidenced by finetuning, and powerful enough to create it, is the same God who is able and willing to reveal himself to us in relationship made possible by sending his Son to be our Savior, which is testified historically in the person of Jesus Christ, further giving us evidence via history, making the likelihood of knowing the truth more probable, showing it is not random at all, making this atheist/naturalist objection utterly fail. For it to be true, a good God must not exist, but that begs the question. Jesus says, “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” One would have to know Jesus is a liar for that not to be valid, showing one knows what religious viewpoints are untrue, meaning one knows something of religious truth, but how could they if they are claiming we can’t know religious truth, especially given the odds against them being right on a religious belief according to their own thesis, ironically blowing up their own argument. Atheists/naturalists/unbelievers need to think more thoroughly, accurately and objectively before they make unsustainable arguments. But that doesn’t seem to be their strong point! Rejecting God, is a rejection of reason!
