Stefan Molyneux runs Freedomain Radio. He is a self-professed rational thinking intellectual. He published a book titled Against the Gods?, wherein are many irrational, illogical, fallacious, and anti-intellectual statements and arguments. While I would love to answer and refute every single one of them (and maybe in the future I will), I will limit my answers to some of the ridiculous and asinine statements and arguments made in the beginning of the book pertaining to the existence of God.
". . . gods are entirely self-contradictory entities . . " p.13
It would seem that Stefan lacks a logical understanding as to what "self-contradiction" actually means.
"An eternal being could never have evolved, since it does not die and reproduce . . ." p. 15
Precisely! An eternal being never evolved. Hence the word "eternal." In fact, we never evolved either. If you believe that we did, you believe a bunch of non-science nonsense. God has always been and will always be. There is no beginning or end with Him. Ergo, He is outside the realm of time. Time was created for us. We measure things by time. God does not. You cannot confuse the infinite with the finite. AI cannot confuse its existence with our existence.
". . . [gods] may well be many things, but eternal cannot be one of them." p. 15
Eternal means from one end of time to the other:
<-------------------------------TIME------------------------------->
Eternal is primarily what God is. Ergo, something that is eternal is clearly outside the realm of time. Just because we, as finite creatures bound to time, cannot fathom what that looks like does not invalidate it. Just because a 2D object cannot fathom a 3D object or 3D space does not invalidate the alternate reality. To argue otherwise is dishonest and willfully ignorant (i.e., being dumb on purpose).
". . . consciousness is an effect of matter . . ." p. 15
No, it is not. Rocks are made of matter, yet rocks do not possess consciousness. The existence of matter is the result of consciousness, of intelligence. Matter cannot exist without an intelligent designer. Everything you see before you did not simply exist or come into existence on its own. To act as if it did is to claim that matter or existence is eternal. Something created it. Something has to be eternal. The question is, What? Either God is eternal, as the Bible indicates: "In the beginning, God . . ."; or dirt is eternal, as the theory of Evolution postulates: "Millions of years ago there was nothing. Nothing means nothing. Then all the dust and dirt in the galaxy came together to form a ball smaller than a period on a page." Either a rational, logical, intelligent being created everything you see before you; or dirt magically created everything you see before you. Bear in mind that matter has no creative power or ability.
The first Law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot create itself. Ergo, you can scrap the Big Bang theory. The second Law of Thermodynamics states that everything tends toward chaos and disorder. Ergo, you can scrap the theory of Evolution, which claims that everything is getting bigger, better, faster, smarter, stronger. Look at anything that is exposed to the sun for long periods of time. What happens? It fades, it dissolves, it breaks down. What happens to a building in prolonged sunlight? What happens to a soda can in prolonged sunlight? What happens to a car in prolonged sunlight? If you leave your Ford Pinto in the sun, does it eventually turn into a Ferrari? What happens to anything in prolonged sunlight?
Stefan makes the typical colossal blunder of attempting to compare and attribute our limitations to that of an infinite being. That is like an artificially intelligent robot comparing and attributing its limitations to that of its creators, human beings. It is utter foolishness.
". . . omniscience cannot coexist with omnipotence, since if a god knows what will happen tomorrow, said god will be unable to change it without invalidating its knowledge. If this god retains the power to change what will happen tomorrow, then it cannot know with exact certainty what will happen tomorrow." p. 16
This argument is utterly ridiculous and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the subject. Omniscience means all-knowing while omnipotence means all-powerful. Where does Stefan get the idea that in knowing what will happen tomorrow that it somehow needs changing? If God decided to change something, it does not in any way, shape, or form mean that He did not have all knowledge about it. Having all knowledge does not mean that anything needs to be changed.
Let us presume a limited state of complete knowledge. Let us say that I know everything that is going to happen to the stock market during the next week, and I risk losing money. If I know exactly what is going to happen in the stock market, if I do not act upon my knowledge, it in no way invalidates the fact of my being able to prevent it if I choose. If I act upon my knowledge to ensure I do not lose money, it in no way invalidates the fact of my knowing what would happen.
Let us take it a step further. What if I know everything that will happen in the next week, including my loss of money, because I either put it into motion that way or I allowed it to play out that way? Just because I allowed something to happen does not mean I did not know about it or that I could not have changed it if I so felt like it. There is so much that Stefan fails to understand pertaining to theology.
Stefan's argument bears the same ignorance as the postulated question, "If God is all-powerful, can He create a rock that even He cannot move? If He can't, then He is not all-powerful. If He can, then He is not all-powerful." That question is flawed at its foundation. Not only is it ridiculous, but it imposes an irresponsibility on God with His power. You can create the same ridiculous questions pertaining to a moral man and his morality, or any other situation. Postulating ridiculous statements does not disprove reality.
"When an entity is proven to be self-contradictory, creating a realm wherein self-contradictions are valid does not solve the problem." p. 16
Stefan suffers from the fallacy of believing that just because he has said something that it automatically makes it true. Time is not eternal. Time is a created element. Time was created for us. We are limited by and bound to time. The being that created time is quite evidently outside of time. Ergo, there is no creating of an imaginary realm. Again, just because a 2D object cannot fathom a 3D object or 3D space does not invalidate its reality. An infinite eternal being who sees the past, present, and future all at the same time is clearly outside the realm of time. In order to know all things, one would have to be outside the realm of time looking in on it. You would have to see it all simultaneously. Ergo, outside the realm of time. Once again, Stefan confuses our limitations and experiences and attempts to impose them on God. Perhaps Stefan would benefit from taking some time to imagine himself as AI comparing itself to human beings.
". . . an object can only rationally be defined as existing when it can be detected in some manner, either directly, in the form of matter and/or energy, or indirectly, based upon its effects on the objects around it, such as a black hole." p. 17
This is one of the great lies. This argument assumes that science can explain everything, which is a false statement. Science is that which can be tested, observed, and repeated. If the scientific method cannot be applied, then it is not science and it is outside the realm of science. There are hundreds of things that science cannot provide an explanation for, nor will it ever be able to do so. Science is not the end-all be-all of life, truth, and reality. In North America, when you yawn people ask you if you are tired. Do you know what they ask you in South America? "Are you hungry?" Rather than be an ignorant fool and argue "Yawning has nothing to do with eating," I wondered why they would ask such a thing. So, I began to pay better attention to my body. If I slept well but ate poorly, I would yawn. If I ate well but slept poorly, I would yawn. If I slept poorly and ate poorly, I would yawn. If I slept well and ate well, I would not yawn. So both tiredness and hunger have an effect on yawning. Are these the only things that contribute to yawning? Probably not. I think boredom also has an effect on yawning. What is yawning and why do we do it? Science does not know. So the idea that if it exists, science should be able to determine it is absolutely false.
While the premise is false, so too is the conclusion because the existence of God can be detected both directly and indirectly.
". . . that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Romans 8:18-21
God can be detected both directly—through the eyes He gave you—and indirectly—through His interaction with and the effect He has on His creation. Anyone with a rational thinking mind and open eyes who looks carefully at the world around them can see the evidence of an intelligent designer—God. Both the Bible and nature speak of, reveal, and point to God. Thus, why those who perish will be without excuse. Their conscience bears them witness, despite their efforts at suppressing the knowledge of the truth.
"A god - or at least any god that has been historically proposed or accepted - is that which cannot be detected by any material means either directly or indirectly." p. 18
See above.
You see, Stefan really has no opinion on the matter of religion or theology because he has never put in the time to study it or learn about it. If you are not going to educate yourself on a subject by learning all you can about it, then you have no say in the matter. Your opinions are relegated as utter ignorance and foolishness. It would be like me telling my mechanic how to repair my vehicle because I saw some Hot Wheels toys on display in several stores. If Stefan wants to educate himself honestly, there are several sources I would suggest:
First, read the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Romans.Atheists who became Christians:Mere Christianity by C. S. LewisNew Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowellThe Case for Faith by Lee Strobel
The Case for a Creator by Lee StrobelCold-case Christianity by J. Warner WallaceReal science (testable, observable, repeatable) versus pseudo-science:Science vs. Evolution by Vance FerrellStudies in Theology:Systematic Theology by Louis BerkhofSystematic Theology by R. L. DabneyDogmatic Theology by William G. T. SheddA New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Robert ReymondChristian Theology by Millard Erickson
The Christian Faith by Michael Horton