This post is intended for those who might be inclined to believe there is some reason behind the ‘accusations’ Bill Maher levels against God. Whether you believe or not – or maybe you are trying to figure it out – you need to understand that Maher is making an irrational assertion. There is no logic behind it at all, and I hope I can help you see this. That way, whether it affects your faith or not, at least you won’t make a decisions based on the madness of a man who believes he is actually on the side of reason. Here is the latest story I a long string of self-serving diatribes dealing with Bill Maher mocking God:
‘Psychopathic Mass Murderer’: Bill Maher Unleashes Excoriating Rebuke of God
“A more psychopathic character you will not ever find in fiction. Just the idea that people worshiped the God of this Bible is insane. There is no more psychopathic mass murderer than God, so good luck with worrying that you picked the wrong religion, you’re going to suffer for it.”
OK, let’s deal with the assertion that God is a ‘psychopathic mass murderer’ first. To do that, we need to start with the assumption that God is Who and What He claims to be. Luckily, Maher has already implied this when he sets out the conditional, “If it is the God of the Old Testament…” So, Maher is granting that we are starting from the assumption of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses. The next thing we need to do is look at a simple definition:
1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
There you go: Bill Maher is making a false claim, and that makes it a fallacious assertion. If you do not know what that means, all you need to understand is that, if something is fallacious, it cannot be said to be rational. And if something is not rational, it is irrational. This is what Bill Maher is doing: making an irrational appeal. It is designed to appeal to the emotions of people who do not understand reason while making himself look good in the process. The idea is that he will sound smart to the ignorant, and thus, the ignorant will accept what he is saying and hold him up in esteem while – at the same time – assuming his argument means God cannot be real or, if He is, that God is a mass murderer. But let’s not stop here; let me explain Maher’s mistake.
We have already assumed that we are dealing with the God of the Bible (the Old Testament God is the same as in the New Testament). This means God makes the laws. He is the only source of what is and is not lawful. It also means God cannot make mistakes. He is perfect. Therefore, God cannot kill anyone without just cause; and if God cannot kill anyone unjustly, He cannot commit murder. It is that simple: God cannot murder, therefore, Bill Maher has just demonstrated that he is an ignorant, self-promoting mocker. And if he is not ignorant, then it is worse for him because he is intentionally trying to deceive others into rebelling against God. In either case, this also means that Maher has chosen to go to hell. Maher is damning himself – not God!
Now, let’s look at another mistake Maher is making in his reasoning:
Maher did acknowledge that it isn’t possible to be entirely sure that God doesn’t exist, but said religions just make up stories — something he believes is entirely wrong.
“So you know we don’t know the answers but the answer to that is not to make up stories. If you don’t know something, just say, I don’t know,” he continued. “That’s your gospel right there. The gospel of ‘I don’t know.’ I combined apathy and atheist, and I came up with apatheist. I don’t know what happens when I die, and I don’t care.”
If Maher actually ‘does not know,’ then it is irrational to embrace Atheism – as he claims – or apathy. Does one simply decide that the real world does not exist and, therefore, one will make no attempt to learn anything about it? If you believe that and actually try it, you are not going to survive very long. The world is real, and we must learn about how it works in order to sustain our lives. The same applies to God. Remember, we are assuming the God of the Bible is real – as Maher says – so we know that His word is true and He says that, if we seek Him – sincerely seek Him – we willfind Him. This is why the majority of those names we hold up as giants in the development of what we now call ‘the scientific method’ not only believed in God, they believed He made the universe so we could learn more about Him by learning how the universe works. But Maher does not tell you this, does he? And why not? DO you think he even knows the fathers of science were devout Christians? Or does he even care?
I suppose – if I could ask him – Maher would give me some excuse about how ‘science’ has ‘disproven’ God. If he did, my first objection would be to point out he is continuing to be irrational because he has already admitted we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, but I doubt he would care. To him and people like him – those who see only their own greatness – ‘science’ has provided all the answers they need to reject God. But because they are irrational, they do not even understand that ‘science’ has done no such thing. If you doubt me, spend some honest time reading through these sites and the links within them:
The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth
Can science prove the age of the earth?
Evidence against Evolution (concise and short)
There is much more evidence that speaks against a naturally generating universe and spontaneous life than there is that can possibly be twisted into supporting it, but those who deny God do not care. They would rather convince themselves that something can come from nothing, and that that same nothing can do something to create something else. The truth is, the entire universe screams to the existence and glory of God – just as the Bible claims. And this is why Atheists do not want ‘the science guy’ to debate evolution: because he will not have the answers to the many questions he will be asked. He will have to say he does not know or – as is all too often the case – he will make stuff up. And isn’t this what Maher said people shouldn’t do? So why does his side have to make stuff up to convince people that God is not real?
Look, seriously, believe what you want. Just understand this one point: Atheists have more faith than anyone who believes in God. Not only do they believe something they cannot prove and are not based in reason, they have to believe that things just pop into existence for no reason at all – a clear violation of Newton’s laws – the same laws these same Atheists claim as the reason for not believing in the first place.
9 thoughts on “LESSONS IN APPLIED LOGIC: Bill Maher’s Attacks on God are Irrational (‘Un-Scientific’)”
I have always considered the argument for science to uphold the argument for God (and vice versa). There is no area of science that has disproven the existence of God, not has the bible denied the existence of photosynthesis or ionization energy. My appeciation for science is strengthened by my understanding of the bible, likewise, every new aspect of science that increases my knowledge of the world around me, also increases my love for God.
That being stated, I am weary of the information provided in those links. Whoever wrote those articles seems the be in a state of denial; that in order to uphold their religious beliefs, they disregarded scientific methods that they assumed would disprove their theories (carbon dating comes to mind). And yet, carbon dating doesn’t disprove that God exists! Maybe if these scientists could embrace their God AND their respective fields, they could create a more convincing argument.
Just my 2 cents
Thos links DO have some questionable ‘science’ in them — AND THAT IS THE POINT! You see, just as some see what they want in science to ‘prove’ a young earth, so do those who think ‘science’ disproves God. Science is like logic: it is neutrl. It can be made to serve either side of any argument. So you are smart to question those links.
That said, be careful about carbon dating. The man who developed it later recounted it as unreliable. He said the amount of carbon 14 in the environment should have reach equilibrium by about 24,000 years of earth’s age — but it is not at equilibrium in the atmosphere today! So, whether earth is old or young is irrelevant. The point is, once again, ‘science’ doesn’t ‘know’ what it claims to know. This is because man has to put his perspective on things, and thus, he changes what is really revealed.
We’re in the deep end of the philosophy pool now, I just hope you are following a little of what I am telling you. Somehow, I think you are 🙂
For some GOOD work unifying science with God, look into a man named Dr. Hugh Ross and his “Reason to Believe” theories. VERY sound work there — both science and philosophy 😉
I’m following you, and I’ll be sure to check in on Dr. Ross’ work. Likewise, I was thinking about human nature and how it could correspond with evolution. I think we are both in agreement that the very basic principles that make us human are fixed, and cannot change despite the wishes of many intellectuals. Well, if human nature is immutable, could that also disprove human evolution in the physical sense? If that were not the case ,(and I’m not under the impression that my former comments are accurate) wouldn’t it be contradictory if we had a fixed nature, but a physical ability to evolve?
There are many assumptions in play here, and assumptions can get us in trouble — a LOT of trouble.
For instance: ‘evolution’ is just assumed by most people, so much so that even many Christians have accepted it as a fact. it isn’t. The THEORY of evolution has huge holes in it, and that usually condemns a theory. If this one were not attached to God (or getting rid of God), it would have been scrapped long ago. But it has been patched instead because it is needed to justify elevating man to God’s thrown.
Next, what do we mean by ‘evolution?’ If we mean it in the sense that Man came from ape, then no, there is ZERO evidence for this conclusion – none. What happens is men WANT it to be true, so they see it in any little thing they can make to fit their preconceived desires. This leads to confirmation bias and we see it on BOTH sides of this debate.
However, if by ‘evolution’ we mean ADAPTATION, now THAT is a different thing. There are plenty of signs of adaptation in this world. In truth, the finches Darwin called a ‘different species’ were the same type of finch with beaks adapted to the available food source. To call them a different species would be like calling football player a different species because their bodies got bigger.
This is the philosophy side of science that is too often ignored today. Science is just a tool, but you need guidelines to help you use it correctly. Just as logic is a tool but requires wisdom to know how to use it correctly. Because they are just tools, logic and science can both be made to serve opposing masters. So where does that get us? Answering THAT question honestly will — eventually — bring you back to the inevitable conclusion: that there MUST be a Creator. After all, even the most militant Atheist knows that they cannot get something from nothing. That’s why Hawkings used imaginary math in his most recent formulas: it was the only way to explain a self-generating universe. But his THEORY falls apart as soon as you put REAL numbers back in the equations 🙂
I suppose atheists cannot accept that there are some questions that are unanswerable in the realms of human intellect. But where we subsequently rely on faith, they are dependent on the finite tool of science. Sometimes I am surprised that the people so willing to adhere to these unproven theories are the most stubborn defenders of proof and evidence. Ironic, isn’t it? And hypocritical too.
But then, I must counter myself; because atheists do have faith in a God, except that God is themselves. I can attest; I have met God many times, but never once have I met my Creator.
Are you REALLY just a junior in high school? Or did I misunderstand a previous comment? Because you speak with wisdom beyond such tender year.
I really am, and I thank you for your kind words. But do not mistake my eloquence on paper for propriety in my actions, which are the truest reflections of my character. If you only knew some of my past offenses which make me so overwhelmingly a “millennial”. My age is a constant reminder that there is always room for improvement!
There was a reply to Lara’s comment that was deleted. I did so not because I disagreed with the reply (which I do), but because it was nothing but a predictable ad hominem attack on those who believe in God. IF this person wishes to stop posting anonymously, AND they will rely on reasoned debate, I will allow their comments to remain. But if they are going to come to this blog with the same old tired, fallacious name calling, then they will have their comments deleted. This blog — to the best of my ability — WILL remain civil and based in reasoned debate/discussion. People who just want to cause trouble are NOT welcome here.