A Logic Lesson from Answers in Genesis

This is a great one from the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia. Their post is titled Micro-Refutations, written by Bodie Hodge, Hambo’s son-in-law. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

Scripture calls Christians to refute (i.e., prove false) false views [scripture reference]. And with just a little knowledge, they can usually easily refute false religions and beliefs. Christians can refute false beliefs by using God’s Word (the absolute standard). It is important to know what the Bible teaches because using God’s Word is the best refutation method. All other authorities are lesser authorities, so appealing to lesser authorities to trump the ultimate authority winds up in a false authority fallacy every time.

Right. Just quote the bible and relax. The job is done. Then Bodie says:

Another way Christians can refute a false belief or religion is by showing that the religion or belief is fallacious internally within its own story or set of beliefs. There are three ways this can be done. These religions can catch themselves in inconsistencies or arbitrariness, or those claiming to adhere to a false religion or belief have to give up their belief system and borrow from the Bible to make sense of things (this is called preconditions of intelligibility — my favorite type of refutation).

[…]

And any one refutation of a false set of beliefs (e.g., worldview, philosophical system, or religion) is enough to refute the whole thing. It’s that simple. So let’s look at some quick, easy refutations.

Fortunately, there is absolutely nothing in the bible in the bible that can be refuted, so what’s said here applies only to other beliefs. Bodie shows us some quick, easy refutations:

Materialism, a belief that asserts that all things that exist are made up of matter and energy, is itself not material or energy, but a nonmaterial concept. This means materialism cannot exist within materialism. Thus, materialism is self-defeating and refuted.

Wham, bam — materialism is refuted! Let’s read on:

Agnosticism, which claims that one cannot know if God exists, has no basis for the existence of knowledge and thus is stuck in a catch-22. The agnostic cannot even know if he can or cannot know if knowledge exists. Thus, he cannot even know if he is in a position to determine if God exists or not. (Confusing, isn’t it?) Thus, it is inconsistent and self-contradictory.

Wham, bam — another brilliant refutation. This is great stuff! Want more? Okay, here ya go:

Atheists say there is no God. To make this claim, the atheist must be omnipresent to observe that God does not exist in the past, present, or future heavenly or physical realms; the atheist must be omnipotent to have the power to stop an all-powerful God from taking his place as God; and lastly, the atheist must have all knowledge (omniscience) to finally know for sure that God doesn’t exist. Therefore, the atheist must be an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscience “god” to say there is no omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God. They must have the attributes of God to claim God doesn’t exist. Thus, the atheistic position is self-refuting.

Bodie is a genius! Another excerpt:

Atheists continually attack God, whom they lump as mythical with the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus in books, articles, lectures, journals, memes, billboards, and so on — yet they don’t spend the effort to do this with the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. This is arbitrary and inconsistent.

Fantastic! Here’s more:

If state schools really want to get all semblance of Christianity out of the classroom (which is really a thinly veiled attempt to replace it with a secular humanistic religion), they should stop having weekends (which are really Christian holidays—based on the Sabbath and Lord’s Day) and stop taking holidays (“holy days,” which are predicated on a holy God). Animals don’t take weekends or holidays off. Why isn’t the ACLU constantly suing schools to rid the school systems of weekends and other Christian holidays? It is very “Christian” for these schools to retain these Christian holidays.

Yeah — no more weekends for Darwinists! After this next excerpt, Bodie’s post dribbles off into some plugs for books and other material sold by Hambo:

Hopefully, this little introduction to micro-refutations will spur you on. There is so much more to learn about apologetics and refutation.

Well, dear reader — that was amazing, wasn’t it? Now that you know how easy it is to refute those godless Darwinists, what are you waiting for? Get out there and expose them for what they really are — they’re all fools!

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

24 responses to “A Logic Lesson from Answers in Genesis

  1. I think this learned man has drawn evolution into disrepute. Clearly he has not the ability to think his way out of a wet paper bag but he has survived, presumably long enough to pass on his genes. Evolution is either wrong … or it works in mysterious ways.

    On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:28 PM, The Sensuous Curmudgeon wrote:

    > The Curmudgeon posted: “This is a great one from the creation scientists > at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ > Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia. Their post is titled > Micro-Refutations, written by Bodie Hodge, Hambo’s son-in-law. Here are so” >

  2. Mark Germano

    “…and stop taking holidays (“holy days,” which are predicated on a holy God).”

    It is an etymological fallacy to force a word’s historical meaning on its modern usage.

    Two can play at this game, Bodie.

  3. Michael Fugate

    No matter, no energy, no ideas.

    Here’s one that I am wondering and maybe Bodie can it tackle next: If God has no body and no Y chromosome, then how can God be male? On the other hand, if God is only mind but is also male, then possession of certain body parts do not determine gender and the mind could presumably be one gender and the body another? Especially in this fallen world…

  4. Etymological fallacy:
    Museum – a temple to the divine Muses.
    Sunday, … , Saturday – days dedecated to the gods Sun, … Saturn.
    January, …, June – months dedecated to pagan Roman gods.

  5. Mark Germano

    Speaking of fun with etymology: Easter should give Bodie a whole bunch of angst, then.

  6. MarkG accepts a challenge: “Two can play at this game, Bodie.”
    How do you mean, two? Thus far I haven’t seen that Bodie can play it. Example, already addressed by MichaelF:

    “Materialism, ….. a nonmaterial concept.”
    Thought up by humans using their brains, brains that process about 40% of the energy intake of those humans – even if they are called Bodie.
    As far as games go Bodie is like Tim Tebow stumbling around in the Champions Leage finals (or if you prefer, Zlatan Ibrahimovic in the Super Bowl).

  7. Theodore Lawry

    Atheists continually attack God, whom they lump as mythical with the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus .. yet they don’t spend the effort to do this with the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. This is arbitrary and inconsistent.

    Does Mr Hodge really think people believe in the Easter Bunny? Does Hodge believe in the Easter Bunny? But if he doesn’t believe in the Easter Bunny, wouldn’t he have to have searched the entire earth to make sure, just like atheist would have to search the universe for God? Inquiring minds want to know!

  8. Michael Fugate

    Has he waited up all night for the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus? Were the cookies and milk gone on Christmas morning? Were presents in the stockings? Was the tooth missing and money in its place? Even if you saw your parent drinking the milk, it doesn’t mean Santa didn’t stop by and just wasn’t thirsty, and your parent didn’t want the milk to go to waste…

  9. Mark Germano

    I do get your point, FrankB, but I imagine Ibrahimovic could be an asset to an American football team. He can kick a ball a little, I understand. Athletic ability in one sport can be transferable to other sports, if not at the expert level.

    Whatever Bodie’s skills are, I can’t imagine they are in high demand.

  10. The more Bodie talks, the more it becomes obvious that he’s that son-in-law that Ken had to give a job to, just to make sure his daughter and grand kids wouldn’t go hungry….

  11. Michael Fugate

    I think agnosticism is my favorite – if you can’t know if gods exist, then you can’t know even if you exist. If we can imagine something, then it must exist?

  12. The halfwit that married the bosses daughter to get 70K a year.

  13. “The halfwit …”
    You are giving him too much credit!

  14. Mark Germano

    My spellchecker says sixteenthwit isn’t a word.

  15. Bodie only earns $70K a year? Well, Ken must REALLY dislike him.
    $70K is an insult. @Kosh is right, he’s ‘that’ son-in-law that Ken had to give a job to.

  16. So Bodie thinks there are no inconsistencies in the Bible? Ha, ha, ho, ho, hee, hee!

  17. tedinoz asks,
    “Bodie only earns $70K a year?

    Cost of living is really cheap in northern Kentucky. Bodie could probably get a decent double-wide for well under $90,000, and Daddy-in-law Ken would be happy to give him a little corner of the Ark Park to park it on for free. Property taxes are real low in most parts of Kentucky (just ask the school teachers there – education is funded primarily through property taxes). Bodie wouldn’t have to commute, so he saves there, too. And he could grow his own veggies, milk his own cows, raise his own chickens, gather his own eggs, and grow his own weed.

  18. @RSG is nasty today: “he could grow his own veggies, milk his own cows, raise his own chickens, gather his own eggs, and grow his own weed.”
    But ….. but …… that would leave Bodie less time for his Mission for God: spreading creacrap! Also it would mean Bodie doing actual work. How dare you to bring up a discussion like this?

    OK, now everyone here is willing to play that little game at the expense of Bodie I’ll go along a bit more.

    “the atheist must be an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscience “god” to say there is no omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God.”
    First of all: false dilemma combined with strawman. Knowledge never is 100% certain absolute eternal etc. etc. There is no atheist who claims to have such certainty.
    In the second place it’s Bodie who claims that his god is omni this and omni that. So the atheist only needs to point out that his god is not present somewhere, does not have to power to do something X and doesn’t know Y.
    Above all Bodie claims that his god is supernatural. Given the fact that our Universe is part of our natural reality (or even equal to) it doesn’t make any sense to search Bodie’s god there. Would he reside in our natural reality Bodie’s god would cease to be supernatural.

    @MarkG: of course I imagined Tim Tebow stumbling around in the CL finals while wearing his gear and Zlatan Ibrahimovic doing the same in the Super Bowl wearing his usual sports outfit. Plus both playing according the rules they are used to. Or the analogy with Bodie trying to do logic would be incomplete.

  19. Dave Luckett

    Bodie asserts that materialism is immaterial. This is only an assertion, which has to be demonstrated, and that must be done in the certain knowledge that thoughts, feelings and emotions are physical events in the brain, triggered by material stimuli. If thoughts, feelings and emotions are material, why is an idea not material? Is it somehow more than an extremely complex pattern of neural firing – which is a material event? if so, Hodge has to demonstrate it – and he can’t.

    The rest of his nonsense doesn’t even rise to that level. It’s been refuted, demolished, exploded, reduced to smoking rubble a thousand times, and here it is, back again. And headed by the argument from faith: “The Bible is the final authority, because.”

    As I’ve remarked before, there is no use deploying reason against the irrational. It’s like using a sword to cut water.

  20. Cut poor Bodie some slack. He expresses in a few short paragraphs what takes the likes of Plantinga and Lane Craig metres of bookshelf whilst conveying roughly the same message: bafflegab.

  21. If state schools really want to get all semblance of Christianity out of the classroom (which is really a thinly veiled attempt to replace it with a secular humanistic religion), they should stop having weekends (which are really Christian holidays—based on the Sabbath and Lord’s Day) and stop taking holidays (“holy days,” which are predicated on a holy God). Animals don’t take weekends or holidays off. Why isn’t the ACLU constantly suing schools to rid the school systems of weekends and other Christian holidays? It is very “Christian” for these schools to retain these Christian holidays.

    Actually, both the seven-day week (weekends and all) and holidays predate Christianity. The former is a convention Jews picked up from the Babylonians, while holidays are found in every religious culture (Chinese New Year, anyone?). And merchants everywhere would rise in rebellion if the best shoppingt days were taken away.

  22. The daughter Mrs Hodge get about $40,000 a year. Don’t forget Ken Ham is only a co-owner.

  23. BTW, what Christian holiday is celebrated on Saturday?

  24. No conscientious atheist will say there is no god with absolute certainty. Atheists only claim to believe there is no god, not to know whether there is no god. There is no need on the part of an atheist to be omnipresent or omniscient, only to reason, based on lived experiences, that god possibly does not exist.