Pg 234--This is where I simply must shake my head in pity over such a fool. I wish he would do a little bit more homework before writing next time. He attempts to attack the Kalam Cosmological Arguement. He states, "The argument that God exists and has always existed is a Biblical doctrine." Well I have a news flash ladies and gentlement...the existence of God is not a teaching unique to the Bible. Furthermore, I don't know why he equates Intelligent Design with Biblical Christianity. This may insult a bunch of ID people who aren't Bible believing Christians. He goes on to say, "The identity of the god whose existence is allegedly “proven” by the Kalam argument. Why couldn’t the Intelligent Designer be Zeus, or Allah, or Apollo?" I wonder if he has ever read the Kalam argument. That’s not the point of the argument. In fact it doesn’t necessarily state anything in regards to God. It argues that since the universe came into existence it needs a cause outside of itself. Let me show you the argument here:
1) Whatever begins to exist needs a cause
2) The Universe began to exist
3) Therefore, the universe needs a cause
Notice that the words "God", "Bible", and "Christianity" do not appear at all!!! Shocking, I know.
Pg 237--I think he must have been perusing William Lane Craig's website at this point becaue he now moves in an attack against the 'impossibilty of an infite past' argument which Craig uses a lot. If you are not familiar with the argument I suggest you google it. Anyways Mills attempts to show this is absurd by saying if you wanted to walk a city block first you have to walk 1/2 of that, but then first you have to walk 1/2 of that, and so forth. He then argues that of course you can still walk the city block even though you can separate it into 1/2 an infinite amount of times. Therefore, (in his mind) an infinite is possible. But if you actually go study the argument you will notice this is simply an example of a "potential" infinite. Notice that the infinite Mills puts forth is only potentially infinite. That is, you never reach all the 1/2's that you are subdividing the block into. On the other hand, what Craig argues, is that you can't have an "actual" infinite number of things. So again, Mills hasn't done his homework.
This post concludes our critique of "Atheist Universe" by David Mills. He has torn down many straw men, argued fallaciously, failed to do his homework, made false assertions without even trying to back them up with evidence, and simply shown himself to lack any scholarly arguments. The evidence for Biblical Christianity stands unshaken