C.S. Lewis's Irrefutable Proof of Christianity (Or God)

[Ifreann]

NUMBER ONE: SILLY BIOCHEMISTRY

If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.

Exactly so, Mr. Lewis. The thoughts of our minds do not have any more significance, ultimately, than the sound of the wind in the trees. That this idea upsets you does not mean it is not so.

NUMBER TWO: THE WORLD IS NOT A MILK JUG PART 1

Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.

Nothing about a brain that came about by evolution gives cause to doubt one's thinking.

NUMBER THREE: THE WORLD IS NOT A MILK JUG PART 2

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts–i.e., Materialism and Astronomy–are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

Perhaps you are unaware, Mr. Lewis, that the work of astronomers is based on observable evidence, not on their wild imaginings. You don't need to believe their thinking, you can look for yourself. Though you might need to study the field for a few years.

NUMBER FOUR: YOU CAN'T LEARN FROM JESUS UNLESS YOU BELIEVE HE IS GOD

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Utter nonsense. One can learn from Jesus without believing him God just as much as one can learn from Samwise Gamgee without believing Tolkien to be a non-fiction author.

NUMBER FIVE: CHRISTIANS ARE DIFFERENT FROM EVERYONE ELSE

The Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or — if they think there is not — at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it.

Theists of any other stripe could say similar things. So what?

And let's not forget how credible C.S. Lewis is.

I can't say I know anything about C.S. Lewis' credibility. Do please explain.

[Risottia]

NUMBER ONE: SILLY BIOCHEMISTRY

If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.

So, here it is assumed that
a) thoughts have "more significance" than random sounds - without giving a definition of "significance" and a way of comparing the "significance" of different objects.
b) someone failing to understand something invalidates it.
Both assumptions are meaningless.

NUMBER TWO: THE WORLD IS NOT A MILK JUG PART 1

Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.

What a load of bullshit.
"Truth" only means "internal logical coherence". What really matters - and what we can use to "measure" the functionality of our minds is "reality", that is, observables. As Kant noted (and many before him, actually), all knowledge must descend from observation.

NUMBER THREE: THE WORLD IS NOT A MILK JUG PART 2

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents – the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts–i.e., Materialism and Astronomy–are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

Then again, when you take into account the facts that
a)it took it a LOT of time
b)the movements are NOT random
It all changes a lot. So, this argument is pure bullshit, too.

NUMBER FOUR: YOU CAN'T LEARN FROM JESUS UNLESS YOU BELIEVE HE IS GOD

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

And what does this prove? Nothing. It's a mere reiteration of Nycaean dogma - which one must anyway assume to be true to begin believing in Godses, Lordses and Christses etc.

NUMBER FIVE: CHRISTIANS ARE DIFFERENT FROM EVERYONE ELSE

The Christian is in a different position from other people who are trying to be good. They hope, by being good, to please God if there is one; or — if they think there is not — at least they hope to deserve approval from good men. But the Christian thinks any good he does comes from the Christ-life inside him. He does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us; just as the roof of a greenhouse does not attract the sun because it is bright, but becomes bright because the sun shines on it.

So, according to this argument, Christians can't be good per se. They can only be good if someone else (who is supposedly all-powerful) chooses to give goodness to them; but being all-powerful, he could also elect not to give goodness. Hence, if someone's good sua sponte, he cannot be a Christian.
Well, I wouldn't be much too happy if I were a Christian... I'd say I'd feel insulted, actually.

And let's not forget how credible C.S. Lewis is.

About Narnia, extremely credible. About logics and religion... really, there's a reason why C.S.Lewis never made it to Pope.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

About your point 2, you can use logic without caring about logic and use logic while caring about logic. Whether or not you care has no effect on your ability to use logic.

Seriously, what are you even trying to say.

I'm saying that "logic" isn't actually logical if it comes from our thoughts. Who says our logic is actually universally logical? Who says it makes sense at all? How do we know it isn't just random neurons going "there's a connection here!" even if there isnt?

Because as far as is possible to ascertain, there is a connection. It's utterly pointless to get into "maybes" at that level, because it's all unprovable hypotheticals.

[Snoozing Buffalax]

And I remain completely unconvinced by the arguments. As far as I know, CS Lewis was not a theologist, just a devout Christian who wrote good books. And like someone posted earlier: if it's irrefutable as you claim, why post it in a debate forum? =/

[Avenio]

How exactly was he wrong about biochemistry?

The fact that he;

a.) Handwaved it away without understanding any of it

b.) Died before we knew almost anything about biochemistry

Come to mind.

What ignorance of philosophy is he showing us?

He's throwing away entire branches of the tree of human knowledge because we came about them by trial-and-error.

[Esternial]

Why is anyone bothering to write this much if you can disprove the entire article with C.S. Lewis' own logic?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

And I remain completely unconvinced by the arguments. As far as I know, CS Lewis was not a theologist, just a devout Christian who wrote good books. And like someone posted earlier: if it's irrefutable as you claim, why post it in a debate forum? =/

Because he seems utterly compelled to convert the rest of us.
He hasn't had much success.

[Risottia]

1: Both are STILL random.

Wind is NOT random. It is caused by temperature differences, as an ancestor of mine showed. So, stop insulting my family.

[Death Metal]

As far as I know, CS Lewis was not a theologist, just a devout Christian who wrote good books.

"Good" is generous. He was average at best.

[Atollus]

Sayer has a reason to lie. Lewis does not.

Really? Many religions, the abrahamic ones in particular often believe that either their beliefs are correct or non are. In that case if God didn't exist Lewis would have to face the possible reality that there is no God. No afterlife. And that he has believed a lie all his life. Lesser minds could break from such a sudden realization. Perhaps he was lying to himself, and in turn everyone else, in order to protect his sanity from the mere possibility. Or not. He's dead. So who can say?

[Tlaceceyaya]

1: The wind in the trees is incapable of feeling emotions due to those biochemicals.
2: That's really fallacious. "If I do not believe in god, then my thoughts cannot be trusted. If I do, they somehow magically can be trusted, because god."
3:Accident is just a word. It doesn't mean that it's bad. Plagiarism is bad, though. And the mere fact that something exists without someone wanting it to does not make it false. Unless you refuse to believe anyone who said that they had a car accident and instead accuse them of wanting to get in a car accident.
4: He is depicted as doing some things. Some people focus on the good things, some on the bad things. He is depicted as saying a lot of things. Love thy neighbour. Fuck you, fig tree, for not anticipating my arrival and altering your natural processes so that I can have something to eat even though it's not the right time of year.
5: Other religions can claim that. People can even claim that christians do good out of fear of hell.
6: Hahahahahaha! Oh, wait, seriously? C.S. Lewis, credible on matters of reality?

1: Both are STILL random.
2: That's not what it says. It is saying that if thoughts are truly random, then why should I care about the "logic" in them? But if God created our thoughts, then it makes sense that we can use logic.
3: Accident though, means that it isn't necessarily true or intentional. You have it backwards.
4: But if he claimed he was God, doesn't that make him crazy if you think he is wrong? How can you justify believing his teachings?
5: But that's not what most religions actually do or believe.
6: Uh, yeah. He's C.S. Lewis. Have any evidence to say the opposite?

1: So? I don't really even understand the point of that 'point.' And they are only random insofar as... well, they actually AREN'T random.
2: They actually aren't random. And your logic is that god exists because if god created our thoughts, we can deduce that god exists because if god created our thoughts, we can deduce that god exists because helpmeI'mtrappedinacircularargument!
3: Accident means that it isn't intentional. Has nothing to do with truth. If I accidentally drop a small container of screws and they form a T shape, the fact that it was an accident does not mean that the T does not exist. And, again, the universe is only an accident if you define an accident as not intended, because obviously, without an intelligence, there can be no intent.
4: Crazy people can say things that aren't crazy. Pythagoras was crazy, but the square root of both legs squared and added together is still the length of the hypotenuse. Except, instead of fact, we're dealing with philosophy with jesus.
5: Yeah. So? Most religions don't believe that the earth was by ants. What's your point?
6: He was not a scientist. He was a fiction writer. A christian fiction writer. Who believed in a shared universal morality.

[Risottia]

... in order to protect his sanity from the mere possibility. Or not. He's dead. So who can say?

...do a sanity check and ask Nyarlatothep.

[Denecaep]

How exactly was he wrong about biochemistry?

The fact that he;

a.) Handwaved it away without understanding any of it

b.) Died before we knew almost anything about biochemistry

Come to mind.

What ignorance of philosophy is he showing us?

He's throwing away entire branches of the tree of human knowledge because we came about them by trial-and-error.

I apologize; I was making a point about Logi's illogic. They weren't legitimate questions, it was sarcasm. Darn the lack of tone I can emit through the internet.

[Mondrova]

Since your entire argument hinges on CS Lewis, please, do tell why he is infallible.

[Death Metal]

... in order to protect his sanity from the mere possibility. Or not. He's dead. So who can say?

...do a sanity check and ask Nyarlatothep.

I elect to fail my sanity check.

[Denecaep]

I'm saying that "logic" isn't actually logical if it comes from our thoughts. Who says our logic is actually universally logical? Who says it makes sense at all? How do we know it isn't just random neurons going "there's a connection here!" even if there isnt?

Because as far as is possible to ascertain, there is a connection. It's utterly pointless to get into "maybes" at that level, because it's all unprovable hypotheticals.

Sorry, I think you misunderstood. I was pointing out the flaw in his own logic by mocking him, which I definitely shouldn't have done. Sorry. As I said before, I should remember that sarcasm is hard to sense through the internet.

[Avenio]

Since your entire argument hinges on CS Lewis, please, do tell why he is infallible.

Because he is CS Lewis, and he is an expert, and thus he is infallible. And therefore we should proclaim Jesus as our lord and saviour.

Or something.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Because as far as is possible to ascertain, there is a connection. It's utterly pointless to get into "maybes" at that level, because it's all unprovable hypotheticals.

Sorry, I think you misunderstood. I was pointing out the flaw in his own logic by mocking him, which I definitely shouldn't have done. Sorry. As I said before, I should remember that sarcasm is hard to sense through the internet.

Hah, that's ok.
Someone needs to invent a damn sarcasm detector for these things, it's a minefield sometimes...

[Death Metal]

Since your entire argument hinges on CS Lewis, please, do tell why he is infallible.

By Christian doctrine, nobody except Jesus was infallible. Unless you're a Catholic of course, then the Popes are too. Therefore Logi has to accept that either he is committing blasphemy against his own faith in making CS Lewis a false idol, or that CS Lewis could have been full of shit.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Since your entire argument hinges on CS Lewis, please, do tell why he is infallible.

Because he is CS Lewis, and he is an expert, and thus he is infallible. And therefore we should proclaim Jesus as our lord and saviour.

Or something.

He's infallible because the OP agrees with him, and they both believe in the same supposedly "infallible" religion.
That's the logic, as far as I can tell.

[Mondrova]

Since your entire argument hinges on CS Lewis, please, do tell why he is infallible.

Because he is CS Lewis, and he is an expert, and thus he is infallible. And therefore we should proclaim Jesus as our lord and saviour.

Or something.

I see, it all makes sense now! Wait. Does that mean The Chronicles of Narnia is the second bible?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Because he is CS Lewis, and he is an expert, and thus he is infallible. And therefore we should proclaim Jesus as our lord and saviour.

Or something.

I see, it all makes sense now! Wait. Does that mean The Chronicles of Narnia is the second bible?

Aslan died for our sins, man.
As if the symbolism there wasn't heavy-handed ENOUGH...

[Atollus]

Because he is CS Lewis, and he is an expert, and thus he is infallible. And therefore we should proclaim Jesus as our lord and saviour.

Or something.

I see, it all makes sense now! Wait. Does that mean The Chronicles of Narnia is the second bible?

Well. They are both works of religious influenced fiction created by Christians so... sure why not?

[LogiChristianity]

Guys, while the argument about blasphemy is very clever, I never said CS Lewis is infallible. I called the argument he makes irrefutable, since Christianity is true. I KNOW it is true because I can see how God has affected my life in so many ways, plus the fact that the Bible has consistent values throughout. But I'm trying to find a medium, possibly CS Lewis, through which to convince you guys.

[Hebalobia]

Considering these things don't prove anything, you're labeling them as "irrefutable" is a tad off the mark.

Number 1, Number 2 and Number 3 are essentially arguments from ignorance. I can't understand how this came to be therefore "GOD DID IT!"

Number 4 ignores the myriad of additional possibilities such as Jesus never actually existed and the gospel stories about him are pure fiction.

Number 5 is arrogant nonsense which, even if it were true, and it's not, wouldn't prove anything. I agree with Ghandi when he said something to the effect that he liked Jesus but he couldn't stand Christians. By far the greatest argument against Christianity is Christians and their rejection of things such as the Theory of Evolution and acceptance of things like Noah's Ark.

You need to understand that most atheists have traveled a long and treacherous road to arrive where they are and know more about the arguments for God, Jesus and Christianity than the overwhelming majority of Christians. I've seen three posts by you none of which presented anything new or anything even approaching compelling evidence.

Feel free to keep trying since I assume you are simply following the Great Commission in your own way.