What a foolish, sad, and predictable lot. They [atheists] appear almost like a new species of humanity, a strange mutation. And like most mutations, they present a harmful, not helpful, distortion. They begin with the assumption of naturalism and, wonders of wonders, they always conclude with naturalism. They cannot find God because their philosophy allows none to exist, having excluded Him by definition. They seem not to understand that apart from their baseless assumption, their arguments ring hollow to the rest of us. The book of Ecclesiastes, while speaking in another vein, gives an excellent description of their folly. “This also is vanity and a striving after wind (4:4).
They do not see — nor do they want to see — that to begin with God gives at least a viable base for making an argument. On the other hand, to begin without Him brings with it a necessary inconsistency and gives the lie (or doubt) to everything. One cannot present a valid argument for truth, a logical argument for reason, a moral argument for good and bad. And baseless arguments are usually — and should be — considered fallacious.
Really now. is it not a bit frustrating? You [atheists] surely want to discredit my contentions. But as I have shown, you have none of the raw material from which to formulate a counter-argument. To answer me, you will need to employ reason in an effort to establish truth. But I have shown that these belong to God, and that you cannot logically use them without dismissing your atheism. You might want to challenge my arguments as unfair, but then you would be arguing on the basis of a moral structure to which your system gives no access. And even science cannot come to your rescue since it depends upon truth and reason under the guidance of morality. But even with all of this, we may have no power to stop your dissent since consistency has never been a part of your repertoire.
As I close, I ask that you recall the horizon line. True seeking requires that you do not limit yourself to the cramped valley of physicalism. Remember that the central issue is atheism against theism. Understand also that it is an artificial sham to pit evolution against creationism or an old earth against a young one. Discover the right key. Only theism is congruous with nature as we know and experience it. Atheism is consistent with nothing, including itself.
Here’s the final word: Either you must admit the fact of God or acknowledge that you have taken a completely baseless and, therefore, defenseless position.
— The Fatal Flaw by Jerry Garloch, pages 152-154
You can purchase The Fatal Flaw here.
What absolute tripe.
“They cannot find God because their philosophy allows none to exist”.
Actually atheism isn’t a philosophy, it’s a position which holds that there is no evidence for God. It can lead to philosophical positions, especially that which rejects as wrong morality based on human bigotry rather than reason, but it does not, for example, have weekly meetings giving praise and thanks to….well, there’s nobody to do it to!
The writer attempts to commandeer a position that his is the only case to be made by saying that a case based on God has to be the right one. Talk about circular arguments! He asserts that humans are unable to construct arguments from reason because “reason belongs to God”. He asserts, but presents no evidence.
Ultimately the only conclusion is that the writer is a fool. He appears to be claiming creationism over evolution, an indication of extreme lack of education, delusion, or out and out lying. He makes no attempt to create a medium for debate, and simply makes himself appear foolish, with opinions that have been debunked so many times.
Indeed who was it said something like ‘insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results’? Can’t remember, but this guy proves his point. The arguments have been made time and time again, and proved lacking ever tippy time.
Oops hurried edit above. Tippy should read ‘single’.
Or maybe tippy is better. Maybe God moved my fingers!
Spot on. He hasn’t “shown” anything. He’s merely asserted it.
Of course, atheists get pregnant for the sake of having an abortion afterwards. Rolls eyes… Let’s make love, so I can have an abortion, really?
Not to mention there are atheists that are not necessarily pro-choice. It’s this misconception that every atheist is exactly the same: as if atheism is a lifestyle that follows x, y, z, whereas it is religion that does usually have a lifestyle attached to it.
I know, right? It’s a well- known fact that atheists love having abortions! Sounds like the subject of a Jack Chick tract.
It does! Like it’s a hobby or something 😉
I submit this hurried edit as a beginning, to merely start a process of bringing this fellow back to earth. I cannot change the weird assumptions used, the circle game of deulsion but I think that by turning the whole debacle on its head, we might have a beginning…..
Naw, chuck after reading. Submitted with apologies to people of reason. I have stooped too low. -Brian
What a foolish, sad, and predictable lot. They [fundagelicals] appear almost like a new species of humanity, a strange mutation. And like most mutations, they present a harmful, not helpful, distortion. They begin with the assumption of superheroes and, wonders of wonders, they always conclude with superheroes. They cannot find their own human reason because their philosophy allows none to exist, having excluded ‘the fallen’ by definition. They seem not to understand that apart from their baseless assumption, their arguments ring hollow to the rest of us. The book of Ecclesiastes, while speaking in another vein, gives an excellent description of their folly. “This also is vanity and a striving after wind (4:4).
They do not see — nor do they want to see — that to begin with, Science and human reason give at least a viable base for making an argument. On the other hand, to begin without Reason in Scientific Method brings with it a necessary inconsistency and gives the lie (or doubt) to everything. One cannot present a valid argument for truth, a logical argument for reason, a moral argument for good and bad. And baseless arguments are usually — and should be — considered fallacious.
Really now. is it not a bit frustrating? You [superheroists] surely want to discredit my contentions. But as I have shown, you have none of the raw material from which to formulate a counter-argument. To answer me, you will need to employ reason in an effort to establish truth. But I have shown that these belong to human reason, to Science properly executed and that you cannot logically use them without at least suspending your belief. You might want to challenge my arguments as unfair, but then you would be arguing on the basis of a sensible moral structure to which your system gives no access. And even the superhero cannot come to your rescue since it depends upon truth and reason under the guidance of human morality. But even with all of this, we may have no power to stop your dissent since consistency has never been a part of your repertoire.
As I close, I ask that you recall the horizon line. True seeking requires that you do not limit yourself to the cramped valley of fantasy. Remember that the central issue is reality overcoming fantasy. Surely we have exited the dark of the caves? Understand also that it is reasonable and not artificial sham to pit evolution against creationism or an old earth against a young one using the tools of Science. Discover the right key. Only our simple, brilliant humanity is congruous with nature as we know and experience it. Fundagelical belief is consistent with nothing, including itself.
Here’s the final word: Either you must admit the fact of the superhero as pure fantastic woo or acknowledge that you have taken a completely baseless and, therefore, defenseless position.
— Brian’s free edit of Jerry Garloch, pages 152-154
If you stooped too low, I’m right there with you. I’ll help you up as soon as I finish laughing. I chuckled at Jerry Garloch, but you made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that. I stubbed and broke my little toe last night and I needed a good laugh.
“And even science cannot come to your rescue since it depends upon truth and reason under the guidance of morality. ”
Huh???? What a load of condescending bull hockey…. and I just ate breakfast. I think he has a rather “unique” definition of reason.
Evidently it is unreasonable of those of us who don’t believe in a God to continue to use ‘his’ gifts of cognition and language; we should abandon them immediately!
Garloch’s ‘argument’ is entirely circular, one that presupposes its conclusion from the start: reason demonstrates that God exists, therefore God must have created reason, which demonstrates God exists, who must therefore have created reason… and so on, ad infinitum. If this is the best our God-given critical faculties can manage then the case that they are the product of an undirected, random process (which evolution isn’t) is entirely persuasive.
I note that Garloch claims a PhD in ‘apologetics’ from Newburgh Theological College, which appears not to be accredited. One of those low levels doctorates that Bruce describes.
It’s an indication of the difficulties apologists face in maintaining their position. They just aren’t developing new arguments, whilst their opponents are finding increasingly unassailable ones.
I think Garloch is trolling
Sorry to necropost here but had to, Jerry was/is my step-grandfather. Random search landed me here and I wanted to give context to the kind of person that wrote such absurd, pseudo-intellectual dribble (he is/was not trolling though, he genuinely believes this madness and drowns daily in his own hubris).
To begin, we have not spoken in at least 5 years for 3 major reasons (in chronological order below)…
1.) When I was 9-10 years old, I beat Jerry at chess twice and he was really an immature jerk (at age 50+) about it, going so far as demanding that I keeping playing (basically until he won) so I quit to go play outside in the woods with my cousins. He kept razzing me about it the rest of the 1.5 week visit.
2.) When his own wife died (my “grandma”) in 2017, he had the contempt in his heart and gall in his mouth to say to me and all her mourners this 5 minute bit nestled within his 20 minute sermon (less loving eulogy to her and more an ode to “godly women”) about how she “wasn’t the perfect preacher’s wife but she tried her best while falling short.” I was outright disgusted by what was obviously an unapologetic widow getting the last word in arguments he had with grandma since I first met them 20+ years before.
3.) The final straw was during a visit 6 months after grandma Pat died, I went to visit the Garlochs. Because I worked at an auto company and was talking about new safety features on our vehicles, Jerry picked a fight with me about how “seatbelts kill and have caused way more harm than good!” with little more than the one-off anecdote of that 1 in a million person killed by CIRCUMSTANCES involving seatbelt usage (i.e., trapped in pond and drowned). I tried to explain every way I could, used logic/reason/science/data/etc. but some of the same ridiculous, indignant POV on display in this silly book excerpt emerged. It got so heated, he actually stood up to I think bully me into backing down verbally but really bad idea, I rose to the occasion, he sat back down, peed himself, and we have never spoken again. Granted, before this Jerry was never a good “grandpa” (never called, never sent cards, never visited or even made plans to).
All this said^, Jerry also was a raging preacher alcoholic for decades who beat his wife and abused both his adopted son (step-dad). Even after he stopped drinking and beating children and women while lecturing the world about godliness, I had to remove a virus and restore his PC because he clearly had viewed the wrong porn site(s). So not even sure why people like this cling to religion that ruins their own happiness and lives, but he has and at age 80+ today will likely die under these false pretenses and wild delusions.
Why share all this now? Well, I may not believe in god(s) but I do believe in truth and wanted to share some here for Bruce and all his readers to know. I think it is fair to let readers of his writings and speeches know the man behind the persona and rhetoric.