I’ve been meaning for some time now to address some things Stefan Molyneux has said in his videos over the course of the past few years. Over the past year or so, I’ve listened to probably the majority of his videos – and there are a lot of them – dealing with anarchism, and I am very much in favor of what he advocates, as far as the politics goes. However, on the religious side of things, I am a Christian and Stefan is an atheist, and he tends to say things that don’t truly represent Christianity. Consequentially, he tends to look at everything in a very secular light, where he takes the possibility of miracles or anything that we might consider “supernatural” or “anti-scientific” completely out of the equation.
The reason I title this writing “even Stefan Molyneux believes in miracles” is because I think that no matter what your religious persuasion – Christian, atheist, whatever – there is one circumstance that you strictly cannot deal with outside of supernaturality – and that is, existence itself. Basically, there are three different cases to explain how we are here (existence):
- matter was created by God (whom always existed)
- matter always existed (implying infinite history)
- matter did not exist and then did (conservation of mass?)
Any way you slice it, mere existence is “anti-scientific”.
Also, just as a side note – Stef likes to refer to God as a “square circle”, or an impossibility by definition, stating that He cannot be omniscient and omnipotent, and I take exception to that. His reasoning is that if God were omniscient then He would be all-knowing and would know His future plans, and therefore couldn’t change his future plans, meaning He would not be omnipotent. I think this is pretty deceptive and intellectually dishonest, and definitely not sound. If God had a plan and then needed to change it, He simply would have already known He was going to change it. It’s really pretty simple… it’s just a clever twist on the age-old “can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it?” paradox… just much less confounding and silly, and a bit more cunning.