P Z Myers received an email the other day that contains fifty “proofs” for the existence of God. He lacks the wherewithall to tackle them one-by-one. Me? I’m bored and have no life. So let’s rock!
Whilst agreeing that random patterns occur naturally by chance, DNA however, consists of code, which requires a designer.
Says who?
How do you explain the paranormal, such as people witnessing positive or negative sightings, like ghosts or angels? I saw a ghost with a friend of mine – I am not a liar, an attention seeker. Neither was I overtired when this happened.
No, but you might’ve just been honestly seeing something you didn’t recognize or understand. Maybe it was in a weird lighting condition. Maybe you were drunk, since you don’t exclude that. There’s any number of possible answers, all of which exist within the realm of logical, proven science, and none of which need to rely on the supernatural.
Try praying. What good is it when a mind is set to coincidence & disbelief regarding the positive outcome?
Ok, first, what? The second part of that doesn’t make any real sense. Second, prayer doesn’t do anything.
The law of cause & effect – in order to have an effect, there has to be a cause. Everything is caused by something.
Ok, and to you, that something is God. To me, that something is simply natural forces doing what they do. If a hurricane ravages New Orleans, it isn’t because God is angry. It’s because a particular set of circumstances happened out in the ocean, and now we’re all swimming.
Mindless nothing cannot be responsible for complex something.
I could be very, very unkind here about this list, but I’ll just say, “What’s your proof?” Ants are pretty darn mindless, as are bees, yet they manage to create some pretty nifty structures.
Science can only be the detector of certain things. You cannot scientifically detect emotion, memory, thoughts etc., though scientifically we must.. These things which do not consist of matter are beyond the detection of science.
Again, some grammar issues, though I suppose maybe this person’s first language isn’t English. If that’s the case, hey, pretty impressive! Anyhow, I’m not sure you’re right. As far as I’m aware, it’s possible to monitor the parts of the brain that are experiencing memory, emotion, thoughts, etc, as they occur. Plus they can all be subjected to at least some scrutiny and proved to exist beyond a reasonable doubt. The same does not apply to God.
Evolution has never been proved, which is why we call it the ‘theory of evolution’. It’s a fairy tale for grown ups!
Yes, and the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System is also a theory, as is the Theory of Gravity (which isn’t quite the same as Gravitation, which is a hell of a good read!). What’s your point? They’re proven theories, as is evolution. I suggest a visit to Wikipedia, where you can read up on what a theory actually is. And, by the way, I’d hardly be the one tossing around lines like “a fairy tale for grown ups”, given that what you believe has zero evidence behind it.
Atheism is a faith in that which has not been proved. The disbelievers have not witnessed anything to not believe in, whereas the believers believe because they have witnessed. There is no ‘good news’ to preach in atheism.
Sure, there’s plenty of good news to preach! You’re not the construction of a petty, wicked, jealous god. Instead you’re the product of a billions of years log struggle to bring our species into existence. Not a bad thing to be, really. Oh, and you’re right. We atheists haven’t proved there isn’t a God. We also haven’t disproved Russell’s Teapot or the FSM (all hail His noodly goodness! RA-men!). But on the other hand you haven’t proved there is a God.
How much of the atheist’s faith relies on anger with God as opposed to genuine disbelief in God?
Zero. I am no more angry with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god than I am with Thor, Zeus and Raiden (though he did always kick my ass in Mortal Kombat). I am also not angry at any other fictional characters, like Captain Kirk, Peter Pan, Robin Hood, Scooby-Doo or Michael Jackson.
Why do many atheists shake their fists & spend so much time ranting & raving about something they don’t believe in? If they are no more than a fizzled out battery at the end of the day, then why don’t they spend their lives partying, or getting a hobby?! Why don’t they leave this ‘God nonsense’ alone?
Pot, meet kettle. Anyhow, we live in a society that is, basically, controlled by you religious types. If we don’t speak up and fight back, we get trampled on. Sorry, but since you don’t leave us alone, we can’t leave you alone.
What created God? What came first, the chicken or the egg? I am not going to deny the existence of the chicken or the egg, merely because I don’t understand or know what came first. I don’t care – they both exist!
People. The egg (though obviously not a chicken egg at that point). Also, this does nothing to further your ideals here.
Improbability is not the same as impossibility. You only have to look at life itself for that backup of proof.
I am not sure what the point is here. You’re right; the two things are not the same. It is possible that God exists. It’s very unlikely, however, and all the evidence we have points to “no”. It’s also possible for you to jump off a very tall building, sprout wings, and fly away before you end up with the kind of death that results in a coronor’s report with phrases like “impact crater”, and “splash radius”. It’s possible for this to happen, but not bloody likely, and please, don’t try it.
How could the complexity of human life possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells?
I am, unfortunately, only a layman in these things, and don’t have all the details. I would point out, however, that is apparently has happened, since there is no proof otherwise.
How could the complexity of the human mind possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells? Where does our consciousness come from?
See previous answer for the first part. As for the second part, that’s a very good question! I am, as I said, only a layman, so I don’t know for sure where it comes from, or even if we’ve figured it out yet. If we haven’t, though, it’s only a matter of time, and no reason to say “Simpsons God did it!”
What/who knew that our hunger & thirst had to be catered for by the food & drink which we’re supplied with?
So… you’re amazed that we just happen to live on a planet that just happens to have all the tasty things we like to eat and drink? Why not be amazed that, by sheer coincidence, this planet just happens to be at the right place for life to exist? This is a total nonsense question.
Most of us are born with the five senses to detect our surroundings, which we’re provided with.
Er… this is not a question, but a blatantly obvious statement. Meaning… what?
What/who knew that had Earth been set nearer to the sun, we would burn up?
Argh.
What/who knew that had Earth been set any further from the sun, we would freeze up?
Double-argh!
What/who knew that had Earth been built larger or smaller, its atmosphere would be one where it would not be possible for us to breathe?
Dare I say… triple-argh?
What/who knew that we require the oxygen of plants, just as plants require the carbon dioxide of us?
Ok, read carefuly: we evolved on a planet where all these things are the way things are. So we ended up quite well adapted to them. It’s safe to say if we evolved on a planet with liquid methane oceans, there would probably be people saying how amazing it is that we just happen to have these oceans right here where we need them! Frankly, this is like wondering why the Sun doesn’t come out at night, when we really need the light (credit to Terry Pratchett).
The concept that life came about through sheer chance is as absurd & improbable as a tornado blowing through a junk yard, consequently assembling a Boeing 747!
Well, no, this is not, in fact, true. I refer to you this article on Wikipedia, which contains a fine refutation of that nonsense.
We are willing to believe in physically unseen waves that exist through the air, operating physical forces & appliances to work, yet not supernatural God forces being responsible for the same.
Yes, because things like sound waves, X-rays, light, etc, can be measured and verified. Supernatural forces cannot.
Matter cannot organise itself. An uneaten tomato will not progress on its own accord to form a perfect pineapple. It will transform into mould, into disorganisation. The laws of evolution fall flat.
First, that has nothing to do with evolution. Also, the tomato will rot and mold because of the various bacteria and such that evolved to eat it.
Our ‘inventor’ of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin had this to say to Lady Hope when he was almost bedridden for 3 months before he died; “I was a young man with unfathomed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions. wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire – people made a religion of them.” Darwin then asked Lady Hope to speak to neighbours the next day. “What shall I speak about?” She asked. He replied; “Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is that not the best theme?”
Yes, yes, much has been made of his allegeded deathbed “retraction” of his beliefs. The so-called Lady Hope Story has long since been disproved, though really, I don’t expect the writer of these questions to accept that, or anything else I have to say, for that matter. C’est la vie.
Where do our moral values held within our conscience come from? If the atheist is right, why then would we care about what we did?! If there is no God, then we’ve no-one to be accountable to.
We would be accountable to ourselves and each other. This is like saying, “If I found out there was no God, I’d go out and rape and murder!” I have yet to meet a single theist who honestly believes they, personally, would go out and suddenly become evil if they knew there was no God. This is a very stupid argument.
If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn’t he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised.
True, that’s because we have sentience, which so far, all other animals we know of lack. Anyhow, the smart-ass in me could make all sorts of remarks about how much like animals we still are, but why bother?
‘Chance’ isn’t the cause of something. It just describes what we can’t find a reason for.
No, something we can’t find a reason for usually gets described as “God did it!”
Science & logic do not hold all the answers – many people are aware of forces at work which we have no understanding of & no control over.
Those people are generally wrong, assuming we’re talking about psychic nonsense and supernatural stupidity. Besides, any good scientist will always, and frequently quite cheerfully, say there’s plenty of things we don’t know yet, else why the quest to learn?
Look at the date/year on our calender – 2000 years ago since what? Our historical records (other than the Bible) record evidence of Jesus’ existence.
Name three, and Josephus doesn’t count, since his lines about the subject have been proven to have been added later.
Many people have died for their faith. Would they be prepared to do this for a lie?!
Sadly, people are very gullible and trusting at times. Anyhow, why not make some comparison to atheists dying for their lack of faith in the Soviet Union and China?
Much of the Bible deals with eyewitness accounts, written only 40 years after Jesus died. When the books in the New Testament were first around, there would have been confusion & anger if the books were not true.
One might as well ask why it took 40 years for people to look around and say, “So, this Jesus chap. Think we should write down some stuff about him?” By the time 40 years had past, a great many of the people who would’ve witnessed the various alleged miracles would now be dead and unable to refute them.
From as early as 2000 BC, there is archaological evidence to confirm many details we’re provided with in the Bible.
True, and you know what? I can write a book about wizards living in England. The fact that it’s set in a real place doesn’t make it true.
Not one single Biblical prediction can be shown as false, and the Bible contains hundreds.
Buh? Please refer to this website for a detailed refutation of this very stupid comment.
The evidence from liturature & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.
Some are, some aren’t. We know, for example, that the Egyptians had Pharoahs and Pilate was governor of Judea. We don’t know that Jesus existed or that the world was drowned in a bloody great big flood.
From the birth of science through to today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity & science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians; Francis Bacon, Issaac Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.
True, and? They didn’t have sufficient evidence at that point that would change their minds. I have no problem with that. On the other hand, virtually every serious scientist of the last century or so have not been religious.
Science can explain ‘how’ something works, but not ‘why’ something works.
Er… it can, actually. Sorry.
Science is constantly recorrecting its findings. Past theories contradict certain beliefs which are held today. Our present ‘discoveries’ may change again in the future to rediscover how we originally came into existence.
Yes, and that’s a great thing about science! It’s self-correcting! We learn new things and develop new ideas, and those replace the old ones. Religion, on the other hand, doesn’t change at all. The Bible has been largely the same since the Council of Nicea and that was quite some time ago.
Evolution describes the way life possibly started, yet doesn’t explain what made life start & why. Scientific questions fail to do that. Even if evolution were proved, it would still not disprove God.
No, but, again, it also wouldn’t disprove the FSM. And while as far as I know, it’s true we haven’t yet explained what made life start and why, I’m sure we’ll figure it out in time.
The two people who discovered Jesus’ empty tomb were women. Women were so low on the social scale in first century Palestine, so in order to make the story fit, it would have made far more sense to claim that it were male disciples who had entered the tomb. But it wasn’t – we’re left with the historical & Biblical truth.
Either that, or someone thought it made for better drama.
Think about Near Death Experiences. It’s naive to believe that they all are induced by chemicals or drugs. How do we account for a blind person having this experience, coming back to describe what they had never before seen, a person telling the Doctor that there is a blue paperclip on top of the high cabinet, which they couldn’t have otherwise known, an african man being dead in his coffin for 3 days, coming back to life to tell of much the same events which took place as those of many others? We never hear of the witnesses describing “a dream”. We’re not silly – we know the difference between even the most vivid of dreams to that of reality.
Without being unkind, what you’ve said so far seems to deny the truth of that last line there. But ignoring that, we can actually recreat the effects people experience in NDE’s by spinning them very fast in one of those g-force simulators. They pass out and often report the exact same things. As for someone spotting a blue-paperclip or being dead in a coffin for three days then coming back to life, prove it!
There are many skeptics who didn’t believe in Jesus before his crucifixion, and who were opposed to Christianity, yet turned to the Christian faith after the death of Jesus. Just as the many who continue to do so today.
And?
Albert Einstein said; “A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind”.
He also said, “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one,” and “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
A speaker in Hyde Park who was attacking belief in God, claimed that the world just happened. As he spoke, a soft tomato was thrown at him. “Who threw that?” He said angrily. A cockney from the back of the crowd replied; “No-one threw it – it threw itself!”
Ok… so… your point? This means that someone, you know, lied to the guy. A smart-ass in Hyde Park. Who woulda thunk it?
It is easier to believe that God created something out of nothing than it is to believe that nothing created something out of nothing.
For you, maybe. Anyhow, it’s fairly easy to believe the world is flat and the Sun revolves around us until you know otherwise.
Stephen Hawkins has admitted; “Science may solve the problem of how the universe began, but it cannot answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist?”
Assuming you mean Stephen HAWKING, again I ask, “Your point?” Besides, the universe doesn’t bother to do anything. It just is.
We cannot confuse God with man. With God in the equation, all things, including miracles are possible. If God is God, he is Creator of all, inclusive of scientific law. He is Creator of matter & spirit.
We also cannot confuse God with reality.
If we are the product of evolution – by sheer accident, chance, then we are still evolving. Does it just so happen that we exist here today with everything so finely tuned for our living. as we now have it?
No, it’s like that cause we evolved to take advantage of the world as it is. Also, for myself, I certainly hope we’re still evolving, but I doubt we are. We stopped changing to suit our enviroment once we learned how to change our enviroment to suit us.
Could it possibly be that the missing link does not exist?!
Could be, but I doubt it.
God has proved himself to us in numerous ways, all around us. The atheist needs to put his glasses on. What more can God possibly do if man has shut his eyes to him?
Well, he could start by creating a universe where his existence isn’t called into question by virtually everything we know about the way things work. That’d help. Some sort of public appearance would to a long way to fixing the problem, too. Perhaps an interview on 60 Minutes?
Jesus Christ is either who he says he is, or he is the biggest con man history has ever known.
Or, my personal favorite theory, he was a teaching tool made up by people who wanted to present a particular ethical agenda and understood that it’s more compelling if you have a protaganist for your story.
Anyhow, that’s that. 50 “proofs” that don’t really amount to much and are easily dismissed. It’s very sad to see people building their entire lives around a house of cards that falls so easily.
