RSS

Chapter 4

No Apologies Chapter 4

15 Questions

In debating, one of the best tools is to try to argue the other side.
In this case, I wanted to understand the thoughts of apologists.
So, in this case, I did a quick Google search and looked for the strongest arguments for the existence of a god. The questions below are from http://geekychristian.com/questions-for-atheists-agnostics/
To test my world view, I decided to try to answer all the questions honestly, with an open mind and see if there are serious holes in my logic and how I understand the world. Lets take a look:

1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?
A1. To really answer this question, you need to define what god is. Is it an omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, all loving “Jesus” type of god that created the universe and watches over every single thing constantly, over all time? Yes, I am absolutely sure a god like that does not and can not exist. It violates so many laws of the universe, such as Heisenberg’s uncertainty and the speed of light, I see no possible way for a god like this to exist in any way. A limited, mortal, hyper-intelligent creatures, sure, that can exist. I have looked for evidence of both of these gods, and found none. I have read the Bible and was not impressed. It is so evidently written by bronze age goat herders that it can not be the word of any god.

2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?
A. Yes, an intelligently designed thing would require a designer. Yes, that would be evidence of the designer of the universe, but the universe contains no such detectable markings.

3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?
A3. No, I do not agree with this. Nothing can produce something, such as when the universe began. There is no way to know what existed before, since there was no space-time before, or if there was a universe before this one, all information about that universe is lost. No, there is no cause to the universe. It does not need a cause, it can just be.

4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?
A4. We have more than one sense, sight, so this is a silly question. Sound can not be seen, we hear it. Everything you listed can be detected, except for the mind. You can measure the brain, the mind may not be real.

5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?
A5. Again with the seeing. The problem with god is you can not see, smell, taste, touch, hear, or detect god in any way. For any other object in the universe, this would mean it does not exist. For some reason god is the exception.

6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?
A6. No one is poor choice of words, nothing (no thing) is a better explanation than an intelligent creator. If there was creator, it would also need a creator, resulting in an endless loop.

7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?
A7a. Yes, the universe and everything in it currently exists. A7b. Something can come nothing so I can’t answer your next question and I don’t think your first question leads to your second question.

8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)
A8. No it would not. The first organism was not an animal and much simpler than any organism currently in existence. Animals are multicellular organisms, by the way. That is one of the defining characteristics, so whomever wrote this question does not understand what an animal is. Natural selection is a much more reasonable solution. Evolution can cover a lot of ground in 3.5 billion years.

9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?
A9. This question is based on very flawed assumptions. A affect can be much greater than the cause. The Mona Lisa is made from canvas and paint, yet it is greater than what it is made of. Mind producing matter makes no sense, at all. The mind is defiantly the result of electrochemical reactions in the brain. Mind came from matter.

10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?
A10. How do you define wrong? Morals are a result of society, education, and evolutionary trends. There are no absolute moral laws and morals change over time. If morals were absolute, they would not change with society, but they do, so they are not laws.

11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?
A11. These laws do not exist, so no, you do not need a moral lawgiver.

12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?
A12. Yes, it would take an intelligent agent to create a model. The universe is not a model and does not require a creator. It just is. Models are representations, a globe is a model of the Earth, not the Earth. We do not live in a model universe, or on a model planet.

13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?
A13. A small glass ball requires a cause, or any size ball for that matter. This is how the universe currently works. The universe is not a ball, nor does it need an initial cause and causality did not exist before space-time.

14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?
A14. There is no cause for the finite universe. There is no need for the infinite or external cause. The universe does not need meaning or a cause.

15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?
A15. The universe is not fine tuned for us. We are fine tuned for the universe. Fish are fine tuned to live in the water, birds are fine tuned for the air. The cells in our body are made of atoms that are abundant on the surface of this planet. There is no reason you could not have a silicon/methane based life form. Was the universe fine tuned for them as well? It makes no sense at all the universe is fined tuned, just for us, and existed for over 13.7 billion years, just for us, and just one planet, orbiting around one of 100 octillion stars. As a ratio, that is 1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of the universe is fined tuned, just for us, from the very beginning. Really? I can’t believe that at all.

To be honest, I was actually pretty disturbed how easy it was to answer all of these questions using a material world-view. All these questions did was strengthen my conclusion that god does not exist, nor has ever existed. I am also stumped on how I could defend the view that an infinite creator exists. It defies logic and what we know about the universe. Without a self referencing holy scripture, you really have no other evidence to support the claims of theists. I have read other ‘proofs’ of a god, but they are comically weaker than the questions above. The goofy moral ‘laws’ question pops up in apologetics all the time. Other than some of the hard wired rules that have kept us alive as social apes, there are not absolute moral laws. Even something as immoral as killing another human is moral in times of war. Avoiding doing harm to others and helping each other was a necessary trait with social apes and we would not be where we are without these evolved traits. In other chapters I examine some of these topics more deeply.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *