Hey Atheists, could you criticize my paper on the existence of God?
I don't mean grammatically or anything, just what it says. If there is anything that doesn't make any sense or is not a great arguement, tell me. And if it does make sense, could you think about it?
2006-12-25 05:32:57 · 9 answers · asked by ptbc 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
In saying that there is no God , you also say that the origin of the universe had no help from an intelligent being. You also say that the harmony of the planets, the circle of life for the animals, and the wonders of the human body are mere chance. You also say that it is possible to pour random letters onto the ground and eventually they could fall into place and make an accurate book of the history of the world.
2006-12-25 05:34:23 · update #1
In saying that there is no God, you also say that nothing caused matter, it was just always there. And in saying that there is no beginning, you make evolution, the process of one thing changing into a more complex and better thing, impossible; for, in order for a thing to evolve, it must have a form to evolve from. Without a beginning to matter, that pre-evolved form must have another form to evolve from and so on. It cannot have an unevolved form, for that would be its beginning. And you cannot say that it keeps going back, getting less and less evolved, getting simpler, for then it would hav no form to evolve from. If you say that there is a beginning to matter, but with no intelligent being, then you also say that you can get something from nothing. That, in itself, is a contradiction, for you cannot get a thing from which there is no-thing; you cannot get light from pure darkness.
2006-12-25 05:34:55 · update #2
In saying that there is no God, you also say that everyone guilty of a crime should go free. For without God, ther is no meaning to anyone's life. If someone is guilty of a crime, he should not be punished for seeking his own pleasure, for that is the only thing beneficial to him. If he should be punished, then why not punish every animal for killing something just to appease its own hunger?
In saying that there is no God, you also say that the vast majority of people are born mad, for even the small tribes of people that are secluded from the outside world have religion and worship a god or gods. The Indians, before the English took over America, believed in gods and the Mayans practiced countless sacrifices to gods. History is filled with the belief in God.
2006-12-25 05:35:33 · update #3
Thus, in saying there is no God, you say that you could take random letters, which have no uneveolved form and no beginning, drop them on the ground, and eventually, by an act of mere chance, spell out the entire world history, a history filled with lunatics and ignorant people who believe in God and a government of justice. Then, after doing this, proving that there is no God, you will also have proved that there is no meaning in life and will wonder why you wasted your time doing this when you could have been fulfilling some desire. Please, by all means, fulfill what you believe is right, satisfy every desire. Try to find a meaning to life that is not there. I, for my part, will keep on believing what is logical.
2006-12-25 05:35:59 · update #4
Thanks, that helps me out alot. I'll have to improve on it.
2006-12-25 05:49:13 · update #5
I would be glad to. Send me your paper somehow - if you click on my screename, you can either instant messag me or email me, whichever works for you. Congratulations on improving your critical thinking skills.
2006-12-25 05:35:17 · answer #1 · answered by Nowhere Man 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You, like all who forward such arguments, fall prey to the infinite regress criticism. By positing God as a NECESSARY first cause, you leave open the question of the cause of God. I also think one can assume a level of intelligence to the source of creation without attatching a personality to it, which is what most theist attribute to their God. Your paper is ultimately too simplistic and has too many logical holes to stand any scrutiny.
2006-12-25 13:40:58 · answer #2 · answered by neil s 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The "harmony" of the planets is fiction. There are orbital resonances.
Free will is not dependent on a Creator. Society can choose its own morals.
If you drop enough letters, you will find words.
You're writing is sound, but your hypotheses can all be countered.
2006-12-25 13:47:58 · answer #3 · answered by novangelis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Could I get some criticism?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
This loving Q&A only posts questions and gracioulsy answers.
It would be a terrible thing if we were to criticise!
What would Mama Yahoo think!
Blessed Holliday!
2006-12-25 13:36:39 · answer #4 · answered by whynotaskdon 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My contention is that if our existence is improbable so much so that a supreme being had to create us, then I say that the creation of a supreme being is that much more improbable. That contention seems to align to your paper. To restate, if we are so complex that a God to need to create us, then the creation of that God surely must be more complex. Therefore we are statistically more probable to exist than God is.
2006-12-25 13:34:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
since you know so much....then how did life start on earth....even scientists still have no proof of this....its all just a theory.....creation or evolution....But here is what one smart person said....Einstien...Science without religion is lame...Religion without science is blind....Click on this link below...then you will see how evolution is still just a theory....
2006-12-25 13:51:09 · answer #6 · answered by Triton 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, I could.
That's a lot of strawmen and babbling.
When you put some facts in your nonsense, let us know.
2006-12-25 13:34:13 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
muahahahahahahahhaaaaa heheheekekekkekekeeeeeee
Rosie rocks!
2006-12-25 13:33:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
LOL
2006-12-25 15:32:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋