How is atheism logical??

Question

Atheists, my opinion do not go agains any aspect of modern science. Big bang, evolution, cellular biology, quarks, geometry (allright, I kinda hate math, but still I buy it). Scientificly there is no reason for me (or anyone) not to believe in any of it.
I was just wandering how can anyone witness all these wonderful discoveries about Life and the Universe and NOT see God.
the last sentence came out too religious? Let me refrase : "Given the scientific discoveries, the precise elegance of fisics and biology and how everything fits exactly to permit life on Earth what is more logical: 1)There is a God or 2)Bah, it's trillions and trillions of coincidences that just keep happening and make a cell division in my stomach's epithelium seem like an easy simple process, even though it is actually harder than anyone will ever comprehend even if they study it throughout their lives.

I'm sorry if it all came out confusing, I'm also sorry about my english. Don't feel insulted, please.

No it is NOT God of the gaps. The awnsers for everithing we still don't know might come tomorrow (I hope they do), still I will find impossible to find a world without God logical

God and evolution are Not muttualy exclusive.

Fred. I AM a biologist. Believe me, life IS INCREDIBLY elegant (REALY DUDE IT IS)!! The vestigial organs you may think of as "flaws" in life forms are acctually passing result of a vast complex and dinamic nature. I'll say again Evolution dose'nt deny God (on the contrary). About Fisics, you're right, I don't know. But I CAN TELL YOU LIFE HAS AN ASTONISHING DEGREE OF PERFECTION, God or no God THAT is undeniable

Answer 1

Atheism simply is the disbelief in any deities. Since there's not enough proof to suggest that any deities exist then it seems more or less logical not to believe in the existence of any deities.

Answer 2

From a science perspective, the complexity of the universe and the occurance of life is logical. They will be the first to admit that the chances of life happening are very minute, and that the complexity took a very long time to develop. But a single cell organism developing into a multi cell organism in order to survive is scientific and does not need a divine cause.
So for someone who has not had a religious experience or has not been brought up with religion, our single God sounds as corny and contrived as the greek gods may seem to us now.

Will has highlighted some of those stories that make athiests look at christians and go "Do you really believe that stuff?!"
Just because someone wrote a good book, doesn't make it true.

(by the way, I am a christian, but I follow the word of Christ and not the propoganda of the church)

Answer 3

Ok...a few things. First of all, the argument about how "everything fits exactly to permit life on earth" is a popular but ultimately weak argument for a creator. Of course everything fits; if it didn't, we wouldn't be here debating it. So, statistically, the chance of everything being this way is not miniscule, but rather 100%. Who knows how many combinations of other data existed and passed away before this one? Secondly, the logic of atheism is simple. There is no evidence for a higher power, so we have a choice between the universe as the earliest explained phenomena and a creator that created the universe. Occam's Razor states that when no good evidence exists, we should adopt the simplest explanation as it is likely the most accurate. Thus, the creator is cut out of the logical procedure by Occam's Razor. Hence atheism.

Answer 4

Atheism is extra logical. Your characterization of atheism is a straw guy. If that's what atheism have been you would be suited even though it is not. Atheism is in basic terms the shortcoming of thought in a god. some atheists can take this a much better step to believing that there is not any god. This extra desirable step, being unproveable, will become as irrational as theism, it is likewise unproveable. via the way it truly is creationists who assert that atheism believes in an ex nihilo beginning of the universe. in case you examine up on cosmology, nonetheless, you spot that no cosmologist is definitely recommend an ex nihilo beginning for the universe. And Loop Quantum Gravity now predicts no beginning for the universe in any respect. so some distance as we are in a position to tell the universe is eternal and the huge bang is definitely a brilliant bounce.

Answer 5

Your problem seems to be with logic, or rather with your lack of understanding as to what it represents. It is easy to prove the existence of any god using logic. So what. Logic is irrelevant. Therefore, the fact that you believe that your god is a more logical explanation of the world is both natural and irrelevant to anyone else.

You mention the precise elegance of nature. This makes me think that you are not a scientist, and so are not really qualified to make this statement in a convincing way. Why do humans have vestigal body parts that serve no apparent use except to show an evolutionary relationship with earlier life forms? Is it solely to confuse atheists? The elegance of biology is far from 'precise', and the elegance of physics is matter of fact.

Answer 6

Let me say first of all that beauty does not necessarily equal design. There are beautiful and magnificent and complex things everywhere you look on Earth. That doesn't mean they were designed.

You mentioned how "everything fits exactly to permit life on Earth". I look around at this world and I agree with you. I see conditions that are very suitable for life -- at least, compared to many other planets anyway.

I also see hurricanes. I also see tornadoes. I also see earthquakes, blizzards, tsunamis, droughts. What's the God explanation for all of those?

I see a universe in which asteroids hurl through space at great speeds and slam into planets, wiping out 90% of life. What's the God explanation for that?

This planet isn't the incredibly perfect paradise that some theists make it out to be. Is it suited for life? Obviously, yes. Is it better than Mars or Venus or any of the other planets? Obviously, yes. But if it was really designed to be this way, then what's with all the natural disasters? The 1931 Yellow River flood in China which killed as many as four million people? The Indian Ocean tsunami which killed 280,000 people? The earthquake in China in the 1500's that killed 830,000 people? And the extinction events that have happened over earth's history? What kind of design is this?

Answer 7

The logical conclusion is there is no god.

What we have found is things go from simple to complex. There has never been an instance where something was just complex. For god to exist, an extremely complex being would have just existed, which we know cannot happen.

Your question also indicates you have no idea how big the universe (or even our planet) really is. There is not a being (natural or supernatural) with the power to create everything from nothing. It is logically and practically impossible.

god doesn't exist, and in particular, your version of god doesn't exist, and that is a fact.

Answer 8

"what is more logical: 1)There is a God or 2)Bah, it's trillions and trillions of coincidences that just keep happening and make a cell division in my stomach's epithelium seem like an easy simple process, even though it is actually harder than anyone will ever comprehend even if they study it throughout their lives"

2, obviously.

If you choose #1, you still have all of the same things left to explain, PLUS the existence of god. It is simply illogical to conclude on the basis of evidence that there must be a god who created the universe. You've taken a difficult problem and made it more difficult.

The only reason so many people think that #1 is more reasonable is that they already believe that there is a god, and they don't question that belief, so they're just ignoring the problem. If you take it seriously, you have to acknowledge that atheism is more logical.

Answer 9

Atheists have it all wrong. There MUST be a God. Science can't explain everything. What causes evolution? Huh? Huh? If there is no God then explain Jesus walking on water or raising Lazarus or Himself from the dead. I'm not saying this to you (question asker). I'm saying this to all of the retards who belive in science behind everything. While we pray you smirk on how you think you've all got it figured out. It burns me when I here somebody's an atheist.

Answer 10

This is what I truly think about Atheists in general, okay?

The decision to think that there is no god is completly out of bounds scientifically. They would be better off not even touching the subject of God. It is therefore logically unscientific to say, "There is no God".

I think that Jesus said it best," Wisdom is known by her actions." Atheists prove to everyone with a logical mind that they are not using logic on the subject of God's existence. None.

They rely on what they want ot believe, or not believe in. Blindly. As blind as they are, they devote much time on the subject, continuing the obvioty of their insanity. their lapse of reason that brings them to one conclusion, they are going to die anyway. They die in their ignorance to the fact that they leaned upon something that they could not possibly know,that is: That there is no God.

They volunteer themselves to die in blind devotion to an idea they have no proof of. An unscientific thought that there is no God.