Atheists, what do you have to say about facts?

Question

Most people believe in God’s existence because, using their common intelligence, the evidence points in that direction. But can God’s existence be proved? His existence cannot be proved empirically (i.e., scientifically) as one might prove that water freezes at thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit. But if one uses his logical ability, he can make a case for God’s existence that is compelling—indeed irrefutable.

Throughout the history of mankind most people have believed in the existence of a superhuman, personal power. If one concedes that humans generally are rational, this universality of conviction must rest upon some reasonable basis. There are several lines of evidence that point to God.

In logic there is a principle that states: Every effect must have an adequate cause. This is the basis of all science. This “law” of correct thinking bears a relationship to the origin of the universe. It is well established that the universe has not existed forever. Dr. Robert Jastrow, internationally known space scientist, declared that “modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe.”

If the universe has not existed forever, how can its origin be explained? There are only two possibilities: It was self-created; or it was created by something or someone other than itself, and of a nature different than the material. However, no material thing is able to create itself. If that were possible, there would be evidence of such. But the First Law of Thermodynamics argues that matter is not now being created. Since matter could not have formed itself, it must have a non-material source, i.e., a “mind” cause. Great thinkers have concluded that this Mind is God.

There is another logical principle called “the law of teleology.” It contends that when an object reflects a purpose, goal, or design, it must have had a designer. Things do not design themselves. A pair of pliers has two handles (with grippers), a bolt, and a nut. Everyone recognizes the design in this simple tool, and rightly concludes that it did not make itself.

So, what do you have to say? Eh? I would like to know what you have to say.

John.

By the way, why Atheists drink so much? I am just curious. Atheists make me feel they are the ones we see in clubs and bar. Just a curiosity.

To those who think I am insulting, I was simply responding to the drink comments. Every time I ask Atheists something, they drink. Just a curiosity.

Answer 1

Interesting argument... There may be some supreme being that created the universe... I think God may exist, but it created science, a universal plan for its creation. We should follow that plan created by that being which chose to be excluded from its design, and shun religion in favor of science. (If God wanetd to be known it would've surfaced by now, but it hasn't. We, the general public, should move on because current information is inclusive. Leave the proving/disproving to the professionals.)

Answer 2

You wrote: "Most people believe in God’s existence because, using their common intelligence, the evidence points in that direction. But can God’s existence be proved? His existence cannot be proved empirically (i.e., scientifically) as one might prove that water freezes at thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit. But if one uses his logical ability, he can make a case for God’s existence that is compelling—indeed irrefutable."

You start out with two logical fallacies... the 'Argument From Popularity' and a 'False Premise'... a kind of 'Red HErring'.

You wrote: "Throughout the history of mankind most people have believed in the existence of a superhuman, personal power. If one concedes that humans generally are rational, this universality of conviction must rest upon some reasonable basis. There are several lines of evidence that point to God."

'Argument From Popularity' again... and then you REALLY blow it by claiming that "... humans generally are rational." To the contrary... the fact that "...most people have believed in the existence of a superhuman, personal power" proves that as a rule, most people are gullible, irrational, and ignorant. In the past, they had an excuse; but today, in a time when science has dispelled and put the lie to most of the fallacious 'beliefs' that underlie religious dogma, there IS NO LONGER ANY EXCUSE. God has been reduced to a 'god of the gaps'... who lurks and creeps in the gracks and crevices where science has not yet peered... scurrying away like a cockroach when the 'light of reason' shines upon it. Like I said... there is no longer any justification for such irrational, superstitious beliefs... and so we can add WILLFUL ignorance, self-delusion and drooling stupidity to the list of believer characteristics.

You wrote: "In logic there is a principle that states: Every effect must have an adequate cause. This is the basis of all science. This “law” of correct thinking bears a relationship to the origin of the universe. It is well established that the universe has not existed forever."

Well... that statement ceased to be regarded as 'true' at the beginning of the last century, with the advent of quantum theory.

You wrote: "Dr. Robert Jastrow, internationally known space scientist, declared that 'modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe'.”

This happens to be the only thing that you got right in your post.

You wrote: "If the universe has not existed forever, how can its origin be explained? There are only two possibilities: It was self-created; or it was created by something or someone other than itself, and of a nature different than the material. However, no material thing is able to create itself."

This is a logical fallacy known by various names... the 'False Dichotomy... Fallacy' of the 'Excluded Middle'. It is a kind of 'red herring'. You assert two alternatives, and allow no others. Scientists, however, are presently investigating about half-a-dozen others. I would suggest that you read a freakin' book, fer crissake.

You wrote: "If that were possible, there would be evidence of such. But the First Law of Thermodynamics argues that matter is not now being created. Since matter could not have formed itself, it must have a non-material source, i.e., a “mind” cause. Great thinkers have concluded that this Mind is God.

Great minds? You mean great morons, of course. Or, perhaps you are referring to last words of Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," ...for then we should know the mind of God"... in which case you are missing the point that scientists such as Hawking... and before him, Einstein... used 'god' as a metaphor for 'nature'.

You also seem to misunderstand "First Law of Thermodynamics," which does NOT 'argue' that "...matter is not now being created." Matter is merely another 'state' of energy. In fact, matter pops into existence all the time... look up 'zero-point' energy. Look up 'fuzzy black holes'.

You wrote: "There is another logical principle called “the law of teleology.” It contends that when an object reflects a purpose, goal, or design, it must have had a designer. Things do not design themselves. A pair of pliers has two handles (with grippers), a bolt, and a nut. Everyone recognizes the design in this simple tool, and rightly concludes that it did not make itself.

And just what is it that reflects a purpose, goal or design? The universe? The world? This, above all, reveals that the foolishness that serves you as a substitute for knowledge and reason is a logical fallacy (a flaw in thinking) known as the "Argument From Incredulity"... which is a sub-category of the "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" (Argument From Ignorance). It goes something like this: "I can't conceive of (or imagine) how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it."

That does not point to a limitation of nature... rather, it illuminates a limitation of YOUR knowledge and/or intellect. Also, it is intellectually dishonest, since it does not (as scientists do) ACKNOWLEDGE the limitation of knowledge... it merely invokes the fanciful idea of a supernatural creator-entity to manifest the ILLUSION that your ideas correlate to 'facts'.

'Faith' (wishful, magical thinking) is a substitute for evidence.

'Belief' (the internalized 'certainty' that you are privy to the 'truth' pertaining to some fundamental aspect of existence and/or reality) is a substitute for knowledge... i.e., the ILLUSION of knowledge.

faith + belief = self-delusion and willful ignorance

****************
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance... it is the illusion of knowledge." ~ Daniel Boorstin
****************
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GxA8_NIxQZc

Answer 3

First off, what is your evidence?
What points to it? Science has evolved to the point where it can explain anything that religion explains.
And don't go to the "where did we all come from" argument. Where did God come from?
Every argument that you have is flawed. And I can prove the the Christian god doesn't exist. And that the Buddhism/Hindu religions are impossible.

God gave the Bible to man, however, it has been rewritten many times. Not only for translations, but for content. Such as saying that the Earth is flat. God was proven wrong, and being a god, and part of the requirements to be divine is to be infallible. God was proven wrong, and proven fallible, and therefore can't exist.

Any religions that use reincarnation as their afterlife, are also impossible. The population doubles every twenty years. Where do the new souls come from? It's impossible for reincarnation to exist.

And why sink to insults? That us (atheists) drink? Whenever anyone results to insults, that means that they have NO MATERIAL to argue with. Just to let you know, I have never touched ANY alcohol, drugs, or any form of tobacco.

Face it, you are brainwashed, and I have prove God CAN'T exist. If you continue to believe in God, then you are ignorant, and hopeless.

Answer 4

You gave no logical proof for the existence of a god, let alone the existence of a personal, caring, prayer-answering one to which you likely generously sacrifice your mind to. You gave the premise that something that appears to be designed must have been designed, but gave no examples of what you think is of a designed appearance. Life? Evolution debunks that. The universe in general? There's no evidence for that. Whether the universe is in some multidimensional way infinite, or whether it had a finite beginning, the intellectual forfeit of calling on a 'god of the gaps' accomplishes nothing. If a universe can't self-create itself, it's foolish to postulate a god who somehow can. If the universe can't be in some way infinite, by what leap do you designate your god the privilege of such a capability? You only rehashed the same old 'proofs' that have already been debunked or severely weakened to the point of futility by countless atheistic thinkers.

EDIT: Oh, I failed to address your most glaring and foolish error, the argument from popularity. 'Because most people who have ever lived believed in some sort of creator, it must be true.' Are you serious? Most people throughout time thought diseases were the result of supernatural forces, and had no idea what microorganisms were. Most people throughout time probably had no moral qualms with slavery in certain circumstances. Abandon that argument immediately, it's ridiculous.

Answer 5

By Jove! I think you may be onto something. You have a perfect proof for the existence of Osiris, I am sure Brahman will be pleased.

Nobody knows how the universe started, you cerrtainly don't know either and Goddidit is not a real answer. Big bang is only "Theory" in the popular use of the word and until very recently NASA stated that on their web site.

Remember that a theory without an experiment is just faith.

Answer 6

To offer as evidence the notion that people have always believed in a superhuman personal power is not particularly logical, is it.
Doesn't that rather beg the question?

It also appears to be the result of the fallacy of argumentum ad antiquitatem, or "it must be true because it's always been so."

Your citing of the Law of Thermodynamics seems a bit incomplete. I'm certain that you would not quote a fragment of the principle and ignore the others just to bolster your argument. That would be illogical.

Answer 7

if there are several lines of evidence that point to God then it should be no trouble for you to expound on one of them. Most people believe in a supernatural power but most of humanity does not believe in God as you define him. Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree about most characteristics of God but combined they make up less than half of all believers in the world.

Update: The first cause argument offers no proof of God because it leaves God without a cause. If you study quantum mechanics you would know that virtual particles come into existence all of the time and thus the first law of thermodynamics does not prevent there being a material beginning to the universe.

The teleology argument is weak for two reasons. First, it wrongly compares human design to divine design when human design is fully explainable by naturalism-the human mind obeys all natural laws of the universe. Second, there is compelling evidence of a universe without design if you study thermodynamics and the theory of evolution. These explain that increasing order or decreasing entropy-so called marks of design, are explainable by natural processes. The seemingly complexity of life is explainable by iterative embryology that follows simple sets of rules.

Hence, your arguments for God have been tried before and found wanting.

Answer 8

If you read the myths of other religions, Greek, Egyptian, Gaelic, etc. you will find really eerie similarities between these stories and the bible. Zeus flooded the earth, because he was mad at the human race for becoming so evil that they couldn't be helped. Two of his most loyal people were warned by another god and Zeus spared them. the christian god did the same. In the Book of The Dead, a lot of the rules are similar to the Ten Commandments. So, thinking logically, does this mean that the christian god descended from these other gods. That would also mean that possibly, the christians are wrong about their god being the only one.

Answer 9

All your points have been scientifically refuted. I suggest you pick up and read some *real* science books, and not limit yourself to books written by religious people who are arguing against science. Then you might see the true lay of the "battlefield".

BTW, in my college theology class (I studied with the Jesuits), we learned that God *cannot* be proven. This is the essence of faith. Mind you, the Jesuits include in their theological discussions those contributions from non-Catholic theologians (and not because they want to prove them wrong, but because they admit that the other guy *does* have a good point).

Answer 10

So basically it's the whole "Where did we come from?" argument again. But first I must say...
Humans are NOT generally rational. If we were, we would agree to stop fighting, work together towards eradicating disease and clean the environment.
Humans are not rational because over 50% of all marriages end in divorce, drug use is epidemic even though we KNOW they are destructive, and Paris Hilton continues to get attention.
Now for my response to your 'facts.' If a God MUST exist to explain where the universe came from, then you have to explain to ME where GOD came from...