Atheists, do you understand evidence supporting God and Cristianity enough to refute it?

Question

Have you come to the assumption that God does not exist beceause "there is a lack of evidence"? Or have you really searched out the evidence that is there (because it is there) and logically refuted the evidence. Any person who argues intellectually understands why their opposition believes what they believe and can then refute their arguments. Can you do this? Or do you just simply say "there is no evidence"? Which is utterly wrong and ignorant, especially when talking about christianity and the validity of the Bible. I would present the evidence for you, but I would like to see how many atheists have taken it on themselves to find out why christianity and Intelligent Design is a very well supported belief system. And yes, as a christain I believe i could do this for atheism. I know there are brilliant atheists who can do this, I would like to hear from you. I understand this may call for lengthy answer. I believe in evolution, so don't try to use it in refuting christianity.

Not one person has offered an argument for christianity and explained why the argument fails. So I will throw some out there for you.

Here is a couple for Intelligent Design

1. In all of human history we have never once shown that intelligence/consciousness can come from non-intelligence. So please refute that. Under the guidance of supernatural intelligence, I believe evolution could naturally create intelligence.

2. Without God, we are here due to chance. chance says that "what we would expect did not happen, or what we did not expect hapened." You would not expect life to flourish from random circumstances, the chances are highly improbable. You would expect that life came from life. So therefore it is more reasonable to believe what would be expected - life comes from life, or intelligence(humans/animals) comes from intelligence(God). And if you use the multi-verse theory, chances are sill against us being the "one lucky universe".

Here's a couple for christianity.

1. The Bible (especially the new testament), is the most historically accurate and verifiable document in the world we have today. Any historian would agree to that.

2. well over 30 old testament prophecies precisely fulfilled by jesus, possibly upwards of 300. And again the old testament is very verifiable as far as the time it was written, so these prophecies were definately written before jesus was born.

3. 500 plus eyewitness testimonies of seeing jesus alive after he had been dead for 3 days. People were killed for the fact that they claimed to have seen Jesus ressurected, so to say they were liars is not very legitamite.

4. This all aside from the fact that 1/3 of the world claims to be christain, making it the largest religion worldwide.

these are jus to name a few...

1. in all of human history, never once has science shown us that it is possible for non-intelligent/consciousness to beget intelligence. So what enabled intelligence to come from non-intelligence? If you say "we don't know, science has not revealed this to us", then I say, "well in that case the chances lie with what science has shown us - intelligence can only begottin through intelligence." Please explain why this is not a substantial argument in support of an intelligent creator. Can you refute this, and do a good job at it?

Answer 1

Yes.

EDIT:

Responses in order.
1) Circulus in Probando Fallacy
Your premise only stands if we assume that the intelligence that we see in living creatures did not come from a non-intelligent source. Otherwise, all examples of intelligence bear evidence of the possibility. Because your premise assumes the truth of the conclusion, the argument is circular and, therefore, invalid.

2) "chance says that "what we would expect did not happen, or what we did not expect hapened."
Chance implies nothing of the sort, and I'm unsure of where you found that definition. If there is a 90% chance of rain tomorrow, I will expect rain. Still, whether or not it will rain is governed by chance.

"You would not expect life to flourish from random circumstances, the chances are highly improbable."
Life did not flourish from completely random circumstances. The formation of the first organic molecules and the entire process of evolution was governed, like all interactions, by the laws of physics. I'm uncertain as to how you're drawing odds on the likelyhood of life emerging.

3) ANY historian? Really? That's a preposterous claim.
Even most biblical historians consider the bible to be a collection of narratives, not a history textbook.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_minimalism

4) Without getting into the dubious nature of prophecy in general (Sylvia Brown makes and fulfills them all the time, after all), your source document for the "fulfillment" of these prophecies is the same text that details the prophecies themselves. (Although the books of the bible were written over several millenia, they were all EDITED into a single document at the same time.) There is a significant conflict of interest here. It's also naive to assume that the authors of the New Testament were not aware of the "prophecies" made in the Old Testament and would not have structured their narratives to fit their personal view of how those prophesies had been fulfilled.

5) 2000-year-old hearsay, all of which is derived from a single source document. I am unaware of any particular individual that was killed specifically for that reason, although many early Christians were killed for being members of the sect. Regardless, the fact that people died for it simply does not make it true. About sixty years ago, several million Germans died for their conviction that the Aryan race was supreme. Their willingness to die does not make that claim true.

6) Argumentum ad Populum Fallacy
Reality is not subject to majority rule. If it were... well, 2/3 of the world's population claim that Christianity is wrong.

7) This argument is the same as item (1). The fallacy is still fallacious. The axiom that "intelligence can only be begotten from intelligence" begs the question of which intelligence begot God? This implies an infinite regression, which cannot exist in reality. Thus, the axiom must be incorrect.

Answer 2

do you understand evidence supporting goblins enough to refute it?

Have you come to the assumption that goblins do not exist beceause "there is a lack of evidence"? Or have you really searched out the evidence that is there (because it is there) and logically refuted the evidence. Any person who argues intellectually understands why their opposition believes what they believe and can then refute their arguments. Can you do this? Or do you just simply say "there is no evidence"? Which is utterly wrong and ignorant, especially when talking about goblins and the validity of books they appear. I would present the evidence for you, but I would like to see how many non-believers in goblins have taken it on themselves to find out why the existence of goblins is a very well supported belief system. And yes, as a goblinian I believe i could do this for agoblinism. I know there are brilliant agoblinists who can do this, I would like to hear from you. I understand this may call for lengthy answer. I believe in history, so don't try to use it in refuting goblinism.

Answer 3

I understand what Christians claim to be evidence. I just don't find any of it to be in the least credible. If you present a specific argument I will address it, but I have neither the time nor inclination to refute all of Christianity in a yahoo answer box.

OK now that you actually submitted an argument I will address it. I don't have time for all but I will address 2)

You claim:

2. Without God, we are here due to chance.

-- This is a false dichotomy logical fallacy. I believe we are here due to mathematics and it has nothing to do with chance.

chance says that "what we would expect did not happen, or what we did not expect hapened." You would not expect life to flourish from random circumstances, the chances are highly improbable.


--- This is a strawman. I do not claim life flourishes from random circumstances.

You would expect that life came from life.

---- No this clearly only leads to infinite regression.



So therefore it is more reasonable to believe what would be expected - life comes from life, or intelligence(humans/animals) comes from intelligence(God).

-- More infinite regression arguments.

And if you use the multi-verse theory, chances are sill against us being the "one lucky universe".

--- Wrong again we would have to be the "one lucky universe" (in your words not mine) Our existence is a selection effect.

---- By your pitiful reasoning the fact falling snowflakes always find themselves in snowstorms is proof of snow pixies.

Answer 4

As a former Christian who spend close to 30 years seeking God and his will, I think I have a pretty good idea of why the 'evidence' used to support God is flimsy at best.

Here are a few using your scriptures.

1. The existence of an omnipotent, loving creator is impossible with the existence of Satan. If God created Satan, he is either not loving or not omnipotent.

2. Hell, if everlasting proves that God is cruel. If not then the bible was mistranslated and cannot be relied on for salvation.

3. The concept of Christianity providing access to God's chosen people to Gentiles, doesn't reconcile God's actions in the OT or Jesus' statements in the NT. It is a Paul concept alone.

4. Biblical accounts of creation and miracles cannot be proven or duplicated in a controlled environment.

Answer 5

For the Christian

If you subscribe to any of the presently popular belief systems, the chances are that you were born into that system as were your parents, grandparents and so on; or you rejected a religious philosophy to join a group that had a ritual regimen more compatible with your personal taste.

With the preceding in mind, your beliefs concerning controversial differences between religion and science, favoring religion, are rooted in your exposure to religious teachings, your parent’s beliefs, or a mentor’s influence on your spiritual development. In any case, they certainly had a great influence on your present spirituality and you had little say about it.

Religion is much like drugs in that it promises much, but delivers little. This knowledge is not lost on the clergy. The youngest among us are exposed to religious tenets and dogma as early as possible. The clergy knows that once hooked, the conversion to reality is difficult to say the least. This is one of the main method memberships into their congregations is replenished as the older members leave due to attrition or other reasons. The disturbing concept here is that the professional clergy does not hesitate to instill in a child’s mind, as truth, dogma that he himself cannot adequately explain.

For the Atheist

Some of us label ourselves as atheist, agnostic or freethinker. This is fine if that is what you really are. To be an atheist, one must put aside certain beliefs sometimes associated with the concept of God or the supernatural.

Occultism, magic, shamanism, happenings contrary to the laws of nature; miracles for instance represent some of these concepts.

If you feel that you have infused into yourself these qualities, know the difference between science and religious belief, and realize that it is not the ordinary church going Christian that is the source of your annoyance, but with their clergy and their dogma; welcome to the club. But beware; it is not an easy road to travel. Take comfort though that you are in good company. There are many great men that tread your path before you. Several have their pictures on our money and are signers of the Constitution.

Remember this: There can be no proof that something does not exist. The burden of proof is on the one that says it does. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

Answer 6

I agree with the first answerer. I could not have said it better myself. There are many different belief systems in the world today. No one should try to force their theories or evidence upon other individuals. In my opinion, that just makes the belief of the other person even stronger. I am not an atheist, by the way.

Answer 7

I'm a former Christian. I'm intimately familiar with the evidence and the arguments used support both theism in general, and Christianity specifically. The evidence is of the poorest quality possible, and the arguments are just as bad.

If you'd like to test my claim, feel free to post what you consider evidence, or an argument.

Answer 8

I have seen the evidence and debated if for years with religious friends. I find it completely lacking. Much as you must think that the evidence for Allah or Zeus or Krishna is lacking.

While I enjoy a good debate I believe that I have heard just about every argument there is and they are very, very simple to refute.

Answer 9

Christianity is like a cult.
A long time ago a crazy person decided that he wanted to be famous. So he named himself Jesus. He came up with this long story about his parent's journey to Bethlehem. His parents wanted to be famous too so they did not expose him. He got a bunch of people to believe his story and now millions worship.
Sure the Noah's Ark story has some evidence to be true as do some other stories.
But the Christian cult members just added 'miracles' to the story.
If only Noah's family was on the ark then how did the Middle East's civilizations thrive. There is evidence. Some one wrote about a big flood. But he didn't die did he? He wasn't on the ark either.

Answer 10

Before I give you a lengthy answer, why don't you present any of this evidence? Is it going to be something like, "God, is like, the wind"?

For what it's worth, I've noticed only lay people think there is evidence for Christianity. Theologians seem to agree that it isn't about evidence, and I presume they do that because evidence is a losing argument for them and they know it.