Repost w/ added info: 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 support there is for God and logically refuted that support. 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 ignorant, especially when talking about christianity and the validity of the Bible. 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 against christianity, I believe evoluton and christianity are completely congruent with eachother.

when i originally posted this question no one gave a single argument for christianity and then refuted it, which is the whole point of the question. So here are a few... If you cannot refute these or cannot come up with other good arguments you've heard that you can refute, then please leave this question alone. Otherwise you're only hurling insults which is a waste of energy.

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...

Answer 1

I'm sorry, but for 2 freaking points I'm not going to write an encyclopedia. All the points you listed must have come off an Intelligent Design website. All are bogus. I can prove that the Bible is not valid. Read "The Age of Reason" Thomas Paine. It will take you through that step-by-step.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/

Without the Bible, you have nothing.

@>}---}---

Answer 2

ID:

1: In all of human history, it has happened over 7 billion times. Every person on earth or that ever was is an example of two non-intelligent cells creating intelligence. If this seems dismissive it's because I AM being dismissive, as yours is a fallacious argument from ignorance.

2: www.talkorigins.org can answer this more succinctly than I can, I'll let them do the talking and save on space.

Christianity:

1. This is just patently false. Having been trained by Historians, I can catagorically say that you have no idea what you are talking about. This is just utter nonsense.

2. a. There are thousands examples of the bible being contradictory or wrong, which would have to be considered with your 30 examples of it being correct.
b. Even if Jesus DID fulfill prophesy, he was a trained rabbi, and knew them all before he fulfilled them. A prophesy that I will walk across the street becomes less meaningful if I know it, so I walk across the street because I think I'm supposed to.

3. See 2a. above. Also, the claim of 500 people witnessing it is contained IN THE BIBLE, and no where else in non-christian historical text. Not only can it not be verified by non-biased sources, it was written by Paul, a man who was not even converted untill well after the fact, and thus could not have witnessed the event himself!

4. This means nothing. For a great period of time, from 1500 through the 1800's Islam was the largest religion in the world. Does that mean for THAT time Islam was somehow true-er? Or the fact that prior to the year 600 AD 90% of the world was pagan, does that make the claims, which are now considered false (by non-pagans, a majority of the world), true then? Further, was it true that the Rennissance the sun traveled around the Earth, as the majority believed? More to the point, that means that 2/3 of the world is NOT Christian.


Is this REALLY what you consider the best arguments for your religion?

Answer 3

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.

We've also never shown that intelligence can't come from non-intelligence. For one thing, you need to clearly define exactly what you mean by intelligence. Can you conclusively say that our own sentience is anything more than multiple layers of simple programs, interacting to produce complex behaviours? The characters in my Sims2 town do things I can't predict, and their programming is a lot simpler than ours, geared solely towards meeting environmental needs. Can you conclusively show that our intelligence is qualitatively any different from an ant's?

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".

Your "expectations" about where life comes from don't matter a jot. The evidence of where it actually came from is all that matters. The odds against it happening don't really matter either. The odds against winning the lottery are astronomical, and yet people actually do win them. Even if it only happened once - it still happened.


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.

No they wouldn't. It is filled with historical inaccuracies and unverifiable assertions. For one thing, there is no evidence whatsoever from any other source that the Jews were ever enslaved by the Egyptians. Kind of a big omission there.


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.

So presumably jesus, or the people who later wrote up the stories about jesus also knew about the prophecies, and could either work events at the time to fulfill them, or retcon events years later while writing them up to claim they were fulfilled.

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.

Yet none of these people were his devout followers, and most of them sound pretty much like the kind of stories people tell about seeing Elvis at the 7-11. Also, the only record we have of people being killed for claiming to see Jesus is these same storytellers. About as credible as UFO 'abductees' who claim that other abductees have been silenced by MIB.

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

So? Freakin' "Candle in the Wind" by Elton John is the top selling single of all time. Just because a lot of people have crappy taste and impaired judgement doesn't mean they're right.

Answer 4

If you don't condescend to me about my ability to reason, I won't condescend to you. Deal? I have a background in computer science, math, formal logic, and predicate calculus. So I'm pretty good with strict logic.

What you haven't presented any physical evidence per se, but you have presented a handful of fairly well-understood (some would say tired) arguments for theism. None of these are deductive arguments -- they're at best abductive or inductive. So none of these are "rock hard" logically.

Theistic arguments:

1. There are a handful of vaguenesses here. I'll pass them by and just note the logical fallacy here. In all of human history, up until we made an atomic bomb, had humans witnessed the splitting of an atom? That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Science itself has only been repopularized for the past couple hundred years, so it wouldn't be reasonable to expect us to observe what took billions of years in a couple generations.

2. Actually, you would statistically expect life to occur from random chances. All that needs to happen is a protein that copies itself, and that's only a handful of molecules. There is computer data modeling showing that abiogenesis was statistically inevitable. So, this argument just isn't true. I'm not sure how that relates to a multiverse hypothesis.

Christianity:

1. The Bible is most certainly NOT the most accurate book or collection of books of its time. No credible historian would argue that. In fact, the entire crucifixion of Jesus is considered up for debate even by Christian historians. Romans and Jews both kept very detailed records and neither had any record of this, even though we have, archaeologically, records that SHOULD have it. Catholic historians now generally agree that there probably was no person named Abraham and the Jews probably were never enslaved in Egypt. Do a little research on this one, big guy.

Having said that, even if the Bible were accurate, that would not be a deductive argument. The works of Joseph Smith and Ellen G White are accurate with respect to historical events in the 1800s, but unless you're a Mormon AND a Seventh-Day Adventist, you probably don't subscribe to their theology.

2. This is really where you lose credibility. You're just making stuff up.

3. Yes, according to the Bible, there were hundreds of eye witnesses. But assuming there were, it pails in comparison to the number of eye witnesses who have reported seeing, in unison, the moon falling from the sky, as was reported a few decades ago in Scandinavia.

4. Again, a logical fallacy. 400 years ago, about 90% of the world believed the world was flat.

Please, avoid the condescension next time. Have you read the arguments for atheism? Because if you had, you wouldn't fall so easily in to such a bad argument. There's a reason theologians call it "faith."

Answer 5

1. The Bible is not the most accurate and most historians and/or archaeologists do not believe it to be so. Given: it is fairly reliable for locations, but many well know locations it refers to have been excavated with no results. Other documents from the time have proven to be more reliable.

2. That may be true, but you cannot establish self referential evidence. Yes the prophecies were written before but the authenticity of the new testament is is in question so it stating that the prophecies were fulfilled is meaningless. Not to mention that the temple curtain was recorded as being destroy when Rome destroyed Herod's temple and not before. None of the events or miracles recorded in the bible have collaborating accounts in any other document of their time.
3. Countless others were also killed for their beliefs, case in point Masada. Being a martyr for your belief is commendable but is not evidence.

4. 2/3 of the world follow other religions so it's more likely that one of them is right. Nice argument but neither is proof.

Edit for additional details:
I would almost give you the 500 eyewitness one, but what proof do you have of them? As far as I know there is no documention of the disciples' deathes or even of massive Christain persecution until Nero blamed them for burning Rome. So you really need to post your reference when making an assertion that is not a commonly know fact.

So far you have not presented "evidence" what you have done is to make baseless assertions. Evidence consists of documents that were written at the time, a city found with the walls pushed out, Egyptian writings detailing the need to replace a massive loss of slave manpower. These would not be conclusive or compelling but would be a good start.

Second edit:
1. Intelligence: So 5000 years of recorded history is enough to conclude this? How do you account for tool usage by apes and canabalism of only defeated enemies. Not to mention communication with humans, differing dialects, and regional learning.... If anything, i could be asserted that mos species have a varing degrees of intelligence so your assertion is meaningless. Not only that, your statement of beliefis nice but pointless until you prove a divne being as any made up creature can do anything you day it can, just not in reality.

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." This is a circular argument, you assert that life is unexpected without God, a you have not presented evidence of any deity it's meaningless to speculate what effect the deity would have had if it were present. Chance has nothing to do with what is expected or not. Chance is a a vey loose term for probability. Given that DNA like structures occur much more commonly than previously thought (even cosmic dust will form them) the probability of life forming is greatly increased, and obviously occured. You might also consider hat we have already found the remains of one earth "like" planet, so that increases the odds that there are more in this galaxy.

Answer 6

Your expectations to get answers such as these in YA is extremely unrealistic. What you are asking for is very technical in the detail and would require more space than you can imagine to explain.

You can get your own subscribtion to the Journal Sciece at AAAS.ORG for $375.00 per year - I did. Also, Scientific American is much easier for the average lay person to read and is not near as technical nor expensive. I suggest that if you actually care and are not just being an atagonistic azz, then you can do a little reading for yourself.

As far as proving God doesn't exist - your argument is preposterous and shallow. The "observations" for god's existence are not scientifically testable and the results can not be duplicated.

The alleged counter argument - "Prove god doesn't exist." is the sign of a weak intellect that is unwilling to put in the effort to find answers. Theist make a claim then go sit on their lazy *** and tell someone else to do the work.

When a person or a party makes a claim about something, like the existence of god, evolution, gravity or the tooth fairy they are the ones that carry the "burden of proof".

In other words their argument that “Well prove god doesn't exist" is completely contrary to standards of the scientific method and general inquiry.

Let's say I make the claim that I can cure cancer. I bear the burden of proof. It is up to me to publish my findings and evidence so that the skeptics can evaluate my evidence and attempt to duplicate my results.

So, those that claim god does indeed exist are the ones that bear the burden of proof and have to provide to the world their findings and evidence.

It is up to us, the skeptic, to review this evidence and then report our own findings.

There are articles published in the the peer reviewed journal of SCIENCE almost every month these days.

I can site numerous online articles but they require paid subscriptions to access.

So let's refute a common claim that God gave man intelligence - Since Animals have intelligence also this would show that god did not in fact give intelligence to man but rather that it is developed in nature through evolution in the abscence of god.

Some examples:

As far as intelligence in nature - absolutely it has been shown to exist and is shown to be evolving between seperate groups differently because the environments are different. For example - Chimpanzees that live in the low land near a rivers have more abundant foods and have become more lazy, those that live in higher areas have to work harder for food, they in turn have developed tools. It has been observed that the higher up, the rarer the food and the more tools that are used. It has also been observerved that more complex tools are used and that the similarity of tool use does not sprad between the different groups that are separated by natural barriers.

This test has also been conducted on Raven's which show a problem solving ability on par with that of a small child around 6 years old. Ravens are able to even predict the results of actions, remember where something is hidden by a rival and they have repeatedly demonstatted advanced problem solving for new environments in which no previous experience or training has been involved. They distinctly show the abiulity of foresight.

Spontaneous development of intelligence and tool use was observered and covered heavily in the media when a pod of dolphins starting showing the use of a sponge as a tool to help in the hunt for food. It was also shown that the mother dolphins that developed this new traight were observed teaching this new skill to their offspring.

The list goes on & on. I suggest you spend some of your money and time like I did to actually learn something.

Answer 7

I have yet to hear anyone refute the expert witnsses I have mentioned in my preivious answer to your question. The number of great legal minds who have come out in favour of believing the gospel witnesses were honest reliable men. Found in the book leading lawyers look at the resurrection by Ross Clifford. The best attempt at an answer has been to suggest there are probably lawyers who don't believe. Yet they don't produce these lawyers or consider the merit of the fact these names contained in this book are expert witnesses. Some who set out to disprove the resurrection story when faced with the evidence came to believe these men were highly credible witnesses. Again the best arguments I have encountered are nonsensical flying spaghetti monster references. Cannot people who employ these arguments not even realize there is a difference between the flying spaghetti monster and expert witnesses? Also as I mentioned before some hide behind the veil of science knowing full well that there is no evidence that could be considered even if God himself were to appear as he would be considered religion and we all know religion isn't science. So how could there be any evidence when science has ruled that God isn't science? Since Stanley Millers experiment which bonded a few amino acids they have been unable to show how any complex life form could have orignated. All talk of odds means nothing. Odds do not have a creative ability. Here's the odd fac.t Proteins use only the left handed building blocks called also laevorotary or L amino acids whereas the prodcuts of Millers experiments produce mixed left and right at a ratio of about 50/50 mixture of both left handed and right handed amino acids or d-amino acids for dextrorotary. This problem of mixture with D & L amino acids swimming in the solution, became increasingly clear and seemed to resist all attempts to resove it, even after decades of intense research. For example in forming a short protein like chains called polypeptides any L amino acid has been found to have no preference to Link with another L type. In other words , L & D left & right linkages are ust as chemicaly lkely as L & L linkages. With no known mechanism in a simple pond like environment to sort out and reject the the right handed amino acids and retain only the lefties, how could a true protein with only left handed amin acids ever be strung together in the first place? This problem continues to dog the entire field of chemical evolution to this day. I just read another reponse who claims evolution doesn't claim we came here by chance. If someting isn't by chance or by intent what other option is there?

Answer 8

1. If you believe in Evolution, and you make this claim, then either you have a loose definition of what intelligent means, or you only cherry pick what evolution means.
2. The improbability of existence doesn't change the fact that we exist...in fact, it helps to explain why we aren't up to our elbows in extraterrestial cousins. Just because it is not likely for something to occur doesn't mean that it is impossible.


1. Being historically "accurate" (a grand stretch in my opinion) is a far cry from proving the whole walking on water, giant grand-dad in the sky portions of it.
2. Any prophecy can be fulfilled if you make it vague enough and give people enough time for it to occur in (especially if you widen things to a global scale, it is virtually impossible for a prophecy to not be fulfilled at some point if it lacked specifics).
3. Can anyone say "buried alive", "urban myth", or (Heaven forbid) "impostor"?
4. Just because two billion people come to same wrong answer does not make it the right answer! Just because I can convince an entire town that everything purple is in fact called "doduranga" doesn't make that statement accurate either.

Answer 9

1. Historically accurate in what way? We know the Middle East is a real place, but we have no proof that any of the stories in the bible ever happened.

2. Old Testament prophecies fulfilled by Jesus? You're saying one part of the bible fulfills another part of the bible. Do you not see how silly that is?

3. There are no records of Jesus anywhere except in the bible.

4. 2/3 of the world is NOT Christian.

Answer 10

I was raised Christian. I was very happy growing up with my beliefs, but as I got older, the things I was told made less and less sense to me. So I DID research. I did a lot of research. I read, I talked to people that were my own faith and people of other faiths, I prayed, and I studied the Bible. I spent years trying to "save" my faith. In the years I spent honestly searching for "God", I found nothing but the inventions of men, and no support showing otherwise. It is not ignorant to say that there is no evidence for God. There IS no evidence for God. There is an awful lot of wishful thinking, there is an awful lot of fear, and there's an awful lot of superstition. But no evidence.
*Christianity* has the added burden of not only needing to prove that there even EXISTS a GOD, but that Jesus is God in the flesh come to Earth. That in and of itself is a whole new argument. People can't even prove that Jesus ever even *existed*, let alone that there is a God and Jesus is God in the flesh.

The question IS: Do YOU know enough about Christianity and it's origins to make an informed decision about believing in and following their teachings? You'd be surprised the information you can find out when you do your research. Watch this:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Answer 11

Simple. I wasn't raised in Christianity.

So tell me, assuming I don't have friends who already try to convert me every two seconds, why I'd have any reason to believe in God?

Does He do anything for me?
Has He ever proven his existence in any way, shape, or form? (And don't say "Yes, in the Bible!", because for all we know, the Bible is as factual as Harry Potter)
Has He ever given me dreams, or a feeling of 'wholeness' while I was in a church?
If it weren't for other Christians, how in the world would I even know of His existence?

I wouldn't.

It may not be the most scientific answer you've got, but this is all I have to offer. I'm not an intellectual. I'm no scientist.

But I do know what I see, feel and hear. None of my senses have given me any incentive to believe in a higher power.

Because I wasn't raised to be Christian (and you were from birth, I'd be willing to bet), I have no reason to believe in Christianity. It seems a little foreign to me. Imagine going back in time to ancient Greece, with Aphrodite and Zeus and Hercules and Dionysus...You'd think they were a little off their rocker, right? Only, they were just as convicted of their beliefs as you were. Atheists and skeptics (to their gods) of that time were often put to death. So what makes you any more right then they were? You both only said or wrote that your gods were real, and neither account ever gave substantial evidence.