This is why I think God must exist?

Question

How do atheists respond to this argument?

If there were no benevolent creator, humans would have evolved through the blind process of natural selection. This process selects brains are prone to survival, not necessarily brains that can detect reality. If this were true, we'd have no reason to believe our conclusions are true, only that they are good for our survival. We must assume there is a God, like we assume the axioms of logic.

i asked this before but i think it was too confusing or people missed thepoint

bookish - I think I know plenty. I'm not against science or evolution.

emily - thanks for answering!

icarus - that's one possibility. or we may have selected because of our false beliefs that helped us survived.

if i think that fire caused cancer, i'd stay away from it and that belief would survive, but it never makes it true

icarus - i agree, that makes more sense to us, but once we admit we must be universally skeptical about the conclusions of our minds, I can't be sure of what you claim

Answer 1

We must also assume that Santa Claus is real because he brings you presents and the tooth fairy because she leaves $1 for every tooth...

Answer 2

How do you differentiate brains prone to survival from detecting reality? I would consider these two concepts to be very similar. Then there is the genetic traits that mark us as hunters, i.e. we are more likely to notice movement rather than a motionless threat.

Besides that, your reasoning does not fit human or even other animal behaviors. Nor does it dictate that we must assume god.

Edit:
Belief and knowledge are not genetic. I think that your confusing what is passed along genetically and what is taught by parents. Your belief that fire cause cancer whould not be passed to your children, if you died before teaching them.

Answer 3

You just proved evolution. The brain did develop for survival. Detecting reality is part of survival. If one didn't detect the reality that lions were dangerous they might foolishly try to pet them and end up dinner for the lion. The bases for REBT is that humans often act irrational (not realistic) but can learn to be rational (realistic). Remember the brain evolved to survive in the environment. The more the environment required logic an reason the brain adapted to that.

There's a rock so there must be a God.

You are an IDIOT. Stay in school.

Answer 4

I've had fun responding to your question:

"If there were no benevolent creator, humans would have evolved through the blind process of natural selection."

Evolution is blind in the sense that it does not have a set end point, but it is not random or blind in another sense because process that works on natural selection alongside beneficial genetic mutation.

"This process selects brains are prone to survival, not necessarily brains that can detect reality. "

It does neither. Evolution doesn't say that plants are superior to adaptation than mammals with neurological systems. One does not need a brain to survive or to beat natural selection. Consider that in the history of our planet, only one species has been capable of forward planning and what we consider civilization with acquired memes. If a species had a nervous system, it would need to be good at survival -- meaning that it would have to accurately perceive reality to the extent that an organism's chances of survival are raised. So I disagree.

"If this were true, we'd have no reason to believe our conclusions are true, only that they are good for our survival. We must assume there is a God, like we assume the axioms of logic."

No idea how you got to this point. The human mind is prone to delusions in order to survive, and religion may only be one of them. But basic senses such as sight, sound, etc. tend to be accurate because they need to be if we are to survive in a world that works on evolutionary processes. Winter doesn't care if you believe there is a man in the sky causing the sun to go around the earth in a chariot. It only matters that you can scope out predators and find a warm place.

But let me pose a question. Why do you think if a god exists and works through evolution, it would be benevolent? Natural selection is death, competition for limited resources. It requires the death of billions of life forms in order to make small, grueling changes. Humans are no exception. Natural selection worked in Europe's black plague and to our ancestors. And Evolution fits the evidence. So why assume that a god exists or follows what humans consider benevolent?

Look at our history. For thousands of years before humans could write down their culture, they've been dying in masses with low life expectancies, societal violence, rampant malnutrition, and no medical care. Only in the past few thousand years has our species had the luxury of writing down religious codes and transmitting them over generations. But where are the gods they claim? Probably only one person out of hundreds of our human ancestors survived to old age before modern medicine was developed.

Answer 5

Your conclusion does not follow form the premises. It commits argumentum ad consequentiam.


"We must assume there is a God, like we assume the axioms of logic."
We don't 'assume' the axioms of logic. Logic is a product of thousands of years of hard work. If you want to make that leap in logic, we can make another and 'assume' that Athena, Greek god of wisdom, is the creator of logic; for the ancient Greeks are the pioneers of modern logic.

Addendum:
"if i think that fire caused cancer, i'd stay away from it and that belief would survive, but it never makes it true"
And if you pray for rain and rain comes down, that belief would survive. It doesn't make it true. Think a bit about positive and negative reinforcement. Also, understand that 'belief' does not progress genetically, but rather memetically.

Answer 6

There is no god, because there is no god. Circular logic actually works in this case.

At birth we have no knowledge of god. If we were dumped on an island, assuming we could survive, we would not know anything about god(s). It is a learned behavior many people pick up from the society they are raised in. No society, no god.

Answer 7

Correctly perceiving and interpreting reality is essential to survival, so evolution favours those who can do it well. Far from giving us a reason to assume there is a creator, evolution shows us that one is unnecessary.

EDIT: Isn't it likely that beliefs which are consistent with reality are more useful to our survival than beliefs which are false?

"believing nonsense is like eating noodles: once you start you can't stop"... love that :-)

"if i think that fire caused cancer, i'd stay away from it and that belief would survive, but it never makes it true" - of course we can have false beliefs which happen by chance to benefit us, but true beliefs are more likely to do so.

Answer 8

you are suggesting that a brain which cannot detect reality is somehow more adapted for survival than a brain which can.

if you were not a committed christian you would immediately be able to see the error in this position.

but believing nonsense is like eating noodles: once you start you can't stop.

Answer 9

If a brain cannot detect reality then it probably would not survive long. To survive in any situation you have to deal with reality and come to conclusions otherwise you could never function.

Answer 10

I do not agree with your point, even from a non-atheist view point. I don't believe in complete random chance creating the world, but I do feel that the description of a super-being creator was done to try and describe an indescribable force, and in doing so, humanity altered that force to its own means and bastardized it.

Answer 11

Um what? It's like you took a whole bunch of pseudo scientific sentences and strung them together. I'll admit it sounds nice, but it has absolutely no meaning. Besides, this would be better off being posted in a philosophic discussion, not a religious discussion.