All of the "reasons" for religion have logical fallacies.
1. "I feel God's presence." Sure, it could be God's presence... Or you could simply be delusional.
2. "God works in mysterious ways." This is a religious person's way of saying "I don't know."
3. "Everything must have a creator." What about your God? According to you, nobody created him. So how is it illogical to you that certain particles have existed for all eternity, just as you believe your God has.
4. "The Bible (or whatever religious book) says so." But your religion is FORMED ON THE BOOK. If you want proof for anything, you need to use an outside source.
5. "Evolution is only a theory." Yep, it's only a theory... Kind of like gravity. Take a look at all the paleontological evidence. You will find that between the times of the dinosaurs and the birds, there was a cross between the two, called the Archaeopteryx. This is just one example of evolution.
It isn't likely.
To argue for anything without evidence and then to ignorantly substitute evidence with the word faith and call it proof is to deny reality. While some forms of atheism are arrogant I do believe that agnosticism is the correct stance on this issue and until further evidence is displayed on the side that is arguing to prove something exists instead of taking the default position which is to deny something that lacks demonstrable evidence. I do very wish this poll had a "No, but there is a chance" option I could pick so as to not sound so arrogant, but unfortunately, this is not the case.
I do object to the idea of organized religion in the sense that they are almost based entirely on myths which are often disproved using modern scientific research, conductive thinking, and logic. They also serve to promote violence, discrimination, and serve to make others think better of themselves than others.
Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, this is correct. However, as Robert Flint said
: "If a man have failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist, although he assume no superhuman knowledge, but merely the ordinary human power of judging of evidence. If he go farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist, an agnostic-atheist—an atheist because an agnostic."
Furthermore, evolution is a fact. To argue against it is silly and if you honestly wish to deny it I would hope you research more and climb out of the bubble you seem to residing in and join us in the 21st century where modern scientific theory reigns over the superstitious myths of old. (If you honestly wish to say that it's just a theory I would laugh in your face.) Evolution can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; and this is where the word theory comes into play.
Some people on the yes side seem to be either Steven Colbert knock-offs or just fundamentally misunderstand the Big-Bang-Theory. Seriously, do some research. "Wouldn't the big bang have destroyed everything on Earth anyway" This seriously made my night. No my dear sir, it wouldn't have. The universe wouldn't have existed at this time and since guess what? EARTH IS IN THE UNIVERSE. Earth wouldn't have existed.
Most people on the yes side are using commonly debunked arguments such as: God of the gaps, the cosmological argument, and numerous arguments from ignorance and basic understanding of the theories they seem to be able to disprove, this does not make their argument incorrect, however, I do wish they would delve more deeply into such subjects before making an uninformed opinion.
No, because religion is only designed to keep people down.
Throughout history, every civilization has prayed to something, ranging from multiple gods, to numbers and stars. The whole premise of religion is to get people to accept their given plight in life as god's will. Capitalizing god even makes it more ridiculous and legitimizes peoples beliefs. There is no god, if there was, then where the heck is it?
Where is their Punishment?
Tell me why has there been so much destruction in the modern world? If we are all children of 'God' then why do we not all follow his so called 'commandments', answer that. Is it because the ones who rebel against gods existence are the ones who have broken free from the clutches. Maybe God is a myth like all the other various myths that are in our world. I for one support no religion for the single reason: 'Why do human beings behave in the way we do? War, murder, rape, child molestors... If God where real why do some of these horrible people get away with such things? What sort of God dose not punish these disgusting people?
There Is Scientific Evidence
God doesn't exist because there is too much actual scientific evidence proving that it doesn't. Also, people invented God because they NEEDED to believe in something to help them through hard times. I don't know why people would try to invent something fake to believe in but since they do, I guess that there is a reason. I personally think that anyone who is worshiping God and going to church x times a week is definitely wasting their time.
How do you prove something that doesn't exist?
Proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.G., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.
Sorry, I disagree with the sentence that god exist. No one have seen god and in this world of science everything needs to be explained with proofs. Rather, I would say god is a power which holds your mind over your heart and makes you feel comfortable.
Saibaba, Lord Rama, Lord Krishna all are called god, but they were human first in some era. Rather, there are fantastic stories about god, which we also believe sometimes.
No - Imperfection and Evolution
If there was a higher power that was responsible for everything that has and will happen on Earth, then Earth would be perfect. The theory of evolution, produced by Darwin, states that there isn't a 'God' at all. There is no authenticated evidence to suggest that 'God' does exist. Whereas, there is more than enough evidence to support Darwin's theory.
For example: human embryos, very early on in development, are almost identical to that of a fish. Embryos are clear signs of evolution as there are many similarities between human embryos and fish embryos, these are also almost identical to embryos of birds and reptiles, not just fish.
The human eye is imperfect, if there was a 'God', surely he would design us so that we were perfect beings, there wouldn't be a blind spot for example. There are small things like this which also help back up the theory of NO 'God'.
Overall, there is a vast, overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution and that there is NOT a God.
Compelled to debate? Find me on Twitter: RogueProtocol
There is absolutely no evidence supporting this "God".
You can try and say that the bible is proof of his existence, however we have to take into account that this is a book that was written in a foreign, scrappy language 2000 years ago. It is full of historical inaccuracies and self contradictions and 2000 years leaves a big window for many mistranslations, which there are. I cannot say that this source is in any way reliable. The bible was written to explain what people at the time didn't understand and to ease their fears of death by saying that if you 'believe' and 'repent' that you'll live forever in paradise.
sorry no evidence
I don't know of any hard evidence that shows that god exists. i don't like or accept the idea that you need to have faith in god to see his existence. If there was a god that loved us all we wouldn't have a billion people that are starving. And if God gave us free will and we did all that to ourselves and God does nothing, then he is either able to help us and does nothing which is cruel and evil, or he doesn't have the power to and is not all powerful.
If there was proof of god then i would believe in him but until then i will stick to reality.
There are a number of common arguments for the existence of God. But most of these arguments are not as effective as many Christians would like to think. Let’s consider a hypothetical conversation between a Christian and an atheist.
Christian: “Everything with a beginning requires a cause. The universe has a beginning and therefore requires a cause. That cause is God.”
Atheist: “Even if it were true that everything with a beginning requires a cause, how do you know that the cause of the universe is God? Why not a big bang? Maybe this universe sprang from another universe, as some physicists now believe.”
Christian: “The living creatures of this world clearly exhibit design. Therefore, they must have a designer. And that designer is God.”
Atheist: “The living creatures only appear to be designed. Natural selection can account for this apparent design. Poorly adapted organisms tend to die off, and do not pass on their genes.”
Christian: “But living creatures have irreducible complexity. All their essential parts must be in place at the same time, or the organism dies. So God must have created these parts all at the same time. A gradual evolutionary path simply will not work.”
Atheist: “Just because you cannot imagine a gradual stepwise way of constructing an organism does not mean there isn’t one.”
Christian: “DNA has information in it—the instructions to form a living being. And information never comes about by chance; it always comes from a mind. So DNA proves that God created the first creatures.”
Atheist: “There could be an undiscovered mechanism that generates information in the DNA. Give us time, and we will eventually discover it. And even if DNA did come from intelligence, why would you think that intelligence is God? Maybe aliens seeded life on earth.”
Christian: “The Resurrection of Jesus proves the existence of God. Only God can raise the dead.”
Atheist: “You don’t really have any proof that Jesus rose from the dead. This section of the Bible is simply an embellished story. And even if it were true, it proves nothing. Perhaps under certain rare chemical conditions, a dead organism can come back to life. It certainly doesn’t mean that there is a God.”
Christian: “The Bible claims that God exists, and that it is His Word to us. Furthermore, what the Bible says must be true, since God cannot lie.”
Atheist: “That is a circular argument. Only if we knew in advance that God existed would it be reasonable to even consider the possibility that the Bible is His Word. If God does not exist—as I contend—then there is no reason to trust the Bible.”
Christian: “Predictive prophecy shows that the Bible really must be inspired by God. All of the Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ, for example, were fulfilled. The odds of that happening by chance are very low.”
Atheist: “A low probability isn’t the same as zero. People do win the lottery. Besides, maybe the Gospels have embellished what Jesus did, so that it would agree with the Old Testament prophecies. Perhaps some so-called prophetic books were actually written after the events they ‘predict.’ Maybe certain gifted individuals have abilities not yet understood by science and can occasionally predict the future. It certainly doesn’t prove the Bible is inspired by God.”
Christian: “I have personally experienced God, and so have many other Christians. He has saved us and transformed our lives. We know that He exists from experience.”
Atheist: “Unfortunately, your personal experiences are not open to investigation; I have only your word for it. And second, how do you know that such subjective feelings are really the result of God? The right drug might produce similar feelings.”
It should be noted that all the facts used by the Christian in the above hypothetical conversation are true. Yes, God is the first cause, the designer of life, the resurrected Christ, the Author of Scripture, and the Savior of Christians. Yet the way these facts are used is not decisive. That is, none of the above arguments really prove that God exists.
None of the above arguments really prove that God exists.
Some of the above arguments are very weak: appeals to personal experience, vicious circular reasoning, and appeals to a first cause. While the facts are true, the arguments do not come close to proving the existence of the biblical God. Some of the arguments seem stronger; I happen to think that irreducible complexity and information in DNA are strong confirmations of biblical creation. And predictive prophecy does confirm the inspiration of Scripture. Nonetheless, for each one of these arguments, the atheist was able to invent a “rescuing device.” He was able to propose an explanation for this evidence that is compatible with his belief that God does not exist.
Moreover, most of the atheist’s explanations are actually pretty reasonable, given his view of the world. He’s not being illogical. He is being consistent with his position. Christians and atheists have different worldviews—different philosophies of life. And we must learn to argue on the level of worldviews if we are to argue in a cogent and effective fashion.
The Christian in the above hypothetical conversation did not have a correct approach to apologetics. He was arguing on the basis of specific evidences with someone who had a totally different professed worldview than his own. This approach is never conclusive, because the critic can always invoke a rescuing device to protect his worldview.1 Thus, if we are to be effective, we must use an argument that deals with worldviews, and not simply isolated facts. The best argument for the existence of God will be a “big-picture” kind of argument.
God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists
The Bible teaches that atheists are not really atheists.
The Bible teaches that atheists are not really atheists. That is, those who profess to be atheists do ultimately believe in God in their heart-of-hearts. The Bible teaches that everyone knows God, because God has revealed Himself to all (Romans 1:19). In fact, the Bible tells us that God’s existence is so obvious that anyone who suppresses this truth is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). The atheist denies with his lips what he knows in his heart. But if they know God, then why do atheists claim that they do not believe in God?
The answer may be found in Romans 1:18. God is angry at unbelievers for their wickedness. And an all-powerful, all-knowing God who is angry at you is a terrifying prospect. So even though many atheists might claim that they are neutral, objective observers, and that their disbelief in God is purely rational, in reality, they are strongly motivated to reject the biblical God who is rightly angry with them. So they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. They convince themselves that they do not believe in God.2 The atheist is intellectually schizophrenic—believing in God, but believing that he does not believe in God.3
Therefore, we do not really need to give the atheist any more specific evidences for God’s existence. He already knows in his heart-of-hearts that God exists, but he doesn’t want to believe it. Our goal is to expose the atheist’s suppressed knowledge of God.4 With gentleness and respect, we can show the atheist that he already knows about God, but is suppressing what he knows to be true.
Exposing the Inconsistency
Because an atheist does believe in God, but does not believe that he believes in God, he is simply a walking bundle of inconsistencies.
Because an atheist does believe in God, but does not believe that he believes in God, he is simply a walking bundle of inconsistencies. One type to watch for is a behavioral inconsistency; this is where a person’s behavior does not comport with what he claims to believe. For example, consider the atheist university professor who teaches that human beings are simply chemical accidents—the end result of a long and purposeless chain of biological evolution. But then he goes home and kisses his wife and hugs his children, as if they were not simply chemical accidents, but valuable, irreplaceable persons deserving of respect and worthy of love.
Consider the atheist who is outraged at seeing a violent murder on the ten o’clock news. He is very upset and hopes that the murderer will be punished for his wicked actions. But in his view of the world, why should he be angry? In an atheistic, evolutionary universe where people are just animals, murder is no different than a lion killing an antelope. But we don’t punish the lion! If people are just chemical accidents, then why punish one for killing another? We wouldn’t get upset at baking soda for reacting with vinegar; that’s just what chemicals do. The concepts that human beings are valuable, are not simply animals, are not simply chemicals, have genuine freedom to make choices, are responsible for their actions, and are bound by a universal objective moral code all stem from a Christian worldview. Such things simply do not make sense in an atheistic view of life.
Many atheists behave morally and expect others to behave morally as well. But absolute morality simply does not comport with atheism. Why should there be an absolute, objective standard of behavior that all people should obey if the universe and the people within it are simply accidents of nature? Of course, people can assert that there is a moral code. But who is to say what that moral code should be? Some people think it is okay to be racist; others think it is okay to kill babies, and others think we should kill people of other religions or ethnicities, etc. Who is to say which position should be followed? Any standard of our own creation would necessarily be subjective and arbitrary.
Now, some atheists might respond, “That’s right! Morality is subjective. We each have the right to create our own moral code. And therefore, you cannot impose your personal morality on other people!” But of course, this statement is self-refuting, because when they say, “you cannot impose your personal morality on other people” they are imposing their personal moral code on other people. When push comes to shove, no one really believes that morality is merely a subjective, personal choice.
Another inconsistency occurs when atheists attempt to be rational. Rationality involves the use of laws of logic. Laws of logic prescribe the correct chain of reasoning between truth claims. For example, consider the argument: “If it is snowing outside, then it must be cold out. It is snowing. Therefore, it is cold out.” This argument is correct because it uses a law of logic called modus ponens. Laws of logic, like modus ponens, are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities. They are immaterial because you can’t touch them or stub your toe on one. They are universal and invariant because they apply in all places and at all times (modus ponens works just as well in Africa as it does in the United States, and just as well on Friday as it does on Monday). And they are abstract because they deal with concepts.
Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the way He thinks.
Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the way He thinks. They are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities, because God is an immaterial (Spirit), omnipresent, unchanging God who has all knowledge (Colossians 2:3). Thus, all true statements will be governed by God’s thinking—they will be logical. The law of non-contradiction, for example, stems from the fact that God does not deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). The Christian can account for laws of logic; they are the correct standard for reasoning because God is sovereign over all truth. We can know some of God’s thoughts because God has revealed Himself to us through the words of Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ.
However, the atheist cannot account for laws of logic. He cannot make sense of them within his own worldview. How could there be immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract laws in a chance universe formed by a big bang? Why should there be an absolute standard of reasoning if everything is simply “molecules in motion”? Most atheists have a materialistic outlook—meaning they believe that everything that exists is material, or explained by material processes. But laws of logic are not material! You cannot pull a law of logic out of the refrigerator! If atheistic materialism is true, then there could be no laws of logic, since they are immaterial. Thus, logical reasoning would be impossible!
No one is denying that atheists are able to reason and use laws of logic. The point is that if atheism were true, the atheist would not be able to reason or use laws of logic because such things would not be meaningful. The fact that the atheist is able to reason demonstrates that he is wrong. By using that which makes no sense given his worldview, the atheist is being horribly inconsistent. He is using God’s laws of logic, while denying the biblical God that makes such laws possible.
How could there be laws at all without a lawgiver? The atheist cannot account for (1) the existence of laws of logic, (2) why they are immaterial, (3) why they are universal, (4) why they do not change with time, and (5) how human beings can possibly know about them or their properties. But of course, all these things make perfect sense on the Christian system. Laws of logic owe their existence to the biblical God. Yet they are required to reason rationally, to prove things. So the biblical God must exist in order for reasoning to be possible. Therefore, the best proof of God’s existence is that without Him we couldn’t prove anything at all! The existence of the biblical God is the prerequisite for knowledge and rationality. This is called the “transcendental argument for God” or TAG for short. It is a devastating and conclusive argument, one that only a few people have even attempted to refute (and none of them successfully).5
Proof Versus Persuasion
Though the transcendental argument for God is deductively sound, not all atheists will be convinced upon hearing it. It may take time for them to even understand the argument in the first place. As I write this chapter, I am in the midst of an electronic exchange with an atheist who has not yet fully grasped the argument. Real-life discussions on this issue take time. But even if the atheist fully understands the argument, he may not be convinced. We must remember that there is a difference between proof and persuasion. Proof is objective, but persuasion is subjective. The transcendental argument does indeed objectively prove that God exists. However, that does not mean that the atheists will necessarily cry “uncle.” Atheists are strongly motivated to not believe in the biblical God—a God who is rightly angry at them for their treason against Him.
The atheist’s denial of God is an emotional reaction, not a logical one.
But the atheist’s denial of God is an emotional reaction, not a logical one. We might imagine a disobedient child who is about to be punished by his father. He might cover his eyes with his hands and say of his father, “You don’t exist!” but that would hardly be rational. Atheists deny (with their lips) the biblical God, not for logical reasons, but for psychological reasons. We must also keep in mind that the unbeliever’s problem is not simply an emotional issue, but a deep spiritual problem (1 Corinthians 2:14). It is the Holy Spirit that must give him the ability to repent (1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Timothy 2:25).
So we must keep in mind that it is not our job to convert people—nor can we. Our job is to give a defense of the faith in a way that is faithful to the Scriptures (1 Peter 3:15). It is the Holy Spirit that brings conversion. But God can use our arguments as part of the process by which He draws people to Himself.
Previous Chapter Why Is Mount St. Helens Important to the Origins Controversy?NextChapter Do Evolutionists Believe Darwin’s Ideas about Evolution?
The New Answers Book 3
Do you have answers to the big questions about the Christian faith, evolution, creation, and the biblical worldview? Now you get the important information you need regarding the existence of God, global warming and climate change, cloning and stem cells, human and chimp DNA, the importance of Mount St. Helens, and more.Read OnlineBuy Book