Naive ideas of theists
1. Assuming God to exist.
You cannot assume God exists and then just proceed to shoehorn everything
else into that assumption - there is no basis for the assumption. This breaks
Occam's Razor simplest assumption - which is "God does not
exist". In order to start with this premise,you need evidence that it is
in fact the case. The fact that humans have assigned God's to other natural
phenomena such as Thunder and Water and Volcanos,means assigning one to creation
is more than likely sticking a man's face upon your own ignorance of how
the universe began. It is just as naive as asserting the Earth is flat,because
it looks like it is,or that the sun goes round the Earth because that's what
seems to the case.What you personally believe to be the case has nothing
whatever to do with what is true.
2. You can't disprove God exists. Nobody needs
to. The
onus
is on those who claim the existence to do so,you cannot shift the burden
of proof to someone else.43.
3. You cannot prove a negative - That's a gem isn't it....okay...let's
see...click
here. 39.
4.God doesn't need a creator himself as he has always
existed. (or something can't come from nothing) Sorry. Humans invented
gods,and anyhow assuming God doesn't suffer from needing a cause is called
'Special Pleading' - if the universe needs God as a prime mover,then
God needs a cause too. If he has always existed,so could the universe.
If you say,but something can't come from nothing,then neither can
God. 41.
5. Belief in no God is just as much as faith as
belief in God(s).
It is a mistake in thinking to say that saying God does not exist is
as much an act of faith to say that he does.This is a question of argumentum
ad ignorantiam - Believers assume that those who argue FOR something
by reason,are in the same position as themselves and that the beliefs are
as personal and as arbitrary as each other.They are falling foul of a logical
error in thought,whereby they invert logic -
to say that they need proof that God does not exist;this process defeats
Ockham's razor.(see point 7). See Also
Figments of Reality.
1.
6. The universe could not have come about by itself. This would breach
common-sense "cause and effect".
Cause and effect breaks down in Quantum Theory
- the arguments used by believers often are not apprised of modern physics
and how their own literal "experience" of "linear time" is insufficient to
support their contention.Moreover,they confuse theological notions of "the
eternal present" with what is provably the case,such as theories about the
free universe and the future being
undefined.Ironically,they also argue for Freewill and yet contend we are
in a Laplacian/Newtonian clockwork universe. Those who do not, still do not
see why modern physics undermines the notion of God.
2.
7. The Bible is a source document of the word of God.
The bible it is maintained is the bequeathment of God's word to mankind,it
is amazing then that it contains errors,is overly complex,shows the ignorance
of men during the period it was "written" and can be "interpreted" by whosoever
reads it. 3.
8. The Universal Constants show
that there must be a God,for they are too narrowly defined.
There is a contention that the universal constants
are so narrowly constrained that this could not have happened by chance-
and would therefore have had to have been defined by someone/thing and therefore
it was God -this argument is absurd in itself that it should necessarily
be God that supplies the constrainment. The fact is such narrowly defined
terms CAN arise without any help. String Theory which posits up to
11 dimensions of spacetime allows for a kind
of "resonance" that would necessitate the narrow confining of such terms.
5.
9. Belief in a system of religious faith is just
as reasonable as anything else.
Belief in God is an act of faith and as such cannot be argued
reasonably,therefore it is an act of unreason Anyone who reasons is led
inevitably to atheism,because there is no evidence that we need anything
but the physical facts of modern science to explain the world around us.
6.
10. God does not defeat
Ockhams
Razor.
God is an example of an unnecessary multiplication -something that is NOT
requisite to explain what happens in the universe - he is therefore academic
to the cosmos. Moreover,to maintain that he either exists or is needed is
an act of unreason and an attempt to hold onto notions that are built upon
ignorance and inverted logic - if someone says "Prove to me that God
does not exist" they are missing the point and not thinking reasonably. Carl
Sagan's story
"Contact" exemplifies
the argument excellently. 7.
11. Mathematical Complexity in the Universe presumes a creative
intelligence.(The Argument from Design)
The nature of the universe has complexity and sufficiently thinking human
beings are led to ask "How did it get like
this?" Unable to facilitate an answer without alluding to their own
intelligence they presume
something like it must have
brought it all about - this shows their lack of appreciation for the
laws of science,man's intellect,and bizarrely,seems unable to see that the
fact of their own brain's existence- a product OF scientific law - is
what makes them think something like them is needed to explain
scientific law. (For explanations of complexity and why a designer is not
needed,see "Frontiers of Complexity"
by Peter Coveney and Roger Highfield.)
8.
12. Evolution cannot be correct,nor can the big bang because nobody was
around to see it.
The same can be said of creation.There is more evidence FOR evolution and
the the big bang than there is for creation.One book that does not even contain
the words of Jesus Christ does not constitute evidence.For those who
think it easy to dismiss scientific concepts such as this and use God as
the antidote to any failures they perceive,try reading
"Why Anything?" and
"The Self Organising
Cosmos".
The arguments rage about time periods for development of eyes - and that
no one has seen evolution in action - and yet these are straw men arguments
- the fact is evolution is observed
and such time period
arguments are falsely based.
20.
13. Evolution
is a myth.The evidence shows mankind
was designed by God.Life did not arise by chance.
Believers often do not understand chance and mutation as they apply to
genes and the way in which "lower" organisms have give rise to more
complex forms,in some cases,believing that those animals which can regenerate
are superior to us (which makes a mockery of their own creation notions),they
hold on by faith to creation,when the evidence shows that evolution is what
happened. String theory suggests we live in
11 dimensions,if we had been created then
God would have apprised our brains of this fact- if we evolved then
we would only be aware of the 3 spatial dimensions that we are.
For those who question evolution - please see the work being done on
simulating life in a computer - which is showing
that far from being difficult to arise by chance - evolution is almost a
done deal - and will by necessity bring about evolving life forms - computer
simulations can reproduce the effects of genetics - and it only a matter
of time before mankind understands his own genetics -any idea that God created
life is just due to massive ignorance of what is ACTUALLY taking
place.
4.
14. I did not evolve from a monkey. Evolution does not say
anyone evolved from a monkey. It says that there is a common ancestor shared
by apes and man. We know they are related as one choromsome has fused showing
the relationship.
15. Evolution is 'just a theory'. A theory does not mean that something is in doubt,or that there is no proof. Missing Links are a misunderstanding as is the misuse of the term Species. 42.
16. Everything can't come from randomness. One of the perennial myths of theists is that science says everything was made 'by chance' and that this implies randomness. Do they really think educated people think order in the universe happened by a watch being thrown together by a hurricane? They are creating a straw man argument - nobody says that. 44.
17. Irreducible Complexity. Another argument trotted out again and again that there are things that cannot have arrived in steps. Yet God is irreducibly and needlessly complex,and has no cause,yet that's okay? We know how eyes and brains evoilved,because theists don't, isn't an argumnt for creation. 45.
18. DNA is far too complex to just be thrown together
without an intelligent hand behind it. This is just a classic faux pas.
All this proves is the massive ignorance of theists and their vain attempts
to undermine science. DNA is a
complex molecule and arrived via simpler steps like RNA.
40.
19. The eye makes a mockery of evolution- it
MUST have been created.
This is a hackneyed old Paley-esque argument
isn't it? The eye is made of cells - there
is no reason to pick on the eye any more than any other organ,even though
it seems so suited to it's job - this is EXACTLY what evolution is SUPPOSED
to do- tailor things to the environment- the fact is there are many sorts
of eyes - the compound ones of insects - some
sorts of sea creatures have "scanning eyes" - ours is only one type- evolution
has made eyes to suit the purpose of the environment in the same way it made
everything else.We might ask when we say "We are gathered here in the sight
of the Lord"- exactly how the Lord has eyes when eyes are made of DNA
and the Lord apparently is spirit - doesn't make any sense does it?
The latest absurd ideas from Intelligent Design theorists
is that Flagellums are inconsistent with evolution - this is just the
hackneyed eye argument all over again.
27.
20. Some creatures can re-grow limbs and humans cannot - so evolution
MUST be wrong.
I was actually given this as a serious attack on evolution by a Christian
- and I have never in all my born days been faced with such unadulterated
ignorance.Such creatures as Axelotyl's that do indeed have this ability
-have retained in those cells the capacity to re-grow a tail - this is also
used as a survival tactic by some lizards - the stem cells now being used
in research to possibly repair the human body show that the way this works
is for specialisation to take place in sophisticated creatures such as humans
- abilities such as that of lizards to re-grow limbs points to an ancient
lineage where specialisation has not occurred so much - so the person making
the above argument only displays his ignorance OF evolution - he has not
shown any undermining of it - the tree of life has many branches- and many
lineages and lines of descent - the mistake in thinking was to to think that
there is a single line from base creature such as amoeba to man via monkey
- a similar mistake is to think that we "evolved from monkeys" - and
then the anti-evolutionist asks "Why do monkey's still exist on Earth then?"-
again this misunderstands evolution- monkey's
are our cousins not out ancestors.28.
21. There is no evidence of evolution.
One might ask why God chose to invent the wolf twice and the lion twice -
once in mammalian form and once in marsupial form- and why one died out and
the other did not - or was God just allowing evolution to take place?
Mitochondrial Eve also supports the evolutionary
story - and since "humans" were very different in the past - we cannot
have been made in the image of God. And what are dinosaur fossils if not
evidence of evolution - and what is the Burgess
Shale? I suppose God made THOSE creatures in his image too - get real.
29.
22. The Galapagos
finches disprove Evolution.
The finches are an exemplary example OF
evolution in action! In fact they
are evidence of observed evolution - along with fruit flies and bacteria
- so don't let anyone say evolution has NOT been observed.
In fact evolution HAS been
observed.30.
23. Evolution exists -but it is evidence of the divine hand at
work.
This is a pathetic and lame argument.It is a contrived attempt to accommodate
science and admit the power of reason whilst still clinging to ideas that
are in gross contradiction with what was admitted. The whole process of
evolution,adding in the complexity ideas of modern science and maths tells
a story that is not requiring of any sort of deity.If one is going to admit
evolution as a viable process to how organisms
arrive then do not make a mockery of oneself by showing how ignorant
an admission it is by saying "But God made evolution happen"...all it shows
is the orator's inability to let go of a silly point of view,and also shows
their inability to reason properly,if they cannot see the contradictions
inherent in this admission then they ought to read more books.
What is happening here is that Creationists are changing their story to suit
modern evidence - rather than accept what the modern evidence says of its
own volition -that is - that there is no God - and no such being is required
to explain anything at all. This position shows the complete lack of honesty
of creationists.31.
24. "Intelligent Design" is
a viable scientific alternative to Evolutionary Theory.
What utter rubbish - it only takes a moments thought to realise why - The
arguments used by Intelligent Design advocates are
"Irreducible Complexity" - if something cannot
evolve because it requires all it's parts - they say something like God must
have made it - of course the same argument,means that God himself is subject
to the same ruling - ie - someone is needed to make God - and so on ad infinitum
- that is - "Intelligent Design" is a non-explanation - it is just a rouse
to try and make God sound scientific because those of faith cannot understand
how complex creatures can evolve and how complex
systems can come about by chance - not chance ALONE mind you -
this is not how it all works. The
argument about the flagellum of single celled creatures is just the same
hackneyed argument about the eye - which
has long since been dealt with. No positive proof of God or showing that
a creator is needed is ever proffered - all they do is try to undermine existing
theory,because that is all they are able to do.
Another of the arguments for "Intelligent Design" is a false mathematical
argument calculating odds - it is based on a fallacy - determining the odds
that life arose by chance - this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of
evolution.I am surprised that US PHd types seem to be so stupid when it comes
to understanding this. The whole process of Intelligent Design is just a
means to undermine science and advocate Christian religious faith in God.
It's advocates have faith and think they can bring down science which has
shown them the truth - there is no such thing as God - and they are basically
mistaken in their beliefs.37.
25. To be homosexual is to be against
God.
To take one's morality from an espousing messiah who has not been proven
to have the authority is an act of unreason. What is right is not subjective
- and this is why Holy Wars are fought - which actually contradict the axioms
of the supposed morality (ie DO NOT KILL) - morality is not for the individual
or group of people to determine,and neither should it be based on an arbitrary
tome,any more than I would base my morality on
The Rupert Bear stories,or Dr
Suess,although to be sure,both of those I would use before referring
to the Koran or the Bible. Morality cannot be based on a belief by faith,this
leads to bigotry and
arrogance.9.
26. The bible contains a mysterious
code,which shows there is something "odd" about it.
Some believe the Bible contains a code that reveals mysterious predictions,I
will show that this is as much the case in any other book,and is a "mirage"
and moreover does not make any sense if a viable rational deity were to have
supplied such information.10.
27. The
evidence
of Christ as a divine son of God is incontrovertible and therefore the
basis of faith.
Arguments maintain that because certain events in the bible are unexplainable
or provided by unassailable "eye witnesses"
we must conclude that Jesus Christ was divine,the son of God and therefore
to believe the bible.I maintain that such events are explainable,require
us to use Ockham's Razor,conclude that something ELSE happened other
than what was stated by the "eye
witnesses" because their conception of the world was erroneous,and Jesus
Christ was nothing more than a people's leader,a magician and philosopher,of
the likes of Ghandi coupled with Derren Brown/Paul Daniels - and the inability
of the populace to see how or why they may have been duped led them to believe
in something they should not have. Any supposed PROPHECY that they suppose
is based on a fallacious understanding of how the human mind can be duped
- I can predict a plane crash will happen next year - if it happens then
I look gifted with foresight - the subject is far too complex to be rendered
into the simple argument "Christ's life was the subject of prophecy - so
he was the son of God" - one needs to think more deeply than
that. 11.
28. Freewill is a real process,but
it is the realm of the divine and cannot be explained by physics.
Believers like to believe their mind is free,saying this is a God-given
capacity and that the machinations of the brain are not enough to explain
what happens in a MIND - that a SOUL
inhabits the body - and that after death the force that maintains life will
continue and that it will do so maintaining the guise of the person who was
alive.The notion of predestination runs into problems with freewill and seemingly
believers are confused as to whether they can have freewill and live
in an open universe,or whether there is some sort of fatalistic future over
which they have no control and therefore their own freewill is a myth. I
will attempt to dispel their
confusion.12.
29. There is such a thing as "SOUL" and
the mind/body
problem has not been solved.The animation of a human being is
God-given.
It seems that believers (and others) are confused as to what causes
the animation in a biological being and renders us more mobile than an inanimate
object like a rock.This they see as the "life force" inside the body that
somehow exists after death. I will show that this is an ignorant and
dated viewpoint,and if they maintain that they reason,anyone doing so should
accept the evidence and update their beliefs and not stick dogmatically to
what they would prefer to believe.
13.
30. The notion of a prime moving deity is not at odds with scientific
evidence.
Those who do reason among believers maintain that even with all the
scientific evidence,that there is still room for God and that they can
consistently both accept the scientific evidence AND believe in God- that
they are NOT mutually exclusive. I will examine this argument and show that
there IS an inconsistency and therefore if one is
to maintain integrity as a reasoning being that one should NOT believe in
God.14.
31. The power of love and
truth is something beyond our ken and will
conquer all.
It is held that such metaphysical notions as LOVE are beyond physical
explanation and cannot be brought into the material realm. Love is a product
of chemical processes and experiences, desires and needs - there is
no need to put it outside in a spiritual dimension. Truth is a matter of
reasoning and believers are not really in a position to say what is true
since they defeat reason and prefer to believe what satisfies their feelings
and wishes.15.
32. God is my heavenly father - thy will be done.
The concept of heaven is a mythology deriving from history- God as the
father is a Freudian requirement in lieu of being able to stand on one's
own two feet in an evolutionary,red in tooth and claw universe.It is a notion
used as an emotional crutch and a coping mechanism. If it were only used
for those purposes,then fine - but it is not - people maintain that it IS
the truth,without proving it,and worse still - pushing the burden of proof
upon reasonable men to show them they are wrong,and then denying what is
uncovered,because they cannot let go of their "father's" hand.A psychologically
healthy human being has no need of a father's hand.and accepts the
randomness,chaos and uncertainty in the cosmos. Often believers would prefer
security,certainty and tradition - the nature of the world is dynamic and
changing,an evolving being knows this and takes account of it - stand still
(mentally or physically) and you
perish.16.
33. Death offers the possibility
of life everlasting and seeing the world
as the Creator sees it.
There is no such thing as an afterlife and
no possibility of knowing "The Mind of God" other than using The
Theory of Everything
/GUT.Afterlife
is a contradiction in terms.Consciousness is due to material processes,and
therefore death is the cessation of consciousness,there is no ghost in the
machine.It is rather odd that Christians who seem to think we exist after
death,have the most trouble dealing with death and loss,I maintain there
is a psychological error in their belief system which causes this to be the
case.17.
34. Everything we witness as
Reality is
only in our minds and therefore we should leave everything to God.
Reality,whether or not it happens to be in some sense "constructed" by the
mind,exists,and as such it is the only indication of what is "out there"
and so this does not allow relaxing of personal responsibility,nor does it
mean that one can say that what is ACTUALLY out there maybe something very
different that what is witnessed by a brain- ie that Gods and spirits exist.These
are
phenomenological
arguments and are often used as a ploy to allow Gods and spirits to
exist.18.
35. The ten plagues
are evidence of God.
What utter rubbish.These are easily explained...just click the
link.19.
36. Thou shalt have no other Gods beside me.
In our world there are various beliefs,sometimes presuming various Gods,as
Richard Dawkins maintains,the most likely explanation
is that all are false Gods.Christians have no monopoly on the truth.To
presume that ONLY their God exists is an absurd position,if they maintain
all other faiths are wrong in their beliefs,then they are wrong for the same
reason. Christianity holds no special place.Either all religions are false,or
they are all correct. The latter cannot be the case as they are mutually
exclusive,therefore they are all
false.21.
37. Science supports the existence of
God.
I shall have more to say on this - but for now let me just say that people
will go to any lengths to justify their bizarre beliefs,including
plagiarising,assassinating and misusing scientific concepts - such as
Chaos Theory
.22.
38. Jesus Christ died to save us from our
sins.
What a waste of effort - we are still "sinning" - so he died in vain. God
gave us freewill (so it is said)- we can choose to not obey him,it's his
own fault if we choose to do as we will. My life would be qualitatively worse
by acceding to a God that cannot even respond to suffering or even manage
to quell sin in so called sinners - God is pointless and impotent.It's a
known fact in physics that God did not even have the freewill to decide how
the universe turned out - so he is hardly in a position to determine whether
things have freewill or not. The recent revelations about the
Da Vinci Code suggest that Christ may not
even have died on the cross and his descendants may still be alive. There
are ways of explaining the so called disappearance of Christ's body from
the tomb.23.
39. Anselm and Thomas Aquinas can prove God exists.
These arguments are out of date and proven to be
erroneous in the light of modern knowledge.24.
40. Miracles are evidence of God's existence.
Miracles do not occur.These are people's
misinterpretation of rare events or spates of coincidences. The mathematical
"Clustering Effect" explains
what people see as miracles in the cases
of rare events or conjunctions.Any other sort of miracle is a
defeating of what the eye witnesses or
the of what the brain comprehends.25.
41. Angels are proof of God and
of an unearthly presence.
What a crock - no one has ever seen such a thing - without proving
they weren't batty as a fruit cake...but there are better arguments against
angels. Not least is that we are presumed to have one each - and since people
have evolved there could never have been a point where angels decided to
take up with a "person" because the notion of a person is a recent invention
- God presumably arrived a little later,when people's brain's were sophisticated
enough to manufacture lies and ignorance about the universe.
26.
43. The probability of a scientific explanation is so low that
God must be the only remaining solution.
Creationists often make out that the given explantion is improbable and this
in itself is reason to disbelieve a theory and favour creationism. Even if
this were so (which it isn't) we need not conclude a God or the Christian
God is the prime mover.32.
44. Science says there is an Adam and Eve,surely this proves the bible
story?
I am afraid not -what the evidence shows is that
Mitochondrial Adam and Eve are the two people
who may represent the chain of DNA that led to today's population - it does
not mean no other people were alive at the time,only that modern people's
lineage can be traced to them - it also does not negate other evidence of
pre-history such as
fossils.33.
45. Jesus walked on water so he was divine.
Be serious.He could just as well have been an
alien being with
powers we don't understand - if he was anything more than a man.The
evidence suggests if we are
talking about anything at all more than man - it is alien intervention
- NOT divinity.There are certain species of Grebe that can walk on water
and so can the Water Boatman - does this prove they are divine?
34.
46. Some scientists believe in God,so science and
religion are not incompatible.
This is an absurd and illogical notion.Science has systematically undermined
religions notions for hundreds of years.Individual scientists may be able
to reconcile their rationality and stupidity - but for the most part the
example of a scientist who believes in God is a Creation scientist who is
out to undermine science because of a convicted belief in an untrue idea.
35.
47. Without God there is no morality.
I had occasion to see a programme called
"Dark Enlightenment" which
says that the spiritual malaise in the past led to the rise of Hitler.Whilst
I admit that we ARE in a spiritual malaise and that people's morality IS
directionless,I do not think Christianity is the solution - it is part of
the problem.People should deduce what is right from first principles - not
be instructed by a book which is 2000 years out of date and pretty much advocates
divine retribution for half it's
pages.36.
48. The World is only 2000-10000 years old because it was computed so
from the ages of biblical characters.
This is an old gem isn't it? And where do dinosaur fossils fit into this
story? Radio Carbon dating tells us how old things are and it does not give
figures in this range. 38.
49. Consciousness is needed for the big bang. A modern take on
creationism. The BB needs an observer to collapse the first wave function.
Nope. Consciousness is a
product of biological complexity and so consciousness can't precede the
universe. This is just trying to exploit physics to shoehorn god back into
it.
50. Life was thrown together randomly. No,that's a stupid myth of
uninformed theists. Life was formed the same way water and snowflakes are,by
complex chemisty and emergent complexity.Merely
trotting out the Hoyle fallacy proves
nothing but their own ignorance of science.
42.
51. Life cannot come from non-life. Sorry - wrong. Not only can it
- it did - as that is the only way it can. If Theists understood
emergent complexity and
spontaneous order they'd not be using distinctions
that fail to address facts.