The "Evolution Bomb" is a compiled list of links to help education about
evolution, provide evidence for evolution and help refute creationist
claims. Originally it was just a list of links leading to
talkorigins.org but has since been greatly expanded upon and organized.
This post will be kept updated with the latest version of this list.
This was mirrored with permission from the original here; http://mindofmage.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/evolution-bomb.html
----Table of Context---- EB1: The Basics EB2: Evidence & Observed Examples
- EB2a: Fossils/Transitional Forms EB3: The Arguments (Fact & Fiction)
- EB3a: Mutation & Information
- EB3b: Chance & Probability
- EB3c: Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
- EB3d: Animals
- EB3e: Hominids
- EB3f: Dinosaurs
- EB3g: Paluxy EB4: Creationist Credibility EB5: Further Information
- EB5a: Debates
- EB5b: Transcripts & Publications
- EB5c: Responses
- EB5d: Reviews EB6: Videos
- EB6a: By DonExodus2 (Lets Test Them, Proof of Evolution, How Evolution Works)
- EB6b: By cdk007 (Evidence for Evolution, Blind Watchmaker, Evolution of, How Evolution Causes an Increase, The Origin of, Must DENY)
- EB6c: By C0nc0rdance (Rebutting Brad Harrub)
- EB6d: 15 Questions for Evolutionists they cannot adequately answer (Answered)
- EB6e: By Best0fScience (Evolution Is Real Science, Facts Of Evolution, Mechanisms Of Evolution)
- EB6f:
By Stated Clearly (What is Evolution?, What is Natural Selection?, Can
Science Explain the Origin of Life?, Does the Theory of Evolution Really
Matter?, What is the Evidence for Evolution?)
------------------------
Here's a bbcode friendly version you can copy and paste for use in forums in you own arguments.
----Table of Context----
EB1: The Basics
EB2: Evidence & Observed Examples
- EB2a: Fossils/Transitional Forms
EB3: The Arguments (Fact & Fiction)
- EB3a: Mutation & Information
- EB3b: Chance & Probability
- EB3c: Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
- EB3d: Animals
- EB3e: Hominids
- EB3f: Dinosaurs
- EB3g: Paluxy
EB4: Creationist Credibility
EB5: Further Information
- EB5a: Debates
- EB5b: Transcripts & Publications
- EB5c: Responses
- EB5d: Reviews
EB6: Videos
- EB6a: By DonExodus2 (Lets Test Them, Proof of Evolution, How Evolution Works)
-
EB6b: By cdk007 (Evidence for Evolution, Blind Watchmaker, Evolution
of, How Evolution Causes an Increase, The Origin of, Must DENY)
- EB6c: By C0nc0rdance (Rebutting Brad Harrub)
- EB6d: 15 Questions for Evolutionists they cannot adequately answer (Answered)
- EB6e: By Best0fScience (Evolution Is Real Science, Facts Of Evolution, Mechanisms Of Evolution)
-
EB6f: By Stated Clearly (What is Evolution?, What is Natural
Selection?, Can Science Explain the Origin of Life?, Does the Theory of
Evolution Really Matter?, What is the Evidence for Evolution?)
------------------------
EB1: [b]The Basics[/b]
[url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02]Evolution 101[/url]
[url=http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_1.htm]MODERN THEORIES OF EVOLUTION: Overview[/url]
[url=http://www.dorak.info/evolution/life.html]A Brief History of Life[/url]
[url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html]Evolution: Fact and Theory[/url]
[url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/futuyma.html]Natural Selection: How Evolution Works[/url]
[url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_14]Mechanisms: the processes of Evolution[/url]
[url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_01]Evolution at different scales[/url]
[url=http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F401&pageseq=1]THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES[/url]
EB2: [b]Evidence & Observed Examples[/b]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html]Evidence for Evolution[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/]Plaigiarised Errors and Molecular Genetics[/url]
[url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topics.php?topic_id=20]Examples of Evolution.[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/]29+ Cases for Macroevolution[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html]Observed Instances of Speciation[/url]
[url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm]Lizards
Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home[/url]
[url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290806/]Rapid
large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance
associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource[/url]
[url=http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm]Evolution and Information: The Nylon Bug[/url]
[url=http://news.ubc.ca/2014/05/08/lethal-parasite-evolved-from-pond-scum/]Lethal parasite evolved from pond scum[/url]
[url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html]Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation[/url]
[url=http://jacques.janin.free.fr/forum/Goodman
et al 1999 Pol Phyl Evol.pdf]Toward a Phylogenetic Classification of
Primates Based on DNA Evidence Complemented by Fossil Evidence[/url]
EB2a: Fossils/Transitional Forms
[url=http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/index.html]Evolution and the Fossil Record[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html]Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ[/url]
[url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html]Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html]Arachaeopteryx:
Answering the Challenge of the Fossil Record[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html]All About Archaeopteryx[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/]The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence[/url]
[url=http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/3d-collection/fossil]Fossil
| The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program | 3D
Collection[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/]Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Evolution[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html]Fossil Hominids: Lucy[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sinanth.html]Peking Man and Homo erectus[/url]
[url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/evidence_and_the_cambrian_explosion.html]Evidence
and the Cambrian Explosion[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/ovrdino.html]An Overview of Dinosaur Tracking[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html]Dinosaur Footprints in Coal[/url]
EB3: [b]The Arguments (Fact & Fiction)[/b]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html]Index to Creationist Claims[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html]Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html]Darwin's
Black Box: Irredicule Complexity or Irrepoducible Irreducibility?[/url]
[url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html]Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html]Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/entropy.html]Entropy, Disorder and Life[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html]The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution and Probability[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ted-qfa-reply.html]Ted Holden's Frequent Questions Answered[/url]
EB3a: Mutation & Information
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html]Are Mutations Harmful?[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/]The Evolution of Improved Fitness[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/spetner.html]Information
Theory and Creationism: Spetner and Biological Information[/url]
EB3b: Chance & Probability
[url=http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Page02.xhtml]Examples of Random Probability[/url]
[url=http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Page03.xhtml]A Series Unlikely Events[/url]
[url=http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Page04.xhtml]Non-Random Probability[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html]Genetic Algorithims and Evolutionary Computation[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/bird_and_frog_development.html]Digit Numbering and Limb Development[/url]
EB3c: Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/1stFFoC.html]The
1st Falsehood of creationism: "evolution = atheism"[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/2ndFFoC.html]The
2nd foundational falsehood of creationism: scriptures are the "Word of
God"[/url] ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/3rdFFoC.html]The
3rd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: human interpretation =
absolute truth[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnj7PlqmJ5o]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/4thFFoC.html]The
4th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism: belief = knowledge[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/5thFFoC.html]The
5th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution-ism" (part I)
"Evolution = the religion of atheism"[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzmbnxtnMB4]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/6thFFoC.html]The
6th falsehood of Creationism: "Evolution-ism" (Part II) "Evolution must
explain the origin of life, the universe, and everything."[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3k0dDFxkhM]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/7thFFoC.html]The
7th foundational falsehood of Creationism: "Evolution is random."[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8Q2Db17v5U]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/8thFFoC.html]The
8th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Mutations are rare, harmful
decreases in genetic information."[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/9thFFoC.html]The
9th falsehood of Creationism: "No transitional species have ever been
found."[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/10thFFoC.html]The
10th falsehood of creationism: "The evolutionary ‘tree of life’ is
nowhere implied either in the fossil record, nor in any aspect of
biology."[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MXTBGcyNuc]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/11thFFoC.html]The
11th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Macroevolution has never
been observed."[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm277H3ot6Y]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/12thFFoC.html]The
12th falsehood of Creationism: "Creation science"[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TkY7HrJOhc]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/13thFFoC.html]The
13th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution is a
fraud!"[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myfifz3C0mI]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/14thFFoC.html]The
14th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Creation is evident" Part
1[/url] ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYsnVMjG4lk]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/14thFFoCPt2.html]The
14th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Creation is evident" Part
II[/url] ([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XHbRGiQccM]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/15thFFoCPt1.html]The
15th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution has never been
proved. It’s still just a theory, not a fact." Part 1[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0]Video[/url])
[url=http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/15thFFoCPt2.html]The
15th foundational falsehood of creationism: "Evolution has never been
proved. It’s still just a theory, not a fact." Part II[/url]
([url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGmLDKQp_Qc]Video[/url])
EB3d: Animals
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html]Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design[/url]
[url=http://ncse.com/cej/2/1/bombardier-beetle-myth-exploded]The Bombardier Beetle Myth Exploded[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html]Creationism and the Platypus[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html]The Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_hyrax.html]Horse Evolution: Hyrocatherium and Hyrax[/url]
EB3e: Hominids
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/monkeyquote.html]Creationist Arguments: The Monkey Quote[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html]Creationist Arguments: Java Man[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_peking.html]Creationist Arguments: Peking Man[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html]Creationist Arguments: Neandertals[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/brace.html]Creationists and Pithecanthropines[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html]Lucy's Knee Joint[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/savage.html]Images of Neandertals[/url]
EB3f: Dinosaurs
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html]Dino Blood Redux[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/osteocalcin.html]Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html]On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers and Forgery[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/sauropods.html]Sauropods, Elephants, Weightlifters[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/plesios.html]Sea-Monster or Shark?[/url]
EB3g: Paluxy
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/dvsp.html]Dinosaur Valley State Park[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/arizon.html]Do Human Tracks Occur in the Kayenta of Arizona?[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html]The 'Burdick Print'[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/georef.html]Geologic References in the Paluxy Controversy[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/onheel.html]On the Heels of Dinosaurs[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tooth.html]A Tale of Two Teeth[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html]The Taylor Site 'Man Tracks'[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html]The Texas Dinosaur/'Man Track' Controversy[/url]
EB4: [b]Creationist Credibility[/b]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html]Creationist Whoppers[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html]How
Good are those Young Earth Arguments: A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List
of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html]A Matter of Degree: Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html]Suspicious Creationist Credentials[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html]A Creationist Exposed: Gish[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/crs-creed.html]The Creation Research Society's Creed[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-catalog.html]IRC Graduate School Catalogue and List of Publications[/url]
EB5: [b]Further Information[/b]
[url=http://www.bork.embl.de/tree_of_life/]A Phylogeny of Complete Genomes: Data Repository[/url]
[url=http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html]The Tree of Life Web Project[/url]
[url=http://www.rfs.org.uk/learning/tree-evolution]Tree evolution[/url]
[url=http://www.unm.edu/~PIBBS/CourseMaterials/SiBBs2008/Week11/Marshall2006.pdf]Explaining
the Cambrian "Explosion" of Animals[/url]
[url=http://www.dorak.info/genetics/popgen.html]BASIC POPULATION GENETICS[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html]Jury-Rigged Design[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html]Scientific Creationism and Error[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mungonhm.html]Scientists Challenge Claim for 60,000 year old Mungo DNA[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/linke.html]A Visit to the IRC Museum[/url]
EB5a: Debates
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-rob-day.html]An Account of a Debate with a Creationist[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html]Debate: Edwards vs. Aguillard[/url]
EB5b: Transcripts & Publications
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/creation-conference.html]An Account of the 1993 Creation Conference[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html]Kansas Evolution Hearings[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html]Publish or Perish: Some Published Works on Biochemical Evolution[/url]
EB5c: Responses
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html]A Response to Ashby Camps 'Critique'[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/luskin.html]Response to Casey Luskin[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wjackson.html]A Response to Wayne Jackson[/url]
EB5d: Reviews
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_lubenow.html]Review: Bones of Contention[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/sor-ipub.html]A Review of IRC's Impact Article 151[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/nbc.html]A Review of NBC's 'The Mysterious Origins of Man'[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oconnell_cg.html]Review: Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis[/url]
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/imageofgod.html]Review: The Image of God[/url]
EB6: [b]Videos[/b]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8]6 -- Natural Selection Made Easy[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4]7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made Easy[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8]Ring species -- the abridged version[/url]
[url=http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/lectures.html]Lectures on Evolution[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi4OdrITkqY]Richard Dawkins tackles the Bombardier Beetle[/url]
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMZizVHCaVs]Coelacanth: The Strawman Creationist Argument[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw]How To Shut Up Pesky Creationists[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPXURdaPMZY]The truth about the Discovery Institute[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbGDJknak9c]Quest for Truth: Transitional Species[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKPrBV_PCKs]Beating Astronomical Odds[/url]
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE]Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked[/url]
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atqjX5O-LQA]Evolutionary Predictions[/url]
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LybFLM1E8mY]AP Biology 1.D: Abiogenesis[/url]
EB6a: By DonExodus2 (Lets Test Them, Proof of Evolution, How Evolution Works)
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V_2r2n4b5c]Lets Test Them: Evolution vs. Creationism[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0]Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1 (mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion)[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM]Proof of Evolution - Part 2 (Summation)[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbI2diGTJFw]Proof of Evolution - Part 3 (Atavisms and Fossils- censored)[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpNeGuuuvTY]How Evolution Works- Introduction (Part I)[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtIQvkQWTZY]How Evolution Works- Forces (Part 2)[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ17JKIBSS4]How Evolution Works Part 3- DNA[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGFvK77Fsz8]How Evolution Works Part 4- Mutations[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL0tmb3Evhc]How Evolution Works Part 5- Natural Selection[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLtBLucfIrg]How Evolution Works 6- The Constraints of Evolution[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEGQu3cm3CE]How Evolution Works 7: Speciation[/url]
EB6b:
By cdk007 (Evidence for Evolution, Blind Watchmaker, Evolution of, How
Evolution Causes an Increase, The Origin of, Must DENY)
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ]Evidence for Evolution, Part I[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA_UFImmulY]Evidence for Evolution, Part II[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI]Evidence for Evolution, Part III[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0]Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w]The Evolution of the Flagellum[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE]Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg]How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part I[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9u50wKDb_4]How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part II[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg]The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies]What Every Creationist Must DENY[/url]
EB6c: By C0nc0rdance (Rebutting Brad Harrub)
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCP0SimA-vA]Rebutting Harrub: Evolution is just a Theory[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFHmqZ9SkJI]Rebutting Harrub: Argument from Historical Scientists[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-EqTOD5r4]Rebutting Harrub: Finches never produce rhinos or ferns[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s32JxSasThk]Rebutting Brad Harrub: Kettlewell's Peppered Moths[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHyvryycc6o]Rebutting Brad Harrub: Darwin was a racist[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaiPcZRqWms]Rebutting Brad Harrub: Haeckel's Embryo Fraud[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJHBX7qUyo]Rebutting Brad Harrub: Mutations produce nothing new[/url]
EB6d: 15 Questions for Evolutionists they cannot adequately answer (Answered)
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyYlzUfMAPw]Answering
the 15 Questions Pamphlet (Part 1 - Abiogenesis and the origins of
DNA)[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo2fgRL4dfs]Answering the 15 Questions Pamphlet (Part 2 - On Intelligent Design)[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S_aDHGRSyk]Answering
the 15 Questions Pamphlet (Part 3 - Multicellularity, Sex and
Fossils)[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rT5K1yFmy4]Answering
the 15 Questions Pamphlet (Part 4 - Science, Application and
Education)[/url]
EB6e: By Best0fScience (Evolution Is Real Science, Facts Of Evolution, Mechanisms Of Evolution)
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1R8w_QEvEU]Does The Evidence Support Evolution?[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF2N2lbb3dk]Vitamin C And Common Ancestry[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIsWZCSMSSs]Human Evolution: Are We Descended From Viruses?[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWVoXZPOCGk]Does The Fossil Record Support Evolution?[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ]Evolution: Where Are The Transitional Forms?[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0UGpcea8Zg]Facts Of Evolution: Universal Common Descent[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mtr3Cum74A]Facts Of Evolution: Good Design, Bad Design[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5kumHLiK4A]Facts Of Evolution: Speciation And Extinction[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XgeSi1EGkU]Facts Of Evolution: How Fast Is Evolution?[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAZmLYWEPGk]Facts Of Evolution: What Can Embryos Tell Us About Evolution?[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvJFI3ChOUU]Facts Of Evolution: The Molecules Of Life[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA7BE3mEb64]Molecular Evolution: Genes And Proteins[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZvTmgCk1Lo]Facts Of Evolution: Retroviruses And Pseudogenes[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mPCqYxB4d4]Mechanisms Of Evolution: How Does Variety Arise?[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcvWnsiQycc]Mechanisms Of Evolution: How Does Variety Give Rise To New Species?[/url]
EB6f:
By Stated Clearly (What is Evolution?, What is Natural Selection?, Can
Science Explain the Origin of Life?, Does the Theory of Evolution Really
Matter?, What is the Evidence for Evolution?)
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhHOjC4oxh8]What is Evolution?[/url]
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SCjhI86grU]What is Natural Selection?[/url]
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgQLyqWaCbA]Can Science Explain the Origin of Life?[/url]
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqepQGOYKZ0]Does the Theory of Evolution Really Matter?[/url]
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg]What is the Evidence for Evolution?[/url]
Fair warning, this took almost twelve months on and off to write, I
can't even remember who sent me the original article. I have now checked
it is 18,700 odd words and 50 pages, take this as fair warning (maybe
skip to a section of interest).
I have a special place
in my heart for Catholics. Being raised one, at one stage doing a
nightly rosary and buying all their weak arguments until I was in my
early 20’s I feel the need to counter them where I see them. I am
currently writing a skeptics guide to the catechism, for giggles, it is
longer than this post so sorry in advance. But I saw the below and knew
it needed a rebuttal. Please bear in mind the original is around 30
pages, this one will probably be pretty close.
There
are questions peppered throughout, I am sure they are of the style that
we usually see asked by one of the authors as what they see as a true
representation of the types of questions non-believers and skeptics ask…
they are at best self-serving at worst a dishonest representation; a
strawman, but I’ll persist.
Sorry about the length,
Catholics tend to be a bit wordy, it comes from the old flourishing
Latin masses, heck that is where we get the phrase “to pontificate”. On
to the article if you feel the need to read it, here it is, like I said
though 30 odd pages, and I have read it so you don't have to.
This is
really a first cause argument. What caused the universe, rephrased to
say what causes the universe to change? As though outside influences
cause a body to move, and one of those outside influences is the bodies
will… uh no the bodies will comes from the mind. Yes ultimately the
first cause of that body is external, the parent. The continued causes
are also all external, the upbringing, genetics, energy input etc, this
doesn’t point to a God. Not all things have or need a first cause,
quantum mechanics deals with uncaused changes, and the universe didn’t
spring into existence in time for there to necessarily be a cause.
The first cause argument can be refuted a number of ways;
*
What causes a stream to flow, if you said natural laws such as gravity,
you are right. What causes a tablet to dissolve, if you said natural
laws of chemistry, you would be right. Can both of these events happen
by chance… yep. What links them… natural causes… what are you positing,
supernatural causes. Do you see the disconnect in your logic here?
*
What caused the first cause? If you go on to say the first cause always
was then anthropomorphising this first cause by giving it a will,
intellect and unimaginable power and foresight and you only
over-complicate things. Why not simply save a whole heap of steps and
say the universe (or multiverse if that floats your boat) always
existed.
The last paragraph of this section is crazy.
If there is nothing outside the universe, then there is nothing that can
cause the universe to change… uh really. So if you isolate a solution
in a container the contents can and do change, as long as they have the
energy to do so. The universe is currently full of energy, it won’t
always be though. This is really just restating the first of the laws of
thermodynamics, that entropy will
2. The Argument from Efficient Causality.
This
argument is basically saying are things caused to exist by something
all the time. Does the moon always exist because there is a Werewolf
somewhere looking up at it? Music is there example, it ceases to exist
once a player stops playing…. Only it doesn’t. If you travel away from
that music faster than the speed of sound and then stop if the music is
sufficiently loud enough you will still hear it even though you can see
the musician packing away his ivories. It goes even further of course,
even after you can’t hear the music the energy that went into creating
it goes somewhere, remember energy can neither be created nor destroyed,
it just changes. So it changes from the kinetic vibrations in the air
to thermally increasing the temperature of the air itself, that then
gets dissipated through the atmosphere, some may even leak off into
space, but this energy will never be destroyed. It will just change into
another kind of energy or become so disparate that it can’t be
measured.
This “Argument” then goes on to “suppose”…
bad territory for any serious argument. Now lets suppose that all things
are caused to exist, does that get you to a mind infinitely more
complex than any mind we have observed, the doesn’t even require
physical matter for the mind to operate with. Does it get you to an
infinitely powerful being, all-loving, all-knowing who sent his son to
earth… no. At best it gets you to the universe being the uncaused cause…
something science can agree with with the multiverse hypothesis’ or the
bounce hypothesis.
It then goes on to say that
existence is a gift from cause to effect. But physics doesn’t say that
the singularity pre the big-bang required a
cause, the term cause and effect is in essence illogical at this point
as time (the thing cause and effect operate in) came into existence at
this point. As Stephen Hawking has said, physics doesn’t preclude effect
preceding cause in certain circumstances, perhaps the effect
(singularity) preceded the cause (something in the universe).
Faulty
reasoning such as we exist, therefore God must exist, is the same as
saying the earth exists, therefore earth building pixies must exist,
there are many steps missing in the causal chain.
To answer their Question1,
why do we need an un-caused cause… we don’t. There could be causes
infinitely back, this is in fact less complicated than an all-powerful
and eternal mind. I have used this quote many times: “In many
cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of
nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue
the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if
we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that
the universe has always existed?” - Carl Sagan, Cosmos, page 257.
Question 2;
IF the Kalam argument is right in premise 1, then the universe could be
caused by a preceding universe and so on forever. But premise 1 is
false; we know of things in the quantum world that being to exist
without a cause. Virtual particles seemingly come into existence without
a cause, these have been used to predict and then explain phenomenon
like the Casimir effect, and light from a vacuum (virtual particles
reflecting off a near light speed velocity oscillating mirror).
Yes
the Kalam argument works whether the past is finite, or infinite. But
the Kalam argument makes a lot of assumptions, assumptions with no basis
in reality, if it fails at the first premise which I mentioned in the
preceding paragraph then the whole argument can be discarded.
Yes
as this section goes on to explain we are dependent on a lot of things,
but notice how every cause you see has a natural explanation, why when
you go back to the beginning do you think it will be different, a
supernatural cause. Point me to one supernatural cause that has been
verified, then we can talk about supernatural causes at the beginning.
3. The Argument from Time and Contingency.
Wow, such big words in the title this one has to be smart.
Uhh
this is just another way of saying the previous argument, they add in
the fallacious reasoning that if an eternity existed before the universe
existed then why does the universe exist now, it can’t if it took an
eternity to get here… this is like saying if you have an infinite amount
of time and trillions of dice you can never roll all 6’s… of course you
can. You could the every time, chance doesn’t work like that.
Our
animal minds evolved to deal with a finite amount of time to imagining
an infinite amount of time is near impossible. But we can talk about and
realise how little we know. Hilberts paradox of the infinite hotel,
shows how little we know. Say you have a hotel, with an infinite number
of rooms, all of them occupied, and you have a guest show up. You can
say, hmm all our rooms are full, but hang on a minute, you call room 1
and tell them to move to room 2, telling them to tell room 2 to do the
same thus moving everyone up a room number, making room 1 free for the
new guests.
This is odd, but it gets better. An infinitely sized
coach can turn up with an infinite number of new guests inside it… now
you can simply call room 1 and tell them to move to room 2, telling them
to tell room 2 to move to 4 and room 4 to move 8 and so on. Then call
each odd numbered room and tell them to move to their room number x2.
Thus an infinite number of these odd numbered rooms will become
available, for your new guests to move into.
It gets stranger
still as an infinite number of these infinitely sized coaches can arrive
and you can still make space for them in similar fashion.
See more here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel
We
can’t think in infinities being that we are finite beings, but with an
infinite amount of time all things that are possible are not only likely
to happen but will.
Maybe I am a little tired but the question and answer in this section seem nonsensical.
Question 1: Even
though you may never in fact step outside your house all day, it was
possible for you to do so. Why is it impossible that the universe still
happens to exist, even though it was possible for it to go out of
existence?
I think they are trying to say why does
the universe exist if it was possible for it not to exist. This is a
good question, with an infinite amount of time all things are possible,
so perhaps the universe won’t exist forever, perhaps it hasn’t existed
for a very long time and it is existing again. We don’t know.
Saying
that something cannot cease to exist unless that feature is built in,
is a little erroneous. As I said before energy cannot be created or
destroyed, so it would seem energy doesn’t have this built-in function,
thus energy could have existed forever. Conversely though, God being
all-powerful does I assume have the ability to cease to exist, which
given an infinite amount of time she must have tried non-existence once,
so why is she in existence now?
4. The Argument from Degrees of Perfection.
This
is basically trying to state there must be an objective standard to
hold everything else against. This is simply not the case, we hold
things up against our experience and biases.
Existence
is better than non-existence, but then again we exist. Love is better
than no-love… then again most of us are empathetic loving beings. I have
met those who are aromantic, they don’t experience sexual love, why is
there existence any less valid than our loving one. Why do we consider
ourselves so special, could that be because we are the ones writing
about ourselves. I am sure Dolphins if they possessed the opposable
thumb for writing would have different things to say about us. I am sure
that if there exists an alien race even nearly as intelligent as us,
they will be just as self-obsessed thinking there way of thinking, and
relating is best.
Like
objective morality and objective standards, they aren’t objective they
are subjective regardless of what you would like to believe. Different
cultures have different standards, and different species have different
moralities that serve their needs. Of course subjectively we can look at
rape as wrong, but for the angler fish it is the only way its species
can continue with the diminutive male forcing himself upon the much
larger female. We see this as wrong, and from our context it is, from
the angler fishes it is a way of life.
Question 1:The argument assumes a real "better." But aren't all our judgments of comparative value merely subjective?
Yes
they are, and asking the question doesn’t prove that standards aren’t
arbitrary and subjective. It just shows that the asker thought it better
to ask this question, it is subjective to the asker. You can speak
subjectivism, and you can live it, our legal system is the perfect
example, the same crime doesn’t always get the same punishment, there
are subjective reasons that are taken into account. The legal system
evolves over time, taking into account societies changing attitudes to
things like inter-racial marriage, slavery, child abuse and same-sex
relations.
5. The Design Argument.
Amazing that
this is coming up from a Catholic apologist site, when Catholics accept
and teach evolution and big-bang cosmology at schools. But I suppose you
can accept something without understanding it, like the trinity :)
Let’s look at the crux of their argument; 1.
The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both
within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to
others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and
coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can
fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature
for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable
end -- for example, the organs in the body work for our life and
health. (See also argument 8.)
You mean like the fact that
our appendix is mostly unneeded and could burst killing us at any time?
Or that 99% of nature (as in the rest of the universe not on this little
mote of dust) is hostile and would cause our demise, the vacuum of
space, the radiation of most star and the inhabitable zone around
blackholes and neutron stars?
2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
Evolution
is not chance, it is blind and cannot see the future, mutation is
chance, but evolution is more than mutation. Evolution is driven by
natural selection, survival of the fittest. If say a mutation causes a
small but beneficial change in a species then it is passed on, and on
and may lead to more changes of that ilk leading to the apparent design
in a species. I assure you that the “design” of the laryngeal nerve was
not very well designed in mammals getting from brain to voice box via
the heart is a route not even the worst city planner would design.
3. Not chance.
Blanket
asserting your position in an argument with no evidence is not a point,
it is an opinion. How about I put her no God, see no supporting
evidence. It makes your case look weak. Besides we already covered that
evolution is not chance, the only thing that is chance is the way the
rest of the universe looks, and that is the way it is.
4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
Where is the case, you made blanket statements, and misunderstandings in your previous points.
5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
Who
says the universe is designed, only those that posit a designer. There
are an infinite number of other possibilities, we can only take those
that have evidence to back them, so far the evidence points to natural
means
. 6. Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.
Another therefore in the same line of reason where there was no evidence or decent argument
presented. Therefore this argument is null.
The rest of this argument and the questions is just a restatement of the previous 6 points, so I will spare you.
Only to end this point with this; "Imagine
a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting
world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me
rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must
have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as
the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the
puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to
the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was
meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he
disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something
we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in
the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point,
considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing,
the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about
that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say." -
Douglas Adams
6. The Kalam Argument.
I have kind of
already covered this fallacious argument. As have many others, it is
called the Kalam as it is an argument that has come down from Muslim
scholars, and in the hundreds of years it has been presented it has
never been convincing.
But let's take it on just to be complete.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
Hahah, no, see virtual particles.
2. The universe began to exist.
Debatable,
and some evidence is pointing to an eternal multiverse or that this
universe eternally cycles… like the Hindus believe, it doesn’t make them
right about Vishnu or Krishna as if the universe is found to have a
defined beginning doesn’t make Christianity right. We could be a massive
quantum fluctuation similar to virtual particles.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.
See
answer to point 1. Again even if it had a cause for its existence it is
a big jump from an unseen cause of the start of the universe to
all-powerful being who cares about one of the little specs out of
trillions upon trillions and its tiny fleshy inhabitants.
**************
I
like how they then go on to explain the Kalam, saying you would have to
be insane to not grant the first premise. Well I don’t and a lot of
modern cosmologists (some likely even theists) don’t. If you can’t
convince someone without insulting them, then your case is indeed a weak
one.
They then go one to say premise 2 is supported by recent
developments in cosmology, such as the big bang theory… except that
theory came about in 1927… so about as recent as say human powered
flight.
The big bounce is more recent, as is the multiverse
hypothesis, the holographic universe, and the simulation universe. All
of these hypothesis take into account the big bang, and have a universe
or multiverse preceding it, none of these require a God, and none will
get to the rank of theory till there is a plethora of evidence. Some is
starting to come in, none yet for your God or any for that matter.
This
point then goes on to again misunderstand infinities and show how badly
our finite minds can comprehend it. Besides the big bang theory in
cosmology shows that time and space began at the initial expansion of
the universe, there was no time before this, none that could affect our
own universe to begin with. So saying it has taken infinite days to get
to here is as nonsensical a statement as you can get, showing a
misunderstanding of a “recent” nigh on hundred year old theory.
Question 1:
Christians believe they are going to live forever with God. So they
believe the future will be endless. How come the past cannot also be
endless?
I would add to this, why can God have existed
forever and lived an infinite number of days till 14billion years
ago/6000 years ago (depending on your brand of Christianity) when he
decided to make the universe? How did he reach that decision in an
infinite amount of time.
There answer to this question
goes onto not understand infinity again. You can have an infinite number
of positive numbers and infinite number of negative, both are infinite.
So let’s say I believe in living for ever after death, then I will live
for an infinite amount of time, in the positive numbers after my birth,
it is still an infinity, no matter which way you try and spin it. This
extent is not finite, I wouldn’t be existing forever more, if it weren’t
infinite.
Here is a head scratcher for you, there are an infinite
number of numbers between 1 and 2, 1.00000001, 1.0000000001 etc… This
is how little this author understands infinity, this is how little the
human mind can grasp it.
Question 2:How do we know that the cause of the universe still exists? Maybe it started the universe going and then ceased to be.
This
is the deist position, not one I agree with as I don’t see any evidence
for it. The responder tries to go on to say if the cause is outside the
universe then it has to be eternal. Why? What evidence do they present…
none. It could be the cause was a being from another universe not
unlike our own, that performed an experiment that split off another
universe, it could be our entire universe exists as a simulation in
another universe, these are all valid hypothesis that don’t require the
creator to be omnipotent. There is no evidence for the former, and only
slight for the later.
This being existing in another
universe, separated from our own doesn’t have the issue of infinite
regression, they could have created our universe and there’s could have
sprung up from the multiverse or there’s could be an infinite cycle of
expansion and collapse, this universe could have since collapsed and
ours split off from theirs, time could run differently there, slower,
faster, backwards, these are all possibilities that the authors simply
don’t want to address as it weakens their case.
Question 3:But is this cause God -- a he and not a mere it?
This
is a good question, how do they get from universe had a cause, to the
cause is a being whom identifies as male, is omnipotent and loving, that
is an astronomical leap? It goes on to say if the universe where cause
of natural phenomenon, then it would have happened long ago… who says it
didn’t, and that that universe didn’t run its course and re-collapse
into ours, or into a state of extensive hibernation, or something else.
Remember time came into being at the big bang, so maybe this event has
happened an infinite amount of times, stretching back into the past
forever, just as your God stretches back into the past forever.
If God didn’t exist forever, then what caused God?
7. The Argument from Contingency.
Yikes, 13 more of these… sorry everyone.
This
is an interesting one, basically saying a painting can’t exist without a
canvas, but what if the painting is the canvas then it is contingent
upon itself. Below is the breakdown.
1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
Plausible,
however it can go back further. If God exists there must exist
something that takes for God to exist, if you say god is
self-contingent, why not save a step and say the universe is
self-contingent.
2. The universe -- the collection of beings in space and time -- exists.
No argument here
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
I
think this is a good argument for the multiverse, not God. This can be
turned on its head, lets say God exists outside the universe in an
outerverse, this outerverse has to exist for God to exist, and something
has to exist for this outerverse to exist…Maybe, just maybe the
universe is all there is, self-contingent and at least we have evidence
for its existence.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
Don’t
agree here, of course the universe could exist of its own accord, it is
unbounded by space and time, it is finite but unbounded. Perhaps our
epoch of time came into being at the big bang as the last epoch ended.
Just because we don’t know, doesn’t mean you can stick God in there,
otherwise you stymie progression and do the opposite of science
supposing the answer and only looking for evidence to support that
answer.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.
Again
with the therefore before you have made a decent case. We don’t know if
what it takes for the universe to exist transcends space and time, the
universe could be self-contingent. It could depend on the multiverse,
which could be self-contingent, it could depend on the Ginnungagap and
Niflheim, but without any evidence how do we weigh these claims. We can
weigh these claims quite easily, we go with what we have seen in the
past, in this case we have never seen evidence of the supernatural all
events have had natural explanations, thus it is more likely the
universe has a natural explanation.
*****************************
Again
they restate their premises here, as though saying them over and over
again will make it so, this is not a prayer and its repetition doesn’t
make it or prayer any more valid.
Question 1:But why should we call this cause "God"? Maybe there is something unknown that grounds the universe of change we live in.
As
I said before there is, the universe could be causeless, you claim God
is, so why not save some steps, complexity and infinities (infinite
power, infinite knowledge, infinite love etc) and say the universe is
causeless.
Maybe this unknown will turn out, through
evidence to be a multiverse of perhaps an infinite number of other
bubble universes, perhaps our universe will turn out to be cyclical,
big-banging and crunching away into the past eternally and into the
future in a similar fashion. We don’t know, so why do you guess in place
with knowledge from ancient texts, hearsay, rumour, myth, and personal
revelation that is no better than anecdote from a UFO abductee?
The
issue with supposing this “Giver” is that you suppose a being that is
infinitely more complex than the universe itself. For it to know all, it
has to be able to say store all the information that can ever be, every
possible position of every possible particle in the universe, this
storage would need to be basically the universes number of atoms in the
universe to some enormous power, say to the power of itself. So there
are roughly 10^82 atoms in the universe, so 10^82^10^82, or 10^6724 if
you want easier notation. This is probably smaller than what would
actually be needed, but we will grant this being the benefit of the
doubt of a super powerful being. Now it needs somewhere to store all
these bits, you can say it is incorporeal, but everything we know of
stores its data somewhere. Lets say this being stores this 10^6724 in
its incorporeal cloud, it can’t possibly have enough space to have
all-knowledge of itself, so it is not omnipotent about its own inner
workings. This is obviously a trick as any theist will simply come in
and say God is magic… magic is not an answer, it just begs further
questioning as to how it all works. If your answer in science is magic,
then it is so far always been wrong, is that really the side you want to
align with.
8. The Argument from the World as an interacting whole.
This
argument is basically saying that nothing could work if each system,
physics and the various constants, and chemistry and its various
workings, weren’t in place. It is an argument from ignorance. A simple
counter is we don’t have a system with different constants and different
chemistry to compare with our own, without this we don’t know if our
constants are the best.
Victor Stenger has written a
rather nice book called the fallacy of fine tuning where he outlines how
these cosmological constants that give rise to our chemistry could have
been different and still allowed for life, in fact they may have been
better, they certainly could have been worse. But the anthropic
principal answers that to say if they had been so bad as to not allow
for life, then we wouldn’t be here to observe the constants.
What
would be amazing is if we lived on a world not capable of supporting
life, if we popped into existence complete with environmental suit and
all. Or if the entire universe was capable of supporting our life, no
vacuum in space, no deadly radiation, all habitable… that would be some
decent evidence for a caring creator.
This argument
also touches on the argument from design. The classic argument of
useless is a mousetrap if you remove a single part… of course Dr Kenneth
Miller blows this out of the water
sure
it is no longer an effective mousetrap, but it makes a great tie clip
or some other tool. Life and its interlocking is the same, it would
still be life but not as we know it.
They then from
these faulty premises make a jump to the conclusion. The issue is, even
if you accept the premises, it only gets you to a conclusion that there
was a creator at some point, not the next leap that the creator is named
Yahweh and gave his word to desert tribe on a small planet in the outer
arm of a small galaxy.
9. The Argument from Miracles.
This one is going to be fun.
1. A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
I wouldn’t agree here, more likely a trick, a hallucination, or as Arthur C. Clarke put it;
I
find it interesting that a lot of miracles either occurred in the past
when scientific literacy wasn't great, or they occur in poorer parts of
the world, where similarly scientific knowledge isn't widespread.
2. There are numerous well-attested miracles.
Hahah,
really. There are numerous sighting’s of aliens, Bigfoot, miracles
attested to Vishnu, Allah, and other deities. Anecdote doesn’t equal
evidence. We need a way to distinguish exaggeration, conflation,
mis-remembered, mis-told, and outright lies from the truth. The way you
do that is not through eye-witness testimony but repeatable and
verifiable evidence. Some evidence left behind that could actually be
tested, a video that could be tested for forgery etc. Nothing yet,
forgive me, but I am not going to hold my breath.
But let’s take some of those Catholic “miracles”, you are more likely to die if you visit Lourdes hoping for a miracle than if you stay at home.
The Shroud of Turin, is likely a fake. Here is the skeptics view, and here is a Christian's own take down (surely they have a bias for it being real), citing biblical mismatch.
Mother
Theresa soon to be sainted, never heard God talk to her according to
the letters that Chistopher Hitchens outlines in his book "Missionary
position" (#I'll update this with Page number when I find it)
Finally, God doesn’t heal amputees http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/
3. Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
As
I mentioned before, nope. It could be a magician performing a slight of
hand, a trick like "removing" a diseased organ without scalpel as the South east Asian mystics do, or it could be a hallucination, even mass hysteria, these are all described by modern science.
Finally
it could be sufficiently advanced technology as I mentioned before,
something that the witness didn't realise was available, something like this (I know that is available, and would still likely be terrified if God appeared before me with a thunderous voice).
4. Therefore God exists.
You know what Jesus supposedly said about building your house on bedrock… well this whole argument is built on church taffy.
Let’s take some of their own examples, to paraphrase:
-numerous
stones drop from the sky, after a holy man tells people they are
sinners and God will punish them with stones from the sky.
So
if this happened, even most religious people would look for the
catapult, the net that had been holding the stones above them, the plane
that had dropped them, or some rational explanation. The article goes
on to say well if you are a sinner then this may give you pause… but
then most religions say we are all sinners, we are all sick, and where
oh where can you find the cure, of course from the same place that told
you where sick, how convenient.
I don’t think many people would
think they are worthy of punishment, even one so relatively minor as
being stoned from on high, let alone the eternal punishment of hell.
Just
because an event correlates with an existing belief doesn’t give any
evidence for that existing belief. The event needs to be investigated in
isolation and with a skeptical mind before you decide on its worth.
-references to biblical miracles
Surely
you don’t accept the miracles in the Koran, the flight from Mecca to
Palestine, or the miracles of the Egyptian gods, Greek gods, Roman gods
or ancient Persian gods? So why do you expect us to accept your holy
book as evidence for the Jewish gods miracles? What outside evidence is
there of these miracles, none, OK then the miracles can be ignored.
They
go on, and on about context of the miracle here. Sorry but context
actually counts against them being miracles, have a look at wishful
thinking, have a look at mass hysteria and group think.
I think that both of these preceding references point to issues with
trusting groups of people without some sort of corroborating evidence,
especially if the claim is fantastic.
10. The Argument from Consciousness.
Wohoo
half-way. I hope someone, preferably a current Catholic got to here.
Roughly a page per argument so far, sorry again, it is a long slog and
no one said the road to Calvary was easy.
Wow this is another non-sequitur, but I will persist.
1. We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
No
argument here… well sort of. The universe is so complex that no one
human intelligence can grasp the whole thing, from the minuscule
complexity of quantum physics, to the enormity of scale and deep time of
the cosmos, and everything chemical, biological, psychological,
societal and cultural in between.
But yes it is generally understandable.
2.
Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited
to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility
and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
Really,
we aren’t that well suited to grasp it, that is why we have communities
of minds called research groups, no one person can really grasp it. I
am sure a dolphin has possibly better understandings of fluid dynamics
than even the best human, and I am sure a water strider in some extent
understands fluid tension better than most humans. But OK, the best of
us, can in their chosen field grasp the universe. I don’t think anyone
has said any intelligence from a dolphin or ape (of which homo-sapiens
is a member) is due to blind chance. This is a gross misunderstanding of
evolution as driven by natural selection. It isn’t blind chance, it is
survival of the fittest.
3. Not blind chance.
You
are only making a case here for your misunderstanding of evolution. It
isn’t blind chance, it’s evolution baby. Sure it was kind of chance that
we got the laws that lead to a universe that allowed evolution to take
place, but then again we have the anthropic principle, if it hadn’t been
a universe where evolution could have taken place we wouldn’t be here
to contemplate it. I know that isn’t the best argument but it is what it
is.
4. Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.
Nope, no “therefore”, bad argument, no desert for you.
Surely
it could be intelligible by us as we have evolved within it. Surely it
could be intelligible by us as we have developed frameworks (science and
reason) to tease out its intelligibility. Though really have a look at
quantum physics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle or virtual
particles both of which have been proven time and again and tell me it
is intelligible.
Can you comprehend a city, surely you can. This
city is not the product of one intelligence, but the product of many,
your argument at best leads to this as a possible answer, so pantheism.
***************
Saying
something is irrational that follows laws, but doesn’t necessarily
follow a rational mind is nonsense, since when has Yahweh shown his
rationality in the Old testamanet “thou shalt not kill” then a chapter
or so later he is ordering Moses to slaughter some now lost tribe.
Regardless, why does something need to be designed to be rational, a
stream flows downhill to the river, to the ocean, all very rational.
Sure you could say God gave us those laws of water flow and gravity, but
could he have done differently? Could he have done it irrationally? If
not, then he is not omnipotent, if he could then that defeats your own
purpose of needing a rational mind for rational laws.
Now
they quote H. W. B. Joseph; an ethicist and who proceeded CS Lewis and
informed some of his ideas. Interesting that the atheist philosopher AC
Grayling has edited together Horace’s works, but I digress.
If
thought is laryngeal motion, how should any one think more truly than
the wind blows? All movements of bodies are equally necessary, but they
cannot be discriminated as true and false. It seems as nonsensical to
call a movement true as a flavour purple or a sound avaricious. But what
is obvious when thought is said to be a certain bodily movement seems
equally to follow from its being the effect of one. Thought called
knowledge and thought called error are both necessary results of states
of brain. These states are necessary results of other bodily states. All
the bodily states are equally real, and so are the different thoughts;
but by what right can I hold that my thought is knowledge of what is
real in bodies? For to hold so is but another thought, an effect of real
bodily movements like the rest. . . These arguments, however, of mine,
if the principles of scientific [naturalism]... are to stand
unchallenged, are themselves no more than happenings in a mind, results
of bodily movements; that you or I think them sound, or think them
unsound, is but another such happening; that we think them no more than
another such happening is itself but yet another such. And it may be
said of any ground on which we may attempt to stand as true, Labitur et
labetur in omne volubilis aevum ["It flows and will flow swirling on
forever" (Horace, Epistles, I, 2, 43)]. (Some Problems in Ethics, pp.
14-15)
Horace is basically arguing if the human
mind is formed through nature then how is it we can speak what is true
and what is not, any more than the wind can. It is a rather grandly
worded question that basically people will read how they want. Are
humans up on a pedestal, yep OK well then of course we were made special
and speak the truth more than a gust of wind.
Humans
are a natural phenomenon no different to that gust of wind… just alive
and conscious; yep we can be just as wrong as that gust of wind, we can
tell lies, and spout non-sense. Really the only difference between us
and a gust of wind, is we are alive and we have developed communication,
thus we can build up external sources to ourselves for our beliefs,
these external sources enable us to label our thoughts as true to a
certain level depending upon our level of trust in external sources and
our number of these sources.
For example, prior to my
talking my parents where told “it’s a boy”, I have since been treated
like a boy, played with boys, seen other boys naked in change rooms and
thus further reinforced my belief that I too am a boy. This label is
based on evidence.
11. The Argument from Truth.
This one is really begging the question; let’s see if you can spot the flaw in reasoning.
1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
2. Truth properly resides in a mind.
3. But the human mind is not eternal.
4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.
Yep
it is the gargantuan leap they make at point 4, and a logical error
they make at point 2: Truth only exists in a mind huh, so quick no one
look at the moon, does the truth of its existence cease to be? Do things
that humans not know about it have no truth, ahh but the theist will
say of course these truths we do not know about are in God’s mind…
Really, is there anything God doesn’t know about? Is he sure of his
omnipotence, how would he know if there were any of the famous unknown
unknowns? If as I said before he was massively complex (a requirement to
store a large amount of data about this universe) then he couldn't
possibly have enough storage space to store all the information about
himself. This still however begs the question, it is putting the
conclusion into the argument.
Point 4 is obviously also
a failure, they haven’t proved their premise in point 2. Would a rock
still be a rock if God and no intelligent mind observed it, would a
square still have right angle corners, would 2 + 2 still equal 4, of
course. The interesting thing as Bertrand Russell points out in his book
“The Problems of Philosophy” is that even in the future we know that 2
things plus two things will equal 4, it is a knowledge that transcends
us.
12. The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God.
Now
they are attempting to appeal to authority straight away in this one,
name dropping Descartes, and his third Meditation. Yes Descartes was a
Catholic, though he likely didn’t have much of a choice back in the
1500’s, he did also say to be a true seeker of truth you should doubt as
far as possible all things, like maybe doubt the existence of God or
the authority of a church, why not do that now.
Below is their summary of Descartes argument.
1. We have ideas of many things.
2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us.
3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God -- an infinite, all-perfect being.
4.
This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know
ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than
its cause.
5. Therefore, the idea must have
been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the
qualities contained in the idea of God.
6. But only God himself has those qualities.
7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him.
8. Therefore God exists.
This
argument can be used to prove all sorts of things exist. We have an
idea or unicorns as being perfect horses with magical powers, they are
greater than us, so we can’t have caused it (really I can imagine some
pretty cool stuff), therefore unicorns exist. This is wishful thinking
along the lines of; I am a billionaire and excesses of opulent food do
not cause obesity.
Yes this defining something into
existence is absurd; I also would argue that as imperfect and finite
beings we can’t even imagine a perfect and infinite being.
There
have been God ideas before Yahweh that where just as great, Ahura Mazda
the God of Zoroastrianism is both uncreated and omniscient, and likely
existed in ancient Persia 550BCE.Vishnu is both omnipotent, omniscient,
and omnipresent existing in some form from 1500BCE. This idea of a
perfect Ahura Mazda or Vishnu lends no credence to its existence.
This
argument breaks down to a poor version of the ontological argument… oh
what’s that next, why it is the ontological argument.
13. The Ontological Argument.
They
really seem obsessed with the ontological argument, presenting multiple
versions. Problem is even Anslem didn’t mean the argument to be a proof
of God’s existence, just a sort of affirmation that convinced him.
As they say in their intro to this argument, this argument is easy to dismiss,
1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
2. "God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
4.
Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all
the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).
5. But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.
I
agree with point 1, it really is greater to exist in real life than in a
mind alone. That doesn’t mean that because something exists in a mind
means it has to exist in real life, it doesn’t mean an even better more
perfect version of an imagined object or being needs to exist.
Point
4 is a problem as most Christians will protest in response to the
problem of evil “You cannot know the mind of God”, so which is it, you
can have a concept of God in your head, one that is made greater by its
actual existence, or does God work in Mysterious ways?
This
is defining something into existence, it is not an argument for a God,
just as it is not an argument for perfect faeries, unicorns or perfect
round triangles.
There is an interesting counter to the
Ontological argument, one of a worse being. Think of the worst being
you can imagine, by the very definition it is worse to not exist,
actually it is worse to not even be able to be held in thought, thus the
worst being exists neither in reality or thought. This breaks down the
argument to its core nonsense.
There is another counter
that Dawkins uses, that it is actually a greater achievement to have a
handicap and still be a creator, therefore non-existence is actually
greater than existence thus God doesn’t exist.
To answer their absurd questions in this section; Question 1: Suppose I deny that God exists in the mind?
I
don’t deny that God exists in the mind, it does. Problem is everyone I
have met has their own version. Does this mean all of these God’s exist,
can we let them duke it out with their omnipotence and worship the
winner :)
Question 2: Is it really greater for something to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone?
I
already answered this one, yep it is greater for something to exist. So
what? Something being greater requires greater evidence not finer
word-play.
Question 3: But is real being just
another "thought" or "concept"? Is "real being" just one more concept or
characteristic (like "omniscience" or "omnipotence") that could make a
difference to the kind of being God is?
Who asks
this kind of nonsense question, of course being real is both a
thought/concept and an attribute. Being real tends to make a pretty big
difference, this isn’t to say God exists, but being real is kind of contingent on existing.
They
then move the Modal version of the Ontological argument, really just
putting the argument another way. If you can’t dazzle them with
knowledge, baffle them with bullshit.
Question: Just because GCB must be thought of as existing, does that mean that GCB really exists?
No,
of course not. You can think of things existing, you can think of a
world for example with pink swans, it wouldn’t change things much. But
then Pink swans are not a huge change from the existing white and black
swans, of course a pink wizzlewuzzle, is a bit odd as you don’t know
what a wizzlewuzzle is.
You can also think of a world where black
swans never existed, you can picture this world again as not being much
different. In this world Western Australia wouldn’t have the same state
emblem, that is probably the only difference.
The
answer to this question claims that someone cannot think of something as
existing and not existing. Nope, people can contain two contradictory
ideas in their head even at the same time.
Possible Worlds Version
This
is another version of the Ontological that basically twists it around
to say that there is a possible world in which there exists a being of
maximal greatness, but to be maximally great this being has to exist in
all possible worlds. It adds some flair to this, but this is a good
enough summation.
The issue should be apparent, even if
we put aside the lack of evidence for the many worlds hypothesis of
quantum physics, this argument still attempts to prove itself in its
premise. It also fails in defining “maximum greatness”. Maybe maximum
greatness is a 200IQ or the ability to run the 100m in under 10seconds…
In which case we are already there. Without evidence to back your
definition you are simply defining into existence what you define.
There
is humorous corollary that I have heard on the ontological argument.
Imagine Eric the greatest “God eating penguin”, for it to be greater it
would have to exist, therefore it does, and it eats God by definition,
therefore there is no God as the great God-eating penguin has eaten it.
1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil. 2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the "religious" one.
3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
4. Therefore the "religious" view of reality is correct.
Let’s
start with point 1. I would contest point 1, and any ethicist is likely
to agree with me. There is no obligation to do good, just look at the
world of business, or war. Good is rarely done, and sometimes the
psychopaths among us don’t even feel remorse. This doesn't mean we
shouldn't try to minimise suffering, and it is greater good when it is
done and you realise there is no enforced obligation.
Point
2 is wrong, it is not 50/50 chance. There are religions with different
moral guidelines, there are tens of thousands of religions and gods made
up so far by humans, and an infinite number of possible gods not yet
dreamt up, not to mention religions without gods and non-belief in its
various forms. The view of reality can be taken from say-so religious
attitudes or factual claims made by science. The “atheistic view” of
reality only usually adds to the scientific view by lacking belief in a god or gods.
Point
three, yes the “atheistic view” is incompatible with their being a
moral obligation, I would argue so is the religious one. Famously with
the Euthyphro dilemma. The dilemma states is something good because
God/the gods command it, or does God/the gods command it because it is
good. In the first cause God could command anything to be good, morality
is arbitrary and on the whim of the God, a click of their fingers and
genocide and rape are OK. The second denies God/s omnipotence as
morality is outside God, if God is all good then therefore doing evil is
outside its power.
Now there is a supposed answer to
this, put forward by William Lane Craig, that God is good, not that it
is good because God commands it, but that his actual essence is good.
This still denies God omnipotence as he cannot commit evil, as it is
outside his character. His character could also change, and we are back
to arbitrary nature of morality. Of course if you read the bible you
will see that God’s morality does seem very arbitrary, killing
Amelakites and Jebusites here, hardening Pharaohs heart there, and
telling David to take the virgins for himself thus condoning rape.
They
then go on to construct a straw man of an atheist, who believes modern
morals have no grounding. I doubt you would find many non-believers with
this attitude, if so they likely haven’t thought about it.
Simply
put morality as practiced by modern humans has been built up over time
as a community, and as a social animal. These have been enacted into
various laws, long before the ten commandments (of which only two are
actually crimes in most modern legal systems), these modern laws are
constantly tested and challenged inside the legal system and sometimes
discarded (criminalisation of same sex-relations), sometimes changed
(interracial marriage and the impending changes to same-sex marriage or
decriminalisation of marijuana), and sometimes reinforced with further
affirmative decisions.
This
one as they admit is an argument from morality to some extent, claiming
that because everyone has a conscience that this is evidence for God.
This of course doesn’t account for the aforementioned Psychopath’s who
lack empathy and may have a misguided conscience because of the
combination of this and upbringing (at least in my opinion, though
corporate Psychopaths exist with less homicidal fervour). This doesn’t
account for those that go against their conscience or their own
betterment to help another due to social pressure or logical thought.
Of
course any argument here that even animals show levels of conscience
and ethical behaviour from this dog that rescued one of its own kind;
to animals that kindly feed other species for not advantage to themselves;
to species that rescue other species at their own detriment
(there are so many of these I struggled to find the original I saw
several years ago with a little Benji type dog that sacrificed its life
for its owners children).
Evolutionary biology has an
answer for where we get our “innate” (in most of us) conscience. Simply
put we are a pack animal and to succeed in the pack we need to endure in
the pack, if we are outwardly evil and malicious we won’t survive long,
even psychopaths quickly learn to hide their lack of empathy with false
empathy, the smarter the psychopath the more empathetic they will
appear to be.
They go on to hypothesise over where we may have got this conscience
1. From something less than me (nature)
2. From me (individual)
3. From others equal to me (society)
4. From something above me (God)
So
let’s look at these four possibilities, firstly why does it have to be
just one, why can’t it be a combination? Let’s break them down, I am not
going to address point 2 as I have no issues with that, I think
morality does come from 1,2,3 and have no issue with what is said in
point 2.
So point 1 and 3: Here they are claiming that
nature is less than me… wrong. We are all part of nature; by that very
definition it is immensely larger than an individual. Also claiming
society is equal to me, again wrong, the current body of knowledge
contained by society is so immense that no one head can store it, the
same I would argue goes for moral thought. There are moral situations I
have not thought of or been exposed too, there are likely some that I
never will think of or be exposed too. The people that are exposed to
these moral quandaries have more moral knowledge than I, even more so if
they learn from their success/failure in these situations and have to
repeat them.
Point 4 of course is just plain wrong as
they need to first give some decent evidence for this something above
me. Besides even in their own literature we are claimed as children of
God, surely children are not always lesser than their parents, often
they will surpass them in knowledge, perhaps we have already surpassed
God in morality :)
******************************
They
then go on to consider their strawmen possibilities. We can be
obligated by something less than us, we can also be obligated by nature
something much more immense than us, they just refuse to see it as they
put themselves on an artificial pedestal. Example a child, less than an
adult in reasoning and intellect can come out with incredible truisms
that people should heed, “don’t fight, be nice” I once heard a boy of 6
say. Should this be ignored as he is currently my moral and intellectual
inferior? No, that is stupid, it is sound advice and should be
evaluated. Of course Nature is not smaller than a human or even
humanity, it is vastly more than us in time and complexity.
Coming
to oneself, of course you can arbitrarily go back on a moral decision
you have made. Example, you deem that killing is wrong and morally you
will never deprive another human of their life. A human being then poses
you with a conundrum kill them or they will kill your loved one, you
have to have the moral flexibility to be able to rescind your early
moral decision and make a judgement if this situation calls for it to
end another’s life to save a loved ones.
Coming to
society, no a million people don’t make a relative into an absolute, but
they do give you something to start with. There are no absolutes,
especially in morals. Society isn’t God, there is no God as far as all
the evidence points, this isn’t evidence it is special pleading and
wishful thinking.
What is more likely innate moral
behaviour in beings that evolved, evolved into us as an advantageous
trait, or was handed down from on high by an infinitely
powerful/knowledgeable/complex God? This also unfortunately claims a
monopoly on morality, so a non-your-god believer can’t be moral, how
about the aforementioned supposedly soulless animals?
Thus
the only adequate solution here is that morals aren’t obliged and have
developed along with our brains capacity to reason. Some people find it
hard to be moral (psychopaths) just as some find it hard to reason. This
makes neither of them less human.
There addendum here
tries to address their previous allusion to belief having the monopoly
on morals. As I have stated before it is more moral to
come to a conclusion on your own with no hope for reward (heaven) or
fear of punishment (hell), than it the opposite. But let's address the
rest of their addendum.
The Dostoyevsky quote; "If God
does not exist, everything is permissible". Yet if he does exist then
morals are likely subject to his will. I have stated this dilemma before
(The Euthyphro dilemma), but God has in the bible said it was OK to
kill your own child. I have to ask, when is it ever morally OK to kill
your own conscious child as Abraham was asked and Jephthah(https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+11%3A29-40&version=RSVCE)
delivered? I would wager that even if your child was a psychopath you
would instead get them help or monitor them closely rather than kill
them.
The rest of this addendum seems to be a just so,
repeatedly stating something doesn’t make it fact. There is no evidence
that God is the first cause of the universe or of morals, even if we
were all created by God and instilled with morals that doesn’t explain
peoples that have no God concept but still have moral code, that doesn’t
explain the continued march of moral progress.
Catholics
seem to be obsessed with the moral argument, when if you ask any
non-catholic to rate the level of morality inside the church you will
likely get a very negative moral landscape. It is a testament to God’s
power that his supposedly chosen institution is so corrupt.
They
continue on in there addendum to go the William Lane Craig route that
morality is not apart from God, but a part of his nature. As I said
earlier this means that with his omnipotent power he can change his
nature, if God cannot do evil then he is not all powerful, if he can,
what is to stop him from changing the rules and thus marking morality
arbitrary on his whim.
Wow, I had to include this
little gem on morality coming from the universe via natural selection;
“The principle of causality is violated here. How could the primordial
slime pools gurgle up the Sermon on the Mount”… this shows a gross
mis-understanding of evolution and evolutionary psychology. The pools
never gurgled anything, it took billions of years for this slime (if it
ever existed, way more on that in a later post),to even evolve to a
being that had movement, let alone vocal chords and the brain capable of
spoken language. Point here, Catholics from the pope down accept
evolution, they accept it but some don’t understand it.
The sermon on the mount which has been picked apart rather well here; http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Sermon_on_the_Mount#Counter-apologetics
I
will agree with the article here, morality doesn’t exist it would seem
at a molecular level, but it doesn’t require much in the way of brains,
fish can be moral, as can everything up from there through, see my gifs
and videos at the start of this section.
They wander
into the argument from ignorance here, because we currently can’t
describe morality 100% with science, doesn’t mean it won’t be. If it is
will you then discard that power from God as the ancients had to discard
lightning from theirs when it was explained? Where will that leave your
God? Maybe you would be better discarding everything, then building up
your beliefs based on evidence and not preconceived notions, as anyone
who is intellectually honest would do.
16. The Argument from Desire
1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.
2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.
3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."
This
is basically presuppositional, it presupposes that we all know/desire
God exists. It is supposing that we all know God exists or we have a
desire for it. I am sure every westerner has had a moment or two in
their life where they have wanted for nothing, surrounded by their loved
ones, post an enormous family meal. But they will say there is still a
small niggling desire in you, they claim to know you better than
yourself, how arrogant.
They then go on to claim you
can have a desire for innate and externally conditioned things. Innate
are things like hunger, sleep, thirst, sex etc. Externally conditioned
come from external, eg a house, car, money, to fly like a superhero, or
visit the Land of OZ. Externally conditioned desires don’t have to
necessarily exist they state, but supposedly no-one has found an innate
desire that doesn’t exist. I would argue here that our desire to find
agency (a mind) behind all events is proof that some supposed "innate"
desires don’t exist, I’d also argue what I imagine their next point will
be, how do you know that the desire to know God is innate and not
conditioned, after all there are people brought up without God and if
they don’t have the societal influence they are unlikely to desire God
at all such as certain deity-less tribes or even people raised as an
atheist, but let’s go on.
Skip to 11:45 for the bit about "is that it"... but the whole clip is beautiful.
They
then go on to be just so about how they classify these innate desires
and artificial desires, basically classifying things as innate if they
deem them them to exist, thus bringing their argument to bear by their
own definition. It is the same as saying I am the best writer that has
ever existed... because I said so.
Not everyone
believes in God, and even those that are raised in the culture can
question it from an early age, Children as young as 4 or 5 will question
the existence of Santa, the Easter Bunny (Bunny's don't lay eggs, hens
do, so maybe the Easter Rooster distributes as I said as a 4 year old), I
know some people who questioned the biblical accounts as young as 5,
this is more evidence against the belief in God being innate as they
offer that it is.
They then go on an appeal to
consequences, even if you aren't fulfilled with life, even if you think
"Is that all there is" then bad luck, if that is the case all the
wishful thinking in the world can't change the facts. I hate that I have
to sleep 6+ hours a night to function, no amount of wishful thinking
will change that.
They press on saying they are not
satisfied with the finite lives they have, surely that is greed, one of
the seven deadly sins. Also I think they speak for themselves, sometimes
as I sit in reflection I smile at how truly deeply satisfied I am with
my life, sure there are things I would like to fix, but overall I am
loved and I love deeply. My children are kind and work is enjoyable,
what more could I want. Any more that I want, I can work for and likely
get, like the outlet of writing I am doing now. Again, just because YOU
are unsatisfied, that is not an argument for anything. If this where the
case there would be no one in hospital and self-help gurus would abound
inside our medical institutions. Instead we have tried and tested
medicine and in extreme cases pain relief and coma inducing drugs.
I
love when they quote the bible and it is a verse that the bible itself
contradicts, God is a concept that is so immense it transcends the
concept... "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart
conceived" (1 Cor. 2:9)... Countered by the fact that Adam saw God on
several occasions (Genesis 1-3), so did Jacob
"So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God
face to face, and yet my life was spared.”" Genesis 32:30, and so did
Moses (Exodus 33:11)... Sure they
will twist and turn out of this, but the words are plain, if they are so
open to interpretation maybe the whole original sin thing, admonishment
of homosexuality, the denouncement of women's rights and the entire God
concept should be opened to the same interpretation and discarded in
kind, start from scratch and build it up your beliefs based on evidence
and reason. They quote here from C.S Lewis, Creatures
are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists.
A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A dolphin
wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual
desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire
which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable
explanation is that I was made for another world. (Mere Christianity,
Bk. III, chap. 10, "Hope")
Great
quote, but it comes back to the same issue I pointed out before; these
supposed desires for other worldly things, how do you prove them, how do
you prove it is from another world, till you can prove the other world
or prove some other thing(s) don't satisfy the desire. How
do you know another's experience, I will admit there have been many
times in my life when I have wanted for nothing, does that mean I have
found God, or I have evaluated what I actually have and been honest with
my satisfaction? Maybe I don't have the desire for God as others do,
but this brings up another issue did God create me this way, if so he
created me damned, and I'll be damned (badumtsh) if I would worship a
being that would create people so broken that he has to torture them for
his own mistakes or for his own wrong doings. I like this quote from C.S Lewis, which strikes at the heart of some of his other religious arguments (quote mining is fun);
Lets cover their Q and A;
Question 1: How can you know the major premise --
that every natural desire has a real object -- is universally true,
without first knowing that this natural desire also has a real object?
But that is the conclusion. Thus you beg the question. You must know the
conclusion to be true before you can know the major premise.
They
try answering this by saying we come to knowledge through universal
truths. Yes we can, we can weigh the possibilities to be
non-consequential, in their example "all humans are mortal" we can see
how that has bared out so far to be true and likely to remain true for a
long time to come.But this suffers the same issue as the all
swans are white universal truth that once existed, you have to be able
to give up these assumed truths once new data comes in.
I
argue here that defining God as a natural desire is faulty, as we have
evidence for acts or objects that can fulfil all other natural desires,
but none for God. They are not begging the question with their
assertion that God is a natural desire and I think I have argued that he
isn't.
Question 2: Suppose I simply deny the minor premise
and say that I just don't observe any hidden desire for God, or
infinite joy, or some mysterious X that is more than earth can offer?
They
suppose with their answer here that no one can be fulfilled, they
suppose to know their and everyone else's heart. How presumptuous.They
go on to argue that it is part of the human condition to not be
satisfied, I would agree. I suppose I have gotten to my moments of
satisfaction due to realising by comparison how luck I am, as a
westerner with shelter, food, and running water, people that love me and
employment that is fun and rewarding. However I will admit this
satisfaction is fleeting, we have evolved to look for more, continue to
strive, this is why generally we are rarely fully satisfied. There is no
need for a God when looked at from the point of view of simple
pop-psychology.
Look at animals, especially house pets.
They have desires too, actually along similar lines to humans, food,
water, shelter, sex and affection. These desires sometimes cannot be
satiated, there are diets for dogs, animals that seek out many, many
mates despite being infertile. If these desires weren't put into this
kind of override then the animals they compete with who do have the
overdrive will likely succeed and pass on their DNA over the ones with
little desire... it's evolution baby.
I like that they said this; "It is like the game of predicting the end of the world". The
saviour they are arguing for did just this predicting the end of the
world; "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste
death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." - Matthew 16:28... 2000 years of any day now.
Question 3: This argument is just another version of Anselm's ontological argument
(13), which is invalid. You argue to an objective God from a mere subjective
idea or desire in you. I am going to include their reply to this objection, er question here to pick it apart;
Reply: No, we do not argue from the idea alone, as Anselm does. Rather, our
argument first derives a major premise from the real world of nature: that nature
makes no desire in vain. Then it discovers something real in human nature-namely,
human desire for something more than nature-which nature cannot explain, because
nature cannot satisfy it. Thus, the argument is based on observed facts in nature,
both outer and inner. It has data.
No they don't argue from that idea alone, but their basis for the
argument here is one of definitions, defining into existence innate
desires and artificial desires, and then assigning God to the innate
desire category with no other evidence than it feels good and loads of
people feel the need to believe in a God... do they, or do they feel the
need for community, reflection, and ritual? If we simply grant God
entry to this innate desire category, then surely it could be argued
that other desires could be placed theretoo; such as the desire
to know Zeus, or the desire for Ragnarok (the Nordic gods end time
story), neither of these are based in reality but plenty of people
believed in them at one stage, so why not give them access.
Which
is more likely here, that a supernatural being has placed on our
metaphorical hearts the desire to know his existence and worship him,
although I don't understand why he/she couldn't just appear to everyone
at once, even submit to testing but I digress. Why is a God who chooses
to hide leaving us just with a desire to seek him/her out more
plausible, than an over reacting drive to procreate, eat, drink and be
comfortable? Answer God is infinitely less plausible than this
explanation, sorry try again.
17. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
Excellent
a short one... that argues from beauty basically, it may take a bit
longer than their one-liner to deconstruct, so let's go.
Basically
they say that because there is the beautiful music of Bach that there
is a God. Art beauty and taste all point to God would be there
hypothesis. They aren't definitively saying that you can't appreciate
beauty without their God, that's good as the Muslim domes are gorgeous,
and Hindu temples can be beautiful. What they are saying is this beauty
originates from a God, again with no evidence.
Which is
more likely we have evolved to find beauty and be attracted to things
that are beneficial to our survival, to be intrigued by things that are
both novel and attractive in the possibility that there is some reward,
even if that is not definitively linked to our survival, or that an all
powerful God made things beautiful to reward us, after punishing all of
humanity for one couples digression?
Makes me think of this modified comic from abstruse goose;
Although
it is modified to imply that only atheists can see the science behind
nature, this is obviously false, in fact some of these formula where
discovered by believers, but it does point to the grandeur that can be
seen in nature once you begin to question and investigate. It also
dismisses the tired believer position that sometimes simply is because
"God wanted it that way" The unaltered original is here.
18. The Argument from Religious Experience
Most
people that would read these twenty arguments for Gods existence have
had religious experiences, thus God exists... The problem here of course
is that this is an argument from personal revelation. There are loads
of people who have religious experiences from Vishnu, Baal, Woden (aka
Odin, father of Thor), Ahura Mazda, if one personal experience is valid,
then so are they all. This of course doesn't mention the non-religious
personal experiences of Aliens, Bigfoot and Elvis sightings, all should
be treated with the same validity.
They then go on to
say that religious experience is such that only a divine reality can
explain it... you know not psychology which has explanations for the
other experiences they readily dismiss. Group think, suggestion, lucid
dreams, mass hypnosis, hysteria, suggestion, memory fallibility and
schizophrenia are all known about and valid explanations for religious
and non-religious experiences. Religious people will either dismiss out
of hand someone who claims to have seen Shiva at a well as deluded at
best, influenced by the devil at worst, yet protest when the Hindu
claims the Christians vision of Mary is a delusion or a trick of
Krishna's. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.
They
twist this around to an argument from numbers (argument ad populum),
basically stating lots of people have religious experiences, thus they
are all valid. This is not evidence for, it is actually evidence
against. Lots of people are pre-tuned to have these experiences, by
their ritual and beliefs, then when they experience some mental distress
or witness something they can't explain they assign it to their
religion, they can't take "I don't know" even as an answer to themselves
(see people who still claim the Stephensville lights where Alien UFO's, and where more information from a someone with experience looking at the sky can find the truth).
Then their memory steps in and adds false memories conflating the event
to something much grander. What starts as a mere odd reflection in a
stream that they saw as a face (see pareidolia) then quickly gets remembered as the Virgin Mary talking to them.
See again this link on Lourdes and its failure as a site of healing.
There point by point goes like this;
1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine."
2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly
wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.
3. Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of
different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.
How
cute. This goes back to what I was saying before, point 1 is an
argument ad populum (an appeal to numbers, eg billions of people are ,
there have been loads of different divine experiences that have nothing
to do with the god of Abraham aka the God of Christianity; Yahweh. It is
also arguing from antiquity, basically saying because people in the
past had these experiences they couldn't explain is some kind of
evidence. It isn't. A quote attributed to the famous Hippocrates (where
we get the name for Hippocratic oath that Doctors swear too);
This
quote argues against both the argument to antiquity and argument ad
populum, we now know that epilepsy is not divine, that these experiences
where either a chemical imbalance or brain fault. These stories are
then passed down, embellished, misremembered and enhanced, they are not
proof of anything.
So on to point 2, it is very
conceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about
their own experience, as likely all the UFO/Bigfoot/Elvis witnesses are
likely to be mistaken.
Point 3, how many times have I
said, no therefore. If you have yet to prove your first points you can't
therefore. This actually brings about a good point though in their
conclusion; "reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced". This
part is really telling, interestingly as Carl Sagan points out in his
book demon haunted world, these experiences change with time and
culture. For example sleep paralysis was once claimed to be the cause of
demons, the word nightmare actually comes from the name of the demon
that supposedly sat on ones chest while they slept and made it
impossible to move, yet once aliens entered the public collective psyche
abductees described this same sleep paralysis and attributed it to
aliens instead, even the appearance of the aliens matched prior media
the supposed abductee would have likely consumed, eg in the 50's and
60's big steel type aliens, typical of the first alien movies in the
50's and 60's, and 70's through 90's the grey ones with big black eyes,
again typical of media from the time and before.
I have
a good argument against this and demonic possession, don't you think if
demons could inhabit bodies and give superhuman strength that some
government body wouldn't have already capitalised on this phenomenon and
we see demonic super-soldiers in the field of battle... yeah I don't
think that has happened, battles are won by the countries with the most
soldiers that are best equipped, that is all.
Realistically
you would think all these people that have had personal revelation
would come back with some amazing piece or information as yet unknown or
even simply definitively unknown to the experience, even something
simple like a lost language, an unsolved problem in math or science, or
as The Iron chariots wiki says the meaning of the word Frontlets that is actually in the bible and its definition lost.
19. The Common Consent Argument
Home stretch now.
This argument goes like this; 1. Belief in God -- that Being to whom reverence and worship are
properly due -- is common to almost all people of every era.
2. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.
3. It is most plausible to believe that they have not.
4. Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exists.
OK,
lets take it one at a time. Point 1, nope belief in a single God is not
common, for most of human history it has been an entire pantheon of
gods, most of the time not omnipotent, sometimes not even responsible
for the creation of the universe. Of course there have always been
people who have doubted the veracity of these god claims.
The
extension to Mark Twains quote above is a good one, atheism started
with the person standing there skeptical of the con man. But just
because atheism or religion has been around a long time, doesn't make it
correct, so was slavery, rape, murder, and genocide, I think we can
ditch all those, so we can ditch reverence and worship, except where
proven due.
Point 2, what is more likely a group of
pre-bronze age peoples, who still thought the earth was the centre of
the universe got grander cosmological and philosophical concepts
correct, or they guessed because they didn't know the answer, and the
story grew over generations. Stories have been shown to do this, so why
not 2500 years ago, pre the first writings of the Torah?
Point
3, no, it is most plausible to believe that humans are very fallible,
as they remain to be, that even the meaning of the written word can
change over time (hence the umpteen different bible interpretations), so
these extraordinary claims require and equivalent amount of evidence.
There is not even enough evidence for Christian historians to agree on
the events at Jesus birth, or Jewish scholars to agree on the location
of the events in the Torah (old testament to non-Jews), so why should
the stories be believed by the non-scholarly people who are trying not
to be as biased as the aforementioned scholars?
Point
4, DRINK... another therefore with a weak buildup. It is plausible at
this point, and every other point this pitiful article has tried to make
to WITHHOLD judgement on the God claim. WITHHOLDING judgement is the
agnostic atheist position, congratulations.
They try to use this line; "It
seems far more likely that those who refuse to believe are the ones
suffering from deprivation and delusion -- like the tone-deaf person who
denies the existence of music" This is really grasping, trying to
reflect their weak argument on to the non-believer. I don't refuse to
believe, I find no reason too, no argument convincing enough. To turn
there analogy around, I doubt you would find someone tone deaf who would
deny the very existence of music, they would just deny they get
pleasure from it. Just as a blind person doesn't deny the existence of
light, dark and colour, they have just never perceived it. If as I said
before God has created atheists blind to his existence, then he has
created us to damn us and this is means he is worthy of no ones worship.
Question 1: But the majority is not infallible.
Most people were wrong about the movements of the sun and earth. So why
not about the existence of God?
They seem here to be trying to answer my questionthough
it more nuanced, I am saying you need to weigh the probabilities, which
is more likely the bronze age ignorant humans got deep cosmological and
philosophical questions right, or they made allegorical attempts and
straight out assumptions based on their experience to answer their
questions, eg Lightning must be the Gods anger.
There line "But if God does not exist, what is it that believers have been
experiencing? The level of illusion goes far beyond any other example of
collective error. It really amounts to collective psychosis." is
problematic, as the same could be argued for the "relationship" people
have with their imaginary friends, other gods and the infamous John Frum
from the Cargo Cults
in Melanesia. This relationship is reinforced with constant prayer,
recitation of affirmations and the peer influence of others who state
their relationship is strong with God/Jesus/Allah/Vishnu.
They
then argue via wishful thinking, if the person didn't exist then their
was no one to receive you love... waaa. Sorry that really shouldn't
convince anyone.
They then go on to miscategorise
atheists, most atheists now-a-days once had a "relationship" with
God/Jesus/Allah/Vishnu, they loved their chosen deity and felt sure of
their existence. Once they put their beliefs to the test they found them
groundless. There are a lot of explanations for religious experience,
from faith healers and speaking in tongues for example watch the
documentary Marjoe to see how a faith healer can induce this hysteria
with stage presence and parlour tricks. There are also studies done on
these tongues spoken, they follow no grammatical sense, they aren't a
language that is known about and they don't have a flow that could be
identified as a language in any way. There are lots of explanations as
there are lots of phenomenon that are used to impress this experience.
Science
doesn't work from personal anecdote or personal experience, it works
from repeatable experiment and evidence. If you can't repeat the
experiment of observation then you have nothing.
Question 2: But isn't there a very plausible
psychological account of religious belief? Many nonbelievers hold that
belief in God is the result of childhood fears; that God is in fact a
projection of our human fathers: someone "up there" who can protect us
from natural forces we consider hostile.
Sure
upbringing plays a big part, most people born in the west will be raised
Christian, and Christian they will remain. Most people born in the
Muslim countries will be raised Muslim and remain that way, ancient
peoples born in Greece would have worshiped Zeus or Poseidon. This isn't
an argument against God, but it is suspicious andseems mean on his part if he exists, damning people just due to the unfortunate time and date of their birth.
Really though religion, like a lot of human endeavours is very complex,it plays on fears (heaven/hell), it indoctrinates, creates/fosters faulty reasoning capabilities (accepting appeals to authority and numbers as valid arguments, as well as supernatural thinking),
gives us easy answers (the aforementioned goddunit, "that's the way God
wanted it"), gives us someone to ask for help in helpless situations,
someone to thank when chance goes our way (but oddly not necessarily
someone to blame, unless you blame Satan or some other evil deity), it
marks changes is nature and life (eg baptism, Lent season), and probably
many other reasons that reinforce a believers belief in God. An
interesting experiment to do, raise a child with no religion, never
introduce them to it, or talk to them about it, teach them to think
rationally and critically LIE to THEM and get them to question you and
then when they are say 20 try and get them to follow a particular belief
system, my guess unless you are holding something over them (food,
shelter etc), they are as likely to follow it as you are to switch from
your religion now to some other very different religion (eg if you are
Christian, switch Gods to Vishnu/Krishna).
In one of the waffling replies to Question 2, they put the statement; "several writers (e.g., Paul Vitz) have analyzed atheism as itself a
psychic pathology: an alienation from the human father that results in
rejection of God." and yet earlier they claim that the question they posed that said God is just a fatherly project was "psychological jargon"...hmmm.
I would say the psychic pathology is woo, it is nonsensical speech,
psychics have never passed a test, no psychic has ever been used
successfully by a police force anywhere in the world, they have
catastrophically failed every test. But this goes back to my earlier
point, our rejection of God cuts us off from God, so if he exists he is
letting this happen, he is letting us be damned to be tormented for ever
and he can stop it, seems like a nice guy.
They
go on to say this wager shouldn't be used to coerce into belief, yep.
It should be tossed away as it is horribly broken, even the supposed
moronic character of Homer knows what is up;
They
go on further to say that it should be used to get people to seek out
God, but I am pretty sure most people seek the truth, and atheists and
skeptics especially should change their beliefs if they are honest and
given enough evidence most I know would, the fact that most vocal
atheists now-a-days are ex-theists shows that they did seek and did not
find.
Well that is it for their arguments, I am
converted... actually no I think it did the opposite, good job
Catholics. Actually I spoke too soon, there is a questions for
Discussion section below, answered where I can, ridiculed where they
have obviously performed no effort.
Questions for Discussion
Why might someone think that the whole
question of this chapter, whether God's existence can be proved, is
trivial, unimportant, distracting or wrongheaded? How might such a
person's argument(s) be answered?
I don't think it is
trivial to determine God's existence (otherwise there would be no
atheists), I don't think there is any current evidence but I keep
reading poor arguments like the preceding in the hope of finding some
glimmer of evidence.
Could there be an argument for
God's existence that does not fit into either of the two categories
here, cosmological (external) or psychological (internal)?
Sure, they did loads of argument ad populum, argument from
ignorance, and arguments to authority, but I saw no arguments to
absurdity :) That usually goes something like God exists, otherwise there would be no life in the universe to worship him... You
should be able to see the error there by now, it is nonsensical, life
exists; it is absurd to attempt to prove something from a contradiction
to our senses. Hmm but then again I suppose the argument to absurdity
fits into their psychological category.
How psychologically forceful
and how psychologically impotent is a valid argument for God's existence
to an atheist? What does the answer to that question depend on? (There
are many answers to this question; mention as many as you can. Which do
you think is the most important one?)
They have yet to present a valid and non-flawed argument, so they are impotent(must resist joke). If
I were to say the best argument for a particular God, I couldn't answer
it. If you want to get to Deism (a now absent creator God) or Pantheism
(The universe is God), then you could point to fine tuning of the
universes constants, the place of our galaxy in the universe, the solar
system in the galaxy, the Earth in the Solar system and the placement of
our planet. Problem with this argument is we have no other universe to
compare it to, to weigh-up these odds honestly. We also know we evolved
to suit the planet we find ourselves on, not the other way around. So
while the argument is not very convincing for a particular God, it is
interesting and does invite further investigation... which is why I
guess we have found thousands of planets inside our own galaxy, and why
we are using super-colliders to investigate big-bang conditions as that
may point us to the multiverse theory being true.
How can anything be "outside"
the universe if "the universe" = "everything in space and time and
matter?" What is meant by "outside" here? Can you give any analogy or
parallel situation where a term is used like this?
Language changes over time, at one stage nebula meant cloud, and
was used to describe any fuzzy object we saw through our primitive
telescopes, this included galaxies outside our own, back then, not so
long ago we thought ours was the only galaxy. Now we think ours is the
only universe, as more data comes in this assumption may very well
change. So far we have some math and some evidence (the energy level of
the Higgs) that could point to a multiverse, meaning multiple contained universes.Outside
is easiest imagined here as each universe being a bubble inside a
bigger multiverse, each of these bubbles from our current knowledge
appears contained in such a way that information cannot travel from one
to the other, the laws of physics could be different in each, even
time may flow differently in each. Outside of these bubbles something
(God or Gods) could exist, but we have no evidence for them and there is
no way with the present evidence that anything that happened in the
multiverse could affect this universe beyond the initial influx of
energy. So a God could exist, but it would be Deistic, creating the
initial universe but not having any ability to affect events inside it,
including but not limited to human affairs or design.
Why are there more than twenty arguments for and only one against God (the problem of evil)? (See chap. 6.)
HAHAH, there are a loads of arguments against God, I did a quick search and I am pretty sure I never used the problem of evil. FAIL.
I can't see this chapter 6, as I am not going to buy this book, but I
assume they just refute it in the usual way with "Free will". There is a
problem with this I touched on, a rapist is impacting the free will of
his victim, and this is OK in Gods eyes, yet he can't only minorly
impact the rapists free will and simply switch off his neurons. There
are many logical arguments, there is a definitive lack of evidence, a
definitive lack of need for a God with the current discoveries.
What commonsense meaning of
cause do these cosmological arguments use (especially 2)? What
alternative meanings of cause have some philosophers preferred? How do
they change or invalidate the cosmological argument(s)? How could these
alternatives be refuted? (Hume's is the most famous.)
The cause of the beginning of the universe I assume is where they are going. I discussed this back in Argument 2, I'll quote myself so you don't have to go looking; But physics doesn’t say that the singularity pre the big-bang required a
cause, the term cause and effect is in essence illogical at this point
as time (the thing cause and effect operate in) came into existence at
this point. As Stephen Hawking has said, physics doesn’t preclude effect
preceding cause in certain circumstances, perhaps the effect
(singularity) preceded the cause (something in the universe).
Does the answer to question 2 after argument 2 prove that God is creating the world right now?
What the hell is this nonsense? It sounds similar to the hypothesis put forward by Bertrand Russell: There
is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang
into existence five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a
population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically
necessary connection between events at different times; therefore
nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove
the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.... I am not here
suggesting that the non-existence of the past should be entertained as a
serious hypothesis. Like all sceptical hypotheses, it is logically
tenable but uninteresting (The Analysis of Mind, 1921, p. 159-160)Of
course the issue with this is it can't be disproved, and there is no
evidence to support it. It should be discarded due to both of these off
the bat. But if you wish to entertain it for longer, it
certainly could be true. So could me being God, me being the only
conscious being in the universe and the rest of you just creations by my
mere whimsy, and or a teapot in orbit around the sun.
The burden of proof, even a logical proof lies in the person making the
claim, that would be the Christian that thinks the world is still being
created.
Would alternative theories of time change or invalidate any of the cosmological arguments?What
alternate theories of time* do they mean, effect not needing cause, we
know at the quantum level this can happen, or do they mean time flowing
in a different direction. There is a lot of evidence that would have to
be allowed into this new theory hypothesis of time as
there is already substantial evidence to support Einsteins hypothesis
that time and space are intertwined. *Surely they mean hypothesis,
theory is the highest status an idea can get to in science, eg the Germ
theory, the General Theory of relativity, or the Theory of evolution by
natural selection.
Does the simple answer to
question 1 after argument 4 refute subjectivism? If not, where is the
error in it? If so, why are there so many subjectivists?
Oh dear this is massive reaching, I showed that not only
can you live it, we do. I wouldn't have asked this strawman question as I
have already shown a subjective morality. But OK, let's answer the
premise that asking a question it implies objectivism, how? I don't
think any asker has actually thought it objectively better to ask the
question, I would gather from my own experience they have asked it as
they subjectively felt the question should be asked to discern an
answer, based on the situation.
Why is the design argument the most popular?
Because humans need answers, and when one is not apparent
some of us will throw in whatever fits. We also love seeing agency in
things, did that grass move because of the wind, or a lion, if we run
and it was the wind we have lost little, if we don't run and it was a
Lion we are dead and can't pass on our non-agency seeking genes. This
lead to Zeus and Thor throwing lightning, and then eventually an all
powerful God letting there be light.
What is the relation between intelligibility and intelligence? Are intelligibility, design and order interchangeable concepts?
Something doesn't need to be designed by an intelligence
to be intelligible, simply analysed by an intelligence. Intelligibility,
design and order and not interchangeable, as Yahweh, Zeus and Ahuru
Mazda aren't.
Isn't there a tiny chance that
the universe just happened by chance? A quintillion monkeys typing for a
quintillion years will eventually produce Hamlet by chance. Couldn't
this book have been caused by an explosion in a print factory?
It doesn't work like that, and a statement like that shows
a GROSS misunderstanding of the science of cosmology and evolution. We
evolved to live in the universe, the chance is not easy to determine (we
have no other universe in which to compare the odds), and it is not a
simply all these X needed to be in play times by all these Y
possibilities, as they accumulate over time via natural selection. So
to change the monkeys typing analogy, it is less like they are bashing
away randomly and more like selecting FOR the next word in the sentence
that is required for the manuscript of Hamlet. The monkey still type
randomly, and it may take some time, but if you automatically discarded
(death due to selection) the non-legitimate next words in the work you
would quickly get Hamlet typed out by these monkeys. Also to correct
the big bang, is called that but it was not an explosion as such, more
of a rapid expansion. It took a long time for stars to form, then a long
time for the heavier elements, it didn't all pop into existence out of
nothing... that is what religious people believe.
Regarding argument 10, how do we know the universe is not conscious or aware?
There is no evidence.Seriously,
you are making the claim, a claim that differs from Christianity into
pantheism, you need to provide some evidence. Counter, it has never
shown any sign of being aware or conscious, can we perform a Turing test
on it, can it recognise itself in a mirror, does it have anyway to
communicate across its form (not faster than light that is currently
very sure), has it attempted some kind of communication to us?
Does the answer to question 3 of argument 6 prove God is a person?
Nope, it makes a lot of assumptions and "suppose"s. There
is no reason there can't be endless regressions, or even a single
regression with a start of time at the start of the big-bang, the
evidence at present points to a single event, the multiverse has some
evidence, but it is not enough, there is no evidence for a God.
Sartre wrote: "There can be no
eternal truth because there is no eternal Consciousness to think it."
What is the implied premise of his argument and of proof 11?
Firstly truth is that which complies with reality. In essence
proof is written into reality. It doesn't need to be written BY anyone,
reality seems to just be without the need for a mind to comprehend it.
See my refutation at "proof 11".
Does argument 12 presuppose "innate ideas"? If not, how and when did the idea of God get into our minds?
Nope innate ideas aren't a thing, we simply have similarly
evolved minds and due the number of us, some of us share similar
experiences, which inspires us with similar ideas. In response to WHEN, I
references Twain before, but here it is again.
Why is it that you can tell a
lot about a philosopher's metaphysics by knowing whether or not he or
she accepts the ontological argument? What do Anselm, Descartes,
Spinoza. Leibniz and Hegel have in common? What doctrine of Thomistic
metaphysics enables Thomas to criticize Anselm's argument?
Yep I
don't accept the ontological argument, if you do please direct me to
this super hot girlfriend from Canada or the Unicorn that I referenced
the Ontological argument proves exists back in argument 13. Throwing
out some philosophers doesn't impress me, it is an argument to
Authority. Spinoza came up with the idea of Pantheism, he may not have
been one as a philosopher should be able to entertain an idea without
accepting it, like I do with religion :), but it seems likely he was a
pantheist, the others were either theists of their geographically native
religion in a time when other religions were being heavily persecuted,
or they were deistic. As far as I see it, and for myself at least,
Pantheism and deism were steps on the way to atheism, so please
encourage your readers to investigate these philosophers (except Anslem,
Hegel and Thomas, bleh) as with the extensions available now in their
philosophy the step to atheism is an easier one. I didn't know Thomas
had criticised Anslem on his poor Ontological argument, but looking it
up, it all comes down to Anslems argument forcing a definition of God on
to people and stating that a perfect being can't be imagined by
imperfect beings, fair calls of course. Also I find it interesting
that a Catholic MONK; Gaunilo of Marmoutier, came up with a similar
argument to oppose this terrible argument way back around the same time
that Anslem put it forward, and yet Catholics and other Christians still
use it, seriously update guys. Reference: http://www.prometheus-journal.com/2009/02/a-critique-of-the-ontological-argument/
Can you refute the modal and possible worlds versions of the ontological argument?
Spinosa
talked about the greatest possible being across all possible worlds
being God, mere wordplay of course and it doesn't change the fact that
Eric will have eaten it.
Can an atheist believe in real moral obligation (argument 14)? If so, how? Do most atheists believe in real moral obligation?
I think they could believe in conditioned moral obligations,
or in evolved moral compasses (some peoples are broken), but in actual
moral obligation there would need to be somewhere for it come from.
Is the argument from conscience any stronger if you admit objective moral laws?
Nope, unless you have some proof of where these objective morals came from your argument is no stronger.
How would you formulate the relationship between religion and morality? Between God and morality?
I think Steven Wienberg formatted it rather well; I also think I have here.
Does everyone have the desire mentioned in premise 2 of argument 16? If so, must atheists suppress and ignore it? Obviously
not, as there are tribes that have no God concept. Of course premise
two doesn't explicitly state God, just that we have an unquenchable
desire somewhere inside us. I would state as I argued previously that
this could simply be an evolutionary advantage, a constant wish to
strive for more, more food, wealth, mates etc.Just as an
overactive sex drive would have one day assisted in a larger number of
progeny, so too an overactive unquenchable desire would assist in
ensuring survival on many fronts at once.
Would nominalists be able to escape argument 16? (C.f., question 1.)
Pretty
complicated question really. So for people who don't know nominalists
basically deny the existence of non-existent thinks, and concepts. Eg
Strength doesn't literally exist, it is a concept, 7 doesn't exist, it
is always 7 somethings. Premise 3 in argument 16 is escapable by a
nominalist, as it makes the leap that these unfulfillable desires can
even be fulfilled.
Can you formulate argument 17 logically?
I
am sure someone might try something like, beauty exists therefore God
Exists... This is about as logical as an argument from absurdity can be,
so not logical.
Why is religious experience
any more of an argument for the real existence of God than any common
delusion, illusion, fantasy or dream for its object? Are we arguing here
from idea to reality, as in the ontological argument?
I don't think it is. Anecdote does not equal evidence, and reality doesn't conform with the claims that are usually made here.
Why is the common consent argument hardly ever used today, whereas it was very popular in the past?
This
is hardly used today as I think the people who would use it have
realised it is an argument to numbers and an argument to antiquity, bot
logically flawed.
Is Pascal's Wager dishonest?
Why or why not? Read Pascal's version of it in the Pensees; what do you
find there that is significant that is not included here?
Not
really, it isn't dishonest, as I imagine most believers think there is
only two options their God exists or they concede a little to the
atheist that it doesn't.. It is wrong as there are not only the two
options, there are an infinite number of other possibilities,
with an infinite number it is best to reserve judgement till more
evidence becomes available, reserving judgment errs on withholding
belief (atheism) without being sure on the knowledge claim of whether
God exists (agnostic).
Do you know of, or can you imagine, any other argument for God's existence?
How about some proof, or even a logical consistent view of God?It
would be nice to be able to debate a being that had clear defined
attributes. The only argument I can see working is God presenting
himself, and using his omnipotence to provide enough evidence to convert
the atheists around the world. Would it mean we would all worship
him/her, I doubt it, but that is a different discussion.
Which of these twenty arguments do you find the most powerful?
None, still an atheist.
How would an atheist answer each one of these twenty arguments? (Remember, there are only three ways of answering any argument.)
Just did and I think I used more than three ways to answer these arguments, but congrats you failed.
Closing
I have been working on
this post for over 12 months (as well as doing a lot of other writing),
sorry for the length, but I am glad to be done with it. You can see
there was certainly some BS that needed to be challenged, nothing that
made me rethink my lack of belief however.
So all these arguments are easily dismissed, I don’t want to see any religious person using them again… Hahaha, I kill me.
Yikes
that is good to be finished, I hope this can stand for a while as a
reference and inspire the community to oppose poor reasoning like this
when they spot it.
.jpg)
