Shinobi

Whilst surfing the net I saw this site amongst my search results.
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

I thought I'd check it out, and can see from the introduction that it will attempt to provide evidence for the existance of God. We all know the extremely poor quality of theistic arguments and the lack of any new material that hasn't been thoroughly debunked. As I write this post, I will read through the article and smack each of it's points. I predict that all the points it attempts to make will be things I have heard before and know the counter to. I predict that no point will cause me to say “Hmmm, that's interesting, I'll have to think hard about that one.�? So, on we go:

1. Does God exist? Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God.

Fallacy of belief. No matter how many people believe something it doesn't make it true. Throughout
history most people lacked the means to really understand the world so would invent myths to explain things. While the ancients were very clever and practical in many respects, their theories about basic things such as germs and weather effects were totally wrong so their ideas on the origins of the universe are unlikely to be accurate. It is also false that every single culture had a deity in their belief system. Some of them revered nature as a force, or animal spirits, or had myths of Gods but didn't literally believe in them.

From the site:
“Now, the fact that so many people believe something certainly doesn't make it true. But when so many people through the ages are so personally convinced that God exists, can one say with absolute confidence that they are all mistaken?�?

So, your saying that even though mass belief doesn't make something true, mass belief makes it true. Cake and eat too. They seem to give a token acknowledgment of the fallacy of belief to avoid looking like idiots, then go on to say that they are still justified in using it. Pick one or the other.

“Anthropological research has indicated that among the farthest and most remote primitive people today, there is a universal belief in God.�?

Oh yes this “Anthropological research�?. Where is this anthropological research? The footnote lists a Christian book as the source. “Why You Believe�?.

2. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Ho Hum. Been there, done that and bought the T-shirt, worn the t-shirt for ages and now the t-shirt is an old raggedy one with moth holes in it. Complexity is not automatic evidence of deliberate, personal creator. Especially the one that you happen to pick, with the attributes you give to him. It then goes on to list all the things about the earth that make it possible for human life to develop. It's the old noses are for wearing glasses fallacy. Life developed according to the conditions it developed in. The world wasn't made as a little playpen to put people in that was nice and comfortable for us. The atmosphere was not made for living things to breathe, life adapted to breathe what was here. We only know of one planet with life, we don't have anything to compare it to, so who's to say that there couldn't be life in a methane atmosphere or nitrogen atmosphere. It then goes on to talk about the properties of water and how the earth is a big machine that must be designed to support life. Sorry, complexity doesn't equal deliberate design. Things seem to be complex and efficient because of physical and chemical laws. No God proven, no God needed.

It brings up the human brain as evidence for inteligent design:


“Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain.�?

Oh, so does that mean that a super god must have designed a brain that's intelligent enough to design life?

So they say that everything about the earth fits “just right�? to allow for life. “Just right�? according to what? The laws of physics and chemistry of course. The christens themselves admit this, and in fact depend on this for their argument. So if God has to make things work according to natural laws then he does not control or create these laws. He isn't a designer at all, just a chump that put the pieces together according to instruction by natural law. Do we need this chump to explain natural phenomena? Has any scientific discovery hit a wall and could only progress if we say “it must be God?�? Only in the delusions of Kent Hovind and Jack Chick.

3. Does God exist? Mere "chance" is not an adequate explanation of creation.

The old mount Rushmore argument. A variant of Paley's watch, which is again a variant of the argument described above. The analogy is a fallacy: We already know that people designed Mt. Rushmore and watches or whatever.

“This article only touches on a few amazing aspects of our world: the Earth's position to the sun, some properties of water, one organ in the human body. Could any of these have come about by chance? “

Not chance, in the case of water it has it's properties because of physical and chemical laws. Remember from the last point, if God can't just make things work however he wants and must abide by natural law, then he's at best, an intermediary. Those laws make things fit together in what appear to us as a logical and organized way. But that's just they way they are. The “things didn't come together by chance�? is a strawman, as no-one actually things a bunch of atoms bumped together with no guiding forces and just happened to have made a planet or person. The other points it makes in this section are just rehashes of the previous point so I needed go on here. Oh, and what about the need for a designer for a thing that is as complex as God? Oh, of course he's exempt from the very crux of that argument. Special pleading.

“When one considers the intricacies of our life and universe, it is reasonable to think that an intelligent, loving Creator provided for everything we need for life.�?


Answer – No.

4. Does God exist? Humankind's inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.

First of all, is there really an agreed upon sense of right and wrong? No. Eskimos left people to die in the snow if they were old or sick. The Spartans inspected all babies that were born and threw them out if they looked weak. The Romans had no moral qualms about watching bloody combat to the death in the arena, not to mention killing thousands of animals a day driving many species to extinction. Did they see anything wrong with what they did? No, to them it was completely normal. So we don't have a universally accepted moral code. If God is the author of moral codes then why did he choose the particular codes he did? If it is because they are the best codes then God is subject to moral law, he doesn't get to decide what is objectively best. If he didn't then they are arbitrary, his mere whim without any sound reason.

Although I have denied a universal moral code, there is some correlation amongst what we consider wrong. This can be explained by social conditioning and evolution. Put simply, if you go around killing people for the hell of it, eventually you will get killed yourself.


“Our conscience can best be explained by a loving Creator who cares about the decisions and harmony of humanity.�? No you cannot “best�? explain something by appealing to a totally unproven entity. Oh, and “survival of the fittest�? was the social Darwinists idea, who tried to justify the brutalities of state violence and social inequity by appealing to nature.

5. Does God exist? God not only has revealed Himself in what can be observed in nature, and in human life, but He has even more specifically shown Himself in the Bible.

Lame. The bible has contradictions and absurdities that, if were really inspired by a God, would show him to be legally retarded.

“Archaeological findings continue to confirm rather than refute the accuracy of the Bible.�?

Oh, this is going to be good, what “ Archaeological findings�? are we talking about?

“For example, an archeological find in northern Israel in August 1993 confirmed the existence of King David, author of many of the Psalms in the Bible.10...

Well, archaeological history is not my strong subject so I can't confirm or deny this claims without looking further into it, but even if true it has nothing to do with proving that the bible is the inspired word of God, that it's word is correct by default, or even that God exists in the first place.

“...the Dead Sea Scrolls and other archaeological discoveries continue to substantiate the historical accuracy of the Bible.�?

This statement is vague and unspecific and as such, could be taken to mean almost anything..

“The Bible was written over a 1500-year span, by 40 different authors, in different locations and on separate continents, written in three different languages, covering diverse subject matters at different points in history.11 Yet there is an astounding consistency in its message.�?

Well, that doesn't mean shit if you use THE SAME STARTING BOOK AS A REFERENCE!
It doesn't mean shit because Spiderman comics were written by many different authors and all share a constancy. Even the fan fiction will have a degree of constancy. Oh, and how is this all supposed to prove that God is a real again? Non sequiter.

6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God.

Uhh, yeah and this proves what?

“Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. “

Uhh, yeah and this proves what? I thought this article was supposed to be 6 points that prove God's existence, your just cheating now by making point 6 irrelevant sophistic crap. (and point 5.)

So even if all these people were historical figures, the fact that there is a minor difference about the one you happen to believe in makes it real?

“He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."12 “

Uhh, now your just filling space by spouting shit. Non sequiter, big time.

What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine?

“Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead...�?

Uh, and the proof of this is? Superman must have been real. Because he could lift up cars and see with X-ray vision. Good one. Not everything written down is true you know? The rest of this so-called argument is more of the same.

Conclusion.

Argument – Lame
Quality of logical reasoning – Lame
Original material – None

Owned.

Shinobi

Heh, I just read thsi bit at the end:

"About the Author:
As a former atheist, Marilyn Adamson found it difficult to refute the continuously answered prayers and quality of life of a close friend. In challenging the beliefs of her friend, Marilyn was amazed to learn the wealth of objective evidence pointing to the existence of God. After about a year of persistent questioning, she responded to God's offer to come into her life and has found faith in Him to be constantly substantiated and greatly rewarding."

Ahh yes, the "former atheist" defence. I'm mentally retarded, therefore God exists?

Yahzi

This is a lot like his "Everyone's belief is not proof, but it's proof" fallacy.

There is a universal moral code (for humans) encoded in our genes. It is the expression of the laws of mathematics plus theory of mind, coupled with the observed physical fact that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." It's no more mysterious than vampire bats sharing blood with non-kin nestmates, or dolphins making alliances.

Perhaps there is no absolute morality (I don't even know what that means, really), but there is an objective morality. I wish secular humanists would just drop this whole "morality is culture" nonsense.

show_no_mercy

Not only that, but the very first assertation "all cultures throughout history believe in god" is wrong. Someone else posted it somewhere here at IIDB, but there was (is?) a tribe of people who didn't believe in any sort of god(s) whatsoever.

Gawdzila

Not only that, but many cultures believed in Gods that were based on
things that they actually observed. Sun Gods, Sky Gods, Rain Gods, Wind Gods,
etc etc. They were also largely polytheistic, and didn't always (or even usually)
ascribe omnipotence or omniscience to them.

Gawen

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...01#post2339601

Jon Promnitz

Just the same old theistic rubbish.

ObiKenobi

Yeah I remember someone posting this a while back. Just another pile of fallacious argument.

Dust

O-k
Well, although I agree with some of what you said, you were off in some areas through a biased fiter.
The other thing I thought was strange is that you are posting rebuttals to the content of a another website. You're even asking questions such as, "what “ Archaeological findings�? are we talking about?". Do you expect them to answer you or something? Or by saying "owned" at the end, is it so all the other atheists here can agree with you in order to boost your pride? Make you feel good? What? [edited]

Jon Promnitz

It seems Shinobi was simply posting a quick review of a site pretending to defend god's existence. He proposes questions and uses words like "what?" simply because that is what he's thinking. I don't think he actually expects an answer, as if there are any.
There's really no need to brand Shinobi as retarded. Don't be so quick to deal out judgements.