A Challenge for the Atheist

[pocaracas]

A christian friend of mine sent me a list of these questions. How would you guys respond to each?

1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God?

No. Are you absolutely sure there is a god?

If not, then is it not possible that there is a God?

Sure... Also, is it not possible that there is no god?

And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?

Evidence, is what I want. Present it, if you have it.
I seriously doubt you do...

2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them?

LOL... loaded question...
Do you agree that a ball is round?

If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?

There's no such evidence.

3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something?

Define "nothing".

If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?

Could the Universe be uncaused?

4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?

Another loaded question?
Measurable quantities do not rely only on "our eyes"...

5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?

The same could be said of any of the roughly 2700 gods that humanity has worshiped...
Which means that any one particular god has almost no chance of existing...

6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?

Why should I have to believe in anything?
Remember "evidence"? I follow it where it leads.
If there was someone who could create something out of nothing, then of what sort of nothing was this someone made of?

7. Would you agree that something presently exists?

Sure feels like it.

If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?

"something cannot come from nothing"?... that is not established.

8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)

Who said the first living being was an animal?

9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?

That's a mighty IF... And wrong.

10. Is there anything wrong anywhere?

The IF in the previous question was wrong.

If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?

What does a moral law have to do with knowing anything?

11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?

Another wrong IF...

12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?

Another mighty IF...

13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods?

Glass requires high temperatures, silicon... to make it round requires some bounds.

And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause?

What do you mean, "make the ball larger"?
Add more material? or increase the size of a hollow ball, still warm?

If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?

The whole Universe is made of glass? And it's in the woods?
You're not making a whole lot of sense...

14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?

No.
Could be larger and still finite.
Could be smaller and thus finite.
Remember the big bang happened when the Universe is thought to have been smaller than a Plank length...

15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?

Perhaps the anthropic principle is wrong...
intelligent being who preplanned human life... how presumptuous of you lowly human....

<Link Removed>

Yeah, right... a "friend".... -.-'

[Bad Writer]

A christian friend of mine sent me a list of these questions. How would you guys respond to each?

I know you're supposed to ask the mods for permission to post this kind of stuff before you've established yourself here, but I'll bite since it seems harmless enough.

1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?

The answer to this question is different for every atheist. For starters, I can't even begin to answer this question because you haven't first defined what this god of yours is. If you're talking about Yahweh, I'm absolutely certain he doesn't exist because the Bible has been demonstrated to be false. Now, if there's something else out there, I'm open to the notion IF there's evidence. There is never a good reason to dismiss actual evidence.

2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?

You have to first prove it was designed. We can prove that things such as furniture, computers, and highways are created through some type of intelligent design. Conversely we can show how rivers, mountains and galaxies can form naturally without any designer necessary.

3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?

No one knows what came before the universe, so this is always going to be a moot point. Positing anything as fact in this case is intellectual dishonesty. For instance, saying "godidit" holds just as much weight as saying the Silver Surfer sneezed it into existence.

4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?

We can see all those things: mind, gravity, magnetism, and wind. We see them when their principles are demonstrated. I'm sorry, what's your question?

5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?

Do you see in the last question where I showed you how your examples-- mind, gravity, magnetism and wind--can be demonstrated? Please demonstrate your god to us and then we can talk about its existence too.

6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?

The farthest back we can go in the history of our universe is the Big Bang. Postulating anything beyond that, whether it was nothing or the cause of a giant monarch butterfly flapping its wings in another dimension is not something we can say for certain without having to lie.

7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?

Something presently exists, yes. I don't know that something must have always existed (and, logically, neither can you) because we don't know what the conditions of the universe pre- big bang were.

8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)

No, it wouldn't. Cut down a tree and you can know all about it by observing its rings. Your best friend comes to see you, and you know just what he/she is thinking by the expression on his/her face. There's a lifetime of information to be garnered in a single day by just staring into the cosmos. I don't see how the information gathered from the study of an amoeba's DNA has anything to do with the same kind of information written in an encyclopedia. Nice strawman argument though.

9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?

We have evidence that matter produces mind. That's why we say it. Remove parts of the brain from a person's body, and their mind will change. Remove it completely and the mind is gone. Elementary, my dear Watson.

10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?

There's a moral law because we, as a species, need one. If we didn't, we'd all die out. We make this moral law, though it tends to take on different flavors depending on one's upbringing, culture, or rationality.

11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?

Yep. We make our laws and agree on them as a society so that we can live in harmony with one another. That's why random people don't come up to you and sexually force themselves on you nor take potshots at you with an AK-47 just for kicks. Why, who do you think made such laws?

12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?

No. We have no way of knowing how the real universe came about, though, in a lab, we can test our hypotheses.

13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?

I'll agree that a small pile of shit in the woods has a cause. A larger pile has a greater cause. Sometimes there are such huge mounds of shit that the cause can't even be traced to its origin, but the smell nowadays reeks to high heavens.

14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?

I don't know, but that's an excellent question. Good thing we have honest men looking into it instead of formulating the answer before coming up with any solid evidence. Oh...wait...

15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?

Why yes! This entire, HUGE universe was created just for us! So much to do, so many possibilities within it! Except we can't eat pork, shellfish, or blood, we can't work one day out of the week, life is great, but being born homosexual is not, and we all go to a lake of fire and brimstone to burn forever and ever unless we give ourselves over to a god who is very judgmental of everything we do down to the thoughts that we have. Perfect sense!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

1. Yes. Yes. No.

2. Yes. Yes.

3. No. No.

4. Yes.

5. Yes.

6. The first one.

7. Yes. Not applicable.

8. No.

9. No.

10. Yes. Who says there ISN'T moral law?

11. No.

12. No.

13. Yes. Yes. No.

14. No.

15. Since the premise is flawed, the question is not answerable.

This was great fun. Later, perhaps you can ask questions like, 'Have you stopped beating your wife?'

Boru

[Lemonvariable72]

A christian friend of mine sent me a list of these questions. How would you guys respond to each?

1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?

1a. Sure there could be something that we might refer to as a god given how poorly the term is defined.
1b. No.

2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?

2. Yes but I see no reason to think that this universe is intelligently designed, especailly for human life.

3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?

3. No I would not. Science is often counter intuitive and the height of that is quantuam physics which is as well proven as relativity. Quantuam physics tells us that particle pop in and out of exsistance from nothing thousands of times a second.

4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?

4. Yes we can't see those per se, but we can test every one of those under the scientific method. We can not do that with any god.

5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?

5. No, but he has proven totally indetectable under any known scientific means

6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?

6. Why is it reasonable to suppose there was a who when there is no evidence to such.

7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?

7. No I would not, quantuam physics shows us that things come from nothing all the time. Though I see where you are going with this and I'd like to quote Carl Sagan

"If God created the universe, we must then ask the next logical question: what created God? We might say God came from nothing, or that God always existed. If we say that God came from nothing, why not skip a step and say the universe came from nothing? If we say that God always existed, why not skip a step and say the universe always existed?"

8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)

8. You are using a analogy here, erroneously. DNA is a mechanism for storing cellular information that is a modification of RNA through evolution by natural selection. Infact the information in a unicellar ameoba is hundreds of times that in a human. Where is the sense in that
For further reading
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/f...9.471.html

9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?

9. I would certianly say that depending on how you define great the is far greater then the big. I happen to think earth is great for us as is would you not agree? Perhaps it would makes sense to say dualism is correct and that the mind produced the matter, however every piece of experimental evidence we have shows otherwise. I'd refer you to the following case
Phineas Gage
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/f...9.471.html
The montreal procedure and Dr. penfeild
http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/dimensions...field.html

10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?

10. empathy and reasoning together.

11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?

11. The laws of physics have no demonstrated law maker. It is only man's laws that require law makers

12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?

12. No. If it intelligence to create a model of the ebola virus, did the ebola virus have a intelligent designer? I can go and watch a kid make a science fair model.

13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?
13. Interesting example, givien libyan desert glass
http://www.wits.ac.za/newsroom/newsitems...21649.html
As for the big bang, the standard cause and effect business completely breaks down as there is no time before the big bang. But beyond that I do not know the exact cause.
[quote]
14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?

14. Given we know so little about the cause how are you justified in making any claims to it's porperties?

15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?
*Source:http://geekychristian.com/questions-for-atheists-agnostics/

15. I'm going to let Neil Tyson talk for me on this one




Now if I gave you the intended answers, how would that imply anything more then a deist god?

[Jackalope]

15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?

That isn't what the Anthropic Principal states.

The entire line of questioning appears to be crafted to guide the respondent to a particular answer of this particular question - which in itself is mis-characterizes the AP.

It's similar to push-polling, and pretty fucking intellectually dishonest.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Seriously, the answer is butt sechs.

[The Valkyrie]

As has been stated by several others, this is just an attempt at amateur apologetics. The questions have been asked, and answered, hundreds of times.

It's just another way for the theists to feel better about themselves.

[Mudhammam]

Too much face-palming in these questions. A moral law needs a lawgiver? Yeah, they're called people.

[Tartarus Sauce]

A christian friend of mine sent me a list of these questions. How would you guys respond to each? A link to a site or forum with the answers would also be helpful. Thanks

1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?

No, absolutely certainty is a bullshit concept. And what evidence? I see a lot of counter evidence; evidence suggesting your god is nothing more than a human-made construct.

2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?

Whether or not I agree if it would be that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer isn't relevant because I see no evidence of intelligent design in the universe. You are interpreting intelligent agency where there is none.

3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?

It has already been determined through quantum mechanics that not everything in this universe functions under the laws of causality. Additionally, the universe may never have "not" existed, just existed in different forms previously. You don't know, nobody does. Additionally, even if it was proved that a cause other than the big-bang, or whatever model you wish to use, was needed, who's to say that the cause would have been what we typically call a god? Or even more specifically, your god?

4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?

Yes, but we can observe and measure the effects of the phenomena you just listed. Nothing of the sort has been provided with deities without making logical fallacies or unwarranted assumptions in the process.

5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?

Correct.

6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?

Your conception of nothing and the generally formulated state of the singularity which spawned the big bang are more likely than not to be non-equivalent.

7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?

You are assuming that existence, as a quality, is always temporally finite. (Did time even exist as a concept in the theoretical previous forms of existence?)

8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)

Just because something is complex doesn't mean it had a designer, and DNA is not equivalent to human encyclopedias in a literal sense, only in the figurative. We know encyclopedias are created by intelligent beings because---big surprise--- we design them.

9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?

Have you ever heard of nuclear fission? Look it up sometime.

10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?

Absolute, objective morals don't exist, we construct them for various purposes and give them value. Note that just because I don't consider them to be a natural property doesn't mean I disregard them.

11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?

Equivocation fallacy.

12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?

No, that seems like a massive leap in logic. We are intelligent creatures and can therefore create representations of what we observe, including a model universe. If the universe was in fact NOT created by a super-intelligence, would it still make sense to say that we as humans with the intelligent capacity to make representations, wouldn't be able to make a model universe in such a reality? The two simply aren't related.

13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?

There is no substance to this question, it is pure analogy. I've already discussed about causes and the universe.

14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?

How do you intend to speculate on something beyond the universe? Seems like an epistemological unknowable to me.

15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?

The universe is most certainly NOT fine-tuned for life from my perspective. It's hostile to it more than anything.

[Ryantology]

1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?
As absolutely sure as I am that there's no easter bunny.

2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?
That's a loaded question. There's no evidence of anything in the universe intelligently-designed that anybody has seen, except for things living beings have made.

3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?
Perhaps.

4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?
We can sense all of these things and empirically measure their effects.

5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?
That by itself doesn't mean he doesn't exist, no.

6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?
The big bang theory does not posit that something came from nothing, so your question is invalid.

7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?
There is not enough information to say.

8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)
No. Encyclopedias are merely one expression of order.

9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?
You assume the mind is greater than matter. I don't share that conceit.

10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?
Not objectively.

11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?
Objective morality is logically unsound.

12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?
No. It more likely indicates that there is more than one way for a universe to come into existence.

13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?
Sure it does. And if it was created by a super-intelligence, then that super-intelligence needs a cause as well.

14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?
The same would have to apply to your God.

15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?
Not without proof that there is one. And given that life only exists in a minuscule fraction of the universe, the existence of life appears more likely to be happenstance than planned.