A Challenge for the Atheist

[Napoléon]

I'd answer all those questions, but I was expecting a challenge.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

The first question already shows how flawed the entire premise is. Define a god. That's fucking ridiculous, people always asking "do you think god exists"? And then when you ask them what god is, they're like, uhm..... SORT IT OUT.


And which particular Atheist are you looking for?

[xr34p3rx]

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?
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?
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?
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?
5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?
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?
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?
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.)
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?
10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?
11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?
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?
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?
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?
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?

<Link Removed

1- Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims, not the ASSERTION that there is not god.
2- I posted something that is related to this question, and if your god is intelligent, then it too must have had a creator. (According to your logic)
3- Scientists have done this. Look it up.
4- Such claim would have to manifest itself in such a way so we acknowledge that it exists. We can test air and its movement, but when it comes to a god who prefers to remain hidden and no one has ever seen him. It doesn't seem plausible.
5- Explained int #4
6- If you think about it, according to your argument its 50:50. The god of the bible created the universe from nothing. so this argument in a way collapses on its own. Go learn about science from real scientists.
7- Yes i would agree that there must have been something beforehand, BUT, that doesn't give you the freedom to say, "oh it was god and case closed" No! it doesn't work that way. Science is working on looking for an answer so all we can do is wait.
8- Well it all leads to proving the existence of that being.
9- That's a difficult one. I'm not sure about the point of that question...
10- I also posted something about this. Morality is based on opinion, even if i were to play ball with god, it still leads to opinion. (Gods opinion) So until you can prove that your god exists, its all opinion and there is no good or bad. Good and Bad are labels we put on a set of opinions that match what we think is appropriate.
11- Again, we are the lawgivers.
12- Then a fallback argument would be an infinite chain of creators which makes the argument not logical or just not plausible.
13- It would still fall back on the infinite line of creators being the cause.
14- Same as #13.
15- As well as knowing we were going to fuck up the whole time no matter what that being did? That doesn't seem very intelligent and perfect. What the god of the bible does is a list of failed attempts to fix humanity. Adam and eve>Noah>Moses all the way to Jesus. Failure of attempts, being blamed on Satan. I would say, on my behalf according to the bible, that if he really did have a plan, it would be this. The chaos with atheists and Theists (including Satanists) arguing over what is true and false about life. While the so called god is just watching it happen, and after failed attempts to fix it, the one easiest fix is to reveal himself and show himself to us, that way we acknowledge he is there. Any "intelligent" being would know that...

These are my own answers to what i know.

[Angrboda]

I believe something can come from nothing. The non/sense of the OP prompted me to create the word "derptastic!"

[Esquilax]

1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God?

No, because absolute certainty, outside of some very basic axioms, is an illusion useful only to braggarts without evidence for the things they believe. The other two questions are simply not applicable.

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?

Intelligently designed things would, by definition, requite an intelligent designer. However, given the paucity of evidence for intelligent design in the universe, one cannot really apply that statement to the world in which we live.

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, I would not agree to that, because that be an argument from ignorance; the best one could say is that we haven't seen something coming from nothing, and even that is spurious, in the face of certain elements of quantum theory that I'm not particularly educated enough to comment on. As to the second question, no it wouldn't, because we don't know the origin of every possible cause, so we can't rule anything out.

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?

Sight is not the only measure of what is detectable.

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

Name me one person who ever actually said it does.

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?

One follows the evidence, in order to be reasonable. There's no evidence for god, and plenty for the big bang. Tentatively, we accept the latter, as reasonable people, while discarding the former until evidence is presented.

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?

Do you even need to ask the first question? As to the second, the first premise of it contradicts the conclusion it's trying to establish.

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.)

DNA is merely chemicals interacting. The fact that we can read DNA as a kind of information is down to us picking patterns out of it, not due to some inborn, physical quantity called information.

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?

"If."

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

I know where this is going...

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

It's us! The moral lawgiver is us, and the reality that we exist in.

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. I can make a model tree out of lego, it doesn't mean every tree needs a super intelligence to create.

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?

A cause need not be a god, and a universe is not necessarily the same as all the physical matter within it. That's a fallacy of composition.

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?

Not necessarily. Why would it need to be that? It could just be finite but larger than us, off the top of my head.

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?

What reason do I have to accept that version of the anthropic principle as true?

[Mr Greene]

1. Looked at the evidence, the Jews lied, specifically Ezra.

2. The Universe shows no evidence of design.

3. Nothing can produce something as demonstrated by Quantum Mechanics.

4. Non-statement.

5. Irrelevant.

6. See previous answers.

7. False premise, see above.

8. No

9. No

10. Irrelevant.

11. Evidence for the existence of such?

12. No

13. No, eg. Volcanic glass.

14. No

15. No

[Chas]

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.)

I suggest you actually read The Blind Watchmaker so that you might understand what information is and the context of that quote.
Quote mining is so dishonest.

Now piss off.

[Mister Agenda]

OP is a one-post wonder. Le sigh.

[Angrboda]

Given the time it takes to join and confirm and then shit n' run, these morons must have some real hangups about people not believing in their god.

[Bad Writer]

Why don't we ever get JWs or Krishnas on here? A change of pace would be nice.