RE: A Challenge for the Atheist
January 9, 2014 at 8:54 pm
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2014 at 8:57 pm by 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.
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.
