Futile Crush
Member
I've spent so much time around the internet learning more about why Christians think what they do, and just about never have I seen anything that remotely convinces me of the veracity of the Christian faith. And when I question their arguments to the extent where they can no longer form a logical reply, their course of action is either to get rude/angry at me, to leave/ignore me, or to reply "I have faith."
I'm not going to go into faith straight away, I'll deal with that later.
There are a HELL of a lot of arguments for God's existence. Some of them are empirical arguments, i.e they try to argue on a basis of physical evidence for God's existence, others are rationalistic arguments, i.e. they purely use reason to argue that God exists. Pascal used a probabilistic argument: it makes more sense to believe that God exists than not.
I'm gonna briefly examine as many of them as I can and explain why they don't convince me.
The teleological argument
There is apparent design in the universe, and if something gives off qualities of design, there must be a designer, i.e. a creator, i.e. God.
Problems
1) The mere fact that everything must have a designer does not mean that the designer is the Biblical God. It could be anything.
2) There is no concrete evidence that the universe requires a designer. The analogy that William Paley used was a watch. Whereas a watch does necessarily have a designer, why does that mean the universe does?
3) The teleological argument was formed before Darwinian evolution was known about, which better explains apparent design anyway.
The ontological argument
If we can conceive of something of which nothing greater can be conceived (St. Anselm) or a "perfect being" (Descartes) then for that thing to be absolutely perfect it would have to exist; i.e. it exists by definition.
Problems
1) I can conceive of anything that is absolutely perfect but that wouldn't mean it exists. The argument can be applied unsuccessfully to anything.
2) Once again, this "perfect being" is not necessarily God.
Pascal's Wager
If God doesn't exist and you believe in him then you've not lost much, and if he doesn't exist but you don't believe in him anyway, then you've made no loss still. But if you don't believe in God and he exists then you face eternal punishment ahead, and if you do believe in him, you get an everlasting reward in heaven. Therefore it's wise to believe he exists.
Problems
1) Atheists aren't interested in the threat of hell vs. heaven because they by definition do not believe that heaven or hell exists.
2) If you believe in God but he doesn't exist, you HAVE made a big loss; you've spent your life believing and praising a deity that doesn't exist in preparation for the afterlife which isn't there.
3) If you believe in God because it would be "wise to", then that is not sincere belief and God would see through you anyway.
The Bible
The Bible talks of God, therefore he must exist as the Bible is true because:
1) The Bible is not an absolute authority because it is incongruent, and the contradictions in the texts are too readily dismissed as "misinterpretations".
2) On the above point, the translation of the Bible is so vague that even today references have to be made back to the original Hebrew to sort out disputes about the true meaning of it.
3) The Bible also encourages things like stoning or ostracising for petty offences.
4) It also mentions dozens of uncorroborated miraculous events like walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, and the feeding of the 5,000, which we know to be impossible according to science.
5) It was written 2,000 years ago without the scientific knowledge we have today, which far better explains the world.
6) That it changes lives has no impact on it's veracity.
7) The Bible Code is just another example of reading meaning into something where there is none.
8) There are any number of reasons someone could make it up; e.g for power or fame.
The fine-tuning argument
If the constants that require human life on Earth to have arose were even slightly different, it would not have happened. Our existence is so improbable that we must have been "fine-tuned" by a creator.
Problems
1) Like the other arguments, this doesn't specify who the "fine-tuner" is.
2) There are perfectly ordinary events which are completely improbable, like the outcome of 2,000 coin tosses. Only you wouldn't question that outcome at all, even though just 1,000 coin tosses in a row would require a 1 in 2^1000 chance of getting that particular sequence (2^1000 is 303 digits long.)
3) Just because something is improbable, doesn't make it impossible.
4) If the constants HAD been different, there would likely be another species marvelling at the improbability of their existence. The world is not tailored to humans.
The proof-burden shift
Atheists have no evidence that God doesn't exist.
Problems
1) We don't need any, you need to provide evidence that he does.
The arguments from emotion
1) Many different religions change lives, that doesn't change whether they are true or false.
2) The existence of beauty does not necessitate a creator. Beauty is subjective.
3) Incredulousness at our inability to interpret beauty as signs that God exist also changes nothing.
4) Religions of all shapes and sizes help people, and whether they do or don't makes no difference as to whether they are true.
5) It may be comforting to believe God exists, but once more... that does not mean he does.
The first-cause argument
Everything is caused, therefore the universe must have a cause. This cause is God. But God is an uncaused cause.
Problem
1) There is no compelling reason to believe that God is the first-cause.
2) The argument is self-contradicting in that cause-and-effect is established as a law and then arbitrarily broken as God is established as an uncaused cause.
3) If we can decide that up to a certain point, there is one uncaused cause, why can the universe not be uncaused? Why not stop there?
4) Cause-and-effect is not necessarily a law.
There are so many more arguments. This is just a glimpse at some of the biggest arguments used by the religious. And for the reasons you can see above, I don't find ANY of them remotely convincing.
What do you think? Do any of these convince you? Is there something I'm missing? Is there actually any argument for God's existence that would stand up to scrutiny that isn't "faith"?
I'm not going to go into faith straight away, I'll deal with that later.
There are a HELL of a lot of arguments for God's existence. Some of them are empirical arguments, i.e they try to argue on a basis of physical evidence for God's existence, others are rationalistic arguments, i.e. they purely use reason to argue that God exists. Pascal used a probabilistic argument: it makes more sense to believe that God exists than not.
I'm gonna briefly examine as many of them as I can and explain why they don't convince me.
The teleological argument
There is apparent design in the universe, and if something gives off qualities of design, there must be a designer, i.e. a creator, i.e. God.
Problems
1) The mere fact that everything must have a designer does not mean that the designer is the Biblical God. It could be anything.
2) There is no concrete evidence that the universe requires a designer. The analogy that William Paley used was a watch. Whereas a watch does necessarily have a designer, why does that mean the universe does?
3) The teleological argument was formed before Darwinian evolution was known about, which better explains apparent design anyway.
The ontological argument
If we can conceive of something of which nothing greater can be conceived (St. Anselm) or a "perfect being" (Descartes) then for that thing to be absolutely perfect it would have to exist; i.e. it exists by definition.
Problems
1) I can conceive of anything that is absolutely perfect but that wouldn't mean it exists. The argument can be applied unsuccessfully to anything.
2) Once again, this "perfect being" is not necessarily God.
Pascal's Wager
If God doesn't exist and you believe in him then you've not lost much, and if he doesn't exist but you don't believe in him anyway, then you've made no loss still. But if you don't believe in God and he exists then you face eternal punishment ahead, and if you do believe in him, you get an everlasting reward in heaven. Therefore it's wise to believe he exists.
Problems
1) Atheists aren't interested in the threat of hell vs. heaven because they by definition do not believe that heaven or hell exists.
2) If you believe in God but he doesn't exist, you HAVE made a big loss; you've spent your life believing and praising a deity that doesn't exist in preparation for the afterlife which isn't there.
3) If you believe in God because it would be "wise to", then that is not sincere belief and God would see through you anyway.
The Bible
The Bible talks of God, therefore he must exist as the Bible is true because:
- Prophecies have been fulfilled.
- It's the word of God.
- The Bible Code shows that there is a significance to it.
- Why would someone lie about it?
- It changes lives.
- Millions of people believe sincerely in it.
1) The Bible is not an absolute authority because it is incongruent, and the contradictions in the texts are too readily dismissed as "misinterpretations".
2) On the above point, the translation of the Bible is so vague that even today references have to be made back to the original Hebrew to sort out disputes about the true meaning of it.
3) The Bible also encourages things like stoning or ostracising for petty offences.
4) It also mentions dozens of uncorroborated miraculous events like walking on water, healing the sick, raising the dead, and the feeding of the 5,000, which we know to be impossible according to science.
5) It was written 2,000 years ago without the scientific knowledge we have today, which far better explains the world.
6) That it changes lives has no impact on it's veracity.
7) The Bible Code is just another example of reading meaning into something where there is none.
8) There are any number of reasons someone could make it up; e.g for power or fame.
The fine-tuning argument
If the constants that require human life on Earth to have arose were even slightly different, it would not have happened. Our existence is so improbable that we must have been "fine-tuned" by a creator.
Problems
1) Like the other arguments, this doesn't specify who the "fine-tuner" is.
2) There are perfectly ordinary events which are completely improbable, like the outcome of 2,000 coin tosses. Only you wouldn't question that outcome at all, even though just 1,000 coin tosses in a row would require a 1 in 2^1000 chance of getting that particular sequence (2^1000 is 303 digits long.)
3) Just because something is improbable, doesn't make it impossible.
4) If the constants HAD been different, there would likely be another species marvelling at the improbability of their existence. The world is not tailored to humans.
The proof-burden shift
Atheists have no evidence that God doesn't exist.
Problems
1) We don't need any, you need to provide evidence that he does.
The arguments from emotion
- God changed my life. (Argument by anecdote)
- There is beauty in the world, this could not have arose by chance. (Probabilistic argument from beauty)
- How can you look at the stars in the night sky and not believe he exists? (Argument from incredulity)
- Christianity helps lives all over the world. You wouldn't want to take that away from them, would you? (Argument from guilt)
- God makes me feel better.
1) Many different religions change lives, that doesn't change whether they are true or false.
2) The existence of beauty does not necessitate a creator. Beauty is subjective.
3) Incredulousness at our inability to interpret beauty as signs that God exist also changes nothing.
4) Religions of all shapes and sizes help people, and whether they do or don't makes no difference as to whether they are true.
5) It may be comforting to believe God exists, but once more... that does not mean he does.
The first-cause argument
Everything is caused, therefore the universe must have a cause. This cause is God. But God is an uncaused cause.
Problem
1) There is no compelling reason to believe that God is the first-cause.
2) The argument is self-contradicting in that cause-and-effect is established as a law and then arbitrarily broken as God is established as an uncaused cause.
3) If we can decide that up to a certain point, there is one uncaused cause, why can the universe not be uncaused? Why not stop there?
4) Cause-and-effect is not necessarily a law.
There are so many more arguments. This is just a glimpse at some of the biggest arguments used by the religious. And for the reasons you can see above, I don't find ANY of them remotely convincing.
What do you think? Do any of these convince you? Is there something I'm missing? Is there actually any argument for God's existence that would stand up to scrutiny that isn't "faith"?
So what would convince you?
