Why God Is Impossible

mikemiller09 asked: Is it good for God to give mankind free will?

From my atheistic perspective, that question can’t really be answered. From what we know of the typical God’s perspective, it comes down to priorities. 

For example, God wants no sin, God wants all to come to him, God wants no one to suffer… Any of that would imply free will is a bad thing as it means what God wants won’t happen. 
However, if God wants choice more than a lack of sin, (admittedly implying God doesn’t want all to believe, etc, see here), then free will would be good. 

Comes down to priorities and definitions. Which God, which interpretation? 

Fine-Tuned Universe

I briefly brought up this point while discussing the argument from first cause. In that case, I explained the so-called ‘fine-tuning’ of the universe by saying that a generic cause to the universe, whatever it is, is highly unlikely to stop working, and so would result in a multiverse: multiple universes making it easily likely some would allow for life. 
Some people find a few issues with a multiverse, but they generally seem to hinge on a misunderstanding of what it actually is. 

Personally, I accept the idea of a multiverse. Let’s move past it, though: is it possible to explain the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, in a situation where this is the only universe that exists?

Read More

I’ve noticed I’ve gained a fair few theistic followers lately. Seeing as I very much doubt you’re here because you agree with what I say, this is just a reminder that I’m open to any comments you have on anything I’ve posted. 

Contents here, send in comments here or here. (Anon enabled if you don’t want to come off). 

The Origin of Life

One common argument against atheism is that there’s no way life could have come about without God. In itself, this still isn’t much of an argument: after all, there’s quite a leap from showing ‘God is a possible explanation of the origin of life’ to stating ‘God created life’ as fact. 

The main reason this argument seems to be used by believers is that they can quote many major biologists as saying that we don’t know how life came about. Accepting, for a moment, that we have no clue how life came to exist, why does this automatically point to God? There are literally infinitely possible mechanisms we might not have thought of: why does God take precedence? 

And then, of course, there’s the matter of how quoting biologists in this way is dishonest: it’s not that we don’t have any idea of how life came about, it’s that there are so many possibilities and possible mechanisms, we don’t know which one is the correct answer. Maybe none of them: that still wouldn’t point to God. 

Read More

Free Will

Many religions require some form of free will, the definition usually relying on some variation of 
People are able to control their own actions
Usually to allow for some kind of retributive punishment or judgement, or as a response to the problem of evil. However, this definition is impossible; something that can seem surprising at first, but is fairly simple to demonstrate. 

Read More

God Is Not One Thing

It’s easy to find statements of the form ‘atheists need to accept multiple assertions based on science: theists need only accept one, God, and everything falls into place’. Aside from the validity of science, it can often be used as an attempt to use Occam’s Razor: that theism is simpler than atheism, because it relies on one assumption (‘God’, though assumption is rarely the word used) whereas science is based on multiple axioms. Even ignoring the tried-and-tested nature of science, this approach is flawed. 

Read More

cynicallyjaded asked: Read through some of the posts I tagged on atheists or atheism and share your views. I don't think it's about disproving theism or atheism, it's about recognising the fact that both sides have a flawed argument when it comes to being able to prove scientifically with hard evidence that their position is more accurate. Theists rely on faith to explain the existence of god, and atheists rely on theories to disprove his existence. No hard evidence either way. Hence the need for faith either way.

I’ve read through a few posts, but I won’t go into them here. 

Ultimately, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what atheism is: it’s not the statement that God’s existence has been disproven, it’s only the view that there is, as of yet, insufficient basis to establish it.
It’s the same reason few people believe in such creatures as tooth fairies. I hate to sound like a cliché, but that’s a good example: ‘tooth-fairy agnostic’ is a term sometimes used to refer to an atheist. A person who finds God just as likely as another entity with no basis. 
You seem to be criticizing gnostic atheism: but I know of none who accept it.  

Near Death Experiences, Take Two

I’ve already made a general overview of Near Death Experiences, and why they make no case for an afterlife of any kind. I didn’t cover each sort of argument used, as there are so many. Still, none are convincing, that I’ve seen, so it’s worth revisiting the topic. 

Last time I covered a scientific basis for them, showing easily that they’re possible under an atheistic worldview and need not require an afterlife, and pointed out some theological difficulties with the idea. 
This time I’ll deal more with why so many people report broadly similar events, and why some atheists have also experienced them. 

Read More

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Revisited

I think possibly the longest post I’ve made for this blog, was on the resurrection of Jesus Christ: how, as a historical event, evidence for it was sorely lacking. Still, it’s meant to be the definitive argument for Christianity, so I’ve been making sure to look at any evidence that’s also put forward in support of the resurrection. 

Recently, I watched through Lee Strobel’s documentary, The Case for Christ; the story of his conversion from atheism to Christianity, and the justification for it. It’s an interesting documentary, and did bring up a few issues I hadn’t dealt with before. For this reason, I’m revisiting the topic. In this post, I’ll look at:

1. The Reliability of the Bible and Gospel Testimony
2. The Empty Tomb
3. Messianic Prophecy

With a few references to the documentary thrown in, just to demonstrate how the points are made. Still, this and the previous post should successfully show that there is no reason to believe the resurrection occurred. 

Read More

First Cause

I honestly can’t believe this argument is used so often. Look up any attempted proof of God, and the odds are you’ll see some variation of this point. 
It’s put many different ways, from the Islamic (yet ironically favoured by Christian William Lane Craig) Kalam, to Aquinas’ multiple formulations. Ultimately it’s some expression of the question ‘if all things need a cause, what is the uncaused cause that must necessarily be the First Cause of the universe?’
The answer is meant to be God.  

We’ll go past the ‘what created God?’ response to this argument, as it really just shifts the level. 
The ‘which God?’ argument is more on the right lines; though the argument itself isn’t meant to establish a specific religion, the point of the question is key. How can so much be read from ‘something behind the universe’?
Even granting some cause to the Big Bang, why believe it to be even sentient? 

Read More

Anonymous asked: How do you test P?

With each claim that’s been made. Those with sufficient empirical evidence behind them have, a vast majority of the time, turned out to be correct (or at the very least, functionally correct): and it’s only a lack of empirical evidence that lead to many of the mistakes. 
P is tried and tested. Every single claim made verifies P. 
So we know, at the very least, that claims with sufficient empirical evidence are reliable. 

To examine the ‘only’, we need just look at examples of claims made with no empirical evidence. Incorrect so, so very much more than those made with empirical evidence. Chance alone (a phenomenon with empirical evidence behind it, as well as simple logic) accounts for the incredible minority of correct guesses.

You can test it yourself, should you wish. Find something you have no knowledge about (a book perhaps, or a more obscure/complex region of science). Write down what you think will happen, or is the case, without looking at it: then read the book, or research that field. See which gives a better picture. 

sungyak-deactivated20130430 asked: "Reason is reasonable by definition" takes just as much faith as "A necessarily existing being exists necessarily by definition."

A necessarily existing being would necessarily exist, if it genuinely were necessary for such a being to exist: which is given, unless it’s a misnomer, which is where the debate begins. 

Reason must be reasonable (reasonable means, at least by the definition I’ve seen, ‘adhering to reason’); the question is whether ‘reasonable’ gives a valid picture of the world, and that was the question I answered 

On Personal Experience

By far one of the most common explanations of belief is ‘I have personal experience of God’, taking numerous different forms. 
Some claim to have felt a signal, some say they’ve felt God’s presence. I’ll dwell on God’s presence here, as the other kinds are generally covered by this. 
So, what can we say about God’s presence?

Read More