Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:50 reasons to believe in God

2008-06-19T01:43:26Z

Nullifidian:

To be honest, so much of this is simply gibberish, it's going to take a while to sort out proper responses. And we thought Gish galloping was dead! [[User:Nullifidian|Nullifidian]] 14:01, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

Many of them can all be lumped together or the responses can be repeated. For instance, 15-20 may probably all be dismissed with [[Douglas Adams]]' "sentient puddle" analogy. Is there another name for that besides the fine tuning argument? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 15:37, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

:As far as fallacies go, these could be a combination of unaccepted enthymemes, the existential fallacy, tautology, and/or denying the antecedent, and, of course, a priorism. -- [[User:Nullifidian|Nullifidian]] 19:48, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

I understand the need to remain entirely objective, but I'm having trouble coming to an answer that isn't a giant "you're an idiot" with response to "26. If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn't he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised." War, famine, corruption, oppression, slavery, hatred, racism, homocide, infantacide, genocide. That's what runs through my head, and I don't think argument ad ignoratiam alone covers it. Anyway, I'd be interested in how to elegantly, neutrally and directly explaining this one. --[[User:Zurahn|Zurahn]] 18:41, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

:+1 for the "you're an idiot" response to most of these. Is that allowed, or do we have to play by the rules even when they refuse to/are unable? [[User:Nullifidian|Nullifidian]] 19:31, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

Anyone know why the history page lists all the edits that have been made today, which is actually June 18 unless I've stepped into some time warp, as occurring on June 6? (Wait: Goddidit?) [[User:Fishbulb|fishbulb]] 20:28, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

:It's most likely that the system date of the server and separate offset in MediaWiki are conspiring to provide conflicting dates. It may be prudent to check the date on the server, and any date manipulation being done by MediaWiki. -- [[User:Nullifidian|Nullifidian]] 20:43, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

50 reasons to believe in God

2008-06-19T01:39:43Z

Nullifidian: #29 and #33

'''50 reasons to believe in [[God]]''' is an email that has recently made the rounds of [[atheist]] bloggers.

==Response to the text of the message==

1. Whilst agreeing that random patterns occur naturally by chance, DNA however, consists of code, which requires a designer.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is the [[argument from design]].}}

2. How do you explain the paranormal, such as people witnessing positive or negative sightings, like ghosts or angels? I saw a ghost with a friend of mine - I am not a liar, an attention seeker. Neither was I overtired when this happened.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Appeal to [[personal revelation]].}}

3. Try praying. What good is it when a mind is set to coincidence & disbelief regarding the positive outcome?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This argument is an attempt to shift the [[burden of proof]]. It urges the reader to pray, and anticipates that any results of [[prayer]] would be easy to dismiss as chance. In essence this is an admission that the results of prayer may not actually be distinguishable from coincidence and chance. }}

4. The law of cause & effect - in order to have an effect, there has to be a cause. Everything is caused by something.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This fails to provide proof for a god, as it requires to define god as the "[[uncaused cause]]," therefore negating the original premise.}}

5. Mindless nothing cannot be responsible for complex something.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text= This is fallacious in its assumption that an atheistic viewpoint requires the world to start from 'nothing'. It also is guilty of special pleading (responsibility is an attribute of intelligence) and also another invocation of the [[argument from design]].}}

6. Science can only be the detector of certain things. You cannot scientifically detect emotion, memory, thoughts etc., though scientifically we must.. These things which do not consist of matter are beyond the detection of science.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is a case of possible confusion on the meaning of the terms used, as well as a use of the [[god of the gaps]] argument. We can detect emotions through the physical changes to the body, and we can detect brain activity. To say that memory is not detected 'scientifically' is possibly an dualistic argument, but there is no basis in it.}}

7. Evolution has never been proved, which is why we call it the 'theory of evolution'. It's a fairy tale for grown ups!

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is the [[Evolution is only a theory]] argument }}

8. Atheism is a faith in that which has not been proved. The disbelievers have not witnessed anything to not believe in, whereas the believers believe because they have witnessed. There is no 'good news' to preach in atheism.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Typical claim that [[atheism is based on faith]]}}

9. How much of the atheist's faith relies on anger with God as opposed to genuine disbelief in God?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=The author presumes that atheists are [[angry at God]]. Unfounded assumption and [[ad hominem]] argument.}}

10. Why do many atheists shake their fists & spend so much time ranting & raving about something they don't believe in? If they are no more than a fizzled out battery at the end of the day, then why don't they spend their lives partying, or getting a hobby?! Why don't they leave this 'God nonsense' alone?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is a [[straw man]] argument. Atheism does not prevent hobbies, partying etc. Furthermore it neglects that while god may not exist, religions do exist, and that the majority of the planet believing in a fantasy is a good reason to be active}}

11. What created God? What came first, the chicken or the egg? I am not going to deny the existence of the chicken or the egg, merely because I don't understand or know what came first. I don't care - they both exist!

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] leading to [[post hoc ergo propter hoc]].}}

12. Improbability is not the same as impossibility. You only have to look at life itself for that backup of proof.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=The first sentence is [[special pleading]] as it applies to anything and everything that isn't explicitly disproven, including no god whatsoever. The second is an [[argumentum ad ignorantiam]].}}

13. How could the complexity of human life possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]]. The complexity of life is very thing for which the theory of evolution is meant to and does explain.}}

14. How could the complexity of the human mind possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells? Where does our consciousness come from?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] and similar to the [[homunculus argument]].}}

15. What/who knew that our hunger & thirst had to be catered for by the food & drink which we're supplied with?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is an example of the [[anthropic principle]]. It commits the formal fallacy of [[petitio principii]], assuming that hospitable features of our universe were built to support life, rather than considering that life was adapted to the undesigned features of the universe through natural selection. Douglas Adams' analogy about a [[Douglas Adams#Quotes|sentient puddle]] neatly sums up the problem with this argument. }}

16. Most of us are born with the five senses to detect our surroundings, which we're provided with.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Another example of the [[anthropic principle]].}}

17. What/who knew that had Earth been set nearer to the sun, we would burn up?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Anthropic principle]].}}

18. What/who knew that had Earth been set any further from the sun, we would freeze up?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Anthropic principle]].}}

19. What/who knew that had Earth been built larger or smaller, its atmosphere would be one where it would not be possible for us to breathe?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Anthropic principle]].}}

20. What/who knew that we require the oxygen of plants, just as plants require the carbon dioxide of us?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Anthropic principle]].}}

21. The concept that life came about through sheer chance is as absurd & improbable as a tornado blowing through a junk yard, consequently assembling a Boeing 747!

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] and [[argument from design]].}}

22. We are willing to believe in physically unseen waves that exist through the air, operating physical forces & appliances to work, yet not supernatural God forces being responsible for the same.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=While phenomena like radio waves or infrared light may be "unseen" to the human eye, they are not supernatural. They are well understood and explained by science, and thus are not analogous to any purported supernatural phenomena.}}

23. Matter cannot organise itself. An uneaten tomato will not progress on its own accord to form a perfect pineapple. It will transform into mould, into disorganisation. The laws of evolution fall flat.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=An uneaten tomato does not "transform" into disorganization. It may decompose into simpler organic components by the action of bacteria, fungi or other creatures such as maggots through well-understood biological processes. In fact, these components might then become part of other plants or animals, including a pineapple.}}

24. Our 'inventor' of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin had this to say to Lady Hope when he was almost bedridden for 3 months before he died; "I was a young man with unfathomed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions. wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire - people made a religion of them." Darwin then asked Lady Hope to speak to neighbours the next day. "What shall I speak about?" She asked. He replied; "Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is that not the best theme?"

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Urban myth. See [[Deathbed conversion]].}}

25. Where do our moral values held within our conscience come from? If the atheist is right, why then would we care about what we did?! If there is no God, then we've no-one to be accountable to.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Evolutionary psychologists have proposed explanations for many "moral values" and behaviors that appear instinctual. Atheists may follow any number of secular ethical codes, holding themselves accountable to values or ideals derived rationally, rather than to a deity. Furthermore, the [[Euthyphro dilemma]] turns this argument around on the theist: where do God's moral values come from?}}

26. If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn't he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Many human behaviors are similar to those found among animals -- seeking food and shelter, forming social groups to secure these resources, communication with sound and gestures, reproducing and providing for offspring, protecting one's family. Further, given the vast diversity of animals and their behaviors, the question is deceptively imprecise and betrays a lack of understanding of zoology. Aspects of human behavior that differ from animal behavior may be attributable to properties like human bipedalism or advanced cognitive function, particularly the capacity for abstract thought. Evolutionary theory may be able to explain how these characteristics arose.}}

27. 'Chance' isn't the cause of something. It just describes what we can't find a reason for.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Straw man argument. While evolution contains some apparent "chance" (genetic mutations), the process of natural selection is the guiding force which directs the process of adaptation.}}

28. Science & logic do not hold all the answers - many people are aware of forces at work which we have no understanding of & no control over.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]].}}

29. Look at the date/year on our calender - 2000 years ago since what? Our historical records (other than the Bible) record evidence of Jesus' existence.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Many (though not all) atheists concede that a religious teacher named Jesus may have lived in Mesopotamia approximately 2,000 years ago; however, there is no historical evidence of any of his purported miracles or resurrection. Without such evidence, there is no reason to believe Jesus was a deity or supernatural being.}}

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=To maintain a consistent dating system, we can choose to start a new calendar at any other arbitrary agreed upon point, or we can accept a reasonably consistent and well-defined system already in place. The original arbitrary zero point of origin is irrelevant.}}

30. Many people have died for their faith. Would they be prepared to do this for a lie?!

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This could only show that purported martyrs ''believed'' they were dying for a true faith. It cannot prove that their beliefs are actually true; martyrs may be mistaken. Many people have died in the name of many contradictory faiths. Further, people have given their lives in the name of beliefs such as Nazism; must we assume these are also true?}}

31. Much of the Bible deals with eyewitness accounts, written only 40 years after Jesus died. When the books in the New Testament were first around, there would have been confusion & anger if the books were not true.

32. From as early as 2000 BC, there is archaological evidence to confirm many details we're provided with in the Bible.

33. Not one single Biblical prediction can be shown as false, and the Bible contains hundreds.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The Bible does not contain a single fulfilled prediction which is/was verifiable, non trivial, and was not self-fulfilling.}}

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Biblical prophesy was "confirmed" by those who were already aware of such prophesy and with a vested interest in ensuring that such prophecy had the appearance of being fulfilled.}}

34. The evidence from liturature & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is plainly false. In addition to the miracles and supernatural events described in the Bible, for which there is no historical evidence, many of the historical claims which could theoretically be substantiated with archaelogical evidence are contradicted by modern historians. For example, historians believe there is no evidence for Hebrew slavery in Egypt or the Exodus as described in the Old Testament[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus#Historicity].}}

35. From the birth of science through to today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity & science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians; Francis Bacon, Issaac Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Many of the arguments in this email appear to promote Christianity by opposing science, but even if we grant that there is no conflict between science and Christianity and that many scientists are Christians, this hardly provides evidence that Christianity is true. See [[burden of proof]].}}

36. Science can explain 'how' something works, but not 'why' something works.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This argument is essentially meaningless. To science, 'how' and 'why' are the same thing.}}

37. Science is constantly recorrecting its findings. Past theories contradict certain beliefs which are held today. Our present 'discoveries' may change again in the future to rediscover how we originally came into existence.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=A willingness to reconsider theories in the face of new evidence is essential to any process that seeks the truth. Atheists believe science is strong precisely because of this, rather than despite it. In addition, religious groups, even those considered extreme or fundamentalist, often change their teachings in response to social concerns. For example, the Church of Latter-Day Saints abandoned polygamy in order to gain statehood for Utah.}}

38. Evolution describes the way life possibly started, yet doesn't explain what made life start & why. Scientific questions fail to do that. Even if evolution were proved, it would still not disprove God.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=The biological theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life; it describes how the diversity and complexity of life found today arose from simpler organisms. However, science could explain how life began on Earth if a credible theory of [[abiogenesis]] or panspermia[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia] emerge in the future. And while this would not disprove the existence of God, the [[burden of proof]] is on those who assert the existence of supernatural phenomena.}}

39. The two people who discovered Jesus' empty tomb were women. Women were so low on the social scale in first century Palestine, so in order to make the story fit, it would have made far more sense to claim that it were male disciples who had entered the tomb. But it wasn't - we're left with the historical & Biblical truth.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=While the Gospels describe Jesus' tomb being found empty by women, the Gospels also give accounts of the resurrected Jesus appearing to his male disciples. The Gospels were also written and promulgated by men. The resurrection claim does not rest solely on the word of low-status women. Even if it did, this would hardly be sufficient reason to deem it true; [[extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence]].}}

40. Think about Near Death Experiences. It's naive to believe that they all are induced by chemicals or drugs. How do we account for a blind person having this experience, coming back to describe what they had never before seen, a person telling the Doctor that there is a blue paperclip on top of the high cabinet, which they couldn't have otherwise known, an african man being dead in his coffin for 3 days, coming back to life to tell of much the same events which took place as those of many others? We never hear of the witnesses describing "a dream". We're not silly - we know the difference between even the most vivid of dreams to that of reality.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=It is not naive to seek physiological or psychological explanations for unusual experiences a person may have while their body is recovering from life-threatening trauma or disease. It is naive to immediately presume something supernatural is occurring. Why are these bizarre claims about paperclips and Africans rising from the dead not substantiated? If credible evidence existed of a man being actually deceased and rising three days later, this would be unprecedented news quickly publicized to every corner of the globe by every kind of formal or informal media. If this actually occurred, present the evidence. Science demands more proof than a mere assurance that one asserting a shocking revelation is "not silly."}}

41. There are many skeptics who didn't believe in Jesus before his crucifixion, and who were opposed to Christianity, yet turned to the Christian faith after the death of Jesus. Just as the many who continue to do so today.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=A form of [[argumentum ad populum]]. Couldn't these people be mistaken?}}

42. Albert Einstein said; "A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind".

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Albert Einstein]] also said, "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." [[argumentum ad verecundiam]]. Lameness does not affect factuality.}}

43. A speaker in Hyde Park who was attacking belief in God, claimed that the world just happened. As he spoke, a soft tomato was thrown at him. "Who threw that?" He said angrily. A cockney from the back of the crowd replied; "No-one threw it - it threw itself!"

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This unsubstantiated anecdote about a believer assaulting an atheist with a vegetable is actually a form of the [[unmoved mover]]/[[uncaused cause]] argument, implying that atheists are foolish not to believe in a higher power that created the universe. This argument does not solve the problem of the first cause; it merely shifts the burden onto an unproven supernatural being. If God is not caused, then it cannot be said that all things must have a cause. Whether it be the universe itself, for atheists, or God himself, for the believer, all must admit the existence of something whose cause is as yet undiscovered. Atheists hope to continue discovering causes through reason; theists merely give up. Theism cannot claim this as an advantage.}}

44. It is easier to believe that God created something out of nothing than it is to believe that nothing created something out of nothing.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is another form of [[uncaused cause]] argument employing [[Occam's Razor]], but an explanation that requires the existence of an unseen, omnipotent supernatural being can hardly be simpler than one that relies on observable natural principles. This argument also prompts the question, how did God arise out of nothing?}}

45. Stephen Hawkins has admitted; "Science may solve the problem of how the universe began, but it cannot answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist?"

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Spurious. Whatever reason the universe exists, the Bible does nothing to answer this question. All it does is provide a claim of 'what' was created, and 'when', vaguely (and incorrectly) answers the 'how' ([[magic]]) but it in no way answer the 'why'. If it even makes sense to speak of the universe as if it chooses to exist, why it does so would not be the subject of science, which deals with what can be naturally observed. This should be considered a problem of philosophy.}}

46. We cannot confuse God with man. With God in the equation, all things, including miracles are possible. If God is God, he is Creator of all, inclusive of scientific law. He is Creator of matter & spirit.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Petitio principii]], [[religion provides hope]]. These statements merely follow from the definition of an omnipotent creator God; they do nothing to prove its existence.}}

47. If we are the product of evolution - by sheer accident, chance, then we are still evolving. Does it just so happen that we exist here today with everything so finely tuned for our living. as we now have it?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Anthropic principle]]}}

48. Could it possibly be that the missing link does not exist?!

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[False dichotomy]] The falsification of [[evolution]] would not be evidence of god and inability to find a particular [[missing link]] is not falsification of evolution.}}

49. God has proved himself to us in numerous ways, all around us. The atheist needs to put his glasses on. What more can God possibly do if man has shut his eyes to him?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Special pleading]], [[petitio principii]]. If God is omnipotent, there is no limit to what more he could do. Even if our eyes are "shut to him," an omnipotent being could certainly open them.}}

50. Jesus Christ is either who he says he is, or he is the biggest con man history has ever known.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Or he was insane, never actually existed, or did not say all of the things attributed to him. See also [[trilemma]].}}

YOU DECIDE!!!

==External links==

* [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/i_get_email_19.php Copy of the email] originally posted by [[PZ Myers]]

[[Category:Internet memes]]

50 reasons to believe in God

2008-06-19T01:15:24Z

Nullifidian: #45

'''50 reasons to believe in [[God]]''' is an email that has recently made the rounds of [[atheist]] bloggers.

==Response to the text of the message==

1. Whilst agreeing that random patterns occur naturally by chance, DNA however, consists of code, which requires a designer.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is the [[argument from design]].}}

2. How do you explain the paranormal, such as people witnessing positive or negative sightings, like ghosts or angels? I saw a ghost with a friend of mine - I am not a liar, an attention seeker. Neither was I overtired when this happened.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Appeal to [[personal revelation]].}}

3. Try praying. What good is it when a mind is set to coincidence & disbelief regarding the positive outcome?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This argument is an attempt to shift the [[burden of proof]]. It urges the reader to pray, and anticipates that any results of [[prayer]] would be easy to dismiss as chance. In essence this is an admission that the results of prayer may not actually be distinguishable from coincidence and chance. }}

4. The law of cause & effect - in order to have an effect, there has to be a cause. Everything is caused by something.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This fails to provide proof for a god, as it requires to define god as the "[[uncaused cause]]," therefore negating the original premise.}}

5. Mindless nothing cannot be responsible for complex something.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text= This is fallacious in its assumption that an atheistic viewpoint requires the world to start from 'nothing'. It also is guilty of special pleading (responsibility is an attribute of intelligence) and also another invocation of the [[argument from design]].}}

6. Science can only be the detector of certain things. You cannot scientifically detect emotion, memory, thoughts etc., though scientifically we must.. These things which do not consist of matter are beyond the detection of science.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is a case of possible confusion on the meaning of the terms used, as well as a use of the [[god of the gaps]] argument. We can detect emotions through the physical changes to the body, and we can detect brain activity. To say that memory is not detected 'scientifically' is possibly an dualistic argument, but there is no basis in it.}}

7. Evolution has never been proved, which is why we call it the 'theory of evolution'. It's a fairy tale for grown ups!

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is the [[Evolution is only a theory]] argument }}

8. Atheism is a faith in that which has not been proved. The disbelievers have not witnessed anything to not believe in, whereas the believers believe because they have witnessed. There is no 'good news' to preach in atheism.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Typical claim that [[atheism is based on faith]]}}

9. How much of the atheist's faith relies on anger with God as opposed to genuine disbelief in God?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=The author presumes that atheists are [[angry at God]]. Unfounded assumption and [[ad hominem]] argument.}}

10. Why do many atheists shake their fists & spend so much time ranting & raving about something they don't believe in? If they are no more than a fizzled out battery at the end of the day, then why don't they spend their lives partying, or getting a hobby?! Why don't they leave this 'God nonsense' alone?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is a [[straw man]] argument. Atheism does not prevent hobbies, partying etc. Furthermore it neglects that while god may not exist, religions do exist, and that the majority of the planet believing in a fantasy is a good reason to be active}}

11. What created God? What came first, the chicken or the egg? I am not going to deny the existence of the chicken or the egg, merely because I don't understand or know what came first. I don't care - they both exist!

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] leading to [[post hoc ergo propter hoc]].}}

12. Improbability is not the same as impossibility. You only have to look at life itself for that backup of proof.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=The first sentence is [[special pleading]] as it applies to anything and everything that isn't explicitly disproven, including no god whatsoever. The second is an [[argumentum ad ignorantiam]].}}

13. How could the complexity of human life possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]]. The complexity of life is very thing for which the theory of evolution is meant to and does explain.}}

14. How could the complexity of the human mind possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells? Where does our consciousness come from?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] and similar to the [[homunculus argument]].}}

15. What/who knew that our hunger & thirst had to be catered for by the food & drink which we're supplied with?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is an example of the [[anthropic principle]]. It commits the formal fallacy of [[petitio principii]], assuming that hospitable features of our universe were built to support life, rather than considering that life was adapted to the undesigned features of the universe through natural selection. Douglas Adams' analogy about a [[Douglas Adams#Quotes|sentient puddle]] neatly sums up the problem with this argument. }}

16. Most of us are born with the five senses to detect our surroundings, which we're provided with.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Another example of the [[anthropic principle]].}}

17. What/who knew that had Earth been set nearer to the sun, we would burn up?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Anthropic principle]].}}

18. What/who knew that had Earth been set any further from the sun, we would freeze up?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Anthropic principle]].}}

19. What/who knew that had Earth been built larger or smaller, its atmosphere would be one where it would not be possible for us to breathe?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Anthropic principle]].}}

20. What/who knew that we require the oxygen of plants, just as plants require the carbon dioxide of us?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Anthropic principle]].}}

21. The concept that life came about through sheer chance is as absurd & improbable as a tornado blowing through a junk yard, consequently assembling a Boeing 747!

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] and [[argument from design]].}}

22. We are willing to believe in physically unseen waves that exist through the air, operating physical forces & appliances to work, yet not supernatural God forces being responsible for the same.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=While phenomena like radio waves or infrared light may be "unseen" to the human eye, they are not supernatural. They are well understood and explained by science, and thus are not analogous to any purported supernatural phenomena.}}

23. Matter cannot organise itself. An uneaten tomato will not progress on its own accord to form a perfect pineapple. It will transform into mould, into disorganisation. The laws of evolution fall flat.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=An uneaten tomato does not "transform" into disorganization. It may decompose into simpler organic components by the action of bacteria, fungi or other creatures such as maggots through well-understood biological processes. In fact, these components might then become part of other plants or animals, including a pineapple.}}

24. Our 'inventor' of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin had this to say to Lady Hope when he was almost bedridden for 3 months before he died; "I was a young man with unfathomed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions. wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire - people made a religion of them." Darwin then asked Lady Hope to speak to neighbours the next day. "What shall I speak about?" She asked. He replied; "Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is that not the best theme?"

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Urban myth. See [[Deathbed conversion]].}}

25. Where do our moral values held within our conscience come from? If the atheist is right, why then would we care about what we did?! If there is no God, then we've no-one to be accountable to.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Evolutionary psychologists have proposed explanations for many "moral values" and behaviors that appear instinctual. Atheists may follow any number of secular ethical codes, holding themselves accountable to values or ideals derived rationally, rather than to a deity. Furthermore, the [[Euthyphro dilemma]] turns this argument around on the theist: where do God's moral values come from?}}

26. If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn't he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Many human behaviors are similar to those found among animals -- seeking food and shelter, forming social groups to secure these resources, communication with sound and gestures, reproducing and providing for offspring, protecting one's family. Further, given the vast diversity of animals and their behaviors, the question is deceptively imprecise and betrays a lack of understanding of zoology. Aspects of human behavior that differ from animal behavior may be attributable to properties like human bipedalism or advanced cognitive function, particularly the capacity for abstract thought. Evolutionary theory may be able to explain how these characteristics arose.}}

27. 'Chance' isn't the cause of something. It just describes what we can't find a reason for.

28. Science & logic do not hold all the answers - many people are aware of forces at work which we have no understanding of & no control over.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]].}}

29. Look at the date/year on our calender - 2000 years ago since what? Our historical records (other than the Bible) record evidence of Jesus' existence.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Many (though not all) atheists concede that a religious teacher named Jesus may have lived in Mesopotamia 2,000 years ago; however, there is no historical evidence of any of his purported miracles or resurrection. Without such evidence, there is no reason to believe Jesus was a deity or supernatural being.}}

30. Many people have died for their faith. Would they be prepared to do this for a lie?!

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This could only show that purported martyrs ''believed'' they were dying for a true faith. It cannot prove that their beliefs are actually true; martyrs may be mistaken. Many people have died in the name of many contradictory faiths. Further, people have given their lives in the name of beliefs such as Nazism; must we assume these are also true?}}

31. Much of the Bible deals with eyewitness accounts, written only 40 years after Jesus died. When the books in the New Testament were first around, there would have been confusion & anger if the books were not true.

32. From as early as 2000 BC, there is archaological evidence to confirm many details we're provided with in the Bible.

33. Not one single Biblical prediction can be shown as false, and the Bible contains hundreds.

34. The evidence from liturature & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is plainly false. In addition to the miracles and supernatural events described in the Bible, for which there is no historical evidence, many of the historical claims which could theoretically be substantiated with archaelogical evidence are contradicted by modern historians. For example, historians believe there is no evidence for Hebrew slavery in Egypt or the Exodus as described in the Old Testament[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus#Historicity].}}

35. From the birth of science through to today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity & science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians; Francis Bacon, Issaac Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Many of the arguments in this email appear to promote Christianity by opposing science, but even if we grant that there is no conflict between science and Christianity and that many scientists are Christians, this hardly provides evidence that Christianity is true. See [[burden of proof]].}}

36. Science can explain 'how' something works, but not 'why' something works.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This argument is essentially meaningless. To science, 'how' and 'why' are the same thing.}}

37. Science is constantly recorrecting its findings. Past theories contradict certain beliefs which are held today. Our present 'discoveries' may change again in the future to rediscover how we originally came into existence.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=A willingness to reconsider theories in the face of new evidence is essential to any process that seeks the truth. Atheists believe science is strong precisely because of this, rather than despite it. In addition, religious groups, even those considered extreme or fundamentalist, often change their teachings in response to social concerns. For example, the Church of Latter-Day Saints abandoned polygamy in order to gain statehood for Utah.}}

38. Evolution describes the way life possibly started, yet doesn't explain what made life start & why. Scientific questions fail to do that. Even if evolution were proved, it would still not disprove God.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=The biological theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life; it describes how the diversity and complexity of life found today arose from simpler organisms. However, science could explain how life began on Earth if a credible theory of [[abiogenesis]] or panspermia[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia] emerge in the future. And while this would not disprove the existence of God, the [[burden of proof]] is on those who assert the existence of supernatural phenomena.}}

39. The two people who discovered Jesus' empty tomb were women. Women were so low on the social scale in first century Palestine, so in order to make the story fit, it would have made far more sense to claim that it were male disciples who had entered the tomb. But it wasn't - we're left with the historical & Biblical truth.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=While the Gospels describe Jesus' tomb being found empty by women, the Gospels also give accounts of the resurrected Jesus appearing to his male disciples. The Gospels were also written and promulgated by men. The resurrection claim does not rest solely on the word of low-status women. Even if it did, this would hardly be sufficient reason to deem it true; [[extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence]].}}

40. Think about Near Death Experiences. It's naive to believe that they all are induced by chemicals or drugs. How do we account for a blind person having this experience, coming back to describe what they had never before seen, a person telling the Doctor that there is a blue paperclip on top of the high cabinet, which they couldn't have otherwise known, an african man being dead in his coffin for 3 days, coming back to life to tell of much the same events which took place as those of many others? We never hear of the witnesses describing "a dream". We're not silly - we know the difference between even the most vivid of dreams to that of reality.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=It is not naive to seek physiological or psychological explanations for unusual experiences a person may have while their body is recovering from life-threatening trauma or disease. It is naive to immediately presume something supernatural is occurring. Why are these bizarre claims about paperclips and Africans rising from the dead not substantiated? If credible evidence existed of a man being actually deceased and rising three days later, this would be unprecedented news quickly publicized to every corner of the globe by every kind of formal or informal media. If this actually occurred, present the evidence. Science demands more proof than a mere assurance that one asserting a shocking revelation is "not silly."}}

41. There are many skeptics who didn't believe in Jesus before his crucifixion, and who were opposed to Christianity, yet turned to the Christian faith after the death of Jesus. Just as the many who continue to do so today.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=A form of [[argumentum ad populum]]. Couldn't these people be mistaken?}}

42. Albert Einstein said; "A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind".

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Albert Einstein]] also said, "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." [[argumentum ad verecundiam]]. Lameness does not affect factuality.}}

43. A speaker in Hyde Park who was attacking belief in God, claimed that the world just happened. As he spoke, a soft tomato was thrown at him. "Who threw that?" He said angrily. A cockney from the back of the crowd replied; "No-one threw it - it threw itself!"

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This unsubstantiated anecdote about a believer assaulting an atheist with a vegetable is actually a form of the [[unmoved mover]]/[[uncaused cause]] argument, implying that atheists are foolish not to believe in a higher power that created the universe. This argument does not solve the problem of the first cause; it merely shifts the burden onto an unproven supernatural being. If God is not caused, then it cannot be said that all things must have a cause. Whether it be the universe itself, for atheists, or God himself, for the believer, all must admit the existence of something whose cause is as yet undiscovered. Atheists hope to continue discovering causes through reason; theists merely give up. Theism cannot claim this as an advantage.}}

44. It is easier to believe that God created something out of nothing than it is to believe that nothing created something out of nothing.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is another form of [[uncaused cause]] argument employing [[Occam's Razor]], but an explanation that requires the existence of an unseen, omnipotent supernatural being can hardly be simpler than one that relies on observable natural principles. This argument also prompts the question, how did God arise out of nothing?}}

45. Stephen Hawkins has admitted; "Science may solve the problem of how the universe began, but it cannot answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist?"

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Spurious. Whatever reason the universe exists, the Bible does nothing to answer this question. All it does is provide a claim of 'what' was created, and 'when', vaguely (and incorrectly) answers the 'how' ([[magic]]) but it in no way answer the 'why'.}}

46. We cannot confuse God with man. With God in the equation, all things, including miracles are possible. If God is God, he is Creator of all, inclusive of scientific law. He is Creator of matter & spirit.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Petitio principii]], [[religion provides hope]]. These statements merely follow from the definition of an omnipotent creator God; they do nothing to prove its existence.}}

47. If we are the product of evolution - by sheer accident, chance, then we are still evolving. Does it just so happen that we exist here today with everything so finely tuned for our living. as we now have it?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Anthropic principle]]}}

48. Could it possibly be that the missing link does not exist?!

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[False dichotomy]] The falsification of [[evolution]] would not be evidence of god and inability to find a particular [[missing link]] is not falsification of evolution.}}

49. God has proved himself to us in numerous ways, all around us. The atheist needs to put his glasses on. What more can God possibly do if man has shut his eyes to him?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Special pleading]], [[petitio principii]]. If God is omnipotent, there is no limit to what more he could do. Even if our eyes are "shut to him," an omnipotent being could certainly open them.}}

50. Jesus Christ is either who he says he is, or he is the biggest con man history has ever known.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Or he was insane, never actually existed, or did not say all of the things attributed to him. See also [[trilemma]].}}

YOU DECIDE!!!

==External links==

* [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/i_get_email_19.php Copy of the email] originally posted by [[PZ Myers]]

[[Category:Internet memes]]

50 reasons to believe in God

2008-06-19T01:07:34Z

Nullifidian: Fixed comment to #46

'''50 reasons to believe in [[God]]''' is an email that has recently made the rounds of [[atheist]] bloggers.

==Response to the text of the message==

1. Whilst agreeing that random patterns occur naturally by chance, DNA however, consists of code, which requires a designer.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is the [[argument from design]].}}

2. How do you explain the paranormal, such as people witnessing positive or negative sightings, like ghosts or angels? I saw a ghost with a friend of mine - I am not a liar, an attention seeker. Neither was I overtired when this happened.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Appeal to [[personal revelation]].}}

3. Try praying. What good is it when a mind is set to coincidence & disbelief regarding the positive outcome?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This argument is an attempt to shift the [[burden of proof]]. It urges the reader to pray, and anticipates that any results of [[prayer]] would be easy to dismiss as chance. In essence this is an admission that the results of prayer may not actually be distinguishable from coincidence and chance. }}

4. The law of cause & effect - in order to have an effect, there has to be a cause. Everything is caused by something.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This fails to provide proof for a god, as it requires to define god as the "[[uncaused cause]]," therefore negating the original premise.}}

5. Mindless nothing cannot be responsible for complex something.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text= This is fallacious in its assumption that an atheistic viewpoint requires the world to start from 'nothing'. It also is guilty of special pleading (responsibility is an attribute of intelligence) and also another invocation of the [[argument from design]].}}

6. Science can only be the detector of certain things. You cannot scientifically detect emotion, memory, thoughts etc., though scientifically we must.. These things which do not consist of matter are beyond the detection of science.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is a case of possible confusion on the meaning of the terms used, as well as a use of the [[god of the gaps]] argument. We can detect emotions through the physical changes to the body, and we can detect brain activity. To say that memory is not detected 'scientifically' is possibly an dualistic argument, but there is no basis in it.}}

7. Evolution has never been proved, which is why we call it the 'theory of evolution'. It's a fairy tale for grown ups!

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is the [[Evolution is only a theory]] argument }}

8. Atheism is a faith in that which has not been proved. The disbelievers have not witnessed anything to not believe in, whereas the believers believe because they have witnessed. There is no 'good news' to preach in atheism.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Typical claim that [[atheism is based on faith]]}}

9. How much of the atheist's faith relies on anger with God as opposed to genuine disbelief in God?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=The author presumes that atheists are [[angry at God]]. Unfounded assumption and [[ad hominem]] argument.}}

10. Why do many atheists shake their fists & spend so much time ranting & raving about something they don't believe in? If they are no more than a fizzled out battery at the end of the day, then why don't they spend their lives partying, or getting a hobby?! Why don't they leave this 'God nonsense' alone?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is a [[straw man]] argument. Atheism does not prevent hobbies, partying etc. Furthermore it neglects that while god may not exist, religions do exist, and that the majority of the planet believing in a fantasy is a good reason to be active}}

11. What created God? What came first, the chicken or the egg? I am not going to deny the existence of the chicken or the egg, merely because I don't understand or know what came first. I don't care - they both exist!

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] leading to [[post hoc ergo propter hoc]].}}

12. Improbability is not the same as impossibility. You only have to look at life itself for that backup of proof.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=The first sentence is [[special pleading]] as it applies to anything and everything that isn't explicitly disproven, including no god whatsoever. The second is an [[argumentum ad ignorantiam]].}}

13. How could the complexity of human life possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]]. The complexity of life is very thing for which the theory of evolution is meant to and does explain.}}

14. How could the complexity of the human mind possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells? Where does our consciousness come from?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] and similar to the [[homunculus argument]].}}

15. What/who knew that our hunger & thirst had to be catered for by the food & drink which we're supplied with?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is an example of the [[anthropic principle]]. It commits the formal fallacy of [[petitio principii]], assuming that hospitable features of our universe were built to support life, rather than considering that life was adapted to the undesigned features of the universe through natural selection. Douglas Adams' analogy about a [[Douglas Adams#Quotes|sentient puddle]] neatly sums up the problem with this argument. }}

16. Most of us are born with the five senses to detect our surroundings, which we're provided with.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Another example of the [[anthropic principle]].}}

17. What/who knew that had Earth been set nearer to the sun, we would burn up?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Anthropic principle]].}}

18. What/who knew that had Earth been set any further from the sun, we would freeze up?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Anthropic principle]].}}

19. What/who knew that had Earth been built larger or smaller, its atmosphere would be one where it would not be possible for us to breathe?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Anthropic principle]].}}

20. What/who knew that we require the oxygen of plants, just as plants require the carbon dioxide of us?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Anthropic principle]].}}

21. The concept that life came about through sheer chance is as absurd & improbable as a tornado blowing through a junk yard, consequently assembling a Boeing 747!

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] and [[argument from design]].}}

22. We are willing to believe in physically unseen waves that exist through the air, operating physical forces & appliances to work, yet not supernatural God forces being responsible for the same.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=While phenomena like radio waves or infrared light may be "unseen" to the human eye, they are not supernatural. They are well understood and explained by science, and thus are not analogous to any purported supernatural phenomena.}}

23. Matter cannot organise itself. An uneaten tomato will not progress on its own accord to form a perfect pineapple. It will transform into mould, into disorganisation. The laws of evolution fall flat.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=An uneaten tomato does not "transform" into disorganization. It may decompose into simpler organic components by the action of bacteria, fungi or other creatures such as maggots through well-understood biological processes. In fact, these components might then become part of other plants or animals, including a pineapple.}}

24. Our 'inventor' of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin had this to say to Lady Hope when he was almost bedridden for 3 months before he died; "I was a young man with unfathomed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions. wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire - people made a religion of them." Darwin then asked Lady Hope to speak to neighbours the next day. "What shall I speak about?" She asked. He replied; "Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is that not the best theme?"

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Urban myth. See [[Deathbed conversion]].}}

25. Where do our moral values held within our conscience come from? If the atheist is right, why then would we care about what we did?! If there is no God, then we've no-one to be accountable to.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Evolutionary psychologists have proposed explanations for many "moral values" and behaviors that appear instinctual. Atheists may follow any number of secular ethical codes, holding themselves accountable to values or ideals derived rationally, rather than to a deity. Furthermore, the [[Euthyphro dilemma]] turns this argument around on the theist: where do God's moral values come from?}}

26. If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn't he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised.

27. 'Chance' isn't the cause of something. It just describes what we can't find a reason for.

28. Science & logic do not hold all the answers - many people are aware of forces at work which we have no understanding of & no control over.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]].}}

29. Look at the date/year on our calender - 2000 years ago since what? Our historical records (other than the Bible) record evidence of Jesus' existence.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Many (though not all) atheists concede that a religious teacher named Jesus may have lived in Mesopotamia 2,000 years ago; however, there is no historical evidence of any of his purported miracles or resurrection. Without such evidence, there is no reason to believe Jesus was a deity or supernatural being.}}

30. Many people have died for their faith. Would they be prepared to do this for a lie?!

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This could only show that purported martyrs ''believed'' they were dying for a true faith. It cannot prove that their beliefs are actually true; martyrs may be mistaken. Many people have died in the name of many contradictory faiths. Further, people have given their lives in the name of beliefs such as Nazism; must we assume these are also true?}}

31. Much of the Bible deals with eyewitness accounts, written only 40 years after Jesus died. When the books in the New Testament were first around, there would have been confusion & anger if the books were not true.

32. From as early as 2000 BC, there is archaological evidence to confirm many details we're provided with in the Bible.

33. Not one single Biblical prediction can be shown as false, and the Bible contains hundreds.

34. The evidence from liturature & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is plainly false. In addition to the miracles and supernatural events described in the Bible, for which there is no historical evidence, many of the historical claims which could theoretically be substantiated with archaelogical evidence are contradicted by modern historians. For example, historians believe there is no evidence for Hebrew slavery in Egypt or the Exodus as described in the Old Testament[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus#Historicity].}}

35. From the birth of science through to today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity & science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians; Francis Bacon, Issaac Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Many of the arguments in this email appear to promote Christianity by opposing science, but even if we grant that there is no conflict between science and Christianity and that many scientists are Christians, this hardly provides evidence that Christianity is true. See [[burden of proof]].}}

36. Science can explain 'how' something works, but not 'why' something works.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This argument is essentially meaningless. To science, 'how' and 'why' are the same thing.}}

37. Science is constantly recorrecting its findings. Past theories contradict certain beliefs which are held today. Our present 'discoveries' may change again in the future to rediscover how we originally came into existence.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=A willingness to reconsider theories in the face of new evidence is essential to any process that seeks the truth. Atheists believe science is strong precisely because of this, rather than despite it. In addition, religious groups, even those considered extreme or fundamentalist, often change their teachings in response to social concerns. For example, the Church of Latter-Day Saints abandoned polygamy in order to gain statehood for Utah.}}

38. Evolution describes the way life possibly started, yet doesn't explain what made life start & why. Scientific questions fail to do that. Even if evolution were proved, it would still not disprove God.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=The biological theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life; it describes how the diversity and complexity of life found today arose from simpler organisms. However, science could explain how life began on Earth if a credible theory of [[abiogenesis]] or panspermia[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia] emerge in the future. And while this would not disprove the existence of God, the [[burden of proof]] is on those who assert the existence of supernatural phenomena.}}

39. The two people who discovered Jesus' empty tomb were women. Women were so low on the social scale in first century Palestine, so in order to make the story fit, it would have made far more sense to claim that it were male disciples who had entered the tomb. But it wasn't - we're left with the historical & Biblical truth.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=While the Gospels describe Jesus' tomb being found empty by women, the Gospels also give accounts of the resurrected Jesus appearing to his male disciples. The Gospels were also written and promulgated by men. The resurrection claim does not rest solely on the word of low-status women. Even if it did, this would hardly be sufficient reason to deem it true; [[extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence]].}}

40. Think about Near Death Experiences. It's naive to believe that they all are induced by chemicals or drugs. How do we account for a blind person having this experience, coming back to describe what they had never before seen, a person telling the Doctor that there is a blue paperclip on top of the high cabinet, which they couldn't have otherwise known, an african man being dead in his coffin for 3 days, coming back to life to tell of much the same events which took place as those of many others? We never hear of the witnesses describing "a dream". We're not silly - we know the difference between even the most vivid of dreams to that of reality.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=It is not naive to seek physiological or psychological explanations for unusual experiences a person may have while their body is recovering from life-threatening trauma or disease. It is naive to immediately presume something supernatural is occurring. Why are these bizarre claims about paperclips and Africans rising from the dead not substantiated? If credible evidence existed of a man being actually deceased and rising three days later, this would be unprecedented news quickly publicized to every corner of the globe by every kind of formal or informal media. If this actually occurred, present the evidence. Science demands more proof than a mere assurance that one asserting a shocking revelation is "not silly."}}

41. There are many skeptics who didn't believe in Jesus before his crucifixion, and who were opposed to Christianity, yet turned to the Christian faith after the death of Jesus. Just as the many who continue to do so today.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=A form of [[argumentum ad populum]]. Couldn't these people be mistaken?}}

42. Albert Einstein said; "A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind".

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Albert Einstein]] also said, "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." [[argumentum ad verecundiam]]. Lameness does not affect factuality.}}

43. A speaker in Hyde Park who was attacking belief in God, claimed that the world just happened. As he spoke, a soft tomato was thrown at him. "Who threw that?" He said angrily. A cockney from the back of the crowd replied; "No-one threw it - it threw itself!"

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This unsubstantiated anecdote about a believer assaulting an atheist with a vegetable is actually a form of the [[unmoved mover]]/[[uncaused cause]] argument, implying that atheists are foolish not to believe in a higher power that created the universe. This argument does not solve the problem of the first cause; it merely shifts the burden onto an unproven supernatural being. If God is not caused, then it cannot be said that all things must have a cause. Whether it be the universe itself, for atheists, or God himself, for the believer, all must admit the existence of something whose cause is as yet undiscovered. Atheists hope to continue discovering causes through reason; theists merely give up. Theism cannot claim this as an advantage.}}

44. It is easier to believe that God created something out of nothing than it is to believe that nothing created something out of nothing.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=This is another form of [[uncaused cause]] argument employing [[Occam's Razor]], but an explanation that requires the existence of an unseen, omnipotent supernatural being can hardly be simpler than one that relies on observable natural principles. This argument also prompts the question, how did God arise out of nothing?}}

45. Stephen Hawkins has admitted; "Science may solve the problem of how the universe began, but it cannot answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist?"

46. We cannot confuse God with man. With God in the equation, all things, including miracles are possible. If God is God, he is Creator of all, inclusive of scientific law. He is Creator of matter & spirit.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Petitio principii]], [[religion provides hope]]. These statements merely follow from the definition of an omnipotent creator God; they do nothing to prove its existence.}}

47. If we are the product of evolution - by sheer accident, chance, then we are still evolving. Does it just so happen that we exist here today with everything so finely tuned for our living. as we now have it?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Anthropic principle]]}}

48. Could it possibly be that the missing link does not exist?!

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[False dichotomy]] The falsification of [[evolution]] would not be evidence of god and inability to find a particular [[missing link]] is not falsification of evolution.}}

49. God has proved himself to us in numerous ways, all around us. The atheist needs to put his glasses on. What more can God possibly do if man has shut his eyes to him?

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=[[Special pleading]], [[petitio principii]]. If God is omnipotent, there is no limit to what more he could do. Even if our eyes are "shut to him," an omnipotent being could certainly open them.}}

50. Jesus Christ is either who he says he is, or he is the biggest con man history has ever known.

{{Comment-box1|label=Response:|text=Or he was insane, never actually existed, or did not say all of the things attributed to him. See also [[trilemma]].}}

YOU DECIDE!!!

==External links==

* [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/i_get_email_19.php Copy of the email] originally posted by [[PZ Myers]]

[[Category:Internet memes]]

Big Daddy? (Chick tract)

2008-06-19T01:01:02Z

Nullifidian: /* Forget this farce, let's just abandon science */

[[Image:bigdaddypage1.gif|frame|First page of ''Big Daddy?'']]

'''''Big Daddy?''''' is a [[Chick tract]] whose description on Chick's website is, "A student proves [[evolution]] is full of holes." It is an excellent example of Chick's work, featuring cutely oversimplified situations and lots of misrepresentations of scientific facts. This tract was originally published in 1972, but underwent a revision in 1992, with [[Kent Hovind]] acting as a consultant.

==Synopsis==

An overbearing, extremely [[Jewish]]-looking college professor harangues his students about the truth of evolution, but he is put in his place by an unusually [[Aryan]] looking, clean cut, preppy student who defends [[God]] and the [[Bible]].

==Tract walk-through==

There are already a couple of good refutations of the bad [[science]] in this tract on the web (see [[#External links|below]]), so this page will concern itself mainly with religious concepts and the portrayal of [[atheist]]s. In some cases, the reader is referred to other sites for more detailed responses to the science mistakes.

===Introduction of conflict===
(Panel 1)
:* Professor: "How many of you believe in evolution?"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=In the first panel of the cartoon (see above), there is a picture on the wall behind the professor depicting an ape holding a banana; the picture is titled, "Our Father". Right away, Chick plays on a popular misconception of evolution. Modern apes are not "fathers" to humans, even in the figurative sense of "ancestors". Rather, modern apes and modern humans share a common ancestor. In fact, apes are a superfamily of primates that includes humans, which means that humans ''are'' apes. But the picture on the wall does not represent anything in our ancestry.

Also worth noting is that Chick is making a religious allusion with the picture title, which sets up the false message that evolution is a competing [[religion]] to [[Christianity]], rather than an accepted science. The professor's words, also, support the notion that evolution is religion, by asking if students "[[believe in]]" it. This kind of ambiguous wording always invites an opportunity to use the [[equivocation]] fallacy, as the phrase "believe in" has multiple meanings.}}

(Panel 2)
:* Students: "'''WE DO SIR!'''"

(Panel 3)
:* Professor: "Anyone disagree?"
:* Evangelist student: "'''I''' do, sir!"

(Panel 4)
:* Professor: "You can '''GET OUT''' of MY class!! After you've apologized for your rudeness and ignorance, we ''MIGHT'' let you back in!"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Chick launches an [[appeal to emotion]] by painting as ugly a picture of the atheist professor as he can. The student hasn't actually said anything rude, yet the professor screams at him for no apparent reason, with little sweat beads flying off his head.

It is hard to imagine any professor actually reacting like this after bothering to pose the question to the class in the first place. Either he wants to argue with a [[creationist]] or he doesn't. If he doesn't, he shouldn't have brought it up at all, or he should say "Let's chat after class." If he does want to argue, he ought to be a little better prepared. If the professor's composure is shaken this early, he clearly doesn't understand his subject as well as he should. But then, it's easy to rattle an opponent who is a fictional [[straw man]] rather than a real person.}}

(Panel 5)
:* Professor: "On second thought, perhaps I was a little bit hasty. I think I will systematically tear your little beliefs to shreds in front of the entire class!"
:* Evangelist: "Thank you, sir!"
:* Another student: "Crazy man!"
:* Professor: "'''''Sit down!'''''"

===Enter religion===
(Panel 6)
:* Professor: "What makes you think evolution is untrue?"
:* Evangelist: "Because the Bible says that each kind..."
:* Professor: "'''''HOLD IT, YOU FANATIC!!'''''"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Note that the disembodied laugh "HAW HAW" in the panel, presumably coming from another student, is a classic utterance in the Jack Chick universe. Often comes from liberals, non-Christians, and [[demon]]s.}}

(Panel 7)
:* Professor: "I could have you jailed for that!!"
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=No he couldn't, obviously. It's remotely possible that somebody who was extremely ignorant of the [[first amendment]] might say that, but there do not seem to be any documented cases of teachers threatening to jail students for talking about the Bible. The [[US Constitution]] prohibits schools from proselytizing students in an official capacity, but it does not prevent the Bible from being discussed, nor does it place any restrictions on non-disruptive students offering their religious opinions.}}

:* Footnote: "It has never been against the law to teach creationism in public schools."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=As a matter of fact, it has. In the 1990 case of [[Webster v. New Lennox School District]], a 7th Circuit court ruled that teachers cannot take it upon themselves to teach creationism. Doing so is a violation of the 1st amendment, just as if it had been ordered by the school.

We can be charitable and assume that neither Jack Chick nor Kent Hovind had heard about the Webster case when the tract was republished in 1992. However, even without this precedent, the claim is a [[red herring]]. The professor is not planning to teach creationism, and according to the case of [[McClean v. Arkansas]] (1981), he cannot be required to teach creationism. The student, on the other hand, is not teaching the class; he is offering an opinion, which is perfectly all right. As noted earlier, the professor is acting like an ignorant caricature.}}

:* Professor (continuing): "How dare you even mention the word Bible in this school. You know it's unscientific?? -- If you talk to me, it will be '''''ONLY''''' in scientific terms! '''''Do you understand?'''''"

(Panel 8)
:* Professor: "Young man, the evidence is overwhelming. '''''ALL''''' of the schools teach it. It's accepted '''''everywhere'''''. DNA proves it! Science proves it! Carbon-14 proves it!"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Some of these are legitimate points, although many rely on [[argument from authority]] or [[argumentum ad populum|popular appeal]]. For instance, the fact that evolution is taught in all the schools is not evidence that it is true. Rather, evolution is a standard part of a biology curriculum because biologists recognize it with near unanimity as ''well-established science''. Furthermore, the reference to [[Wikipedia:Carbon-14|Carbon-14]] is odd, since the half-life of that radioactive isotope (5,730 years) makes it useless for dating objects beyond about 60,000 years before the present — far too recent to study evolutionary changes in most species.}}

(Panel 9)
:* Professor: "'''''FACTS - FACTS FACTS!''''' [[Thomas Henry Huxley|Huxley]] - G. Gaylord Simpson - [[Darwin]] - even NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC and TIME magazines know it..."
:* Evangelist: "Sir?"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=More appeals to authority. Scientific theories such as evolution are not treated as correct because they are endorsed by famous people. They are understood to be correct because they have been through the gauntlet of the [[scientific method]] and [[peer review]]. They are accepted because they are well confirmed in their own right and make testable predictions.}}

===Creationist view of evidence===

(Panel 10)
:* Evangelist: "Are there not ''six'' basic concepts of evolution?"
:* Professor: "Yes!"

:Written on the board:
:# Cosmic Evolution - [[Big Bang]] makes hydrogen
:# Chemical Evolution - higher elements evolve
:# Evolution of stars and planets from gas
:# Organic Evolution - life from rocks
:# [[Macro-evolution]] - changes between different kinds of plants and animals
:# Micro-evolution - changes within kinds

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Another bit of equivocation occurs here, because "evolution" is generally understood to mean only "biological evolution." It is true that evolution can also mean simply "change," but this is not what evolution is assumed to mean in normal scientific parlance. Hence, only the last two items are actually concepts recognized as "evolution," and the other four are issues in other sciences — or, in the case of number 4, misrepresentations.}}

(Panel 11)
:* Evangelist: "Only the last one has been observed and can be called science."
:* All other students: "''He's got a point there!''"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=...But not much of one. Modern science rarely relies on ''direct'' observation. Science is about taking observations and generalizing them into broader models that explain how the world works. These models can be tested through the predictions they make. Gravity has never been "seen," but its effects are measured all the time. If you predict exactly how a falling object will move in a controlled experiment, you can get it right to a very high degree of accuracy. The movement of planets also cannot be seen directly, since it happens very slowly, but it can be extrapolated from measurements we ''can'' make.

In the same way, "macro-evolution" '''has''' been observed, in the sense that the DNA models and fossils combine to form a coherent and consistent branching tree of ancestry. It is broad patterns and testable models that form the foundation of science, not rulers and test tubes.

The distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution is a phony one, anyway, because there is not a clear difference between the two; see the [[Macro-evolution]] article for more details.}}

:* Professor: "'''''I don't like your attitude!''''' Let's discuss prehistoric man."

(Panel 12)
:* Professor: "Here is the first and most famous clue to early man, The Neanderthal Skullcap! Modern dating methods show man to be older than Darwin could have imagined!"

(Panel 13)
:* Professor: "Lucy, the oldest known ancestor of humans, is 2.9 million years old."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Lucy is a representative of the species ''Australopithecus afarensis''. She is not assumed to be a human ancestor of any kind. She is simply a branch of the hominid lineage.}}

(Panel 14)
:* Evangelist: "Only 2.9 million? Richard Leakey found a normal human skull under a layer of rock dated at ''212'' million years... I'm sorry sir, but most experts agree that Lucy was only an unusual chimpanzee '''''not''''' a missing link."
:* Footnote: (For details, watch this Kent Hovind video.)

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Richard_Leakey_found_a_normal_human_skull_under_a_layer_of_rock_dated_at_212_million_years A thorough refutation of the first claim] can be found at [[EvoWiki]].

The second claim is completely unsupported. No doubt most creationists believe that Lucy was a chimpanzee, but "experts" don't.}}

:* Professor: "'''''WILL YOU SIT DOWN!'''''"
:* Evangelist: "Yes, sir!"

=== A fossil learns about fossils ===
(Panel 15)
:* Professor: "Pieced together by fragmentary fossil evidence, science can show the stages of man's long march from ape-like ancestors to sapiens! With wonderful names like proconsul-australopethicus afarensis to homo habilis to homo erectus and on and on to modern man!"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=The professor just looks so gleeful and delighted with himself as he spouts off the names of species classifications. Because, you know, in the creationist mind, people only like doing science because they get all hot and excited at the chance to pronounce fancy Latin words. By the way, it's nice that Chick at least used the more correct phrase "ape-''like'' ancestors" rather than simply "ape ancestors".}}

(Panel 16)
:* Evangelist: "Sir, I have in my possession a similar chart showing some amazing findings which are finally made public! May I show it?"
:* Professor: "This should be interesting! Yes, let's see it! Science '''''always''''' has the answers."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=No one with the slightest amount of familiarity with science would make such an arrogant claim. Science is a continually ongoing quest to answer difficult questions. If there weren't any unanswered questions left, then science as we know it would end. There will '''always''' be frontiers of science where certain things remain unknown and mysterious. Apologists will always wish to use this as an excuse to accept a [[God of the gaps]] theory.

Apologetic literature frequently takes a very slanted view of science, because apologists are used to viewing one source (i.e., the Bible) as "the absolute truth." They naturally assume that science is competing with the Bible in claiming to know everything. Those who take a scientific view of the world do not see science that way. Instead, they recognize that there are and always will be many unanswered questions, and science is constantly evolving to accommodate new information.}}

(Panels 17-18)
:* These panels contain eight misleading pictures of hominids showing a progression from "Lucy" (represented as a chimp, as discussed earlier) to "modern man", who is captioned with "This genius thinks we came from a monkey."
{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html The rebuttal at Talk Origins] already contains a very thorough refutation of this chart. Among the fossils listed, two are known hoaxes that are not claimed as part of the lineage; two are indeed recognized as more or less equivalent to modern humans; one appears to have been completely made up by Chick; and the remaining three are misrepresented and discussed on other pages at Talk Origins.}}

(Panel 19)
:* Professor (thought bubble): "He's killing me! I've gotta play it cool!"
:* Professor: "All of these layers of the earth are millions of years different in age. We can tell the age of these lectures from the fossils they contain."
:* Evangelist: "But sir, how do you date the fossils?"

(Panel 20)
:* Professor: "That's a good question. We can tell the age of fossils since we know the age of the layer of rock where they were found."
:* Evangelist: "Sir, isn't that circular reasoning?"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC310.html Talk Origins refutes this claim.] Geological strata are dated in multiple ways which mutually support each other. The presence of known fossils offer just one type of dating.}}

(Panel 21)
:* Evangelist: "How can you say the layers are different ages? Petrified trees* are often found going through many of the layers. Some are even upside down running through 'millions of years' worth of rock."
:* Footnote: See pictures of these on www.drdino.com.

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html Polystrate trees do not cause problems for layer dating] (Talk Origins link), nor have they been considered a problem since the 19th century.

By the way, it's kind of funny that links to Kent Hovind's website all go to the index page and not the specific page that supports the claim. You have to either hunt around for the appropriate page or just trust that it's actually there.}}

===The specious arguments continue===

(Panel 22)
:* Professor: "Well, here is proof of evolution. Human embryos have gill slits proving man evolved through the fish stage millions of years ago!"
:* Evangelist: "Sir, Earnst [sic] Haeckel made up those drawings in 1869 and they were proven to be wrong in 1874. Those folds of skin are not gills. They grow into bones in the ear and glands in the throat.**"
:* Footnote: (Another Hovind video)
:* Professor (thought bubble): "I hate him!"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB704.html Significance of vestigial gill slits is discussed on Talk Origins.]}}

:* A student: "Wow! Wrong for 125 years and '''''still''''' in our book!"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=It would be interesting to see which book the students are looking at. Biology textbooks, if they refer to Haeckel's embryos, treat them as being of historical interest and do not use them as "proof" of the [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html real similarities among embryos] (Talk Origins link).}}

(Panel 23)

:* Professor (thought bubble): "''(Gulp)'' He's destroying me!"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Does anybody ever actually gulp in their thoughts?}}

===Vestiges of the author's sanity===

:* Professor: "Vestigial organs like the human tail bone prove we evolved from animals with tails!"

(Panel 24)

:* Evangelist: "Sir, there are nine muscles that attach to the tail bone... it is not 'vestigial'!"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=[[Non sequitur]]. What does the fact that the tail bone has muscles have to do with whether it is vestigial or not?}}

(Panel 25)

:* Professor: "Whales have a vestigial pelvis. This proves they evolved from a land dwelling creature."

(Panel 26)

:* Evangelist: "I'm sorry sir, but those bones serve as anchor points for muscles. Without them whales cannot reproduce. They have nothing to do with walking on land."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text="Vestigial" [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Without_the_pelvis_whales_cannot_reproduce does not mean "useless"].}}

:* Evangelist: "Even if there were "vestigial" organs, isn't '''''losing''''' something the opposite of evolution?"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=No, it isn't. "Evolution" means change, and losing something is change. In biological evolution, organisms adapt to changes in their environment, and this can involve both gaining and losing parts.}}

===Forget this farce, let's just abandon science===

(Panel 27)

:* Evangelist: "Sir, what is the binding force of the atom?"
:* Professor: "It's gluons!"
:* Professor (thought bubble): "'''Gotcha!'''"
:* Evangelist: "'''''Wrong''''' sir! Gluons are a made-up dream. No one has ever seen or measured them... they don't exist! It's a desperate theory to explain away truth!"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Here, Chick seems to be saying that anything that has never been seen or measured must not exist. This is an odd claim, considering that the tract is about to reach the part where they tell you to uncritically accept the existence of God. The claim is also false: gluons have been confirmed experimentally. [http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000160]}}

(Panel 28)

:* Evangelist: "We '''''know''''' that the electrons of the atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second... and that the nucleus of the atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. Neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutral '''''--BUT--'''''

(Panel 29)

:* Evangelist: "Protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is: LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER! Since all the protons in the nucleus are positively charged, they should repel each other and scatter into space. If gluons aren't the answer... what is?"

(Panel 30)

:* Professor: <small>"I don't know!"</small>
:* Evangelist: "I'm sorry sir, but I can't hear you."
:* Professor: "I said -- I don't know. You tell me!"

(Panel 31)

:* Evangelist: "Sir, may I quote from the Bible?
:* Professor: "'''''YES, YES, YES !!'''''"
:* It says that [[Christ]], the Creator, 'Is before all things, and by him all things consist (are held together).'" (footnote: {{Bible|Col. 1:17}}) "Also it says, 'All things were made by him (Christ); and without him was not anything made that was made.'" (footnote: {{Bible|John 1:3}})

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Whoa! Is he actually saying that atoms would just fly apart if God didn't personally hold every single one of them together every instant of every day? That is an astounding claim!

Let's think about the implications of this. Most creationists believe that God creates things on a macro level but then the universe still mostly adheres to laws of physics and lets them work. But if the student's Bible quote is to be interpreted as God holding together atoms, then this involves a staggering number of tiny little miracles occurring at every moment. Apparently God did not create an efficient, self-sustaining universe. Instead, he created a bureaucratic nightmare in which every event, no matter how trivial, must be personally monitored by God. And if God ever takes a break, even for a second, then every atom in the universe will spontaneously fly apart.

It almost goes without saying that science itself would be effectively meaningless in such a universe. Science works off the assumption that things happen in a predictable and orderly way, and that patterns which were observed in the past can be used to predict what will happen in the future. Not so in the mind of Jack T. Chick. In his version of reality, even the movements of individual atoms are constantly at the whim of what God feels like doing with them. It's pretty much a given that an omnipotent God can make things fall up as easily as down; but in THIS universe, falling up should happen all the time. God has to personally micro-manage even the tiniest laws of physics all over the universe!}}

===The wind-up...===

(Panel 32)
: At this point the professor walks out of the classroom, carrying his "Our Father" picture and looking dejected.
:* Professor: "They'll understand why I'm quitting. They're intelligent, logical, compassionate scholars. Everything will be alright [sic]! I'll simply tell them I can't teach it any longer!"

(Panel 33)
:* Professor: "I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I can no longer teach evolution. It can't possibly be true!"
:* Some administrative guy (not pictured): "'''''WHAT?''''' Are you crazy? '''''GET OUT''''' of '''''OUR''''' university! After you've apologized to everyone for your rudeness and ignorance we '''''MIGHT''''' let you back in!"

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Aha! It's an ironic twist, you see? The administrator is dismissing the hapless professor with the ''very same words'' that the professor used earlier to dismiss the student! Get it? Get it?}}

===...and the pitch===

(Panel 34)
:* Student 1: "Then man killed the Creator, if Jesus is God in the flesh."
:* Evangelist: "'''''Right!''''' Jesus came to earth to shed His blood for you, to wash away your sins so you could have eternal life with Him."
:* Student 2: "Then we '''''didn't''''' evolve! The system has been feeding us '''''THE BIG LIE!''''' We really do have a soul!"
:* Footnote: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." {{Bible|John 3:16}}

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=Well, the bad science is finished; now we're just left with the wrap-up and standard plea. This is the standard creationist [[false choice]] -- either evolution in all its particulars is true, or the precise fundamentalist religion based on Jack Chick's literal interpretation of the Bible is true.

In reality, there are many more alternatives, even if any of the evangelist's arguments did refute evolution.

# Many details of evolution as it is currently understood may be wrong, but a future revision of evolution may get it right.
# The theory of evolution may be completely wrong, but some other [[Methodological naturalism|naturalistic]] theory will explain the diversity of life.
# A different interpretation of Christianity may be correct, which in no way resembles Chick's version.
# Some other religion may have it right rather than Christianity.
# All religions are wrong, but a completely unknown supernatural situation turns out to be true.

Some of these are obviously more plausible than others, but the point is that eliminating known alternatives doesn't make Christianity true, to say nothing of one sect's version of Christianity.}}

(Panel 35)
:* Student 3: "What happens if I die without believing this?"
:* Evangelist: "Then you'll die in your [[sin]]s -- and be eternally lost."
:* Student 4: "What should we do to go to [[heaven]]?"
:* Evangelist: "Repent of your sins. Surrender your life to Christ, acknowledge that He died for your sins and receive Him as your savior. Then you will go to heaven when you die."

{{Comment-box1|label=Comment:|text=See [[Pascal's wager]].}}

(Panel 36)

: "'''THE BIBLE SAYS THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY TO HEAVEN!'''"

: (See the main [[Chick tract]] article for the standard final page blurb.)

==External links==

* [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp Full tract at Chick.com]
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html Partial response] at [[Talk Origins]]
* [http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Big_Daddy%3F Longer response] at [[EvoWiki]]
* [http://www.facts4u.com/OffSite_Stored_Pages/wyd_files/wyd.htm Who's Your Daddy] (A parody tract)

{{jackchick}}

[[Category:Apologetic literature]]

User:Nullifidian

2008-06-19T00:48:54Z

Nullifidian:

UK based atheist, humanist, sceptic, science advocate.

http://www.nullfidian.net/
http://www.planethumanism.com/

Talk:50 reasons to believe in God

2008-06-19T00:48:01Z

Nullifidian: Oops, missed sig

Talk:50 reasons to believe in God

2008-06-19T00:47:24Z

Nullifidian:

To be honest, so much of this is simply gibberish, it's going to take a while to sort out proper responses. And we thought Gish galloping was dead! [[User:Nullifidian|Nullifidian]] 14:01, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

Many of them can all be lumped together or the responses can be repeated. For instance, 15-20 may probably all be dismissed with [[Douglas Adams]]' "sentient puddle" analogy. Is there another name for that besides the fine tuning argument? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 15:37, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

:As far as fallacies go, these could be a combination of unaccepted enthymemes, the existential fallacy, tautology, and/or denying the antecedent, and, of course, a priorism.

I understand the need to remain entirely objective, but I'm having trouble coming to an answer that isn't a giant "you're an idiot" with response to "26. If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn't he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised." War, famine, corruption, oppression, slavery, hatred, racism, homocide, infantacide, genocide. That's what runs through my head, and I don't think argument ad ignoratiam alone covers it. Anyway, I'd be interested in how to elegantly, neutrally and directly explaining this one. --[[User:Zurahn|Zurahn]] 18:41, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

:+1 for the "you're an idiot" response to most of these. Is that allowed, or do we have to play by the rules even when they refuse to/are unable? [[User:Nullifidian|Nullifidian]] 19:31, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

Talk:50 reasons to believe in God

2008-06-19T00:31:16Z

Nullifidian:

50 reasons to believe in God

2008-06-18T19:24:07Z

Nullifidian: 3

50 reasons to believe in God

2008-06-18T19:22:14Z

Nullifidian: 11.

50 reasons to believe in God

2008-06-18T19:18:08Z

Nullifidian: Added 8.

Missing link

2008-06-18T19:14:05Z

Nullifidian: Added wikipedia reference.

{{wikipedia}}
{{stub}}
A '''missing link''' is a proposed, but as-yet undiscovered, intermediate form between two similar [[species]].

Missing link

2008-06-18T19:12:52Z

Nullifidian: Created stub

{{stub}}
A '''missing link''' is a proposed, but as-yet undiscovered, intermediate form between two similar [[species]].

50 reasons to believe in God

2008-06-18T19:09:25Z

Nullifidian:

50 reasons to believe in God

2008-06-18T19:08:40Z

Nullifidian:

Talk:50 reasons to believe in God

2008-06-18T19:01:48Z

Nullifidian:

Talk:50 reasons to believe in God

2008-06-18T19:01:31Z

Nullifidian:

To be honest, so much of this is simply gibberish, it's going to take a while to sort out proper answer. And we thought Gish galloping was dead! [[User:Nullifidian|Nullifidian]] 14:01, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

50 reasons to believe in God

2008-06-18T18:55:19Z

Nullifidian: Response 50