Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Sensus divinitatis

2011-05-09T17:41:53Z

Quantheory: /* Unverifiable and unfalsifiable */

{{religion-stub}}
[[Sensus divinitatis]] or ''Sense of Divinity'' was posited by [[John Calvin]] as the inherent awareness of [[God]] which is implanted in every human being.

It is sometimes used to "prove" that [[atheist]]s don't exist. Anyone who claims to be an atheist is in denial of the God which they "know" to exist; therefore, they are merely angry at or rebelling against God.

Some modern apologists such as [[Alvin Plantinga]] make a more moderate claim, which is that everyone has a sensus divinitatis, but that sin interferes with this sense. In order to restore this sense, one has to request God's help to fix it, presumably through conversion or worship or repentance or supplication. On this view, you can be an atheist by not using this natural sense, but only in the same sense as a person can be functionally blind by never opening her eyes.

==Counter-apologetics==

===Contradicted by scripture===

Even the Bible contradicts the simplest view, that everyone knows about God deep down. {{bible|Psalms 14:1}} says, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." It seems hard to argue that anyone could say "in his heart" that there is no God while not believing that there is no God. Therefore, the Bible acknowledges that at least some atheists exist (and they are "fools" by Biblical definition).

===Competing views that can't be decided upon===

People have disagreed on the details of the sense itself, whether it is blocked by sin or available to all people, what triggers experiences of God, whether it gives one a mere experience of God or more useful details... Even [[William Lane Craig]], who uses some of the same arguments generally as Plantinga does, has been hesitant to endorse the idea of an innate "sense", and prefers the idea that there is instead an externally controlled "experience" that the believer has in encountering God. An obvious problem here is that it's not possible to objectively settle this question, especially when Christians who in theory believe similar things, find that they can't agree on the nature of the experience that they supposedly share. The problem gets worse when a similar idea inevitably arises within Muslim apologetics.

If the "sense" really is just a type of personal experience, then we're really talking about [[Argument from personal experience|a different sort of argument]], which has its own problems.

===Unverifiable and unfalsifiable===

If someone lacks a particular sense, such as if she is blind, she can always figure out that other people can see, and not merely because they can tell her. They would be able to sense certain things at a distance, in a way that she would not be able to sense, and she could infer the existence of sight without just taking anyone's word for it.

But the sensus divinitatis only provides people with a subjective conviction, not information about the world that can be objectively evaluated. So, from the perspective of someone without such a functioning sense, there's no reason to believe that anyone else has such a sense either. That is, no one has a way of showing that they actually have a way to sense God that is actually accurate, and not merely a form of delusion or mistake.

==See also==
* [[No true Scotsman fallacy]]

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Epistemology]]
[[Category:Reformed epistemology]]

Sensus divinitatis

2011-05-09T17:41:34Z

Quantheory: /* Competing views that can't be decided upon */

{{religion-stub}}
[[Sensus divinitatis]] or ''Sense of Divinity'' was posited by [[John Calvin]] as the inherent awareness of [[God]] which is implanted in every human being.

It is sometimes used to "prove" that [[atheist]]s don't exist. Anyone who claims to be an atheist is in denial of the God which they "know" to exist; therefore, they are merely angry at or rebelling against God.

Some modern apologists such as [[Alvin Plantinga]] make a more moderate claim, which is that everyone has a sensus divinitatis, but that sin interferes with this sense. In order to restore this sense, one has to request God's help to fix it, presumably through conversion or worship or repentance or supplication. On this view, you can be an atheist by not using this natural sense, but only in the same sense as a person can be functionally blind by never opening her eyes.

==Counter-apologetics==

===Contradicted by scripture===

Even the Bible contradicts the simplest view, that everyone knows about God deep down. {{bible|Psalms 14:1}} says, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." It seems hard to argue that anyone could say "in his heart" that there is no God while not believing that there is no God. Therefore, the Bible acknowledges that at least some atheists exist (and they are "fools" by Biblical definition).

===Competing views that can't be decided upon===

People have disagreed on the details of the sense itself, whether it is blocked by sin or available to all people, what triggers experiences of God, whether it gives one a mere experience of God or more useful details... Even [[William Lane Craig]], who uses some of the same arguments generally as Plantinga does, has been hesitant to endorse the idea of an innate "sense", and prefers the idea that there is instead an externally controlled "experience" that the believer has in encountering God. An obvious problem here is that it's not possible to objectively settle this question, especially when Christians who in theory believe similar things, find that they can't agree on the nature of the experience that they supposedly share. The problem gets worse when a similar idea inevitably arises within Muslim apologetics.

If the "sense" really is just a type of personal experience, then we're really talking about [[Argument from personal experience|a different sort of argument]], which has its own problems.

===Unverifiable and unfalsifiable===

If someone lacks a particular sense, such as if she is blind, she can always figure out that [[other]] people can see, and not merely because they can tell her. They would be able to sense certain things at a distance, in a way that she would not be able to sense, and she could infer the existence of sight without just taking anyone's word for it.

But the sensus divinitatis only provides people with a subjective conviction, not information about the world that can be objectively evaluated. So, from the perspective of someone without such a functioning sense, there's no reason to believe that anyone else has such a sense either. That is, no one has a way of showing that they actually have a way to sense God that is actually accurate, and not merely a form of delusion or mistake.

==See also==
* [[No true Scotsman fallacy]]

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Epistemology]]
[[Category:Reformed epistemology]]

Sensus divinitatis

2011-05-09T17:40:51Z

Quantheory:

{{religion-stub}}
[[Sensus divinitatis]] or ''Sense of Divinity'' was posited by [[John Calvin]] as the inherent awareness of [[God]] which is implanted in every human being.

It is sometimes used to "prove" that [[atheist]]s don't exist. Anyone who claims to be an atheist is in denial of the God which they "know" to exist; therefore, they are merely angry at or rebelling against God.

Some modern apologists such as [[Alvin Plantinga]] make a more moderate claim, which is that everyone has a sensus divinitatis, but that sin interferes with this sense. In order to restore this sense, one has to request God's help to fix it, presumably through conversion or worship or repentance or supplication. On this view, you can be an atheist by not using this natural sense, but only in the same sense as a person can be functionally blind by never opening her eyes.

==Counter-apologetics==

===Contradicted by scripture===

Even the Bible contradicts the simplest view, that everyone knows about God deep down. {{bible|Psalms 14:1}} says, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." It seems hard to argue that anyone could say "in his heart" that there is no God while not believing that there is no God. Therefore, the Bible acknowledges that at least some atheists exist (and they are "fools" by Biblical definition).

===Competing views that can't be decided upon===

People have disagreed on the details of the sense itself, whether it is blocked by sin or available to all people, what triggers experiences of God, whether it gives one a mere experience of God or more useful details... Even [[William Lane Craig]], who uses some of the same arguments generally as Plantinga does, has been hesitant to endorse the idea of an innate "sense", and prefers the idea that there is instead an externally controlled "experience" that the believer has in encountering God. An obvious problem here is that it's not possible to objectively settle this question, especially when Christians who in theory believe similar things, find that they can't agree on the nature of the experience that they supposedly share. The problem gets worse when a similar idea inevitably arises within Muslim apologetics.

If the "sense" really is just a type of personal experience, then we're really talking about [[a different sort of argument|Argument from personal experience]], which has its own problems.

===Unverifiable and unfalsifiable===

If someone lacks a particular sense, such as if she is blind, she can always figure out that [[other]] people can see, and not merely because they can tell her. They would be able to sense certain things at a distance, in a way that she would not be able to sense, and she could infer the existence of sight without just taking anyone's word for it.

But the sensus divinitatis only provides people with a subjective conviction, not information about the world that can be objectively evaluated. So, from the perspective of someone without such a functioning sense, there's no reason to believe that anyone else has such a sense either. That is, no one has a way of showing that they actually have a way to sense God that is actually accurate, and not merely a form of delusion or mistake.

==See also==
* [[No true Scotsman fallacy]]

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Epistemology]]
[[Category:Reformed epistemology]]

Job

2011-03-12T09:59:26Z

Quantheory: /* Story */

{{wikipedia|Book of Job}}
{{Books of the Bible}}
'''The Book of Job''' is the 18th book of the Old Testament of the Bible, and contains a single story of a man named Job (prounounced to rhyme with "robe"). In the story, Job, a faithful servant of [[God]], has his life turned upside down and his family killed because of a bet that God makes with [[Satan]].

==Story==

Job, who lives in the land of Uz, is "perfect and upright". ({{bible|Job 1:1}}) He has a happy marriage with many sons and daughters, and he owns plenty of livestock and servants.

God meets [[Satan]] and asks: "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." ({{bible|Job 1:8}}) Satan replies that Job is good only because he has a good life, "stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."

God agrees to this wager, and gives Satan complete power over Job's life. First Satan kills Job's servants and livestock ({{bible|Job 1:14-17}}). Then he kills Job's sons and daughters ({{bible|Job 1:18-19}}). Job himself is afflicted with terrible boils over his entire body ({{bible|Job 2:7-8}}). Yet Job does not renounce God, even though his wife tells him that he should. He does, however, complain a lot about his situation, cursing the day he was born.

Job's neighbors then accuse him of wickedness, asserting that if he renounces his sin and returns to righteousness, he will be restored to health and prosperity. They assume that he must have been wicked, because otherwise God would not have allowed bad things to happen to him. Job spends many chapters arguing with these neighbors, asserting that he has done nothing wrong and has nothing to answer for. He tries to rationalize his situation, but also asks God what he did to deserve his terrible fate. He initially receives no answer, and chastises his neighbors for lying in order to defend God ({{bible|Job 13:7-11}}).

Then Elihu, the youngest of the neighbors and supposed author of the book of Job, speaks up against Job with a supposedly much better argument, which comes down to: "God is way bigger and better than you, so don't question him and just apologize, even if you don't know what you did."

Finally God appears to Job to respond to his pleas. He essentially goes on a long tirade, not answering Job's questions, but instead repeatedly making comments like this: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." ({{bible|Job 38:4}}) "Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all." ({{bible|Job 38:18}}) "Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?" ({{bible|Job 38:33}}) And so forth.

Job is chastened. He humbly replies: "Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further." ({{bible|Job 40:4-5}}) God then proceeds to brag about his accomplishments, and Job continues to be sorry for questioning him.

So God wins his bet with Satan, and he rewards Job by giving him more than he had before. Job receives twice as many livestock and servants, and has the same number of sons and daughters, only his new daughters are the very prettiest in the nation. Job lives to be 140 years old and dies happy.

==Apologetics==

The moral of this story is that we cannot understand God's motives, but if we trust in God unquestioningly, then he will provide for us.

==Counter-Apologetics==

God never '''did''' explain his reasons to Job. When Job asked, God's answer was basically "Were you there when I created the universe? No, so shut up!" According to the story, the real reason he dealt out all this punishment, misery, and the deaths of Job's innocent children and servants, was to settle a bet. That strikes some atheists as extremely petty.

And speaking of the children and servants, why get them involved? They were not even directly related to the bet. What did they do to deserve death? No doubt Job found consolation in his new family, but that is not much comfort to the dead family.

[[Category:Religious mythology]]
[[Category:Characters in the Bible]]

User:Quantheory/Sandbox

2011-03-12T09:15:40Z

Quantheory: /* Math Test */

==Math Test==

<math>\phi^2</math>
{{math|<var>x</var>}}

User talk:Kazim

2011-03-12T09:13:47Z

Quantheory: Activation of LaTeX?

In the [[Special:Logs|Logs]], I see you deleted [[Iron Chariots Wiki:Searching]] on Aug 19th, saying, "''This is the second time this page has popped up as a redirect, and I don't know why''". I do. It's linked to from the [[Special:Search/fubar|Search results]] page when you do an unsuccessful search (follow last link to see example). - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 02:07, 26 August 2006 (MST)
: Actually, it shows up on [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?search=bible&fulltext=Search successful searches], too. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 02:36, 26 August 2006 (MST)

==Known issues==
Since registering a few hours ago, I've made an initial pass through the wiki (main navigation pages, special pages) looking for "obvious" problems. I've collected them at [[User:Dcljr/Sandbox]]. Basically, I wanted to give you (and [[User:Sans Deity|Matt]]) a heads-up before I go in changing everything. <w> - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 03:41, 26 August 2006 (MST)

== Spaces in URLs ==

I've replied on [[User talk:Dcljr#Wow|my talk page]]. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 03:13, 29 August 2006 (MST)

== Comment-box ==
The only extra typing which is required is "text=" (as you could just start the text section with <nowiki>'''Comment:'''</nowiki>). The old comment-box didn't format correctly in every situation (if, for example a picture or menu div or anything else exists to the right or left of it) which required me to make comment-box2 (to adjust the right margin) and might have eventually lead to comment-box3,4,5,6,7,8,9 (to adjust left margin or color or anything else). That could all be replaced with one template, so why not do it? Additionally, templates which use <nowiki>{{{1}}}</nowiki> (unnamed parameters) have additional limitations that prevent some "behind the scenes" stuff from working - unnamed parameters, for example, don't always work well when referencing one template from within another. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 10:44, 10 September 2006 (CDT)

: Actually, using "text=" AND typing the extra bolded word "comment" is a lot of extra typing, especially considering that it will be repeated many times over throughout the course of an article.
: Despite the issues you raised, it seems to me that the generic box is shorter and easier for most simple text. What if I reintroduced Comment-box and made it reference Comment-box1 as a special case? Then we could still use Comment-box1 any time we need to use a picture or whatever. -- [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:14, 10 September 2006 (CDT)
:: I guess that would be ok, the problem is that if people add pictures or sidebars later, without properly understanding the templates it's going to be a bit of work for them to figure out that the need to completely change which template is referenced. Instead of looking at the template in use and simply changing/adding a parameter, they now have to completely switch templates. I'd rather type a little extra now so that the only thing an editor would need to do is add a "width=" (or similar). I suppose it's ok to have a million templates but I just want the templates to be manageable and having one template that had a pretty solid default function while allowing optional parameters to be set. One thing we'll definitely want to do, either way, is categorize templates and make sure that they're well documented - which would include documenting all similar template.

:: Generally, I'm of the opinion that "Comment-box1" shouldn't be considered a "special case" template, it should be the default - because it's the one that doesn't suffer from the problems that "Comment-box" suffers from. But that's just me...add it if you like, I'll be typing the extra few characters. To me, it's not just about which solution requires me to type less, it's about which solution is more useful and simpler. Why learn many templates for comment boxes when you only have to learn one? Maybe we don't want every comment in a given article to have the "Comment:" preface, some should maybe be "See also:" or "Response:". Maybe we don't want them all to be the same color...if a particular comment is more important or references another article it may deserve another color. Comments where we agree with the apologist might deserve a different color than where we disagree or where their claims represent immoral beliefs. - [[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 20:33, 10 September 2006 (CDT)

== Doubting Thomas and Kirk Cameron? ==

I don't understand how the "[[I used to be an atheist]]" argument has precedent in [[Doubting Thomas]] (see [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=I_used_to_be_an_atheist&curid=1378&diff=7905&oldid=6269&rcid=6554 this change]). Could you please spell it out? --[[User:Arensb|Arensb]] 10:34, 15 December 2007 (CST)
:Expanded now; see article. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 18:40, 15 December 2007 (CST)

== citations ==

Are website citations and references possible on this wiki? I have yet to find a page that uses them, so I Decided it wouldn't be a bad idea to ask.
--[[User:Enshoku|Enshoku]] 21:12, 29 April 2008 (CDT)
:I think I know what you're talking about, but you might want to check with dcljr. He's kind of our resident Wiki technician.
--[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 06:50, 30 April 2008 (CDT)
::Will ask, thanks for the help!
--[[User:Enshoku|Enshoku]] 17:25, 30 April 2008 (CDT)

== Vandal ==

Watch for a Vandal calling himself Yerranos. He's a fundy Christian doing secular Wikis. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:32, 21 June 2008 (CDT)

:Thanks for the tip. I have to say I misread your message the first time, and I went through your own recent edits saying to myself, "Hey, Proxima Centauri doesn't sound so much like a vandal..." :) --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 10:31, 22 June 2008 (CDT)

Yeah, I've been meaning to talk to you about this. How do you make sure no one is vandalizing the wiki? What if some Christian like Yerranos starts deleting articles. Will our work be wasted?--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 15:18, 5 April 2010 (CDT)

== Donations ==

Hello, Russell

I've been hoping you guys would get an automated donation system going by now, but decided to press the issue. I demand that you give me a way to send money to this project!

Hmm, let's see. I think there's supposed to be something I do at the end of a wiki edit. Maybe this is it. [[User:Beriukay|Beriukay]] 07:41, 13 May 2009 (CDT)

: Hi Beriukay, thanks for your interest. If you want to donate, I suggest you sent it to the Atheist Community of Austin and mark your donation as earmarked for Iron Chariots. You can donate at [http://atheist-community.org/donate/ this link].

:: Thanks Kazim. That was painless. [[User:Beriukay|Beriukay]]

== Short URL ==

You might've already considered it, or maybe even never thought about it, but having index.php?title= in the sites URLs looks yucky, unprofessional, and somewhat annoying if manually typing out an address. It's relatively easy to get rid of the index.php?title= part so it's like it is on Wikipedia. Instructions can be found [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Short_URL#Setup_steps here] - [[User:Aardvark|Aardvark]] 07:26, 17 June 2009 (CDT)

== Wiki Date / Time is off ==

The wiki's clock seems to be off by more than a week.... [[User:Jwissick|Jwissick]] 01:38, 5 April 2010 (CDT)

== A suggestion ==

I've been doing some research and found some huge websites related to religious issues. Unfortunately, Christians and Muslims dominate the web. I was thinking of doing some more group projects on this wiki, as in critiques of theistic websites, articles, books, debates, philosopgers (Craig, Plantinga, Swinburne, Behe) etc etc. I don't get the obsession with Ray Comfort- he's the dumbest person I've seen.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 15:27, 5 April 2010 (CDT)

Also, the wiki seems to have little insight on the religions themselves. What we have is great but take a look at this website for example, www.answering-islam.com >It's a Christian website which attacks Islam, and it is extraordinary.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 15:27, 5 April 2010 (CDT)

:Feel free to add them! --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 14:28, 15 April 2010 (CDT)

== Activation of LaTeX? ==

The UI for this site has a math button, but it doesn't work:

<math>\hat{H}|\psi\rangle = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} |\psi\rangle</math>

Is it possible to get this enabled? There's a basic guide here:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Enable_TeX

I've done stuff kinda like this before; it could be time-consuming or trivial depending on what kind of server you've got set up. Just curious if this could be fixed. It's more than a little weird being on a site that talks about science and logic, and only having HTML to work with, but I know you guys are busy, so it's not a huge deal if that's all we've got.

User:Quantheory/Sandbox

2011-03-12T08:41:38Z

Quantheory: /* Math Test */

==Math Test==

<math>\phi^2</math>

User:Quantheory/Sandbox

2011-03-12T08:24:54Z

Quantheory:

==Math Test==

<math>\Diamond A\to \Box\Diamond A</math>

User:Quantheory

2011-03-12T08:24:16Z

Quantheory: /* About me */

=About me=

I'm a graduate student in physics and author from Denver. An atheist who grew up in a Baptist church, I was deconverted by a combination of the [[outsider test]], the [[problem of hell]], a love for scientific explanations of the natural world, and good old-fashioned being-too-busy-to-go-to-church.

Argument from faith

2011-03-12T08:06:03Z

Quantheory: /* Self-justifying/circular nature of the argument */

An '''argument from faith''' asserts that we can know of the existence of God through faith. Even if it were true, this argument suffers from an obvious limitation; in order to accept the argument, one must already have accepted it.

== Formal statement ==

:: p1. Faith is a unique method of knowing.
:::: a) Nothing can be known for certain or proven from scratch.
:::: b) Instead we must rely on certain assumptions which we take on faith.
:::: c) Through faith one can know these truths that cannot otherwise be verified.
:: p2. The existence of God cannot be determined except through faith.
:: p3. I have faith in God.

:: c1. God exists.

== Counter-arguments ==

=== False premise p1a ===

The premise that nothing can be proven for certain or from scratch can be demonstrated as false when you consider 'I think therefore I am', mathematics and the 3 logical absolutes. You can prove to yourself that your mind exists in some possible form, and that 2 + 2 = 4 with absolute certainty. A simple yet sufficient answer to this premise is 'so what?'. Science does not work with absolute certainty on most subjects, such as evolution which is not proven absolutely however close it may be, but it is still demonstrably the best way to discover the world.

=== Faith is not necessary in any other situation ===

Most skeptical atheists will probably reject the idea that faith is a way of knowing anything. The things which atheists supposedly assume, such as the reliability of the senses, are in fact generally ''not'' taken on faith in the same way as religious ideas are. For one, we are constantly bombarded with new evidence regarding the reliability of the senses, as each one confirms the others, and as new experiences prove to be consistent with old ones. The world could be Matrix-like or a dream, but Occam's razor recommends the straightforward explanation, which is that the world is what it appears to be and not an elaborate illusion created by unknown means. Furthermore, it is a practical necessity to live life based on the best information one has, even if it is not absolutely certain.

That said, even this acceptance is not absolute. Most people are willing to accept the possibility that illusions, hallucinations, or dreams may fool their senses, at least from time to time. This is in strong contrast to religious belief. Theists often feel such a strong loyalty towards their beliefs that they are unwilling to even confront the possibility that they might be wrong. What such people call "faith" is most certainly ''not'' a way of knowing that everyone relies upon.

=== Which God? ===
{{main article|Which god?}}

This argument for the existence of God doesn't specify anything about Him, except to say "He is the God I have faith in." Since many people have different ideas about what God is, they can "prove" to themselves the existence of [[Yahweh]], [[Allah]], [[Vishnu]], or any other deity with this argument. In fact, this is true of virtually every argument for the existence of God that is not explicitly based on a particular scripture.

=== Other ways of knowing God should be possible ===

An omnipotent God, or indeed one with any power great enough to make Him worthy of being called God, should be able to manifest in the physical world, do miracles, speak directly to human beings, and many other things. If He did, faith would be unnecessary, and this would seem to be a far more honest and straightforward way for him to interact with mankind. Since these things don't seem to be happening to people nowadays, the fact that we have to rely on faith to believe in him seems to be a reason to ''not'' believe that he really exists.

=== Faith is not reliable ===

This should be obvious to anyone who takes even a brief moment to think about the subject, but sometimes it must be stated aloud. Cult members and even conventionally religious people often have strong convictions that lead them to commit murder or suicide, even when their beliefs are demonstrably false. Different religions contradict one another, yet they are often based on similar degrees of faith. It's clear that having faith in something, however strong, does not force it to be true, or even lend credibility to the concept. If you say that faith is the only way to determine whether god exists, as stated in p2, then you are out of gas, and more is required.

=== The atheist has no direct access to faith in God ===

By definition, no atheist has faith in God, and it is usually not possible to make yourself believe in just anything for just any arbitrary reason (although this is often what theists seem to be demanding when they require an atheist to have faith in God). As a result, no atheist has any way of evaluating this argument except by noting that other people have faith (in which case she will notice that faith is not a reliable source of knowledge).

In fact, this is a counter-productive argument to use on any kind of atheist. Since it insists that faith is the best or even only way of knowing God, it implies that anyone who cannot have faith should immediately give up on discovering anything about Him. It also encourages theists to give up on ever justifying their own beliefs with solid, objective evidence or reasoning that they could use to shore up their own faith or to convince others.

=== Self-justifying/circular nature of the argument ===

This argument is utterly unconvincing to anyone who does not already believe the conclusion. However, it does provide a way for believers to reaffirm their faith through circular reasoning (my faith in God is justified by my faith in God). This makes the argument effectively a defensive tactic, one which has no power to convince, but which becomes unassailable through sheer stubbornness. That is, an atheist confronted with someone who sincerely makes this argument may give up, simply because the theist in question appears totally unreachable through rational discussion.

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Arguments for belief]]

Argument from the second law of thermodynamics

2011-02-28T06:43:53Z

Quantheory: /* The Earth is not a closed system */

{{argument-stub}}
{{Wikipedia|Second law of thermodynamics}}

Creationists often claim that the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]
(sometimes abbreviated 2LoT) precludes [[evolution]] (and/or the
[[Big Bang]]). Often this is explained by saying that the second law
says that everything tends toward disorder; since living beings (or
the universe) is highly ordered, they could not have formed
spontaneously.

== Examples ==
From ''[http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism]'' at trueorigin.org:
{{Quote|The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)}}

A.C. McIntosh, ''[http://journals.witpress.com/pages/paperinfo.asp?PaperID=420&jID=19&vn=4&in=4 Information And Entropy – Top-down Or Bottom-up Development In Living Systems?]'', ''International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics'', Vol. 4, Issue 4:
{{Quote|Consequently, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics show that entropy reduction which can occur naturally in non-isolated systems is not a sufficient argument to explain the origin of either biological machinery or genetic information that is inextricably intertwined with it.}}

== Counter-arguments ==

=== Entropy is not the same as disorder ===

The most common definition of the second law is: "The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." The second law of thermodynamics uses the word entropy, which is what causes the confusion (Or allows the lies, depending on how you look at it.) The meaning of the word entropy that is used in the second law is: "For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work." Using that correct definition the second law of thermodynamics obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. It never did, it's just about thermal energy. (As should be evident by its very name.)
But the definition that the apologists use is: "A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system." And using that definition, the second law of thermodynamics would mean: The random disorderliness of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. However, this is not only an incorrect use of the second law. It is also untrue, some closed systems will tend to fall into disorder, while some will become more orderly. Examples: Disorderly dust clouds in space eventualy gravitate towards a central/denser point, forming a star.
If we presume that humanity is orderly, and that the apologists definition of entropy is valid, we should observe the continuous destruction of humanity - human populations should dwindle, human technology should decline. That this is not occurring is not evidence that the definition is incorrect - it would mean that the Earth is not a closed system. Evolution is compatible even with the apologists definition - the earth itself is not a closed system. In a universe consisting solely of the earth and the sun, biological evolution is still possible - the total "randomness" will increase consistently as the sun releases energy, but on earth, that energy is temporarily ordered.

=== The Big Bang theory does not claim anything about prior events ===

That is, Big Bang theory does not currently tell us what happened before the Big Bang, or whether there even was a "before the Big Bang", in the sense of a point in space-time which unambiguously predates the Big Bang itself. Without knowing how much entropy, if any, was present in the pre-Bang universe, you cannot claim that the Big Bang contradicts the second law.

=== The Earth is not a closed system ===

The second law of thermodynamics describes what happens to closed systems, that is, systems in which mass and energy are confined to the system and cannot enter or leave. However, the Earth is not a closed system, since it receives radiation from the Sun and also radiates heat and light into space. The Earth's crust is an even more open system, because heat and material is often ejected from the Earth's interior (through volcanoes and other methods). This provides a wealth of energy that drives "machines" such as climate patterns and the flourishing of life. If the Earth was a closed system, these processes might have "run down" and ended, but as long as the Sun continues to heat the planet they are in no danger of stopping.

=== The argument would apply equally well to known, normal reproduction within a species ===

If the earth could only become more disordered or more "worn down", it would not be possible for populations of life forms to grow and flourish. In fact, every time a cell copies or repairs its own DNA, it creates more information, at least in the obvious sense of producing a longer string of nucleotides. The second law of thermodynamics ''must'' allow the creation of ordered systems, or else it would not be possible for new, young, healthy organisms to be descended from older organisms.

In order to argue that the second law prevents evolution, one must demonstrate that even though known harmful and harmless mutations and normal reproduction occur, beneficial mutations could never occur. This seems to be a hopeless task, because there is no fundamental difference, either in physics or in the theory of evolution, between "harmful" and "beneficial" mutations, and because beneficial mutations have indeed been observed to occur.

=== Raised free energies can be the result of natural processes ===

The McIntosh quote above relates more to abiogenesis than to evolution (since evolution requires no processes that are physically different from normal reproduction plus mutation). McIntosh claims that the formation of the complex machinery necessary for life requires a positive free energy, and thus cannot happen spontaneously. This has been empirically disproven many times over, as many organic molecules have been produced through lifeless processes, and in fact are found in some comets and meteorites. McIntosh also makes claims about the unique nature of genetic information, claiming that it transcends the physical/chemical medium that it inhabits. However, he gives no clear way of deriving any of this from the second law itself, instead simply proposing it as something that would support his statements.

== External links ==
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html Response to this argument] at talkorigins.org
* ''[http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_2nd_law/ Argument From the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics]'' at strongatheism.net.

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Talk:Gambler's fallacy

2010-08-26T04:57:04Z

Quantheory:

I question the validity of the earthquake example as a gambler's fallacy. Earthquakes aren't independent events like the coin toss and may depend on the release of pressure due to earthquakes in the past. If, for some reason, that stress has grown to a greater level than normal (because it wasn't being released), it might be safe to assume the release of the greater pressure would result in a more forceful earthquake. - Reklawrnnr

Agreed and removed [[User:Quantheory|quantheory]] 23:57, 25 August 2010 (CDT)

Gambler's fallacy

2010-08-26T04:56:46Z

Quantheory: /* Examples */ Bad example removed

{{fallacy-stub}}
The '''gambler's fallacy''' is the [[logical fallacy]] of thinking that deviations from a long-term trend will be corrected in the short term.

Those who may believe a long-term trend is "overdue" to change often think that probability is on their side. They may believe that the probability of a specific event happening again is extremely low, because of how many times that event already happened.

For example, if a coin lands on heads multiple times in a row, one might think it is "overdue" to land on tails. In fact, the probability that a coin will land on just one side multiple times is (1/2)^n, where n is the number of flips. In 4 flips, there is only a 6% chance that it will land all heads. The gambler would look at this and may think another heads would be even more unlikely.

What the gambler and most others don't understand when playing gambling games is that each result is '''independent''' of the others. It's still a 50/50 chance that the next flip will be heads or tails.

A '''dependent''' event might be a result of choosing red or black randomly from a deck of cards when the cards are not replaced after each trial. At the beginning, red and black have an equal probability of being chosen. Say, though twelve black cards are chosen in a row. Now, there is a 35% chance of picking black on the third trial and a 65% chance of pulling red.

It is important to understand the difference between '''independent''' and '''dependent''' events in order to avoid this fallacy.

== Examples ==

* A person who is playing slot machines and has just lost ten times in a row may think that he is more likely to win on the next try.
* A person playing Roulette sees that red has come up repeatedly, so bets on black.

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Talk:50 reasons to believe in God

2010-07-16T08:30:28Z

Quantheory: /* Stephen hawking quote - Doesn't answer 'why' */

==Initial discussion==
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)

:::Thanks for translating my makeshift "puddle fallacy" responses to the more correct "anthropic principle" -- knew I was missing a better way to say that.[[User:Fishbulb|fishbulb]] 22:29, 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)

And we now have an answer for every claim. 50 arguments, thoroughly demolished in less than 10 hours. Applause all around.

My next thought: how do we get this in front of the people who need to see it? I know, even if everyone who received the original email read these answers, we'd likely gain very few converts, but often just getting people to stop thinking on the level of this nonsense and considering their faith in logical terms can be the seed that sprouts into freethought, to appropriate their metaphor. I wouldn't want to start mass spamming people, but I certainly think anyone who forwards the original is fair game for a rational response, having opened the debate. What other methods can we use to make sure this effort (not that it took much, honestly) doesn't amount to us talking amongst ourselves? [[User:Fishbulb|fishbulb]] 22:27, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

: I dunno... google the wording of the original post periodically, find copies of it on the web, and publicly reply to them with this link? (i.e., post it on blogs) --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 01:04, 19 June 2008 (CDT)

I...um...broke it. I've tried to fix the Comment Box for #7, but for some reason it just won't show up.
: I couldn't identify the cause of the problem but I essentially just retyped it and it works now. [[User:Fishbulb|fishbulb]] 20:14, 19 June 2008 (CDT)

Most of these "arguments", I've noticed, aren't even "arguments for the existence of God" at all; about half are just stupid straw man assertions like "Atheists should get a life" or "Einstein said that religion and science should mingle". Of the half that aren't just ad hominem qualifiers, the list is still chock full of the false dichotomy between natural selection and creationism by a specific god. Even when I was a Christian, I don't think that I would actually take any of this seriously.
[[User:walkertheatheist|walkertheatheist]]

== Split into sections? ==

Does anyone have a strong objection to splitting the contents of this page into 50 sections? For example:
<pre><nowiki>
== Reason 1 ==
...
== Reason 2 ==
...
</nowiki></pre>
Now that all the "reasons" have rebuttals (and the page has grown to 31K), I think this would make future editing much easier, since much of it will probably be minor tweaking or expansion of individual responses. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 03:37, 20 June 2008 (CDT)
:Sure, I'll do it. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:22, 20 June 2008 (CDT)
:It Is Finished. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 11:52, 20 June 2008 (CDT)

== Integrate the responses into existing articles ==

Some of the responses are now very long -- which is nice, but also doesn't quite match what I had in mind originally. I was hoping that any material which requires a lengthy response or multiple responses would be integrated into existing articles, so that it can improve the state of the articles as a whole. For example, "Reason 29" is about the use of the "BC/AD" system as proof that Jesus lived. It has three separate comment boxes on it. I would hope that this text could be folded into some article, such as [[Anno Domini]] or a new apologetic argument focused article with a header such as "The Western calendar proves that Jesus was real." Also, any comment box that has external links would likely be better off pointing to an article which includes those links in the "external links" section. What do you think? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 12:23, 20 June 2008 (CDT)

== Snappy comebacks? ==

I hate to say this, I really do, because TheTrueScotsman has clearly put a lot of work into it. But I am just not sold on the idea that "Snappy comebacks" belong here. I love [http://www.leedberg.com/mad/satsq/satsq.html Mad Magazine], but this isn't a site for practicing comedy; it's for sincere counter-apologetics.

To the extent that the "snappy comebacks" make legitimate points, I think they should be worked into the counter-apologetics sections of each of the various argument pages. If they're just there to repeat things that were already said in the arguments, I feel like we can do without them.

Can I get some discussion please? I wouldn't feel comfortable just wiping out everything that TheTrueScotsman has done by fiat.
--[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 07:27, 24 June 2008 (CDT)
: Agreed in full. [[User:Fishbulb|fishbulb]] 19:46, 24 June 2008 (CDT)
:: All right then... I'll give Scotsman another day to suggest what we should do with his responses before I just take them out. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 20:55, 24 June 2008 (CDT)
::: A few days ago, [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=50_reasons_to_believe_in_God&diff=8480&oldid=8477 I added] a "snappy comeback", as it were, to one of the comments, because, well, it seemed so ''necessary''. Having two or three sarcastic retorts (worked into the main comments) seems to me to be entirely appropriate, but not on the ''majority'' of the responses. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 22:11, 24 June 2008 (CDT)

Chaps, I've just seen that my "Snappy Comebacks" have been removed. Obviously I'm sorry if my tone was not in keeping with the objectives of the Wiki (you can tell it is my first idea at editing, having read the invitation from ''The Atheist Experience''), I just thought that sometimes detailed comebacks are not always necessary. I though the answers given - whilst completely accurate - seemed to be a little formal. In any debate a well aimed barb can often disarm an opponent better than a detailed retort. I shall, of course, bear the comments in mind for any future editing. Regards. [[User:TheTrueScotsman|TheTrueScotsman]]

:Hi Scots. I really hope that you don't take this change in your writing as an implication that you are not welcome to post on Iron Chariots. I want to encourage you and others to feel free to make improvements and corrections, and even contribute new articles when necessary. What you have to understand, however, is that a wiki is a group effort, and sometimes your changes will be overridden. In this case, you made very sweeping changes to the style of the page across the board. I think it might have been a good idea to take your ideas to the discussion page first and see if you could drum up a consensus about this. Again, this is not a universal description of policy, but when you have something that constitutes a drastic change, it's a courtesy issue.
:As far as well-aimed barbs go: I appreciate humor as a rhetorical weapon also, but sometimes it can be overdone. Most comedians know that jokes lose their impact if you repeat them too many times. You could respond to a serious argument by saying "I know you are, but what am I?" This might even get you a laugh because of the unseriousness of the response. But if you do this fifty times, first of all it gets old, and second of all it doesn't help to make your case. Do you see what I mean? --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 16:20, 27 June 2008 (CDT)

== RNA ==

DNA argument, if addressed at all, need somebody knowledgeable to review it. RNA is perfect example of decoder(understander) , which supposedly according to this article is required for ID argument. RNA-DNA interactions are very tricky subject it should not be treated lightly as it seems to be in this article. —The preceding [[Project:Sign your comments|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Cheburashka1326|Cheburashka1326]] ([[User talk:Cheburashka1326|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cheburashka1326|contribs]]){{if|test=9 September 2009|then=, 9 September 2009|else=.}}

== Stephen hawking quote - Doesn't answer 'why' ==

In the 45th reason, the stephen hawking quote one, the response is that religion or the bible does not answer the 'why' the universe began to exist, or why God made it. But there is a problem with that. If god made the universe, then he had a want or need to do so. Since a perfect being does not have any wants or needs then god is not perfect, and subsequently not a god. If god were to want to become a god, or more god-like then he would have a reason to create the universe (ignoring him wanting to create it for people, its just arrogant). Since he would never be more perfect than a being who was always perfect, he could never be a god, but he could become more god-like, hence his reason to create the universe (getting rid of a want or need to become more like a god).
This is actually my argument I made, maybe missing a bit of reasoning but easy to understand i think.. feel free to respond with what you think of it. --[[User:Daemonowner|Daemonowner]] 07:26 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe what you are referring to is the [[no-reason argument]]? I think it makes some sense, although I don't really think that the idea of a "perfect" being is even clear enough that I personally would base any argument off it. I thought we had a clear explanation of the that argument somewhere on this site, but I can't find anything but that stub. --[[User:Quantheory|quantheory]] 03:30, 16 July 2010 (CDT)

Pseudoscience

2010-07-16T08:24:13Z

Quantheory: reverting spam

{{wikipedia}}
'''Pseudoscience''' is a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be [[scientific]], or has been made to ''appear'' scientific, but does not adhere to the [[scientific method]], lacks supporting [[evidence]] or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience]

Other names for essentially the same phenomenon include:
* [[Cargo cult science]]
* [[wikipedia:Junk science|Junk science]]
* [[wikipedia:Quackery|Quackery]]

Common examples of pseudoscience include:
{{wikipedia|List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts}}
* many forms of [[alternative medicine]], including [[wikipedia:homeopathy|homeopathy]]
* [[Creation science]]
* [[Intelligent Design]]
* many types of [[paranormal]] claims and [[Ghost Hunters|investigations]] of those claims
* [[Parapsychology]]
* [[Scientology]]

==See also==
* [[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]] ([[CSICOP]])
* [[James Randi Educational Foundation]]

==External links==
* [[wikipedia:Dianetics|Dianetics]]
* [[wikipedia:Paradigm shift|Paradigm shift]]
* [[wikipedia:Sokal Affair|Sokal Affair]]
* [[wikipedia:True-believer syndrome|True-believer syndrome]]

[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Society]]

User talk:Lena

2010-07-16T08:23:43Z

Quantheory:

This seems to be a spam-bot.

Materialism

2010-07-15T07:10:02Z

Quantheory:

{{philosophy-stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
'''Materialism''' is the philosophical position that the material world — that is, the "natural world" of ''matter'' and ''energy'' — is the only thing that truly exists. It rejects [[supernatural]] explanations of observable phenomena, as well as philosophical [[idealism]] and [[spiritualism]].

Materialism is the basis of all [[scientific inquiry]], although many scientists do hold supernatural or spiritual beliefs that may even play a role in their scientific endeavors. Materialists would see other forms of energy such as light photons as the same substance as matter.

In common parlance, '''materialism''' also means the attitude of valuing material possessions over intangible things like [[love]] and honor. For this reason, the word can have a pejorative connotation. Materialism should not be seen as bad. Love and honour have a physical basis in the human brain. Neural psychologists are discovering how loving brains and brains that respect honour differ from other brains. Scientists do not know the details yet. That should not stop us valuing love or honour or thinking of them as tangible and real.

Materialism in the philosophical sense (there is no "spiritual substance") and materialism in the common sense (material possessions are the most important thing in life) are often confused, which leads to either an [[equivocation]] fallacy or a complete misunderstanding of what skeptics believe. This is often tied to an equivocation fallacy regarding the word "[[spirituality]]", which can either be a reference to a real "spirit" separate from the body, or simply a set of attitudes regarding what is most important in life.

===Historical Materialism===
'''Historical Materialism''' is a methodological approach to the study of society, economics, and history. Historical materialism looks for the causes of developments and changes in human society in the means by which humans collectively produce the necessities of life. The non-economic features of a society (e.g. social classes, political structures, ideologies) are seen as being an outgrowth of its economic activity. This means that socio-economic and political factors cause historical change, and as a result of this some necessities in life for future generations will change comparative to past generations.

In the context of religion and theism, historical materialism shows that over time, particularly in economically developed countries over the past 150 years, society has seen a reduction in religious participation and practice as well as an increase in atheism. Therefore it is conclusive to say that capitalist development has resulted in an increase in the plethora of ideological opinion, foremost of which being atheism and the increasing acceptance of science.

[[Category:Philosophy]]

User talk:ZenderCollins

2010-07-13T07:34:01Z

Quantheory:

Only contribution from this user seems to be spam for some gambling site. Unless he does something else, please ban account? --[[User:Quantheory|quantheory]] 02:34, 13 July 2010 (CDT)

User talk:ZenderCollins

2010-07-13T07:33:38Z

Quantheory:

Only contribution from this user seems to be spam for some gambling site. Unless he does something else, please ban account?

Gun Slinger (Chick tract)

2010-07-13T07:31:28Z

Quantheory: reverting spam

[[Image:gunslinger_page18.gif|frame|Terrible Tom is rewarded for his misdeeds with an eternity in heaven, in ''Gun Slinger'']]

[[Gun Slinger (Chick tract)|Gun Slinger]] is a [[Chick tract]] whose description is "A hired killer trusts [[Christ]] and, at death, goes to [[heaven]]. But the law-abiding marshal who hunted him rejects Christ and goes to [[hell]]. Clearly shows that [[salvation]] is through grace, not works."

==Synopsis==

In the old west, Terrible Tom comes to town. Tom is a hitman who is hired to kill the town preacher. Upon hearing the preacher's sermon, Tom has an attack of conscience. Instead of killing the preacher, Tom falls on his knees and accepts Jesus Christ.

An hour later, Terrible Tom is arrested by the town marshall, who describes himself as "the most honest, law-abiding man in this whole territory." Tom spends his last day chatting with the preacher from jail, and says that he is ready to go meet God.

In an ironic twist, the marshall is killed by rattlesnakes hours after Tom is hanged. Since the marshall did not accept Jesus, he goes to hell, while Terrible Tom goes to heaven.

The moral of the story is laid out in the last panel, which says: "Going to heaven is not a matter of '''GOOD''' or '''BAD'''. It's a matter of '''SAVED''' or '''LOST'''. No matter how '''bad''' you've been, Jesus '''''still''''' loves you and wants to save you '''''right now!''''' '''''Will you let him?'''''"

==Commentary==

This tract starkly lays out Chick's [[fundamentalist]] philosophy that it does not matter how good or bad you are. Many people view heaven and hell as reward and punishment for good and bad behavior. [[Hank Hanegraaff]] has argued:
{{Quote-source|[C]ommon sense regarding justice dictates that there must be a hell. Without hell, the wrongs of [[Hitler]]'s Holocaust would never be righted. Justice would be impugned if, after slaughtering six million [[Jew]]s, Hitler merely died in the arms of his mistress with no eternal consequences. The ancients knew better than to think such a thing. David knew that it might seem for a time as though the wicked prosper despite their evil deeds, but, in the end, justice will be served. We may wish to think that no one will go to hell, but common sense regarding justice precludes that possibility.|Hank Hanegraaff, ''Why Should I Believe in Hell?''}}

Jack Chick's philosophy turns this question on its head. If salvation is based entirely on grace rather than works, then it is entirely possible that Hitler not only died, but then immediately ascended to heaven. Hitler was a [[Catholic]], of course, and Chick believes that all Catholics are deluded. But who is to say that Hitler did not, like Terrible Tom, experience a conversion and acceptance of Jesus hours before his death? Worse yet, many of Hitler's Jewish victims probably died in their sins and went straight to hell (in Chick's world view).

This cartoon should make it clear that many Christians do not regard heaven and hell as divine justice at all. Salvation and damnation are not based on anything that a person has done in their lives. It is quite clear that the use of heaven and hell is more for fear mongering to scare people into believing in Jesus as they may be perfect in every other way but if they do not accept him, you will go to hell.

==Frame-by-Frame Transcript==
# Who do you want me to kill?
#A man who has been a curse to my town... The PREACHER!
# He came here three years ago and started a church. I HAD a thriving business!
# LOTS of drinking, gambling, wild women and hell raising! Then he started PREACHING!
#Everyone got religion! My prostitutes joined his church and got married.. Men swore off the bottle and quit gambling. Now I'm almost OUT OF BUSINESS!
# I'll be in his church Sunday... By Monday, he'll be in a CASKET!
#(40 miles away) Excuse me, kind folks. Have you seen this outlaw?
#Yes, Marshall! He was headed for Bottlesville. Much obliged.
# Sir, why ya wearing your guns to church? Shut up, boy, or I'll kill you where you stand!
# Welcome, stranger. God bless you!
# (Sunday morning service begins) The devil is NOT going to get this town back. The Bible says "Resist the devil, and he will flee..."* Devil! Get out of here! * James 4:7
# What's happening? I feel STRANGE!
# Sheriff, have you seen this cold-blooded KILLER? Yes, Marshall. He's in church.
#CHURCH? Trouble's brewing, Sheriff! Get ALL your deputies and lots of shotguns... and surround the church!
#For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him... should not perish (in hell), but have everlasting life (in heaven)."* *John 3:16
# No matter what sins you've committed, Jesus already paid for ALL of them on the cross.* *1 Pet. 2:24
#King David was a murderer, but after he repented, God called him... "a man after mine own heart..."* *Acts 13:22
# The Apostle Paul killed many Christians, but God saved him... then used him to write much of the New Testament.
# The man who was crucified next to Jesus was a criminal. But the Lord PROMISED him... "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43)
#No matter how BAD you are, Jesus can forgive you... and He WANTS to come into your heart and change you. (2 Cor. 5:17)
# Preacher I never thought God would forgive a terrible sinner like me. He will, if you will repent and turn to Him. Pray this prayer with me.
# (1 Hour Later) Freeze... gunslinger! You're under arrest!
# (Next Day) Preacher, thanks for telling me that Jesus loves terrible men like me.
#You're not terrible anymore, Tom. You are a child of God! "But as many as received him (Jesus), to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12
#(That Night) I'm ready to meet you, God. I'll see you in the morning. "...the gift of God is eternal life though Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
#(Next Morning) CRACK
# At last! Terrible Tom got exactly what he deserved.
#(Minutes Later in Heaven) Welcome home, my son. "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life..." John 5:24
# Well, Marshall, Tom's finally gone. Now, how about you? Won't YOU trust the Lord Jesus as YOUR Savior?
# Reverend, I'm the most honest, law-biding man in this whole territory! If I'M not good enough for heaven, then NO ONE is. "there is non righteous, no, not one:" Rom. 3:10
#(3 Hours Later) YAAAAH
#"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation..." Hebrews 2:3
#(Minutes Later in Hell) Wait! This CAN'T be! I was a GOOD man! I UPHELD the law!
# But you NEVER received Christ as your Savior. "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36
#Going to heaven is not a matter of GOOD or BAD. It's a matter of SAVED or LOST. No matter how bad you've been, Jesus still wants to save you! Will you let Him?

==External links==

* [http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0037/0037_01.asp Full tract at Chick.com]
* [http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Bible_Answer_Man/Article.asp?article_id=980 Why Should I Believe in Hell?]

{{jackchick}}

[[Category:Apologetic literature]]

All religions share a single message

2010-07-07T01:18:04Z

Quantheory:

'''"All religions share a single message"''' is a common liberal response to the problem of multiple conflicting religions. The people who push this line are generally trying to encourage religious tolerance by marginalizing differences between religions and at the same time trying to promote communal faith. It would be startling if every religion ever invented had come up with the same principles of faith, wouldn't it? It might even get a few atheists thinking differently about this "revelation" thing.

However, this statement is a flat-out lie. Religions have disagreed about:

* Whether there are any gods
* How many gods there are
* Whether these gods are human-like (physically, mentally, emotionally)
* What these gods desire from human beings (if anything)
* Most other qualities of a God or gods
* Whether there is an afterlife, and what it's like
* Whether reincarnation happens, and how it works
* The importance of sacrifices
* The importance of sin
* The importance of connecting or unifying oneself with a "higher power"
* The existence of witches, magic, or miracles
* When (if ever) murder is justified
* When (if ever) other types of violence are justified
* Whether or not slavery is morally acceptable
* Whether or not other religions are morally acceptable
* When (if ever) religious/cultural outsiders should be treated equally to believers
* Whether or not polygamy is morally acceptable
* Every facet of the treatment of women
* The treatment of gay and lesbian people
* The treatment of transsexual and intersex people (and whether or not they have magical powers)
* Whether or not drug use is sinful
* Whether or not drug use is an integral part of worship
* Whether or not sex is inherently sinful
* Whether or not sex is an integral part of worship (and when)
* How trustworthy prophets are
* The importance of faith
* The value of meditation (and what kind)
* The value of prayer (and what kind)
* Whether thoughts alone can be sinful
* Whether blasphemy is sinful
* Whether or not disease is sinful (one form of ritual uncleanness)

Besides the many disagreements between religions, the apparent agreement between religions is often unconvincing. Some agreements are meaningless because they are vague, culturally universal, and have nothing to do with religion (like "be nice to other people"). Others are not really shared between all religions. For example, a spiritual connection to the universe/God, even though it is a very vague "quality" for a religion to have, is not even universal. Many variants of animism don't even have any particular overarching concept to connect to in the first place, but rather are more interested in limited, "everyday" sorts of god.

God can't be defined

2010-07-07T00:19:56Z

Quantheory:

== When do we hear it? ==

This is a common companion of "[[You can't prove God doesn't exist]]" in that postulating on the non-existence of God is a fruitless exercise. As humans we lack the capability to properly comprehend what God 'truly' is, and therefore are not competent to even define him, never mind disprove him.

== A response ==

The first problem with this statement is that the claim of an undefinable entity requires no refutation, so there's no point to this argument.

However the claimant is actually trying to sneak in premises. The word 'God' has a history and the entity it describes that a multitude of attributes. Furthermore, by bringing this up in response to an atheist, the claimant is also acknowledging that whatever 'God' is, exists. IN order to do that, he does have at least a working model of what 'God' is supposed to be, however nebulous, in order to have a position on the matter. Otherwise why take part in the discussion?

Here, some will claim that they have supernatural knowledge of God, enough to know He exists, but not enough to adequately define him. Even then, they need a working definition of what 'God' is, even if its no more concrete than 'the originator of that vision/dream/inner conviction/personal witness I had'. Even so, making an [[supernatural]] is no more than an [[Argumentum ad ignorantiam|appeal to ignorance]]

Note: The theist who makes this claim may also posit that all 'gods' in human folklore are approximations of the 'true' god, possibly with the one tradition he favors being the closest one. In that case it is worth noting holders of the same position, but who prefer a different tradition as the closest one.

== See Also ==

* [[All gods are aspects of the same God]]

[[Category:Non-arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Arguments]]

Which god?

2010-07-07T00:19:30Z

Quantheory:

A common counter-apologetics argument, this applies to almost every argument for the existence of God other than those based on a specific scripture or revelation. These arguments generally attempt to show the existence of a being with some particular trait, then commit an [[equivocation]] fallacy wherein the being in question is labelled "God" and presumed to be an intelligent, supernatural, and usually monotheistic deity (along with possessing any other traits the apologist wants to believe in). In reality, nothing like "God" has usually been proven. At best, the argument applies to the existence of some completely unknown entity with one specific trait.

== Many arguments do not demonstrate anything like a God at all ==

The [[fine-tuning argument]] could easily be used to demonstrate the existence of universe-creating extraterrestrials (who may or may not have any other traits attributed to God). Similarly, the [[natural law argument]] could be used to demonstrate that the universe was designed by a congressional committee. The [[first cause argument]] doesn't even require an intelligent cause (in fact, it might make more sense for a first cause to be unintelligent, because otherwise one could ask "Why would this thing with no cause or design behind it at all have such a complex trait as the ability to think?").

== Which religion? ==

Many arguments for the existence of God fail to distinguish between different gods. If an argument such as the [[Kalam Cosmological Argument]] fails to distinguish between the [[Muslim]] conception of [[Allah]] and the [[Hellenistic]] conception of [[Chaos]], that should make it clear how weak the conclusion of the argument really is. Far from being an earth-shaking discovery, the argument is effectively a fancy way to say "something made all this junk", without stating what that something is or how that knowledge could possibly be useful or predictive of anything.

Not only can most of these arguments be used to support most modern religions, they also support "dead" religions, as well as many potential future religions or religions that might never even be thought up. The ancient Egyptians could not have become Christians. Similarly, we cannot be members of a religion that doesn't currently exist. That doesn't, however, prove that such a religion could not be true.

The only reasonable, honest solution to this problem is to not accept proof of any religion unless that proof is specific to that religion's claims. This also applies to arguments such as [[Pascal's Wager]].

== Different arguments might address different gods ==

Let's pretend that one can prove the existence of a first cause, a designer of our universe, a designer for life, an architect of objective morality, a god who runs the afterlife, and any number of other things. It's not clear why one should assume that these are all the same entity. In fact, polytheistic religions explicitly invoke a number of gods running different aspects of the universe. One cannot demonstrate the existence of a single monotheistic God that does all of these things without going through them individually and showing why all these different roles go together.

== See also ==

* [[God can't be defined]] - A fuzzy-headed response to this challenge, given by some liberal theists.
* [[All gods are aspects of the same God]] - Another tactic to escape this challenge.
* [[Pascal's Wager]] - An argument in which the "Which god?" question is critical.

All gods are aspects of the same God

2010-07-07T00:18:03Z

Quantheory:

'''"All gods are aspects of the same god"''' is a proposition that some more liberal theists use to explain away the [[Argument from inconsistent revelations]]. It is commonly stated by [[Hindu]] and [[New Age]] believers, as well as by apologists who are no longer strongly associated with a particular religious tradition.

One can see that [[Islam]], [[Hinduism]], and [[Christianity]] often use similar arguments and psychological tricks, but that none is particularly more convincing than the others. Most believers are either unaware of this problem, or ignore it, or argue that some particular argument works better for them than for other religions. Alternatively, an atheist concludes that they are probably all wrong and disbelieves in all gods until one religion comes forward with with more convincing evidence.

However, some liberal theists, particularly those with misguided [[wikipedia:multiculturalism|multiculturalist]] intentions, often try to take the reverse tactic and ''believe that every religion is true''. Often these same people will claim that criticizing any particular religious tradition (or stating that any particular one is superior) is a form of religious intolerance or bigotry that denigrates others' beliefs.

These people are then in a bind, where they can't accept every religious statement that comes along without being extremely gullible and/or seeming to pick favorites. On the other hand, they can't reject these statements without feeling bad about "denigrating" other people's beliefs. They are consigned to a sort of murky assent, where they claim that somehow, perhaps "mysteriously", all the things that different people believe are true, despite how bizarre many of these claims are.

== Counter-arguments ==

=== The religions themselves are incompatible and intolerant ===

First off, it should be noted that almost any pair of traditional religions you care to name are on some level incompatible with each other. Hindus may be willing to accept a lot of different gods, for example, but for that very reason Hinduism is incompatible with every major Abrahamic religion. This is true not only in the sense that they tell different stories, but also because their moral commandments and practices are in direct opposition. When [[Yahweh]] demands that only he may be worshiped and repeatedly commands his followers to drive out and kill worshipers of other gods, destroying their temples and religious artifacts in the process, that's not a trivial inconsistency.

The truth is, religious intolerance of one form or another is part and parcel of most religions, and to deny this is to be woefully ignorant of basic history. If all these various gods are aspects of one God, He must be crazy, cruel, or both, because His extremely inconsistent revelations and denigration of all His other religions have led to countless wars and lives lost over thousands of years.

=== You don't speak for all theists ===

Despite the feel-good message of tolerance and respect in this message, it is also very presumptuous. Walking into the average church, mosque, or (non-polytheistic) temple, and saying something like "All gods are the same God" would probably not get you a whole lot of supporters. You can't just say "you believe in a God that's the same as every other god" to most religious people without being rather rude, because it's intrinsically arrogant to tell other people what they believe.

Anyone who thinks that most religious people really would agree with a line like that needs to get some broader experience, because that's not how the world works right now.

== See also ==

*[[All religions share a single message]]

[[Category:Non-arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Arguments]]

Which god?

2010-07-06T22:54:14Z

Quantheory: /* Different arguments might address different Gods */ typo

A common counter-apologetics argument, this applies to almost every argument for the existence of God other than those based on a specific scripture or revelation. These arguments generally attempt to show the existence of a being with some particular trait, then commit an [[equivocation]] fallacy wherein the being in question is labelled "God" and presumed to be an intelligent, supernatural, and usually monotheistic deity (along with possessing any other traits the apologist wants to believe in). In reality, nothing like "God" has usually been proven. At best, the argument applies to the existence of some completely unknown entity with one specific trait.

== Many arguments do not demonstrate anything like a God at all ==

The [[fine-tuning argument]] could easily be used to demonstrate the existence of universe-creating extraterrestrials (who may or may not have any other traits attributed to God). Similarly, the [[natural law argument]] could be used to demonstrate that the universe was designed by a congressional committee. The [[first cause argument]] doesn't even require an intelligent cause (in fact, it might make more sense for a first cause to be unintelligent, because otherwise one could ask "Why would this thing with no cause or design behind it at all have such a complex trait as the ability to think?").

== Which religion? ==

Many arguments for the existence of God fail to distinguish between different gods. If an argument such as the [[Kalam Cosmological Argument]] fails to distinguish between the [[Muslim]] conception of [[Allah]] and the [[Hellenistic]] conception of [[Chaos]], that should make it clear how weak the conclusion of the argument really is. Far from being an earth-shaking discovery, the argument is effectively a fancy way to say "something made all this junk", without stating what that something is or how that knowledge could possibly be useful or predictive of anything.

Not only can most of these arguments be used to support most modern religions, they also support "dead" religions, as well as many potential future religions or religions that might never even be thought up. The ancient Egyptians could not have become Christians. Similarly, we cannot be members of a religion that doesn't currently exist. That doesn't, however, prove that such a religion could not be true.

The only reasonable, honest solution to this problem is to not accept proof of any religion unless that proof is specific to that religion's claims. This also applies to arguments such as [[Pascal's Wager]].

== Different arguments might address different gods ==

Let's pretend that one can prove the existence of a first cause, a designer of our universe, a designer for life, an architect of objective morality, a god who runs the afterlife, and any number of other things. It's not clear why one should assume that these are all the same entity. In fact, polytheistic religions explicitly invoke a number of gods running different aspects of the universe. One cannot demonstrate the existence of a single monotheistic God that does all of these things without going through them individually and showing why all these different roles go together.

== See also ==

* [[God can't be defined]] - A fuzzy-headed response to this challenge, given by some liberal theists.
* [[Pascal's Wager]] - An argument in which the "Which god?" question is critical.

Talk:Ontological argument

2010-07-06T03:57:55Z

Quantheory:

I have been wondering about the ontological argument - isn't this a confusion on the part of its proponents regarding the use of the word attribute (or property) as opposed to a state? If we look at an example, say Water in this case, we find the following.

Water has many properties or attributes. It can be very hot or very cold. It has material weight, it is generally transparent and can bond to other elements on the periodic table in the right conditions (there's more, but I don't need a laundry list here). However, existence is not an attribute of water, it is a state that a given amount of water may or may not be in at a given moment. Water can be in the state of a solid, for example, when cold enough - yet being solid is not an attribute of water - it is a result of one of the expression of an attribute. Existence is also a state in the same vein; a body of water (like any object one can imagine) may or may not contain the state of existence. Direct or indirect evidence would be required to affirm or deny the object as containing that state.

Applied to the ontological argument, we find that the attempt here is to make perfection an attribute of a god entity and then attach existence as a part of that property. However, in both cases, these are "states" and not "properties" of items. A glass of water may be "perfect" if it meets an arbitrary set of conditions or states that we desire (it is clear, in liquid form, devoid of odor, etc). Thus, the Water, through an expression of properties that it possesses, may be in a state of perfection. Applied to a god, there must be an expression of the entities attributes for the state of perfection to be applied. That, of course, requires that these attributes become manifest, requiring that it exist. But existence is not an expression of a property and it is not one that is automatically achieved via word-smithing or definitions. Thus, the argument fails.

Am I overthinking this?
(Unsigned comment written by [[User:Kijuteras|Kijuteras]] 09:22, 22 June 2008)

:No, I think it's a good point, and it's kind of similar to what I was trying to get across in the proof that unicorns exist. I built "and exists" into the definition of a unicorn, thereby defining one into existence. Your explanation would probably be worth a section in the article. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 10:35, 22 June 2008 (CDT)

::Are you shure that this is the ontological argument? Because (1) this argument has much more things on it than just that 3 statements. Look to Wikipedia and you will notice that this argument requires a much greater explanation. (2) For what I remember of the argument, it not exactly like this. (3) there is no reference on this page...

::[[User:Momergil|Momergil]] 06:30, 5 December 2009 (CST)

:::No, this is the ontological argument. I just checked the different versions on wikipedia like you suggested. Although they use some different wording and add extra steps into the process, they all follow the same basic format as the three point argument at the top of the iron chariots page. And the main counterargument to those three points still applies to the different versions on the wikipedia page. However you choose to write it, just because you choose to linguistically/semantically define something as existing, doesn't actually mean it exist in reality.

:::As for your point about the references, you're right. Being an argument that rests on pure semantics and logic (ie, there aren't really any empirical real world facts in the argument that have to be, or can be cross checked) i don't think references are quite as important as they would be on say, an historical article about the Jefferson bible for instance, but it would be nice if there were perhaps some references to apologetics sites which use the argument. Feel free to add them. As long as you aren't trolling or vandalizing, no body here will have a problem with that.--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 01:18, 6 December 2009 (CST)

I have a different version of the ontological argument which was propounded by Descartes. I don't know if this is worth mentioning or not; if it is, maybe it should be mentioned on a seperate article. Descartes found that in his mind there is the notion of a perfect being, and somehow concluded that God exists.

1. I exist

2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being

3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being

4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 & 3)

5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist.

6. Therefore a perfect being must exist (from 4 & 5)

--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 06:07, 6 April 2010 (CDT)

I would say it does deserve a spot on the page, but would also need a C.A part to it as well.
If you want to know how i conclude the argument is not sound, it goes as follows:
Step 3 is sort of the bridge leading him to making his conclusion somewhat valid, but step 3 is not sound to begin with.
Who is to say you cannot think of a perfect being, or in general - perfection. I would like to argue that perfection is in the eye of the beholder... something we've all heard before, i know... but if perfection is in the mind, then whatever we concieve is perfection as long as we can't or haven't thought of something greater, if we do, the first one becomes obsolete and the new one is considered perfect. The way I see it, is as there is no grounds for actual perfection, the greatest thing we can think of is perfect.
Feel free to comment on this if you wish. --[[User:Daemonowner|Daemonowner]] 00:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This argument by Descartes is actually a way to use a primitive version of [[TAG]] and the ontological argument in one breath. It is not actually any stronger than either is individually because 3 and 4 don't need point 5. The main difference between this argument and [[TAG]] is that [[TAG]] generally uses concepts of "logical absolutes" to make a point whereas this one just skips past that and goes straight to using the God concept itself.

I think one way of refuting step three would be to talk about a perfect symmetry or a perfect crystal. These things are actually easier to understand than "imperfectly" symmetrical objects because they are simpler. "Perfection" is just a word we use to talk about a quality being either extreme, or at just the right value ("This water is the perfect temperature for a shower."). It doesn't mean anything special or mind-blowing about whatever is being described.

I think premise two can also be challenged. What does one mean by "perfect being"? I certainly don't have any clear idea in ''my'' head as to what the "perfect being" would be like. Those are just two very vague and abstract words put together. Even words like omnipresent or omnipotent or omniscient are really vague. What does it mean for God to be everywhere? Is God really a physical object or substance that exists in physical space? Can an omnipotent God do the logically impossible? Does an omniscient God know everything that will happen, or just about the present moment? An infinitely long sequence of letters could encode every possible statement, and therefore every possible statement about the universe. Would that string of letters be omniscient? What if every true statement was indexed and the rest left out; would someone with access to that database be omniscient?

If someone has a really foggy or even silly idea of what God is, such that there's not even a clear definition of the word (except using vapid combinations of vague words like "perfect being"), how can that person use the notion of God to prove anything? On the other hand, if one does have a specific God in mind, like the God of the [[Old Testament]] or [[Jesus]] or [[Zeus]], how could you possibly prove that any particular one of these gods are "perfect"? --[[User:Quantheory|quantheory]] 22:55, 5 July 2010 (CDT)

Talk:Ontological argument

2010-07-06T03:55:02Z

Quantheory:

I have been wondering about the ontological argument - isn't this a confusion on the part of its proponents regarding the use of the word attribute (or property) as opposed to a state? If we look at an example, say Water in this case, we find the following.

Water has many properties or attributes. It can be very hot or very cold. It has material weight, it is generally transparent and can bond to other elements on the periodic table in the right conditions (there's more, but I don't need a laundry list here). However, existence is not an attribute of water, it is a state that a given amount of water may or may not be in at a given moment. Water can be in the state of a solid, for example, when cold enough - yet being solid is not an attribute of water - it is a result of one of the expression of an attribute. Existence is also a state in the same vein; a body of water (like any object one can imagine) may or may not contain the state of existence. Direct or indirect evidence would be required to affirm or deny the object as containing that state.

Applied to the ontological argument, we find that the attempt here is to make perfection an attribute of a god entity and then attach existence as a part of that property. However, in both cases, these are "states" and not "properties" of items. A glass of water may be "perfect" if it meets an arbitrary set of conditions or states that we desire (it is clear, in liquid form, devoid of odor, etc). Thus, the Water, through an expression of properties that it possesses, may be in a state of perfection. Applied to a god, there must be an expression of the entities attributes for the state of perfection to be applied. That, of course, requires that these attributes become manifest, requiring that it exist. But existence is not an expression of a property and it is not one that is automatically achieved via word-smithing or definitions. Thus, the argument fails.

Am I overthinking this?
(Unsigned comment written by [[User:Kijuteras|Kijuteras]] 09:22, 22 June 2008)

:No, I think it's a good point, and it's kind of similar to what I was trying to get across in the proof that unicorns exist. I built "and exists" into the definition of a unicorn, thereby defining one into existence. Your explanation would probably be worth a section in the article. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 10:35, 22 June 2008 (CDT)

::Are you shure that this is the ontological argument? Because (1) this argument has much more things on it than just that 3 statements. Look to Wikipedia and you will notice that this argument requires a much greater explanation. (2) For what I remember of the argument, it not exactly like this. (3) there is no reference on this page...

::[[User:Momergil|Momergil]] 06:30, 5 December 2009 (CST)

:::No, this is the ontological argument. I just checked the different versions on wikipedia like you suggested. Although they use some different wording and add extra steps into the process, they all follow the same basic format as the three point argument at the top of the iron chariots page. And the main counterargument to those three points still applies to the different versions on the wikipedia page. However you choose to write it, just because you choose to linguistically/semantically define something as existing, doesn't actually mean it exist in reality.

:::As for your point about the references, you're right. Being an argument that rests on pure semantics and logic (ie, there aren't really any empirical real world facts in the argument that have to be, or can be cross checked) i don't think references are quite as important as they would be on say, an historical article about the Jefferson bible for instance, but it would be nice if there were perhaps some references to apologetics sites which use the argument. Feel free to add them. As long as you aren't trolling or vandalizing, no body here will have a problem with that.--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 01:18, 6 December 2009 (CST)

I have a different version of the ontological argument which was propounded by Descartes. I don't know if this is worth mentioning or not; if it is, maybe it should be mentioned on a seperate article. Descartes found that in his mind there is the notion of a perfect being, and somehow concluded that God exists.

1. I exist

2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being

3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being

4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 & 3)

5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist.

6. Therefore a perfect being must exist (from 4 & 5)

--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 06:07, 6 April 2010 (CDT)

I would say it does deserve a spot on the page, but would also need a C.A part to it as well.
If you want to know how i conclude the argument is not sound, it goes as follows:
Step 3 is sort of the bridge leading him to making his conclusion somewhat valid, but step 3 is not sound to begin with.
Who is to say you cannot think of a perfect being, or in general - perfection. I would like to argue that perfection is in the eye of the beholder... something we've all heard before, i know... but if perfection is in the mind, then whatever we concieve is perfection as long as we can't or haven't thought of something greater, if we do, the first one becomes obsolete and the new one is considered perfect. The way I see it, is as there is no grounds for actual perfection, the greatest thing we can think of is perfect.
Feel free to comment on this if you wish. --[[User:Daemonowner|Daemonowner]] 00:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This argument by Descartes is actually a way to use a primitive version of [[TAG]]] and the ontological argument in one breath. It is not actually any stronger than either is individually because 3 and 4 don't need point 5. The main difference between this argument and [[TAG]] is that [[TAG]] generally uses concepts of "logical absolutes" to make a point whereas this one just skips past that and goes straight to using the God concept itself.

I think one way of refuting step three would be to talk about a perfect symmetry or a perfect crystal. These things are actually easier to understand than "imperfectly" symmetrical objects because they are simpler. "Perfection" is just a word we use to talk about a quality being either extreme, or at just the right value ("This water is the perfect temperature for a shower."). It doesn't mean anything special or mind-blowing about the concept itself.

I think premise two can also be challenged. What does one mean by "perfect being"? I certainly don't have any clear idea in ''my'' head as to what the "perfect being" would be like. Those are just two very vague and abstract words put together. Even words like omnipresent or omnipotent or omniscient are really vague. What does it mean for God to be everywhere? Is God a physical object or substance? Can an omnipotent God do the logically impossible? Does an omniscient God know everything that will happen, or just about the present moment? An infinitely long sequence of letters could encode every possible statement, and therefore every possible statement about the universe. Would that string of letters be omniscient? What if every true statement was indexed and the rest left out; would someone with access to that database be omniscient?

If someone has a really foggy or even silly idea of what God is, such that there's not even a clear definition of the word (except using vapid combinations of vague words like "perfect being"), how can that person use the notion of God to prove anything? On the other hand, if one does have a specific God in mind, like the God of the [[Old Testament]] or [[Jesus]] or [[Zeus]], how could you possibly prove that any particular one of these gods are "perfect"? --[[User:Quantheory|quantheory]] 22:55, 5 July 2010 (CDT)

50 reasons to believe in God

2010-07-03T01:06:51Z

Quantheory: /* Summary */

: ''For the book by Guy P. Harrison, see [[50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God]].''

'''50 reasons to believe in [[God]]''' is an email that made the rounds of [[atheist]] [[Wikipedia:Blog|blog]]gers in June 2008. [[PZ Myers]], on his blog [[Pharyngula]], identifies the original author as Debra Rufini, an author whose recent book contains "an imaginary scenario in which [[Richard Dawkins]] gets psychiatric counseling…from Jesus".[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/i_get_email_19.php]

What follows is a collection of responses to these purported "reasons".

(Note that the title associated with each "reason" did not appear in the original e-mail and is provided here merely for reference.)

==Responses to the message==

===Preamble===
<tt>It is easy to prove to yourself that God is real. .the evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs:</tt>

{{Comment-box1|label=General responses:|text=None of the arguments put forth in this e-mail are "proofs" of God's existence. Technically, most of them aren't even "reasons" to believe. On the other hand, the author did say, "prove to yourself", which is, one could argue, different from proving a claim to someone else. Nevertheless, almost all of the arguments rely on the same handful of [[logic]]al [[fallacies]], the responses to which can be summarized as follows:
# Disproof of one claim is not proof of another (unless they are exact logical opposites).
# The [[burden of proof]] lies with the person making the claim that something exists or should be "believed in".
# Just because you [[argumentum ad ignorantiam|can't figure out what caused something]], or can't understand how something works, doesn't mean [[God did it]].
# Arguing that the environment was created to fit the needs of humans is getting the order of causality exactly backwards: according to modern [[evolutionary theory]], humans have evolved to fit their environment.
# If an argument for the existence of God can be used to argue for the existence of ''any other god'', then it can't be a good reason to believe in the ''particular'' god of [[Christianity]].}}

===Reason 1: DNA===
<tt>Whilst agreeing that [[random]] [[pattern]]s occur naturally [[by chance]], [[DNA]] however, consists of code, which requires a [[designer]].</tt>

{{Response|This is the [[argument from design]]. Incidentally, it is the study of DNA that gives the strongest [[evidence]] of [[common descent]], a key component of [[evolution]]ary theory (which is argued against in several of the "reasons" below).}}

{{Response|A code does not simply require a designer - it requires an encoder and a decoder who ''agree on its meaning''. Or more generally, a code requires a set of ''understanders''. It makes no sense to speak of something being a "code" unless it encodes a ''message'' of some sort from a sender to a receiver. That is: to call DNA a "code" at all is [[begging the question|question-begging]]. DNA is a chemical which interacts with other chemicals according to well-understood laws of chemistry and physics.

However, if we wish to speak of it as encoding a message, then that message surely comes not from a God but from ''prior generations of living things''. The message our distant ancestors have left for us are such things as: "this is a good way to make a muscle", "this is how you digest food", "it is a good idea to run away from things that look like this", and of course those instincts that make us a social species such as "punish the wicked", and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".}}

{{Response|Not all systems which are known to represent information (aka code) were known to have been created by a designer. For example, the solar system can be viewed as a system which encodes information, such as the length of a day or the period in which one might harvest crops or the tidal calendar. While this coded information provides data relevant to the daily lives of the inhabitants of this planet, it is by no means apparent that this information was created by a designer, and it is highly plausible this information is simply the emergent metrics of an unordered assembly of celestial bodies.}}

===Reason 2: Paranormal phenomena===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|This is an [[argument from personal experience]] and an implicit appeal to [[personal revelation]]. It fallaciously presupposes that one's senses, and the interpretations given them, are [[infallible]]. One need not be a liar or attention-seeker, or be overtired to misinterpret sensory information.

Humans have evolved a variety of cognitive shortcuts to deal with the mass of information provided by our senses. In particular, we tend to filter sensory input according to a set of expectations built up from prior beliefs and past experience (a fact that [[magic]]ians primarily rely upon to "fool the eye", especially in [[wikipedia:close-up magic|close-up magic]]). In addition, we tend to impart meaning on ambiguous input even when there is [[pareidolia|no real meaning behind it]] (e.g., "seeing faces" or "hearing voices" where there are none). There are also real physiological limitations to our senses that result in nearly universal misperceptions such as [[optical illusion]]s. On a different level, we tend to see causal relationships where none exist (one example of this kind of fallacious reasoning is called [[post hoc ergo propter hoc]]). All of these tendencies may have conferred evolutionary advantages in the past — and may continue to do so today — but they can easily lead to the misinterpretation of evidence.

Finally, consider the fact that the very same phenomena that were once attributed to "ancestors" in early human history may have been attributed to angels or [[demon]]s in the Middle Ages, to [[witch]]es or [[the Devil]] in the 17th and 18th centuries, to "spirits" or [[wikipedia:poltergeist|poltergeist]]s in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and to [[wikipedia:extraterrestrial|extraterrestrial]]s in the late 20th century. The sensory stimuli may be the same, but the interpretation is different. Why should we believe the claim that these phenomena point to the existence of a god, especially the god of [[Christianity]]?}}

{{Response|I don't believe you. We each of us have to decide, from the multitude of conflicting voices around us, what information we are going to accept as reliable. I have no more reason to believe your miracle story than you have to believe the stories that a Hindu (I assume you are a Christian) might tell you, on indeed that other Christians might tell you. Every religion is awash with absurd miracle stories, and you and I both have to reject the vast majority of them. You are going to have to do better than "My mate and I saw a ghost! For real!"}}

===Reason 3: Prayer===
<tt>Try praying. What good is it when a mind is set to coincidence & disbelief regarding the positive outcome?</tt>

{{Response|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. On the other hand, using similar reasoning, what good is it to consider the extremely low odds of winning the lottery, or the risks of [[wikipedia:day trading|day trading]]? Shouldn't we all just jump in and have a little faith? [[Skepticism]] helps people live better, more secure lives.}}

===Reason 4: First cause===
<tt>The law of cause & effect - in order to have an effect, there has to be a cause. Everything is caused by something.</tt>

{{Response|This fails to provide proof for a god, as it requires to define god as the "[[uncaused cause]]," therefore negating the original premise. Refer also to [[David Hume]]'s arguments regarding the inability to determine the cause of an effect through reason alone (we need some experience, and have none for 'creating universes.') Moreover, there need not be a direct cause for all things; there is no direct cause for the radioactive decay of an individual atom, and yet it happens. There would appear to be uncaused quantum "effects" as well. Attempts to use physical laws (real or conventionally-accepted, with the above being the latter) to require the existence of a god tend to ignore that, for nearly all definitions of god, god violates various physical laws. Even if "everything must have a cause" necessitated the existence of a God, "energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed" (the [[Thermodynamics#Laws|First Law of Thermodynamics]]) would necessitate an un-created/eternal universe. Theists can't [[Cherry picking|cherry-pick]] physical laws to prove their god's existence. See also: [[Special pleading]].

The author doesn't explain why things that existed for ever don’t need a cause while others do. In any case, recent physical theories suggest that the physical [[Universe]] is part of a larger [[Wikipedia:Multiverse|Multiverse]]; which by your reasoning always existed and doesn’t need a cause.}}

{{Response|My response would be to say that even if there was a first cause, how is this true proof of God? There are many other possible events that could have caused our universe.

I wouldn't use the "eternal universe" model as evidence. A theist was all too quick to point out that the Second Law of Thermodynamics and recent astronomical observations prove that our universe is not eternal. If the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to the whole universe/multiverse, this would mean that all of the closed systems within the universe/multiverse (and thus the universe/multiverse itself) tend to lose usable energy and that this energy is never recovered or used again. If the matter in our universe was eternal, it would have already reached it's point of maximum entropy, which clearly has not happened yet.}}

===Reason 5: Complexity===
<tt>Mindless nothing cannot be responsible for complex something.</tt>

{{Response|This is [[False premise|fallacious in its assumption]] that an atheistic viewpoint requires the world to [[Origin of the universe|start from "nothing"]]. It also is guilty of [[special pleading]] ([[responsibility]] is an attribute of [[intelligence]]) and is another invocation of the [[argument from design]]. Note also that this author's "nothing" includes the entirety of physical, chemical, and other laws of the universe.

For the record, none of the scientific theories about the beginning of the universe posit that there was "nothing" and then there was "something." The [[Big Bang]] theory does posit the universe as being compacted to a singularity, and this does pose certain problems at such a [[Wikipedia:Quantum theory|quantum level]] because of how matter is understood to work, but it is not even clear that matter yet existed at this singularity - it doesn't have to, either, because matter and [[energy]] are equivalents (by [[general relativity]]) and energy does not follow the same types of quantum constraints as matter. You could (in a very simplified view of quantum and relativity theories) have all the matter in the universe converted to energy, and have all that energy contained in no space at all (a singularity) because energy requires no space.}}

{{Response|We know that this claim is factually wrong. According to this argument, complex snowflakes must be made by some intelligence, rather than the "mindless nothing" of physical and chemical forces. That is, if this is true, then God must assign angels to individually craft each snowflake. There must be a "Jack Frost" who draws those artistic patterns on our windows when it's cold. Rather than this childish storybook view of the world, we know that emergent complexity happens all the time, and is an exciting and interesting branch of mathematics and science.

Snowflakes are a special case of any crystalline structure. Diamonds, for example, are nothing more than a special (and precise) arrangement of carbon atoms in a structure that makes the overall object transparent (unlike graphite or other forms of pure carbon). Diamonds do not require a creator to arrange the carbon atoms just so. They require nothing more than the right pressure to force the carbon atoms into this configuration, and such pressures arise naturally in the earth as a result of nothing more than the properties of matter and gravity.}}

{{Response|I once read a Jack Chick tract that said that all the atoms in the universe are held together by God. This argument here reaches to the one about complexity. If God has to multitask on everything, what if God got tired and let his guard down for one second? Uh-oh, the universe is destroyed. If one is making an argument this complex, one should check all the angles so it is foolproof.}}

{{Response| For any universe to be "complex", the being who created it would have to be even more complex than the thing he created. If God is a "simple" being, then how can he possess the essence or intelligence to create something more complex than himself? So if complexity suggests a creator, then the increased complexity of God only suggests that he would also require a creator (as the argument follows). But the fact is that God must necessarily be more complex only demonstrates that his existence is greatly improbable. Especially if he is infinite, for an infite, complex being would be neverendingly improbable, or more plainly put, impossible.}}

===Reason 6: Limitations of science===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|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 a [[dualism|dualistic]] argument, but there is no basis in it. It is true, however, that the scientific method can only detect certain things: specifically, things which have some observable effect in the universe. Either God has an observable effect on the universe, and can therefore be studied scientifically, or God does not, and therefore is irrelevant.}}

{{Response|Taking the case of 'memory' further, psychologists long ago learned that if they probe the brain in certain areas, they can stimulate full, vivid, true memories in the subject. This would seem to be a form of 'scientific detection' of memory.}}

===Reason 7: Evolution is only a theory===
<tt>Evolution has never been proved, which is why we call it the 'theory of evolution'. It's a fairy tale for grown ups!</tt>

{{Response|This is surely an instance of [[hypocrisy|the pot calling the kettle black]]. Modern [[evolutionary theory]] is supported by a large number of independently verifiable facts and is used to explain, predict, and manipulate the responses of all manner of biological systems. Where is the corresponding [[evidence for God]] (or [[intelligent design]], etc.)? No, in actuality, most religions, with their tales of super-beings and [[magic]]al events, bear a much greater resemblance to fairy tales than does evolution.

More to the point, however, this is the "[[Evolution is only a theory]]" argument, which relies heavily on an [[equivocation]] between the common usage of the word "theory" and the scientific one (see [[Theory]] for more information). Furthermore, [[science]] is not about [[proof]]s, but [[evidence]], and the evidence supporting evolution is solid. See, for example, the Wikipedia article, [[Wikipedia:Introduction to evolution|Introduction to evolution]] (or the full [[Wikipedia:Evolution|Evolution]] article).

Finally, even if our current understanding of evolution were completely wrong, it still wouldn't make belief in God any more reasonable.}}

{{Response| Gravity is 'just a theory' too. We do not really know how or why it exists, or what exactly causes it. We can, however, observe it, understand it, and make use of that understanding to fly airplanes, launch rockets, put satellites into orbit, etc. I think we could all agree that few theists would question the theory of gravity- why then single out evolution as being 'just a theory'?}}

===Reason 8: Atheism is based on faith===
<tt>Atheism is a faith 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.</tt>

{{Response|Typical claim that [[atheism is based on faith]] combined with the claim that [[religion provides hope]]. The former is simply untrue (for most atheists) and involves [[shifting the burden of proof]] when used as an argument for belief in God (you don't need to "prove" something doesn't exist to lack belief in it). The latter is an [[appeal to consequences]]; just because religion may have some positive effects does not mean that its claims are true, nor that its tenets should be accepted even for "practical" purposes.}}
{{Response|It is simply not true that "believers believe because they have witnessed". No believer alive today has witnessed the death and resurrection of Jesus, the saints emerging from their graves, heaven, God, or any of the other myriad things that they claim to be "witnesses" to. Insofar as a religion orders its followers to "witness" to things they have no experience of, it is ordering them to be ''liars''. Thomas had the right idea: when you have put your fingers in Jesus's wound, ''then'' you can come back and talk about being a "witness".}}
{{Response|In fact, atheism ''does'' have "good news" to "preach": atheists need not subscribe to the arbitrary customs and strictures of religious dogma. We don't have to reconcile biblical contradictions nor deal with the hypocrisies of a schizophrenic deity. We can use our own minds rather than submit to competing human interpretations of "holy" books.}}

===Reason 9: Atheists are angry with God===
<tt>How much of the [[Atheism is based on faith|atheist's faith]] relies on [[Angry at God|anger with God]] as opposed to genuine [[disbelief]] in God?</tt>

{{Response|The assumption that ''any'' atheists are [[angry at God]] is an unfounded one and constitutes an [[ad hominem]] argument, since it questions the motivations behind atheists' lack of belief.}}

{{Response|Ignoring the [[atheism is based on faith]] part of the question, the correct answer is: None.

Granted, there are different kinds of atheists, and people are atheists for different reasons. But if you use ''[[atheism]]'' to mean either [[weak atheism|the lack of a belief in any gods]] or [[strong atheism|the belief that no gods exist]] then, logically, no atheists can be angry at God. How can you be angry at something that you don't think exists? Those who are angry at God are, by definition, not atheists but angry theists.}}

===Reason 10: Atheists need to get a life===
<tt>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?</tt>
{{Response|This is a [[straw man]] argument, and a [[False dichotomy|false dilemma]]. Atheism does not prevent hobbies, partying, etc. Furthermore, it neglects that while god may not exist, religions do exist. The adherents to these religions often try to impose the values and practices of their own religion onto society at large. Moreover, it presupposes that a majority of people on the planet believe in a fantasy and that is a good reason to have an active life.

Furthermore, assuming that atheists, indeed, need to get a life, it is not a valid reason to believe in a god, as the subject of the email insists.}}

{{Response|The vast majority of atheists have no problem with- indeed, could care less about- theists and theism. It is the methods theists use that cause the problem. When we see theists use political means to try to force their beliefs down our throats, we are offended, and we do indeed "rant and rave" about this misuse of our political processes. However we, more than any, realize that one must have the convictions of their beliefs. Penn Jillette of "Penn & Teller" puts it nicely in one of his videos when he states something to the effect of "if you are a theist and you DON'T proselytize, I have no respect for you." In other words, if you truly believe in Christianity and yet do not share that belief with me- you are no Christian, and are, in fact, evil by your own definition, since you refuse to 'save my soul' by sharing your beliefs. I have no problem with theists sharing their beliefs when they follow established cultural norms in doing so (i.e., ask if I want to hear it, don't try to force your beliefs and opinions on me.)}}

===Reason 11: Chicken-and-egg paradox===
<tt>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!</tt>

{{Response|[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] leading to [[post hoc ergo propter hoc]]. Also, evolutionary biology shows that the egg preceded the chicken[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_and_egg#Science_and_Evolution]. This is also a direct refutation of [[#Reason 4: First cause|Reason 4]].}}

===Reason 12: Improbability vs. impossibility===
<tt>Improbability is not the same as impossibility. You only have to look at life itself for that backup of proof.</tt>

{{Response|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]]. It is also a direct refutation of [[#Reason 5: Complexity|Reason 5]].}}

===Reason 13: Complexity of human life===
<tt>How could the complexity of human life possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells?</tt>

{{Response|[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]]. The complexity of life is the very thing that the theory of evolution explains. }}

{{Response| For any universe to be "complex", the being who created it would have to be even more complex than the thing he created. If God is a "simple" being, then how can he possess the essence or intelligence to create something more complex than himself? So if complexity suggests a creator, then the increased complexity of God only suggests that he would also require a creator. }}

===Reason 14: Complexity of the human mind===
<tt>How could the complexity of the human mind possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells? Where does our consciousness come from?</tt>

{{Response|[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] and similar to the [[homunculus argument]]. Science demonstrates that [[consciousness]] is an [[emergent property]] of the physical brain; this argument suggests a form of [[dualism]], where the mind and brain are separate. }}

{{Response| For any universe to be "complex", the being who created it would have to be even more complex than the thing he created. If God is a "simple" being, then how can he possess the essence or intelligence to create something more complex than himself? So if complexity suggests a creator, then the increased complexity of God only suggests that he would also require a creator. }}

===Reason 15: Food and drink===
<tt>What/who knew that our hunger & thirst had to be catered for by the food & drink which we're supplied with?</tt>

{{Response|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.}}

{{Response|We did! Humans are not autotrophs (make own's food). We require energy from other sources such as plants, fruits and animals. This process of eating and digesting is essential not only to life, but also to performing many biochemical reactions within our bodies. We evolved to eat these substances for this very purpose- not we were created to eat these things (or were created for us). If this is a "proof" for God, then we could challenge his benevolence. Why did he put plants on Earth that we can't digest? Or why create poisonous foods? Why do many foods from animals require so much physical risk to acheive? Certainly a loving God would not put such dangers on Earth that could threaten his creation.}}

===Reason 16: The five senses===
<tt>Most of us are born with the five senses to detect our surroundings, which we're provided with.</tt>

{{Response|Another example of the [[anthropic principle]].}}
{{Response|The "five senses" common to most humans, while adequate for the purposes of savanna apes, are only able to capture the barest fraction of all light and sound waves, and detects a very limited set of chemicals. There is nothing intrinsically special about the number of senses we possess: they differ from one another more by degrees than by kinds. For instance, our sense of touch is much like hearing when it comes to detecting vibrations, and much like sight for heat detection. Similarly, our senses of smell and taste are quite related. Thus, we can just as easily say we are born with three sense as seven (if you reduce touch to pressure and temperature detection, and consider the sense of balance, for example). Finally, there is nothing special about our sense mechanisms when compared with other members of the animal kingdom. We are far outclassed in the abilities we do possess, and we lack even rudimentary detection mechanisms for electrical or magnetic fields.}}

===Reason 17: Goldilocks and the habitable planet, part 1===
<tt>What/who knew that had Earth been set nearer to the sun, we would burn up?</tt>

{{Response|See next reason.}}

===Reason 18: Goldilocks and the habitable planet, part 2===
<tt>What/who knew that had Earth been set any further from the sun, we would freeze up?</tt>

{{Response | See the [[Anthropic principle]].}}

{{Response | What? Nothing. Who? No one. When Earth and the rest of the solar system were formed, the development of human life, or indeed life of any kind, was not the purpose or goal. We humans are the only ones (that we know of) who care that we are here. If things were different, they would be different. Perhaps a different kind of life would have developed — maybe even a kind of life that could wonder how or why it came to exist. But if not, there wouldn't be anyone to ask the question in the first place. In other words, it is possible that the correct answer to the question, "Why do things in the universe look like they were 'fine tuned' to support human life?" might simply be, "If they weren't that way, there would be no humans around to ask the question."}}

{{Response | There is a wide range of possible [[Wikipedia:Habitable_zone|orbits suitable for Earth-like life]] (that is, carbon-based and dependent on water) in our solar system: about 0.95 to 1.37 AU (or 88 million to 127 million miles) from the Sun. The Earth is near the middle of this so-called Goldilocks zone, so it is hugely inaccurate to claim that any deviation from our current position would freeze (or burn) us all up. There is also reason to believe that [[Wikipedia:Gliese_581_d#Climate_and_habitability|life is possible]] in other places in the solar system, such as Jupiter's moon [[Wikipedia:Europa_(moon)#Possible_extraterrestrial_life|Europa]] or the moons [[Wikipedia:Enceladus_(moon)|Enceladus]] or [[Wikipedia:Titan_(moon)|Titan]] of Saturn. These "hot spots" are possible because direct warming by the Sun is not the only way for a celestial body to become warm enough to support life: tidal forces caused by gravitational attraction to other "nearby" bodies (like Earth's moon) can be sufficient to heat up the interior of a planet or moon.}}

{{Response|There are approximately 200 – 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone. Around many of these stars there are going to be planets. Most will be too hot or too cold for life, but there will surely be some that are the right temperature just by chance alone. Our solar system has 8 planets ([[Wikipedia:Pluto#Classification|Pluto is no longer recognized as a planet]]), only 2 of which (Earth and Mars) are in the Goldilocks zone. That makes 2 "successes" out of 8 for our solar system alone. Now extrapolate that to the billions of other solar systems that are presumed to exist in the billions of galaxies in the universe. Even with relatively pessimistic estimates of the sizes of the various Goldilocks zones and the number and kinds of planets that would form in them, there could easily be billions of planets capable of harboring life. See also the [[Infinite monkey theorem]].}}

===Reason 19: Goldilocks and the habitable planet, part 3===
<tt>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?</tt>

{{Response|[[Anthropic principle]].}}

{{Response| My main response to these points would be that this still does not prove the existence of God. This can be seen as a "God of the Gaps" argument.

Just on a side-note, the Anthropic Principle can be used to either help prove or disprove the existence of God (depending on how you use and interpret it), and that its application in the theist/atheist sense is not truly scientific. Science is not about theism or atheism, and I would hesistate to advise the use of the AP in relgious discussion, particularly given the limited frame of reference current-day humans have. Whenever someone does bring this up, this is what I say.}}

===Reason 20: Complementarity of plant and animal life===
<tt>What/who knew that we require the oxygen of plants, just as plants require the carbon dioxide of us?</tt>

{{Response|[[Anthropic principle]]. These anthropic principle arguments are all phrased in such a way as to assume that the answer must be in the form of a "who"--i.e., a personal God. This is [[Petitio principii|begging the question]].}}

===Reason 21: The tornado and the 747===
<tt>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!</tt>

{{Response|[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] and [[argument from design]]. This is [[Fred Hoyle]]'s classic [[Tornado argument]], which is based on the assumption that evolution works by [[Probability|random chance]], ignoring the non-random process of [[natural selection]]. [[Richard Dawkins]] proposed the Ultimate 747 argument[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit] as a response. This reason is also contradictory to the argument proposed in [[#Reason 12: Complexity|Reason 12]].}}

{{Response| The Tornado and the 747 argument also does not take into consideration that a Boeing 747 is a nonliving entity, with no will of it's own or ability to think or act. Life came about through natural selection, and by living organisms. Organisms that could adaption, had the will to survive and reproduced. As evolution progresses, organisms have evolved into more complex beings with the ability to communicate, socialize, analyze data and interpret them. Basically life did not come about by chance, as the nonliving 747 has no will to assemble itself whereas a conscious being can think and act to suit survival purposes. }}

{{Response| If one is to believe in cause and effect, there is no such thing as "sheer chance", even if it gives a illusion of such. Although there are some unanswered questions regarding the early evolution of life, we can definitely say that life did not arise according to chance. Molecules have ways of attracting each other and forming complex structures because they behave that way naturally. Given enough time and enough success, life can theoretically arise through natural mechanisms.}}

===Reason 22: The invisible and the supernatural===
<tt>We are willing to believe in physically unseen waves that exist through the air, operating physical forces & appliances to work [sic], yet not supernatural God forces being responsible for the same.</tt>

{{Response|While phenomena like [[wikipedia:radio waves|radio waves]] or [[wikipedia:infrared light|infrared light]] may not be visible to the human eye, they are not analogous to any purported supernatural forces. Natural "unseen" waves [[manifest]] in other ways — ways that are detectable and predictable. In short, they are well understood and explained by science, and this is why they can be utilized in technology. The same cannot be said for God.}}

===Reason 23: Self-organization and entropy===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|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. This argument is utter absurdity, ignoring the very basics of [[evolution]], specifically that individuals do not evolve, ''populations'' evolve. It also ignores the role of reproduction in evolution, the fact that evolution proceeds by small changes over time, the lack of a hierarchical/teleological path for evolution, and so forth. See the EvoWiki page on a similar, more common argument[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_descendants_of_an_X_(cat,_dog...)_will_remain_X].}}

{{Response|The opening assumption that matter is unable to self-organize is wrong: crystals are a prime example of matter organizing itself. This innate ability of matter becomes important in some theories of abiogenesis, like A. Graham Cairns-Smith's Clay theory.}}

===Reason 24: Darwin's deathbed conversion===
<tt>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 neighbors the next day. "What shall I speak about?" She asked. He replied; "Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is that not the best theme?"</tt>

{{Response|The story of [[Darwin]]'s [[deathbed conversion]] is an [[urban myth]]. Even if it were true (and evidence shows that it is not), it is an [[Argumentum ad verecundiam|argument from authority]]. We accept [[evolution]] not based on Darwin's word but on the [[evidence]] supporting the theory, most of which has been discovered since Darwin's death. By the same token, we should not reject evolution based on Darwin's word, even if he repudiated everything he had written on the subject. Similarly, we should not take Darwin's word for it that a [[god]] exists (if he did believe that) or that [[Christianity]] is the path to [[salvation]]. It is also worth noting that Darwin was not the first person to propose evolution as a possibility, or even that natural processes were responsible; he just happens to be the first to produce both a cogent theory for how the process works along with solid evidence supporting it.}}

===Reason 25: Morality===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|[[Evolutionary psychology|Evolutionary psychologists]] have proposed explanations for many "moral values" and behaviors that appear to be instinctual; observations of [[wikipedia:social animal|social animal]]s reveal that many have moral codes that are similar to that of humans. [[Atheist]]s may follow any number of [[secular]] [[ethical]] codes, holding themselves accountable to values or ideals derived [[rational]]ly, rather than to a [[deity]]. Furthermore, the [[Euthyphro dilemma]] turns this argument around on the [[theist]]: where do [[God]]'s moral values come from?}}

{{Response|To whom are we morally responsible? In moral systems that lack a divine component, we are accountable to those around us.}}

{{Response|Most people don't share many of the moral values of the bible. The vast majority of humans consider rape within marriage and slavery to be wrong while working on the sabbath is considered to be acceptable, which conflicts with biblical morality. The fact that the bible condemns murder, theft and lying is trivial because peoples and even many other animals that are unfamiliar with the bible also hold these moral values.}}

===Reason 26: Man vs. animal===
<tt>If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn't he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised.</tt>

{{Response|There are many problems with this argument.
# It is based, at least implicitly, on the archaic concept of the [[Great Chain of Being]], in which humans are seen as separate from, and inherently superior to, other animals. In fact, humans ''are'' animals. The theory of evolution doesn't hold that they evolved "away from" animals and became something fundamentally different.
# Since evolution necessarily implies change from a previous state, the fact that the ancestors of humans had certain characteristics doesn't necessarily mean that humans must still have those characteristics. ''Any'' two animal species will share certain characteristics and not share others. This is the result of the process of evolution and not — as is implied above — a refutation of it.
# Many human behaviors ''are'', in fact, very similar to those found among animals today (especially other [[wikipedia:primate|primates]]). Examples include the seeking of food and shelter, the forming of social groups to secure these resources, the forming of pair bonds for reproduction and the rearing of offspring, the protection of family members from others in the social group and of members of the group from outsiders, and communication through sound and gestures. On the other hand, aspects of human behavior that are indeed unique to our species may be attributable to adaptations such as bipedalism or advanced cognitive function, particularly the capacity for abstract thought. Evolutionary theory may actually be able to explain how these characteristics arose.
# Given the history of the 20th century (for example), there is some doubt as to what "civilized" actually means and whether humans can be said to possess that characteristic.
# Finally, as with [[#Reason 7: Evolution is only a theory|Reason 7]] (and many others), even if the claim above were completely true, it wouldn't justify belief in God.}}

===Reason 27: Chance and ignorance===
<tt>'Chance' isn't the cause of something. It just describes what we can't find a reason for.</tt>

{{Response|[[Straw man]] argument. While [[evolution]] contains some aspects of apparent "[[chance]]" (genetic mutations), the process of [[natural selection]] is the force which drives the process of adaptation. Furthermore, "chance" is not a description of something we cannot find a reason for; that is "ignorance". Chance is a description of systems which operate according to laws of [[probability]].}}

===Reason 28: Limitations of science and logic===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] and [[special pleading]]. If we have no understanding of these forces, then how can anyone be said to be "aware" of them? If we are aware, we must have some small measure of understanding.}}

{{Response| Majority opinion is irrelvant to the facts. Many people may believe a lie- take for example. "Many teenagers believe that marijuana is harmless, drugs are harmful whereas marijuana is not, therefore marijuana is not a drug." Any doctor could tell you of the harmful side effects of marijuana useage. Furthermore, a drug need not be immediately harmful for it to be a drug. But nonetheless, many teenagers may make this claim, even if it is obviously not true.

We should be asking bigger questions. Such as: Is the majority of the people mentioned an expert in said feild? Do they know about the feild they are making claims on? Is it their educational background or profession? Anyone can make conclusions on a subject in physics, but if they are not a physicist, we should be more skeptical of their conclusions.

What is the majority basing their opinions on? Evidence? If no, then we can't say with certainity they have a "proven" claim. Feeling, Emotion, Belief? If yes, then perhaps there is a bias they have preventing them from accepting conflicting evidence or looking upon the subject from other perspectives. Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes series, wrote Shelrock as saying "Never theorize before one has data, invariably one twists facts to suit theories rather than theories to suit facts." Majority opinion can always be based on biases and evidence is required to take any claim seriously.

Is the majority well informed on the subject and all aspects/perspectives on it? You can hardly say that "many people believe in mediums, therefore medium phenomena is true." Really? Have the believers read any skeptical positions? Done any research? Looked for alternative explanations? Just as with evolution, in some contries, the majority do not believe- but are they aware of all the evidence? It's hardly fair to say majority wins when many of the majority may not have all the facts.

Lastly, just because there may be things we do not yet have scientific answers to, it does not mean there is no scientific answer. We just haven't found one yet. It's nothing more than a hasty conclusion to say "Science has no answer, therefore this one is true." It is not so. Perhaps we will find an answer in a year or two from now, until them, conclusions should not be made.}}

===Reason 29: Gregorian calendar===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|This is an unfounded claim that [[the Gregorian calendar proves that Jesus existed]]. The Anno Domini (AD) dating system was not created until 525 AD. It is not independent, contemporary historical confirmation of the New Testament. The current Gregorian Calendar was drafted in 1582 under the direction of Pope Gregory XIII of the Catholic church, and cannot act as evidence of the existence of a man who is thought to have lived 15 centuries earlier.}}

{{Response|Look at the names of days and months on your calendar. This proves that the gods "Moon, Tiu, Woden, Thor, Frigg, Saturn and Sun, Januarius, the Roman gods to whom the Februa were celebrated, Mars, etc, etc all exist.}}

===Reason 30: Martyrs===
<tt>Many people have died for their faith. Would they be prepared to do this for a lie?!</tt>

{{Response|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?}}

===Reason 31: Biblical accounts===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|It may be a stretch to describe stories of events written 40+ years after they supposedly occurred as "eyewitness accounts", when the average lifespan of a human in those times was likely much lower[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_over_human_history]. The truth is that none of the [[Gospels]] were written by eyewitnesses, the earliest dating estimate[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating] is 65 C.E. and most are thought to be significantly later. Moreover, the earliest New Testament texts were purportedly authored by early church founder Paul of Tarsus, who was not an eyewitness. Even assuming the events were recorded by supposed eyewitnesses, we could make that argument in favor of many religious texts and other writings which may contradict each other. Does this give us reason to assume the events recorded in books like the Qur'an are also true? And given the many conflicts over heresies, apocryphal texts and other teachings in the early church, it seems safe to say that there was "confusion and anger" over the contents of the books.}}

{{Response| Some of the Four Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. The book of Mark was written by Barnabas' nephew Mark, who was not one of the original Twelve Apostles. The book of Luke was written by Luke of Antioch, who was a believer after hearing the Gospel. Those two books were collections of various eyewitness accounts. Luke also wrote the book of Acts, which was both a collection of eyewitness accounts, as well as a journal of Luke's travels when he helped spread the Gospel.

There is much truth in the New Testament accounts in terms of "normal" historical events that can be verified through comparing contemporary historical works and archaelogy. However, one could question whether or not the supernatural events that are written in the Gospels took place.}}

===Reason 32: Archaeology===
<tt>From as early as 2000 BC, there is archaeological evidence to confirm many details we're provided with in the Bible.</tt>

{{Response|This may be true, but there is also a striking ''lack'' of archaeological evidence for many important stories recorded in the Bible (see claim #34). Atheists do not claim that the Bible must be entirely false in every respect. What matters when determining if the Bible provides basis for a belief in God is the evidence we can find for its claims of supernatural phenomena, like the resurrection of Jesus. This evidence does not exist. Furthermore, there is evidence to confirm many of the details provided in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iliad Iliad] or the average [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-man Spider-Man] comic, but that doesn't mean that Achilles and Spider-Man exist.}}

===Reason 33: Biblical prophecy===
<tt>Not one single Biblical prediction can be shown as false, and the Bible contains hundreds.</tt>

{{Response|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.

Biblical [[prophecy]] was "confirmed" by those who were already aware of such prophecy and with a vested interest in ensuring that such prophecy had the appearance of being fulfilled.}}

{{Response| This claim is simply false. Perhaps the most strikingly embarrassing unfulfilled prophecy in the bible is Jesus' prediction of his own second coming, to occur within the lifetimes of the people listening to him. There are dozens of others.}}

{{Response| Those profesies only come true in the context of the bible, which was compiled and edited after the fact. There are many works of fiction where predictions are made that come true in the context of that book or film, does this make the stories true?}}

===Reason 34: Biblical history===
<tt>The evidence from literature & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.</tt>

{{Response|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 archaeological 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#CriticalEvaluation].}}

===Reason 35: Christianity and science in harmony===
<tt>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 ''[sic]'' Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.</tt>

{{Response|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]]. And if we fail to grant that there is no conflict, we recognize many contradictions[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html] between the Biblical account and established science.}}
{{Response| From the time of Galileo to the latest attempts by creationists to push their agendas in schools, science and faith have ''always'' been in opposition. Whether its the germ theory of disease vs demons and the powers of the air, the preposterous miracles of the roman church, heliocentrism vs angels moving the stars about, lightning rods instead of sounding the church bells, science has ''never'' had to back down: it has always been religion that has had to preserve itself by "reinterpreting" its texts.}}

===Reason 36: How vs. why===
<tt>Science can explain 'how' something works, but not 'why' something works.</tt>

{{Response|This argument is essentially meaningless. To science, 'how' and 'why' are the same thing.}}

{{Response| Terry Pratchett, of all people, sheds insight onto this. The question "why" presupposes that there is a ''story'' to be told. A ''narrative''. Science is a different way of knowing, and one of its discoveries is that the language of the universe is not that of story and legend, but that that of mathematics. It's something that a lot of math-phobes have a hard time accepting.}}

===Reason 37: Science changes===
<tt>Science is constantly recorrecting ''[sic]'' 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.</tt>

{{Response|A willingness to reconsider [[theory|theories]] in the face of new [[evidence]] is essential to any process that seeks the [[truth]]. [[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. Mainstream [[Christianity]] is guilty of the same revisionism: In 1633, [[Wikipedia:Galileo|Galileo]] was convicted of [[heresy]] by the Catholic church for promoting [[wikipedia:heliocentrism|heliocentrism]], which directly contradicts biblical "evidence" of the organization of the universe. It wasn't until 1992 that Galileo was officially vindicated in a declaration by [[Wikipedia:Pope John Paul II|Pope John Paul II]]. Did God change the arrangement of the heavenly bodies in the intervening centuries? Or was the Catholic church simply wrong because they were using a completely unreliable source of knowledge? [[Wikipedia:Ben Franklin|Ben Franklin]] was accused of heresy by Catholics and [[Protestants]] alike, for developing the [[wikipedia:lightning rod|lightning rod]], which was considered an effort to stifle God's wrath. Today, however, virtually all structures, including churches, are fitted with lightning protection.}}

{{Response|When science changes, the new theory generally explains both the new facts ''and'' the old. For example, [[Einstein]]'s [[Wikipedia:theory of relativity|theory of relativity]], which shows relative speed changes the rules while at the same time making it quite clear that Newtonian physics is still a very good approximation for a lot of things. On the contrary, when society changes in such a way that religions have to "reinterpret" their own scriptures, the original interpretations are no longer valid. The prior behaviours of followers are then written off as heretical, as, for example, in the case of the Catholic church during the [[inquisition]]. See also: [[no true Scotsman]]. }}

{{Response|The truth is always changing and evolving. Humans, both individually and collectively, only have a limited understanding of how the world is. Whether or not we admit it, our view of our world is one made up of a lot of assumptions, however educated they may be. The fact that science and the interpretation of religious beliefs keep changing is proof of this. The fact that science and religion are constantly changing should not be a reason to dismiss either one entirely. We should dismiss our own personal assumptions/beliefs regarding the object in question, and not the object itself.}}

===Reason 38: Abiogenesis===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|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 [[wikipedia:panspermia|panspermia]] emerges in the future. Though there is currently no generally accepted and evidence-supported theory of how life arose on Earth, scientists have demonstrated that abiogenesis is possible (such as in the [[Wikipedia:Miller-Urey experiment|Miller-Urey experiment]]), and there are a variety of hypotheses which are more [[Occam's razor|parsimonious]] than one invoking a transcendent God. While a consensus theory of abiogenesis or panspermia would not disprove the existence of God, the [[burden of proof]] is on those who assert the existence of supernatural phenomena.}}
{{Response|This is another iteration of the [[God of the gaps]] argument and an [[argumentum ad ignorantiam]]. While this argument attempts to defend the Christian mythological deity, it serves the same function for all other deities, as well as for any other unfalsifiable claim, including [[You can't prove God doesn't exist|Russell's Teapot]], [[Wikipedia:Brain in a vat|you are in the Matrix]], or that the universe was created 20 seconds ago by me.}}
{{Response|The author is entirely correct in maintaining that proof of evolution would not be disproof of God; however, as can be seen in many other "reasons", she seems to be unwilling or unable to recognize that ''disproof'' of evolution is likewise not ''proof'' of God.}}
{{Response|Scientists haven't answered all of the questions of the universe. I admit this. However, this fact is not a reason to believe in God. This fact doesn't have anything to do with God.}}

===Reason 39: A bad lie?===
<tt>The two people who discovered Jesus' empty tomb were women. Women were very 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.</tt>

{{Response|Let me get this straight: because women had low status and because it is written somewhere that some women claimed something that would be really great (from the author's perspective) if it were true, therefore the claims must be true? Wow. That's an amazing logical leap. (To be fair, historians do sometimes use such [[Wikipedia:Criterion of embarrassment|"countersupportive" evidence as positive evidence]] of historical claims — for example, [[Bart D. Ehrman]]'s analysis of which [[sayings of Jesus]] in the Bible might be historically accurate relies in part on whether each quotation shows Jesus or his message in a positive or negative light — but a good historian would never go so far as to argue that this makes the claims ''true''.)}}

{{Response|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]]. Moreover, the account is [[hearsay]] and [[Biblical contradictions|contradictory accounts]] of this event are given in the Gospels.}}

===Reason 40: Near-death experiences===
<tt>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 ''[sic]'' 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.</tt>

{{Response|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; in fact, studies have shown that NDEs can be induced through drugs or trauma, and are almost certain to be a physiological phenomenon. 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." See also the Skeptic's Dictionary entry[http://skepdic.com/nde.html] on the subject.}}

===Reason 41: Biblical skeptics===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response| This is a form of [[argumentum ad populum]], at one stage the majority of the world believed the earth was flat. These are anecdotal accounts of people who could be mistaken. While it is true conversions to Christianity continue today, conversions to other religions and away from organized religion also occur.}}

{{Response| This argument does not take into consideration that people may have alternative reasons for changing their religion (or lack thereof) besides believing. People may changes religions to suit a new marriage, or perhaps they lost a loved one and need some form of comfort. Perhaps they are trying to please persistent family members or just enjoy the Christmas carols and architecture and enjoy the sense of community. We can not always assume that people join a faith because they believe that it is true. }}

===Reason 42: Einstein quote===
<tt>Albert Einstein said; "A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind".</tt>

{{Response|[[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. Besides this, Einstein used the term "religion" in a specific, nonstandard way, defined here: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. 'If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it'." It is this admiration for the structure of the universe that Einstein thought essential to science.}}

===Reason 43: The tomato thrower===
<tt>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!"</tt>

{{Response|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. If we are to take this anecdote at face value, we must also question the morality of the presumed theist who both assaulted the speaker, rather than refute his claims, and then either lied about the assault or failed to confess and apologize.

Furthermore, the public assault of an atheist by means of a possibly self-actuating, suicidal vegetable is hardly a compelling reason to believe in a god, as the subject of the original email suggests.}}

===Reason 44: Occam's supernatural razor===
<tt>It is easier to believe that God created something out of nothing than it is to believe that nothing created something out of nothing.</tt>

{{Response|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? It also presupposes a [[straw man]] form of the [[Big Bang]] theory of cosmology. Theists often claim that the Big Bang suggests that "nothing became something," when in fact it says no such thing. In fact, there is no scientific reason to think that the matter and energy of the universe had to be created (which would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics) and have not merely always existed in one form or another.}}

===Reason 45: How-vs.-why Hawking quote===
<tt>Stephen Hawkins ''[sic]'' 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?"</tt>

{{Response|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 answers 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.}}

===Reason 46: With God all things are possible===
<tt>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.</tt>

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

{{Response|It is precisely ''because'' supernatural explanations allow "all things [to be] possible" that they are useless when it comes to determining the true causes of observed phenomena.}}

{{Response|It was also the Bible that said that pi is equal to 3, but I don't see any Christians promoting that theory.}}

{{Response| Is it really true that with God all things are possible? Can God create a stone large enough that even he can not lift? Either way, he fails at omnipotence. The argument is also special pleading, it gives God a status of being immune to the laws of science but how is this possible? God is NOT made up of matter? Ultimately this argument is only an attempt to "dodge the bullet".}}

===Reason 47: Evolved vs. evolving===
<tt>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?</tt>

{{Response|[[Anthropic principle]]. And, in fact, we ''are'' still evolving, as are all living things. As for "finely tuned", most of our planet's surface is uninhabitable by or inhospitable to humans (frozen wastelands, oceans, deserts), and the vast majority of the universe is fatal to humans, so how can "everything" be said to be "finely tuned for our living"?}}

===Reason 48: The Missing Link===
<tt>Could it possibly be that the missing link does not exist?!</tt>

{{Response|[[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. The "missing link" itself comes from a misunderstanding of evolution, and has more in common with the [[Great Chain of Being]] than anything scientific.}}

{{Response|The famous Missing Link between humans and ape ancestors has also been found. Not merely one example, either, but many different stages. This is another example of the [[God of the gaps]] argument.}}

{{Response| The Missing Link argument claims that we are still missing the fossils to prove evolutionary descent. However scientists are discovering more fossils by the year, each giving more insight to how evolution works and how relationships are established. This argument does not take into consideration the other things besides fossils which prove evolution, such as genetics.}}

===Reason 49: Open your eyes===
<tt>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?</tt>

{{Response|[[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.

Such a claim is also prejudiced against the blind. What if someone has no eyes to see God's works? Are blind people, by definition, atheists?}}

{{Response|[[Argument from non-belief]]. Why doesn't God speak directly to the entire human population? Or visit "physically" every once in a while? In other words, why isn't God's existence more obvious, based on direct, observable and irrefutable evidence and not theoretical guesses and feeling? }}

===Reason 50: Liar or Lord?===
<tt>Jesus Christ is either who he says he is, or he is the biggest con man history has ever known.</tt>

{{Response|[[False dichotomy]]. He could have also...
* been insane,
* never actually existed,
* not said all of the things attributed to him, or
* been deceived by the lies of others.
See also C.S. Lewis's [[trilemma]].}}

===Big finish===
<tt>YOU DECIDE!!!</tt>
{{Response|[[Pascal's Wager#Atheist's Wager|Choose wisely!]]}}

== Summary ==

Of the "50 reasons" given, the following do not say anything about evidence for God at all:
* 19 arguments against atheism/science/rationality and for non-religious paranormal ideas: 2,5-10,13-14,21,23,26-28,36-38,40,48
* 8 non sequiturs that make a statement and hope that the reader draws a connection to God (mostly bad fine-tuning arguments): 12,15-20,47
* 5 statements that simply assert God against all objections, giving no real "reason" for belief: 3,11,22,46,49
* 4 appeals to famous scientists: 24,35,42,45
* 1 story that attacks atheism through straight-forward ridicule: 43
* 1 appeal to morality that claims that faith is good without showing that it is correct: 25

The remaining twelve arguments are mostly either about the Bible or of the type that say "this is all here because God put it here".

Fifty arguments probably sounds like a pretty impressive number. But a more accurate (and far less catchy) title to this email would be "Twenty-four attacks on our enemies who promote science and reason over faith, fourteen vague statements that try to make theists look good or reasonable, and twelve reasons why some Christian beliefs are superficially plausible".

==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

2010-07-03T01:02:23Z

Quantheory:

: ''For the book by Guy P. Harrison, see [[50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God]].''

'''50 reasons to believe in [[God]]''' is an email that made the rounds of [[atheist]] [[Wikipedia:Blog|blog]]gers in June 2008. [[PZ Myers]], on his blog [[Pharyngula]], identifies the original author as Debra Rufini, an author whose recent book contains "an imaginary scenario in which [[Richard Dawkins]] gets psychiatric counseling…from Jesus".[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/i_get_email_19.php]

What follows is a collection of responses to these purported "reasons".

(Note that the title associated with each "reason" did not appear in the original e-mail and is provided here merely for reference.)

==Responses to the message==

===Preamble===
<tt>It is easy to prove to yourself that God is real. .the evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs:</tt>

{{Comment-box1|label=General responses:|text=None of the arguments put forth in this e-mail are "proofs" of God's existence. Technically, most of them aren't even "reasons" to believe. On the other hand, the author did say, "prove to yourself", which is, one could argue, different from proving a claim to someone else. Nevertheless, almost all of the arguments rely on the same handful of [[logic]]al [[fallacies]], the responses to which can be summarized as follows:
# Disproof of one claim is not proof of another (unless they are exact logical opposites).
# The [[burden of proof]] lies with the person making the claim that something exists or should be "believed in".
# Just because you [[argumentum ad ignorantiam|can't figure out what caused something]], or can't understand how something works, doesn't mean [[God did it]].
# Arguing that the environment was created to fit the needs of humans is getting the order of causality exactly backwards: according to modern [[evolutionary theory]], humans have evolved to fit their environment.
# If an argument for the existence of God can be used to argue for the existence of ''any other god'', then it can't be a good reason to believe in the ''particular'' god of [[Christianity]].}}

===Reason 1: DNA===
<tt>Whilst agreeing that [[random]] [[pattern]]s occur naturally [[by chance]], [[DNA]] however, consists of code, which requires a [[designer]].</tt>

{{Response|This is the [[argument from design]]. Incidentally, it is the study of DNA that gives the strongest [[evidence]] of [[common descent]], a key component of [[evolution]]ary theory (which is argued against in several of the "reasons" below).}}

{{Response|A code does not simply require a designer - it requires an encoder and a decoder who ''agree on its meaning''. Or more generally, a code requires a set of ''understanders''. It makes no sense to speak of something being a "code" unless it encodes a ''message'' of some sort from a sender to a receiver. That is: to call DNA a "code" at all is [[begging the question|question-begging]]. DNA is a chemical which interacts with other chemicals according to well-understood laws of chemistry and physics.

However, if we wish to speak of it as encoding a message, then that message surely comes not from a God but from ''prior generations of living things''. The message our distant ancestors have left for us are such things as: "this is a good way to make a muscle", "this is how you digest food", "it is a good idea to run away from things that look like this", and of course those instincts that make us a social species such as "punish the wicked", and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".}}

{{Response|Not all systems which are known to represent information (aka code) were known to have been created by a designer. For example, the solar system can be viewed as a system which encodes information, such as the length of a day or the period in which one might harvest crops or the tidal calendar. While this coded information provides data relevant to the daily lives of the inhabitants of this planet, it is by no means apparent that this information was created by a designer, and it is highly plausible this information is simply the emergent metrics of an unordered assembly of celestial bodies.}}

===Reason 2: Paranormal phenomena===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|This is an [[argument from personal experience]] and an implicit appeal to [[personal revelation]]. It fallaciously presupposes that one's senses, and the interpretations given them, are [[infallible]]. One need not be a liar or attention-seeker, or be overtired to misinterpret sensory information.

Humans have evolved a variety of cognitive shortcuts to deal with the mass of information provided by our senses. In particular, we tend to filter sensory input according to a set of expectations built up from prior beliefs and past experience (a fact that [[magic]]ians primarily rely upon to "fool the eye", especially in [[wikipedia:close-up magic|close-up magic]]). In addition, we tend to impart meaning on ambiguous input even when there is [[pareidolia|no real meaning behind it]] (e.g., "seeing faces" or "hearing voices" where there are none). There are also real physiological limitations to our senses that result in nearly universal misperceptions such as [[optical illusion]]s. On a different level, we tend to see causal relationships where none exist (one example of this kind of fallacious reasoning is called [[post hoc ergo propter hoc]]). All of these tendencies may have conferred evolutionary advantages in the past — and may continue to do so today — but they can easily lead to the misinterpretation of evidence.

Finally, consider the fact that the very same phenomena that were once attributed to "ancestors" in early human history may have been attributed to angels or [[demon]]s in the Middle Ages, to [[witch]]es or [[the Devil]] in the 17th and 18th centuries, to "spirits" or [[wikipedia:poltergeist|poltergeist]]s in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and to [[wikipedia:extraterrestrial|extraterrestrial]]s in the late 20th century. The sensory stimuli may be the same, but the interpretation is different. Why should we believe the claim that these phenomena point to the existence of a god, especially the god of [[Christianity]]?}}

{{Response|I don't believe you. We each of us have to decide, from the multitude of conflicting voices around us, what information we are going to accept as reliable. I have no more reason to believe your miracle story than you have to believe the stories that a Hindu (I assume you are a Christian) might tell you, on indeed that other Christians might tell you. Every religion is awash with absurd miracle stories, and you and I both have to reject the vast majority of them. You are going to have to do better than "My mate and I saw a ghost! For real!"}}

===Reason 3: Prayer===
<tt>Try praying. What good is it when a mind is set to coincidence & disbelief regarding the positive outcome?</tt>

{{Response|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. On the other hand, using similar reasoning, what good is it to consider the extremely low odds of winning the lottery, or the risks of [[wikipedia:day trading|day trading]]? Shouldn't we all just jump in and have a little faith? [[Skepticism]] helps people live better, more secure lives.}}

===Reason 4: First cause===
<tt>The law of cause & effect - in order to have an effect, there has to be a cause. Everything is caused by something.</tt>

{{Response|This fails to provide proof for a god, as it requires to define god as the "[[uncaused cause]]," therefore negating the original premise. Refer also to [[David Hume]]'s arguments regarding the inability to determine the cause of an effect through reason alone (we need some experience, and have none for 'creating universes.') Moreover, there need not be a direct cause for all things; there is no direct cause for the radioactive decay of an individual atom, and yet it happens. There would appear to be uncaused quantum "effects" as well. Attempts to use physical laws (real or conventionally-accepted, with the above being the latter) to require the existence of a god tend to ignore that, for nearly all definitions of god, god violates various physical laws. Even if "everything must have a cause" necessitated the existence of a God, "energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed" (the [[Thermodynamics#Laws|First Law of Thermodynamics]]) would necessitate an un-created/eternal universe. Theists can't [[Cherry picking|cherry-pick]] physical laws to prove their god's existence. See also: [[Special pleading]].

The author doesn't explain why things that existed for ever don’t need a cause while others do. In any case, recent physical theories suggest that the physical [[Universe]] is part of a larger [[Wikipedia:Multiverse|Multiverse]]; which by your reasoning always existed and doesn’t need a cause.}}

{{Response|My response would be to say that even if there was a first cause, how is this true proof of God? There are many other possible events that could have caused our universe.

I wouldn't use the "eternal universe" model as evidence. A theist was all too quick to point out that the Second Law of Thermodynamics and recent astronomical observations prove that our universe is not eternal. If the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to the whole universe/multiverse, this would mean that all of the closed systems within the universe/multiverse (and thus the universe/multiverse itself) tend to lose usable energy and that this energy is never recovered or used again. If the matter in our universe was eternal, it would have already reached it's point of maximum entropy, which clearly has not happened yet.}}

===Reason 5: Complexity===
<tt>Mindless nothing cannot be responsible for complex something.</tt>

{{Response|This is [[False premise|fallacious in its assumption]] that an atheistic viewpoint requires the world to [[Origin of the universe|start from "nothing"]]. It also is guilty of [[special pleading]] ([[responsibility]] is an attribute of [[intelligence]]) and is another invocation of the [[argument from design]]. Note also that this author's "nothing" includes the entirety of physical, chemical, and other laws of the universe.

For the record, none of the scientific theories about the beginning of the universe posit that there was "nothing" and then there was "something." The [[Big Bang]] theory does posit the universe as being compacted to a singularity, and this does pose certain problems at such a [[Wikipedia:Quantum theory|quantum level]] because of how matter is understood to work, but it is not even clear that matter yet existed at this singularity - it doesn't have to, either, because matter and [[energy]] are equivalents (by [[general relativity]]) and energy does not follow the same types of quantum constraints as matter. You could (in a very simplified view of quantum and relativity theories) have all the matter in the universe converted to energy, and have all that energy contained in no space at all (a singularity) because energy requires no space.}}

{{Response|We know that this claim is factually wrong. According to this argument, complex snowflakes must be made by some intelligence, rather than the "mindless nothing" of physical and chemical forces. That is, if this is true, then God must assign angels to individually craft each snowflake. There must be a "Jack Frost" who draws those artistic patterns on our windows when it's cold. Rather than this childish storybook view of the world, we know that emergent complexity happens all the time, and is an exciting and interesting branch of mathematics and science.

Snowflakes are a special case of any crystalline structure. Diamonds, for example, are nothing more than a special (and precise) arrangement of carbon atoms in a structure that makes the overall object transparent (unlike graphite or other forms of pure carbon). Diamonds do not require a creator to arrange the carbon atoms just so. They require nothing more than the right pressure to force the carbon atoms into this configuration, and such pressures arise naturally in the earth as a result of nothing more than the properties of matter and gravity.}}

{{Response|I once read a Jack Chick tract that said that all the atoms in the universe are held together by God. This argument here reaches to the one about complexity. If God has to multitask on everything, what if God got tired and let his guard down for one second? Uh-oh, the universe is destroyed. If one is making an argument this complex, one should check all the angles so it is foolproof.}}

{{Response| For any universe to be "complex", the being who created it would have to be even more complex than the thing he created. If God is a "simple" being, then how can he possess the essence or intelligence to create something more complex than himself? So if complexity suggests a creator, then the increased complexity of God only suggests that he would also require a creator (as the argument follows). But the fact is that God must necessarily be more complex only demonstrates that his existence is greatly improbable. Especially if he is infinite, for an infite, complex being would be neverendingly improbable, or more plainly put, impossible.}}

===Reason 6: Limitations of science===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|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 a [[dualism|dualistic]] argument, but there is no basis in it. It is true, however, that the scientific method can only detect certain things: specifically, things which have some observable effect in the universe. Either God has an observable effect on the universe, and can therefore be studied scientifically, or God does not, and therefore is irrelevant.}}

{{Response|Taking the case of 'memory' further, psychologists long ago learned that if they probe the brain in certain areas, they can stimulate full, vivid, true memories in the subject. This would seem to be a form of 'scientific detection' of memory.}}

===Reason 7: Evolution is only a theory===
<tt>Evolution has never been proved, which is why we call it the 'theory of evolution'. It's a fairy tale for grown ups!</tt>

{{Response|This is surely an instance of [[hypocrisy|the pot calling the kettle black]]. Modern [[evolutionary theory]] is supported by a large number of independently verifiable facts and is used to explain, predict, and manipulate the responses of all manner of biological systems. Where is the corresponding [[evidence for God]] (or [[intelligent design]], etc.)? No, in actuality, most religions, with their tales of super-beings and [[magic]]al events, bear a much greater resemblance to fairy tales than does evolution.

More to the point, however, this is the "[[Evolution is only a theory]]" argument, which relies heavily on an [[equivocation]] between the common usage of the word "theory" and the scientific one (see [[Theory]] for more information). Furthermore, [[science]] is not about [[proof]]s, but [[evidence]], and the evidence supporting evolution is solid. See, for example, the Wikipedia article, [[Wikipedia:Introduction to evolution|Introduction to evolution]] (or the full [[Wikipedia:Evolution|Evolution]] article).

Finally, even if our current understanding of evolution were completely wrong, it still wouldn't make belief in God any more reasonable.}}

{{Response| Gravity is 'just a theory' too. We do not really know how or why it exists, or what exactly causes it. We can, however, observe it, understand it, and make use of that understanding to fly airplanes, launch rockets, put satellites into orbit, etc. I think we could all agree that few theists would question the theory of gravity- why then single out evolution as being 'just a theory'?}}

===Reason 8: Atheism is based on faith===
<tt>Atheism is a faith 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.</tt>

{{Response|Typical claim that [[atheism is based on faith]] combined with the claim that [[religion provides hope]]. The former is simply untrue (for most atheists) and involves [[shifting the burden of proof]] when used as an argument for belief in God (you don't need to "prove" something doesn't exist to lack belief in it). The latter is an [[appeal to consequences]]; just because religion may have some positive effects does not mean that its claims are true, nor that its tenets should be accepted even for "practical" purposes.}}
{{Response|It is simply not true that "believers believe because they have witnessed". No believer alive today has witnessed the death and resurrection of Jesus, the saints emerging from their graves, heaven, God, or any of the other myriad things that they claim to be "witnesses" to. Insofar as a religion orders its followers to "witness" to things they have no experience of, it is ordering them to be ''liars''. Thomas had the right idea: when you have put your fingers in Jesus's wound, ''then'' you can come back and talk about being a "witness".}}
{{Response|In fact, atheism ''does'' have "good news" to "preach": atheists need not subscribe to the arbitrary customs and strictures of religious dogma. We don't have to reconcile biblical contradictions nor deal with the hypocrisies of a schizophrenic deity. We can use our own minds rather than submit to competing human interpretations of "holy" books.}}

===Reason 9: Atheists are angry with God===
<tt>How much of the [[Atheism is based on faith|atheist's faith]] relies on [[Angry at God|anger with God]] as opposed to genuine [[disbelief]] in God?</tt>

{{Response|The assumption that ''any'' atheists are [[angry at God]] is an unfounded one and constitutes an [[ad hominem]] argument, since it questions the motivations behind atheists' lack of belief.}}

{{Response|Ignoring the [[atheism is based on faith]] part of the question, the correct answer is: None.

Granted, there are different kinds of atheists, and people are atheists for different reasons. But if you use ''[[atheism]]'' to mean either [[weak atheism|the lack of a belief in any gods]] or [[strong atheism|the belief that no gods exist]] then, logically, no atheists can be angry at God. How can you be angry at something that you don't think exists? Those who are angry at God are, by definition, not atheists but angry theists.}}

===Reason 10: Atheists need to get a life===
<tt>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?</tt>
{{Response|This is a [[straw man]] argument, and a [[False dichotomy|false dilemma]]. Atheism does not prevent hobbies, partying, etc. Furthermore, it neglects that while god may not exist, religions do exist. The adherents to these religions often try to impose the values and practices of their own religion onto society at large. Moreover, it presupposes that a majority of people on the planet believe in a fantasy and that is a good reason to have an active life.

Furthermore, assuming that atheists, indeed, need to get a life, it is not a valid reason to believe in a god, as the subject of the email insists.}}

{{Response|The vast majority of atheists have no problem with- indeed, could care less about- theists and theism. It is the methods theists use that cause the problem. When we see theists use political means to try to force their beliefs down our throats, we are offended, and we do indeed "rant and rave" about this misuse of our political processes. However we, more than any, realize that one must have the convictions of their beliefs. Penn Jillette of "Penn & Teller" puts it nicely in one of his videos when he states something to the effect of "if you are a theist and you DON'T proselytize, I have no respect for you." In other words, if you truly believe in Christianity and yet do not share that belief with me- you are no Christian, and are, in fact, evil by your own definition, since you refuse to 'save my soul' by sharing your beliefs. I have no problem with theists sharing their beliefs when they follow established cultural norms in doing so (i.e., ask if I want to hear it, don't try to force your beliefs and opinions on me.)}}

===Reason 11: Chicken-and-egg paradox===
<tt>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!</tt>

{{Response|[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] leading to [[post hoc ergo propter hoc]]. Also, evolutionary biology shows that the egg preceded the chicken[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_and_egg#Science_and_Evolution]. This is also a direct refutation of [[#Reason 4: First cause|Reason 4]].}}

===Reason 12: Improbability vs. impossibility===
<tt>Improbability is not the same as impossibility. You only have to look at life itself for that backup of proof.</tt>

{{Response|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]]. It is also a direct refutation of [[#Reason 5: Complexity|Reason 5]].}}

===Reason 13: Complexity of human life===
<tt>How could the complexity of human life possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells?</tt>

{{Response|[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]]. The complexity of life is the very thing that the theory of evolution explains. }}

{{Response| For any universe to be "complex", the being who created it would have to be even more complex than the thing he created. If God is a "simple" being, then how can he possess the essence or intelligence to create something more complex than himself? So if complexity suggests a creator, then the increased complexity of God only suggests that he would also require a creator. }}

===Reason 14: Complexity of the human mind===
<tt>How could the complexity of the human mind possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells? Where does our consciousness come from?</tt>

{{Response|[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] and similar to the [[homunculus argument]]. Science demonstrates that [[consciousness]] is an [[emergent property]] of the physical brain; this argument suggests a form of [[dualism]], where the mind and brain are separate. }}

{{Response| For any universe to be "complex", the being who created it would have to be even more complex than the thing he created. If God is a "simple" being, then how can he possess the essence or intelligence to create something more complex than himself? So if complexity suggests a creator, then the increased complexity of God only suggests that he would also require a creator. }}

===Reason 15: Food and drink===
<tt>What/who knew that our hunger & thirst had to be catered for by the food & drink which we're supplied with?</tt>

{{Response|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.}}

{{Response|We did! Humans are not autotrophs (make own's food). We require energy from other sources such as plants, fruits and animals. This process of eating and digesting is essential not only to life, but also to performing many biochemical reactions within our bodies. We evolved to eat these substances for this very purpose- not we were created to eat these things (or were created for us). If this is a "proof" for God, then we could challenge his benevolence. Why did he put plants on Earth that we can't digest? Or why create poisonous foods? Why do many foods from animals require so much physical risk to acheive? Certainly a loving God would not put such dangers on Earth that could threaten his creation.}}

===Reason 16: The five senses===
<tt>Most of us are born with the five senses to detect our surroundings, which we're provided with.</tt>

{{Response|Another example of the [[anthropic principle]].}}
{{Response|The "five senses" common to most humans, while adequate for the purposes of savanna apes, are only able to capture the barest fraction of all light and sound waves, and detects a very limited set of chemicals. There is nothing intrinsically special about the number of senses we possess: they differ from one another more by degrees than by kinds. For instance, our sense of touch is much like hearing when it comes to detecting vibrations, and much like sight for heat detection. Similarly, our senses of smell and taste are quite related. Thus, we can just as easily say we are born with three sense as seven (if you reduce touch to pressure and temperature detection, and consider the sense of balance, for example). Finally, there is nothing special about our sense mechanisms when compared with other members of the animal kingdom. We are far outclassed in the abilities we do possess, and we lack even rudimentary detection mechanisms for electrical or magnetic fields.}}

===Reason 17: Goldilocks and the habitable planet, part 1===
<tt>What/who knew that had Earth been set nearer to the sun, we would burn up?</tt>

{{Response|See next reason.}}

===Reason 18: Goldilocks and the habitable planet, part 2===
<tt>What/who knew that had Earth been set any further from the sun, we would freeze up?</tt>

{{Response | See the [[Anthropic principle]].}}

{{Response | What? Nothing. Who? No one. When Earth and the rest of the solar system were formed, the development of human life, or indeed life of any kind, was not the purpose or goal. We humans are the only ones (that we know of) who care that we are here. If things were different, they would be different. Perhaps a different kind of life would have developed — maybe even a kind of life that could wonder how or why it came to exist. But if not, there wouldn't be anyone to ask the question in the first place. In other words, it is possible that the correct answer to the question, "Why do things in the universe look like they were 'fine tuned' to support human life?" might simply be, "If they weren't that way, there would be no humans around to ask the question."}}

{{Response | There is a wide range of possible [[Wikipedia:Habitable_zone|orbits suitable for Earth-like life]] (that is, carbon-based and dependent on water) in our solar system: about 0.95 to 1.37 AU (or 88 million to 127 million miles) from the Sun. The Earth is near the middle of this so-called Goldilocks zone, so it is hugely inaccurate to claim that any deviation from our current position would freeze (or burn) us all up. There is also reason to believe that [[Wikipedia:Gliese_581_d#Climate_and_habitability|life is possible]] in other places in the solar system, such as Jupiter's moon [[Wikipedia:Europa_(moon)#Possible_extraterrestrial_life|Europa]] or the moons [[Wikipedia:Enceladus_(moon)|Enceladus]] or [[Wikipedia:Titan_(moon)|Titan]] of Saturn. These "hot spots" are possible because direct warming by the Sun is not the only way for a celestial body to become warm enough to support life: tidal forces caused by gravitational attraction to other "nearby" bodies (like Earth's moon) can be sufficient to heat up the interior of a planet or moon.}}

{{Response|There are approximately 200 – 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone. Around many of these stars there are going to be planets. Most will be too hot or too cold for life, but there will surely be some that are the right temperature just by chance alone. Our solar system has 8 planets ([[Wikipedia:Pluto#Classification|Pluto is no longer recognized as a planet]]), only 2 of which (Earth and Mars) are in the Goldilocks zone. That makes 2 "successes" out of 8 for our solar system alone. Now extrapolate that to the billions of other solar systems that are presumed to exist in the billions of galaxies in the universe. Even with relatively pessimistic estimates of the sizes of the various Goldilocks zones and the number and kinds of planets that would form in them, there could easily be billions of planets capable of harboring life. See also the [[Infinite monkey theorem]].}}

===Reason 19: Goldilocks and the habitable planet, part 3===
<tt>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?</tt>

{{Response|[[Anthropic principle]].}}

{{Response| My main response to these points would be that this still does not prove the existence of God. This can be seen as a "God of the Gaps" argument.

Just on a side-note, the Anthropic Principle can be used to either help prove or disprove the existence of God (depending on how you use and interpret it), and that its application in the theist/atheist sense is not truly scientific. Science is not about theism or atheism, and I would hesistate to advise the use of the AP in relgious discussion, particularly given the limited frame of reference current-day humans have. Whenever someone does bring this up, this is what I say.}}

===Reason 20: Complementarity of plant and animal life===
<tt>What/who knew that we require the oxygen of plants, just as plants require the carbon dioxide of us?</tt>

{{Response|[[Anthropic principle]]. These anthropic principle arguments are all phrased in such a way as to assume that the answer must be in the form of a "who"--i.e., a personal God. This is [[Petitio principii|begging the question]].}}

===Reason 21: The tornado and the 747===
<tt>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!</tt>

{{Response|[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] and [[argument from design]]. This is [[Fred Hoyle]]'s classic [[Tornado argument]], which is based on the assumption that evolution works by [[Probability|random chance]], ignoring the non-random process of [[natural selection]]. [[Richard Dawkins]] proposed the Ultimate 747 argument[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit] as a response. This reason is also contradictory to the argument proposed in [[#Reason 12: Complexity|Reason 12]].}}

{{Response| The Tornado and the 747 argument also does not take into consideration that a Boeing 747 is a nonliving entity, with no will of it's own or ability to think or act. Life came about through natural selection, and by living organisms. Organisms that could adaption, had the will to survive and reproduced. As evolution progresses, organisms have evolved into more complex beings with the ability to communicate, socialize, analyze data and interpret them. Basically life did not come about by chance, as the nonliving 747 has no will to assemble itself whereas a conscious being can think and act to suit survival purposes. }}

{{Response| If one is to believe in cause and effect, there is no such thing as "sheer chance", even if it gives a illusion of such. Although there are some unanswered questions regarding the early evolution of life, we can definitely say that life did not arise according to chance. Molecules have ways of attracting each other and forming complex structures because they behave that way naturally. Given enough time and enough success, life can theoretically arise through natural mechanisms.}}

===Reason 22: The invisible and the supernatural===
<tt>We are willing to believe in physically unseen waves that exist through the air, operating physical forces & appliances to work [sic], yet not supernatural God forces being responsible for the same.</tt>

{{Response|While phenomena like [[wikipedia:radio waves|radio waves]] or [[wikipedia:infrared light|infrared light]] may not be visible to the human eye, they are not analogous to any purported supernatural forces. Natural "unseen" waves [[manifest]] in other ways — ways that are detectable and predictable. In short, they are well understood and explained by science, and this is why they can be utilized in technology. The same cannot be said for God.}}

===Reason 23: Self-organization and entropy===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|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. This argument is utter absurdity, ignoring the very basics of [[evolution]], specifically that individuals do not evolve, ''populations'' evolve. It also ignores the role of reproduction in evolution, the fact that evolution proceeds by small changes over time, the lack of a hierarchical/teleological path for evolution, and so forth. See the EvoWiki page on a similar, more common argument[http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_descendants_of_an_X_(cat,_dog...)_will_remain_X].}}

{{Response|The opening assumption that matter is unable to self-organize is wrong: crystals are a prime example of matter organizing itself. This innate ability of matter becomes important in some theories of abiogenesis, like A. Graham Cairns-Smith's Clay theory.}}

===Reason 24: Darwin's deathbed conversion===
<tt>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 neighbors the next day. "What shall I speak about?" She asked. He replied; "Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is that not the best theme?"</tt>

{{Response|The story of [[Darwin]]'s [[deathbed conversion]] is an [[urban myth]]. Even if it were true (and evidence shows that it is not), it is an [[Argumentum ad verecundiam|argument from authority]]. We accept [[evolution]] not based on Darwin's word but on the [[evidence]] supporting the theory, most of which has been discovered since Darwin's death. By the same token, we should not reject evolution based on Darwin's word, even if he repudiated everything he had written on the subject. Similarly, we should not take Darwin's word for it that a [[god]] exists (if he did believe that) or that [[Christianity]] is the path to [[salvation]]. It is also worth noting that Darwin was not the first person to propose evolution as a possibility, or even that natural processes were responsible; he just happens to be the first to produce both a cogent theory for how the process works along with solid evidence supporting it.}}

===Reason 25: Morality===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|[[Evolutionary psychology|Evolutionary psychologists]] have proposed explanations for many "moral values" and behaviors that appear to be instinctual; observations of [[wikipedia:social animal|social animal]]s reveal that many have moral codes that are similar to that of humans. [[Atheist]]s may follow any number of [[secular]] [[ethical]] codes, holding themselves accountable to values or ideals derived [[rational]]ly, rather than to a [[deity]]. Furthermore, the [[Euthyphro dilemma]] turns this argument around on the [[theist]]: where do [[God]]'s moral values come from?}}

{{Response|To whom are we morally responsible? In moral systems that lack a divine component, we are accountable to those around us.}}

{{Response|Most people don't share many of the moral values of the bible. The vast majority of humans consider rape within marriage and slavery to be wrong while working on the sabbath is considered to be acceptable, which conflicts with biblical morality. The fact that the bible condemns murder, theft and lying is trivial because peoples and even many other animals that are unfamiliar with the bible also hold these moral values.}}

===Reason 26: Man vs. animal===
<tt>If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn't he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised.</tt>

{{Response|There are many problems with this argument.
# It is based, at least implicitly, on the archaic concept of the [[Great Chain of Being]], in which humans are seen as separate from, and inherently superior to, other animals. In fact, humans ''are'' animals. The theory of evolution doesn't hold that they evolved "away from" animals and became something fundamentally different.
# Since evolution necessarily implies change from a previous state, the fact that the ancestors of humans had certain characteristics doesn't necessarily mean that humans must still have those characteristics. ''Any'' two animal species will share certain characteristics and not share others. This is the result of the process of evolution and not — as is implied above — a refutation of it.
# Many human behaviors ''are'', in fact, very similar to those found among animals today (especially other [[wikipedia:primate|primates]]). Examples include the seeking of food and shelter, the forming of social groups to secure these resources, the forming of pair bonds for reproduction and the rearing of offspring, the protection of family members from others in the social group and of members of the group from outsiders, and communication through sound and gestures. On the other hand, aspects of human behavior that are indeed unique to our species may be attributable to adaptations such as bipedalism or advanced cognitive function, particularly the capacity for abstract thought. Evolutionary theory may actually be able to explain how these characteristics arose.
# Given the history of the 20th century (for example), there is some doubt as to what "civilized" actually means and whether humans can be said to possess that characteristic.
# Finally, as with [[#Reason 7: Evolution is only a theory|Reason 7]] (and many others), even if the claim above were completely true, it wouldn't justify belief in God.}}

===Reason 27: Chance and ignorance===
<tt>'Chance' isn't the cause of something. It just describes what we can't find a reason for.</tt>

{{Response|[[Straw man]] argument. While [[evolution]] contains some aspects of apparent "[[chance]]" (genetic mutations), the process of [[natural selection]] is the force which drives the process of adaptation. Furthermore, "chance" is not a description of something we cannot find a reason for; that is "ignorance". Chance is a description of systems which operate according to laws of [[probability]].}}

===Reason 28: Limitations of science and logic===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|[[Argumentum ad ignorantiam]] and [[special pleading]]. If we have no understanding of these forces, then how can anyone be said to be "aware" of them? If we are aware, we must have some small measure of understanding.}}

{{Response| Majority opinion is irrelvant to the facts. Many people may believe a lie- take for example. "Many teenagers believe that marijuana is harmless, drugs are harmful whereas marijuana is not, therefore marijuana is not a drug." Any doctor could tell you of the harmful side effects of marijuana useage. Furthermore, a drug need not be immediately harmful for it to be a drug. But nonetheless, many teenagers may make this claim, even if it is obviously not true.

We should be asking bigger questions. Such as: Is the majority of the people mentioned an expert in said feild? Do they know about the feild they are making claims on? Is it their educational background or profession? Anyone can make conclusions on a subject in physics, but if they are not a physicist, we should be more skeptical of their conclusions.

What is the majority basing their opinions on? Evidence? If no, then we can't say with certainity they have a "proven" claim. Feeling, Emotion, Belief? If yes, then perhaps there is a bias they have preventing them from accepting conflicting evidence or looking upon the subject from other perspectives. Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes series, wrote Shelrock as saying "Never theorize before one has data, invariably one twists facts to suit theories rather than theories to suit facts." Majority opinion can always be based on biases and evidence is required to take any claim seriously.

Is the majority well informed on the subject and all aspects/perspectives on it? You can hardly say that "many people believe in mediums, therefore medium phenomena is true." Really? Have the believers read any skeptical positions? Done any research? Looked for alternative explanations? Just as with evolution, in some contries, the majority do not believe- but are they aware of all the evidence? It's hardly fair to say majority wins when many of the majority may not have all the facts.

Lastly, just because there may be things we do not yet have scientific answers to, it does not mean there is no scientific answer. We just haven't found one yet. It's nothing more than a hasty conclusion to say "Science has no answer, therefore this one is true." It is not so. Perhaps we will find an answer in a year or two from now, until them, conclusions should not be made.}}

===Reason 29: Gregorian calendar===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|This is an unfounded claim that [[the Gregorian calendar proves that Jesus existed]]. The Anno Domini (AD) dating system was not created until 525 AD. It is not independent, contemporary historical confirmation of the New Testament. The current Gregorian Calendar was drafted in 1582 under the direction of Pope Gregory XIII of the Catholic church, and cannot act as evidence of the existence of a man who is thought to have lived 15 centuries earlier.}}

{{Response|Look at the names of days and months on your calendar. This proves that the gods "Moon, Tiu, Woden, Thor, Frigg, Saturn and Sun, Januarius, the Roman gods to whom the Februa were celebrated, Mars, etc, etc all exist.}}

===Reason 30: Martyrs===
<tt>Many people have died for their faith. Would they be prepared to do this for a lie?!</tt>

{{Response|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?}}

===Reason 31: Biblical accounts===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|It may be a stretch to describe stories of events written 40+ years after they supposedly occurred as "eyewitness accounts", when the average lifespan of a human in those times was likely much lower[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_over_human_history]. The truth is that none of the [[Gospels]] were written by eyewitnesses, the earliest dating estimate[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating] is 65 C.E. and most are thought to be significantly later. Moreover, the earliest New Testament texts were purportedly authored by early church founder Paul of Tarsus, who was not an eyewitness. Even assuming the events were recorded by supposed eyewitnesses, we could make that argument in favor of many religious texts and other writings which may contradict each other. Does this give us reason to assume the events recorded in books like the Qur'an are also true? And given the many conflicts over heresies, apocryphal texts and other teachings in the early church, it seems safe to say that there was "confusion and anger" over the contents of the books.}}

{{Response| Some of the Four Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. The book of Mark was written by Barnabas' nephew Mark, who was not one of the original Twelve Apostles. The book of Luke was written by Luke of Antioch, who was a believer after hearing the Gospel. Those two books were collections of various eyewitness accounts. Luke also wrote the book of Acts, which was both a collection of eyewitness accounts, as well as a journal of Luke's travels when he helped spread the Gospel.

There is much truth in the New Testament accounts in terms of "normal" historical events that can be verified through comparing contemporary historical works and archaelogy. However, one could question whether or not the supernatural events that are written in the Gospels took place.}}

===Reason 32: Archaeology===
<tt>From as early as 2000 BC, there is archaeological evidence to confirm many details we're provided with in the Bible.</tt>

{{Response|This may be true, but there is also a striking ''lack'' of archaeological evidence for many important stories recorded in the Bible (see claim #34). Atheists do not claim that the Bible must be entirely false in every respect. What matters when determining if the Bible provides basis for a belief in God is the evidence we can find for its claims of supernatural phenomena, like the resurrection of Jesus. This evidence does not exist. Furthermore, there is evidence to confirm many of the details provided in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iliad Iliad] or the average [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-man Spider-Man] comic, but that doesn't mean that Achilles and Spider-Man exist.}}

===Reason 33: Biblical prophecy===
<tt>Not one single Biblical prediction can be shown as false, and the Bible contains hundreds.</tt>

{{Response|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.

Biblical [[prophecy]] was "confirmed" by those who were already aware of such prophecy and with a vested interest in ensuring that such prophecy had the appearance of being fulfilled.}}

{{Response| This claim is simply false. Perhaps the most strikingly embarrassing unfulfilled prophecy in the bible is Jesus' prediction of his own second coming, to occur within the lifetimes of the people listening to him. There are dozens of others.}}

{{Response| Those profesies only come true in the context of the bible, which was compiled and edited after the fact. There are many works of fiction where predictions are made that come true in the context of that book or film, does this make the stories true?}}

===Reason 34: Biblical history===
<tt>The evidence from literature & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.</tt>

{{Response|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 archaeological 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#CriticalEvaluation].}}

===Reason 35: Christianity and science in harmony===
<tt>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 ''[sic]'' Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.</tt>

{{Response|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]]. And if we fail to grant that there is no conflict, we recognize many contradictions[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html] between the Biblical account and established science.}}
{{Response| From the time of Galileo to the latest attempts by creationists to push their agendas in schools, science and faith have ''always'' been in opposition. Whether its the germ theory of disease vs demons and the powers of the air, the preposterous miracles of the roman church, heliocentrism vs angels moving the stars about, lightning rods instead of sounding the church bells, science has ''never'' had to back down: it has always been religion that has had to preserve itself by "reinterpreting" its texts.}}

===Reason 36: How vs. why===
<tt>Science can explain 'how' something works, but not 'why' something works.</tt>

{{Response|This argument is essentially meaningless. To science, 'how' and 'why' are the same thing.}}

{{Response| Terry Pratchett, of all people, sheds insight onto this. The question "why" presupposes that there is a ''story'' to be told. A ''narrative''. Science is a different way of knowing, and one of its discoveries is that the language of the universe is not that of story and legend, but that that of mathematics. It's something that a lot of math-phobes have a hard time accepting.}}

===Reason 37: Science changes===
<tt>Science is constantly recorrecting ''[sic]'' 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.</tt>

{{Response|A willingness to reconsider [[theory|theories]] in the face of new [[evidence]] is essential to any process that seeks the [[truth]]. [[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. Mainstream [[Christianity]] is guilty of the same revisionism: In 1633, [[Wikipedia:Galileo|Galileo]] was convicted of [[heresy]] by the Catholic church for promoting [[wikipedia:heliocentrism|heliocentrism]], which directly contradicts biblical "evidence" of the organization of the universe. It wasn't until 1992 that Galileo was officially vindicated in a declaration by [[Wikipedia:Pope John Paul II|Pope John Paul II]]. Did God change the arrangement of the heavenly bodies in the intervening centuries? Or was the Catholic church simply wrong because they were using a completely unreliable source of knowledge? [[Wikipedia:Ben Franklin|Ben Franklin]] was accused of heresy by Catholics and [[Protestants]] alike, for developing the [[wikipedia:lightning rod|lightning rod]], which was considered an effort to stifle God's wrath. Today, however, virtually all structures, including churches, are fitted with lightning protection.}}

{{Response|When science changes, the new theory generally explains both the new facts ''and'' the old. For example, [[Einstein]]'s [[Wikipedia:theory of relativity|theory of relativity]], which shows relative speed changes the rules while at the same time making it quite clear that Newtonian physics is still a very good approximation for a lot of things. On the contrary, when society changes in such a way that religions have to "reinterpret" their own scriptures, the original interpretations are no longer valid. The prior behaviours of followers are then written off as heretical, as, for example, in the case of the Catholic church during the [[inquisition]]. See also: [[no true Scotsman]]. }}

{{Response|The truth is always changing and evolving. Humans, both individually and collectively, only have a limited understanding of how the world is. Whether or not we admit it, our view of our world is one made up of a lot of assumptions, however educated they may be. The fact that science and the interpretation of religious beliefs keep changing is proof of this. The fact that science and religion are constantly changing should not be a reason to dismiss either one entirely. We should dismiss our own personal assumptions/beliefs regarding the object in question, and not the object itself.}}

===Reason 38: Abiogenesis===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response|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 [[wikipedia:panspermia|panspermia]] emerges in the future. Though there is currently no generally accepted and evidence-supported theory of how life arose on Earth, scientists have demonstrated that abiogenesis is possible (such as in the [[Wikipedia:Miller-Urey experiment|Miller-Urey experiment]]), and there are a variety of hypotheses which are more [[Occam's razor|parsimonious]] than one invoking a transcendent God. While a consensus theory of abiogenesis or panspermia would not disprove the existence of God, the [[burden of proof]] is on those who assert the existence of supernatural phenomena.}}
{{Response|This is another iteration of the [[God of the gaps]] argument and an [[argumentum ad ignorantiam]]. While this argument attempts to defend the Christian mythological deity, it serves the same function for all other deities, as well as for any other unfalsifiable claim, including [[You can't prove God doesn't exist|Russell's Teapot]], [[Wikipedia:Brain in a vat|you are in the Matrix]], or that the universe was created 20 seconds ago by me.}}
{{Response|The author is entirely correct in maintaining that proof of evolution would not be disproof of God; however, as can be seen in many other "reasons", she seems to be unwilling or unable to recognize that ''disproof'' of evolution is likewise not ''proof'' of God.}}
{{Response|Scientists haven't answered all of the questions of the universe. I admit this. However, this fact is not a reason to believe in God. This fact doesn't have anything to do with God.}}

===Reason 39: A bad lie?===
<tt>The two people who discovered Jesus' empty tomb were women. Women were very 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.</tt>

{{Response|Let me get this straight: because women had low status and because it is written somewhere that some women claimed something that would be really great (from the author's perspective) if it were true, therefore the claims must be true? Wow. That's an amazing logical leap. (To be fair, historians do sometimes use such [[Wikipedia:Criterion of embarrassment|"countersupportive" evidence as positive evidence]] of historical claims — for example, [[Bart D. Ehrman]]'s analysis of which [[sayings of Jesus]] in the Bible might be historically accurate relies in part on whether each quotation shows Jesus or his message in a positive or negative light — but a good historian would never go so far as to argue that this makes the claims ''true''.)}}

{{Response|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]]. Moreover, the account is [[hearsay]] and [[Biblical contradictions|contradictory accounts]] of this event are given in the Gospels.}}

===Reason 40: Near-death experiences===
<tt>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 ''[sic]'' 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.</tt>

{{Response|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; in fact, studies have shown that NDEs can be induced through drugs or trauma, and are almost certain to be a physiological phenomenon. 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." See also the Skeptic's Dictionary entry[http://skepdic.com/nde.html] on the subject.}}

===Reason 41: Biblical skeptics===
<tt>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.</tt>

{{Response| This is a form of [[argumentum ad populum]], at one stage the majority of the world believed the earth was flat. These are anecdotal accounts of people who could be mistaken. While it is true conversions to Christianity continue today, conversions to other religions and away from organized religion also occur.}}

{{Response| This argument does not take into consideration that people may have alternative reasons for changing their religion (or lack thereof) besides believing. People may changes religions to suit a new marriage, or perhaps they lost a loved one and need some form of comfort. Perhaps they are trying to please persistent family members or just enjoy the Christmas carols and architecture and enjoy the sense of community. We can not always assume that people join a faith because they believe that it is true. }}

===Reason 42: Einstein quote===
<tt>Albert Einstein said; "A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind".</tt>

{{Response|[[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. Besides this, Einstein used the term "religion" in a specific, nonstandard way, defined here: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. 'If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it'." It is this admiration for the structure of the universe that Einstein thought essential to science.}}

===Reason 43: The tomato thrower===
<tt>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!"</tt>

{{Response|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. If we are to take this anecdote at face value, we must also question the morality of the presumed theist who both assaulted the speaker, rather than refute his claims, and then either lied about the assault or failed to confess and apologize.

Furthermore, the public assault of an atheist by means of a possibly self-actuating, suicidal vegetable is hardly a compelling reason to believe in a god, as the subject of the original email suggests.}}

===Reason 44: Occam's supernatural razor===
<tt>It is easier to believe that God created something out of nothing than it is to believe that nothing created something out of nothing.</tt>

{{Response|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? It also presupposes a [[straw man]] form of the [[Big Bang]] theory of cosmology. Theists often claim that the Big Bang suggests that "nothing became something," when in fact it says no such thing. In fact, there is no scientific reason to think that the matter and energy of the universe had to be created (which would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics) and have not merely always existed in one form or another.}}

===Reason 45: How-vs.-why Hawking quote===
<tt>Stephen Hawkins ''[sic]'' 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?"</tt>

{{Response|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 answers 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.}}

===Reason 46: With God all things are possible===
<tt>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.</tt>

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

{{Response|It is precisely ''because'' supernatural explanations allow "all things [to be] possible" that they are useless when it comes to determining the true causes of observed phenomena.}}

{{Response|It was also the Bible that said that pi is equal to 3, but I don't see any Christians promoting that theory.}}

{{Response| Is it really true that with God all things are possible? Can God create a stone large enough that even he can not lift? Either way, he fails at omnipotence. The argument is also special pleading, it gives God a status of being immune to the laws of science but how is this possible? God is NOT made up of matter? Ultimately this argument is only an attempt to "dodge the bullet".}}

===Reason 47: Evolved vs. evolving===
<tt>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?</tt>

{{Response|[[Anthropic principle]]. And, in fact, we ''are'' still evolving, as are all living things. As for "finely tuned", most of our planet's surface is uninhabitable by or inhospitable to humans (frozen wastelands, oceans, deserts), and the vast majority of the universe is fatal to humans, so how can "everything" be said to be "finely tuned for our living"?}}

===Reason 48: The Missing Link===
<tt>Could it possibly be that the missing link does not exist?!</tt>

{{Response|[[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. The "missing link" itself comes from a misunderstanding of evolution, and has more in common with the [[Great Chain of Being]] than anything scientific.}}

{{Response|The famous Missing Link between humans and ape ancestors has also been found. Not merely one example, either, but many different stages. This is another example of the [[God of the gaps]] argument.}}

{{Response| The Missing Link argument claims that we are still missing the fossils to prove evolutionary descent. However scientists are discovering more fossils by the year, each giving more insight to how evolution works and how relationships are established. This argument does not take into consideration the other things besides fossils which prove evolution, such as genetics.}}

===Reason 49: Open your eyes===
<tt>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?</tt>

{{Response|[[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.

Such a claim is also prejudiced against the blind. What if someone has no eyes to see God's works? Are blind people, by definition, atheists?}}

{{Response|[[Argument from non-belief]]. Why doesn't God speak directly to the entire human population? Or visit "physically" every once in a while? In other words, why isn't God's existence more obvious, based on direct, observable and irrefutable evidence and not theoretical guesses and feeling? }}

===Reason 50: Liar or Lord?===
<tt>Jesus Christ is either who he says he is, or he is the biggest con man history has ever known.</tt>

{{Response|[[False dichotomy]]. He could have also...
* been insane,
* never actually existed,
* not said all of the things attributed to him, or
* been deceived by the lies of others.
See also C.S. Lewis's [[trilemma]].}}

===Big finish===
<tt>YOU DECIDE!!!</tt>
{{Response|[[Pascal's Wager#Atheist's Wager|Choose wisely!]]}}

=== Summary ===

Of the "50 reasons" given, the following do not say anything about evidence for God at all:
* 19 arguments against atheism/science/rationality and for non-religious paranormal ideas: 2,5-10,13-14,21,23,26-28,36-38,40,48
* 8 non sequiturs that make a statement and hope that the reader draws a connection to God (mostly bad fine-tuning arguments): 12,15-20,47
* 5 statements that simply assert God against all objections, giving no real "reason" for belief: 3,11,22,46,49
* 4 appeals to famous scientists: 24,35,42,45
* 1 story that attacks atheism through straight-forward ridicule: 43
* 1 appeal to morality that claims that faith is good without showing that it is correct: 25

The remaining twelve arguments are mostly either about the Bible or of the type that say "this is all here because God put it here".

Fifty arguments probably sounds like a pretty impressive number. But a more accurate (and far less catchy) title to this email would be "Twenty-four attacks on our enemies who promote science and reason over faith; fourteen vague statements that try to make Christians look good or reasonable; and twelve reasons why some Christian beliefs are superficially plausible".

==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]]

Religion provides hope

2010-07-01T04:10:48Z

Quantheory: /* Religion also provides despair */

One common [[apologetic]] is the argument that '''religion provides hope''', or meaning, or the assurance of the love of [[God]], and that taking away a person's religion would be cruel.

==Counter-arguments==
===Red herring===
Whether or not [[religion]] provides hope or meaning has nothing to do with whether it is true.

===Is this desirable?===
This argument is comparable to the statement, "It would be cruel to take away a coke addict's supply, since that person would succumb to withdrawal pains". While this action would likely cause temporary pain to the addict, in the long run, the former addict would benefit greatly from eliminating his dependence. Similarly, it is better to be able to find hope and meaning without having to resort to religion.

===Religion also provides fear===
This argument also ignores the fact that for many people, religion brings unhappiness: in many forms of religion, people are told that having sexual thoughts is a [[sin]]; homosexuals are told that they are vile and wicked; and some denominations preach that all humans, no matter how much good they do, are miserable sinners who deserve to be tortured for all eternity.

The hope that such religions provide is not the uplifting hope of improving one's future, but rather the hope of evading just punishment.

Many forms of Christianity teach that the majority of mankind will go to [[Hell]]. The fear of this may cause great distress. If you are on death's door and were raised to believe that you may be going to hell, it can create great stress and energy that could have been spent better possibly saying goodbye to loved ones. It causes friends and relatives stress to think that perhaps a recent loved one that died could be in hell. It is difficult to estimate how much stress and unhappiness is caused by the fear of hell and the suffering that one is supposed to have while in hell. Many people may be reluctant to admit how much they fear that they are sinners and could be destined to go to hell as well as the fear they hold that loved ones were sinners and are in hell. The fact that hell is forever, its hard to even imagine. Many may be uncomfortable outside on a hot day or sitting in a boring meeting, yet hell is portrayed far, far worse than these daily annoyances that many may try to avoid.

Religion also causes fear of supernatural horrors in this life. Many people believe that witches, demons, or evil spirits are sabotaging their efforts or plotting to attack them. Normally, one would try to get a person to disbelieve in, or at least forget about, these sorts of paranoid delusions. However, if they are a member of a religion that accepts or even encourages these sorts of beliefs, it may be very difficult to convince someone to let go of them.

Religion can ''also'' cause fear of non-believers or believers in different religions, because it demands loyalty to a particular ideology, and that that ideology be defended against all conceivable threats. This fear leads to needless prejudice and sometimes even violence. Even "moderate" religionists are often afraid of the decline of their own faith, even they can't relate this decline to any definite tangible harm to themselves or others.

==See also==
* [[Red herring]]

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Big Bang

2010-07-01T03:50:08Z

Quantheory: /* Speculations on the pre-Big Bang universe */

{{wikipedia}}
The '''Big Bang''' [[theory]] is the prevailing [[cosmological]] theory describing the origin and evolution of our [[universe]].

==Description==

The Big Bang theory states that around 13.7 billion years ago the [[universe]] was condensed into an incredibly small, hot, dense "ball" of [[wikipedia:space|space]] and [[time]] called a [[wikipedia:singularity|singularity]]. At that time there was no physical matter in the universe.

The name "Big Bang" is somewhat of a misnomer, since the universe simply expanded and didn't literally explode (and it certainly didn't make a "bang" sound). As the expansion continued, the universe cooled, eventually reaching a point at which particles of matter could "freeze out" of pure energy (see [[Wikipedia:Mass–energy equivalence]]) and collide with each other to form the first simple atoms. These atoms continued to collide creating progressively "heavier" elements through the process of [[wikipedia:nuclear fusion|nuclear fusion]]. Over billions of years, these particles combined to form "clouds" of matter which further condensed, because of gravitational attraction, into stars and planets. (See [[Wikipedia:Physical cosmology]] for much more detail.)

The history of the universe can be described in some detail back to the instant approximately 10-43 seconds after the big bang. What occurred in the first 10-43 seconds (the [[wikipedia:Planck epoch|Planck epoch]]) is not known and difficult to theorize, due to interactions between the theories of gravitation and quantum mechanics.

==Apologetics==

[[Creationist]]s often object to the Big Bang theory on the grounds that it removes [[God]]'s hand from [[creation]]. A common Creationist argument against it is the question "What caused the Big Bang?" and the closely related question "What happened before the Big Bang?"

There is a common misconception that the Big Bang means that the universe "came from nothing." Creationists use this as a launching point to claim that without introducing God, the first law of [[thermodynamics]] would be violated.

==Counter-apologetics==

The Big Bang theory does not say that the dot came "from nothing"; it simply postulates the existence of the singularity and then proceeds from there. The answer to the question of what came before the Big Bang is simply "No one knows yet."

This lack of knowledge cannot be used to assert the existence of a God, however, as one can always ask "[[Who created God?]]" Since Creationists typically believe that every effect needs a cause they assume that the universe needed one too. See the [[Cosmological argument]].

==Speculations on the pre-Big Bang universe==

* The '''[[wikipedia:oscillatory universe|oscillatory universe]]''' is the hypothesis, attributable to Richard Tolman from 1934, that the universe undergoes an infinite series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce. (This theory has declined in popularity since 1998, when astronomers reported evidence that the acceleration of the universe's expansion continues unabated.) [http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9802/27/accelerating.universe/]
* '''[[wikipedia:Cosmological natural selection|Cosmological natural selection]]''' is a speculative hypothesis proposed by Lee Smolin. Smolin speculates that every [[black hole]] might contain another universe inside it. Thus, our universe might be a black hole inside another universe. Each universe shares properties and fundamental constants with its "parent" universe, but may be slightly different. Thus--according to this theory--universes [[evolve]] over time, and the ones that are particularly well suited to produce black holes are the ones that thrive.
* The '''[[wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse (science)|multiverse]]''' hypothesis suggests that there are already multiple parallel universes, generated in a meta-universe.
* There may be no such thing as a pre-Big Bang universe.
**Our intuition about time is based on the environment we live in (and evolved in), with small accelerations and a relatively flat spacetime. In highly curved regions of spacetime, those intuitions break down.
**As an analogy, "north" is a direction that is more or less constant in most cities. But the direction "north" in Los Angeles is not parallel to the direction "north" in Berlin because of the curvature of the earth. In fact, going north from any point will eventually lead to the north pole because the earth is a sphere. At the north pole itself there is no direction of "north" because every point around it is farther south than it is.
**Similarly, "towards the past" is not a direction that is the same for every point in spacetime, but rather going back in time from any point leads back to the big bang. If there is no previous universe from which our universe sprung, it may be that there is a "past pole", or a finite region of spacetime around which every other point is farther in the future. It would be meaningless to talk about what happened before this time, because there would be no such thing as a "before" that. The universe would either be uncaused or the "cause" would be something that did not precede it in time.

None of these concepts have been conclusively demonstrated, but they do illustrate that God isn't the only possible answer (See [[Wikipedia:Cosmogony]] for more information).

[[Category: Science]]

Talk:Big Bang

2010-07-01T03:34:30Z

Quantheory:

I reverted to the previous version because the information about the early universe was simply a duplicate of material later in the same article. [[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 20:32, 14 December 2006 (CST)

The word "theory" seems to be used laxly throughout the article. I have the concern of conflating the colloquialism with the scientific meaning. It is however difficult to avoid given the limited diction available for "plausible but unsupported explanation"--[[User:Zurahn|Zurahn]] 21:50, 17 June 2009 (CDT)

In retrospect, the version previous to my last correction was pretty good, but there was a parenthetical comment at the end that wasn't really right. I'm going to leave my new version because I like it better but if anyone disagrees go ahead and fix it. -- [[User:Quantheory|quantheory]] 22:34, 30 June 2010 (CDT)

Big Bang

2010-07-01T03:14:26Z

Quantheory: /* Speculations on the pre-Big Bang universe */ Replaced an explanation I felt was technically dubious with a different but related point

{{wikipedia}}
The '''Big Bang''' [[theory]] is the prevailing [[cosmological]] theory describing the origin and evolution of our [[universe]].

==Description==

The Big Bang theory states that around 13.7 billion years ago the [[universe]] was condensed into an incredibly small, hot, dense "ball" of [[wikipedia:space|space]] and [[time]] called a [[wikipedia:singularity|singularity]]. At that time there was no physical matter in the universe.

The name "Big Bang" is somewhat of a misnomer, since the universe simply expanded and didn't literally explode (and it certainly didn't make a "bang" sound). As the expansion continued, the universe cooled, eventually reaching a point at which particles of matter could "freeze out" of pure energy (see [[Wikipedia:Mass–energy equivalence]]) and collide with each other to form the first simple atoms. These atoms continued to collide creating progressively "heavier" elements through the process of [[wikipedia:nuclear fusion|nuclear fusion]]. Over billions of years, these particles combined to form "clouds" of matter which further condensed, because of gravitational attraction, into stars and planets. (See [[Wikipedia:Physical cosmology]] for much more detail.)

The history of the universe can be described in some detail back to the instant approximately 10-43 seconds after the big bang. What occurred in the first 10-43 seconds (the [[wikipedia:Planck epoch|Planck epoch]]) is not known and difficult to theorize, due to interactions between the theories of gravitation and quantum mechanics.

==Apologetics==

[[Creationist]]s often object to the Big Bang theory on the grounds that it removes [[God]]'s hand from [[creation]]. A common Creationist argument against it is the question "What caused the Big Bang?" and the closely related question "What happened before the Big Bang?"

There is a common misconception that the Big Bang means that the universe "came from nothing." Creationists use this as a launching point to claim that without introducing God, the first law of [[thermodynamics]] would be violated.

==Counter-apologetics==

The Big Bang theory does not say that the dot came "from nothing"; it simply postulates the existence of the singularity and then proceeds from there. The answer to the question of what came before the Big Bang is simply "No one knows yet."

This lack of knowledge cannot be used to assert the existence of a God, however, as one can always ask "[[Who created God?]]" Since Creationists typically believe that every effect needs a cause they assume that the universe needed one too. See the [[Cosmological argument]].

==Speculations on the pre-Big Bang universe==

* The '''[[wikipedia:oscillatory universe|oscillatory universe]]''' is the hypothesis, attributable to Richard Tolman from 1934, that the universe undergoes an infinite series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce. (This theory has declined in popularity since 1998, when astronomers reported evidence that the acceleration of the universe's expansion continues unabated.) [http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9802/27/accelerating.universe/]
* '''[[wikipedia:Cosmological natural selection|Cosmological natural selection]]''' is a speculative hypothesis proposed by Lee Smolin. Smolin speculates that every [[black hole]] might contain another universe inside it. Thus, our universe might be a black hole inside another universe. Each universe shares properties and fundamental constants with its "parent" universe, but may be slightly different. Thus--according to this theory--universes [[evolve]] over time, and the ones that are particularly well suited to produce black holes are the ones that thrive.
* The '''[[wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse (science)|multiverse]]''' hypothesis suggests that there are already multiple parallel universes, generated in a meta-universe.
* Our intuition about time is based on the environment we live in (and evolved in), with small accelerations and a relatively flat spacetime. In highly curved regions of spacetime, those intuitions break down. As an analogy, "north" is a direction that is more or less constant in most cities. But the direction "north" in Los Angeles is not parallel to the direction "north" in Berlin. In fact, going north from any point will eventually lead to the north pole because the earth is a sphere. At the north pole itself there is no direction of "north" because every point around it is farther south than it is. Similarly, "towards the past" is not a direction that is the same for every point in spacetime, but rather going back from any point leads back to the big bang. If there is no previous universe from which our universe sprung, it may be that there is a "past pole", or a point in spacetime around which every other point is farther in the future.

None of these concepts have been conclusively demonstrated, but they do illustrate that God isn't the only possible answer (See [[Wikipedia:Cosmogony]] for more information).

[[Category: Science]]

Confirmation bias

2010-06-28T21:29:44Z

Quantheory:

{{stub}}
''This page refers to a [[cognitive bias]]. For the related logical fallacy, see [[cherry picking]].''
{{wikipedia}}

'''Confirmation bias''' is a type of cognitive bias which causes people to favor evidence that confirms their pre-existing beliefs over evidence that would tend to disprove it.

Confirmation bias

2010-06-28T21:29:19Z

Quantheory:

''This page refers to a [[cognitive bias]]. For the related logical fallacy, see [[cherry picking]].''
{{wikipedia}}
{{stub}}

'''Confirmation bias''' is a type of cognitive bias which causes people to favor evidence that confirms their pre-existing beliefs over evidence that would tend to disprove it.

Hypocrisy

2010-06-26T01:56:27Z

Quantheory:

{{stub}}
{{Wikipedia}}
'''Hypocrisy''' is the act of professing a belief, emotion, or moral value, while acting in a way inconsistent with those statements. People are usually charged with hypocrisy when they either insist that others do something that they themselves do not do, or else condemn others for acting the same way as they themselves do.

Often what is most frustrating about hypocrisy is not the actions themselves, but the fact that the hypocrite refuses to acknowledge any contradiction between their words and actions, or may even try to hide certain actions. This is a blatant form of intellectual dishonesty.

== Causes ==

There are many possible causes for hypocrisy. A hypocrite may be an outright fraud, promoting a cause he or she doesn't at all believe in. A hypocrite may be experiencing cognitive dissonance, or somehow try to rationalize an action by giving an excuse ("It's OK when I do it, because...").

In some cases, a hypocrite who commits a "sin" may be unable to stop doing it and cleanse their conscience, because of addiction or coercion, because they just enjoy it too much, or because it is a one-time error that is too terrible to forget about. In those cases, unable to escape their feelings of guilt, the hypocrite may condemn that sin even more strongly in public, as a way of atoning for it.

Template talk:Arguments for god

2010-06-25T03:00:34Z

Quantheory:

So, what's the standard for which arguments get on this list? Are we just throwing everything in that could be considered relevant?

God created numbers

2010-06-25T02:37:26Z

Quantheory:

{{stub}}

A less sophisticated form of [[TAG]], the '''God created numbers''' argument simply asserts that certain logical or mathematical ideas were the creation of a perfect or omnipotent mind, and that their existence is proof of his existence (since any mind capable of creating numbers in the first place deserves to be called God).

The main weakness of this argument is that it's not clear that the numbers need creating. In fact, to suggest that a mind created the numbers and other basic logical and mathematical objects suggests that there could be a state in which they did not exist, and that there is an intelligent and creative mind capable of functioning before any basic mathematical or logical processes have occurred. Put another way, to say that God created the numbers implies that he had some choice, and could have either not made them or made them differently. What would that even mean, to live in one of these alternative worlds? The idea is completely incoherent.

One last variation on this counter-argument: do the numbers exist? Clearly numbers are useful for describing certain aspects of the world, and we can talk about their properties in an objective way. But they do not exist as concrete, physical entities in the world. We can talk about some hypothetical person or hypothetical piece of furniture, and we can talk about what it means for that person or furniture to exist; we mean that either there's an object in the world that corresponds to the concept that we have, or there isn't. It's not clear what it means for an abstract concept like "justice" or the number "4" to exist or not exist. Some concepts are self-contradictory, or contradict other, more useful concepts, and so we don't use those to describe the world. But it's not clear that one can meaningfully talk about whether or not such things "exist" in the same way as we discuss whether or not physical objects or physical features of the world exist. And if the very existence of numbers is suspect, their creation is even more so.

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Transcendental arguments]]

Argument from observed miracles

2010-06-25T02:14:09Z

Quantheory:

An '''argument from observed miracles''' is one in which a person claims to have observed one or more miraculous events that show the existence of a God or gods.

Often these events are not really miracles or even all that unusual:

*"I converted to Christianity and my financial troubles went away."
*"I missed a bus and then I met someone who became important later on in my life."
*"I survived a car accident."
*"I saw a man who could walk on coals and handle snakes without injury."
*"I saw Jesus on a piece of toast."
*Any [[argument from incomplete devastation]].

Other times these events are more extreme, but either turn out to be proven false or greatly exaggerated, or for whatever reason cannot be verified.
*"A faith healer healed a paraplegic."
*"A poor family's food was multiplied."
*"A woman levitated right before my eyes."
*"He was speaking Latin even though he's never heard the language."

== Counter-apologetics ==

Oftentimes the "miracles" are not really miraculous at all. They can be the results of [[cherry picking]] and [[confirmation bias]], whereby memories and stories of unusual events are picked out from thousands of stories of boring events. In reality these things may happen about as often as one would expect from random chance, but it seems like they happen more often because we pay more attention to them and because human beings are usually not that good at guessing how likely events actually are.

Other times they are simply not true stories, which is particularly common in the case of hearsay. If a story is about a friend of a friend (of a friend of a friend...), there's a good chance that at least one person in the chain exaggerated, misremembered, or just plain made up part of the story. Even stories that are first-hand accounts can involve false memories. When someone repeats a story over and over, or keeps dwelling upon it in their own thoughts, each time trying to emphasize particular points that they find important, they may end up believing that what happened was far more astonishing than what they really witnessed at the time.

Finally, even if the miracles are real, they don't necessarily prove the existence of a god at all, much less any particular one. If some kind of holy man performs a miracle, for example, it may just be a power specific to him, even if he personally believes that a particular god did it. In order to prove a particular god, more evidence is needed than the mere existence of very strange events.

{{Arguments for god}}

[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Testimonial arguments]]

Divine command theory

2010-06-25T01:41:51Z

Quantheory:

'''Divine command theory''' suggests that any statement about [[ethics]] is actually a statement about the attitudes and desires of [[God]]. That is, it claims that God's commands and [[morality]] are identical. To suggest that morality can exist without God is therefore a contradiction.

== Criticism ==

=== Begging the question ===
{{main article|Begging the question}}
Divine command theory cannot prove that God is the source of morality because that is precisely what it assumes. That is, divine command theory assumes that whatever God commands must be moral (in fact, in most cases it defines morality that way). However, it's not clear that I am morally required to do something just because God commands it. I might want to obey God in order to escape punishment, but this is a matter of my own selfish interest and not an objective moral obligation. Similarly, it's not clear why I should assume that there's no other possible source of morality.

Unless divine command theory can first demonstrate that it is the most appropriate view of ethics, one cannot assume that it is correct to prove anything else.

=== Non-standard usage of the words "good" or "moral" ===
Most people have an intuitive sense of what it means for an action to be good or to have a moral obligation, and this set of moral attitudes typically pre-dates or is independent of any religious beliefs. To define a new meaning for "morality" as meaning what God wants, then to act as if this is the same as the everyday conception of morality, is to commit an [[equivocation]] fallacy. Morality is either a system for determining which actions are right or wrong, or a desire to obey the will of God. It can't mean both things at the same time, unless one first demonstrates that both meanings are equivalent.

=== Divine command theory is not an objective system of morals ===
:''See also:[[Euthyphro dilemma]]''
Divine command theory implies that whatever God commands must be the morally correct course of action. Therefore, if/when God endorses genocide, infanticide, animal sacrifice, slavery, or rape, those things are good, whereas if/when he forbids eating certain foods or working on certain days or having certain kinds of kinky sex, those things immediately become bad. This makes divine command theory a subjective theory of morals, one which is arbitrary and can change at God's whim.

One way of countering this argument is to say "God wouldn't do that", but this doesn't help at all. For one, in many religious traditions he does do such things. For another, if God is the source of morality, he can do whatever he wants and it would still be just as "good" as anything else.

[[Thomas Aquinas]] believed that God's commands come from his own (unchanging?) essence and thus were not arbitrary pronouncements. This is irrelevant to the problem. Either there is a single objective, necessary code of morals that governs everything, in which case God's commands merely reflect (or fail to reflect) this standard, or else there is no such code, and so the commandments of God cannot reflect an objective morality. Either way, it gets you nowhere to say that actions are good for no other reason than because God approves of them.

=== Divine command theory is impractical ===
:''See also:[[Which god?]]''
Whether divine command theory is true or not (and there seems to be no reason to think that it is), it is often not an effective method of settling moral dilemmas. For one, it's not clear which religious tradition is correct. For another, religious texts tend to contain many conflicting, arbitrary, or excessively specific rules. These rules rarely allow a clear method of generalizing these ideas to every possible situation, so a believer is forced to do much the same thing that an atheist does, which is to work out moral principles and ideas for herself. Often, the fact that the believer is bound to respect certain statements as absolute truth makes this process even harder, because those statements may not make good sense, or may make sense in most situations but be absurd in others. Divine command theory thus fails to provide moral guidance for much the same reason that religions often fail to provide moral guidance.

{{Arguments for god}}
[[Category:Moral arguments]]

Divine command theory

2010-06-25T01:41:38Z

Quantheory:

{{stub}}

'''Divine command theory''' suggests that any statement about [[ethics]] is actually a statement about the attitudes and desires of [[God]]. That is, it claims that God's commands and [[morality]] are identical. To suggest that morality can exist without God is therefore a contradiction.

== Criticism ==

=== Begging the question ===
{{main article|Begging the question}}
Divine command theory cannot prove that God is the source of morality because that is precisely what it assumes. That is, divine command theory assumes that whatever God commands must be moral (in fact, in most cases it defines morality that way). However, it's not clear that I am morally required to do something just because God commands it. I might want to obey God in order to escape punishment, but this is a matter of my own selfish interest and not an objective moral obligation. Similarly, it's not clear why I should assume that there's no other possible source of morality.

Unless divine command theory can first demonstrate that it is the most appropriate view of ethics, one cannot assume that it is correct to prove anything else.

=== Non-standard usage of the words "good" or "moral" ===
Most people have an intuitive sense of what it means for an action to be good or to have a moral obligation, and this set of moral attitudes typically pre-dates or is independent of any religious beliefs. To define a new meaning for "morality" as meaning what God wants, then to act as if this is the same as the everyday conception of morality, is to commit an [[equivocation]] fallacy. Morality is either a system for determining which actions are right or wrong, or a desire to obey the will of God. It can't mean both things at the same time, unless one first demonstrates that both meanings are equivalent.

=== Divine command theory is not an objective system of morals ===
:''See also:[[Euthyphro dilemma]]''
Divine command theory implies that whatever God commands must be the morally correct course of action. Therefore, if/when God endorses genocide, infanticide, animal sacrifice, slavery, or rape, those things are good, whereas if/when he forbids eating certain foods or working on certain days or having certain kinds of kinky sex, those things immediately become bad. This makes divine command theory a subjective theory of morals, one which is arbitrary and can change at God's whim.

One way of countering this argument is to say "God wouldn't do that", but this doesn't help at all. For one, in many religious traditions he does do such things. For another, if God is the source of morality, he can do whatever he wants and it would still be just as "good" as anything else.

[[Thomas Aquinas]] believed that God's commands come from his own (unchanging?) essence and thus were not arbitrary pronouncements. This is irrelevant to the problem. Either there is a single objective, necessary code of morals that governs everything, in which case God's commands merely reflect (or fail to reflect) this standard, or else there is no such code, and so the commandments of God cannot reflect an objective morality. Either way, it gets you nowhere to say that actions are good for no other reason than because God approves of them.

=== Divine command theory is impractical ===
:''See also:[[Which god?]]''
Whether divine command theory is true or not (and there seems to be no reason to think that it is), it is often not an effective method of settling moral dilemmas. For one, it's not clear which religious tradition is correct. For another, religious texts tend to contain many conflicting, arbitrary, or excessively specific rules. These rules rarely allow a clear method of generalizing these ideas to every possible situation, so a believer is forced to do much the same thing that an atheist does, which is to work out moral principles and ideas for herself. Often, the fact that the believer is bound to respect certain statements as absolute truth makes this process even harder, because those statements may not make good sense, or may make sense in most situations but be absurd in others. Divine command theory thus fails to provide moral guidance for much the same reason that religions often fail to provide moral guidance.

{{Arguments for god}}
[[Category:Moral arguments]]

Problem of Hell

2010-06-24T23:07:26Z

Quantheory: /* Counter-arguments */

Like the [[problem of evil]], the '''Problem of Hell''' points out the incompatibility between a just [[god]] and the concept of an eternal [[hell]] (punishment in the form of torment or complete extermination).

#The [[Christian]] god is a loving, just creator.
#Refusing to accept [[Jesus]]' gift of [[salvation]] renders an eternity of unpleasantness.

This central Christian doctrine leaves skeptics with a slew of objections. Why does God judge belief? Beliefs are largely irrelevant compared to physical actions based upon them. We even realize this in our courts. A just being would punish wrongdoings and let the criminal go after accounting for their actions. Why would God trust finite beings with their infinite future? We would not allow a child to sign a legal document or make investments bound to affect the rest of their life, but God allows his creation complete control of their eternal soul.

==Counter-arguments==
===Infinite God, infinite sins===
Some theologians have argued that since crime committed against a finite being leads to a finite punishment, sin against an infinite god has infinite consequences. The problem is that we judge the severity of a crime based on the harm inflicted on the victim, not its lifespan. If God is omnipotent, by definition he can't be harmed. He is therefore punishing his creation based on deeds that had absolutely no effect on himself.

===By ignoring God, humans choose hell===
Theists have suggested that by ignoring God or rejecting the [[atonement]], humans also reject all prospects of a pleasant afterlife: God would not want to be with humans who denied him, and he wouldn't force them to be with him. On an infinite time scale, this is also morally unsound because the judging god is still giving thoughts and beliefs priority over physical actions. Given a choice between heaven or hell, most skeptics will prefer a continued existence with a god not believed in to eternal torment or eternal death.

===Moral actions require belief===
Other Christians believe that God judges humans by their [[glorification]] of him and his will, based on their adherence to his message as described in the [[Gospels]]. They believe that the only way to have the moral resume required to get into heaven is by believing in and accepting God. Like the other counter-arguments, this response forgets about the infinite time scale attached to it. It also implies belief in God to be the single most important moral action. The biblical God's omnibenevolence can still be questioned on the grounds that he prefers belief-inspired actions to regular good actions with infinite consequences.

=== The existence of hell is necessary for the existence of heaven ===

By far the cruelest response to the problem of hell. The argument goes something like this.

:: P1: A heaven where everyone is eternally happy and no one is excluded would not be possible.
:::: a) People get used to anything.
:::: b) People define happiness and pleasure in contrast to lack of happiness and pain.
:: P2: Pain or a lack of happiness cannot exist in heaven, even for a moment.
::: C1: Heaven can only exist if there is some pain outside of heaven, which can be observed by those within heaven.
:: P3: Those who go to heaven stay there forever.
::: C2: For all eternity, there must be some people outside of heaven who experience pain.
:: P4: The greatest possible happiness can only exist in contrast with the greatest possible pain.
::: C3: Some people outside of heaven must experience the greatest possible pain, i.e. the eternal torture called hell.
:: P5: God can only produce suffering upon those who deserve it (but that includes every person because everyone sins), so hell must be just.
:: P6: Those who go to heaven become morally perfect and must agree with God's moral judgments.
::: C4: The infinite pleasure felt by those in heaven is an exultation of God's justice in torturing the damned and his mercy in saving believers.

Note that the gist of this argument is not a proof for the existence of heaven or hell. Rather it is an argument claiming that in order for heaven to exist, the people who go there must watch (or at least constantly be aware of) other people being tortured in hell. Otherwise heaven wouldn't be pleasant enough to deserve the name. One can attack the premises in this argument, such as by denying P1.b), and/or by defining a heaven like what C.S. Lewis suggested, which eternally gets better and better so that one never tires of it.

However, perhaps a more powerful argument against this line of reasoning is the incredible sadistic cruelty that it entails. The suggestion is that the most important function of hell is for those in heaven to observe it as if it were a spectacle in the Roman Colosseum. That is, one gets to watch non-believers endure punishments like eternally burning without being able to die, and laugh and think "Well, glad that's not me!" and that is the only way that heaven is prevented from becoming boring. Most people would not ''want'' to go to a heaven like that, and they shouldn't!

The suggestion here is that the only way to be eternally happy is to feel a smug sadistic pleasure in being infinitely better and more prosperous than most other people. If that ''is'' true, the whole system seems to be built on selfishness, arrogance, and ill-will towards others. In that case, perhaps heaven and hell, as they are traditionally conceived of, ''should not exist''.

[[Category:Arguments]]

Just hit your knees

2010-06-24T22:13:09Z

Quantheory: Template cleanup work

{{argument-stub}}
The "Just hit your knees" argument asks the non-believer in question to just drop all logic and rationality and to just accept the theist's [[god]] into your heart for old times sake. This can go two ways. You can refuse to do it because it's ridiculous (you might as ask Kermit the Frog into your heart), or do it and then nothing will happen. When nothing happens, a common response from theist is that you weren't sincere enough, and weren't really asking god into your heart.

==Significance of the Heart==

Usually you will be asked to accept the god into your heart. It's questionable why this god would want to be in your blood pumping organ. Theists also tend to use the word "heart" to claim certainty, for example:

*I know in my heart.

*I feel him in my heart.

But the heart is not for knowing for feeling. Your brain is for knowing things and to feel emotions. Your heart is for pumping blood around your body. So it remains unanswered why would a being require spritiual entry to the heart rather than the brain.

{{Arguments for god}}

Template:Arguments for God

2010-06-24T22:10:53Z

Quantheory:

#REDIRECT [[Template:Arguments for god]]

Template:Arguments for god

2010-06-24T22:06:02Z

Quantheory: removed argument from hell as a probable duplicate of argument from justice

{{Navbox|name = Arguments for god
|titlestyle = background:#DDCCDD;
|title=[[Arguments for the existence of god]]
|groupstyle = background:#EEDDEE;

|group1=Anthropic arguments
|list1=''[[Anthropic principle]]'' · ''[[Natural-law argument]]''

|group2=Arguments for belief
|list2=''[[Pascal's Wager]]'' · ''[[Argument from faith]]'' · ''[[Just hit your knees]]''

|group3=Christological Arguments
|list3=''[[Christological argument]]'' · ''[[Argument from biblical miracles]]'' · ''[[Would Someone Die For a Lie?]]'' · ''[[Liar, Lunatic or Lord]]''

|group4=Cosmological Arguments
|list4=''[[Cosmological argument]]'' · ''[[Fine-tuning argument]]'' · ''[[First cause argument]]'' · ''[[Kalam]]'' · ''[[Uncaused cause]]'' · ''[[Unmoved mover]]

|group5=Majority Arguments
|list5=''[[Argumentum ad populum]]'' · ''[[Argument from admired religious scientists]]''

|group6=Moral Arguments
|list6=''[[Moral argument]]'' · ''[[Argument from justice]]'' · ''[[Divine command theory]]''

|group7=Ontological Argument
|list7=''[[Ontological argument]]'' · ''[[Argument from degree]]'' · ''[[Argument from goodness]]'' · ''[[Argument from desire]]

|group8=Reformed Epistemology
|list8=''[[Argument from divine sense]]'' · ''[[Sensus divinitatis]]''

|group9=Teleological Arguments
|list9=''[[Argument from design]]'' · ''[[Banana argument]]'' · ''[[747 Junkyard argument]]''

|group10=Testimonial Arguments
|list10=''[[Personal revelation]]'' · ''[[Argument from observed miracles]]'' · ''[[Argument from personal experience]]'' · ''[[Consciousness|Consciousness argument for the existence of God]]'' · ''[[Emotional pleas]]''

|group11=Transcendental arguments
|list11=''[[Transcendental argument]]'' · ''[[God created numbers]]''

}}

Esther

2010-06-23T06:12:46Z

Quantheory:

{{religion-stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
{{Books of the Bible}}

The '''Book of Esther''' is the seventeenth book of the [[Old Testament]]. It does not mention [[God]] at all.

== Summary ==

King Ahasuerus of Persia is having a party, and he wants to show off his wife, Queen Vashti, but she refuses to come perform for him. So he sends her away and has a contest where all the beautiful young virgins in his kingdom are brought to him one by one, and whichever one pleases him the most gets to be the new queen. Esther, the daughter of a Jewish man named Mordecai, wins this contest. Mordecai later warns her of a plot to kill the king, and she passes along the information, saving the king's life.

The king then gets a new favorite advisor named Haman. Mordecai doesn't treat Haman with reverence, so Haman gets angry and schedules, for a particular day, a massacre of all the Jews in the kingdom. Esther decides to intervene for her father, and convinces king Ahasuerus to eat with her so that they can talk, but for some reason tells him that she'll discuss her concerns with him the following day. Haman is present for this meal, which he thinks is a sign of favor from Esther. He decides that night to hang Mordecai and builds a gallows for him (seemingly not realizing that he is the queen's father).

King Ahasuerus then is reminded of Mordecai's assistance in saving his life, during a bout of insomnia. He asks Haman what he should do to honor a great man, and Haman says (thinking that the great man is himself) that the man should get to parade around town dressed up as the king. Ahasuerus likes this idea and forces Haman to do this for Mordecai.

Esther has dinner the following night with Ahasuerus and Haman, and tells the king that Haman plans to slaughter her people. The king storms out in anger, and Haman gets up onto the bed Esther was lying on, in order to beg her to spare him. The king walks in and thinks that Haman intends to rape the queen, so he has Haman hanged on the gallows Haman had built for Mordecai. The king then allows Mordecai to author a new edict that changes the day of slaughter against the Jews to a day of slaughter by the Jews against their enemies. This commandment causes many people to convert to Judaism out of fear.

On the appointed day, the Jews kill many people, including the sons of Haman, whose bodies are then hung up on trees. This day then becomes a Jewish holiday, and everyone lives happily ever after (with Mordecai as the new favorite advisor to the king).

[[Category:Bible]]

Nehemiah

2010-06-23T05:49:12Z

Quantheory:

{{religion-stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
{{Books of the Bible}}

The '''Book of Nehemiah''' is the sixteenth book of the [[Old Testament]]. Contemporaneous with Ezra, it first describes how [[Nehemiah]] convinces king Artaxerxes of Persia to let him go and help the Jews rebuild [[Jerusalem]]. Then it describes the rebuilding of the walls and city, the defense thereof, and how Nehemiah and [[Ezra]] rebuke the Jews who have married outsiders, forcing them to leave their families.

[[Category:Bible]]

Ezra

2010-06-23T05:38:57Z

Quantheory:

{{religion-stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
{{Books of the Bible}}

The '''Book of Ezra''' is the fifteenth book of the [[Old Testament]]. In it Cyrus of Persia allows the Jews to rebuild [[Jerusalem]] and the temple there, and sends them to do it. However, the (non-Jewish) people who have taken up residence nearby hassle them until the reign of Darius of Persia, who eventually gets the whole thing straightened out. It ends with [[Ezra]] convincing all the men of Israel who married wives from other nations to abandon their families (because [[God]] hates seeing his people marry members of less holy races).

[[Category:Bible]]

2 Chronicles

2010-06-23T05:29:44Z

Quantheory:

{{religion-stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
{{Books of the Bible}}

The second part of the '''Book of Chronicles''' (also called '''2 Chronicles''', pronounced '''Second Chronicles''') is the fourteenth book of the [[Old Testament]]. The Book of Chronicles is in large part a retelling and summary of the Book of Samuel and the Book of Kings. 2 Chronicles covers the material in the Book of Kings, from the reign of [[Solomon]] to the conquest of [[Judah]] and destruction of the temple at [[Jerusalem]].

[[Category:Bible]]

1 Chronicles

2010-06-23T05:27:30Z

Quantheory:

{{religion-stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
{{Books of the Bible}}

The first part of the '''Book of Chronicles''' (also called '''1 Chronicles''', pronounced '''First Chronicles''') is the thirteenth book of the [[Old Testament]]. The Book of Chronicles is in large part a retelling and summary of the Book of Samuel and the Book of Kings. 1 Chronicles begins with a genealogy that covers from [[Adam]] to [[Jacob]] and through to some of the main characters. It summarizes the Book of Samuel, emphasizing the reign of David, and ends with the beginning of [[Solomon]]'s reign.

[[Category:Bible]]

2 Kings

2010-06-23T05:19:02Z

Quantheory:

{{religion-stub}}
{{wikipedia}}
{{Books of the Bible}}

The second part of the '''Book of Kings''' (also called '''2 Kings''', pronounced '''Second Kings''') is the twelfth book of the [[Old Testament]]. At the beginning, the prophet [[Elijah]] is taken to heaven in a whirlwind on a chariot of fire, making him the second person in the [[Bible]] to avoid death, after [[Enoch]]. His successor [[Elisha]] takes up his mantle and becomes capable of performing the same miracles (many of which are also associated with Jesus, such as healing the sick, resurrecting the dead, and multiplying food). In an infamous incident, forty-two children are killed for making fun of Elisha's baldness. Elisha has an influence in the national politics of Israel and Judah for a time, before dying and performing one last miracle (resurrecting a man who was cast upon his bones).

The account of the kings of Israel and Judah continues, including a brief mention of the prophet [[Isaiah]], Josiah's destruction of other religions' temples (and massacres of their priests), and finally the conquest of Judah by the army of Nebuchadnezzar.

[[Category:Bible]]