Christian Doctrine Proves Their God Cannot Exist

“God Is Dead” – New York Times, Jan 9, 1966

The most common argument that Atheists are asked to defend is to provide proof that god does not exist. This is known as “Proving a Negative.” Technically, it is defined as an “Argument from Ignorance.” Essentially, it is a logical fallacy in that a claimed premise is deemed true only because it has not been proven false. This is one of the most common retorts I get when debating a believer and it is also one of the most difficult to explain to them because they just cannot grasp the utter ridiculousness of their request.

Do invisible pink unicorns exist simply because they have not been proven not to? The burden of proof always lies with the person who is making the claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When someone tells me that god exists, I ask him or her to prove it with real, empirical evidence.

Perfect Imperfection…

According to Christianity, their god exists and he is perfect. An imperfect god cannot exist, so if we can prove that god is not perfect, then, by default, we can prove that he does not exist and the entire house of cards that is Christianity collapses. We can know that god is not perfect, and therefore not exist because he screwed up so bad that even trying to hide his imperfection is impossible. Christianity teaches that creation was perfect because it was fashioned by a perfect god, and it remained so until the “fall of man” occurred in the garden of Eden.

This begs the question of why god felt the need to create anything in the first place. The need to create results from a perceived lack of balance between what is and what should be. So, what disturbed god’s perfection and compelled him to create? If god is presumably perfect, then he would have been complete and in need of nothing. Conventional Christian “wisdom” teaches that god created us because he desires our worship. Well, desire results from need, and need connotes lack, and lack connotes imperfection. This is where the existence of the Christian god becomes impossible, because perfection cannot exist as long as there is need, want or desire. A god who is perfect does nothing except exist and thus, a perfect god who creates anything is not perfect.

Higher Ways…

Of course, a favorite amongst Christians is the imbecilic answer of “his ways are higher,” which is not only the height of ignorance, but shows a lack of reason so profound that all you really can do is just shake your head in disbelief. What it comes down to is that an allegedly perfect god created a perfect universe which was rendered imperfect by his creation, humans. Thusly, the ultimate source of imperfection is god himself. An imperfect humanity could have only been created by an imperfect god and Christianity does not allow for an imperfect god, so thus, god does not exist. He is a logical fallacy unto himself.

This is, indeed, a paradox of monumental proportions for Christians, and has spawned a plethora of Christian colleges, universities and think tanks all for the purpose of trying to figure this all out. The best they can come up with is the concept of “free will,” which basically states that human imperfection is only a byproduct of our capacity as free moral agents. That’s all good and well, but the concept was doomed to fail from the start.

The characters portrayed in the bible as “Adam and Eve” used their free will to choose evil, which was a design flaw and if we are to believe in intelligent design, then creating something that is broken does not make god intelligent at all. It was this flaw in god’s design that was responsible for the introduction of imperfection into his previously perfect universe. Another proof of imperfection, thus another proof that god does not exist.

Abraham, I Need A Favor…

To make matters worse, god knew that Adam and Eve were going to totally fuck everything up for the rest of humanity and did nothing about it, in spite of hearing screams of the damned. No, this perfect, all-compassionate, all-loving god went ahead with his plan anyway, knowing that billions of humans would end up eternally damned to hell. Nothing screams compassion louder than eternal suffering for temporal sins…

Of course, eternal damnation is avoidable as long as one accepts Jesus as lord and savior. However, salvation is only necessary because the problem of sin was brought on by god in the first place. The need for salvation is incompatible with a perfect god because if god were perfectly just, he would not dole out infinite punishment for finite sins. The fact that the best god could do was offer up human sacrifice as a solution to his design flawed humanity is further proof that he is imperfect, and thus does not exist.

So It Is Written…

Another proof that god is not perfect is the venue that he chose to communicate with his imperfect creation – the Bible. Avoiding eternal punishment by knowing and believing in Christ is wonderful if you have access to a bible. However, there are billions of people in the past, present and future all over the planet in remote areas who have never heard of nor will likely never hear of Jesus Christ or his “gospel of salvation.

According to Christian theology, all of these people are doomed to eternal punishment – regardless of their generosity, kindness, morality, ethics or disposition – because they have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. Without access to the Bible, they are being punished for committing a crime they had no idea even existed. A god that would judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions is imperfect, and thus does not exist.

So, how does god combat the problem of the shortage of bibles in every language known to humanity and the equal shortage of Christian bookstores in the Amazon jungle and other remote places where there isn’t even a Starbuck’s? Happy feet! Yes, happy are the feet that bring the gospel of the good news of Jesus Christ to the world, right? And who do these feet belong to? None other than the most destructive groups of people ever to walk the face of the earth. Missionaries. They have destroyed whole cultures and have stolen entire countries from their indigenous inhabitants.

If you don’t believe me, just ask any Native American. Missionaries believe that their job is to bring the “word of god” to the savage masses, savage meaning anyone who does not believe like they do.

The problem is that like the imperfect Christian god, the bible is also imperfect. It is indecipherable fusion of books that contain so many errors, contradictions, misinformation and ignorance beyond any standards of logic and reason that it boggles the mind that it’s even taken seriously. It is a poor excuse for the supposedly perfect word of god. The fact that no two individuals will ever agree on what the bible says in its entirety makes it suspect. An imperfect god who reveals his imperfect will in an imperfect book is another proof that god does not exist.

I Second That Emotion…

Another interesting point to note is that according to Christianity, god experiences all of the emotions of a human being. What they fail to understand is that emotion is a response to something previously unknown. A perfect god who is omniscient god would be ignorant of nothing. Nothing would be hidden from him and nothing can be revealed, thus there would be no need to act emotionally. Thus, he is not all knowing. Another point to ponder as to why god cannot exist.

Yet, two billion people still stubbornly insist that there is a god and he is watching us all the time, which should make them uncomfortable, to say the least. Is he casting his watchful eye over us as we take a dump? Does he watch us have sex? Masturbate? Pick our noses? Scratch our butts? Does he listen into our phone conversations? Read our email? God is everywhere? Is he up our behind? Please, when will people realize just how illogical and unreasonable the whole god thing is and come to the place in their lives when they finally realize that there is no god?

Deities were invented at the dawn of time and persisted throughout our history to explain what was unexplainable in the early years of our development. The culmination of human knowledge and intelligence has answered many questions with certainty that were unknown even up until very recently. We no longer need to rely on ancient superstitions to explain weather patterns, genetics, biology and other life sciences. We no longer need to make sacrifices or live a life if credulous servility to appease an angry god so he allows our crops to grow or to keep sickness at bay or any one of a plethora of other superstitions.

The concept of god is one that is passed and no longer needed. Humans are more than capable of moral behavior, altruistic actions, inner peace and happiness on our own. We have a choice to make. We can choose to do what is right regardless of what religion tells us, or we can do what religion tells us, regardless if it is right. The former is the choice that will allow our species to evolve. The latter can only result in our annihilation.

Think about it…

——————————————-

Excerpted from my book, “A Voice Of Reason In An Unreasonable World – The Rise Of Atheism On Planet Earth

  55 comments for “Christian Doctrine Proves Their God Cannot Exist

  1. February 28, 2012 at 10:55 am

    Maybe fiction can help put the challenge into perspective, much like Orwell’s 1984 or Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner. That’s the aim of my newly published ebook on Kindle and Nook: The Mosaic: A Novel of Revolt Against the Righteous. Sorry to shamefully plug it, but many early readers in the secular and freethinking movements have latched onto the characters and dilemmas the story takes us into. Imagine the US controlled by the Christian Right. What would it be like to live there? What could we do about it? These are the questions the story explores. Sometimes fiction can help change the world, for the better.

  2. busterggi
    February 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    An excellent expose’ of why the Abrahamic god(s) can’t exist.

    Especially as it leaves open a crack for Azathoth to exist.

  3. February 28, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    Great Post Al. One of the best I have read in a while. Clear, Succinct, and spot on. The problem that we have is that while you write it so well, it does require someone willing to even listen on the other side…that is hard thing to do when drinking the Kool-Aid gets them drunk and incapable of reason.

  4. ConcernedJoe
    February 28, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    This speaks to a major apologetic argument to explain why god seems so non-existent or so mean or so imperfect. That argument being “free-will” which you appropriately touched on.

    The primacy of “free-will” gives reason to why god cannot do such things as stop evil or even reveal himself. The notion is that would undermine our operating as free-agents – the implicit point being that we’d not be properly tested and the whole judgement paradigm would be knocked out of whack.

    Sort of like testing the honesty of a person but letting them know beyond doubt that if they try to steal something they will burst into flames upon the attempt. Doubt many would be thieves.

    But I think free-will is an illusion and thus the free-will apologetic is dispensed with a priori. We are mostly on auto-pilot. Or in similar fashion we react to stimuli with learned (or neurologically wired from birth) auto induced behaviors.

    Sure it is VERY complex – so many factors in play. But Hawking nails it – free-will is an effective theory (we practically must operate and be judged like we are in control) but an illusion nevertheless.

    This is not a problem – it actually gives humankind an opportunity to improve behaviors via well designed behavior modification (via nature and nurture). And as I said so many things are at play that it looks an tastes like “free-will”.

    Again the point is – without free-will in actuality then the apologetic for god’s insane running of things melts away and it does melt!

    • rapiddominance
      February 28, 2012 at 11:28 pm

      Actually, it is NOT necessary for humankind to carry on as if the individual is in control.

      Instead, criteria for “functional human behavior” can be established. By that, I mean that societies can prescribe what forms of human activity promote their well being and, as a consequence, determine when their citizens are behaving unacceptably.

      With this approach you essentially treat both the individual (and society, for that matter) as something on the order of an automobile. When cars fail to meet functional and safety standards, then they must be repaired before returning to the highway. (Well, maybe not. People drive around all the time with their inspections expired.) If, for whatever reason, they are not repaired then they can be junked and whatever useful parts remain sold off for use elsewhere.

      Anyway, the take home message is that “operation” and “control” can be disregarded because of the fact that “personhood” can be disregarded (or even determined not to exist) by society.

      That’s some pretty scarey shit, isn’t it?

      • ConcernedJoe
        February 28, 2012 at 11:53 pm

        Scary – or perhaps hopeful.

        I look at the “programability” of humankind optimistically.

        I look at how much better we’ve become over time – actually kinder as well as better off materially/physically as evidence to support a bit of optimism.

        If we were just random action generators we’d be in chaos if we persisted at all.

        If we were robots for god’s will (as doctrines would have it) we’d be stuck in some sort of Bronze Age nightmare.

        Yes it is scary if I believed all societies will gravitate to ones that dominant and suppress.. but though that does and will occur the mean is drifting away from that and toward better “programming”. The evolution of ideas and behaviors in action – drift toward the better is seems to me.

        • rapiddominance
          February 29, 2012 at 1:51 pm

          A person could find use in BOTH viewpoints. Yours as a positive guide and the one I put forth as a precautionary tool.

          On the one hand, oppressive regimes SEEM to come undone only with great pressures from outside sources.

          On the other hand, we’ll fall into oppression (with near certainty) without the optimism an attitude similar to yours.

          Thanks for replying.

  5. February 28, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Another thing that might be of interest to you in regards to Adam and Eve. If you carefully read the Bible, in this case Genesis Chapter 3, you’ll see that they didn’t know right from wrong until they ate from the tree. So, prior to doing so, they would not have had any clue that not listening to God was bad, or that listening to the serpent was a mistake. So all those billions of people that are being punished for it, are being punished for something that couldn’t have even been considered Adam and Eve’s fault. I think I explain it a little better here:

    http://the-family-outcast.blogspot.com/2012/02/genesis-chapter-3-fall.html

    • rapiddominance
      February 28, 2012 at 11:50 pm

      And so it is that, according to christianity, this single act of disobedience was a declaration by humankind that it would lead it own self.

      They were warned they would die if they ate from that tree, were they not? (again, according to christianity)

      In what some would call an attempt by the early church to bridge over an inconsistency between THEIR doctrine and the Old Testament doctrine, the New Testament says, somewhere in it, that the “Law” was more of a diagnostical tool (an indicator) rather than a prescription for humans to “redeem” themselves by ther effort. In other words, people are supposed to realize that they are SICK and should therefore SEEK HELP.

      This is the type of counter argument you could get, anyway. Obviously, people can be forgiven for finding this notion incredulous.

      • February 28, 2012 at 11:57 pm

        Yes, they were told. But what I was attempting to get at was the fact that prior to eating from the tree, the two characters lacked the ability to know right from wrong. To them, both statements (God saying it’s bad. Serpent saying it’s good) are equally valid without that ability. So punishing them for lacking that ability would be like punishing a quadriplegic for lacking the ability to walk.

        • rapiddominance
          February 29, 2012 at 2:35 pm

          Thanks for the reply.

          Accordingly, if one were to categorize our ancestor’s 😉 decision we could refer to it as “disobedience;” but possibly not “sin”.

          Is that approach any more tennable? I don’t know. Christians tend to classify the fruit eating affair was a sin, too. But then they don’t seem to take your argument (a clear one, by the way) into consideration when they do so.

          Again, thanks for the input–BOTH times.

  6. February 28, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    Excellent blog post! It resonates many of my thoughts exactly!

    However, one of your arguments falls a bit flat and that is the part about only those with access to the bible being saved. That argument applies fairly well to much of modern Evangelical Protestantism, but it doesn’t take into account longstanding Catholic teaching (and Catholicism is still the largest denomination worldwide). Even in the third century, Augustine of Hippo recognized the problem of the doctrine “no salvation outside the church” – which is still official doctrine of the Catholic Church. So this doctrine is nuanced to say that those who, through no fault of their own, have been denied access to the teachings of the church will still be saved by the grace of god if they are people of goodwill.

    But that still leaves us with the massive problem of all those who have heard the gospel but reject it because it is unbelievable. Why would a perfect god communicate an absolutely essential message to people he loves perfectly through a story so poorly written and so easily discredited that many people would use their – supposedly god-given – power of reason to reject it? By doing so, god wold have essentially doomed these people by making them intelligent enough to see through his lies.

    The more I learn about the god of Abraham, the more I become convinced that his primary attribute is supreme incompetence!

    • February 28, 2012 at 8:42 pm

      *That argument applies fairly well to much of modern Evangelical Protestantism*

      Not entirely – most Evangelical denominations (or non-denom churches) maintain the doctrine of General vs. Special Revelation, which pans out pretty much like the Catholic version you mention. If someone without opportunity had a heart that pursued the knowledge of god as revealed in nature, they could also be saved.

      That doesn’t make it any less ridiculous and even cruel. Just to say that most Christians leave that loophole open, for what it’s worth.

  7. F
    February 28, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    That is a pretty good deconstruction of what passes for the Christian “argument”. I like it. But I had a bit of a say-what? moment here:

    emotion is a response to something previously unknown

  8. cag
    February 28, 2012 at 8:01 pm

    Robert Gilbreath #1 –

    Sometimes fiction can help change the world, for the better.

    Sometimes, like the bible, fiction can make the world a much worse place.

  9. kraut
    February 28, 2012 at 8:07 pm

    How can a god be deemed perfect who created a race of superior beings, he knew one of them (being omniscient) would screw up so badly that he had to be removed from his presence?
    What is there to say about a perfect god that he created the most significant imperfection: Hell?

  10. February 28, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    I have to concur with the other commenters – such a clear and concise survey of the logical impossibility of Christianity. Looking forward to reading your book. Cheers.

  11. Norman Lycan
    February 28, 2012 at 9:41 pm

    Actually, Mr Staffani, while fundamentalists may ask you to prove there is no god, I am a freethinker, and I would ask you to prove the universe is an accident. That is not a negative. That is a direct challenge to what you have chosen to BELIEVE.
    I have watched documentaries on the History Channel where the most respected astrophysicists on the planet present a narrative under a heading of “this is what we know so far”. It was followed by a video tour of the beginning of the universe, and it was explained to us, that one billionth of a second after the big bang, the universe was the size of a subatomic particle, gazillion trillion degrees. They can’t begin to do anything but imply the likelihood of the big bag, let alone understand how it occurred in increments of billionths of a second. You don’t call that religion?????
    While a great deal of evidence supports an epicenter to a universal origin, the eminent collision of the Milky Way and Andromeda does not. And scientists even pretending that we understand how something came out of nothing are sideshow clowns, and you are their carnival barker. Religion is obviously bullshit, but, if your goal is to win over the world, you’re going to need to begin with honesty.

    NL

    • ConcernedJoe
      February 29, 2012 at 8:35 am

      They offer advanced science degrees and accreditation based on History Channel’s mostly pop-science information?

      Al does not have to prove the Universe was NOT an accident as I believe one means it. That is a very improbable situation occurring that boggles the ordinary mind. Of course it was an accident given how we use accident in the vernacular!

      Winning a mega-lottery of some sort is an LOW probability event and that “accident” occurs I’d guess every week somewhere.

      The mathematical concepts of physics, etc. suggest this accident (the universe) is a POSSIBLE event. As does mathematics suggest that winning lotteries is possible.

      Though the probability of universes happening is slim, improbability does not alter the FACT that this POSSIBLE event OCCURRED.

      Nothing mathematically definitively proves the IMPOSSIBILITY of the beginning of universes. That coupled with what experiential things we find in the quantum and macro science of it all says: NO GOD SEEN NOR NECESSARY. That is Al’s point and it spot on!

      The burden of proof rests with those that claim an intelligent and purposeful creator. Until they PROVE something we’ll just have to rely on the reality of the science and math of of it all.

  12. Norman Lycan
    February 28, 2012 at 11:07 pm

    Mr Steffani said : “According to Christianity, their god exists and he is perfect”

    Even in the Christian vision of the world, perfection cannot exist, because if god is perfect and his creation was perfect, then Satan must be perfect too. Therefore the entire blame for human suffering rests on god. Obviously true to any rational mind.
    Then who are you addressing? Do you think the troops are having doubts? Need a pep talk? It’s your website, and you are certainly free to direct it in any direction you see fit. Amiable advice.

    There are myriads of other freethinkers out there who could be drawn to your cause, all you have to is stop dismissing us as irrelevent. We are not only bigger than you by number, we are wiser than you as well.

    • John Morales
      February 29, 2012 at 2:20 am

      We are not only bigger than you by number, we are wiser than you as well.

      Evidently more modest, too!

      (Trolls are numerous and oh so sagacious 😉 )

      • Norman Lycan
        February 29, 2012 at 11:13 pm

        I haven’t been called a troll since a previous atheist who was argued into a corner and had a choice to admit he was religious or change the subject. Just check any poll of who are undecided about religion, and compare them to your numbers. Now, let me be honest. These numbers do not necessarily, even probably don’t represent how many freethinkers there are among them. But, go search for a poll about what any of that group think of atheists.

        And the reason they don’t join your movement, is because, first you are a religion, and they are finished with that shit. They want to move on. Second, because you are airheads that think that if you don’t believe in god, that makes you a freethinker, including racists and conspiracy theorists. Thirdly, that you are so focused on religion, you don’t realize it’s just one piece of the human condition. The difference between knowledge and wisdom.

        You people piss most people off, just like I piss you off. But, as an agnostic, I can slide my way into places you are hated. I can be heard where you are uninvited. And while the world is full of irony and injustice, not this time, because agnostism is the purest form of freethought. The difference between knowledge and wisdom.

        • John Morales
          March 1, 2012 at 1:44 am

          And the reason they don’t join your movement, is because, first you are a religion, and they are finished with that shit. They want to move on. Second, because you are airheads that think that if you don’t believe in god, that makes you a freethinker, including racists and conspiracy theorists. Thirdly, that you are so focused on religion, you don’t realize it’s just one piece of the human condition. The difference between knowledge and wisdom.

          Zeroth: No-one can join my movement, since I’m not in any movement.

          First: I’m about as irreligious as they come, not to mention non-ideologic.

          (And to imagine atheism is a religion is very, very, very stupid of you, in any case)

          Second: I’m a freethinker because I form my own opinions, not because I don’t believe in the supernatural; in fact, I don’t believe in the supernatural because I’m a freethinker!

          Third: I’m not focused on religion, I’m responding to you. It is you who keeps bringing it up.

          And while the world is full of irony and injustice, not this time, because agnostism is the purest form of freethought.

          You are an ignoramus; I am an agnostic atheist: I claim belief, not knowledge.

          You, however, are proud to be just a coward who hasn’t the intellectual courage to decide what to believe.

          (Bah)

          • Norman Lycan
            March 1, 2012 at 9:25 pm

            Well sir, your are a turnip in this meeting of brains.

            Let me lay it out for you, just like many atheists do for Christian fundamentalists. Somewhere in history, as early as the Illuminati in Europe, possibly much earlier realized that religious mythology, whichever one you choose, not only violated common sense, but conflicted with scientific discovery. That’s huge!!!….in the time of Galileo. Now, it’s a new issue of a grip on a new vision of reality. To grasp it, you must first determine what went wrong, and why.

            What went wrong is military leaders appointed spiritual leaders to create gods whose will was that the people bow to the military leader. Mixed in was some bullshit about how the universe began, and ancient heroes, but the most important ingredient was an afterlife, and what you needed to do to recieve it. Give lots of money, die as a martyr, devote your life to the temple, whatever.

            The why of what went wrong is because people were scammed into believing something that could not be proven. The reason it worked was because science was young, and though we were not stupid, we could build enormous pyramids, and stunning cathedrals, we needed to know, from somewhere inside, “what is the meaning of life, and why am I here?”

            Without opening a sidebar about the human psyche, it is what is what it is. Some people were not raised with the religious brainwash, others were and have escaped it. And the reason why that is important is because, while you think you are calling them back from their insanity, they have found their center, and are calling you back from yours.

            P implies Q, right? “Religious mythology is disproven by science” therefore “religion is bullshit”. Of course. “Religion is bullshit” therefore “the universe is an accident”. That’s the worst sort of science. It assumes the following equation, “the fact that mideival sorcerers did not really understand the universe” therefore “no other explanation exists other than an accident” And while the conclusion has a chance of being correct, those who adopt it as a belief have just crossed back over into religion. You believe something unproven by science because you anticipate an outcome. It’s not science, it’s religion.

            Now, let’s just say, for instance, that a person acquired a talent to force apart nothing. And it became a negative one (electron) and a positive one (proton) and figured out how to spin them around each other so fast (speed of light) that the centrifugal force kept them from reuniting. It would become a hydrogen atom. And imagine the process continuing until the hydrogen cloud became so heavy it reached critical mass. Science knows that all the other elements on the charts are byproducts of collapsed hydrogen stars. I’m not preaching a new religion, I’m just demonstrating that those with doubt are not insane, or indecisive. In fact we are pure skeptics, and that is freethought.

            NL

          • John Morales
            March 2, 2012 at 3:32 am

            Now, let’s just say, for instance, that a person acquired a talent to force apart nothing.

            Define ‘nothing’. Then define ‘force’ and ‘apart’.

            (Go on, try it!)

            In fact we are pure skeptics, and that is freethought.

            <giggle>

            You doubt that you doubt?

  13. rapiddominance
    February 29, 2012 at 12:09 am

    The very fact that a person would ask the atheist to prove that there is NO god implies that the person asking has not proven said existence to his or her own intellectual satisfaction.

    Think about it.

    On a different note, our “annihilation” that you speak of is certain to come, regardless. Will humankind exist for one more day or a million more years? Who knows. But does it even matter? When the last man or woman dies, time marches on. This leads to an interesting phenomena: the proportion of time enjoyed by the human race forever shrinks in relation to the total time of the universe’s existence.

    In other words, our relevance begins it’s eternal trek towards zero (if relevance can even be equated with time).

    (pause)

    Actually, I might have just thought of a flaw in my reasoning. Should time, itself, ever come to an end then the model simply doesn’t work.

    Speaking of which–I’m not a physicist, but I am a curious free thinker. What are the leading scientific ideas on how the universe will end (if it even will)?

    Thanks in advance.

  14. kraut
    February 29, 2012 at 1:06 am

    “We are not only bigger than you by number, we are wiser than you as well.”
    argument from numbers?
    Argument from arrogance?

    “They can’t begin to do anything but imply the likelihood of the big bag, let alone understand how it occurred in increments of billionths of a second. You don’t call that religion?”

    I guess get your thinking straight before you accuse anybody.
    Science works with probabilities, not certainties.
    Big difference between science and religion.

    What do you mean? Of course the science of the Big Bang can only be told or investigated by deduction based on present day observation. Nobody was there to observe. But what we can observe is the residue of that expansion, called cosmic microwave background radiation. And by now rather ubiquitous maps that show the dispersion of hot and cold areas within that radiation, hinting at the unevenness of matter in the very early Universe.
    From there we can calculate back based on present day rate of expansion what the primal conditions must have been, until we come to the boundary of observability, hidden behind the Planck length and Planck time. The rest is uncertainty…

    Before you attempt to criticize anybody involved in cosmology of anything, read up. And again – we just have models, hypothesis that have to be tested and a few theories that seem to work, including relativity and quantum physics non relativistic physics at speed below c, Physics in the macroscopic realm, Chemistry, Biology etc.

  15. kraut
    February 29, 2012 at 1:11 am

    PS – your arguments sound about as crappy as any I have heard from the religious crowd. Not much difference there between them and what calls himself a rather clueless “freethinker” who just because he cannot grasp the concept behind present day cosmology – which to reiterate are not certainties, anything but – lumps it together with “religion”.

    Maybe with your attitude of arrogant ignorance you better mesh with some other crowd – check out Intelligent Design, that might be more up your alley.

  16. Dave The Sandman
    February 29, 2012 at 3:31 am

    Kraut and John….well done on calling out the latest under the bridge dweller, our new resident billy goat muncher Norman the so called free thinker.

    However….apply some content analysis to his posts and you can see right through his tissue thin mask.

    See those references to “something from nothing”? See the others referring to the idea that the universe is an “accident”? The way Norman tries to align science with some sort of faith based religion?

    Kent Hovind / Ray “Bananaman” Comfort dog whistle creo-tard terminology.

    By his words shall you know him.

    Norman Lycan….Creo-Tard Troll.

    J’ACCUSE!!!!!

    • Dave The Sandman
      February 29, 2012 at 3:45 am

      By the way….a 10 second tip toe through the Google tulips shows that our Norman is a busy little goat muncher, and seems to hang around under several free thinker site bridges.

      And those examples of creationist/religulous dog whistle terms just keep on stacking up the more of his posts you read.

      Norman….first rule of undercover work = adopt the phrasology of the identity group you choose to adopt. Using Ray Comfort as your play book sort of gives the game away 😉

      • rapiddominance
        February 29, 2012 at 4:10 pm

        Something that crossed my mind while reading/commenting over at “Blasphemous Blogging” recently is that the perceived level of conflict among atheists is likely not near as severe as one might believe looking at the blog world.

        Obviously, the tension between Myers and Ruse is real. However, the abundance of comments like the ones from Norman Lycan suggests the possibility of a phenomena of recurring infiltration. In his case, its not just the language but its the nature of the abrasiveness, as well. (I say “phenomena” because I don’t think there is any meaningful organized effort YET).

        You’re on to this trend, obviously, but I’m personally suspecting a related, yet more nuanced, form of trollery that I want to precaution you of:

        Be alert to any conflicts at the FTB’s that result from sexual/gender issues and perhaps racial issues, as well. By exploiting sensitive minority matters a troll (or infiltrator) hardly has to feign atheism to create hard feelings and division.

        The hard part about trying to sniff them out is that it can come across as “harrassing minorities.” I don’t have any easy answers for this. Here are some ideas for recognition to consider (notice I’m making NO SUGGESTIONS for confrontation):

        1) Commentors who suddenly show show up with “complaints” on a related thread.

        2) Such commentors who also have seemingly little commitment to atheism (or an “artificial” commitment).

        3) They don’t speak “the language” (this relates to “artificial” AND what you pointed out with Norman).

        4) An alarming cumulative record of experiences with the commentor.

        Confrontation is the real bitch because if the troll is successful he/she will have the support of “fellow atheists.” This support can come not only from minorites but from other thoughtful, sensitive freethinkers, as well.

        If I were to suggest a general approach to this problem, it would go like this:

        1) Assertain that there is a real threat (or a real problem).

        2) Alert, and educate, the whole community to it IF the threat is deemed credible. (But even this requires delicacy.)

        This can’t be allowed to turn into a witch hunt because things can, AND WILL, get out of control FAST.

        Thanks for reading. Keep vigilant.

  17. jj7212
    February 29, 2012 at 11:05 am

    With blogs like this, who needs TV? lol

  18. a miasma of incandescent plasma
    February 29, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    If god is presumably perfect, then he would have been complete and in need of nothing. (snip)…perfection cannot exist as long as there is need, want or desire.

    This was my favorite part, and one stated more clearly than what plays in my mind everytime I hear someone say “God wants…”

    When I visit my parent’s house, and they ask me if I am thristy and want a drink, I normally say “Nah, I’m perfect. Thanks tho!” It wouldn’t make any sense for me to answer with “I’m perfect, so yes I want a glass of water.”

    Perfection doesn’t have wants.

  19. yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
    February 29, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    “The most common argument that Atheists are asked to defend is to provide proof that god does not exist. This is known as “Proving a Negative.” Technically, it is defined as an “Argument from Ignorance.” Essentially, it is a logical fallacy in that a claimed premise is deemed true only because it has not been proven false.”

    You are right. But i think you should make a distinction. When someone asks me to prove God absolutely, i know i cant prove him 100%, but equally the atheist cant prove him 100%. So when i reply, well prove he doesnt exist, i would be committing the Argument from Ignorance if i already assumed the absolute truth of God by him/she not being able to provide a counter-argument. Im not committing it if i think its possible. Theres a difference between possible and absolute truth. I believe God is very possible and i believe its possibly true, not absolutely true and i dont base the truth on an atheists failure to provide a case against him. If the atheist cant provide a case, then its not disproven, just unproven, which is fine, no harm no foul.

    “This is one of the most common retorts I get when debating a believer and it is also one of the most difficult to explain to them because they just cannot grasp the utter ridiculousness of their request.”

    I would agree here, but asking someone to provide a case against God is not ridiculous, just hard. If it was ridiculous i doubt some of the brightest atheists philosophers (who im respect very much) would have tried. Rowe, Smith, Oppy, Hume, Russell, etc.

    “Do invisible pink unicorns exist simply because they have not been proven not to?”

    No, because the concept of a invisible pink unicorn is contradictory. Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term “invisible pink unicorn” is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. I don’t know who invented the term “invisible pink unicorns,” but they were obviously deficient in their physics education. Also we know the vast majority, also when i mean vast, i mean VAST, of the universe is hostile to life and that we are the only living things. A unicorn is nothing more than a horse with a horn, so it is still a living organism, the only places it could live is earth or one of the four planets we have discovered that could, notice the word could, sustain life. So even if by some illogical and unscientific and unreasonable way the unicorn defied logic and science and did exist we have very strong reason to deny the existence of any invisible pink unicorns.

    “The burden of proof always lies with the person who is making the claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

    Nice Sagan quote, let me use another one of his quotes, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

    “When someone tells me that god exists, I ask him or her to prove it with real, empirical evidence.”

    That is a category mistake. A category mistake, in the most basic definition, is made when you assign things into a category it shouldnt be in. My favorite example is one Greg Khoul, excellent apologist, uses. “Asking evidence for God through empirical/scientific is like trying to weigh a chicken with ruler.” Its absurd because Empirical evidence is evidence derived from our senses, what we can observe. Its purview pertains only to the natural world and God is a transcendent immaterial being, meaning it is beyond the natural world, space, and time and is not a biological organism. So asking empirical evidence for an Immaterial being is absurd because its impossible not because of God’s fault or the religious persons fault but because what you are committing is a fallacious argument and category mistake.

    “This begs the question of why god felt the need to create anything in the first place. The need to create results from a perceived lack of balance between what is and what should be. So, what disturbed god’s perfection and compelled him to create? If god is presumably perfect, then he would have been complete and in need of nothing. Conventional Christian “wisdom” teaches that god created us because he desires our worship. Well, desire results from need, and need connotes lack, and lack connotes imperfection. This is where the existence of the Christian god becomes impossible, because perfection cannot exist as long as there is need, want or desire.”

    I dont think you understand what Classical Christian theology has taught. When we say, “God is perfect”, we are referring to his being, his nature, his intrinsic, essence.

    What you seem to be arguing is that since there is some need or want then he is not perfect, well thats wrong. God would cease to be perfect if HIS VERY BEING needed something or lacked something.

    I, a human being, require food to exist, i am not perfect and i am not self sustaining. My very being requires that i be dependent on the natural world. God would cease to be perfect if his very being required something, for example, food. If he needed food, then he wouldnt be self-sustaining and there would be something that he was dependent on and lacked aseity.

    Perfection doesnt lack anything intrinsic and God doesnt. When he wants to create a new species, that is an extrinsic want, that doesnt violate his intrinsic being because that species he brings into being is not something his being lacked, so his perfection is not lacking anything.

    Also, it could possibly be that when he created us and universe it wasnt because there was something his being lacked as you hint, but that the surroundings (though i dont claim to know what that is, since i dont know what is beyond the universe, but let me just call it surroundings)lacked something.

    For example, when God came down into human form, its not because of something he lacked, but that we lacked. Hes acting out of love, not out of imperfection.

    Need, wants and desires do not invalidate God’s perfection unless you could show that creating the world was something his being lacked. A car without a timing belt wont work, similarly, show God lacks something that his intrinsic being lacks. Extrinsic decisions, that do not correlate with his being, do not in any way show that he is not perfect.

    Also, you say “Well, desire results from need, and need connotes lack, and lack connotes imperfection.” But you are comparing God, a perfect being, to humans, imperfect beings, analogously.

    1.) Note, that while God does feel our emotions, he doesnt suffer from our imperfection, meaning he knows whats it like to feel love, but doesn’t that fallibleness that causes us to be imperfect. Meaning he might react differently than we do.

    2.) Also i would take Duns Scotus approach to God and theology. Counter to Aquinas that we should not use analogous methods when understanding God.

    Also, you asked what would have “compelled” (thought there is nothing that compels him)God to create? Simple. God is love and being that he is a trinity, i think that out of is love, he felt like he wanted to share that love with humanity and for humanity to know love. Note that until you solve those these objections, what God wants is not a problem for his perfection.

    “Of course, a favorite amongst Christians is the imbecilic answer of “his ways are higher,” which is not only the height of ignorance, but shows a lack of reason so profound that all you really can do is just shake your head in disbelief.”

    That is utterly arrogant. So your basically saying because we dont understand the mind and workings of God, we are ignorant?
    Thats an impossible thing to know, thats like asking an ant to understand Quantum Mechanics and its relation to inflationary models.

    “What it comes down to is that an allegedly perfect god created a perfect universe which was rendered imperfect by his creation, humans. Thusly, the ultimate source of imperfection is god himself.”

    Again thats absolutely fallacious. Simply because God created us and we rebelled and caused the imperfection, that does not mean God is responsible.

    The Atomic bomb rose out of physics, but physics itself didnt do anything. Physicists created that bomb and they are responsible to the deaths of thousands, not physics. Similarly God created agents with free will, so they bring about the imperfection. You might say free will is design error, but that isnt completely true. Free will can be used for either good or evil. Adam and Eve COULD have just stayed faithful to God and listened to him and there would have been no problem.But free will can also be used for bad. Its a two sided coin. It would be an error is it was solely bad.

    “The characters portrayed in the bible as “Adam and Eve” used their free will to choose evil, which was a design flaw”

    Again, let me repeat.

    You might say free will is design error, but that isnt completely true. Free will can be used for either good or evil. Adam and Eve COULD have just stayed faithful to God and listened to him and there would have been no problem.But free will can also be used for bad. Its a two sided coin. It would be an error is it was solely bad.

    “and if we are to believe in intelligent design, then creating something that is broken does not make god intelligent at all.”

    1.) You obviously have no knowledge of Intelligent Design. ID says that the universe was created with such precision and fine tuning that it could have only been done by way of a intelligent mind (what Einstein, Planck, Newton and what majority of scientists thought).

    And example of fine tuning would be the the studies and experiments dont by The balloon-borne microwave telescope (called “Boomerang”) which examined the cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang. The angular power spectrum showed a peak value at exactly the value predicted by the inflationary hot Big Bang model dominated by cold dark matter. This model predicts a smaller second peak, which seems to be there, but cannot be fully resolved with the initial measurements. The presence of the second peak would all but seal the reliability of the Big Bang model as the mechanism by which the universe came into existence. To follow up that, lets talk about the Cosmological constant. Now, the cosmological constant would provide an energy density to make up for the missing matter density, but would require an extreme amount of fine tuning. Nature, one of the most respected science journals, published about the Cosmological constant and The supernovae studies that demonstrated that there was an energy density to the universe (but did not define the size of this energy density), and the recent Boomerang study that demonstrated that this energy density is exactly what one would expect to get a flat universe. Now, How finely tuned must this energy density be to get a flat universe? Exactly, One part in 10 to the 120th power which is:

    1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.

    That is a what is meant by intelligent Design and before i leave that topic, let me leave you with a quote by Max Planck, the father and founder of Quantum Physics,

    “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

    2.) You are presupposing that free will is a error, which needs justification.

    “It was this flaw in god’s design that was responsible for the introduction of imperfection into his previously perfect universe.”

    Free will is not imperfect, it can lead to imperfection, but it can lead to the continuation of perfection.

    “To make matters worse, god knew that Adam and Eve were going to totally fuck everything up for the rest of humanity and did nothing about it, in spite of hearing screams of the damned.”

    While he did know, that doesnt mean he should have stopped it. You say, “No, this perfect, all-compassionate, all-loving god went ahead with his plan anyway, knowing that billions of humans would end up eternally damned to hell. Nothing screams compassion louder than eternal suffering for temporal sins…”

    I would agree here actually, but thats only if you take a literal approach to what the Bible says on Hell, i am in fact a Universalist. I believe in Hell, the metaphysical and ontologically distinct reality in which people choose for themselves but which they will ultimately reject in favor of God’s love and grace. I believe in God’s judgement, but that doesnt mean hes going to spank you in hell for eternity.

    You know, you talk about how horrible fundamentalists are, but you use the bible in the most fundamentalist primitive ways. You dont even provide the verse or an exegesis of the verse to provide an adequate case for your interpretation of the bible.

    “Of course, eternal damnation is avoidable as long as one accepts Jesus as lord and savior. However, salvation is only necessary because the problem of sin was brought on by god in the first place.”

    Nope, we brought it on ourselves.

    “The need for salvation is incompatible with a perfect god because if god were perfectly just, he would not dole out infinite punishment for finite sins.”

    1.) God does not do anything. People do it to themselves, people make their own hell and suffer by their regret and guilt of their sins.

    2.) One could take a Thomistic approach and say that any transgression against an infinite being, requires an infinite punishment. But i wont, but it is a possible solution.

    “The fact that the best god could do was offer up human sacrifice as a solution to his design flawed humanity is further proof that he is imperfect, and thus does not exist.”

    No. What he did was offer himself to take the sins of humanity and to regenerate (to use a Calvinistic term) the human condition.

    “Another proof that god is not perfect is the venue that he chose to communicate with his imperfect creation – the Bible.”

    No, the venue he choose was humans. The bible is just a recollection of those interactions with humans and their thoughts and his.

    “Avoiding eternal punishment by knowing and believing in Christ is wonderful if you have access to a bible. However, there are billions of people in the past, present and future all over the planet in remote areas who have never heard of nor will likely never hear of Jesus Christ or his “gospel of salvation.”

    Yes, but you are oblivious to the fact that God is holy and just and will judge accordingly (Romans 2). If you have never hard of him, he will judge you by the law he placed on your heart (Hebrews 8:10). He is going to judge righteously and there is not problem with that. In fact, the greatest “punishment” will be towards those who know him the most, for “judgment must begin at the house of God…”(1 peter 4:17).

    “According to Christian theology, all of these people are doomed to eternal punishment – regardless of their generosity, kindness, morality, ethics or disposition – because they have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.”

    Only Calvinists say that. I do not like Calvinist Theology or think its correct.

    Actually, i would recommend people the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. I think his approach to the Gospels are possible. He argues that a person who completes the Gospel (feeding the poor, helping the sick, helping the needy, bring peace and justice to the world), regardless if he is void of Christ, can enter the Kingdom.

    “Without access to the Bible, they are being punished for committing a crime they had no idea even existed. A god that would judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions is imperfect, and thus does not exist.”

    Thats a big leap right there bro. Lets say Jeffery Dahmer never killed anybody, but believed it was morally right to kill and eat babies and abuse women and rape them. If he belieed that in his heart and mind, it would not be wrong to say he was bad, even though he never actually acted (note that word), his beliefs were still morally abominable. Similarly, God can judge our beliefs. Will he, i think it plays a part, but i wont claim to know absolutely or argue for it.

    “So, how does god combat the problem of the shortage of bibles in every language known to humanity and the equal shortage of Christian bookstores in the Amazon jungle and other remote places where there isn’t even a Starbuck’s? Happy feet! Yes, happy are the feet that bring the gospel of the good news of Jesus Christ to the world, right? And who do these feet belong to? None other than the most destructive groups of people ever to walk the face of the earth. Missionaries. They have destroyed whole cultures and have stolen entire countries from their indigenous inhabitants.”

    Missionaries are the worst people ever? Yeah because Mother Theresa was a soooooooo awful. You are higher than a kite son or have no sense of right and wrong. Missionaries brought the good news and food and culture and medicine and clothes to the less fortunate! You say that they “stole”, but thats wrong, they simply brought and people came to it freely. Also, seeing as a good bit of of cultures back then were pretty crazy, all about that human sacrifice and such, Christianity is a pretty good upgrade. You know. Human rights, equality, Gods love, stable society and all that good stuff. Plus if you are really going to talk smack about taking away peoples culture and country. If you are American, then i better see a article about how the founding fathers and those who preceded them were giants tyrants and the worst people in existence.

    “If you don’t believe me, just ask any Native American. Missionaries believe that their job is to bring the “word of god” to the savage masses, savage meaning anyone who does not believe like they do.”

    Savage meaning people who didnt know about logic and science and peace and civility.

    “The problem is that like the imperfect Christian god, the bible is also imperfect. It is indecipherable fusion of books that contain so many errors, contradictions, misinformation and ignorance beyond any standards of logic and reason that it boggles the mind that it’s even taken seriously.”

    Nice drive by argument. Wheres the substance and actual evidence for those claims? Wheres the justification? Not even some Bart Eherman? Weak.

    “It is a poor excuse for the supposedly perfect word of god. The fact that no two individuals will ever agree on what the bible says in its entirety makes it suspect.”

    Or makes human thought suspect.

    “What they fail to understand is that emotion is a response to something previously unknown.”

    I give you props in trying to define emotions, but that is nowhere near a good definition.

    1.) previously unknown? I know molestation is wrong. When i hear about it, im not like “oh man i never expected that!”. Emotions by themselves are impossible to define because emotions by themselves with reason and logic, are un predictable.

    “A perfect god who is omniscient god would be ignorant of nothing. Nothing would be hidden from him and nothing can be revealed, thus there would be no need to act emotionally.”

    Just because he knows event A ahead of time, doesnt mean hes going to be emotionally dead. I know everyday thousands of people die, am i emotionally crippled? No, its sad and itll always be sad. Also, there is no need? God is loving in nature, meaning he will never cease to love and care. His love endures forever (Pslams 136).

    “Yet, two billion people still stubbornly insist that there is a god ”

    Yup

    “and he is watching us all the time, which should make them uncomfortable, to say the least. Is he casting his watchful eye over us as we take a dump? Does he watch us have sex? Masturbate? Pick our noses? Scratch our butts? Does he listen into our phone conversations? Read our email? God is everywhere? Is he up our behind? Please, when will people realize just how illogical and unreasonable the whole god thing is and come to the place in their lives when they finally realize that there is no god?”

    So because has his eye on humanity and its “creepy” thats illogical?

    “Deities were invented at the dawn of time and persisted throughout our history to explain what was unexplainable in the early years of our development. ”

    Wheres the evidence for such a claim? Can you prove absolutely with empirical evidence that deities area product of human imagination or thought.

    “The culmination of human knowledge and intelligence has answered many questions with certainty that were unknown even up until very recently.We no longer need to rely on ancient superstitions to explain weather patterns, genetics, biology and other life sciences.”

    We dont, but theres a HUGE difference between believing in God and believing in 7 years bad luck if you break a mirror.

    “The concept of god is one that is passed and no longer needed.”

    Prove that please.

    “Humans are more than capable of moral behavior, altruistic actions, inner peace and happiness on our own.”

    1.) You are presupposing that there is such a thing as morals.

    2.) If there are no absolute morals, why care about about altruism?

    3.) Of course we can make our own happiness and inner peace. Jeffery Dahmer did, Ed Gein did, Marquis de Sade did.

    “We have a choice to make. We can choose to do what is right regardless of what religion tells us”

    How do you know what is right in the absence of God? Why is feeding the poor good? Why is murder wrong?

    “The latter can only result in our annihilation.”

    Chill out Shakespeare. Dont be such a dramatic.

    “Think about it…”

    I have. Atheism? nah.

    Well, thats my two cents. God bless.

    • rapiddominance
      March 1, 2012 at 12:18 am

      Somebody better call the nursing home! It looks like we’ve got us another wanderer.

      I’m just teasing you.

      No hard feelings, right?

      😉

      Anyway, I know what you guys mean by the term, “The Great Commission.” And I have no problem with THAT idea–in and of itself.

      But has your God* told you to walk into the home, uninvited, of a person or family already aware of your beliefs and has made perfectly clear that they don’t want to talk about them?

      Anyhow, you’re fortunate that I got to you first. Not everybody here is as forgiving as I am.

      Take care.

      *Notice my politeness towards you through my capitalization of the word, “god”.

    • Hunt
      March 1, 2012 at 6:35 am

      “No, because the concept of a invisible pink unicorn is contradictory. Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light).”

      Do you believe Jesus is fully God and fully human?
      “Perfection doesnt lack anything intrinsic and God doesnt. When he wants to create a new species, that is an extrinsic want, that doesnt violate his intrinsic being because that species he brings into being is not something his being lacked, so his perfection is not lacking anything.”

      But to be motivated to do something implies a desire, and desire implies lack of completeness. If you try to say that He is motivated by compulsion, that is even worse. Even if you say He’s motivated to fill a lack in something extrinsic to Himself, that is still a desire and so an incompleteness. To be entirely complete in His perfection means to not be motivated to do anything, to be quiescent.

      “Also, you say “Well, desire results from need, and need connotes lack, and lack connotes imperfection.” But you are comparing God, a perfect being, to humans, imperfect beings, analogously.”

      No, it’s just a list of ideas that create a perfectly good contradiction, just as “invisible pink unicorn” is a logical contradiction. You can’t have it both ways.

      “That is utterly arrogant. So your basically saying because we dont understand the mind and workings of God, we are ignorant?
      Thats an impossible thing to know, thats like asking an ant to understand Quantum Mechanics and its relation to inflationary models.”

      It would be arrogant if God is real. As is, you’re assuming your conclusion, or question begging. Think about it this way: what is the difference in expectation between trying to understand an incomprehensible, hidden being, and one that doesn’t exist? None. There is no difference in expectation. Same as with the teapot orbiting Jupiter and nothing at all.

      “Missionaries are the worst people ever? Yeah because Mother Theresa was a soooooooo awful.”

      Mother Teresa was pretty awful, actually.

      ” Missionaries brought the good news and food and culture and medicine and clothes to the less fortunate! ”

      They also brought disease, and often blazed the trail for other opportunists who enslaved and sometimes outright slaughtered them. Read some of the histories of the conquest of the New World.

      “Or makes human thought suspect.”

      Again, this is question begging.

      “2.) If there are no absolute morals, why care about about altruism?”

      Lack of absolute morality doesn’t preclude objective moral systems. In many ways they are actually opposites. Absolute morality means they are not objective, because absolute morals originate in an absolute being that is posited by faith, whereas objective moralities are explicable as theoretical systems. In other words, there are reasons for objective moral systems, and there are no reasons, only faith, for absolute morals. I can go up to a stranger and explain an objective moral; but in order for you to impose an absolute moral, you must convert that person.

      “How do you know what is right in the absence of God? Why is feeding the poor good? Why is murder wrong?”

      Why do you think murder is wrong? For me, murder is wrong for several objective reasons. Moral philosophy informs me that it isn’t my right to take another’s life, and I believe it. It breaks the law. Allowing it, or having a consensus that it is right would lead to social chaos, etc. These are real and objective reasons. You, on the other hand, have but one option, look it up in the Yellow Pages. Other than that, you’re probably going to be using my reasons.

    • Hunt
      March 1, 2012 at 6:52 am

      “Also, you say “Well, desire results from need, and need connotes lack, and lack connotes imperfection.” But you are comparing God, a perfect being, to humans, imperfect beings, analogously.”

      This is also interesting because Christians draw analogies between Man and God all the time. It seems that it’s done when convenient and also disallowed when convenient. Beyond that, analogy is one of our principle cognitive tools. The unknowable and incomparable God is just another way of saying that Christians are really agnostics. They profess to know very little about their god. So little, in fact, that one wonders why you find the proposition that He doesn’t exist so objectionable. When I dearly want to believe something, but realize there is very little evidence that it will manifest, at the very least I tolerate the incredulity of those around me who think otherwise.

    • ConcernedJoe
      March 1, 2012 at 9:12 am

      Here is the rub my friend:

      you say “.. theres [sic] a HUGE difference between believing in God and believing in 7 years bad luck if you break a mirror.”

      and we say “no there ain’t!”

      It all is a matter of evidence supporting conclusion. Rational atheists say “I’ll believe what is supported by evidence either via mathematics (as in theoretical physics and/or chemistry) and/or what can be falsified and has been rigorously tested and passed muster and/or what works or operates reliably and predicatively.”

      They also say “There are few absolute Truths and they mostly are mathematical.” Further they say “what is deemed true is only deemed true so long as it is not falsified properly.”

      Let’s parse those things:

      (1) supported by evidence either via mathematics (as in theoretical physics and/or chemistry): for example, one has operational belief in things like the “big bang” because the theoretic physics of it is mathematically cogent and observations seem to correlate with what the theoretic physics suggests. Note I said operational – a scientist is agnostic – if some different hypothesis works better in explaining things well that will become the operational belief. The question is open and pro-actively kept open! But that does not mean we don’t have a good basis for our current operational principle (belief). Religion does not act that way – if you cannot see that – well …!

      (2) what can be falsified and has been rigorously tested and passed muster and/or what works or operates reliably and predicatively: a whole host of common things. Religion does not act that way – if you cannot see that – well …!

      (3) what is deemed true is only deemed true so long as it is not falsified properly: in science one formally goes through falsification continually – so the T of E is deemed true and will be until some other hypothesis that passes rigorous muster explains things better; in more mundane life, I belief in the truth of my wife’s love for me because her words AND expressions/actions support my belief – but if they did not I’d have no practical reason to have such a belief – no reason except wishful-thinking – always a bad reason re: serious issues. Religion does not act that way – if you cannot see that – well …!

      Whether it is believing in an invisible god as defined obviously by humans or in some other unsubstantiated magical belief it is all the same lack of intellectual honesty and rigor in thinking and logic. No there is NO difference let alone a HUGE one – it is all the same – wishful thinking at best to be kind.

  20. Hunt
    March 1, 2012 at 5:15 am

    “Is he up our behind?”

    And if so, can he give me a colonoscopy while he’s there, so I don’t have to have a tube shoved up my ass?

  21. kraut
    March 1, 2012 at 9:13 am

    “ID says that the universe was created with such precision and fine tuning that it could have only been done by way of a intelligent mind (what Einstein, Planck, Newton and what majority of scientists thought).”

    Fined tuned for what? Live? The vast majority of the Universe is adverse to life. Fine tuned to exist as a Universe permitting live in some corners? Not so much: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1807
    Instead of arguing against the fountain of inane argument myself:
    http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/a-fine-tuned-universe-argues-for-atheism/

    The permanent repeated use of long refuted arguments by ID-theists – refuted by the only methodology to ascertain what truth might be: science – indicates a capacity to only read and digest what the various IDiot institutes release as arguments.

    And again – the same old lie about Einstein, born from ignorance having reduced your reading to the teachings of the IDiots.

  22. dephlogisticated
    March 1, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    In the argument of “well you can’t prove there isn’t a god”; I, like you and others have already stated, the burden of proof is on those to prove there is a god. They are the ones making the claim. It is not up to me to disprove it.

    They do this, of course, because they know full well, that they cannot prove their deity’s existence. So, they turn it around, and through contorted logic, try and win the argument by sneaking past you, the obvious False Dichotomy.
    ++++++++++++++

    Here’s an analogy that shuts them up immediately, and it goes like this:

    Let’s say you are taking me to court, claiming that I stole your wallet.

    When we get in front of the judge, you are asked to provide evidence that the defendant is guilty of theft.

    Your response: “Have him prove he did not steal my wallet!”

  23. yup, that guy they call a Jesus freak
    March 1, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    Rapiddominance,

    “Somebody better call the nursing home! It looks like we’ve got us another wanderer.

    I’m just teasing you.

    No hard feelings, right?

    ;)”

    Hahahaha, no hard feelings bro. I like the jokes!

    “Anyway, I know what you guys mean by the term, “The Great Commission.” And I have no problem with THAT idea–in and of itself.

    But has your God* told you to walk into the home, uninvited, of a person or family already aware of your beliefs and has made perfectly clear that they don’t want to talk about them?”

    No he hasnt, and people who do that are not Christians. Our Job is to spread the Gospel. Christ said if people dont listen or refuse or dont welcome you , thats totally fine just “shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.” Matthew 10:14

    “Anyhow, you’re fortunate that I got to you first. Not everybody here is as forgiving as I am.”

    Im grateful. Iv seen a couple who are polite and want to argue civil, but the majority are just people who like to give their little ad hominem drive by comments and act boss.

    “Take care.”

    You too bro!

    *Notice my politeness towards you through my capitalization of the word, “god”.

    Well i thank you, but its not just politeness, its just following the rulers of grammar.

    Hunt,

    “No, because the concept of a invisible pink unicorn is contradictory. Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light).”

    “Do you believe Jesus is fully God and fully human?”

    Yes, its called the hypo-static union. Theres nothing contradictory it.

    “Perfection doesnt lack anything intrinsic and God doesnt. When he wants to create a new species, that is an extrinsic want, that doesnt violate his intrinsic being because that species he brings into being is not something his being lacked, so his perfection is not lacking anything.”

    “But to be motivated to do something implies a desire, and desire implies lack of completeness.”

    But that doesnt indicate that God’s essential being lacks anything. If suppose the surroundings God is in lacks life, and hes like “hmmm, life would be a cool thing, iv always wanted to give life.” there’s no invalidation of his perfection. For the life lacking isnt a essential part of his being that would contribute to his completeness.

    Thats what we mean, that his essential being, is perfect that it doesnt require anything more because God is the greatest conceivable being and hence he doesnt lack any properties or qualities, he is perfect. Bringing life or wanting or desiring life, while it may be true thats it stems from something lacking, it doesnt mean that his essential being lacks something and thats what we mean when we say he is perfect, his essential being.

    “or If you try to say that He is motivated by compulsion, that is even worse. Even if you say He’s motivated to fill a lack in something extrinsic to Himself, that is still a desire and so an incompleteness.”

    Incompleteness, but not that is not applicable to God because his being already perfect requiring nothing to be added to his being. Incompleteness in relation to the surroundings and what he perceives to be lacking in it.

    Imagine the perfect lawnmower, it has all the parts and unlimited oil and automatic greasing, so it will run forever without problem, because it is the perfect lawnmower. If lets say that lawnmower could create life around it, like grass, that grass, which came about from the machines wanting or desiring, wouldnt be something the machine lacked. So the machine, in bringing grass, wouldnt be bringing something he lacked because his being doesnt require it. Itsjust an arbitrary whim to bring it about.

    “To be entirely complete in His perfection means to not be motivated to do anything, to be quiescent.”

    I would disagree, thats not even nowhere near a pre-requiste for perfection. You’re assuming if there were a God, he would be some cold dead emotionally crippled machine with power. Having emotion is not a crippling property that would lead to imperfection.

    “No, it’s just a list of ideas that create a perfectly good contradiction, just as “invisible pink unicorn” is a logical contradiction.”

    Yes, but he is presupposing that those list of ideas are valid, in argument (which i dont see) and definition. A invisible pink unicorn is invalid not because of some list of ideas but because logic and science, in argument and definition show it to be.

    “That is utterly arrogant. So your basically saying because we dont understand the mind and workings of God, we are ignorant?
    Thats an impossible thing to know, thats like asking an ant to understand Quantum Mechanics and its relation to inflationary models.”

    “It would be arrogant if God is real.”

    I dont see how that would be arrogant. Explain.

    “As is, you’re assuming your conclusion, or question begging.”

    Assuming what conclusion?

    “Think about it this way: what is the difference in expectation between trying to understand an incomprehensible, hidden being, and one that doesn’t exist? None.”

    That the first could reach out to humanity and has shown himself through Jesus Christ and has established his workings through holy scripture, as i believe. Also , incomprehensible in respects to what?

    I said that its impossible to to understand his mind, but its possible to understand his workings and his character through his workings.

    Also, one that didnt exist couldnt do that.

    “Mother Teresa was pretty awful, actually.”

    How so?

    “They also brought disease,”

    what diseases?

    “and often blazed the trail for other opportunists who enslaved and sometimes outright slaughtered them.”

    Its not their fault some countries were savage imperials bent on conquest. At least they heard the good news and had comfort in knowing they were saved, instead of dying cold and alone without the good news.

    “Read some of the histories of the conquest of the New World.”
    I have. De Las Casas’s brief account of Spaniard conquest shows what you are talking about.

    “Again, this is question begging.”

    Of what?

    “Lack of absolute morality doesn’t preclude objective moral systems. ”

    Yes they do. Objective morals are morals that are absolute and are unchanging and even if no one believed in them, they would still be binding. So if absolute morals dont exist, then neither can objective morals. Absolute morals are just another way to say objective.

    “In many ways they are actually opposites.”

    No they are one. Just like relative and subjective are one. Both mean what an individual believes to be right or wrong. Similarly absolute and objective mean the same thing, morals that do not change and are one.

    “Absolute morality means they are not objective, because absolute morals originate in an absolute being that is posited by faith, whereas objective moralities are explicable as theoretical systems.”

    A objective system requires one to solve why should i do something, why something is inherently good or bad, why actions are intrinsically right or wrong. No theoretical system can solve those because humans are making them and humans differ, so there can never be an absolute anything. Theoretical is also faith. It might have evidence so its not proven, so youre till putting faith into it. If it was true, 100%, then it would be fact.

    “Why do you think murder is wrong? For me,”

    Already there you have made a mistake. Objective morals are morals that do not rely on human opinion or thought. For you to even say, “for me”, that is already subjective.

    “Moral philosophy informs me that it isn’t my right to take another’s life, and I believe it.”

    1.) Just because something informs you doesnt mean its right or true. Hitler informed the people of Germany that Jews were evil. Was he right because he informed them?

    “It breaks the law.”

    Thats just a consequence, but consequences are relevant to location. Here in America if something is stoned to death they are going to jail. But in Iraq, if you do it and the family agrees, then its not unlawful. Here you have two contradictory systems, so what do you do? you might say that America is right? but why?

    “Allowing it, or having a consensus that it is right would lead to social chaos, etc.”

    So? Who cares is there is social chaos? Why is social chaos wrong?

    “These are real and objective reasons.”

    These are nowhere near close to reasons for an objective morality on atheism. Not even close.

    “Other than that, you’re probably going to be using my reasons.”

    No thanks.

    Concerned joe,

    you say “.. theres [sic] a HUGE difference between believing in God and believing in 7 years bad luck if you break a mirror.”

    and we say “no there ain’t!”

    Wells thats illogical.

    1.) We CANNOT falsify God because he transcends space and time and the natural world. Its very simple. Science cannot say anything on his existence.

    2.) We CAN falsify a superstition like 7 years bad luck. How? Simple, a have a scientists round up a group of 20 individuals and each breaks a mirror and for the next seven years they record the daily events of their lives and record anything that might be considered “bad luck” (note both the test subjects and scientists could weigh in on what to be considered bad luck). We have several tests being run across the country at the same time, and after the seven years if there were no significant and consistent events/changes (its has to be consistent because they are cursed for seven years)in the patients lives events then we could falsify the superstition of 7 years bad luck!

    The difference is one is not falsifiable and the other is!
    Wow, for someone who went on a rather intelligent and well put rant (which i agree with. the points were spot on) i must say im shocked you didnt think of this.

    Kraut, im sorry. Im not going to life, theres no way im going to understand most of that. A little to technical for me, i tried reading Alexander Vilenkin’s paper on “Collapse of simple harmonic universe”, and my brain exploded. So, please Just give me the briefing of all three papers and arguments against the fine tuning and ill try to answer my best.

    Thank you all for your responses, ill prepare my brain for the coming onslaught! Haha, God bless yall.

    • ConcernedJoe
      March 1, 2012 at 7:44 pm

      So the absence of 7 years bad luck not occurring is not known to believers? So rigorous falsification exercises of 7 years bad luck statistically would not indeed have persons with who broke mirrors and had 7 years bad luck?

      I know I am wasting my time educating you on the rules of falsification, and BTW defining the problem. So I will be brief just for the record:

      Anything (real or hypothesized) that operates and its measured results follow the probably results of the neutral case – the control case – is probably ineffective or non-existent. Given significant observations that show this conformance to statistical chance one can safely say for all practical purposes definitely that thing or hypothetical entity is ineffective or non-existent.

      So mirror breaking, and god as you all define it, fail the falsification tests in like fashion.

      But while many people know that mirror breaking most probably does not cause bad luck the urban legends prevail and they do not want to “take the chance”. They remain believers.

      As do god-believers remain voiced believers – in a god they know damn well is useless as tits on a bull when the rubber meets the road.

      Again I am being brief and I want to remain somewhat respectful.

  24. Azuma Hazuki
    March 2, 2012 at 4:31 am

    Joe/Jesus Freak:

    Sorry, but you’re outclassed here. There may well be a God, in the Deist sense, but there are too many problems (textual, logical, historical, and philosophical) with Yahweh for your religion to be true.

    I find it very interesting that the “greatest conceivable being” types seriously think Yahweh fits that criterion. I can conceive of literally infinitely (aleph-null infinitely) many better ones. And using the very assumption the Ontological Argument rests on (that existence is a property in itself), the greatest conceivable God is one that does not exist, since any omniscient, omnipotent, existent fool could do all this (whereas lack of existence is a tougher handicap).

    More to the point, you forget that you can’t have “gentle Jesus meek and mild” without the pillar of smoke and flame that is the OT Yahweh. They are, in fact, the same God. And frankly I’d rather deal with Old Testament Yahweh, who would smite you and send you to evaporate in Lower Sheol, any time over the passive-aggressive, infinitely-vengeful tyrant depicted in the NT.

    Of course, this is ignoring that most Christians early on were Universalists, cf. Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, that Latin lacks the fine-grained distinction of the Greek concepts “kolasis” and “timoria,” and so on. But don’t let a few facts get in the way of a good self-righteous wank, ye great pillock.

    I may be verbose but at least my posts are information-dense. Just skimming yours, all I saw was loads and loads of special pleading, ages-debunked arguments, and logical fallacies. If your God is real, it must be ashamed to have someone like you on its side.

    • ConcernedJoe
      March 2, 2012 at 6:24 am

      Azuma – although I agree with your gist I have a few “concerns”.

      First – is the referenced Joe in your “Joe/Jesus Freak” little ole me?? If so I seriously have to question any writing ability I have left or maybe you should re-read what I wrote. In any case I assure you I present the antithesis to the god defenders herein – at least I think I do!

      Second –

      I have said many times I am in a scientific sense methodologically agnostic when it comes to about anything. That is evidence (honest, objective, rigorously presented and tested type of thing) trumps my opinions or held notions to the contrary.

      So there well may be a force of some sort that we’d call god-like (a deist god for example) .. but BASED ON EVIDENCE TO DATE there is not utility nor reason to assume such exists or comes into play or came into play. Barring evidence to the contrary I am 100% atheist – but that does not mean I am dogmatically atheist.

      I am not holding my breath for a second for the god-evidence and find (based on evidence to date of failure to find god-evidence) that that line of investigation or hypothesis formation is an unnecessary waste of time.

      But if by some miracle (pun intended) one presents the evidence I’ll have to consider it. BTW evidence is not philosophical ramblings no matter how eloquently poised.

  25. Hunt
    March 2, 2012 at 6:02 am

    Jesus Freak, I’ll respond to some of your comments, but all the quoting is getting insane so I’ll try to just use liberal spacing and hopefully you can figure it out:

    “It would be arrogant if God is real.”

    I dont see how that would be arrogant. Explain.

    “As is, you’re assuming your conclusion, or question begging.”

    Assuming what conclusion?

    You assuming the conclusion of God. It would be arrogant to say that we can presume to understand God if God actually exists; however, if God doesn’t exist the entire statement is ridiculous and non-sequitur.

    “How so?”

    Watch this short documentary, done by Christopher Hitchens somewhere around 1990 I think. Not that you will find it very convincing, but…


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKkcDgeYBdk&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL6C57753336A26911

    what diseases?

    Notably smallpox, but others too:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

    Yes they do. Objective morals are morals that are absolute and are unchanging and even if no one believed in them, they would still be binding. So if absolute morals dont exist, then neither can objective morals. Absolute morals are just another way to say objective.

    You’re probably operating under a different definition of objective than I am. Objective is the opposite of subjective. Relative and absolute are also antonyms. Again, objective is just other than subjective. If I can create a sensible moral system, or even identify an evolved moral compass via evolutionary psychology, that is objective morality. I agree that “for me…” sound subjective, but as it happens it either follows my own internal moral compass, which is either biological or sociological, or it comes from a body of moral philosophy. Both qualify as objective sources.

    So? Who cares is there is social chaos? Why is social chaos wrong?

    Because I say it’s wrong and so do many other people, and there are reasons why we say it. If there was a good case to be made for it being right, then perhaps it would be considered that way, just as if there were actually good reasons to think murder was good, then maybe it would be. This is not relativism. You can’t just pipe up with “well, I think it’s right, so it is for me.” unless you’ve got a good reason for it.

    But let me address what I think your real problem is with what I’m calling objective morality and not absolute morality. Does a little sentient alien insect sitting on a planet 100,000 light years away care about human rape murder and war? No, I doubt it. Just as you, learning of some bizarre insect colony on a distant planet, would probably not be even marginally concerned by events of great pitch and moment on the insect planet. The insects themselves no doubt would have a rich body of insect morality, an absolute moral code — and an enduring question about what in this universe really makes killing another insect wrong.

    However, you might be concerned about them if you knew they were like humans, which gives us a clue. The yearning for absolute right and wrong is a trick our evolved minds are playing on us. Our own anthropocentrism give it away.

  26. kraut
    March 2, 2012 at 9:09 am

    “We CANNOT falsify God because he transcends space and time and the natural world. Its very simple. Science cannot say anything on his existence.”

    This being the case – NOBODY can say anything about it.
    Meaning all believers who “know” any of his attributes are lying through their teeth.

    If however the claim is made that It created anything, and this creation is the universe, then we have to ask for evidence to support this contention.
    Sp far the evidence supports the conclusion that any being outside the universe creating it is not only not necessary, but also paradoxical.
    No time or space existed before the expansion from a indeterminate quantum state, how then could there be an “exterior” realm where a timeless creator could exist?

    If he was timeless, eternal, he could not have determined “when” to create. The only conclusion left, assuming such a non spatial non temporal being could have existed, violating all the physics of THIS universe, is that the universe is also eternal…and that it is clearly not, as eternity means there is no beginning or an end. And the beginning we can calculate and even observe to a limited extend.

  27. kraut
    March 2, 2012 at 9:20 am

    PS – what happens to an eternal being that does not conceive of time in a situation when he suddenly through his creation of an object – the universe, where time and entropy flow in one direction only and apparently irreversible so – becomes aware of time and the eternal boredom of continuous existence?
    What happens to a perfect being (the only perfect being actually a non existant one as has been pointed out) that experiences increasing entropy?

    • Azuma Hazuki
      March 2, 2012 at 3:11 pm

      More to the point, why does a perfect being need or want to create?

      I find a lot of theologians trip up on this one. A perfect being lacks nothing. Some reply that it “wants worship,” which may be the single worst motive for creating anything ever short of “I’m gonna burn ’em like ants under a magnifying glass, just for the lulz” (and what is Hell, anyway…?)

      The ones who aren’t complete gomers usually say something along the lines of “Well, God overflows with grace and love; after all he is omnibenevolent” (and probably need to change their shorts after…). Unfortunately for them, this doesn’t square with perfection either. Love in any sense we’re capable of understanding is a desire, even if an extremely pro-social one. Again, perfection doesn’t need or want anything more than itself.

      • kraut
        March 3, 2012 at 2:17 am

        To continue a bit regarding ?logic.

        If god exists as an eternal god it cannot occupy a space. Space and time are closely related – see Einstein.
        Eternal means no beginning and no end, eternity bites both ways. And the claim by the religious is that god has no beginning. No time, no space.
        It therefore can have only created and existed as a quantum fluctuation behind the already mentioned veil of Planck time and length, a region beyond observation.
        Exactly the same region that is hypothesized the non universe or universe to be occupied. Ergo – the Universe is god, i.e. its own creation, making god utterly superfluous.

      • aric d
        March 31, 2012 at 11:27 am

        What if it is the nature of a perfect creator to replicate itself? I see no need or want involved with this. Simply the nature of the creator taking it’s course.

    • kraut
      March 3, 2012 at 2:31 am

      “Again, perfection doesn’t need or want anything more than itself.”

      It is even worse, as with creation the greatest of imperfection was committed, that a god inhabiting that universe has to live with as well – entropy, which in the closed system of the Universe increases over time.

      If god would exist outside the Universe he is said to have created – imagine the energies needed to penetrate into the existing universe to make his will known and to take action. Unimaginable and definitely observable, but never been seen or measured.

      A god influencing anything in this Universe would have to be part of it, and therefore as a consequence be mortal and under the rule of entropy – even if it took till the cold death of the creation. Eternity bye bye.

      The typical excuse by the religious is as usual – magic.
      There goes over board the claim of Christians of a more refined belief – that Christianity and Judaism are rational and reasonable.

      In the end – religion is what it has always been – voodoo in the face of the personal extinction.

  28. March 6, 2012 at 12:13 am

    Thomas Paine said it well: “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”

  29. aric d
    March 31, 2012 at 9:39 am

    I’m not sure that being perfect must imply being complete. As long as the potential, or in this case intention, of something is perfect it is possible to have incomplete perfection. In which case there most definitly can be a perfect creator of some sort. Although as stated the christian god can not fit this description.

  30. Rich C
    July 11, 2012 at 11:41 pm

    I quite enjoyed this.

    It did, however, contain a few errors in spelling and grammar. For example, the phrase “sacrifices or live a life if credulous servility” should have contained “of” instead of “if”.

    I recommend having a professional editor review it before publishing the book. As an atheist who is constantly trying to convince theists that they are wrong, I believe we have an obligation to ensure that everything we present to the public is as flawless as we can possibly make it.

Leave a Reply