The Top Ten Reasons I Don't Believe In God

So why -- exactly -- do I not believe in God?

In many of my writings about religion, I take my atheism as a given. When I critique religion, or gas on about atheist philosophy, I generally start with the assumption that religion is a mistaken idea about the world and that atheism is a correct one, and go from there.

Which is generally fine with me. If I always had to start with first principles -- on any topic -- I'd get nothing written. (Nothing interesting, anyway.)

But it occurred to me recently that a newcomer to my blog might think that I hadn't carefully considered the question of God's existence. My arguments against God and religion are scattered all over my blog, and I don't expect even my most devoted readers to read every single piece of my Atheism archives just to dig them all up.

So here -- largely for my own convenience, and hopefully for the convenience of readers both atheist and not -- is a summary of the Top Ten Reasons I Don't Believe In God. Or the soul, or metaphysical energy, or any sort of supernatural being(s) or substance(s). Something I can point to, and that maybe other atheists can point to, when theists ask, "But have you considered...?" (And since I've probably missed some good ones, I'll be asking for your own favorite arguments at the end of the piece.)

A couple of quick disclaimers first. This is really just a summary: a summary of ideas that I, and other atheist writers, have gone into in greater detail elsewhere. People have written entire books on this topic, and this post isn't an entire book... nor is it meant to be. If you're going to critique me for oversimplifying, please bear that in mind: It's a summary. It's meant to be somewhat simple. (I'm giving links to my own writing and to other people's that go into the ideas in more detail.)

And no, I don't think any of these arguments provide a 100% conclusive airtight case against God. Not even all of them together do that. And I don't think they have to. I'm not trying to show that belief in God's existence is absolutely impossible. I'm trying to show that it's implausible. I'm trying to show that it is -- by far -- the least likely hypothesis for how the world works and why it is the way it is.

Oh -- and for the sake of brevity, I'm generally going to say "God" when I mean "God, or the soul, or metaphysical energy, or any sort of supernatural being(s) or substance(s)." I don't feel like getting into "Well, I don't believe in an old man in the clouds with a white beard, but I believe..." discussions. It's not just the man in the white beard that I don't believe in. I don't believe in any sort of religion, any sort of soul or spirit or metaphysical guiding force, anything that isn't the physical world and its vast and astonishing manifestations.

And here's why. (Divided into two parts, to keep it from being insanely long.)

1: The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.

When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a very noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them. Like a steamroller.

Why the sun rises and sets. Where thunder and lightning come from. Why people get sick. Why people look like their parents. How the complexity of life came into being. I could go on and on.

All of these things were once explained by religion. But as we understood the world better, and learned to observe it more carefully, the religious explanations were replaced by physical cause and effect. Consistently. Thoroughly. Like a steamroller. The number of times that a supernatural or religious explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a natural explanation? Thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

Now. The number of times that a natural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a supernatural or religious one? The number of times humankind has said, "We used to think (X) was caused by physical cause and effect, but now we understand that it's actually caused by God, or spirits, or demons, or the soul"?

Exactly zero.

Sure, people come up with new supernatural explanations for stuff all the time. But explanations with evidence? Replicable evidence? Carefully gathered, patiently tested, rigorously reviewed evidence? Internally consistent evidence? Large amounts of it, from many different sources?

Again -- exactly zero.

Given that this is true, what are the chances that any given phenomenon for which we currently don't have a thorough explanation -- human consciousness, for instance, or the origin of the universe -- will be best explained by the supernatural?

Given this pattern, it seems clear that the chances of this are essentially zero. So close to zero that they might as well be zero. And the hypothesis of the supernatural is therefore a hypothesis we can comfortably discard. It is a hypothesis we came up with when we didn't understand the world as well as we do now... but that, on more careful examination, has never -- not once -- been shown to be correct.

If I see any solid evidence to support a religious or supernatural explanation of a phenomenon, I'll reconsider my disbelief. Until then, I'll assume that the mind-bogglingly consistent pattern of natural explanations replacing supernatural ones is almost certain to continue.

More on this:
The Unexplained, the Unproven, and the Unlikely

2: The inconsistency of world religions.

If God (or any other metaphysical being or beings) were real, and people were really perceiving him/ her/ it/ them, why do those perceptions differ so wildly?

When different people look at, say, a tree, we more or less agree about what we're looking at: what size it is, what shape, whether it currently has leaves or not and what color those leaves are, etc. We may have disagreements regarding the tree -- what other plants it's most closely related to, where it stands in the evolutionary tree, should it be cut down to make way for a new sports stadium, etc. But unless one of us is hallucinating or deranged or literally unable to see, we can all agree on the tree's basic existence, and the basic facts about it.

This is blatantly not the case for God. Even among people who do believe in God, there is no agreement whatsoever as to what God is, what God does, what God wants from us, how he acts or does not act upon the world, whether he's a he, whether there's one or more of him, whether he's a personal being or a diffuse metaphysical substance. And this is among smart, thoughtful, sane people. What's more, many smart, thoughtful, sane people don't even think that God exists... and the number of those people is going up all the time.

And if God existed, he'd be a whole lot bigger, a whole lot more powerful, with a whole lot more effect in the world, than a tree. Why is it that we can all see a tree in more or less the same way, but we don't see God in even remotely the same way whatsoever?

The explanation, of course, is that God does not really exist. We disagree so radically over what he is because we aren't actually perceiving anything that's real. We're "perceiving" something we made up; something we were taught to believe; something that the part of our brains that's wired to see pattern and intention (even when none exists) is wired to see and believe.

More on this:
The Cosmic Shell Game, by Ebonmuse, on the Ebon Musings website.
The Argument from Divine Hiddenness, ditto.

3: The weakness of religious arguments, explanations, and apologetics.

I have seen a lot of arguments for the existence of God. And they all boil down to one or more of the following:

The argument from authority. (Example: "God exists because the Bible says God exists.")

The argument from personal experience. (Example: "God exists because I feel in my heart that God exists.")

The argument that religion shouldn't have to logically defend its claims. (Example: "God is an entity that cannot be proven by reason or evidence.")

Or the redefining of God into an abstract principle -- so abstract that it can't be argued against, but also so abstract that it scarcely deserves the name God. (Example: "God is love.")

And all these arguments are incredibly weak.

Sacred books and authorities can be mistaken. I have yet to see a sacred book that doesn't have any mistakes. (The Bible, for just one example, is shot full of them.) And the feelings in people's hearts can definitely be mistaken. They are mistaken, demonstrably so, much of the time. Instinct and intuition play an important part of human understanding and experience... but they should never be treated as the final word on a subject.

I mean, if I told you, "The tree in front of my house is 500 feet tall with hot pink leaves," and offered as a defense, "I know this is true because my mother/ preacher/ sacred book tells me so"... or "I know this is true because I feel it in my heart"... would you take me seriously?

Some people do still try to point to evidence in the world that God exists. But that evidence is inevitably terrible. Pointing to the perfection of the Bible as a historical and prophetic document, for instance, when it so blatantly is nothing of the kind. Or pointing to the complexity of life and the world and insisting that it must have been designed... when the sciences of biology and geology and such have provided far, far better explanations for what looks, at first glance, like design.

As to the "We don't got to show you no stinking reason or evidence" argument... that's just conceding the game before you've even begun. It's basically saying, "I know I can't make my case, therefore I'm going to concentrate my arguments on why I don't have to make my case in the first place." It's like a defense lawyer who knows their client is guilty, and thus tries to get the case thrown out on a technicality.

Ditto with the "redefining God out of existence" argument. If what you believe in isn't a supernatural being(s) or substance(s) that currently has, or at one time had, some sort of effect on the world... well, your philosophy might be a dandy and clever one, but it is not, by any useful definition of the word, religion.

Again: If I tried to argue, "The tree in front of my house is 500 feet tall with hot pink leaves -- and the height and color of trees is a question that is best answered with personal faith and feeling, not with reason or evidence"... or, "I know this is true because I am defining '500 feet tall and hot pink' as the essential nature of tree-ness, regardless of its outward appearance"... would you take me seriously?

More on this:
Oh, all over the place. But probably most succinctly:
A Self-Referential Game of Twister: What Religion Looks Like From the Outside
The Argument From Design, Part One and Part Two
"A Different Way of Knowing": The Uses of Irrationality... and its Limitations

4: The increasing diminishment of God.

This is closely related to #1 (the consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones); but I think it's different enough to deserve its own number.

When you look at the history of religion, you see that the perceived power of God himself, among believers themselves, has been diminishing. As our understanding of the natural, physical world has increased -- and our ability to test theories and claims has improved -- the domain of God's miracles (or other purported supernatural/ metaphysical phenomena) has consistently shifted, away from the phenomena that are now understood as physical cause and effect, and onto the increasingly shrinking area of phenomena that we still don't understand.

Examples: We stopped needing God to explain floods, but we still needed him to explain sickness and health. Then we didn't need him to explain sickness and health any more... but we still needed him to explain consciousness. Now we're beginning to get a grip on consciousness, so we'll soon need God to explain... what, exactly?

Or, as Ebon Muse so eloquently put it, ""Where the Bible tells us God once shaped worlds out of the void and parted great seas with the power of his word, today his most impressive acts seem to be shaping sticky buns into the likenesses of saints and conferring vaguely-defined warm feelings on his believers' hearts when they attend church."

This is what atheists call the "God of the gaps." Whatever gap there is in our understanding of the world, that's what God is responsible for. Wherever the empty spaces are in our coloring book, that's what gets filled in with the blue crayon called God.

But the blue crayon is worn down to a nub. And it's never proven to be the right color. And over and over again, throughout history, we have had to go to great trouble to scrape the blue crayon out of people's minds and replace it with the right color. Given this pattern, doesn't it seem that we should stop reaching for the blue crayon every time we see an empty space in the coloring book?

More:
The Incredible Shrinking Deity, by Ebonmuse, on the Ebon Musings website, from whom I stole this idea outright.
The Shrinking Deity and the Empty Coloring Book

5: The fact that religion runs in families.

Here's what I mean by this one. The single strongest factor in determining what religion a person is? It's what religion they were brought up with. By far.

Very, very few people carefully examine all the religious beliefs currently being followed -- or even some of those beliefs -- and select the one they think most accurately describes the world. Overwhelmingly, people believe whatever religion they were taught as children.

Now, we don't do this with, for instance, science. We don't hold on to the Steady State theory of the universe, or geocentrism, or the four bodily humours theory of illness, simply because it's what we were taught as children. We believe whatever scientific understanding is best supported by the best available evidence at the time. And if the evidence changes, the understanding changes. (Unless, of course, it's a scientific understanding that our religion teaches is wrong...)

Even political opinions don't run in families as stubbornly as religion. Witness the opinion polls that consistently show support of same-sex marriage increasing with each younger generation. Even political beliefs learned from youth can and do break down in the face of the reality that people see and live with every day. And scientific theories absolutely do this, all the time, on a regular basis.

Once again, this leads me to the conclusion that religion is not a perception of a real entity. If it were, people wouldn't just believe whatever religious belief they were taught as children, simply because it was what they were taught as children. The fact that religion runs so firmly in families strongly suggests that it is not a perception of anything real. It is a dogma, supported and perpetuated by tradition and social pressure -- and in many cases, by fear and intimidation. Not by reality.

More:
I haven't written about the "religion running in families" argument at length before, and while I'm sure it must have been addressed in the atheosphere, offhand I don't know where. But Richard Dawkins addresses it in The God Delusion. You can look it up there if you like.
I have, however, discussed religion as an idea perpetuated largely by fear, intimidation, tradition, and social pressure... and the ways religion armors itself, not only against criticism, but against the very idea that religion is a legitimate target for criticism. That discussion: Does The Emperor Have Clothes? Religion and the Destructive Force of Asking Questions.

End of Part One. I'm breaking this up into two parts, since it's already ridiculously long; Part Two will appear tomorrow. I realize this will probably be a fruitless plea, but if you can stand it, please hold your comments until Part Two is posted: I may have already addressed your ideas there, and anyway, that way all comment threads can be in the same place. Thanks.

Comments

[The Count]

I absolutley love reading your blog. Yes, I'm a fanboi, but tis true.

However, just playing the part of con's advocate, do you worry of reacting to the godbags by having to keep explaining or justifying your atheism? I say this because this post seems, to me, to fall into that mode.

When I argue, the very first thing I start with is "ok, stop wasting our time, you know there's nothing to validate your belief, so let's get to the brass tacks..." and go on from there. It's amazing how many people fold to reason right up front.

When I speak that way to normal folks, ones who don't have a stake (financial or political) in fooling other folks into buying this shite, I usually get a much better discussion, and at times have been able to drive home a point.

I worry that if we continue to be atheist apologists, we waste time defending ourselves as opposed to making gains. To put another way, a Xian apologist gets me all excited, because I know it's someone who is on the defensive to start with.

Just saying... and I really do appreciate your mind, courage and thought process.

[David Evans]

Have you thought about writing a book on this?

Seriously.

I've read and like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett etc, and I think your writing has a clarity that they often lack.

[J. J. Ramsey]

I second David Evans.

That said, if you are going to link to a shorthand reference to holes in the Holy Bible, linking to, say, Robin Lane Fox's The Unauthorized Version gives you a heck of a lot more credibility that linking to the "Skeptic's" Annotated Bible which got caught pulling a fast one, even by skeptics, and to this day is dishonest enough to present nazirite vows of teetotaling, e.g. Numbers 6:3, as examples of a general prohibition on alcohol.

To be fair, the author of the "Skeptic's" Annotated Bible did eventually fix his howler regarding Leviticus 14, but it's a sort of blatant screw-up that no one trying to do a fair critique of the Bible would have made in the first place.

(And if you haven't read The Unauthorized Version, you really should. It isn't perfect, but it is both hard-hitting fair-minded ... kind of like a certain blogger we know. :))

[Rich]

Hello,

I will keep this very short and sweet since I just dont have the patience to type all night dispelling all your arguments, but one of the strongest reasons that atheists are wrong is that there are two major religions in the world...Christianity and Muslim/Islam(whatever you wanna call it). Atheist; and maybe this is only in America...Im no atheist expert..., mainly focus on religion and more so on Christianity. Now, why is that? If there is something so wrong with religion, which is not the same as Christianity, why not just continue your scientific pursuits and let the results speak on their own??? You cant!

The so called logic atheist pride themselves on is always based off of reason(whether their own or not or scientific). Using this and comparing it with the masses of people who reason God is real....who do you side with. If sociology teaches one thing it is that in mass groups of people a majority of people will do what is right a majority of the time.

Lasty to finish the point above is the fact that atheist, or so I see, only choose to focus on Christianity....why is that? Reason and logic as you may put is to see that there is something there that scares you...there has to be. If there wasnt, then it would be a irk to likes of people chewing food with their mouth open which is no reason to argue continuously when we know that the person will continue to do it. The logic of an atheist is like running on a ball while telling me that they will get to the end of it any minute now.

[Rich]

Rich,

Not addressing her arguments becuase you don't have patience? What a week and insulting way to start a rebuttal? More likely you don't have the ability as evidenced by the rest of your badly worded comment.

Please go back to school, get a high school diploma, go to a good community college and come back.

I won't comment on your arguments as they are largely unclear and incoherent and you expect us to show you the courtesy of considering your opinion, while you, on the other hand wave away Greta's points because you are lazy.

I rather be perceived as an arrogant atheist, than an lazy asshole(meaning you Rich).

[Greta Christina]

Your argument was addressed in #3, Rich. It's the argument from tradition: "if lots of people believe it, it must be true." And it's a terrible, terrible argument. For thousands of years, most people believed that the sun went around the earth -- did that make it true? Sociology does not teach us that "if most people believe it, it's probably right." It teaches nothing of the kind.

What's more... not that it's relevant, but it's simply and flatly not the case that either (a) there are only two major religions in the world, and (b) atheists only criticize Christianity. Judaism has over 13 million adherents, Buddhism has over 200 million adherents and possibly many more, and Hinduism has approximately one billion. And many atheists do criticize religions other than Christianity, and do so at some length. Islam especially has been heavily and publicly criticized by many atheists, prominent and otherwise, including Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

Again, this question isn't even remotely relevant to the question of God's existence or lack therefore, However, if you're going to engage in any more debates with atheists, I advise you to get your basic facts right first.

[Sean the Blogonaut]

Hey that response to rich saying it was from Rich is actually me damn it

[Yelena]

Your arguments definitely have a basis. However, in response to your point on "the inconsistency of world religions:" on your subpoint about being able to see a tree as a tree--a tree in this sense is a very small idea in comparison to the conceptualization of god or the supernatural, i.e. the latter is much more complex. Economics, for example, is an abstract category for real-life effects, it is a very large category and one not agreed upon by economists, i.e. economists do not agree on the ruling principles of economics, but I believe most would agree that economic practice exists in the world, though we can't seem to neatly explain it or categorize it. The conceptualization of God or the supernatural, etc. may be seen as similar to economic principles, i.e. explaining a complex system while the explanation is not nearly perfectly descriptive.
And one last tidbit for your argument on disagreement in various religions: there is a parable that I cannot place: three blind old men are standing around an object, trying to determine what it is. One says, its a snake, another a tree, a third a hippo. Each argues the other is wrong based on his perspective. And they are standing around an elephant. No matter how disparate their conclusions, those conclusions could lead, if properly put together, to a correct answer. But the men are blind and stand at different places, and as far as they know, only one can be correct.

[Xinran]

Quick question.

Why does no-one ever bring up the problem of thermodynamics when talking about the existence/non-existence of god?

If god existed then wouldn't a huge amount of energy be required to 'power' it? If god was an entity with a mind and consciousness, would it not have to need some kind of energy source to maintain its life? How else do other systems work alive or not. Even an engine needs to burn petrol the same way a tree needs to respire.

So how can something as apparently large and cosmic as god do that without it being really obvious.

If god had a food source wouldn't it fill the sky? If god burnt something to keep running wouldn't it outshine the sun?

Is there something fundamental I am missing that explains why people never mention this?

[mike]

"If sociology teaches one thing it is that in mass groups of people a majority of people will do what is right a majority of the time."

Except, y'know, for all the times when they don't.

For almost all of human history, everyone knew that the earth was flat, that disease was caused by demons, and that solar eclipses were bad omens. We know that they were wrong and we are right about these things, because we have evidence to show for it.

For almost all of human history, no one believed in your god of choice. What evidence do you have to show that the old superstitions & religions were wrong and that you are right?

[Greta Christina]

Yelena: I don't think the elephant analogy is a good one at all for the supposedly differing perceptions of God. If anything, it's an analogy for the process of science perceiving and understanding the physical world.

Because the blind people fondling the elephant can say to one another, "Hey. Over here. This is what I'm feeling. You can feel it, too. This is why I think it's a snake (or a tree, or a hippo)." And by walking all around the elephant, and telling each other what they feel, than can, over time, come to a better understanding of what it is they're experiencing. Not so with religion.

I also don't think economics is a good analogy. For one thing, economists can and do point to rigorously gathered evidence in the world to support their particular theories, and theories can go by the wayside if they're not supported by the evidence. For another, economics isn't an entity or a force in the world. It's a relationship between people (and arguably, some other social animals) -- which, almost by definition, is much harder to clearly perceive and describe.

And finally... well, I'll grant that I'm not an expert in economics, but it seems to me that economists have a whole lot more agreement over the basic facts of economics -- people exchange money for goods and services, or barter their goods and services directly, and make their decisions about how to do so for an assortment of reasons -- than religious thinkers have with one another about religion.

Religion isn't like economics. It's like alchemy: a theory that people thought about and argued about for a long time, but that didn't turn out to be a good hypothesis.

[Greta Christina]

Xinran: The usual answer to questions like yours is, "Because God is magic and he can do anything." Nothing in the physical universe can exert force without using energy, or create itself, or create something out of nothing... but God can, because he's magic, and he can do anything.

I agree, though, that it's a very unsatisfying answer.

[cl]

Note from Greta: The following comment has been disemvowelled. The commenter has been told previously that, because of unacceptable commenting behavior in this blog, he is no longer welcome to comment here, unless is it to provide links to commentary he makes about this blog on his own blog. This comment violated those rules, and has therefore been disemvowelled. Any future comments from this commenter will either be disemvowelled or deleted.

fw cncrns / qstns: . Y s, "W sd t thnk (X) ws csd b physcl cs nd ffct, bt nw w ndrstnd tht t's ctll csd b Gd, r sprts, r dmns, r th sl"? f w r dscssng ntrl vs. sprntrl mpts, d th ptntl css f gvn phnmnn hv t b mtll xclsv? Fr xmpl, lt's s fr fn th rgmnt s tht Dmn X css cndtn . n prsn sys Dmn X dd t, nthr prsn lsts bctr s th clprt. D y hv n gd rsn wh th bth cldn't b crrct t lst sm f th tm? s th sm pttrn whr y s, "W stppd ndng Gd t xpln flds..." Nw, ndrstnd yr pnt nd whr y'r gng wth t, bt hv w rll xplnd flds? Sr, w knw th mtrlgcl mchncs f fld, bt ds cmprhndng physcl prcss mk tht prcss 'prl physcl' b dflt? Wh cn s wh mlcls nd nrg r s rrngd t vn llw th pssblt f fld t ll? Nt . gss m grp wth # s tht ndrstndng ntrl prcss s nt sffcnt grnds t rjct sprntrl ptntlts nd/r mplctns. Rgrdng #, y s, "nd f Gd xstd, h'd b whl lt bggr, whl lt mr pwrfl, wth whl lt mr ffct n th wrld, thn tr." Myb, myb nt. Tht's jst yr wn prsnl ssmptn, hw y mgn Gd wld / cld / shld ct f Gd ws wht ll hs / hr fllwrs s h / sh s. t's n rsn t ll, mr f n nttn f yrs bt wht Gd ght t b. ls, cmprng Gd nd tr s stckd dck t bgn wth - y r tkng smthng whs xstnc s flsfbl nd cntrstng t wth smthng whs xstnc s nt flsfbl. s fr s # gs, dn't thnk ppl frm thr blfs n th bss f vdnc, whthr th r rlgs, thst, r prpl n th fc; thnk ppl frm thr blfs n th bss f dp pyschlgcl, sbcnscs fctrs, thn ntrprt vdnc ccrdngl. t gs wtht syng tht th sm prsn vws th Bbl mch dffrntl whn th blv Chrstnt thn th d whn th blv thsm. Yr 'rns n th fml' rgmnt dg nd gr wth, bt t's nt cnvncng rgmnt gnst th xstnc f Gd r th sprntrl t ll. t s cnvncng rgmnt tht ppl rrl thnk tsd th bx r qstn thrt, nd tht mst ppl r trrbl frd f dyng nd thnkng fr thmslvs.

[terrence]

Wow, disemvowelling....what a cruel fate. Seriously, Greta, this is absolutely great. I once tried to compile a "summary" like this, but your post is superior by far -- you've just replaced "Comforting Thoughts" as the Grand Champion Post.

HEY RICH - you're right about mass groups of people usually doing the right thing. I was reminded of that (fact) while watching film of the Hitler rallies in the 1930's...

[terrence]

Wow, disemvowelling....what a cruel fate. Seriously, Greta, this is absolutely great. I once tried to compile a "summary" like this, but your post is superior by far -- you've just replaced "Comforting Thoughts" as the Grand Champion Post.

HEY RICH - you're right about mass groups of people usually doing the right thing. I was reminded of that (fact) while watching film of the Hitler rallies in the 1930's...

[chancelikely]

Funny, I'm an economics major, and I recently came to the realization that economics is rather like evolutionary biology - it's a description of a messy state of affairs, at a series of unplanned equilibria, that's both strangely resilient and easy to poke out of place.

If religion is like any economics, it's like Stalinist Marxism with a double dose of Lysenko. You know, the sort of situation where you throw away the facts (or people, often enough) that don't fit your model rather than improving the model.

[George]

Bravo. In this day and age it's always refreshing to see some people are still thinking on their own. Enjoy life, lovely. Peace.

[Thorin N. Tatge]

Hi! This is my first brush with your blog, but I intend to look further and I'm guessing it's great. This is the best summary of arguments for atheism I've ever seen. I'm not the sort who gets into religious arguments, but if I ever do, I hope to be able to link here to illustrate my positions.

[BillyWarhol]

I'm thrilled U mention Dawkins The god Delusion right off the Top!! A must read for Everybody on the Planet!!

I read Christopher Hitchens' god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything first + both are Excellent Informative + Entertaining Reads!! It was Fantastic to see both Books at #1 & #2 on the BestSeller Lists!!

Hitchens book is now out in reprint + is again on the List!! Perfect Christmas Gift!! ;))

Peace*

[Michael Webb]

Interesting Blog. Thanks for the effort involved. You obviously take your responsibility to think things through seriously.

A few thoughts. Firstly, its hard to communicate any personal experience to someone else. If I say "I love Sue" you may hear the words but knowing what that means for me is something else altogether. This is true of all human experience - ultimately its personal.Therefore, when a Christian says they love God, that Jesus is someone they know personally, that this love brings great joy into their life - people hear the words but the experience is remote to them.

In faith, or religion or the experience of God this is exactly what is happening on a large scale. A large majority of the world feels that they have touched the divine, the numinous in some way. For myself, I am a Christian. I have experienced the love of God and it brings me great joy. Others have different beliefs but still feel that they have known or do know God.

What is interesting about this, in the context of the above discussion, is that it makes atheism and extreme view - divorced from the experience of a very large section of humanity. Atheism contends that there simply is no God and that therefore all these people are in some way confused or deluded. Given the relative numbers of atheists and believers, atheism is at the edge of the human condition. For an informative discussion of this - "The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World" by Alistair McGrath is good. He is professor of historical theology at Oxford University and a very good scholar.

My second observation goes to the books you quote. Hitchens, Dawkins and co are not in the first rank of either thinkers or writers.Both are extreme even within their own disciplines despite their many appearances on the talk shows. Both show little understanding of theology, history or philosophy and yet this is the domain they tread. The most amusing thing about Dawkins is that he writes a book called the God Delusion in which he presents us with his own version of the Ten Commandments ( I am surprised they don't come in tablet form). After such an effort I have to ask - who exactly has the God delusion?

I see no reference in any of the comments above to the best of the believers. Plato for example (who did believe in God). I also see no reference to first rank Christian apologists - C. S. Lewis (Mere Christianity) of GK Chesterton (Orthodoxy) or if we go back further to Augustine. A good contribution from a fine legal mind can be found in "Reason in the balance" by Johnson.

If we want to know the truth - lets us seek the best of what our opponents have to offer. Any of the above writers will lead in interesting directions. I hope this is a useful contribution.

[Joel Rosenblum]

Obviously there's no way to prove God. There is a lot of evidence for reincarnation (or some paranormal phenomena that would appear to be reincarnation, or massive fraud). Most of the evidence is not strong because it is based on personal accounts. Some of it is medium-strong as it is based on investigators finding facts before the subjects themselves have (it seems) had a chance to do so. Here's one article: http://www3.hi.is/~erlendur/english/cort/Replication_Studies_of_Cases.pdf

There's also much evidence of verified spirit communication via mediums, scientifically investigated and published. This evidence could also be due to some other paranormal phenomena such as tapping into some kind of cosmic knowledge, or of course massive fraud being perpetrated by investigators.
http://veritas.arizona.edu/

[Kyle]

Michael: You are actually demonstrating a common misperception about atheists. Atheists experience the world as much more magnificent, mysterious, and beautiful than the people you speak of who have "felt the love of God." When I look at a tree, I am enthralled by what it is, not astounded that God created it. I see patterns of matter and energy that have replicated and organized themselves into something utterly unfathomable. I see the way it's branches defy gravity as a majestic feat. I see myself viewing the tree as the universe literally aware of itself, finding beauty within itself. That view of the world is much, MUCH more awe-inspiring and creates much more love in my heart than my Methodist upbringing ever did.

Atheists do not believe that science necessarily has all the answers, but they do think that attributing all beauty, goodness, and meaning to a god actually distracts the human mind and heart from the real beauty, goodness, and meaning in the universe.

Here is where most religious people would say, "but when you see something so beautiful as a tree or fall in love, how can you not believe that there is a god who created it?" Well, I'll tell you why: It is because the experience of beauty and the existence of a god have nothing to do with one another. The existence of a god neither adds to or detracts from the beauty of anything, or even the human experience. It is exactly because people believe that all good comes from some Sky-Father that they stop seeing the beauty in the world and begin committing atrocious acts. If you see a happy farmer in a field tending his crop, do you teach him that God created him and that the things he does naturally may in fact be sins punishable by eternal hell? NO! You leave the guy alone. Here's my point: Religion CREATES the very sins that it forbids (by forbidding them). In fact, that is the definition of sin. It grows and feeds off of its own creation. It is a way to trap people in an illogical loop that they can only get into by jumping over a chasm of missing logic with the pogo stick of faith. Also, if you think that people in their natural state will spontaneously start murdering and stealing were it not for the threat of Hell, I'd ask you to cite evidence.

[paul Siemering]

I think fussing about those worn out religions is a waste of time. Reading a whole book about unfaith is silly.

Look it's really simple- You have Mother Nature and all her children we can see and feel and know. And then you have supernatural imaginary beings. god is a concept on a par with tinkerbell and santa claus.

also think about this: humankind has been running around on this planet for 500,000 years- so that's like 99% of all our actual history, OK? and so for all that time we managed to live very happily with no "holy books" and no "God" thing. Imagine that. How did we ever manage? easy. we never needed that stuff, and we don't now.

[Beetle]

First time visiter here, just expressing my appreciation. I have read my fair share of lists about how to lose an argument with an atheists, but yours is my favorite. I hope you will excuse me for not posting to the second half of the article, I promise to do so if I come up with anything substantial. In the interim it amuses me how this first half has become a honey pot for trolls who can’t be bothered to read.

[inter-something]

Michael -- I have read that book by Alister McGrath, and I feel that you would get a much clearer demonstration about how atheism functions in relation to the world if you read a book on the subject that was not written by a Methodist evangelical.
I think it is also significant to point out that there are many intelligent writers who are believers -- not many here deny that -- but that a lot of great writers in the ages may have been atheists (or at least agnostics or nonreligious) in secret. People simply weren't allowed to be nonbelievers in the past unless they wanted to give up their lives. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin would almost certainly have been classified as nonbelievers, had they been able. Also consider that Einstein was in no way a Christian, and that were he alive today, he would probably take new atheists with much more consideration than he took with the first wave of atheism. I say this simply because I think it would do well to recognize that there have been wonderful nonbelievers contributing intellectually to society.

Greta -- I've been a long-time reader and posted a few times, but I just wanted to comment that I really appreciate this succinct summary, and that I use it as a starting reference point every time someone asks me a question about atheism. Your writing has always been exceptionally clear and lovely.

[Victor Garrod, Th.M.,]

Hello there!
I enjoyed reading this blog.
Have nearly finished writing my second book titled: "Did God Screw Up?" being sent to Vantage Press, Inc (New York) for publication.
My first book is titled: "The Demise of Christianity" and can be viewed at www.victorgarrod.com

I would like permission to add a few chapters from this blog and will quote the references.

[Rose]

About the "religion running in families" thing - I remember when I first "came out" as an agnostic at age 10, my bio dad (whom I'm now estranged from, for unrelated reasons) flipped out. His main reason for why I couldn't be agnostic (or, more specifically, anything other than Missouri-Synod Lutheran)? Because it was defying my family to not take the "family faith." In retrospect, that really struck me - since most religious people, whether progressive or evangelical, seem to see religion as something you have to come to on your own, as a very personal, individual thing. It was really bizarre that he basically admitted that the only reason he was religious is because it was what his family taught him.

Ironically, my stepdad is a Presbyterian pastor and he has always been accepting of my agnosticism. He says Christianity is not helped by "fake" believers, and it's better that I follow whatever religious persuasion - or, in my case, none - with genuine feeling than pretend to be a Christian for his sake. (He has, over the years, had difficulty understanding the extent of my agnosticism, that I'm not merely "searching" for a religion but that I find faith fundamentally flawed and have no interest in joining any religious movement. But he tries.)

[Peter]

" I see myself viewing the tree as the universe literally aware of itself, finding beauty within itself. "

Greta, that is awesome! You are a poet. That is a hallelujah moment right there.

One thing you didn't comment on, and which probably is slightly off topic, is the comment made to me by religious friends about how we atheists don't believe in an afterlife. They comment that my belief that "when you are dead, you are dead (and get eaten up by maggots and weevils or are burned - crackle crackle crackle)" is absolutely horrid. they can't come to terms with it, and cling to religion because it takes away that fear of death. I think this is a major factor in people adhering to religion. Maybe the main one.

I don't know about you, but I had kids recently, and now I look at them and see that there I am (well, 50% me anyway) and I am continuing on, even if this particular consciousness is not. And those kids are a continuation of over 3 billion years of an unbroken chain of life. So that technically is immortality and an after life - a real one that requires no imaginary "heaven". And it is one that requires my care and attention during my lifetime to ensure it continues, rather than some belief that following silly rituals guarantees entry into it.

[jeffreyT]

I think the main reason that the majority of "believers" cling to religion is not the fear of death (though I'm certain that's part of it), I believe it's their fear of "Hell." People are coerced into Christianity through the fear of eternal damnation. They seem to have no problem reconciling a "God of love" and a God that will throw you into an eternity of torment because you chose a different religion or no religion at all.

They also don't seem to be bothered by the fact that we seem to hold ourselves to a higher standard than we hold "God." For instance, if I were to come into your home and hurt or kill one of your loved ones, you would certainly (and rightfully so) seek retribution. But if "God" takes the life of a loved one (no matter how horrible the method - cancer, fire, violence, whatever) then it's just part of "God's Will." WTF? So I'm more accountable than God?

And, let me add that no matter what my children choose to believe or do in their lives that I will love them and care for them. If I had the power to damn them for their choices, I wouldn't do it. So does that mean that I am capable of a more unselfish love than God?

I could go on for hours.

[Lane]

You guys are pushing the link between religion and God too far: while essentially the main tenet of Christianity and Islam, it is not addressed in Buddhism and is not a huge deal in Judaism.

Religion can be great; don't dismiss it too quickly.

[DA]

"You guys are pushing the link between religion and God too far: while essentially the main tenet of Christianity and Islam"

Yes, the two largest religions by far, which claim half the world's population between them, are centered around God, but besides that there's no connection between God and religion! Except for Sikhs, Jews, Pagans, Hindus, Bah'ais, Druze, etc.

"and is not a huge deal in Judaism."

What? Do you think Orthodox Jews follow 613 commandments just for the hell of it?

"Religion can be great; don't dismiss it too quickly."

Greta hasn't, she's written a lot of incredibly well thought-out stuff on religion, most of which is viewable here. Don't dismiss her work so quickly.

[Nick]

Ok, i read like all of that and i agree, that this should be a book! i was raised as a christian, but i dont pray, go to church, or all that crap. i was raised with getting presents in december and looking for eggs in the spring. I started to read the bible and i laugh so hard at the stupid things it says in there! my aunt tried (and failed) to get me to start going to church and i cant understand how she believes that god came to abraham and told him to circumsise all the men in his house, and he did! they must have hade some serious drugs back then, huh?

[[email protected]]

Veritas response:
All of the author's reasons for not believing in God are irrelevant and illogical. If she truly believes there is no God, and concurrently it is true that God does not really exist, then there is no point to these attempted refutations. Further, none of these arguments are scientific, but commit the fallacy of - Appeal to Authority - mainly science itself. But, if these arguments are not scientific, then they in themselves are philosophical and therefore are not set, if the author posits science as the one true authority on truth. As these arguments are, in fact, philosophical, then they are also subjective and are open to rebuttal and refutation by definition. If God does not truly exist, then she cannot be a true atheist - because you cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. This is why the modern neo-atheists have fallen back and taken a position that no longer attempts to affirm that there is no God (which concludes that only God could deny God), only that each atheist can only testify that they personally - lack belief in any god/gods/or goddesses. But, what therefore is this new atheist definition attempting to assert? Nothing. This new neo-atheist position asserts nothing more than each atheist's own subjective and unfalsifiable belief. But this is precisely what they are accusing religious folk of. In the end, the neo-atheist position is meaningless for it asserts nothing. If there is no God, what therefore is she attempting to affirm in the absence of denial? If we cannot falsify her subjective claim, is she really claiming anything at all? According to her own position in relation to scientific truth and her advocacy of Karl Popper's Falsification Principle, the answer is no. In the final analysis, if God does not exist, then there is therefore nothing to be said either in the affirmative, or in the negative. To attempt to do so is illogical, for we do not debate whether or not unicorns and Santa Claus have any real potential to the actual in the topic of metaphysics. If the author believes there is no God, then any speech on her part concerning God reaches into the realm of metaphysics, but that, ladies and gentlemen, is the very thing she is denying.
"If there really was no God, you could not be an atheist."
G. K. Chesterton

[DanielHendrycks]

Why did you have a cross through mark on the wheel of dharma? Considering it doesn't cohere with "The Top Ten Reasons I Don't Believe In God"; since, in Buddhism, there is no claim of a God.

[Greta Christina]

Why did you have a cross through mark on the wheel of dharma? Considering it doesn't cohere with "The Top Ten Reasons I Don't Believe In God"; since, in Buddhism, there is no claim of a God.

Because, as I said in the piece, I'm not just talking about God here. Quote:

"Oh -- and for the sake of brevity, I'm generally going to say "God" when I mean "God, or the soul, or metaphysical energy, or any sort of supernatural being(s) or substance(s)." I don't feel like getting into "Well, I don't believe in an old man in the clouds with a white beard, but I believe..." discussions. It's not just the man in the white beard that I don't believe in. I don't believe in *any* sort of religion, *any* sort of soul or spirit or metaphysical guiding force, *anything* that isn't the physical world and its vast and astonishing manifestations."

[DA]

Not to beat a dead horse (as I know I've remarked on this before) but day to day Buddhism in Asia is effectively theistic; people pray to omnipotent beings to give them good luck, salvation, and so on, and build temples where a clergy does complex rituals involving these beings. Sophisticated "atheist Buddhism" is a really, really Western thing for people who still have a religious impulse but find religion justifianly impossible to accept.

[themann1086]

DA hits the nail on the head. Buddhism historically, and practically outside of Western adaptations, has as many unjustifiable beliefs as any other religion. Also: tons of misogyny!

[CW]

I have to say, debate on religion is a pointless one. There is almost no way to change another persons mind when it comes to this, it's almost as if they're typing just to reaffirm their beliefs, whether it be in god or in no god. My point is this, and excuse me if I get too John Lennon esque on you guys, we need to stop trying to convert people of opposite faiths and just give peace a chance. In my eyes atheists present themselves as elitists that have found the light and will not be associated with the morons of such inferior beliefs. While on the other hand, religions justify their beliefs by saying "because this person said so". Both are total bs. Atheists blindly follow what scientists tell them and religious people blindly follow what preists tell them because we are either too lazy to fact check or just can't fact check. We are no different. Atheists have a loose form of religion, minus the god part. The thing I'm getting at is this, allow others to have differing opinions without looking down upon them. Religious people, if you are going to believe in a god, awesome, but believe in it because after your research this is what you've come to believe, not because that was how you were raised or what you were told. And atheists do not feel as though you are the superior ones because you can prove your beliefs, because in the end, no one can say 100% one way or the other. As for me, I believe in a god, but not in religion. I am not going to limit my living because of something that I am 90% sure of. Besides, we need to stop trying to get in to heaven and make our own right here. Sorry for the soap box that I was just on, but I hope that it opens at least one persons mind. Loudest of love to all!

[Eclectic]

CW, if religious conversion is impossible, why do religions put so much effort into missions?

I agree that it's almost impossible for a single person to convince another, but a larger chorus can often have a great effect.

One important reason to speak out is to encourage others to do likewise, so they can complete the necessary quorum.

It's also important for someone vacillating. That's the big message of groups like ACT-UP: It's a terribly lonely world if you think you're the only person who feels like you do.

[DA]

People who judge atheists for being judgemental are such a crack up. Anyone who says that atheism is a religion based on science doesn't understand any of those three terms.

"religious people blindly follow what preists tell them because we are either too lazy to fact check or just can't fact check. "

You can't fact-check religion. That's the central, unfixable problem with it. Everything comes back to faith sooner or later.

See, science now, I can CHECK the conclusions. I'm bad at math so I'll never be a scientist, but I've had some very smart people show me how to test some commonly held assumptions on a small scale. Philosophy, you can ask questions and make allowances for future knowledge.

Religion can't do that.

"Religious people, if you are going to believe in a god, awesome, but believe in it because after your research this is what you've come to believe, not because that was how you were raised or what you were told."

Religion would vanish very, very quickly if people actually followed your advice on this point. Which is fine with me, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

"The thing I'm getting at is this, allow others to have differing opinions without looking down upon them"

You can respect someone as a human being without validating beliefs they hold. A very close friend of mine is a schitzophrenic; I don't dislike him for this but I'd be doing him no favors if I told him that his delusions had a basis in reality. Incidentally, like many schitzophrenics, his delusions seem to express themselves largely in religious terms.

"no one can say 100% one way or the other"

Greta has written like a million times on this exact point. I'd urge you to check the archives a bit.

" As for me, I believe in a god, but not in religion. "

I'm a fan of Luke Skywalker, but I hate Star Wars. Wait, what?

"Besides, we need to stop trying to get in to heaven and make our own right here."

Uh, yes. I agree with that sentiment. Most atheists would,to one extent or another. So tell me why you're against us exactly.

" but I hope that it opens at least one persons mind."

What makes you so sure you're the one with the open mind?

[Greta Christina]

There is almost no way to change another persons mind when it comes to this

CW: That is simply and flatly not true. Rates of non-belief are going up at a dramatic rate, all over the US and all over the world. Why would that be happening, if people's minds weren't being changed by other people's ideas -- in this case, the increasingly visible atheist movement?

If you talk to atheists who used to believe in religion, you'll find that many of them were persuaded out of their beliefs by arguments made by atheists. Those arguments may not be the sole reason for changing their mind... but it's often a significant part of it. It certainly was for me.

In my eyes atheists present themselves as elitists that have found the light and will not be associated with the morons of such inferior beliefs.

"In my eyes" being the key words. There are, I will admit, a handful of atheist jerks on the Internet who think they're superior to believers. But from what I've seen, that's not true for most atheists. Most atheists don't think we're superior. We just think that, on this particular question, we're correct, and religious believers are mistaken. Thinking other people are mistaken isn't the same as thinking they're inferior.

And in every other field -- science, politics, philosophy, medicine, art, etc. -- people try to persuade others to change their minds all the time, without being seen as "elitist" or "superior" or "looking down" on people. It's called the marketplace of ideas. And it's considered one of the best ways we have to weed out bad ideas and refine good ones. Why should religion be immune to that process?

Oh, and what DA said is right: I've addressed the "100 proof" argument many, many times. Quick summary: Atheism is not the 100% certainty that there is no God. It's the conclusion that there's no good evidence or arguments for the God hypothesis, and unless we see some better evidence or arguments, we will provisionally conclude that God is not real. (I discuss this idea more thoroughly in another piece, The 100% Solution: On Uncertainty, And Why It Doesn't Matter So Much.)

Finally: I can't help but notice that you didn't actually address any of the arguments against God being made in this piece. You didn't answer the question of why natural explanations for phenomena have consistently been replacing supernatural ones for thousands of years, or why different religions around the world are so inconsistent, or why supposedly supernatural phenomena have consistently failed to stand up to rigorous testing, or anything. All you've done is say "There's no point in making this argument, since nobody is willing to change their mind." What that tells me is that you are not willing to change your mind. If you're not -- why should I take anything you say seriously?

[John Prichard4]

Very interesting blog you have here. I applaud you for being a free thinker and debating the plausability of religious belief. I, myself fall somewhere between the terms atheist and agnostic. There is certainly alot about this world and existence that we dont nor will ever understand. What I believe in is always open to be redefined by new input of information and experience but I certainly know what I don't believe in.... and that is religion of any sort. There are just some things that defy explanation. Once a person thinks they know the truth they close their mind to all other possible explinations. Keep up the good work by provoking people to think about what they truely believe. If you can't defend your position rationally, then it isn't a very rational position

[ben myers]

Gretta, you are highly intelligent and I love your candor and clarity. I am writing this in response to Xinran (and your response to him).

First of all, Greta is right when she says that theists often use God to "fill in the gaps" of our understanding of the natural world. I (and much more pious men, like Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and almost everyone during Reformation Europe) use God as a motivator to understand His universe, and Him, more fully (Romans 1). I (and wise theistic scientists) plug God into appropriate gaps; for example, the law of gravity (using REALLY smart language) basically says that objects of larger mass tend to attract objects of lesser mass; however, science will never be able to provide a reason for why this really occurs.

Of course, we will discover new laws that give us a better understanding of how the system works, but science will never answer the question of "why" there are these laws in the first place - and why matter feels compelled to obey! The existence of natural law will forever remain a "gap" unexplainable by scientific methods, and we are therefore, where science comes to a dead end, compelled to humbly look outside of the material universe for an explanation.

So, "Why do laws exist?" Well, reason seems to indicate that where there is law there is a lawgiver. Therefore, I submit that an intelligent being designed the universe and its laws. This is a much more logical argument than "because.”

Now, this brings me to Xinran's question:
"Why does no-one ever bring up the problem of thermodynamics when talking about the existence/non-existence of god?"

As the above argument follows, Xinran and Greta, a God so infinitely incomprehensible that He created laws governing the trillions of galaxies, The Milky Way being roughly a hundred thousand light-years across, is outside of reality and law as we know it…for to create something from nothing (i.e. a single atom, or the law of gravity) would violate the very law created, in this case, the first law of thermodynamics, which states:

“Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.”

The atheist must stick to the laws of science to explain everything, including the origin of the universe. Of the Atheist, I do not ask how the universe created itself, for that would be too harsh; rather, he must explain how to create a single atom from nothing – not even law (a single atom being made up of a universe of parts, we are finding). Such a task is impossible, since for matter to come into existence on its own accord would require it to create itself, thereby existing before it existed!

I am hoping that your comments, Xinran and Greta, were tongue in cheek. But to answer your other question, Xinran; yes, God would have to eat a lot of pasta to power up the sun, let alone a hundred quadrillion suns.

[DSimon]

[...]I submit that an intelligent being designed the universe and its laws. This is a much more logical argument than "because.”

Ben, the default answer to a question we don't know much about yet is not "because", it's "dunno".

Of course, we will discover new laws that give us a better understanding of how the system works, but science will never answer the question of "why" there are these laws in the first place - and why matter feels compelled to obey!

There doesn't have to be a "why". It's quite plausible that the universe exists, and operates the way it does, due entirely to impersonal forces.

[Eclectic]

So, "Why do laws exist?" Well, reason seems to indicate that where there is law there is a lawgiver.

Poppycock! Human "laws" and natural "laws" differ in innumerable ways.

A human law, which is indeed created by personalities, is eminently breakable. There's a whole complex and highly visible mechanism to punish those violations, but it's hardly physically impossible.

What we call a physical law, such as conservation of mass-energy, is a restriction that we have never seen broken, despite efforts to try.

If natural laws were given, then it is at least conceivable to take them away. For many, this is not the case. For example, let me ask: what would happen if the distributive law were repealed?

Is it possible to consistently describe such a place, even if we don't live there?

And if it can't even exist in imagination, why is any special lawgiver needed to ensure that we don't live there?

[Ben Myers]

Ben’s response to DSimmon and Eclectic

Laws Governing the Universe

[DSimmon said: Ben, the default answer to a question we don't know much about yet is not "because", it's "dunno".]
Please know that my former statement – i.e. the “atheist’s” response to why there are universal laws governing the operation of all matter is simply “because” – was not meant to be disrespectful.
[DSimmon said: There doesn't have to be a "why". It's quite plausible that the universe exists, and operates the way it does, due entirely to impersonal forces.]
You mean, “Because [physical laws just exist]”?

Eclectic,

[I said: So, "Why do laws exist?" Well, reason seems to indicate that where there is law there is a lawgiver.]
[Eclectic responded: Poppycock! Human "laws" and natural "laws" differ in innumerable ways… human law, which is indeed created by personalities, is eminently breakable.]

After the above quote, you went on to demonstrate what we both agree on; that natural law differs from civil law in that it is not breakable. You then leap to the conclusion that in order for a law to have had a maker, it must be breakable? Where you conclude that a perfect law indicates no maker, I conclude that a perfect law indicates a perfect maker.
Your argument:
Societal laws are flawed
Societal laws have a maker
Natural laws are not flawed
Therefore, natural laws have no maker

This is what they call, I think, an “Ad hoc ergo propter hoc” argument, since it does not logically flow.

Let me back up to explain how the existence of law (any law) implies (d/n prove) a lawgiver, and then I hope you will see how the nature of a law indicates the nature of its creator (i.e. that maker being either inept or all powerful).
If you have ever been to the Sahara, it is as you might have guessed…enormous and relatively untravelled in many parts. Let’s imagine that you and I were walking through an area way off the oasis trail routes and found, lying in the sand, an alien contraption of some sort (to borrow the illustration). After stooping over to pick it up, we examine its workings and find it looks like one of those old watches with all the gears and cogs, springs and things, except it also makes beautiful sounds and seems to be aware of us in a cold, inhuman way. There is data on the thing in an LED-type setting, and after we take it to the Red Sea for some snorkeling, we find it is hermetically sealed to withstand a 200 ft. plunge.
It would be silly to conclude that since we saw no one around where we found it, and there was no evidence of humans ever crossing that area of desert, that the device must have just come together all on its own accord through time. Now consider that the brain of a bumblebee rivals, and in some ways surpasses, the complexity of our world’s fastest supercomputers, is portable (no outlet required), rests on the head of a needle, and runs with far more efficiency (minimal heat loss). Obviously, the relatively simple apparatus we found and the bumblebee brain we would both say have an evident “design”. The law of the universe is, well…GENIUS!!! The very word “genius” implies a brain or center of consciousness/intellect. Greta's "short list" of defective aspects of the universe are in many cases could be explained as flaws that have been the outworking of micro-de-evolutions that may hint at a time when the earth and its lifeforms were without these flaws.

Anyway, to say that everything came from nothing is infinitely illogical. It may be a little more rational to say that laws just “are…because”, but this is still not the most reasonable answer.

(Regarding the “first cause” rebuttal, i.e. “If everything must have a cause, then what caused God?” It is half-baked thinking to apply the rules of the system to the one who created the rules and the system.)
Thanks for giving me something to think about. We will not change each others’ presuppositions, but the great equalizer will be by soon enough to do so for us.

[Greta Christina]

You then leap to the conclusion that in order for a law to have had a maker, it must be breakable?

No. That's not the point. The point is that you are assuming that a law must have a lawmaker... and this assumption is based on a linguistic confusion/ conflation between the two different meanings of the word "law." Just because human laws have lawmakers doesn't mean natural ones have to -- they're not the same meaning of the word "law."

What's more, if natural law is perfect and immutable because it was created by God, then what you're positing is an entirely deistic God -- one who created the universe, but then no longer intervened with it at any point after that. And that hypothesis, for all intents and purposes, is entirely indistinguishable from atheism. In which case, we should accept atheism purely on the basis of Occam's razor, and purely on the basis of the unfalsifiability of the God hypothesis in question.

And if you think that God does intervene, then (a) you need to provide some evidence for that, and (b) your whole "perfect law, perfect lawmaker" argument falls flat.

Anyway, to say that everything came from nothing is infinitely illogical.

Actually, modern physicists don't think that's so. I don't fully understand the physics in question, but the idea seems to the be that there is something instead of nothing because "nothingness" is physically unstable. And in fact, if I understand the quantum physics correctly, somethingness comes out of nothingness all the time, on a regular basis.

In any case, if it's illogical to say that something came from nothing, then that applies to God as well. Where did God come from? And if God always existed, why can't that be true for the universe as well? (And don't say, "Because God is magic and he can do anything." That's a terrible argument.)

Finally -- please. Paley's "watchmaker"? You can do better than that. Evolution provides a perfectly wonderful explanation for why there is the appearance -- I repeat, appearance -- of design in life. A much better one than theism, in fact -- since evolution explains why the purported "design" of life is so shot through with flaws, and a perfect theistic creator God does not. Ditto the supposedly "perfect" laws of physics and the universe -- which are, when you pay attention to them, anything but perfect.

More on that:

Why "Life Has To Have Been Designed" Is a Terrible Argument for God's Existence
Why "The Universe Is Perfectly Fine-Tuned For Life" Is a Terrible Argument for God

[Locutus7]

And Paley's watchmaker argument is self-refuting. So you walk on a beach, or lawn, or in a jungle and stumble upon a watch. Why do you perceive it as designed? Because it stands in contrast to sand, grass, flowers, and the other surrounding environment THAT IS NOT DESIGNED.

The watch stands in contrast to its natural surroundings, which is how you recognize it as designed. If everything were designed, you would not pick out the watch as different in its conception from its surroundings.

So using the watch or any other human designed object actually undermines your argument.

[Greta Christina]

So you walk on a beach, or lawn, or in a jungle and stumble upon a watch. Why do you perceive it as designed? Because it stands in contrast to sand, grass, flowers, and the other surrounding environment THAT IS NOT DESIGNED.

Locutus7, you are freaking brilliant. I can't believe that never occurred to me before. I may have to steal this idea and run with it in a separate essay.

[themann1086]

Something from nothing happens all the time. We have even predicted (and observed!) the effects of these "virtual particles" via the Casimir Effect. You can even, hypothetically, create a local region of space-time with negative mass with that.