critically thinking about evidence for the christian god god
Most of you may know Ark, round at Ark’s place, who periodically publishes posts begging Christians to come forth with evidence for the existence of their god God. He is one seemingly hardened atheist who clearly wants to be saved.
Fortunately for Ark, our dear friend Becky has published a comprehensive list of compelling evidence with a backdrop of critical thinking. Please pop over to read the whole post for yourself, but if you don’t have time, I’ve condensed the main points.
1. All the leading scientific experts in the world who think that the Big Bang could have started the universe are wrong. Becky and the experts at the Institute for Creation Science know that something must have existed before it, and they have reasonably concluded that the Christian god God (and no other) scientifically started the bit before the bang.
2. Everything looks like it’s designed, so it must have been! The ten red checker experiment proves that within the space of eternity nothing could happen that looks designed, therefore the Christian god God made it all.
3. The existence of intelligent life – I’m thinking, therefore the Christian god God made me.
4. Humans sin and animals don’t, therefore the Christian god God created laws for humans to break.
5. A political document in one country in the world makes reference to inalienable rights, which means the Christian god God must have invented them.
6. Evolution can’t excuse our ability to have similar instincts about effective group behaviour, therefore morality was invented by the Christian god God, when he created everything. That’s why we’re not cannibals!
7. I (Becky) know it’s true, therefore it’s definite that the Christian god God exists. Not like all the other gods that all the other people know are true.
So thank you to Becky for finally critically thinking us through the evidence that the Christian god God exists.
We can all breathe a sigh of relief that we won’t have to see another one of those posts from Ark. I look forward to attending his first communion.
Critically thinking violet? Who cut the first baby’s umbilical cord, and was it dark or light? No animals around to eat the little fella eh? where did the milk come from? Babies tend to die if left alone……………
Try now to entertain some critical thinking as you have tried to dismiss someones elses.
And please do not embarrass yourself with some lame excuse about apes……..and btw, God is your God whether you believe it or not, after all, you own nothing on this earth. You may want to thank Him for………..uh, let’s start with breath.
LikeLike
Breath? 80% of the earth’s atmosphere will asphyxiate us. 75% of the earth’s surface will drown us.
Care to try again?
LikeLike
And yet here you are john, breathing without thought.
Care to try again with some critical thinking?
LikeLike
Sure, once you explain how the overwhelming majority of this planet is so clearly not “designed” for us.
LikeLike
John, I’ve found another parking space Christian, I might build a collection:
Although I might prefer the ones who get excited when kitchen appliances they need are on sale. Can’t decide which best represents the power of prayer, and the concerns of an all-powerful and benevolent god.
LikeLike
Dumbfounded, I pulled into the spot, put my car in park, and said out loud in bewilderment, āThanks.ā
AMEN!! The god God is truly awesome.
LikeLike
Then I turned on the TV to watch people starving to death, countries being destroyed and millions of displaced people living in refugee camps dying trying to escape. And I though, thank the god God that I got that bloody parking space.
I was going to comment but she seems kind of sweet and I don’t like bursting happy bubbles that much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I left a comment… Mildly sarcastic š
LikeLike
Oh, she just replied. Check it out.
LikeLike
Are you going to mention the starving children he’s not intimately bothered about? Nice comment though, I didn’t know you did subtle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, the seed was sown, that’s all that’s needed.
LikeLike
Hi, Aurora here. Thanks for taking the time to check out my blog and comment. I am not opposed to having open discussions about why I praised God for providing a parking spot for me. I can definitely understand why that may seem inane, childish and naive in light of all the pain, darkness and suffering in the world. Allallt has been raising some good questions on my latest post, so feel free to stop by and join in, and thanks for the referral, Violet.
LikeLike
Thanks for popping over Aurora. I enjoy your blog, it has a nice aura. I don’t think the parking space thing is childish, just illogical. In your shoes I’d be appalled that such a petty thing is being ‘arranged’ while a child somewhere in the world is being murdered. I’d question the existence or the level of intelligent thinking any god would have to have in such a scenario. But most of all, I’d have to consider the number of cars coming and going in a car park at any time and conclude finding or not finding a space is basic chance…
LikeLike
Fair enough. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I can respect your stance that parking spots seem to just be a matter of chance. I can also respect your passion around the injustice of children being murdered, and I hold to the fact that God himself is passionate about providing justice for the oppressed, though we may not always see it this side of heaven. But I believe we will all give an accounting for our lives, and everything will be made right in the end when He who is Faithful and True comes to make all things new.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, I used to believe that too. It’s a good off switch to reality.
LikeLike
Or an on switch to the greater reality. š
Thanks for taking the time to dialogue with me, Violet. Although we are going to agree to disagree, I always enjoy finding someone who will have the conversation in a kind and respectful way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For my friend CS:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aw Peter, that’s such a cop out!
LikeLike
Stunning comment CS.
LikeLike
Maybe so Violet, but it would serve you well to have an answer that makes sense without mental gymnastics.
And there is only one answer that makes sense.
LikeLike
“First baby”? You’re not sure what evolution actually says, are you? “First baby”?
Milk comes from mammals. There’s a huge amount of biodiversity that precedes mammals. All that nutritious biodiversity.
Why would I thank God for breath? I breathe and plants provide oxygen.
Now, if you’re trying to argue that ecosystems are so wonderfully complex, therefore God, do you care to fill in the blanks?
LikeLike
Begging your pardon, but I’ve been posting scientific proof of the existence of God since forever.
But I’m not a woman. Tsk, tsk.
So who’s going to listen to me anyway?
By the way, when I presented the proof to Ark, he did what all atheists do:
Deny the science and deny the proof.
LikeLike
What science, SOM?
LikeLike
John,
Thanks for that. I rest my case.
LikeLike
I see. Persuasive.
LikeLike
Here is some proof John:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Soooo, pete,
You are dismissing the scriptures because YOU do not understand the text? Not too smart.
Rest assured the defect is neither in God’s revelation, nor the truth of science.
Corners, circles, pillars, firmament, first, second, third heavens, cherubim, seraphim, topaz, rocks, gold, earthquakes, lightning, thunder, Jericho, Jerusalem, take your pick, it is much easier to believe that the scriptures are true…….than it is for you to believe you will live to see tomorrow. š
LikeLike
Do YOU understand the text, Colorstorm?
LikeLike
*Smile*
SOM,my hero … Swoon.
LikeLike
Indeed SOM, no point in refuting the words of mere males. I save myself for the full human being.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
You strike me as someone who lost their virginity long ago.
So what’s left for you to save?
LikeLike
Apologies if your gutter mind got confused there dear friend, I wasn’t referring to sex, but to discussion. I know it’s hard for sexually repressed Christian men so behave like normal humans and talk to women without thinking about sex.
LikeLike
If there’s anyone on this thread who had any doubt in their mind about SoM’s sense of decency before this filthy comment, you’ve now had it cemented.
Violet wisp, you have my admiration for your diplomacy. I think it would have prompted me to tell him to go ____ himself, which he no doubt must do routinely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve seen worse from him. He’s generally well behaved these days, don’t you think?
LikeLike
When he senses he’s on the back foot he becomes rather vulgar.
LikeLike
I may have missed it. Can you post the link(s)?
LikeLike
It’s a rainy morning here and that hugely entertaining missive got my day off to a great start, violet wisp!
Yes, who INDEED cut Adam’s ‘umbilical cord’ ?? big grin on that one. . . š
My, my – the Crispians and their delusional thinking. No wonder Ark has so much fun with ’em!
. .. shake head, shake head. .
LikeLiked by 1 person
@carmen sez
—–Yes, who INDEED cut Adamās āumbilical cordā ?? big grin on that one. . . š
My, my ā the Crispians and their delusional thinking. No wonder Ark has so much fun with āem!
. .. shake head, shake head. —–
Tkx Carm, for proving the carelessness of reading and the ensuing lame conclusions. WHO was talking about ADAM?
Let me repeat: WHO was talking about ADAM? Did I mention ADAM?
But thank you for presenting and confirming the dilemma of the atheist. Instead of railing and mocking that which you would rather not think about, why don’t you for once actually consider the ramifications of your ignorance.
LikeLike
OK, CS let’s assume I’m dumb as a post. You explain to me what your phrase meant. . . I know you think yourself devilishly clever but, I’ll tell you, I have a difficult time trying to wade through your obtuse prose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, the post is nothing compared to the opening comment. Shame Becky didn’t have that piece of evidence to hand when she was critically thinking through it all.
LikeLike
Quakers share not belief, but experience from which comes understanding. We experience that being in silent waiting together is valuable; that one can be moved to speak, which may be the workings of the unconscious mind; we make decisions by seeking the highest good for us, now, setting aside the ego- as simple and difficult as that: we unite behind the decision. Christianity for us is not a set of beliefs, but a way of life leading to more authentic, worthwhile living. It is a way of building human community, recognising, valuing, developing the qualities of humans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have you ever done a post on evidence for the Christian god? I’m sure it’s something you must have looked at.
LikeLike
“A wicked and corrupt generation has asked for a sign, but none shall be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Design- who designed the designer? A primum mobile need not love at all. The ontological proof is bound up in the philosophical question of how we can know anything at all, leave alone God, but one can certainly have an idea in ones head of something that does not exist, such as a unicorn.
Yet Meister Eckhart: The interior work contains in itself all time, all vastness, all breadth and all length. It receives and creates its own being out of nowhere else than from and in the heart of God. I rely on experience. As an Anglican, I believed in order to be part of a community. I met a woman wanting so much to be part of a community that she wanted to believe, and thought- how may I rescue her from that? I was not when I was her age, but I want her to be free.
LikeLike
Clare,
I am intrigued by everything you say about the Quakers. In fact, a family member was involved with a group in this area and I only ever heard positive things (like the ideals you outline above).
It’s fundagelicals who tend to raise my hackles – usually hypocrites who certainly don’t resemble (quite possibly mythical) Jesus at all.
LikeLike
Christianity is very broad. It has moved on with human thinking: the Reformation is proto-Enlightenment; Deism is a later attempt to reconcile the Enlightenment with Christianity, or a way into atheism. I don’t like the Evangelicals either; Biblical literalism is merely ridiculous. So I come here, though not to Ark’s place, to engage my fellow Christians sometimes, putting a more winsome and I feel more mature view of Christianity. Quakers say “Christianity is not a notion, but a way”- it is how you live that matters, not what you believe. Though correct belief is very important to other Christians, and a major cause of our killing each other.
On the beliefs, a friend recently noticed my about-face, from “I hate substitutionary atonement” to “I value substitutionary atonement”. SA is the doctrine that God cannot look upon sin, and sinful humanity needed a blood sacrifice to reconcile to God; so God provided His Only Son as that sacrifice. Evangelicals have told me that you cannot be Christian if you do not believe SA, yet it was first formulated by St Anselm in the 11th century. Then Calvin presented it as fact, to reason from it and make deductions about God, Jesus, and the fate of human beings in a rationalist way, progressing from premises to conclusions. Evangelicals still do. I hate that. It means that those who do not accept Christ as their saviour go to Hell, and I find the thought as revolting as you do.
I have come to value SA as a story, as a picture of the world, which balances God’s love and God’s wrath in a way few Christians manage. Or, to put it in an atheist way, the world is good for us. We fit, here, in human society and we can flourish; yet terrible things happen to human beings. Recognising and accepting the good and the bad, carrying on with life, is a useful skill. The story may help with that. The stories may also help as we learn that skill and negotiate the joy and pain of existence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“-it is how you live that matters, not what you believe.” This seems to be the doctrine that all of the atheists I’ve come to know think is the most important concept.
Your comment above is parallel to the way I thought the whole time I was going to church. It’s certainly a kinder and gentler approach to religion in general.
We don’t have much choice but to accept the good and the not-so-good, eh? š
LikeLike
Where do I sign up?
LikeLike
You converted too!? A double first communion. I’m going to get a really special hat.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link Vi, but I doubt Elize will come over to my spot . I suspect she might be more scared than you think. š
LikeLike
Is ‘Elize’, ‘Becky’ in your little stone head? Don’t pretend you weren’t moved by that.
LikeLike
Sorry, Vi. No disrespect to your post.
Sloppiness on my part.
After a while these fundies all mesh into one god-awful mess. Elize believes I am destined for hell. Becky does too probably.
I just cannot be bothered with her. She is a fundy moron of note.
LikeLike
That’s cruel, I like Becky. The ever misguided Becky. She definitely means well and I bet she’s lovely in person.
LikeLike
Remember the movie Carrie?
Remember Carrie’s mother played by Piper Laurie?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve never found attempts to prove God’s existence satisfying, although some work (such as Decartes’) has certainly left a worthwhile legacy. Attempts to prove the scientific truth of any particular religion are particularly dubious.
Having said that (and at the risk of being skewered for saying so) the Anthropic Principle does seem to provide fairly compelling and plausible support for Theism (in my humble opinion). Depending on explanations like Multiverse theories instead seems, at least to my small mind, a far-fetched reach running afoul of Occam’s famous Razor.
Of course the Anthropic Principle is of no help with respect to the Problem of Evil, divine selection of parking spaces, and the like. But I submit that we might reasonably wonder in wonder at the seemingly fantastical series of chance occurrences and precise calibrations that have produced our universe and our little biotic community of head-scratchers.
LikeLike
@Bill, did I get you, that you would not subscribe to any of the “evidence” as ridiculed by the topic post?
The Anthropic Principle indeed provides support for Theism, since Theists put it forward as something that has compelled them. As how anyone gets from that to a specific god and most often the notion of a god or gods from their very own cultural heritage is a nother matter. The leap is rather long. Is it not?
As to how compelling and plausible support the Anthropic Principle offers to Theistic arguments, I can only offer you why I find it wanting. Not at any level am I trying to “skewer” you for sure. š
First, we do not have to embarce an alternative explanation, such as the multiverse, to discard the notion of a god or some supreme intelligence creating the universe as we know it. Both are extraordinary claims, and neither has met the burden of proof. Have they?
Extraordinary claims that have not met their burden of proof, are not supported by notions of we can’t think of any other way the universe could have appeared. That makes them just arguments from ignorance.
If we are to compare the suggestion of a multiverse to a suggestion of a god, the multiverse is a more likely claim, simply because it fits with what we know about a material reality. At least as much that we can say a material reality exists, therefore it is not unthinkable a nother material reality may have existed or co-exists beyond our grasp. Gods do not reside in material world, but are claimed to be somehow beyond it, but all we are able to reasonably objectively observe is material. All of it. We could claim, that we are simply unable to observe anything beyond the material universe, wich makes a god into a possibility, but it still is less likely because of that “magical” element in deduction wether such a thing exists, or not. Further more, a god is claimed to be an intelligence, when all we know of any intelligence suggests, it is something that evolves and resides in the material universe, not outside of it. Therefore, Occam’s Razor stands for the multiverse, though it can not prove a multiverse has existed, or does exist, any more than it could prove a god exists, or has ever existed, even if a god was the more likely suggestion of the two.
I for one am compelled to accept, that we simply do not know why the universe exists, exactly like the Theist is compelled to accept, that they do not know why this or that god decided to create the universe. To me, adding any gods to the fact, that we do not know why the universe exists, or why it is as it is is a totally futile effort. Is it not?
Why the universe exists certainly is a head-scratching issue, but saying it is likely created by an intelligence with the purpose of life in mind, seems rather far fetched, when we have no other sorts of universes at hand to compare to, and when infact most of it is devoid of and extremely hostile to all life we know of.
Claiming that the universe is could be even more hostile to life infact so hostile we would not exist, is a moot question, because then we would not be here to evaluate any of it. Certtainly the mere possibility of life in this universe, that does exist and has manifested here on this planet at least, is not any indication of any particular notion of an andorpomorphic godly intelligence planning it to be such. There infact exists absolutely no evidence of any supernatural or otherwise unnatural factors in any of it. All it tells us really is, that in this universe the sort of life we are became possible and manifested here. Nothing more. What we know of our evolution and the evolution of life tells us, that it has been a rather gruesome natural process, devoid of any indication of any andropomorphic (benevolent or malevolent) intelligence guiding it.
LikeLike
Well said and I don’t have any strong objection to anything you’ve written. In my judgment the Anthropic Principle provides a rational argument for Theism, but by no means does it prove the point. And I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that the evidence, such as it is, indicates a anthropomorphic (that’s the word I think you intended) deity. If there is a designer, it suggests nothing about said deity other than it created conditions that would allow a relatively stable universe and at least one planet that could generate and sustain life. The ultimate results of the evolutionary process are unknown of course, but I see no reason to assume that we are it’s pinnacle.
My only point is that the AP permits a Theism hypothesis that is reasonable. It says nothing about divine benevolence, etc. It does seem to allow (but not compel) Deism, imho. Anything beyond that probably has to be experiential.
If we were able to observe the state of the universe just prior to the Big Bang could any person, no matter how intelligent, have recognized anything remotely capable of generating life? Even eight billion years ago an observer would have seen a universe composed entirely of hydrogen and helium. Nowhere in the entire universe were there conditions even remotely capable of life as we know it. And the observer would likely detect no reason whatsoever to suppose that circumstance would change in any material way. Yet over the next few billion years, billions of extraordinarily seemingly unlikely events and mutations occurred, so that, at least on one humble planet, a couple of guys could end up discussing the meaning of it all. Marveling at that, I just wonder if the system might not have been rigged in favor of life, just as we seem hard-wired to wonder about that.
peace
LikeLike
Descarte’s “worthwhile legacy” was a major feature in my deconversion from Christianity. Funny you should think it useful. š
LikeLike
I have in mind his Discourse on the Method, which has enduring philosophical value, whatever the merit of his argument for the existence of God. As an attempt to prove the existence of God, I consider it to have a worthwhile legacy (unlike most such efforts).
LikeLike
There is no evidence for the Christian God God. Ontological, Teleological, Cosmological: blah, blah and blah. You may quote me.
LikeLike
How rude! After all that work Becky put in …
LikeLike
Pingback: critically thinking about evidence for the christian god god | Scotties Toy Box