Thursday, 26 February 2009

god vs. the Unicorns


Two times recently I've seen Xians whining about not being taken seriously, because atheists compare belief in god to belief in unicorns or the FSM or Santa Claus, or leprechauns. "You're not taking us seriously enough," they whine. They also whine that belief in god is reasonable while belief in those others things is not.

So, what evidence do they have for this? Really, it all boils down to an argument from popularity. You see, more people believe in god, have said they felt god, etc. than leprechauns, unicorns, etc. so that somehow proves that a) belief in god is rational, b) belief in god is at least worth looking into while belief in those other things isn't, or other such trivially stupid assertions.

So, for your edification, theists, here is what you need to give us to show that belief in your god really is more warranted than belief in any other fanciful notion: evidence. It's that simple. And, no, your cousin's testimony that she felt god within her doesn't count, because it's too easy to have been falsified or wishful thinking on her part. And, no, your holy books don't count because they were written by men, not god, no matter how much they may exclaim that their words come from god. What we need is real, tangible evidence that unequivocally leads to the god that you have in mind. Saying, "Well, the universe was created, so my god wins," also doesn't cut it, and not only because saying that would be not even wrong.

I predict, however, that all we will ever see is more whining, as apologists have yet to pray hard enough to produce any evidence for their gods. Oh, but I'm sure we'll see many more proclamations about the overwhelming evidence that they may someday get around to presenting.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

The argument that the apologists use would be an example of the logical fallacy known as "argumentum ad populam":

"X is widely believed, therefore X is true."

This line of faulty logic invalidates itself. Throughout the past (as long as history records), people have believed in things that were not true.

As we learn more about the nature of the universe, though, we disprove previously widely held dark ages ideals, fairy tales, and superstitions.

bud said...

hi GCT;

thought i might stop by and say hello, again. boy you have been busy. you ask for some evidence of God and His creation, well i would like to examine the evidence for evolution first, if that is ok.
now we have to consider that there is only 2 possible explanations for the existence of the universe:

it created itself
it was created.

scientists, like richard dawkins, admit at one time there was nothing. no life, no planets, no cells, and no matter. no matter how much time we give nothing, we still have nothing. so nothing exploded nowhere, without any matter or energy and became the universe. do you know how much non-matter had to blow up to give us the milky way? and even more curious is the trillions and trillions of stars and planets in the billions of galaxies that came from nowhere at no time. whew! and by the way, how can something (which is nothing) create itself. (see the laws of cause and effect, for one.)

so out of this nothingness came a living cell. for just one protein to be created (assuming there is something to create it from, since the odds are approximately 1 x 10 to the 40,000th power against it. ( btw 1 x 10 to the 50th power is the longest odds ever observed.) it is also estimated that it could take at least 250 proteins to create a cell. so this virtually impossible process created a randomly mutating cell, that became trees and dogs and people, wait, we have another problem... every cellular mutation causes a loss of information stored in the DNA. that eliminates higher complexities in the natural selection of the magically created cell, and certainly prohibits any type of higher life forms in this "something from nothing" series of events.

skipping millions of necessary and impossible mutations, we come to humans.
not only did this non-existent cell self duplicate while losing information in the DNA, it created the complexity known as a human. the eyes alone would have taken over 250 million years to form, according to scientists. not to mention the nose, legs, arms, mind, and reproductive organs. here is another problem, how did this undirected mutation get the direction to create the extremely complex reproductive system of both genders without guidance? you talk about amazing, that these systems can be created, unguided, and produce individually, from a single cell that gets "dumber" with every mutation, such a vastly complex matching system, for human (and all others for that matter) reproduction?
the "self creation" theory is proven by scientists who understand the laws of science, to be impossible. this takes more faith to believe than i am capable of, so i will stick to the belief that there must be a creator.

note: the idea of the universe being eternal is discounted because it would require no molecular movement, creating a virtual heat death.

please note that i may a little flippant, but, out of respect, i am not being sarcastic.

sunnyskeptic said...

But one of my trolls told me that the evidence is that god loves me. Why can't that just be enough??? :)

Anonymous said...

So this creator bud believes in .. . where did they come from then?

GCT said...

Bud,
There's too much to reply to for a comment, so I'm promoting you to the front page. I'll be posting my reply shortly.

Anonymous said...

The real trick isn't getting one living thing to change into another..it is for even one living cell to come from nothing. If there wasn't a "creator", than life MUST be fairly easy to create given all the life on earth, however, even highly intelligent scientists can't accomplish this in very controlled environments. I don't know the right answer to all of this, but it seems very unlikely that life "just happened".

GCT said...

We know that amino acids self-assemble in a variety of mixtures as well as in the types of environments probably found on early Earth. We also know that they can undergo changes that increase complexity and form into longer, more complicated strings. There's no need to invoke a creator, nor is there evidence for one.

Anonymous said...

The scientific odds of even one left-sided amino acid forming by chance is 10 to the 123rd power. I'm not an odds maker, but that doesn't sound like something I would wager on. I've waivered between agnosticism and faith for years. Certainty isn't a luxury of faith. If there is a god, why not make it a matter of fact, not faith? I can definately agree with many of the topics on the site, but I hope that there is something beyond your last breath. Answers on any side of the god question, are usually at best, opinion and theory. I think everyone would like to know the truth, whatever it may be...as I have many questions myself. It seems that the simplest form of existence would simply be nothing at all...but there is something?

GCT said...

"The scientific odds of even one left-sided amino acid forming by chance is 10 to the 123rd power. "

Please show how you came to that number, especially considering that Miller and Urey's studies showed that they do form.

"If there is a god, why not make it a matter of fact, not faith?"

Because there is no fact to back it up, so faith is required.

"I can definately agree with many of the topics on the site, but I hope that there is something beyond your last breath."

Why would you hope that? What are you hoping for? Eternity? Do you really want to live forever?

"Answers on any side of the god question, are usually at best, opinion and theory."

The theistic side is under the burden of proof to provide facts and evidence, not the atheistic side. Also, some answers are pretty conclusive, considering that some conceptions of god are logically contradictory (like a squared circle).

"It seems that the simplest form of existence would simply be nothing at all...but there is something?"

Not necessarily.