You would think by now that creationists would start realising that their arguments simply hold no water. Their intellectual validity of said arguments are inconceivably small. That science (that is observed and tested fact) points completely away from the creationist viewpoint. Sadly, this is not the case. What is even sadder is that, apparently, religious leaders continue to spread a message which is demonstratively false.
This particular example of silliness comes from a blog called Apologia which is apparently run by some sort of minister/pastor. The entry in question is simply called “Does God Exist?“. You can read the full text via the link, I will concentrate on the actual reasons listed for the existence of a deity figure.
One of the reasons that we know that God exists is that the universe exists.
That in no way indicates the existence of any sort of deity figure, especially since we have an excellent piece of science which explains it without the need for said deity. Occam’s Razor (and general common sense, for that matter) state you do not bring unneeded mechanisms into an explanation so we don’t require any sort of deity mechanism.
If the big bang theory is correct, it actually is explained more easily if God was behind it.
Science does not know where that first singularity came from, since the laws of the Universe can not exist before the Universe existed … well, it is not something science is currently equipped to deal with. However, to jump to the conclusion that ‘God did it’ is the use of what is known as the ‘god of the gaps’ argument which is regarded as a fallacy.
Another reason that we know that there is a God is the existence of morality.
This argument is so incredibly old and been shot down so many times, that it is simply tiresome to even deal with it. Morality is subjective, it changes over time and from culture to culture. There are certain fundamentals that run through nearly all cultures but those are perfectly explained by a little field of study called evolutionary ethics and morality. Basically it boils down to the fact that to survive certain species (including humans) needed each other to survive. To maintain group cohesion, they quickly had to invent/learn certain social norms (like not killing each other) since the alternative would be to have the group dissolve and get killed by nearby physically superior animals intent on eating their collective livers.
One of the interesting things about belief in God is the fact that it is almost universal. Not that everyone believes in God, but unbelief is a very small percentage.
This is one the daftest pieces of reasoning I have ever occurred. It is an appeal to popularity and we all know that just because something is popular, it does not mean it is right. It is also an argument which fails to take into account the knowledge base of humans when they started to think up whatever religion you care to think of. Back even five hundred years ago, humans were incredibly ignorant about all sorts of things – and so made up deities to explain what they could not understand. For example, the ancient Egyptians could not understand the movement of the sun so made up the tale that it was Ra’s fiery chariot racing through the sky.
Intelligent design is science and it starts with the data and attempts to find the best explanation.
This is even worse than the last argument, which is almost hard to believe. Intelligent Design is not recognised as science and certainly does not meet the criteria to be regarded as science (it might rate as a hypothesis but even that is a pretty huge stretch). This topic has been covered many times before so I will leave it there apart from saying the evidence is huge that ID is just creationism in a silly hat.
But what about a sunrise or sunset? What about majestic mountains? What about a brilliant blue sea? There is no utilitarian reason for these aspects of creation to be beautiful. I believe that the beauty of creation points to God.
I believe it points to magic invisible leprechauns who know how to paint really fast. Simply put, this argument is not evidence of anything except the viewer not being blind.
But I have never heard of a person converting to atheism who as a result had a radically good change as to who they were as a person.
There are plenty of people, throughout history, who have had changed lives calling out to any number of deities. The most pious, devout and goodly of men have worshipped deities such as Thor, Zeus and Ra. That, in no way, vindicates claims for the existence of said deities. There is another counter argument which simply goes along the lines of just because something makes you happy or satisfied or changes your behaviour does not mean it is true.
There are many other reasons to believe in God, but I will conclude with one last one. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a revelation of God.
Wow, talk about your circular logic. God is true because Jesus rose from the dead but Jesus would only have risen from the dead if he was an aspect of God. Logical absurdity.