I had a subscriber over on my YouTube channel send me links for a bunch of theist questions. One list I did for YouTube but this one I’m going to cover here. It’s actually split up into multiple sections and I’ll look at the ones addressed to atheists and agnostics. As I’m not a Muslim or Buddhist or whatever, I’ll leave those sections alone. Fair warning, this post is going to get pretty long.
1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?
Nope, but I’m not absolutely certain of anything. I’m not even absolutely certain I’m sitting here answering these questions. And sure, I suppose in the realm of extreme possibilities, there could be a god. I simply have not been convinced that there is, hence I am an atheist. I’d love to look at the evidence. Where is it?
2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?
If you had any, sure. But you don’t. You’re just asserting things for which you have provided no actual evidence. So where is this evidence? I’m not asking for empty claims, I’m not asking for weak-sauce philosophical masturbation, I mean evidence. Actual, objective, demonstrable evidence that can be examined by anyone without them having to accept your conclusions first. Where is that?
3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?
Yes and we do think, based on credible mathematical models, that the source of the Big Bang most likely came from beyond our universe. That doesn’t make it a god, it could have been a completely natural phenomenon. In fact, our own universe could be sparking off billions of new universes all the time.
4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?
We cannot see them, that doesn’t mean we cannot detect them and we cannot test that they are there. All of those things are very easily tested for and operate in predictable, consistent ways. Where, exactly, is the objective test for God? Let me know when you come up with one.
5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?
You’re right, it doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t exist. Doesn’t mean he does either. There’s no evidence for leprechauns or unicorns either, does that mean they’re out there? And because there isn’t the slightest shred of objective evidence whatsoever that any god, anywhere, actually exists in factual reality, only a complete imbecile would believe in such a thing. Are you a complete imbecile?
6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?
There is undeniable evidence for the Big Bang. It happened. We’ve known that since 1964. There are certainly questions about what caused it to happen and science is working on the details all the time. That’s how science works, after all. But you’re just assuming that “someone” had to exist. You’re just positing an intelligent, all-powerful being for which there is absolutely zero evidence and apparently, at least according to your mythology, has always existed and violates every single known physical law, made everything because it wanted to. Are you mental?
7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?
Not necessarily. In our universe, causality is part of the physical laws. That may not be the case in other universe, where infinite regress may be entirely possible. So the best we can say is we just don’t know at the moment. That doesn’t give you a license to just make stuff up because you’re personally uncomfortable or unhappy that you don’t know.
8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)
It doesn’t take an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, all an encyclopedia is, or any other non-fiction book really, is a record of things that exist in reality. If intelligent life had never evolved in this universe, reality would still exist and operate the same way it does not. There just wouldn’t be books describing it for other intelligent beings. Information doesn’t require intelligence to exist. Information is everywhere. It is a false claim, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, that just because something looks complicated, it needs to have some kind of intelligent design behind it. Wishful thinking is just wishful thinking.
9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?
Actually, that’s just nonsense. If you’ve ever heard of the butterfly effect, the idea that a butterfly can flap its wings in Beijing and there’s a storm in New York instead of sunshine, that’s an example of how ludicrous this idea actually is. There are lots of very small causes that result in very large effects.
10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?
Because we have decided, for ourselves, that some action is wrong. There is moral law, we made it up.
11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?
Sure, and it’s us. We are the moral lawgiver. You’re welcome.
12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?
Nope. Enough with the ridiculous wishful thinking.
13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?
Nope. This here is a natural lava ball. They exist by the millions. They are generated within volcanoes, typically of obsidian glass and if launched into the air and it lands in water, they can spontaneously form these black glass balls. No designer required.
14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?
That does not necessarily follow. If we grant that there is a cause beyond the universe, and keep in mind that doesn’t mean said cause is intelligent or all-powerful or whatever, that doesn’t mean that said cause doesn’t, in turn, have another cause before it that had nothing to do with our universe at all. Therefore, there’s no reason whatsoever to think that whatever sparked off the Big Bang is a god. There is no reason to think it’s intelligent. There’s no reason to think it still exists. You are simply making up attributes to this unknown thing because it makes you feel good to do so. That is not a rational way to operate.
15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?
The anthropic principle is idiotic. Clearly, the universe was not fine-tuned for life because, so far as we have any actual evidence, there is no other life in the universe besides us. That means billions of galaxies and hundreds of trillions of planets are lifeless, all but one little blue planet in the middle of an unremarkable galaxy in the middle of nowhere. How is that fine-tuned for life? Even our own planet isn’t fine-tuned for life. Without modern technology, much of our planet is impossible for humanity to exist in. In fact, if you want to argue that Earth is fine-tuned for life, it certainly isn’t our life, it’s bacterial and unicellular life. If that’s what you want to accept, fine by me. Go pray to the bacterial god.
And now for the agnostic questions. This is, of course, another example of not having the slightest idea what agnosticism actually is.
1. Of the two possible kinds of agnostic, which kind are you: 1) Strong agnostic who says we can’t know anything for sure? or 2) Weak agnostic who says we don’t know anything for sure (but we could if we had enough evidence)?
Absolute certainty is an unreasonable standard. We don’t know that we exist for sure and no matter how much evidence we ever had, I doubt we could ever be absolutely certain of it. But since nobody in their right mind asks for absolute certainty, it doesn’t matter. We only need reasonable certainty. We need a solid case, made with objective evidence, for the existence of things that can be demonstrated to be most likely true. Sure, it could all be a fantasy, but we have to assume, at a certain point, that the things around us are real and can be examined, otherwise what’s the point? That said, I’d be happy to look at any actual, objective evidence that you might have for the factual existence of your god. Of course, you have nothing, so that’s really not saying much.
2. If you are the strong kind, then how do you know for sure that you can’t know anything for sure?
Well, I’m not, I already addressed this above.
3. If you are the weak kind of agnostic, then is it not possible that we could know for sure that God exists (if we had enough evidence)?
We could. We just don’t. You have no evidence at all. You have nothing. Until you do have something, why should I, or any other rational person, take your unsupported claims seriously? Come back when you have something to objectively examine, then I’ll re-evaluate your claims and not until.
4. Do you agree that an open-minded person should be willing to look at all the evidence? If so, then are you willing to look at the evidence for God’s existence?
You keep asking if people would look at the evidence when you don’t actually have any. I can’t look at something that doesn’t exist. If Christians or other theists actually had any objective, demonstrable evidence to present, the debate would be over. Show us God and we’ll believe God exists. If you can’t do that, and we all know that you can’t, then why are you trying to pretend that atheists and/or agnostics are refusing to look at your evidence? Dishonest much?
Seriously, these questions and those similar are painful to answer because it’s blatantly obvious that I’m addressing an ignorant, uneducated individual. If they had any actual knowledge on the subject, they’d never waste everyone’s time asking what are essentially stupid questions about things they ought to know better. They clearly didn’t do any research, they didn’t talk to any relevant experts, they looked up from their Bible for a moment and spewed all of the apologstic nonsense that they’ve managed to gather without ever wondering if any of it is actually so. And then they post it on the Internet where they just look like idiots to those who actually have a clue.
Welcome to modern apologetics. It’s sad, isn’t it?