Arguments for the Existence of God Ridiculed

Months and months ago, before my connection to the net inexplicably went away and before I finally wrought a means to return, I wrote a blog entitled "The Deconstruction of 'Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe' by J. C. Monsma". In the blog, I summarized the "scientific" arguments for belief in god as presented by 40 accomplished men of science. I intended to scrutinize these arguments and the inherent logic utilized by these men to justify their continued belief in a creator. Now, almost a year later, I return to my mission.

"The Origin of the World-By Chance or Design?" by Frank Allen

• The origin of the Universe has occured in time; therefore, the universe must have been created. "The universe must have been created" implies a being doing the creating, which I believe does not follow from the simple observation that the universe exists in time. The universe may have come into being, but how? Or the universe may have always existed. Or it may have existed forever in cycles of "boom" and "crunch". We're still not certain.
  
• "The great first cause, an eternal, all-knowing and all all-powerful creator must exist, and the universe is his handiwork." More unjustified conclusions picked from thin air. A "great first cause" does not equal "an eternal, all-knowing and all-powerful creator". This is an example of anti-logic, kinda like 2+2=5.
  
• "The adjustment of the earth for life are far too numerous to be accounted for by chance." The adjustments of the earth are presently acting in accordance with natural laws, not supernatural, outside interference. This is the way its always been. Science seeks to open up the big picture, to show how it all happened, not to resign in ignorance, which is what "too numerous" and "chance" implies--that things cannot be explained or understood naturally (as though we are incapable). This intellectual resignation or cowardice is still not justfication for making the anti-logic leap that God is an explanation.
  
• Design seen in earth as a sphere, rotating on an axis around the sun. Inclination of the Earth. Gasses of the atmosphere ideal for life. Density of atmosphere protects the Earth from meteor impacts. Rain. Properties of water. Soil. -All too convenient for life. All pointing to design, not "chance". The universe is unimaginably vast. Perhaps every exploded star and nebula contains the essential ingredients for creating life. Perhaps most nebulae fall under the same basic laws of physics, ultimately causing their vast clouds of dust and debri to circle and coalesce in much the same way, with much the same order that formed our galaxy. Perhaps we are not unique--we're the necessary and expected result of physical laws acting upon the universe. Who are we to claim that anything about our world is "too convenient" when it is entirely possible that billions or trillions of other earth-like planets may exist in the unverse. We simply do not know. No judgement can be drawn about our own uniqueness.
  
• Distance of earth from sun, size of earth, make life possible. Good observation. But in the universe we may be like creatures living at the bottom of the sea. We may not yet comprehend that life exists in so many other forms in so many other radical, "extreme" environments. Life may not be exclusive to a planet with Earth's exact dimensions in its exact relation to its sun.
  
• The odds of a protein molecule randomly coming together are such that its essentially impossible, according to Swiss Mathematician Charles Eugene Guye. Life did not come together to form a protein molecule or a creature in one big, random step. If it did, then yes, maybe it would be a mathematical impossibility. Rather, there was a process that explains the existence of all life (evolution/natural selection) save for the first and most simple forms of replicating DNA. And there are enough hypothesis out there to explain how life first came into being on this planet that an intellectually honest person will not resort to answering "God" when faced with a yet unresolved scientific issue.
  

"A Conclusive Test" by Robert Morris Page

• "The historical appearance of the Christ as prophesized, with the fulfillment of the many things that were prophesized, a fulfillment that is so firmly established historically as to be doubted by those with little knowledge, has authenticated not only the prophecies concerning Him, but also the validity of His teachings." I may need to go back an review these amazing "prophecies", but from what I can recall, its all pretty laughable really, to take the vague prophecies of the bible and claim that only Jesus could possibly fulfill them. Especially when it is apparent to Bible scholars that Jesus did not consider himself the son of god and Mary was not referred to as a virgin until John came along and revised the story a little.
  
• "For those who study God and the relationship that one should have with him, and wholeheartedly sets out to fulfill the conditions, there will be such overwhelming influence in the person's life that there can be no room for doubt-God becomes an intimate personal reality of such nearness and such magnitude that faith grows to the proportions of positive knowledge." I don't doubt that we possess deep emotion (spirituality) and the ability to enhance that emotion over time. And its no surprise that those who mentally and emotionally fixate on an imaginary father in heaven will come away feeling very close to that being.
  

"The Lesson of the Rosebush", by Merrik Stanley Congdon

• By analogy to our own intelligent agency in a world fraught with rational values, we must accept the implications of similar rational activity and intelligent control involved in..." the bell curve, the water cycle, the CO2 cycle, reproduction, photosynthesis, etc. We are a mirror of the universe, the universe is not a mirror of us. We see orders and patterns because our existence is dependent upon and derived from those orders and patterns.
  
• "How could they operate rationally throughout Nature without the sustaining intelligence of a rational creator who works in and through their creation?" What is "rationality throughout nature"? Mere existence? What would qualify as irrationality in nature? Well, there are plenty of examples. Wales with hind legs under their skin. Human embryos that all, at some point, possess gill sacks, tails, and fur. Cancer. A meteorite. If one were to put a face on, and capitalize the first letter of Nature, then one would also be forced to conclude that Nature is a heartless bitch who cares not for the suffering of creatures and revels in the countless deaths off individuals and species that do not submit to her will. I choose not to personlize or deify nature in this way so I can keep my sunny demeanor (and to be intellectually honest).
  
• One cannot "disprove the existence of intelligent activities of an unconditioned, personal God." One cannot disprove the existence of the Great Spagetti Monster in the sky.

"The inescapable Conclusion", by John Cleveland Cothran

• "...the behavior of even insensible matter is not at all haphazard, but on the contrary, 'obeys' definite "natural laws." The fact that we have enough mental faculty to perceive order in our world does not justify once again personifying natural phenomena. Slavery may be an unfortunate part of human history, and it while it still exists in explicit or subtle forms (religious worship), our experiences do not mean we can say that anying "obeys" anything else--as though there were a conscious command and a conscious submission involved when water melted into ice. That is absurd. The rule is a lack of conscious reaction--it is an automatic, depersonalized state.
  
• Periodic Law, not Periodic Chance We don't understand how natural laws came about if it ever had a beginning. I'd add, however, that it is not as though we have a 10 commandments of Physics. Physics is far more complicated, far more expansive than what can be understood by a few basic observations (water boils at 100C-but even that is not fixed. It depends upon atmospheric pressure, the purity of h20, and so on)
  
• "Consider the 102 known chemical elements and their amazing diversities and similarities." Ok, I will.
  
• "The materical universe is unquestionably one of system and order, not chaos; of laws, not chance and haphazards." That doesn't make God the manager of an assembly line. Again, because we are able to perceive the workings of a fraction of the universe doesn't mean the order we see there was created and is being ruled by a super being. If you were to assume that complexity and order (the universe) must arise from complexity (god), you'd still be making an ass of yourself for assuming, and you couldn't make any definite conclusions about the nature of the entity that did the creating/planning. It could in fact be a big ol' monster made of spagetti.
  
• Matter did not create itself. A creative agent must have existed. The agent had to have a mind. But mind must have a will to act. Only a person has a will. This is a good one. "Only a person has a will"? Tell that to the beaver constructing a dam or the hungry lion. If we look at our fellow creatures, we see them doing things that are necessary for their survival. By an large, the story of our existence has been defined by the same. Only the situations, the environments, are different. "Matter did not create itself". Yeah, nuclear fusion did, actually. Until it is shown that God is molding clay into human beings at the center of the sun, I'm not buying the notion that "A creative agent...had to have a mind".
  

"The Answers to the Unanswered Questions", Donald Porter

• "...as a scientist I derive satisfaction only by placing God in the leading role." As a bike salesman I derive satisfaction only by placing Lance Armstrong in the leading role.
  

More to come....