“Why God doesn’t exist” – A Christian’s Perspective

[cfmonkey45]

As an evangelical Christian, I can honestly say, that when I am talking about my beliefs to a non-believer, even with some one who’s not an atheist, I have trouble justifying or even explaining my beliefs. It's the questions, the uncertainty, the doubt; everything just seems to be "questionable", "incorrect", or a "lie". “How do you know your religion is the right one?” “How do you know that Jesus really existed?” “How do you know that your church leaders didn’t lie to you, or changed the Bible?” “How do you even know that there is a god?”

It was absolutely frustrating to not have an answer. I always had to fall back on the “tried-and-true” Pascal’s Wager, that it was essentially safer to believe in a god than to not believe in one. I kept asking for something more, praying for something. I felt that everything I said, to anyone, fell upon deaf ears. However, there were a few of my peers that decided they wanted to know more—some were atheists, some were agnostics, other Christians and various other faiths. Although I would love to expound upon these different debates, for the sake of being brief (ha), I will only talk about one in particular.

This friend, Max, was and is an agnostic. I had known him since ninth grade (I’m now a senior in high school, but this happened earlier this summer), and he seemed pretty brilliant. He was a math ace, he’d been programming since he was nine (he programmed an entire robot in a weekend), and he’s one of my best friends. When I got to know him a little better, it really perked my curiosity to know what he thought about this whole debacle, about god, about religion, about death, about life, about everything. I was surprised by his answer. He genuinely didn’t know. He didn’t really believe anything either way. We spent entire class periods discussing theology, science, probability, both not getting any further to solving the problem, but getting that much closer to knowing how each side thought, iota by iota.

As we progressed through high school, we actually ended up on opposite sides of the theological spectrum. One of his favorite things to do was to try and undermine my beliefs. One of my favorite things to do was to take those attempts and refute them. We stumped each other quite a few times, but it ended up in this see-saw motion, where no one side could hold the advantage for long.

However, one day, in fact, this summer (the second or third week in June), we had the most interesting of all discussions. We were hanging out at the local In-and-Out (a popular fast-food chain in California). I remember turning to him and showing a reference to a Bible verse printed on the under-side of my cup (yes, it’s a Christian-owned restaurant chain). He immediately remembered an argument he had found on a forum that was the “one-true argument to disprove the existence of God” (the Jeudo-Christian one, mind you). He braced me for it, he said that since any one can create a god, can believe a god, or see a god in an infinite number of ways, the probability that out of those infinite permutations, that my one god is the true one, is impossible. He brought Calculus into the situation. The limit of infinity, 1 over infinity has to equal zero, so therefore the probability of my god being the one true god is zero.
I thought about this. For a while. I weighed the merit of the argument against my counter-arguments. Perhaps, I thought, it might be that improbable. Now this didn’t really fit with my beliefs, and it might or might not fit with yours, however, I am usually the more open-minded of Christian—if it has merit, I will give it a chance. So on I thought. And finally, I came to a conclusion that I thought was suitable.

“Then atheism is impossible too.” He shot me back a quizzical look, so I explained. I explained it in an example that was ridiculously simple. A code. I asked, “what was the probability that a code, infinitely long, could be altered, randomly, to be the exact length of the code for a computer program?” He didn’t say anything. “What is the probability of infinitely recombining an infinite number of monomers, on an infinitely long strain of DNA, what was the probability that it would create the DNA, tailored to the exact length, exact order, and exact composition of the simplest organism on the planet?”

Zero. Zilch. None. By the same reason we choose not to believe in god, it is the same reason why he exists. It is the same reason why unguided, random macroevolution is impossible. It is the same reason why atheism cannot be proven.

Nevertheless, I still didn’t refute his first example, on why my god can’t possibly be the one true god. I quoted Thomas Edison. That he failed ten thousand times to produce a light bulb, but he only needed one to make it work. I told him that no matter how many different ways he chooses to believe in God, it doesn’t matter. By merely believing something, we can’t change a single thing. I told him I can imagine him an infinite number of ways, but I only need that one, true image of him to disprove all of the others.

I won.

[Calamari]

I prefer to see it the other way round, in an infinite universe anything is possible. This raises lots of questions about everything and when I try and sort it my head hurts.

With regards to evolution, we are the result of freak happenings, the chances of a life bearing world as we know it is almost impossible, however life might be quite common in the universe in the form of simple prokaryotic bacteria-esque life forms. As with our planet the chances of complex eukaryotic life evolvong is slim to none.

Chances are carbon based, water utilising life could be indiginous to Earth, there are other ionic substances that could be used instead, ammonia for example. Ammonia is common in the universe and is liquid at much lower temperatures than water meaning that worlds that seem toxic and barren to us might be teaming with prokaryotic bacteria that are nothing like what has developed on Earth for the simpole reason that everything is so different. My point is I guess that we are just one result of the nearly infinite permutations of climate and chemical make up that could result in life. The odds of ending up with us, a complex, carbon based and respirating life form are just as astronomical as anything else in the world including gods and deities of any description.

Do you see why my head hurts now? I go round in circles

[cfmonkey45]

Chances are carbon based, water utilising life could be indiginous to Earth, there are other ionic substances that could be used instead, ammonia for example. Ammonia is common in the universe and is liquid at much lower temperatures than water meaning that worlds that seem toxic and barren to us might be teaming with prokaryotic bacteria that are nothing like what has developed on Earth for the simpole reason that everything is so different. My point is I guess that we are just one result of the nearly infinite permutations of climate and chemical make up that could result in life. The odds of ending up with us, a complex, carbon based and respirating life form are just as astronomical as anything else in the world including gods and deities of any description.

Ah, but this is exactly my point. You've said it yourself, out of the infinite numbers of possibilities, we arose, infinately complex. The odds of this happen, the probability to which my friend was unwittingly talking about, are zero.

[Kiljaden]

I just gotta say cfmonkey45, your friend is an atheist. He lacks belief in the gods. He is the most common form of atheist, the weak athiest.

I am a strong atheist for one simple reason: I can say gods do not exist in the same way we all say that unicorns and fairies don't exist. There are certain things we would expect to see from their existence. But we don't see any of these things. If you believe in god(s), but not unicorns, what makes it different? Why do you hold god(s) to a different standard of evidence than any other extraordinary claim?

Also, in regards to a more recent post - evolution without god is not random. Evolution is the result of random mutations being acted upon by non-random natural selection (environmental selective pressure).

[Copperknickers II]

I just gotta say cfmonkey45, your friend is an atheist. He lacks belief in the gods. He is the most common form of atheist, the weak athiest.

I am a strong atheist for one simple reason: I can say gods do not exist in the same way we all say that unicorns and fairies don't exist. There are certain things we would expect to see from their existence. But we don't see any of these things. If you believe in god(s), but not unicorns, what makes it different? Why do you hold god(s) to a different standard of evidence than any other extraordinary claim?

That is a complete travesty of occam's razor, you are making things hugely more complicated by adding in 'unicorns and fairies'. There are plenty or repuatable scienctitsts, for example, who believe in ghosts, but not gods.

[Manco]

I see a few problems with your statements:
First, you seem to equate atheism and 'belief' in evolution. While many atheists (a very large majority probably) also accept the theory of evolution, that doesn't mean they are the same. They aren't linked at all actually, an atheist may not accept the theory of evolution, while many evolutionists are also religious.
Second while speaking of evolution, both macro and micro (which are actually the same, it seems only certain religious groups say there's a difference. Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on a larger timescale) you keep saying random. Evolution isn't random in the sense we use random in an every-day context. See for example natural and sexual selection which show among other things that while the seperate mutations are random, the passing of those mutations, and thus evolution, isn't that random at all. Usually useful mutations will be passed on more frequently because of the relative succes of the specimens with that mutation ( be it through better survival chances or becoming a more desired mating partner)
Third, you are using a fallacy. You say:

What is the probability of infinitely recombining an infinite number of monomers, on an infinitely long strain of DNA, what was the probability that it would create the DNA, tailored to the exact length, exact order, and exact composition of the simplest organism on the planet?

and say that it is zero. While mathematically that chance maybe zero ( or atleast infinitesemally small), the fact is it did happen, though hardly how you describe it. Just like the chances of our planet being able to sustain life are infinitesemally small, the fact is it is.
Mathematics are abstract, when you use them in a practical situation like this you may get wonky results.
For example what's the chance of me kciking myself in the next few minutes? It's infinitely small if you calculate all possibe movements and actions I could do. Yet I just kicked myself

Besides Pascal's wager is also easily refuted, he says it's safer to bet God does exist. But what god? Of the several hundreds known deities throughout history, your specific God is just one (with protestants it sometimes even seems that every branch believes in a different God, but that's probably because of my Catholic background), what's the chance of him being the one Pascal's Wager is about? But this is basically what your friend was saying.

edit:

Ah, but this is exactly my point. You've said it yourself, out of the infinite numbers of possibilities, we arose, infinately complex. The odds of this happen, the probability to which my friend was unwittingly talking about, are zero.

Where do you get this idea that we're infinitely complex? We might not know every finesse of how man came to be or works, but all findings until now seem to indicate that we're basically a biological machine, and machines aren't infinitely complex.

[cfmonkey45]

I see a few problems with your statements:
First, you seem to equate atheism and 'belief' in evolution. While many atheists (a very large majority probably) also accept the theory of evolution, that doesn't mean they are the same. They aren't linked at all actually, an atheist may not accept the theory of evolution, while many evolutionists are also religious.

I know. But then again, this thread wasn't about evolution per se. It's the fact that since atheists don't believe in God, evolution, which most believe, including my self (probably should have placed emphasis on UNGUIDED), is completely impropable. To suggest otherwise means that logical thought had to be applied. It's a complex topic that I tried to simplify as best I could.

Second while speaking of evolution, both macro and micro (which are actually the same, it seems only certain religious groups say there's a difference. Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on a larger timescale) you keep saying random. Evolution isn't random in the sense we use random in an every-day context. See for example natural and sexual selection which show among other things that while the seperate mutations are random, the passing of those mutations, and thus evolution, isn't that random at all. Usually useful mutations will be passed on more frequently because of the relative succes of the specimens with that mutation ( be it through better survival chances or becoming a more desired mating partner)

I know, however, the first being arising out of literally nothing is in itself random. Otherwise it requires a deity to oversee it, which is the whole premise of my argument.

[quote]Third, you are using a fallacy. You say: and say that it is zero. While mathematically that chance maybe zero ( or atleast infinitesemally small), the fact is it did happen, though hardly how you describe it. Just like the chances of our planet being able to sustain life are infinitesemally small, the fact is it is.

Besides Pascal's wager is also easily refuted, he says it's safer to bet God does exist. But what god? Of the several hundreds known deities throughout history, your specific God is just one (with protestants it sometimes even seems that every branch believes in a different God, but that's probably because of my Catholic background), what's the chance of him being the one Pascal's Wager is about? But this is basically what your friend was saying.

I wasn't using Pascal's wager, or at least not in the way it's always used. I am refuting the 50-50 guess about whether there is a god or not (essentially the necessity for Pascal's Wager), by saying that because it is mathematically improbable for life to arise spontaneously from nothing, there has to be a god.

edit:
Where do you get this idea that we're infinitely complex? We might not know every finesse of how man came to be or works, but all findings until now seem to indicate that we're basically a biological machine, and machines aren't infinitely complex.

I was implying that life as a whole is infinitely complex, sorry for the ambiguity. It is, in a sense. It can have the potential to be in an indefinate number of ways, however, I see some flaws in my argument. Nevertheless, it was never meant to be a perfect argument, just a little something that I thought was an interesting point.


Edit:

If your friend tries to "prove" "atheism" he has no idea what he's talking about in the first place.

Kudos for thinking things out, and I'm too tired to try and refute the math thingy you're talking about (math makes me want to cry).

He wasn't actually trying to prove atheism, he was just trying to disprove me. It's just that through his argument, I came to a realization of a solution to the question of whether there is a god or not. I'm not trying to disprove evolution, per se, or any form of religion, I'm just saying that unless there is a god, everything, life itself, spontaneously appearing, is completely improbable.

[Manco]

I know. But then again, this thread wasn't about evolution per se. It's the fact that since atheists don't believe in God, evolution, which most believe, including my self (probably should have placed emphasis on UNGUIDED), is completely impropable. To suggest otherwise means that logical thought had to be applied. It's a complex topic that I tried to simplify as best I could.

You seem to be confused about how evolution works, evolution isn't guided or unguided, that terminology is unscientific. Evolution basically means that population groups will adapt to their habitats by favouring random mutations that seem beneficial are make the specimen more attractive (very, very simplified).
The concept of guidance has nothing to do with this, if only because guidance implies an end or a goal, but change the conditions of the habitat and whatever perfect form or suitable characteristics the specimens had developed might now be useless and evolution will in time completely change the population. Thus devaluating that supposed end-form.
But I'm hardly an expert, there are however some interesting threads about evolution and other scientific concepts in the forums

I know, however, the first being arising out of literally nothing is in itself random. Otherwise it requires a deity to oversee it, which is the whole premise of my argument.

That wasn't 'random' either, it was the end result of chemical, physical,... reactions dependant on certain conditions which happened to be met. While it might just as easily not have happened, this isn't 'random'.
Besides 'being' is a bit of an exaggeration, it was probably just some monomer who's status as 'being' (alive) was debatable

I wasn't using Pascal's wager, or at least not in the way it's always used. I am refuting the 50-50 guess about whether there is a god or not (essentially the necessity for Pascal's Wager), by saying that because it is mathematically improbable for life to arise spontaneously from nothing, there has to be a god.

So you're using some 'being' with an infinitely small chance of existing as being the cause of something else with an infinitely small chance of existing (but which we know exists)? Occam's Razor says you used one step too much. A god does not have to exist at all.

I was implying that life as a whole is infinitely complex, sorry for the ambiguity. It is, in a sense. It can have the potential to be in an indefinate number of ways, however, I see some flaws in my argument. Nevertheless, it was never meant to be a perfect argument, just a little something that I thought was an interesting point.

But life as a whole isn't infinitely complex, it's beyond our grasp perhaps. Certainly beyond our layman's grasp, but that doesn't mean it's infinitely complex. Unknown and infinitely aren't synonyms.

He wasn't actually trying to prove atheism, he was just trying to disprove me. It's just that through his argument, I came to a realization of a solution to the question of whether there is a god or not. I'm not trying to disprove evolution, per se, or any form of religion, I'm just saying that unless there is a god, everything, life itself, spontaneously appearing, is completely improbable.

Once again, life didn't spontaneously appear as you seem to describe it. There are entire books written about the subject, which admittedly are too complex for me and it seems the definite answer to exactly how life appeared is still unknown. But the advances in these fields of science the last decades have been tremendous and an answer will probably come.
And also once again, you are using a being whose existence is improbable as a cause for something else whose existence is improbable, but of which we know it exists.

Care to elaborate?

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less.
It doesn't say god(s) exist or not, although more often than not an atheist will hold the position he/she/it or they don't.
Most people think atheism means you believe god(s) don't exist, that's wrong. It is the lack of a belief, not replacing an irrational belief by another.

[Dayman]

It is the same reason why atheism cannot be proven.

If your friend tries to "prove" "atheism" he has no idea what he's talking about in the first place.

Kudos for thinking things out, and I'm too tired to try and refute the math thingy you're talking about (math makes me want to cry).

Read my idea regarding the existence of god if you want to see a thought out skeptical viewpoint.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ghlight=boeing

[Broken Pope]

Just the fact that the font is a different style is enough to know that this has been cut-and-pasted from some God-botherer forum as a tool for proselytizing to the stupid.

Then there's the style of the thing. What high-school kid actually writes like that?

Just.

[cfmonkey45]

Just the fact that the font is a different style is enough to know that this has been cut-and-pasted from some God-botherer forum as a tool for proselytizing to the stupid.

Then there's the style of the thing. What high-school kid actually writes like that?

Just.

Ironically, I wrote that on microsoft word about twenty minutes ago.

And, by the way, I do write like that. Everything in that story is true.

[Solo1906]

I have had similar discussions - but not so deep - with a friend of mine who is as well an athiest. He had not quite so much of a thought out conclusion to things. He felt there was no God quite simply because God didnt take his dare or demand. I asked him (my friend) "what was that dare or demand?". He stated " I demanded that if God is who He says He is strike me down!" (this is an edited version for language and time sake). He followed up with "When He didnt do it - I resolved there is no God". I said "What?" with the most peculiar look struck on my face. He continued on "I told God to strike me down and cast me into Hells Fire - when He didnt respond I resolved that He is NOT".

Still stupified (to this day - as you may be - having heard far more thought out conclusions to a lack of faith - even - anger -being one.) I responded with - "How do you know He wont do either of those?" The room got strangely still. He stated "What do you mean?" I expounded further. "Well I quite simply mean - He might answer your - if I might say so - prayer or demand. Just because He didnt do it when you requested Him to do it doesnt mean He wont do it. He might do exactly what you have asked, but He is God and will do it when and how He wants you to meet such an end. I hope for you mercy and penitance, BUT He just might answer your request."

Niether of us said much after that.

Athiests/or evolutionists cant do anything with science unfortunately (ironic actually) which has proven, and is supported in psycological as well as scientific fields that it is inherintly impossible for humans to develop speech on their own - (i.e lizards learning to become cavemen walking around grunting and in time becomes Greek - huh-?). Just look at that sentence it looks like insanity. Speech and language MUST be a learned and taught behavior.

Darwin himself said "Athiests have more faith than Christians. It takes more faith to believe in what I proposed than to believe that we were purposed to be here." Darwin recanted all that he wrote on his deathbed - maybe out of fear - who knows - but the man said it.

[Dayman]

. I am refuting the 50-50 guess about whether there is a god or not (essentially the necessity for Pascal's Wager), by saying that because it is mathematically improbable for life to arise spontaneously from nothing, there has to be a god.

Whoa there, that's quite a big "jump". First off, atheism and evolution aren't related - atheism is a philosophical position regarding deities, evolution is a scientific principle. Furthermore, evolution doesn't involve itself in the start of life. That's a different field. They're unrelated, especially since many of your fellow Christians seem to not have a problem believing in evolution.

Secondly, Pascal's Wager is flawed. Think about it, how many gods have been proposed to exist throughout the ages? Hundreds? Thousands? Pascal's Wager doesn't address the idea of whether or not the belief in a God is a belief in the right god, otherwise you're right in the boat with the nonbeliever.

Athiests/or evolutionists cant do anything with science unfortunately (ironic actually) which has proven, and is supported in psycological as well as scientific fields that it is inherintly impossible for humans to develop speech on their own - (i.e lizards learning to become cavemen walking around grunting and in time becomes Greek - huh-?). Just look at that sentence it looks like insanity. Speech and language MUST be a learned and taught behavior.

Please, attend a biology course and maybe a basic philosophy one as well before making your lack of knowledge on the subject painfully obvious.

Darwin recanted all that he wrote on his deathbed - maybe out of fear - who knows - but the man said it.

I'm no expert on Darwin's life, but I'm pretty sure that's not true.

[Irishman]

The limit of infinity, 1 over infinity has to equal zero

The limit as x approaches infinity of 1/x approaches zero. This is a practical interpretation of the mathematics and it never actually reaches zero, so even in this respect, the chance of you being right is only practically zero, not actually zero.

Although I find this strictly mathematical approach to solving problems generally useless. There are an infinite possible explanations for why I fall back down when I jump, but only one which agrees with the evidence.

There are many better arguments against God (though none that prove he doesn't exist) and this comes from a non-believer.

One's convictions should be directly proportional to the evidence pertinent to them, and because of that, I do not believe in God, though this is purely an inductive postition and I can't say I know for sure.

[cfmonkey45]

The limit as x approaches infinity of 1/x approaches zero. This is a practical interpretation of the mathematics and it never actually reaches zero, so even in this respect, the chance of you being right is only practically zero, not actually zero.

Although I find this strictly mathematical approach to solving problems generally useless. There are an infinite possible explanations for why I fall back down when I jump, but only one which agrees with the evidence.

There are many better arguments against God (though none that prove he doesn't exist) and this comes from a non-believer.

One's convictions should be directly proportional to the evidence pertinent to them, and because of that, I do not believe in God, though I can't say I know for sure.

Yeah, I know. I kind of realized that after I posted, but I was using his argument, however flawed against him. I was hoping that this, inevitably would stir up some controversy, which it did. I always like hearing what other people have to say.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

By the same reason we choose not to believe in god...

Doesn't seem like the author of this phrase knows what atheism is.

[cfmonkey45]

Doesn't seem like the author of this phrase knows what atheism is.

Care to elaborate?

Athiests/or evolutionists cant do anything with science unfortunately (ironic actually) which has proven, and is supported in psycological as well as scientific fields that it is inherintly impossible for humans to develop speech on their own - (i.e lizards learning to become cavemen walking around grunting and in time becomes Greek - huh-?). Just look at that sentence it looks like insanity. Speech and language MUST be a learned and taught behavior.

((Gah, I hate typing in forums, now the color is all messed up))

Actually, it is possible for higher animals such as apes to comprehend speech and, although they are not able to speak it, without the correct vocal chords, they can comprehend and utilize sign langauge. I'm not above the possibility that God originally created man as a higher ape, nor am I against the possibility that He used evolution, or the big-bang to create the universe. In truth, I don't care how He created the earth, just that he created the earth.

I also believe, to quite an extent, in evolution, that God used it to create man and this world. What I was arguing in the thread was that I don't believe in life spontaneously and randomly arising from nothing.

Darwin himself said "Athiests have more faith than Christians. It takes more faith to believe in what I proposed than to believe that we were purposed to be here." Darwin recanted all that he wrote on his deathbed - maybe out of fear - who knows - but the man said it.

Ironic, isn't it. After all, Darwin did believe in God. Even more ironic is that the this man, Chales Darwin, who created the theory that almost every non-theist that I have met, and some that I haven't, have used to bash Christians and theologians, did not have any formal training in Naturalism or biology. In fact, the only training he recieved was in, ironically, theology, a profession that he dropped out of. Funny isn't it?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Care to elaborate?

Firstly, atheism is not simply the belief there is no God or gods, it's a broad term encompassing all forms of belief which are without deities. That includes people who've never heard of the concept of a God, people who believe there is no such being and people who accept the possibility such a being may exist but are unconvinced by the evidence/arguments that he does and so are without a belief in him. That last category includes most atheists (me, for example, and most of the atheists here). Those who believe there is no God are actually a small minority amongst atheists, due to the fact you can't prove a negative.

So if you start with the assumption that atheism = "the belief there is no God" you're getting off on the wrong foot to begin with. Most atheists don't believe this, they are simply without a belief in any God or gods.

Secondly, we don't "choose" to be without a belief in God any more than you "choose" to be without a belief in Santa Claus. If that were a "choice" you'd be able to "choose" to believe in him again any time you liked. But you can't, because it isn't a choice, it's simply a function of how you see the world and what you know and understand. You can't switch the understanding that Santa is a piece of folkloric fantasy off and "choose" to believe in him, nor did you "choose" to stop believing in him either. Ditto for us and God - we didn't "choose" to stop having a belief in him. It was not a "choice", it was simply a function of how we saw and understood the universe.

Ironic, isn't it. After all, Darwin did believe in God.

Do you mean this Darwin?:

"I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind."
(Charles Darwin, Letter, 1879)

[Solo1906]

Why bother converting or arguing with those who dont want what you consider truth? - Niether Christ nor the Apostles did.

Let them be -

[Solo1906]

That is the definition of Irony...