Bad fundie! Bad!

Why on earth do they keep bringing out the same tired old arguments that God exists? I'm not saying He doesn't, just that these arguments don't come close to proving that He does or disproving any current scientific theories.

First of all, on the evening of the 5th, a friend linked me to this article that claims to prove the existence of God.

Now, I plan to go through it point by point dissecting it and showing that it's rather incorrect at best. I've put the footnotes from the original text inline with the text in this post. Here we go!

Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.

Well this first paragraph is pretty much fluff. There's never any way to prove that there's a God, since the whole idea is that we each need to have faith and so forth. Faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive. You can either know something or have faith in it, not both. But moving right along ...

But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

Um ... there are so many problems with that idea that I'm not sure where to begin ...

No!

There is no evidence that God exists. At least, no direct evidence, and the reason everything else can be rationalized away is that it's all so terribly circumstantial and based on hearsay. Also, keep in mind that the reverse is true. No matter how much proof we might show someone that evolution does indeed occur, they can still refuse to believe it. No matter how many times we fly around the world, there are still people who believe that it's flat and that everything revolves around it. Those latter two examples of mine are both examples of someone "religiously" believing one thing in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Anyway, my point is that that rationalization thing works both ways.

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. (Romans 1:19-21) On the other hand, for those who want to know God if He is there, He says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you." (Jeremiah 29:13-14) Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know Him?

Again, this is mostly fluff. There aren't any arguments here, so there isn't all that much for me to pick holes in.

Here then, are some reasons to consider...

1. Does God exist? Throughout history, in all cultures of the world, people have been convinced there is a God.

Billions of people, who represent diverse sociological, intellectual, emotional, educational makeups...believe that there is a Creator, a God to be worshipped. Now, the fact that so many people believe something certainly doesn't make it true. But when so many people through the ages are so personally convinced that God exists, can one say with absolute confidence that they are all mistaken?

Is the earth flat? Throughout history, in all cultures of the known world at the time, the world was believed to be both flat and at the center of the universe with everything else revolving around it. That doesn't make it any more true. (In case you didn't notice, I like the flat-earth argument and may be using it more later on)

At least the writer acknowledges that people saying something doesn't make it true. As for whether they are mistaken, they were looking for a higher power to explain things that they didn't understand in the world around them. Is it any surprise that they came up with a deity? And actually, most early civilizations believed that there was not just a single deity, but a multitude of them, each with his own particular function. Plus, in case you didn't notice, the God of the Bible said that they were all wrong, which nullifies the argument of "So many people believe in God that He must be there!" Now you're down to "A really tiny minority of people through history believe in my God (or at least something similar), so He must be there!" which doesn't work.

"Anthropological research has indicated that among the farthest and most remote primitive people today, there is a universal belief in God. And in the earliest histories and legends of people all around the world, the original concept was of one God, who was the Creator. An original high God seems once to have been in their consciousness even in those societies which are today polytheistic." (Paul E. Little, Know Why You Believe (Victor Books, 1988), p. 22)

Well ... I'd believe that except for it having been discounted by nearly every single anthropological study I have ever read. As early civilizations started explaining what they were seeing, they fabricated these stories of Gods and Titans and Great Spirits. These beings were powerful and could do things that men could not like cast lightning bolts down from the sky. The fact is that most early civilizations of which we have any record were polytheistic with a single 'head' God. Now, if this person would like to call that monotheism, then he's flat-out wrong.

Here comes a long quote:

2. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. (R.E.D. Clark, Creation (London: Tyndale Press, 1946), p. 20) Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet it restrains our massive oceans from spilling over across the continents. (The Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Institute of Science (Chicago, IL))

Think about that for a second. We are on a planet that supports life when the chance that it would is just so slim. But ... if it didn't support life ... then we wouldn't be here, now would we? What do these people think is so special about the Earth? It just happens to be one of the planets that formed at the right distance from its primary to sustain life-as-we-know-it.

As for the moon, it's the same thing. This planet just happened to form at the right distance and with the right conditions in order to support life. There's nothing special about this particular solar system other than that it has a single planet with life-as-we-know-it on it. If Earth hadn't formed with these conditions, then we wouldn't be here. However, that wouldn't stop another planet from forming with the proper conditions. Nor does it stop forms of life other than our own.

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels. (Ibid.)

Water is also chemically inert. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water. (Ibid.)

Again, these properties happen to be conducive to life-as-we-know-it because life-as-we-know-it evolved under them. If there was some kind of self-replicating chemical reaction similar to a cell in the methane seas of another planet, it would still be life, just a different kind. Assuming it could think, it would wonder how there could ever be life on such a hot and barren planet as Earth. After all, we only have liquid water on the surface of our planet. To a creature that could survive in liquid methane, our planet would be about as hot and inhospitable as Venus is to us. Simply saying that we're the only kind of life that there can be doesn't cut it. We don't know enough yet to say anything like that. Nor do we know that no other planets happen to also host life-as-we-know-it.

The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of this article in your hand. Your brain registers emotional responses, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second. (Ibid.) Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information...can we say mere chance brought about such an astounding organ?

When NASA launches a shuttle mission, it is assumed a monkey didn't write the plan, but intelligent and knowledgeable minds. How does one explain the existence of the human brain? Only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than humanity could have created the human brain.

Claiming that God created the human brain is simply adding complexity. If that's the case, then where did God's mind come from? By their same argument, only a mind more intelligent and knowledgeable than God could have created Him, yet they propose nothing of the kind. After all, how do you get more "intelligent and knowledgeable" than a mind that sees all and knows all?

3. Does God exist? Mere "chance" is not an adequate explanation of creation.

Imagine looking at Mount Rushmore, in which the likenesses of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt are carved. Could you ever believe that it came about by chance? Given infinite time, wind, rain and chance, it is still hard to believe something like that, tied to history, was randomly formed in the side of a mountain. Common sense tells us that people planned and skillfully carved those figures.

This article only touches on a few amazing aspects of our world: the Earth's position to the sun, some properties of water, one organ in the human body. Could any of these have come about by chance?

The distinguished astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle showed how amino acids randomly coming together in a human cell is mathematically absurd. Sir Hoyle illustrated the weakness of "chance" with the following analogy. "What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take-off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole universe!" (Little, p. 24)

When one considers the intricacies of our life and universe, it is reasonable to think that an intelligent, loving Creator provided for everything we need for life. The Bible describes God as the author and sustainer of life.

And again, the reason that we are on this planet is that it happens to be the one out of however many trillions there are that life evolved on. We don't know how many others have conditions that weren't quite right. Nor do we know how many other planets have life on them.

As for the 747 argument, consider that a 747 is a good deal more complex than a human. We're made up of billions of tiny little bits that are all more-or-less the same thing, just with slight specialization. A 747 is made up of many, many parts, each of which serves a very specific purpose, and if any of them is missing, the plane has a very good chance of not working. Humans are a lot simpler and a lot more redundant. We can lose a tremendous number of our constituent "parts" without dying or falling apart catastrophically.

Really, if you think about it, DNA is a very simple chemical. It's the same four smaller molecules over and over. It happens to be a very simple way to store information on proteins, since every three codons represent one of the amino acids. When assembled in the proper order, these amino acids form the vastly more complex proteins, but even then, they're pretty simple compared to a 747's fuel injectors or control surfaces.

Furthermore (!), once amino acids start reacting, they can keep going for quite a while, so it only takes one reaction out of the entire primordial soup and suddenly, you have a form of life in the works. Some reactions would obviously last longer than others, but they will occur, and they will become more and more complex as energy is fed in.

So really, that 747-out-of-a-junkyard argument is remarkably wrong.

4. Does God exist? Humankind's inherent sense of right and wrong cannot be biologically explained.

There arises in all of us, of any culture, universal feelings of right and wrong. Even a thief gets upset and feels wronged when someone steals from him. If someone violently grabs a child from a family and rapes that child, there is an anger and revulsion and a rage to confront that act as evil, regardless of the culture. Where did we get this sense of wrongness? How do we explain a universal law in the conscience of all people that says murder for fun is wrong?

And in areas like courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty and compassion, where did these come from? If people are merely products of physical evolution, "survival of the fittest," why do we sacrifice for each other? Where did we get this inner sense of right and wrong? Our conscience can best be explained by a loving Creator who cares about the decisions and harmony of humanity.

A sense of morality is self-propagating through a kind of reverse-natural-selection and survival instinct. If an early man who felt killing another was wrong saw a second man kill a third, the one with the "conscience" would feel threatened by the second, and perhaps act to defend himself and his family. It's called the "biological imperative". A creature will protect itself if threatened. Most creatures will also act to protect their mates and progeny, though not all do. Acting to protect one's mates and/or progeny ensures the survival of the genes, so "survival instinct" is related to the urge to procreate.

So actually, not only can the sense of right and wrong be explained biologically, but it's part of the basis for evolution.



And now, I'm kind of tired of going through this article. It's longer than I thought it was. :P If anyone wants me to continue, ask away and I will.