h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In your INSIGHTFUL article you write a series of weak arguments that, in your opinion, disprove the existance of an omnipotent God.

You claim that the prescence of Evil denies the existance of an all loving omnipotent God, you then go on to say that the counter Christian argument is:

"we (the human race) were created in a perfect world, but we chose to turn away from
God and so evil is good things gone wrong.

There is one fault with this and it is that it relies on the idea of people being continuous beings
before evil things happened, which science and the evolution theory disprove."

Let me just tell you why you can't write that my fellow thinker. Allow me to re-iterate the title of my entry: The Great Theory of Evolution - Never Rely Your Natural Selection On It

I guess I should have entitled this entry, a lesson in the Scientific Process, because that is certainly how I am about to begin:

Science is just the art of observation and explaing life and its phenomena through these observations.
First, you pose a hypothesis, which then is tested through a series of experiments. If the hypothesis is proved correct, by not just you, but other observers, then the hypothesis becomes consistent, and the name changes to THEORY.

Then, if the theory is proved, and proved again, and all the observers are happy then for some reason they change the name to a LAW.

The question now is, is evolution a theory or a Law?
None, scientists have to date been unable to create a new species of animal (plants yes) through careful selection. The only evolution they have been able to reproduce is shifts in genes of bacteria (refered to as micro-evolution). But, macro-evolution has never been proved.

Therefore, Evolution remains as a hypothesis, a crazy statement made with pre-assumptions of the ever existence of matter, and how it orders itself to create, nano-machines that become bacteria, then fish, then they step out of the water and become monkeys, who then return to the water and become dolphins, who then get back out of the water and become humans.

An argument for Creationism:
If you look at the total life of the planet as period of 7 days. Life only appeared on the last days.

If the plantes are in motion, who put them in motion? - answer our Creator the great planet mover.

The Big bang, where did the energy come from? - an omnipotent being often referred to as God, ever exisiting in three persons, The Father, The Son, and last but, not least The Holy Spirit.

The theory of Evolution - stands on the pre-existance of matter and it doesn't explain how it came to be. God made matter!

An argument for God!
Mathematicians, have been playing with the unification of mathematical theories, trying to add to Einsteins work. Through that, they discovered a series of mathematical equations that mathematically prove the existance of other dimensions, black holes, space and time travel, and alter our concept of time and space. Our understanding of them is like that of ball explaining a circle its reality, the circle then explaining its reality to it, then the line going to a point and explaining it to it.

It is so confusing, that in our reality God had to come down and explain it to us!!!

Yes, I would agree that the theory of evolution seems a bit overwhelming, but who could not argue that the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving God is equally crazy. Evolution is a concept devised by scientific means to explain why we are here, by using rational, modern thought. Creationism was a way for people a couple of millenia ago to explain things in which modern technology and centuries of accumulated knowledge have helped us in today's world explain. People came up with God and creation becuase at the time there was no better explanation, and like a bad nick-name it just sort of stuck.
Creationism is also a way for us to believe we are more important than we really are. The whole idea of a powerful being creating us to be the spitting image of itself and be the supreme creatures in existence is a bit self-rightious, don't you think. I mean we're human, we have huge egos; so naturally we are going to create a system of theology that puts us on the highest pedestal. Descending from ape-like beings offends people's sense of self-rightiousness so naturally they are going to oppose it, they think it makes them less of a human being. People are just afraid of insignifigance. Personally I feel proud to be the result of billions of years of coincidence and circumstance, than the creation of some deity that probably created as the divine equavalent of a doll house.

Dear Reader

Communication is a great mystery to me. If I have a fixed idea and you have one too we both may present arguments that seem logical and therefore correct (from our own pucntuations).

I think the writers of the the popular satire of the evangelion put it:

"The Matrix cannot not be explained you have to experience it..."

Except I would change the words "The Matrix" to God.

or better yet as Jesus said:

"Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?" John 11:40

Animal species creation - isn't that what man has already done from the creation of the dog from the wolf?

> "An argument for Creationism:
If you look at the total life of the planet as period of 7 days. Life only appeared on the last day."

Shall we look at your holy book for a while? Genesis, perhaps?

1st day: light and dark
2nd day: heaven
3rd day: earth and seas *AND GRASS*

So, according to your bible, life should have appeared on the 3rd 'day', or, in your own argument, 3/7ths of the way through the life of the planet. NOT, in other words, on the last 'day'. If you like, I'll quote you the verses.

*mutter* *mutter* people can't even get their own religions right nowadays...

By the by, I have no idea, off the top of my head, when life *did* occur, in comparison to the total lifetime of the planet.

> "If the plantes are in motion, who put them in motion? - answer our Creator the great planet mover."
> "The Big bang, where did the energy come from? - an omnipotent being often referred to as God, ever exisiting in three persons,
The Father, The Son, and last but, not least The Holy Spirit."
> "The theory of Evolution - stands on the pre-existance of matter and it doesn't explain how it came to be. God made matter!"

Very good. Evolution does not disprove God.
It does not seek to explain how the planet came to get here.
It does not seek to explain whence came the energy from the big bang
It does not seek to explain what put the planets into motion

It is only concerned with the reason for the vast diversity of life on the planet. Many people believe that God used evolution as a tool to create life, in the same way that we use a match to create a fire.

And the cyclical arguments collapse upon themselves...

"God put the planets in motion": and who put God in motion? Who put God's prime mover in motion? Who put...?

"God made matter!": Who made God? Who made God's maker? Who made...?

Infinite loop arguments, all. If nothing comes from nothing, then God cannot come from nothing. Therefore, God doesn't exist. Wow... I think I just disproved God once and for all... shall I change my H2G2 name to Oolon Colluphid?

Curious creation story, that of Genesis. Trees before sun. Plants created on two different days. The whole thing is useful as folklore, but rediculous as a basis for science.

not that useful as folklore - it seems that nowadays, even the faithful don't bother to read it...

First off, the question of good and evil is not specific to one or a few religions. Like the question of our and everything elses maker (God) it is a universal search of mankind. What we should ask our self it if we could handle the answer if we got it? Are we capable of absorbing the true scope of what the answer to 'life, universe and everything' entails? To be honest - I do not think so.

The argument given on how a hypothesis goes to theory and to law can equally be applied on every religion in history of mankind. Very few religions created during history are able to withstand closer examination. And they are very often than not full of dogmatic ideas, hypocrisy, violence, self explanatory rules & questions etc. It is also very interesting how very few religions are able to allow for other religions. And what about the fact that if clear out all the non essential parts all religion preach more or less the same things. General selfevident things that every body whants in life. Nothing special there at all.
Take the bible as an example (probably goes for the muslim Koran also). Not only has it been totally distorted over countless of translations and copying. But it has also been a subject of heavy censorship. Important parts, that might make the message more general and open, has been stricken out. And to that, what about the whole thing about a cult around a book?

Ok back on track...

Very few - if any at all - have the mental capasity to grasp the full meaning of infinite. The shear size of it is mind boggling. Imagine then a sentient being greater than this - everythings creator. Man- are we all so puny creatures that we simply refuse to the very notion that there might be natural processes going on that we do not even begin to understand? Created in gods image eh?! Does this mean that the whole of universe is populated with human beings just like us in a fashion? It simply does not add up!

There will never be any God to explain anything to us - not now, not ever! We are like the flea sitting on a brick, looking at a small point in front of us - trying to explain all existence by the features of this small portion of it's world. It is not done!

But that does not exclude God.....existing or not!

Here is a very important point from an earlier entry:

"Very good. Evolution does not disprove God.
It does not seek to explain how the planet came to get here.
It does not seek to explain whence came the energy from the big bang
It does not seek to explain what put the planets into motion

It is only concerned with the reason for the vast diversity of life on the planet. Many people believe that God used evolution as a tool
to create life, in the same way that we use a match to create a fire."

In all fairness - this needs to be taken in consideration!

"And the cyclical arguments collapse upon themselves..."

Ah...how refreshing it is when something like this enters the scene 8=)

The only problem I have with the circle argument is this:

1) Even as you consider the impact on our reality of 'multidimension' the mind starts to go nutts.

We humans have a need to put things in order. Everything needs to have a beginning, middle and an end. There is no way around this. Except maybe a few heavy thinkers - which even they have difficulty getting around this huge concrete slap in our way of thinking.

If a being is to be truly omnipotent it must have existed always. This being (force) are the source of ALL aspects of the total cosmos and ALL possabilities in it. Imagine the HUMONGUS size of this for a while.........anything less than omnipotent, everexisting is not 'doable.'

Other than this I have no objections to this fine argument

*puts on pedant hat*

> "Very few - if any at all - have the mental capasity to grasp the full meaning of infinite. The shear size of it is mind boggling. Imagine then a sentient being greater than this - everythings creator."

a) a sentient being that created everything does not have to be infinite.
b) you can't be "greater than infinite"

> "It is also very interesting how very few
religions are able to allow for other religions."

The purpose of religions is often to explain stuff.
One thing that many religions explain is the creation of the universe.
To believe in two such religions would create an inherent conflict in the question "how was the universe created"
Hence very few religions are able to allow for other religions.

Sounds inevitable to me.

> "And what about the fact that if clear out all the non essential parts all religion
preach more or less the same things."

Garbage. Off the top of my head reincarnation is fairly different. Satanism is non-standard in a whole bunch of ways, and Scientology preaches of body thetans and the Macarb.

>"There will never be any God to explain anything to us - not now, not ever!" vs "But that does not exclude God"

How exactly do you plan to reconcile these two statements?

> "If a being is to be truly omnipotent it must have existed always"

Not necessarily - an omnipotent being could exist only for a billionth of a second, and still be omnipotent, provided it had the power to move around in time freely. And naturally, being omnipotent, it would have that power.

True, but one of those omnis the believers like to throw around is "omnipresent," which means he exists in all places and in all times. So it doesn't stand up in the big picture. Then again, what about God does?

For all you poor slobs who have, or are getting ready to post a reply to this forum, all I have to say is stop drooling over your own poor, sickly logical "powers." If you want some real logic, try reading a good book written by people who actually do have intellects. For those of you who are looking for a real display of compelling logic, might I recomend "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, who is a known and renowned logician.

And for all you people who are looking to try to disprove Christianity; STOP TRYING, IT CAN'T BE DONE!!! Now admittedly, it's also something that's not very easy to prove, so don't get your shorts in a knot and jump to any unwarranted conclusions. Those who try to prove or disprove God through debate over issues such as the nature of evil or the whole creation/evolution argument are fighting a losing battle.

The only way to prove God beyond the shadow of a doubt is for you to experience him. When one comes face to face witht he love, power, majesty and holiness of God, he cannot possibly be denied. But to get to that point, you have to take a small leap of faith. I garuantee that the life of any person who makes that one small leap of faith will be forever changed. And yes I really do mean FOREVER! Now I know this is hard for some of you to swallow.

But think about this, I'm a Christian and if I'm wrong and everything's just a large chaotic swirl of atoms, then I lose nothing. If I'm right, then I get eternity in heaven, which I think most would say is a definite plus. If I'm right, then all of you staunch creationists and anti-Christians are wrong. And if you're wrong then you're going to spend an eternity in hell after having lived a totally meaningless life. Now given that argument, I can't think of any reason not to believe in God. In addition any Christian will tell you that their lives are more fulfilling and generally more enjoyable when they are living dedicated to God. When looked at from this standpoint, There are no good reasons, with the exception of good 'ol stubborness, not to believe in God. While there are amny benefits to faith in God, there are absolutely no benefits to be gained from not believing.

I hope that this puts a new spin on things for some of you, and that you will at least consider my arguments, rather than dismissing them out of hand.

I may not be a great logician, but I can recognise that particular fallacy... appeal to authority, I believe they call it... Perhaps you could summarise CS Lewis' main arguments for us here? The only comment I've heard of his - that because the Bible says that Christ said "I am the Messiah", that he can't have been just a great moral teacher, only something more(Messiah) or something less(Liar) - holds very little weight for those of us who don't think the Bible is 100% to-the-word accurate. Did he have any more worthwhile thoughts, or is that as good as it gets?

You're very certain that Christianity cannot be disproved, I see. What, may I enquire, is the basis of that certainty?

Did you know that some people are christians and then, afterwards stop? Some even become Muslims! So "forever" is a little overstrong, is it not?

Your third paragraph is another restating of Pascal's Wager. I invite you to look at http://www.h2g2.com/A341920 - an entry on the subject. It's been through the peer review, so it's reasonably balanced - go ahead - you might learn something. Or at least see why the argument which you thought would be a new spin is, too many, old and irrelevant. In the meantime, I'll add that point about xtians who say their lives are more fulfilling - that's a good point.

Sidenotes.
Anti-christian? The phrase you are looking for is "non-christian" - that's the vast majority of the world, incidentally.
slobs? Did your mother never tell you not to insult people you're trying to convert? Or Jeshua, come to that?
It may be a small leap of faith for you, but for many atheists it's a huge leap of faith, in the dark, over a cliff. Heck, even the difference between agnosticism and atheism is considered a leap of faith by some.
Out of interest, why should we listen to your arguments, when just above, in CAPS no less, you dismissed the arguments of the person who wrote this entry. I could mention motes and logs and eyes at this point, but that's scarcely necessary, is it?

But, if we must wallow in the "appeal to authority" fallacy, I'll lay out my hand. I've got an Albert Einstein, a Charles Darwin, a Thomas Paine, a Samuel Clemens... now, let's flip the hold card... oh look! The joker! Douglas Adams!! I win the pot!

You cite CS Lewis as a great logician, but you fail to see your own logical errors. Pascal's Wager is a fallacy. Appealing to authority is a fallacy. And "attacking the person" is also a fallacy, but you use that one to excess. It's people like you who show that the time for Christianity has long since passed.

Incidentally, I see you are willing to argue that God cannot be disproven, but you cavalierly ignore the fact that he cannot be proven, either. However, the Christian ideal of God can be very easily disproven by a simple reading of the books upon which he is based. A careful reading will show that there is no basis for the idea of hell, Lucifer, the caring, loving father-figure ideal of God, the Holy Spirit, Christ's "perfection," his poor upbringing, ....

And of course, my favorite argument... that of the burden of proof. You see, I cannot disprove the existence of God... but then, I have no need to. I do not carry the burden of proof, but the believer does. Why?

Imagine I came to you with an incredible story of seeing a young pedestrian escape with his life in the midst of a huge accident. With no corroborating evidence, would you believe me? Most likely, you would. It's an amazing story, but the odds of this occuring are not astronomical, and it fits with your experience of reality, so it doesn't take much for you to extend to me the benefit of the doubt.

Now, suppose I told you that a camel spoke to me, and that camel told me that the world is nothing more than a giant pomegranite, and in six weeks, a central seed is going to be sucked dry by oil drillers in the Caspian Sea which will allow the pomegranite juice to vent into space, destroying our atmosphere and polluting our waters. The only possible escape is to disappear into a cave outside of Lake Tahoe with enough Spam and bottled water to last a year, plus enough cannibis to recultivate the world once the damage is done. Would you believe me?

No, you wouldn't. It's an outrageous claim, and outrageous claims demand outrageous proof. If you would believe, you're a credulous, naive fool. Well, you've made a claim that some guy haging on a pair of crossed sticks 2000 years ago is going to send me into eternal fire just because I don't believe in him. Prove it. But you've said yourself that you can't. The defense rests.

Is this 'Colonel Sellers' arguments good or what?

You more or less said it all.

If I end up in hell it once and for all prove that the god, as we call it, has major flaws and issues. But then again...I do not think I will end up in hell. As I've said in other forums, reality is what we make it. So those who find them selves guilty of sin will maybe end up in hell - and others in heaven. If we DO have an after life that is.

And Colonel....the example of the camel was very funny. I could easily belive it due to it's entertainment value. Straaange things happen and as the jews say: "Why do it allways happen to US?".

Thank you very much.

I like to come up with rediculous theories when I'm carrying on that "burden of proof" argument. The more rediculous my example, the more rediculous that whole religion thing seems by comparison.

And yes, if there is a god, and he's just like everyone has always said, then he has major issues, and I don't want to be a part of his creation.

Ok, there is apparently some confusion.

First Evolution is a fact. Its has been seen. Evolution is a change of gene frequency over generations. So, when there is lots of pollution and all there starts being more black months then white months this is evolution. This has been observed.

Evolution Theory is different. It says that the diversity of life on earth is due to evolution (see above.) We have not actually witnessed life on earth evolving. We never will, until a time machine is created. For this reason it will for the near-future be a theory. However, when scientist say theory they mean its all but been completely proven (though some misuse it when refering to their pet "theory" which is really just a hypothesis). So there remains to this day a "germ thoery" because it is not completely proven that small organisms make people sick.

A Law is usually only used in refrence to physics. Evolution is fact. Equal and opposite reaction is a law. Evolutionary Theory is a theory.

As far as where did all the energy come from and what not, I don't have an answer. But you do feel that it needs to come from a God? Why can't it come from the same place your God comes from?

The distinction I tend to make is that Evolution is a _mathematical_ fact - for systems with certain properties - imperfect reproduction of entities and selection between entities - evolution *has* to happen. But it may be a very minor effect.

Evolutionary Theory is a theory as you say.
It claims that biological organisms are a system which undergoes evolution, that this evolution is the dominant effect, and that this evolution caused the creation of life. (by standard on earth, but there are variants).

It *is* testable - it makes predictions about parts of the fossil record, etc, that we haven't unearthed yet. It also makes predictions about the similarities in DNA and suchlike between species. If it makes sufficient accurate predictions then it may be eventually accepted as scientific fact - but it's some way from there, and may never make it.

Oh how true !

Well part of the creation we are - like it or not. But who said anything about accepting the supremacy? So strike me with a flashing bolt of filer if you like but I'm me as long as there are a spark of life in me..