Then Questions Every Atheist Must Answer, Answered
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I2LE6bICiM
1. If there is no God, why is there anything at all?
Well now, that's making a huge ass assumption that, you know, somehow, God must exist. That's not how scientific inquiry works, a problem you seem to have fairly often, actually, just reading ahead.
2. Where is the evidence that life could have begun without intelligent interference?
Remember, what I was just saying, that you don't understand how scientific inquiry works? Yeah, here's something you may not know. You do NOT enter into an experiment with assumptions. You don't assume that intelligence must have created everything.
Also, I have a second objection. Even if you were right, where does that intelligence come from? I'd argue something has to create any intelligence, including your god, and it's maddeningly unhelpful to assume that anything needs intelligence to exist. Assemble, perhaps, but not exist.
3. How can evolution explain features of irreducible complexity apart from intelligent intervention?
Well, there aren't any. Seriously. Where were you during Dover v. Kitzmiller? The eye isn't irreducibly complex, flagella aren't irreducably complex, mouse traps aren't irreducably complex. They all used features that already existed in novel ways. You probably think there's a gay gene too.
4. How can the evolutionary model be true since the fossil record clearly shows most major groups emerging at the same time?
I'm not a paleontologist, and I'd wager you aren't either. So, you know what? I'm going to call your bullshit. What do you mean by "Groups"? I mean I think it's generally understood that most Phyla appeared during the Cambrian or before, but look, that's a huge ass group of organisms today. You're basically saying how can the evolutionary model be true since the fossil record clearly shows chordates, and molluscs and arthropods all emerging at the same time.
5. If there is no objective standard of right or wrong, how can anything be wrong?
Nothing is objectively wrong. It's that simple. Right and wrong are sociological concepts based, loosely, on how positively or negatively things affect people and whether or not people want them to. Euthanasia of a willing individual? I'd say moral. Prolysthetizing someone who'd rather not be preached at? Immoral.
6. So which is the logically defensible position?-that matter eternally existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason), and then by itself arranged itself into extraordinarily complex living systems including not only mechanisms but huge amounts of information needed for life to function against everything observed in real science? Or that an eternal self existing being with infinite intelligence, created life and the information systems necessary for life to exist, agreeing with real science?
Leading question. Common sense rarely factors into science. It doesn't matter what we think is most likely. If the evidence shows something to be true based on the scientific method and empirical evidence, it's true.
7.How can natural selection produce something that is a prerequisite for natural selection to operate?
I don't understand the question? It's like it was worded by a six year old. No, wait, that's an insult to six year olds. Natural selection is a mechanism, not something that guides the world. It works in language, it works in sociology, and it works in biology. You might as well ask how math works. Math is an emergent phenomenon of the universe, and so is evolution.
8. If scientists almost totally accept that a signal from outer space containing information that could be interpreted as a string of prime numbers would be proof of extraterrestrial intelligence, why would they not accept that the information coding in the nucleus of the simplest cells dna which is equivalent to the information in a full set of encyclopedia Britannica was the result of intelligence?
Apples and oranges. The information in the DNA of a simple cell isn't intelligible without observing what it does. It's essentially random static (though that comparison is rather inadequate. DNA isn't random entirely, though it does figure into it). You're basically comparing an intentioned string of data with an easily discernable meaning to the random changing genome of the domain Archea.
9. What if God is real as described in the bible and you have to stand before him and give an account for your life? Do you have a list of reasons for why you never accepted Him? Under close scrutiny, will those reasons betray the fact that you dont want to believe and will stick with anything that sounds good rather than look into it too seriously.
i absolutely have a list of reasons I don't believe in god, but none of them are because I don't want to believe. Desire doesn't enter into it. If it'd been up to me I'd never have stopped being a Christian, but it was hypocritical of me to be scientific about every other claim and not God. Maybe he existed, I thought, but there's no sense in being a hypocrite when I know that, really, there isn't any evidence. And really, you'd think God could be a little more clear. Something a bit more than 66 books that were misinterpreted and editted over the years. I mean, if God's one criteria for saving and damning people is gullibility, I'll gladly jump the turnstyle into Hell. I mean, REALLY? This is the guy in charge?! 98 billion cubic lightyears and he's concerned that one asshole on one planet believes the exists? What kind of intelligent being, as you describe him, would make this his sole criteria? A good, just, moral, and intelligent god would make intelligence virtues and blind faith a vice. He'd make works necessary for redemption and asking him, instead of those who were wronged, for forgiveness a cosmic misdemeanor.
10. If I answered all your objections to your satisfaction, would you submit your life to Jesus or recognize God as your creator?
No. Absolutely not. I might recognize that God as my creator, but I'm not going to submit to him. I'll be on the frontlines of the fight against his amoral tyranny. This God of yours is not benevolent. He's malevolent, stupid, childish. I won't submit to someone I find morally and intellectually inferior to myself. If your God exists, then he's the enemy. I'd be figuring out how to join the rest of God's enemies in order to fight this force of evil.
1. If there is no God, why is there anything at all?
Well now, that's making a huge ass assumption that, you know, somehow, God must exist. That's not how scientific inquiry works, a problem you seem to have fairly often, actually, just reading ahead.
2. Where is the evidence that life could have begun without intelligent interference?
Remember, what I was just saying, that you don't understand how scientific inquiry works? Yeah, here's something you may not know. You do NOT enter into an experiment with assumptions. You don't assume that intelligence must have created everything.
Also, I have a second objection. Even if you were right, where does that intelligence come from? I'd argue something has to create any intelligence, including your god, and it's maddeningly unhelpful to assume that anything needs intelligence to exist. Assemble, perhaps, but not exist.
3. How can evolution explain features of irreducible complexity apart from intelligent intervention?
Well, there aren't any. Seriously. Where were you during Dover v. Kitzmiller? The eye isn't irreducibly complex, flagella aren't irreducably complex, mouse traps aren't irreducably complex. They all used features that already existed in novel ways. You probably think there's a gay gene too.
4. How can the evolutionary model be true since the fossil record clearly shows most major groups emerging at the same time?
I'm not a paleontologist, and I'd wager you aren't either. So, you know what? I'm going to call your bullshit. What do you mean by "Groups"? I mean I think it's generally understood that most Phyla appeared during the Cambrian or before, but look, that's a huge ass group of organisms today. You're basically saying how can the evolutionary model be true since the fossil record clearly shows chordates, and molluscs and arthropods all emerging at the same time.
5. If there is no objective standard of right or wrong, how can anything be wrong?
Nothing is objectively wrong. It's that simple. Right and wrong are sociological concepts based, loosely, on how positively or negatively things affect people and whether or not people want them to. Euthanasia of a willing individual? I'd say moral. Prolysthetizing someone who'd rather not be preached at? Immoral.
6. So which is the logically defensible position?-that matter eternally existed (or came into existence by itself for no reason), and then by itself arranged itself into extraordinarily complex living systems including not only mechanisms but huge amounts of information needed for life to function against everything observed in real science? Or that an eternal self existing being with infinite intelligence, created life and the information systems necessary for life to exist, agreeing with real science?
Leading question. Common sense rarely factors into science. It doesn't matter what we think is most likely. If the evidence shows something to be true based on the scientific method and empirical evidence, it's true.
7.How can natural selection produce something that is a prerequisite for natural selection to operate?
I don't understand the question? It's like it was worded by a six year old. No, wait, that's an insult to six year olds. Natural selection is a mechanism, not something that guides the world. It works in language, it works in sociology, and it works in biology. You might as well ask how math works. Math is an emergent phenomenon of the universe, and so is evolution.
8. If scientists almost totally accept that a signal from outer space containing information that could be interpreted as a string of prime numbers would be proof of extraterrestrial intelligence, why would they not accept that the information coding in the nucleus of the simplest cells dna which is equivalent to the information in a full set of encyclopedia Britannica was the result of intelligence?
Apples and oranges. The information in the DNA of a simple cell isn't intelligible without observing what it does. It's essentially random static (though that comparison is rather inadequate. DNA isn't random entirely, though it does figure into it). You're basically comparing an intentioned string of data with an easily discernable meaning to the random changing genome of the domain Archea.
9. What if God is real as described in the bible and you have to stand before him and give an account for your life? Do you have a list of reasons for why you never accepted Him? Under close scrutiny, will those reasons betray the fact that you dont want to believe and will stick with anything that sounds good rather than look into it too seriously.
i absolutely have a list of reasons I don't believe in god, but none of them are because I don't want to believe. Desire doesn't enter into it. If it'd been up to me I'd never have stopped being a Christian, but it was hypocritical of me to be scientific about every other claim and not God. Maybe he existed, I thought, but there's no sense in being a hypocrite when I know that, really, there isn't any evidence. And really, you'd think God could be a little more clear. Something a bit more than 66 books that were misinterpreted and editted over the years. I mean, if God's one criteria for saving and damning people is gullibility, I'll gladly jump the turnstyle into Hell. I mean, REALLY? This is the guy in charge?! 98 billion cubic lightyears and he's concerned that one asshole on one planet believes the exists? What kind of intelligent being, as you describe him, would make this his sole criteria? A good, just, moral, and intelligent god would make intelligence virtues and blind faith a vice. He'd make works necessary for redemption and asking him, instead of those who were wronged, for forgiveness a cosmic misdemeanor.
10. If I answered all your objections to your satisfaction, would you submit your life to Jesus or recognize God as your creator?
No. Absolutely not. I might recognize that God as my creator, but I'm not going to submit to him. I'll be on the frontlines of the fight against his amoral tyranny. This God of yours is not benevolent. He's malevolent, stupid, childish. I won't submit to someone I find morally and intellectually inferior to myself. If your God exists, then he's the enemy. I'd be figuring out how to join the rest of God's enemies in order to fight this force of evil.