Via Pharyngula comes a list of 50 so-called proofs that God exists. The only problem is that not a single one of them is proof of anything. From the birth of science through to today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity & science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians; Francis Bacon, Issaac Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.
It is easy to prove to yourself that God is real. .the evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs:
Unsupported assertion. Why does it require a designer?
Delusion? Lies? "I'm not lying, I swear."
Exactly the same good it is with any other mindset. None at all.
Then what caused your God?
Unsupported assertion again.
Bullplop. Science, (neuroscience, to be precise) is making great strides in explaining these things. "Goddidit" explains nothing.
Bullplop. Also, look up "projection" in any freshman psychology text.
Atheism is faith only in that which is supported by evidence. No imaginary "good news" is needed, only reality
None whatsoever, at least for me and all other atheists that I know.
Because people like you irritate us
Irrelevant argument. The existence of pizza does not prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. Also, since chickens evolved from earlier egg-laying animals, the egg must have come first.
Yes, God is not impossible, just very, very improbable. This does not imply that God therefore exists. No evidence still means no reason to believe.
That has been very well explained. See any (non-creationist) freshman biology text
See above, add a freshman psychology text
Seriously, go get that freshman biology text
The Anthropic Principal does not say what you think it does. Life evolved to fit its environment.
That would be special creation, not evolution
It's all about the evidence. "Science. It works, bitches."
Is this supposed to be that "Evolution violates 2LOT" argument? That's been dealt with. Even AIG says to stop using it.
The Lady Hope story is bullplop. Even AIG admits it
Humans evolved as social animals.
All animals do not behave the same. "We are civilized, they are not" has also been used to justify the conquest/genocide of other human societies.
Unsupported assertion. "Goddidit" is a much closer fit for that.
Those people are frauds. James Randi still has that million dollars.
Which records would that be? Our calendar was made by believers. It doesn't prove anything. It could as easily have been based on the time since Atlantis was destroyed.
Sure. Belief in something doesn't make it true. Jim Jones? Heaven's Gate?
The Gospel of Mark is believed to be a secondhand account writen around 70 AD. Also, ask any police officer what eyewitness accounts are worth even immediately after an event, let alone 40 years later.
Real places, yes. Real events, no.
Predictions vague enough to mean almost anything, can be fit to almost any event, then be trumpeted as true.
What evidence would that be, give some references
There are Muslim scientists, Hindu scientists, Shinto scientists, and atheist scientists, too. What's your point?
Not even an argument. Just sophistry.
Science is self-correcting. That is one of its biggest strengths. If it is currently wrong, it will very likely be corrected in the future.
That's abiogenesis. It's being worked on. Evolution doesn't disprove God. No atheist claims that it does. A hundred and fifty plus years of research has provided no evidence for God. That is why atheists don't believe.
Does that mean it would be even more true if they had been Levite women? How about Levite women with leprosy? That would clinch it beyond all doubt. The women who entered the tomb weren't Levites, nor is it written that they were lepers. Therefore it must be false.
Now you're just making stuff up. The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence"
Some people convert to Islam, too. Some Xians become atheists. People are funny that way.
Einstein was a smart guy. He wasn't infallible, though. He also said, "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation." In fact, go here for a long list of Einstein quotes about what he believed.
The existence of a smart-ass is not evidence for the existence of God.
Is it? Says you. Anyway, who says there was nothing before the Big Bang?
It's "Stephen Hawking" and so what?
If God exists, then God exists. Circular arguments prove nothing. "If I had pizza for supper, then I had pizza for supper" is true, even if I actually had a hamburger.
See my response to #17
What missing link? Hundreds of homind fossils have been discovered.
Or he's a fictional character. There are lots of possibilities that don't necessitate him being God
Not a single piece of actual evidence (let alone proof) in the lot. Just more of the usual empty rhetoric, unsupported assertions, arguments from authority, and bald lies. Mostly the same ones we've all seen before, too.
I was going to call #46 a tautology (which it is) but then I'd have idiots shouting "Evolution is a tautology, too! It says "that which survives, survives.'" Which is, of course, a tautology, but not what MET says. MET says (vastly simplified), "That which survives to reproduce, will have offspring that are likely to survive to reproduce." This is not a tautology.
From the birth of science through to today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity & science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians; Francis Bacon, Issaac Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.