The argument from Quantum Physics

Believers should be more riled up by quantum physics than about evolution. Thankfully, to even understand what quantum physics is about, you actually need to do some reading. The monkey thing is easier to grasp.

– Newton, Farraday, Kepler, all the famous scientists that believers repeatedly claim on their side, all of them died long before the atomic age, and the discovery of the God-confounding mechanisms of pure chance that rule all quantum reactions.

The absurdity of God’s judgement

– “Creating imperfect beings and demanding more of them than they are capable is clearly a sign of either ineptitude or cruelty” - some guy
– “Created sick — Commanded to be well.” – Fulke Greville.
– Imagine a fireman, that first sets your house on fire, then comes to extinguish it and expects you to be in his debt, for “saving” you. That’s what the biblical God does to the human race. Created weak and morally vulnerable, then condemned for not being perfect. That is beyond fair, that is abhorrent and repulsive. Or imagine cutting half the tongue of your child, and then punishing him for failing to speak properly.

The morality of the biblical God

THEISTS of marked intellectual ability persistently avoid any attempt to defend the Christian’s notion of their God as he is delineated in the Bible. The reason, no doubt, of this is that the character given to the deity by the “inspired writers” is so contradictory and repulsive that no amount of reasoning will harmonize it with modern ideas of justice, purity, and morality. Now is it not inconsistent upon the part of Christians to preach to credulous congregations about the virtues of God, while they dare not endeavor to defend, in public discussion, the same Being before a critical audience? Surely orthodox exponents, to be consistent, should, when they undertake to prove the “existence of God,” confine their attention to the God of the Old and New Testaments. If they feel that they cannot do this, it is their duty to say so; and further, to be honest they should inform their followers that the character of he “Heavenly Father,” as depicted in the Bible, cannot be defended by reason and ethical science. Is it not a sham and a delusion to profess to believe in a being whose nature and conduct are indefensible?
The Existence of God or Questions for Theists – by Charles Watts. Link.

= Christian Apologetics: Hitler can’t help you. Link.

On Believing

– 1 – Maybe my problem was the idea of faith itself. What is it, exactly? The Bible defines it for us, and I use this definition above Webster’s for what should be obvious reasons. “Faith,” wrote Paul, “is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Have you ever tried to break this down and put it into English that makes sense to the modern man? The NIV puts it like this: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see,” if that helps. In simple modern terms, Paul said this: Faith is believing when you have no rational reason to believe, or more simply, faith is belief in the absence of proof.

The first time I made this connection, I couldn’t believe it (so to speak :) ). Christianity’s entire basis is “Just push the I Believe button”? Really?! I struggled with this a while, reading what the Bible has to say about faith. How do you get it? “It comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” And what does this mean? Believe what you’re told. Put them together and you are faced with the requirement to believe what you’re told without proof.*

* It’s important to know the that faith Paul speaks of isn’t possible with proof. We’re required to have faith, which Paul defines as belief in the absence of proof, which means that proof of what we believe negates the possibility of faith. Think about it.

My problem was this: My “I Believe” button was broken. I was no longer capable of simply believing what I was told without proof. I had lost the ability to “become like a child.” Further, I was quite certain that regressing to childlike anything was not something anyone in his right mind would desire.

Once I realized, in plain English, what God required of me, I knew I couldn’t do it. Others, perhaps, are able to believe without question. I wasn’t one of them. I just didn’t believe, which meant that I was, by definition, an atheist. I was 32 years old.

– 2 – “Belief”, to me, is something that wells up naturally from deep within; it’s a cognitive recognition of the truth of a proposition, as well as the emotional attachment to it. It is NOT, to me, a decision to be made, or mere lip service to said proposition, as those who promote Pascal’s Wager seem to maintain. I cannot simply decide to believe in anything. I must be convinced of it – and the bigger the proposition, the more convincing that’s going to take.

I don’t trust emotions, particularly as a measure of truth. People seem to automatically assume that the stronger the emotion, the truer it or the underlying proposition is. Me, I’m almost the opposite: truth is cold and unemotional; if emotions are the only evidence or argument for something, then it’s almost by definition false.

– 3 – I never was comfortable making assertions I couldn’t support. It just took me a long time to figure out what beginning point of knowledge made sense to me, and to make peace with it.

The problem of evil

The problem of animal pain is widely taken to be the most difficult version of the Problem of Evil, and the best argument against God’s existence.

Theist philosophers usually argue that (1) there may be some outweighing good that we just can’t know about; (2) a universe containing some gratuitous suffering is still worth creating, and God will create all such universes; or (3) actual animal sufferings don’t serve any greater purpose, but if God were to eliminate them, some other evil would take their place. None of these attempts ultimately works.