More Questions for Atheists

1. Are you absolutely sure there is no God? If not, then is it not possible that there is a God? And if it is possible that God exists, then can you think of any reason that would keep you from wanting to look at the evidence?
Am I absolutely sure? Of course not. If I’m not absolutely sure, then of course there is the possibility that there is a god. I just highly doubt that there are any. I have looked at the evidence. If you can provide evidence that actually suggests that there is a god, I’d be happy to look at it. The evidence that I have seen so far suggests otherwise.
2. Would you agree that intelligently designed things call for an intelligent designer of them? If so, then would you agree that evidence for intelligent design in the universe would be evidence for a designer of the universe?
Define intelligently designed. If your definition of intelligently designed is something made by an intelligent designer, then you’ve just offered me a tautology. The idea of evidence for intelligent design is silly. This so called evidence always happens to be “I couldn’t create this, man can’t create this, therefore it must be intelligent design.” Just because something looks complex doesn’t mean it was made by someone. And the fact that humans can’t replicate something doesn’t mean god must’ve done it. Now, if you could provide actual evidence of a creator then I would be willing to accept that a creator existed.
3. Would you agree that nothing cannot produce something? If so, then if the universe did not exist but then came to exist, wouldn’t this be evidence of a cause beyond the universe?
This is a complicated issue. You see, I’m not a physicist, so I’m no expert in physics. However, there are physicists who would say that something can come from nothing, in fact, something comes from nothing on a fairly regular basis. But this is best discussed with a physicist. But, going with the assumption that something can’t come from nothing, evidence of a cause is not evidence of a causer (ie. God). If something can’t come from nothing, then there must be a cause of the Big Bang, but, being as the Big Bang started our universe as we know it, there is no way (as of yet) to know what that cause is. As such, all you could then say is that the universe must have a cause. You can say nothing of what that cause is.
4. Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?
Of course, but I’d also say that, if we cannot test for it, it is unlikely that it exists. We can test for gravity and magnetism. We can feel the wind. What do you mean by mind, though. I suspect that what you’d define as the mind doesn’t actually exist. My definition of the mind is simply the functioning of our brains. Again, we can test for that. With the help of a computer, we can actually see it. There was evidence to suggest that the Higgs Boson existed long before it was actually discovered. Where is the evidence that God exists? What tests can we run?
5. Would you also agree that just because we cannot see God with our eyes does not necessarily mean He doesn’t exist?
I’ve already said that there is a possibility that a god exists. Which god, however, is a trickier question. Again, where is your evidence? What tests can we run? Otherwise, why should I believe?
6. In the light of the big bang evidence for the origin of the universe, is it more reasonable to believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?
You’re assuming that there was nothing before the Big Bang. We don’t know if there was something or nothing. But, if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then there was nothing before the Big Bang. Ergo it’s more likely that nothing caused the Big Bang. But again, making assumptions about something we have no way of knowing about is pointless.
7. Would you agree that something presently exists? If something presently exists, and something cannot come from nothing, then would you also agree that something must have always existed?
Yes, something presently exists. I’m not going to bother saying more than that because I’ve already given you the answer.
8. If it takes an intelligent being to produce an encyclopedia, then would it not also take an intelligent being to produce the equivalent of 1000 sets of an encyclopedia full of information in the first one-celled animal? (Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.” Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: WW. Norton and Co., 1996), 116.)
You do understand that that’s a metaphor, right? The type of information found inside of a cell isn’t the type of information found inside a book. There is no reason to think these two things are equivalent.
9. If an effect cannot be greater than its cause (since you can’t give what you do not have to give), then does it not make more sense that mind produced matter than that matter produced mind, as atheists say?
No…I…just, what? Do you think brains just suddenly appeared? Out of matter that wasn’t already there? Do you understand how long it took for life to form? And then for that life to become simple organisms without minds? Do you understand how long it took from the time life formed to the time when the first creature with a brain was formed? We’re talking billions of years just for life to get a brain.
10. Is there anything wrong anywhere? If so, how can we know unless there is a moral law?
Define wrong. You mean objectively wrong? As in something that’s always wrong to do? Is it always wrong to kill others? If so, then the military is built on doing wrong. So no, there is no objective wrong. We can have moral law, as in laws based on moral, without requiring objective morality. We do this at a societal level. Thus why laws and moral codes change over time and between cultures.
11. If every law needs a lawgiver, does it not make sense to say a moral law needs a Moral Lawgiver?
No. We create laws as a society. Laws aren’t created and enforced by one person. Even in the feudal era this wasn’t the case. It’s silly to say that law needs a lawgiver as if that assumes one person creates and passes, then enforces, a law. Moral law isn’t really a useful idea. It isn’t defined. But we don’t need a higher power to have morals.
12. Would you agree that if it took intelligence to make a model universe in a science lab, then it took super-intelligence to make the real universe?
For one, it took intelligence I the science lab because the scientists happen to have intelligence and they were trying to create a model universe. For another, did the scientists have 14 billion years? Seriously?
13. Would you agree that it takes a cause to make a small glass ball found in the woods? And would you agree that making the ball larger does not eliminate the need for a cause? If so, then doesn’t the biggest ball of all (the whole universe) need a cause?
Sure. It could take lightning striking sand in such a way that the glass hardens somewhat ball-like. The universe is not a ball. It is a universe. Possibly one of many.
14. If there is a cause beyond the whole finite (limited) universe, would not this cause have to be beyond the finite, namely, non-finite or infinite?
How do you know the universe is finite? I made pancakes yesterday. They were finite. Am I necessarily infinite because my pancakes were finite?
15. In the light of the anthropic principle (that the universe was fine-tuned for the emergence of life from its very inception), wouldn’t it make sense to say there was an intelligent being who preplanned human life?
Prove that the universe was fine-tuned for life. And while your at it, figure out why, if the universe is so fine-tuned, we haven’t found more life in the universe. One planet with life on it in a universe as big as ours doesn’t sound very fine-tuned to me.

Questions for Atheists, Agnostics and Non-Christians