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.



9 responses to “More Questions for Atheists

  • 15 Questions for Atheists | Allallt in discussion

    […] found 15 questions (and answers) for atheists here, but the original is apparently here (I say “apparently”, because they’re […]


    • brmckay

      1. An honest definition of God would have to center on the a priori nature of God, on the infinitude of singularity, on existence itself.
      2. An intelligent designer, requires something outside its Self to design upon. How does this resolve to the infinitude of singularity? Does this suggest a paradox? Does the ‘existence’ of this paradox in any way negate God?
      3. Infinitude as cause of finitude? How can that be? Emergent characteristic of infinite potential perhaps? Who is it that asks? Upon what is the self resting when it asks?
      4. How would this ‘functioning of the brain’, that doesn’t really exist as mind, ‘test’ for the ‘existence’ of Entirety? All that is, is not, or might be?
      5. Why would I believe in the Sun? What is the Sun anyway? What is the evidence that the Sun exists? Sure the Sun might exist, but why should I believe that it is actually the Sun?
      6. How do I know that there is no way to know something? If a universe-of-things results from no-thing, how is that different from me typing these words?
      7. As for ‘something always existing’; that requires the preexistence of time.
      8. How does DNA work? Where does instinctual knowledge reside?
      9. What is time? Where does time exist? Is there actually anything other than now?
      10. Anything wrong? Hell yes! May I suggest that the objective aspect of morality is a quality that we as humans bring, (or more likely fail to bring), to the game. Not, some special manifestation or category of behavior.
      11. Like the above ‘special quality’, perhaps the key is Quality. But what is that? (suggestions for likely characteristics: honesty, authenticity, compassion, humility, goodwill.) Are there limits on the cultivation of Quality?
      12. What does this word super mean? Like the word ‘designer’ it implies something other that what is. Therefore it is only imagined within Nature. Since there is only Nature, it is sufficient. Remember Singularity. Infinitude of potential. The awakening of Awareness. I AM THAT I AM. (in case you haven’t been tracking this closely.)
      13. Primordial cause is Infinitude. One universe of many is not Universe. Or else we need another term. Entirety. Allah, Ishvara, Yahweh. Pick one if you need to but better, just go and see.
      14. The ‘infinitude’ of a mathematical set is only a pseudo infinitude. So that must not be what we are talking about. Right?
      15. Why go off the rails at this point? Let’s ponder the possibility that evolution is not a random process but rather a process of ‘Self discovery’. That consciousness is integral to existence. That there is innate meaning to Life. That the miraculous is omnipresent and therefor invisible.


      • hessianwithteeth

        You through out a lot of words in your post here, mostly focusing around this concept of “he infinitude of singularity” and then go on to say it’s all kinds of different things, you fail to define terms, and make assumption that we ought to be following you line of thought, but I’ll be honest I’ve only ever heard such terms used by characters such as Spirit science who spin little more then word salad in order to sound deep. It’s so unclear what your talking about that I don’t even know to whom or what your responding.

        Though I honestly have no idea how to respond to that comment or who it’s directed at.


  • Your Moderate Mama

    Thank you for the insight!

    I can not speak for other Christians but before I started reading your blog and before I got to know a few people over at Ark’s place, I thought all Atheist 100% didn’t believe God existed (due to other Atheist I know). I get the fact that there is no scientific proof (in the way you described it) for God and how that is what you want in order to believe a God exist… I respect that and wish you well on your journey!! Happy Holidays!!

    Liked by 1 person

  • Marija

    The biggest misconception people have and the biggest generalization is that people think ALL ATHEISTS think the same, or alike.
    Atheism does not state how smart a person is, how reasonable and how nicely he will state his opinion about religion or God. Might initiate he likes to think LOGICALLY but hey. I am not saying there isn’t the possibility of ”God”, but I want PROOF first ’cause I never saw his miracles at work. The miracle of life? It’s all science and biology from what I can make of it. 🙂


  • mikesteeden

    Believers always seek a starting point blindly overlooking the concept of infinity. Within said infinity there are beginnings, middles and ends as ‘things’ reshape – be that stars or stones. That is my understanding.


  • purpldragon

    I started reading this post planning to answer some of these questions only to discover that you had already answered them. Thanks was definitely worth the read.


Tell us what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: