In the Name of God

Preface: I came across an article with a title of “20 Reasons Why God doesn’t exist” by Dr. Mary Walker, which was sent to me by a friend requesting me to reply on it. I don’t know who the writer is and when the article was written, but I found it somehow interesting to write my own reply to her arguments. So, let’s start: 1) God’s existence has remained unproven despite the best efforts by millions over thousands of years. 2) We’ve believed in countless gods, such as Zeus & Ra, strongly suggesting that God, like all gods before him, is only a figment of our imagination. (Summary) No evidence for 1,000s of years + 1,000s of previously imagined gods = a very good chance that God was also imagined. Vice versa, there is also no evidence for more than 1000 years that God doesn’t exist. The fact that you just can’t prove someone’s existence doesn’t mean that he or it doesn’t exist. As for why there is a lot of gods during the timeline of history, while it doesn’t prove anything about the existence of God, it clearly shows the basic instinct within each human that there must be a God, a creator. The fact that many cultures imagined god each on their own way came from their needs and environment, in addition to influence of myths. We as Muslims believe in one God “Allah”, that is true that we differ from other religions and believes but eventually we all agree on that there is a God who created live and universe who is beyond the imagination of human brains.

Put differently, while pursuing a truth there will be a lot of point of views each influenced by different backgrounds but that doesn’t mean that there is no truth. So let’s edit the equation: (Summary) No evidence that God doesn’t exist for 1,000s of years + Millions of believers in Gods = a very good chance that God does exist. As they say, there is no flame without a fire. God cannot create himself, or even choose to exist. That is, he cannot use that which defines himself, such as his power & intelligence, in order to create himself. Put differently, if God didn’t already exist, then he would have had less power & intelligence than an insect; therefore, would have been unable to create himself. Your argument is built on a wrong assumption that God at some time didn’t exist. By this, you are treating God as a creature not a creator! God never was a nonentity so he would need to create himself. So, I totally agree with you that if God didn’t exist he couldn’t create himself. But the matter of fact is that God did already exist! All conscious beings, since self-creation is impossible, ultimately owe their existence to the unconscious nature of things. That is, if God has a god, and so on, then the supreme god, with nobody around to create him, and unable to create himself (as stated above), must owe his existence to something other than conscious creation, which is exactly where we were before assuming God has a god. Ok, so there is a being that was created by someone who in turn was created by someone...etc. This list can’t go to infinite because this is meaningless, so opposite from you I don’t go further than one God! All your arguments arise from misunderstanding and mixing between Creator and creatures, you try to apply the attributes of a creature to a creator. Let’s define creature and creator to make everything clear. Creature is a being that was nonentity until a creator gave him life, so he is helpless to create himself, or live for eternity, in addition to other characteristics of created beings. On

the other hand, these characteristics don’t apply to the creator who created life. Creator doesn’t need anybody to create him or he will be a creature. So we both agree that in the end there was a God you named him supreme God, I named him Allah. We differ in that you say he owes his existence to unconscious nature of things, where you didn’t define what is the unconscious nature of things? It is a way of circling around the problem by saying that God, We, Universe owe our existence to unconscious nature of things or chance or big bang or whatever you name it. In summary you are continuing to build on wrong assumptions by stating that god owes his existence which is an attribute to created things that doesn’t apply to the eternal creator who created existence and wasn’t nonentity to owe his creation. The unconscious creation of God is both extremely unlikely and entirely unneeded. That is, we have undeniable evidence for the unconscious creation of our universe (ex. fossils & the microwave background radiation), yet we have no such evidence, or even a theoretical explanation, for the unconscious creation of God. In addition, it’s far more reasonable to assume that reality gave rise to us versus a relatively complex god. “The unconscious creation of God is both extremely unlikely and entirely unneeded.” Argument was answered above. As for unconscious creation of our universe, we go again what is unconscious creation? Is it your examples of fossils & the microwave background radiation? Then who created these at the first place? If you continue to argue that they already existed which is a very weak argument and logically impossible, how did they without intelligence gave life and intelligence? In addition you already stated that our universe was created! Eventually, it is more reasonable to assume that God gave rise to universe versus reality! Wait a minute what is this reality?! Another possibility is that God always existed; therefore, was never created. However, an eternal existence would require that God existed prior to every moment in time, so no creative power, including himself, had the opportunity to create him; consequently, the fundamental nature of

reality must, without conscious intervention or time, coincidentally define his existence, which is like a whale spontaneously appearing miles above the ground for absolutely no reason, conscious or otherwise.

While you can imagine that God existed prior to every moment in time, you circle around yourself again by asking about the creative power which created God. Albeit, we said before any God that needs a god to create him is just a created being, or what it is the difference between him and creatures? Realizing the impossibility of both God’s creation & eternal existence, it’s been suggested that he exists beyond time. However, if God changes in any way; for example, has a thought, then the elapse of time (oldthought to new-thought) can be distinguished from the absence of time (old-thought to old-thought), so any change, no matter how insignificant or what form it takes, inevitably results in time. Consequently, if God exists beyond time, then he would be reduced to an impotent statue, unable to create the earth, let alone think. First, let us see what is time? There are two definitions of time: 1- The first definition of time is what we use now to indicate time which is measured by the sun movement creating day and night and consequently years and hours. It is very clear that this type of time don’t apply to God as he is the one who created the sun and he existed before the solar system even began. So, he is beyond this time. 2- The second which is more close to your assumption which is philosophical definition stating that time is the changing of the power state to being state. Let us take a simple example, there was a seed which became a tree now we can say this tree was a seed in the past and now it is a full grown tree. Now, we said before that God always existed so we can’t say that he wasn’t then he became. This is in fact an attribute

to all created beings that at one time they weren’t then they became. The misunderstanding came from you again mixing between God himself and his actions. Yes, actions like creating universe or creating humans are created and can be said when God created the universe, whereas, this can’t apply to his holy self, because it didn’t change state at the first place, like a seed which became a tree. We have undeniable evidence for the unconscious creation of both life and our universe, as confirmed by countless observations, experiments and computer simulations. That is, just as we previously learned that natural phenomena, such as lightning & rain, were unaffected by the absence of ancient gods, we’ve recently learned that our universe, and everything in it, would be unaffected by the absence of any god. In short, a relatively simple energy fluctuation, guided by only a handful of physical laws, inevitably condensed into matter, which in turn condensed into stars, which in turn released heavier elements, which in turn formed rocky planets and a vast number of atomic combinations, including those found in life, such as amino acids & nucleotides, and so on.

This was answered above, and just a reputation of arguments. But anyhow, you said a relatively simple energy fluctuation and a handful of physical laws started the whole process of creation. Simple question, who created this simple energy at the first place? So consequently it can somehow fluctuate and start the process of creation! The watchmaker argument in no way contradicts the natural evolution of man. That is, although a watch requires a watchmaker, and a human is more complex than a watch, a human does not require a human maker. Firstly, unless we make the sacrilegious assumption that God is less complex than a watch, in which case he would be unable to perform his godly duties, then he too would require a conscious creator, and so on. In other words, it makes absolutely no sense to account for our complexity by assuming that we were made by an even more complex, and entirely unproven, God. The truth is, humans, unlike watches, have everything needed for their unconscious creation, such as selfcontained blueprints (DNA), dividing and differentiating

building blocks (cells), nutrient uptake (hunting & digestion) and so on. Consequently, a bucket of watches, sprinkled with an aphrodisiac, and surrounded by the appropriate building materials, will never give rise to new watches, yet there’s little anybody can do to prevent a cage of rabbits from giving rise to new rabbits. Obviously the creative power of billions of years of evolution wasn’t matched the day we started shaping stone tools, or shortly after with mechanical watches. From this point on, the writer starts to mix everything! This is the first point where instead of providing evidence to prove that god doesn’t exist, you start to reply on argument made to prove god’s existence, which isn’t covered under your article’s title. However, I will clarify this point and say: The watchmaker argument is a solid argument unlike your weak theory where you say “Consequently, a bucket of watches, sprinkled with an aphrodisiac, and surrounded by the appropriate building materials, will never give rise to new watches, yet there’s little anybody can do to prevent a cage of rabbits from giving rise to new rabbits.” How sarcastic is this statement! First you say a cage of rabbits! Yes everyone knows that a couple of mankind will give rise to new humans! The question is from where did the first couple came from! Alas, you state humans can be created unconsciously because everything that was needed was there, yet there is no way that watches can be unconsciously created even though everything that is needed for the process is available! Now how absurd is that!!! So simply to reject your theory I’d say: The universe, the simple energy, or whatever you name it that by your confession can’t create a bunch of watches, how come it can give life & intelligence!

The ontological argument, which states that God exists because we can conceive of him, is beyond absurd. Firstly, we’ve conceived of countless fictitious entities, such as Big Foot & dragons, none of which are more inevitable than our conception of God. That is, as conscious beings we all eventually ask why we exist, and since we consciously

create things, such as watches, the simplest and most obvious answer is that we too were consciously created, which is why all ancient cultures believed in god(s), and also why the far more complex and less obvious conception of natural selection wasn’t made until much later. I agree with you that the ontological argument is absurd but not as much as your theory of creation! In this article you are to provide us with 20 reasons why God doesn’t exist not to reply on 20 reasons why God exist! In addition, this argument isn’t one of which we do use as evidence to prove God’s existence so, I will just ignore it. Some believers claim that they’ve found God in their lives; however, their examples are either natural phenomena or completely unsubstantiated. For example, finding God in beauty (ex. sunsets) and emotion (ex. love) is absurd, for they are either caused by simple physical laws (ex. the refraction of light) or serve an obvious evolutionary purpose (ex. our love for helpless babies keeps them alive, the love between a husband and wife keeps them together and the general kindness of strangers has allowed the human race to achieve a level of security and prosperity that would otherwise be impossible). In addition, the use of coincidences and fortunes is equally absurd, for it’s been statistically proven that no more planes crash, lotteries won and children die than expected, nor are nice people punished less frequently, so it’s both inexcusably deluded and excessively self-centered to credit God for the good stuff and question / loose your faith in him because of the bad.

I don’t know about your believers but our believers Muslims Believe in God because they reached that knowledge by using their brain and logical understanding not fooling their selves like you by thinking that a created brainless energy could give rise to universe and human intelligence. And let me assure you, we don’t have some people lose their faith because of the bad! On the contrary, they are so contented with everything because they believe in God. It is only 5 days that my aunt passed away from cancer. I did visit her at her last three days, God how peaceful she was! Smiling and praising God.

This argument doesn’t serve as evidence that god doesn’t exist.

Some believers simply state that they have faith in God’s existence. However, we can have faith in anything, including that God does not exist, so the use of faith is functionally indistinguishable from the statement ‘God does or does not exist because I said so’.

This argument doesn’t serve as evidence that god doesn’t exist. Ok I have faith in God, you don’t, so what? What does this have to do with God’s existence? Like faith is not evidence for you it isn’t for me. So, this is not a reason to deny God’s existence. Approximately 93% of the American National Academy of Science, and 97% of the British Royal Society, are atheists, and of all the scientists, biologists and astronomers have the highest percentage of atheism. This is because both astronomical and biological evolution significantly reduce our complexity; and consequently, the need for God to explain the unknown. This argument doesn’t serve as evidence that god doesn’t exist. Ok, what does this have to do with God’s existence? First, I can’t care less about your American National Academy and British Royal Society. This is no evidence that God doesn’t exist. As for science reducing the need for God, so what? You understood the physics laws and why that phenomenon happens and how solar system work? This doesn’t prove anything against God existence? You are like someone who says, “Oh! now I know how this car work! For sure this means that this car didn’t have a maker!”

And again how did you attach the need for God to explain the unknown to God’s existence? The real question is who created this universe and put all these physical laws at the first place?

IQ and theism are inversely proportionate. That is, the higher a person’s IQ, the greater the probability that he or she is an atheist, and geniuses have a significantly higher percentage of atheism than the general population, even when scientists, who generally have high IQs, are ignored.

Do you have solid generalized theory?

statics

upon

which

you

created

this

Of course you don’t! But no problem even if all mankind don’t believe in God, how should this relate to God’s existence?

Like language, faith does not transcend culture. For example, Christian parents are much more likely to raise Christians than Jews, and visa versa, and when a child is adopted from one faith, they are much more likely to practice the faith of their new parents. The Title of the article is 20 reasons why God doesn’t exist. However, now you are talking about religion! It is irrelevant to judge god’s existence by criticizing religions. The testable stories of all faiths, such as Noah’s Arch and Adam & Eve, have been successfully refuted. For example, the previously mentioned stories require incest, and the later, for every species on earth, and that’s in addition to repopulating all of Earth’s islands & continents. Consequently, most modern believers do not take the stories of faith literally; however, if you dismiss them as allegory (fictitious stories used to make a point) you’re

left with nothing but a book of fables and questionable historical facts. I don’t see how this disproves God’s existence. But let me add that Quran the holy book we believe in is not about some stories that you don’t like to believe in upon weak interpretation such as incest. It is a way of life from where we learn everything historical facts, manners, scientific facts, language, linguistics, logic, literature, social theories, law...etc Religion serves worldly functions. For example, be good, go to heaven (a perfect utopia); be bad, go to hell (a place of endless torture), don’t join our faith, go to limbo; as if being born on a different continent, reading science books and having a high IQ would be punishable offenses in the eyes of a rational God. Point being, any secular use of religion calls into question its integrity, giving it a reason to exist, even if God does not. Again, the title of the article is 20 reasons why God doesn’t exist. However, now you are talking about religion! Religions and whether they are from God or not? are out of the scope of this article. People faced with hardships, such as bereavement, loss of a job and drug addiction, are statistically far more likely to turn to God, proving that faith is not objective. That is, it’s both easy and selfish to have faith in a god you want to believe in. In contrast, having faith that a god doesn’t exist, despite wanting to believe in him, is both hard and unbiased; consequently, our faith in God, in addition to being contradicted by history, science & logic, is also easy & selfish.

First you state that believers lose faith when bad times come, now on the contrary you say that it is more likely that people with hard time to believe in God. In addition, you say that believing in god is easy and selfish while atheism is hard. The truth is faith in God is the hard thing because you can’t actually see him but you are to

trust your mind which led you to be a believer. Also, where is the selfishness when following a religion and obeying its instructions where you can simply deny any religion and live free with your desires and sins?

Religion breeds insanity & injustice. That is, the vast majority of atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, including the inquisition, crusades, burning of witches, pelting peaceful marchers with stones, killing Bruno for suggesting that life may exist on other planets, threatening Galileo with death, then sentencing him to house arrest, killing pagan leaders for refusing to denounce their gods (ex. the Incans), religious parents disowning their children for marrying outside the faith, and so much more (ex. terrorism).

Again, the title of the article is 20 reasons why God doesn’t exist. However, now you are talking about religion! If you want, start a new article about not believing in religions which is a completely different subject.

There’s not a single factual, logical or historical reason to believe in God, yet there’s at least 19 very good reasons not to. It is your choice! I did my job and replied to your weak arguments.

Conclusion: We went over this article which promised to provide 20 reasons that God doesn’t exist, however, we found that the writer didn’t deliver any of the promises. The article instead of emphasizing on providing evidence that God doesn’t exist went to the wrong direction by talking about religions in at least 4 points. In addition to, at least 3

points made to reply on arguments made to prove god’s existence. Moreover, there was a bunch of points which were either repetition or unrelated directly. So, dear readers have faith there are no 20 reasons for not believing in God.

Regex perl_sourcer@yahoo.com