(oops, sorry for the above message, accidentally click send).
I think there are plenty of arguments that can counter the words from the bible or the existence of God itself. These are fairly common ones as many of you have probably read about:
-
The creation of the world, according to some versions of the bible, started about some 4000 or so years ago. Geological evidence have shown that Earth itself is hundreds of millions years old.
-
The perfectness of any animal specie (e.g. human’s creativity, human organ system, animal survival insticts, etc…) demonstrate a form of design and as such, a designer (i.e. a creator, or God). However, Dwarwin (as opposed to dwarwinism) demonstrated that certain traits are passed on from one generation to another and came up with the theory of natural selection (that has yet to be refuted). So what was the ultimate origin of life? Could be God, but science theorize that it’s more likely of formation of biochechemicals (composed of atoms, specifically protons, neutrons, electrons; or even sub-atoms which I’ve never heard of) linked togehter to form structures (proteins and other goodies); from then on composes the very basic lifeforms (such as bacteria). It’s indeed a long complex process and has very little to do with St. John the Baptist or Jesus Christ.
In addition to the above quote, Santa is indeed a human creation - but wasn’t God too? The so called evidence is based on the Bible, which comes in various versions. Ever heard of the saying “The bible was written by 37 secretaries”? Who knows, maybe back then the story that an all powerful being is passed on from one generation to another and finally some people recorded it on paper, based on hearsay evidence or personal dellution.
But I think we’re all approaching it the wrong way for this OP. PROOFING the existence of anything is difficult enough, let alone proofing the existence of an ethereal being subject to its existence. That’s just absurd and foolish.
We can always argue for a particular point and how we apply this particular to achieve an end. In terms of God, the Bible (or the whatever other religious authorities say so), philosophers, theologians have started with various premis and shown ‘proofs’ leading to the conclusion to the existence of God. However, there exist plenty of logical counter-arguments that can ‘disprove’ them (see above examples).
And that’s what it is for the nay-sayers of the existence of God. The authorities who insist in the existence of an all powerful being are dismissed as their evidence do not stand to logical counter arguments. As such, there is no reason to continue to belief in God for these nay-sayers (including myself).
One can say ‘well, God exists if you look for him’. If you’re ability to reason logically is limited to a certain level on certain subject, that’s fine. But to apply this argument as an absolute authority is inappropriate, as we have seen certain individuals have done, are doing it, and will still be doing it (relating to past ‘holy’ crusades, the current terrorist situation, and certain indivuals who insists mandatory prayers in schools and such).
Some people who insists on the existence of God gets too emotional and clouds their own judgement and thought, just as much that some scientists who’ll do anything to advocate their own theory for their own ends (e.g. attain status and power). So be careful.
Don’t get me wrong, even though I’m ‘atheist’, I’ve met plenty of nice priests, rabbis, and worshippers. They’re some of the nicest and most caring people I’ve ever met. I like them a lot and they’re willing to help and care for people, many of whom are at the bottom of the barrel of the the society - that’s that it counts.
Cheers,
jovius
