Atheism, Existence and Nothing
The following video features five “questions for the atheist.” Each is based on a common fallacy or misconception on the part of theists. Let’s take a look at the arguments made, and where they fail. This was originally intended to be one post, but each of the five sections turned out to be long enough for its own post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTYe_V2hOZ4
2. Why should there be something instead of nothing?
This is an ancient and very tired argument for God. It has come in many forms. One form of the argument might be “Why does anything exist?” to which the answer comes in the form of another question: why do you ask?
That is, why does one believe that nonexistence is even possible? After all, if one asks “why is there something, instead of nothing,” they must explain why they are assuming that it is even possible that nothing exist. What is the basis for that assumption? Could it be that they are assuming that whatever entity that created reality had a choice? In which case, are they not assuming the very thing they are trying to prove? Namely, that their Christian God exists?
He asks, in reference to the Big Bang, why should it have occurred? Again, why does he ask? He is assuming that there is some purpose inherent in the universe or in the creation of the universe. Why? THAT is the real interesting question.
He also brings up an old favorite of theists: that the earth seems “fine-tuned” for life. This is meaningless, because we know there is an incomprehensible amount of matter and energy in the universe that is not hospitable to life at all. By laws of probability, it only makes sense that, given the massive amount of matter and energy and the huge number of planets and stars in existence, at least one of them would give rise to life.
He says that life “bears the marks” of intelligent design. He calls this a fact; I call it his subjective intuition. Life does not seem intelligently designed to me.
He asserts that there is “moral order” and then asks why should it exist. Firstly, this “moral order” is a very slippery concept. If he means that all humans have some kind of common moral tendency, then he is correct. But if he is saying that the world has moral order inherent in it, as fundamental as the laws of physics, this is simply a traditional Christian belief, which in turn relies on the belief in a morality-giving God, and thus not supported by any evidence.
Secondly, and more importantly, the answer to the question is simple: evolution. If anything, the common moral tendency of humans across this planet is strong supporting evidence for evolution and natural selection as explanations for the development of humans.
MORE ARTICLES:
It’s just a lot of personal incredulity. “How could this be? I don’t know either, therefore it MUST have been a god (who, of course, must be my god).”
The “bear the marks” thing is silly, and it doesn’t matter if you or eye don’t think life seems intelligently designed. His claim requires a warrant which he doesn’t have. What are these marks? How do you know they’re the marks of a designer? Are there other examples of marks by which we can compare these alleged marks on life? Nonsense.
Great points, PhillyChief.
I agree the arguments aren’t very impressive overall. But then, by this point in my religion-critiquing career, not many arguments from that side are. It’s always fun to identify holes in an argument, though.