But There is No Evidence of God's Existence

Person A: See you at church tomorrow.

Person B: I don't think so.

A: Oh, you have something else planned?

B: No, not really.

A: Why?

B: I don't see any reason to go.

A:  Yeah, but you've been going to church there for twenty years.

B: Yeah, I know, but look at it. I mean, really, there are hypocrites there. I don't see any difference between churchgoers and those who don't go. Do you see any difference?

A: Well, uh. We've had a lot of good times there, and you have friends there.

B: You know they're so full of rules; I don't want to hear any rules anymore. It just keeps me from enjoying it, well, you know. Do you have a good time in church? Besides, why do you believe in God? I mean, there is just no proof- I mean none.

A: I still think it is a good thing.

B Seriously, man, look at all the evil in the world. Think about all the hatred and evil in the history of the church. Besides, there is just no more proof. None. Can you give me proof? It's the same as believing in the Easter Bunny. Don't you agree? Seriously, at least with the Easter bunny, we got candy. But God.

A: There's evil everywhere. You can't blame God.

B: We don't need God. We're just pieces of meat with a brain. When we die, we die, so I just want to have a good time while I'm still here. Besides, what has God ever done? Certainly, we don't need God for the world. 

A: How do you think you got here? Look around. How do you think this happened?

B: Things just pop into existence. There's this book, Universe From Nothing; you should read it. You know, who needs Jesus when a star died for you? Hey, I'm happy for you, but I don't want anyone. I mean, just leave me alone.

The above is an imaginary conversation, but it is a collection of statements I've heard through social media. How should person B  respond? The purpose of this site is to prepare people to respond when in uncomfortable conversations. 

,After all, their parents spend a tremendous amount of money on their education, are considered very intelligent and trustworthy, and hold positions of authority over the student. I'm sure most of them walked into their first-year class thinking they would hold on to their Christian beliefs, and so did their parents. Why does this happen? It's a combination of reasons, including the influence of their professors, peer pressure, believing there is no evidence for God's existence and inability to think for themselves. 

College professors have a lot to do with changing students' minds. After all, their parents spend a tremendous amount of money on their education, are considered very intelligent, trustworthy, and hold positions of authority over the student. By following some atheist professors' writings and talks, I hope to inform students how to evaluate anti-religious remarks and identify poor reasoning.

I want to credit Professor Peter Boghossian, an atheist professor, for his ability to manipulate other people's beliefs. He was pretty popular when he just criticized religion, but in 2017, he wrote an article, "The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct." The article blamed the penis for climate control issues (seriously, I can't make this stuff up). It was published in  Cogent Social Sciences on May 19th, 2017. There was no problem until he announced it was a hoax. Then, the popular professor was not so popular. After he admitted the hoax, his teaching responsibilities were diminished, and eventually, he and the school separated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Pzd1EHvs9ig

Interestingly, in his book "A Manual for Creating Atheists" and in his lectures, he uses numerous logical fallacies (errors in logic)  in criticizing religion. We live in a world where all is fair in love and Christian criticism. I watched a video of him in front of students, using one logical fallacy after another and seeing the students listening intently with heads moving like bobbleheads. Bobbleheads who could not find errors in what they were being told and were unable to defend their beliefs.

This website hopes that people will be able to examine arguments against religion and make up their own minds.

 Another professor who is excellent at manipulation is Richard  Dawkins (RD). He is a well-known atheist who makes a lot of money ridiculing and mocking religion with an emphasis on Christians. His latest book, "Outgrowing God," is directed at a younger generation by suggesting they are grown up and can walk away from superstitions and myths. His books are filled with mainly gibberish to persuade young believers to walk away from their faith. 

A person as famous as RD, a professor at Oxford University, certainly uses logic well; therefore, his reasoning is excellent and trustworthy. Not really. His reasoning contains mistakes due to his own bias. This site is about fallacies and bias.

Biases and fallacious arguments interfere with everyone's reasoning. Unless someone can recognize them, they will be deceived. The purpose of this website is to teach biases and learn to spot fallacious arguments. To understand fallacious arguments, you need to read the quick and simplified explanation on this site's logic and reasoning page.

Everyone has a bias to some extent, but some more than others. Bias simply means to be partial, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases certainly affect a person's judgment and reasoning. Dawkins has two different significant biases: blind spot and the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is an example of his blind spot bias in his conversation with another atheist, Peter Bohossion. 

Boghossian: "What would it take for you to believe in God?"

Dawkins: "I used to say it would be straightforward. It would be the Second Coming of Jesus or a big, deep, booming, bass voice saying, "I am God." But I was persuaded, mostly by Steve Zara, who is a regular contributor to my website. He more or less persuaded me that even if there was this booming voice in the Second Coming with clouds of glory, the probable explanation is that it is a hallucination or a conjuring trick by David Copperfield.   He made the point that a supernatural explanation for anything is incoherent. It doesn't add up to an explanation for anything. A non-supernatural Second Coming could be aliens from outer space." Bogohhian then asks, "So that [stars aligned into a message] couldn't be enough. So what would persuade you?

Dawkins: "Well, I'm starting to think nothing would, which, in a way, goes against the grain because I've always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming."

Video

Wow, aliens and hallucinations. Is this blindspot bias or a low level of antipsychotic medications? It is a blind spot to anything supernatural. No matter how much evidence was presented to him, including the appearance of Jesus, he would hold to the beliefs of David Copperfield or aliens. 

Now, these aliens are not just your average everyday aliens; no, not even close. They are far more intelligent than humans. They can create life, travel billions of miles, travel incredibly fast, and then keep their existence a secret. Really? 

Dawkins does really believe in aliens,  but they are not supernatural. Supernatural evidence pointing toward God would be ignored entirely no matter how strong the evidence. On the other hand, his mind is open to powerful, creative, and highly intelligent aliens. 

Another bias of many atheists is the Dunning-Kruger effect. This means a person has so little knowledge about a topic that he doesn't know what he doesn't know. People who know very little about a topic may believe they are knowledgeable and are surprised at how poorly they perform when tested. On the other hand,  people who are very knowledgeable about a topic may underestimate their knowledge. I find he knows very little about the Bible or Christianity in his writing and speeches. He repeatedly proclaims there is no evidence for God, yet he easily believes in aliens.

Although Dawkins believes there is no evidence for God, I have a lot of evidence for his existence. I write about the evidence on this site using specific arguments for God's existence, such as the Kalam, Leibniz, and Teleological arguments. Also, in this section is the evidence for the resurrection. These arguments all follow the rules of logic and have been acceptable for hundreds of years. I don't believe Dawkins has any such arguments for the brilliant aliens.

So, how well does our Extraterrestrial Professor (ETP) understand logic and logical fallacies? In the video, RD accuses Ben Stein of "begging the question." Is that an accurate statement or claim? No, it's not true; Ben Stein asked a question. Begging the question is the name of the logical fallacy in which a premise is also in the conclusion. The professor thinks he understands what it means but is entirely wrong. An example of begging the question is: I know God does not exist; therefore, God doesn't exist. 

Another issue with those pesky aliens is an infinite regression. RD knows the beginning of life in just a few billion years is pretty far-fetched. No problem, aliens came to save the day. However, a problem with this reasoning is who designed the aliens that designed us? Since intelligent life can only come about through a slow evolutionary process, the aliens who evolved through a slow evolutionary process had to be created through aliens who evolved through a slow evolutionary process. This is an example of an infinite regression fallacy. Oops