RESPONSE TO SIRA FROM IRELAND

Submitted by DANIEL REDMOND (United States), Jan 2, 2010 at 17:06

All right, Sira, I've now read your rather lengthy rambling post and here is my reply for you to "have a think" about. I will try to address your points individually.

First, you reference the extraordinarily complex balance of natural forces and resources that have enabled life to flourish here on planet Earth. As with many before you, you have postulated that the very fact that this delicate balance exists and supports life must serve as some sort of proof of a divine being having served as an intelligent designer or creator of all that exists. I will counter this assertion by asking you to consider the following: Science has shown us that our universe consists of our own solar system which is part of an enormous galaxy of more than 100 billion stars [other suns] floating within an expanse of infinite space that contains a billion more galaxies of equal or larger size with hundreds of billions of more stars each of which may be the hub of other solar systems. Now consider this: In all of this huge universe as far as we know there is no other life anywhere. We do know that life as we know it could not possibly exist on any of the other planets within our own solar system and in all likelihood the planets revolving around other suns are equally inhospitable to life as well. If your supposed creator is all knowing and all powerful, is this the best he can do.....to create life only on one small planet in a tiny corner of one large galaxy? And consider also that vast tracts of Earth's surface, such as the Gobi Desert or the Arctic Circle, are largely inhospitable to most life forms as well.

I am not sure what your point is when you attempt to make a connection between potted plants not being able to turn on the tap to water themselves and the life-cycle of salmon. There is no logical connection between the two. And, incidentally, salmon do not return to their "parents river which they have never known." Salmon are spawned in a river, travel to the sea where they live for several years, and then instinct leads them back to the same river to spawn more salmon. If it makes you feel better, however,I will point out that no salmon has ever been known to turn on a faucet to release tap water either. Evolution is NOT based upon a "random chance theory." Evolution is based upon the principle of genetic variance and the ability of organisms to adapt over time to environmental pressures. It is a very rational process. Those organisms that are best adapted to their environment and who express behavioral characteristics suited to those environments live to breed and reproduce more like themselves, thereby passing along the genetic variations most suited for survival. Thus species of animals living in the Arctic are adapted to cold climates; those living in Equatorial Africa are adapted to hot climates, etc.

The casino doesn't "always" win. If it did nobody would go to casinos. Some people do win and we call that luck. I know the point you are getting at is one that religion's defenders resort to it frequently----the concept that if something is unlikely to happen then it could not possibly happen without an intelligent designer, right? Okay, how about you give this a "think": The odds of pulling out a 13 card bridge hand in any particular order from a deck of cards is on the order of six billion to one against it happening. Yet if it did happen you would be foolish to deny it, wouldn't you? Many things happen every day for which the odds of them happening are extremely remote. And as I pointed out above, if we are the only place to develop life in a universe of thousands of billions of potential worlds, well, the odds were that life would develop somewhere on at least one of those planets someplace. I guess that would be us.

One more point: If it is extremely improbable that our world would just come into existence without a "creator" isn't it at least equally unlikely that a creator would come into existence who was capable of single-handedly creating all that we know? If you believe in the Creator's spontaneous existence then you must enter into an infinite regression of who created the creator, and who created the creator's creator, etc. ad infinitum....... I'm glad to know that you believe "EVERYTHING" has a purpose. Does that include cancer, polio, Parkinson's disease, crib deaths of infants, car crashes, and the host of other afflictions affecting our lives? And what purpose does your god have in mind for these things anyway? The Christian concept of "free will" granted by God is a contradiction in terms. If someone has to allow you to have free will, then you don't really have free will, do you?

It appears to me that your God has not given you free will at all but only the opportunity to make bad choices for which you will be punished afterward. That is NOT free will, but entrapment by a celestial bully. Why did I "choose" to be an atheist? I did not choose to disbelieve in deities. I simply see no compelling evidence to believe in any of them. However, there is plenty of evidence to support the belief that deities---whether they be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.---were invented by mankind in a misguided attempt to explain our existence. Okay, last but not least, you finally get to the part about God being the "parent" who punishes us for our wrongdoing or sins. This is the backbone of Christianity in particular---the endless castigation of human beings as being unworthy sinners who need to be punished by the Control Freak in the sky who demands that they grovel relentlessly before him, usually down on their knees. Truth be told, the Christian God is in my opinion such a loathsome bully that he exhibits all of the characteristics of a celestial psychopath.

First he creates a realm of beings who he deliberately made imperfect and prone to temptation. Then he demands that they be better than they are capable of being. When they try to better themselves through knowledge he punishes them for their "disobedience" [I guess he likes his creations to remain ignorant] and, not content with doing that, he condemns all of their descendants to the ranks of "sinners" in perpetuity. Then he demands a punishment and decides to send his own son to be tortured and killed 'IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIS OWN DEMAND THAT SOMEONE BE PUNISHED.' [Is this sick or what?] And even after his child, Jesus, suffers this murder he still considers us all to be worthless sinners anyway. It is all very perverse and morbid in the extreme. You claim that evidence of God is "glaringly obvious." In other words, the fact that the world exists means it must have been made by your deity, correct? Well, sorry, but that is an exceedingly flimsy argument and not worthy of discussion. One could as easily attribute the known world to The Giant Monkey Dragon or some other such mythical creature. Oh, and don't bother looking in the kitchen. I am all-knowing and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that your dinner did not cook itself. And no, that doesn't prove there is a god either.

DANIEL REDMOND

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".