5 most common arguments for god's existence and why they are at best illogical

Evening all,

So for those who don't know, there was a shooting in an Orlando, Florida club last night. Calling the perpetrator a despicable human being is to insult human beings everywhere. I'll do a proper opinion piece on this tomorrow but I just want to let the people affected by this know that my thoughts are with them.

It's always difficult to write something after hearing news like this but I can't help but feel that not carrying on would be akin to the fucktards forcing me to stop, something that I sincerely hope never happens, so without further ado:

5.) but evolution is only a theory...

The problem with this argument is the fact that all it serves to do is highlight the persons ignorance of what scientific phrases mean. Did you know that gravity is also "just" a theory? A theory in a scientific context is more than just someone's wild idea, it's a way to interpret facts and has mountains of scientific data and proof to back it up. So yes, evolution is a theory, but one that has yet to have a single shred of scientific evidence to contradict it, and mountains of evidence to back it up.

4.) The second law of thermodynamics.

In layman's terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that any closed system left to it's own devices will inevitably move towards entropy. It's often pointed to as proof that god has to exist or the universe would collapse into chaos. The major problem with this idea is the fact that the universe is not a closed system, meaning that the second law of thermodynamics cannot be used to interpret it, or make predictions about it.

3.) Something as complicated as an eye can't simply have come about by chance.

One of the main obstacles to most people's understanding of evolution is time, as humans we can envisage 5 minutes, 5 years, even 500 years, we can sort of grasp the concept of 5000 years but it's almost impossible to envision much more than that. It's this difficulty that we humans have that leads to out lack of acceptance of evolution. I think the best person to explain the evolution of they eye is Professor Richard Dawkins:

2.) I don't understand how you can believe that we are just here by chance.

Aka the argument from personal credulity, I still remember this same response to atheists who said something similar about believing in god when I was a bible believing christian. If you are tied to some train tracks with a train bearing down on you, no matter how much you believe the train isn't there, the train isn't just going to disappear. Just because you can't or won't believe the truth, doesn't change the truth.

1.) What if you're wrong?

To whose who don't know, Pascal's wager is an argument for a belief in god devised by the 17th century French philosopher, Blaise Pascal. Basically it says that non-belief in god is the less rational standpoint because if you are wrong, you burn in hell, whereas being wrong when you believe in god means little to nothing. I think I'll leave the answer to this one to Stephen Fry;

Per usual, none of the media in this post is owned by me, please do have a look at both Richard and Stephen, amazing people with awesome senses of humour.

Well, that's all folks, Thanks again for reading, any questions or suggestions, please feel free to comment and do please subscribe. also remember to like the facebook page: www.facebook.com/theangryafricanatheist

Ta,
G