Why Ricky Gervais is an atheist

[Mummelmann]

highwaystar101 said:

TheProphet said:
The reason Ricky Gervais is an atheist is because he hasn't really bothered to think about it

First the intellectual argument. There is plenty of evidence for God in science. One only has to look and think for themselves. The universe has a beginning. It was created. That agrees with the Bible that was written thousands of years ago. Life is really complicated. The chance of life resulting from random mutations is so low it is ludicrous. The only intelligent explanation is that there is a very intelligence creator. The alternative is to believe that everything came from nothing. Since that never happens it is a very poor explanation. So Ricky Garvais is dead wrong when he thinks that science does not support a belief in God. I know some scientist believe this, but they are a small group of irrational people. Most intelligent people believe in God. The argument for atheism from science is not credible.

Hi. First, welcome to VGChartz. Second, I really don't want to look like I'm bashing you, so I'm sorry if I cause offence.

You seem to think you are coming at this from a "scientific" perspective, which you are most certainly not. Here's the deal with science; if theory A is wrong, it doesn't mean theory B is right. You seem to think that is how it works.

Let's assume for a minute that evolution/abiogenesis is wrong, and let's assume that everything couldn't have come from nothing - Then why does that make God's existence fact?

For example. If I say our space and time was caused by the big bang (theory A) and you say it was created by god because something had to initiate it (theory B), then you can prove theory A is wrong all you like, but it doesn't make theory B right. The actual answer could be theory C, or D.

I haven't seen you take this into consideration in this thread so far. All I've seen you say is "the universe had a beginning, all things that have a beginning need an origin. The origin can only be God". I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it and in no way falls under "science". All you have are a bunch of made up premises and then an arbitrary conclusion.

How can you test this? How can you find out that your conclusion is the correct one given your premises? How can you even test that your premises are correct? - you can't just rely on knocking down other theories and then claiming yours the victor, it doesn't work like that.

And that is why some of us understand that one cannot apply a scientific approach to philosphical issues and vice versa. Religious zealots that have no grasp on science and its application is nothing new. Have you seen Kent Hovind trying to explain the Great Flood?