Why Ricky Gervais is an atheist

[highwaystar101]

TheProphet said:

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

Thank you for the welcome. I don't mind reading other points of view. I am constantly examining my own beliefs and compare them to others to improve them. 

I agree that science uses only the best theory. A theory may be proven wrong in the future. I am only saying the the current science supports the Biblical understanding of God. The universe had a beginning just like Genesis says. Current science agrees with the Bible.

To begin with, Darwin talked about evolution after the first life froms. Evolution can be consistent with divine creation. Abiogenesis has no scientifically verifiable explanation for the origin of life. Some scientists in this field believe they will never know how life started. I agree with them. Life is too complex to randomly come together.

I am not saying that science proves God exists. I am saying that current science supports that theological conclusion. God is, as I said, outside the universe. Science requires material to test. Science can not therefore prove God's existence. However, one can now reasonably say, given the overwhelming design in the universe, its origin, and the complexity of life, that a designer is the best philosophical explanation. The alternative is that everything came from nothing. That I think is a very poor explanation.

If the universe existed forever then I would have a very difficult time arguing that there was a God creator. Some scientists tried to advance this theory, but it does not fit the scientific facts of the big bang. 

 

Thanks for the reply, I just thought I would break my reply up into three parts.

...

First, have you heard of M-theory? People have used it to try and explain the origin of our Universe came to be, without the need for god(s). The theory isn't really testable, but it shows that your claim of "If it had a beginning, then it had a creator" is not the only "logical" option.

Which brings me to the point that not everything discovered using science is the "logical conclusion". Very often we find that it is the illogical conclusion that's true once we gather and analyse the evidence. This is the only point when it is valid, because evidence always speaks louder than logic. This was really my point in my original post.

...

Second. Abiogenesis is far better supported than a lot of creationist literature likes to make out. The leading theory for abiogenesis is that self-replicating molecules mutated and eventually formed the first cells. Self replicating molecules have been observed in nature and particularly in lab conditions where they have been proven to mutate and evolve, consistent with this theory.

...

Third. Everything is consistent with a non-designed universe. You only have to look at the organs of any animal to see that. Complex life is imperfect, which would be a consequence of evolution, and not of design.