God Does Not Exist

Argument from Contingency Rebuttal: Definition of a Virtual Particle: A short-lived subatomic particle whose existence briefly violates the principle of conservation of energy. The uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics allows violations of conservation of energy for short periods, meaning that even a physical system with zero energy can spontaneously produce energetic particles. Here is a good explanation of what virtual particles are: http://www.scientificamerican.com... 1). The first premise is a baseless assertion, and it is untrue at quantum levels. Virtual particles appear in and out of existence without cause. 2). There is no reason to assume this. There is especially no reason to assume that it is the Christian God specifically. 3). Yes... 4). Sure, it can be presumed that the universe's existence will eventually be explained. 5). The final assertion relies on premise 1 and 2 being true, and that is not the case. This is an argument based on a false assertion and a faulty assumption. Argument from Design Rebuttal: This argument contradicts the idea of an omnipotent God. You said that, "we see that these values are VERY specific quantities whereby, any change in the slightest to these values would not allow for a life permitting universe to exist." You seem to be underestimating your God. If God is omnipotent, He could create sustainable life in any universe, even one that couldn't sustain life. God would not need to care what the mass of an electron is, as he could still create life whether the electron weighed half, or double, what it actually weighs. It's interesting that you used a quote from an atheist who actually disagrees with this argument. Regardless of how "impossible" the odds of our universe ending up the way it did are, if they really were impossible, we wouldn't be here to contemplate the odds of our universe existing the way it does. The universe was not created to fit us, instead we evolved to fit the universe. We can use your life as an analogy: what are the odds that your ancestors would ever have met? What are the odds that your ancestors would ever have mated? What are the odds that your parents would have conceived you when they did, so that you birthday could be on the day that it is? What are the odds that the individual sperm that you were created from would reach the egg, instead of all of the other possible sperms that could have? Your life, and my life, is nothing more than a large string of improbable coincidences. Each coincidence seems amazing on it's own, but it only seems amazing in hindsight. No one will ever know what the alternatives could have been. You may say that God guided your ancestors together, but that would mean that we do not have unrestricted free will. To say that the universe was fine-tuned specifically for us requires the assumption that we're special. It is an arrogant idea, and it is not based on any evidence. Argument from Objective Morality Rebuttal: You said that, "There are certain actions and behaviors that are not only socially regressive, they are moral abominations across all cultures, races, and orientations." This is a completely untrue assertion. Different groups of people can, and often do, have disagreements about what is moral. The Spartans regularly practiced infanticide, and Nazis, at least the ones who believed in the Nazi cause, believed that they were helping the world. In both historical civilizations and modern ones in the Middle East, Sharia Law has been, and is used, to determine the fate of lawbreakers. I would like to presume that you do not believe that shoplifter's hands should be cut off, but some people believe that it is the righteous thing to do. The entire argument relies on everyone having the same moral compass. Morality is an evolutionary consequence. Societies with morals are more likely to survive. You have been taught by your parents about what is, and what isn't moral since childhood. Argument from the Historical Jesus Christ Rebuttal: "Disagreeing with premise (1) is the logical equivalent of disagreeing with modern science on the existence of atoms." This is a ridiculous claim, as atoms can be definitively proven. None of the accounts of Jesus are contemporary. According to the Gospels, He shut down Jerusalem with a parade. He performed in front of tens of thousands of people. He was supposedly very well known, but somehow not a single literate person wrote anything about Him for fifty years or more. The empty tomb - The Bible cannot even agree with itself when it comes to Jesus' tomb. John said it was witnessed by one woman, Matthew said two women, and Mark said three. Mark and John both said that the tomb was already open when the woman/women got there. Matthew said the tomb was closed, but an angel rolled back the boulder covering it. Mark said a young man was inside. Matthew said an angel was waiting outside the tomb. John said two men/angels were inside. Mark and John say the man/men were sitting, while Luke indicates they were standing. These many contradictions hint towards the idea that the story was perhaps made-up. An event as significant as the empty tomb of Jesus would have surely been documented. Jesus' Resurrection - Before the story of Jesus, there were many other messiah-like people were were crucified before ascending into heaven. The Ancient God Mithra was born on December 25, died, was buried in a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. December 25 is also the birthday of Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. When the story of Jesus was written, the idea of Crucifixion and subsequent resurrection after three days was already one present in many religions. If Jesus did exist, his name was most likely not Jesus. The Romans kept meticulous records, so meticulous that we even know how much a pair of sandals cost back then. Jesus was allegedly crucified by the Romans, but there are no Roman execution records with His name on them. You would think that the Romans would record the killing of Jesus, as they hated Him, and they were proud that they had killed Him.