"If you saw a watch on a path, you
would assume, because it is so
complex that something must have
created it: A watchmaker. The
same can be said for life and it's
Countered by Charles Darwin's
theory of natural selection
"Organisms mutate as they reproduce. Those organisms
that survive better produce more offspring therefore their
mutations become the norm for that organism over time.
This allows for more and more complex life forms to
Very convincing until evidence
for evolution is found by
Charles Darwin in the
"Life and the Universe is so complex and
perfectly balanced that it can't be a
coincidence and must have a designer;
this designer is God."
The Anthropic Principle counters this.
If the universe were not the way it is
then we would not be able to observe it
therefore the only universe we can
observe would be one that allowed for
Leap of faith at "this
designer is God".
"God is by definition perfect. A God that does not exist
is less perfect than a God that does as a non-existent
God couldn't act his will therefore God exists."
Fails on a logical level as it makes the assumption God
exists at the beginning of the argument.
Everything has a first cause. If something happens something happens something
must have happened to cause it. These events be traced back to the beginning of
the universe itself therefore God created the universe.
Ignores the possibility of a force or object acting
outside the dimension of time. A theory that looks
Universe caused by "The Big Bang".
This is only a theory.
God caused "The Big Bang"?
Why doesn't God need a cause?
God is outside of space and time.
Why can't the
outside of space
"God is where we obtain our
universal sense of right and
Freud would argue that we inherrit a sense of right and wrong from our parents
suggesting ideas to us in our childhood.
Richard Dawkin's idea of "The Selfish Gene" would suggest an
inherrent gene in a vast majority of humanity that stops us from
killing and harming under normal cirumtances as it promotes the
survival of the gene.
Whilst this theory is very believable in theory large
proportions of evidence are yet to surface in it's favour.
"So many people have had religious
experiences/ contact from God that they
can't all be lying/ wrong."
Wishful thinking could make a person interpret something that was
a simple sound like the rustling of leaves as a message from God
because their subconscious "wants" God to exist.
Many religious experiences contradict
each other therefore if an unknown
majority of them must be wrong it
makes no logical sense to believe any
one of them.
Bertrand Russel's "Celestial
"If I claim there is a teapot orbiting the sun
between us and it you would immediately dismiss
my claim as I have no evidence supporting it.
However you cannot disprove it.
The burden of proof
lies on those making
There is no evidence supporting the existence of God
therefore it makes no sense to believe he, she or it
At points religious scriptures, for example The Bible, contradict themselves
therefore they are not the word of God and their evidence is invalid.
These scriptures are simply metaphors and not intended to be taken literally.
At points when the bible gives explicit instructions
it contradicts itself still.
Flaws in the scripture
There are areas of The Bible that are clearly factually incorrect or were not in earlier translations
e.g. Genesis and The Holy Trinity This shows that the whole book could easily be falsified,
misinterpreted or even simple stories.
This is a very bold claim to make.
"God of the gaps"
Like the ancient gods of the past God today is simply
used as an explanation for scientific facts we do not
This means that the very concept of God is slowing scientific