MrPostsTough's channel

I explain why I doubt there is a creator of the Universe. I have different arguments at my other channel What160 on the contradictory Theistic God's attributes. Feel free to refute my arguments if you find them fallacious.

What is and isn't my position on God's, and why it doesn't takes any faith to not believe in God's.

I am an Agnostic Atheist, my position is not that I claim to know God's don't exist nor am I trying to prove God's don't exist. I just don't have any reasons to believe in God's because people who do believe in God's haven't provided evidence for their God's. For example, if someone told you a Magical Rock created us and that they have evidence it did. You would probably be skeptical and find the idea of a Magical Rock ridiculous right? This person than sass to you, "can you prove the Magical Rock doesn't exist? I would respond by asking them, what is your evidence and if it turns out to be bogus would mean you don't have good reason to believe in the Magical Rock, so why should I believe in it? Is the default position believing in the Magical Rock or being skeptical of it? What would it take for you to believe in the Magical Rock? I am sure you would need evidence the Magical Rock exists to believe in it. The people who have the burden to provide evidence are the ones asserting the Magical Rock exists and created us, not the people who are skeptical of their assertions. It takes know more faith for me not to believe in your God as it does for you not to believe in the Magic Rock i.e. NO faith at all.

Different argument

Why the Watchmaker analogy and the variants of it fail.

Creationists like to bring up the Watchmaker analogy to use as evidence we were created because we all know Watches are created by Watchmakers and not by nature. Like creationist say, "Watches don't build themselves you know."Organisms are more complex than Watches therefore we must have been created. There are also variants of it. The reason why Watches, Paintings, Cars, Plains, Computers, Nano-bots, Buildings, Electrical Wiring, Video Cameras and etc are bad arguments against Biological Evolution is because their all inanimate objects. Inanimate objects are not made up of self replicating molecules, don't have DNA and Genes, and can't reproduce offspring which is required for the drivers of Evolution to act up on, in which they do with organisms. The drivers of Biological Evolution being Natural Selection, Gene flow, Genetic drift and Mutations. I haven't heard one creationist correctly describe Biological Evolution and I don't have any space left to get into all the other misrepresentations, and straw man arguments Creationist are guilty of when arguing against Biological Evolution. I have other kinds of arguments bellow.

Different Argument

The God of the gaps fallacy. The next three paragraphs are part of the same argument

People who believe in God's have a habit of using the God of the Gaps argument when arguing evidence for their God. The God of the Gaps goes like this. Science doesn't understand everything so God believers attribute, asserting the gaps in sciences knowledge is evidence of their God's. God believers also attribute what they don't understand as evidence for their God's and a lot of the times their unaware of scientific explanations for some of the things they don't understand. A typical question someone arguing from the God, "Just look around you how did everything come into existence?"God must exist to have created everything how else could we have gotten hear, you would have to be blind to not see God's hand at work, cont.

I respond by saying, when it comes to unknown phenomena the scientific and logical stance to take is to acknowledge you don't understand the phenomena instead of making up explanations for what you don't understand. There is nothing wrong with saying I don't know unless you think you know when you really don't know, which is the case with a lot of God believers. There are lots of things science doesn't understand like what caused the Big Bang and not completely understanding the Origin of life, just to name a couple of the Billions of things not understood, cont.

History shows when previous unknown phenomena are understood the explanations have always been natural ones, because of this I doubt God explanations will help in solving current scientific mysteries because there hasn't ever been knowledge gained from invoking God to understand phenomena. For example, these Natural Phenomena used to be considered evidence for a creator until the phenomena were understood, Eclipses, Wind, Rain, Thunder, Lightning, Waves. Tides, Rainbows, Earthquakes, Clouds and before the discovery of Plate Tectonics people thought Mountains were evidence for a creator, the examples go on and on. I don't use faith to fill the Gaps unlike a lot of God believers who attribute what is not understood as evidence their God exists.

less