First, it is important to understand that Christians believe the Bible is the very words of God. To quote Psalms 14:1 is not so much “name calling” as it is a statement of fact (from our perspective). Personally, I feel there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence for God’s existence that it is foolish to doubt His existence. I agree that calling an atheist foolish is provocative in the beginning stages of an argument, but in my video, I’m trying to be provocative on purpose.
On the argument from cause, you say, “God didn’t need a cause and has always existed.” Yes, that’s right, you have articulated my position precisely. So, either the universe has always existed or God has always existed. You (and science) don’t really know if the universe has always existed since no one was there at the big bang. But, there are observable natural laws in the universe that show it is highly improbable for us to be here by chance.
There are two stories about where creation came from. Both stories are based on faith. No scientist was present at the beginning of the universe. It requires a great leap of faith to believe that something comes from nothing, that order comes from chaos, that life appears from non-living matter (abiogenesis), and that consciousness appears from non-conscienceless. Atheists criticize Christians for believing in a “magical being” that created everything, but it is just as absurd to believe that everything came from nothing.
Since we exist, something must have always existed. Is it more plausible to believe that the universe simply popped into being one day or to believe that there is an infinitely wise Being who exists outside of time who created the universe? The universe has a cause because it began to exist. God does not need a cause, because He has always existed.
It can be demonstrated scientifically that the universe has a beginning (known as the Big Bang). The second law of thermodynamics tells us “things left to themselves tend towards disorder.” In a closed system (like the universe), the total amount of usable energy is decreasing. This is why a perpetual motion machine is impossible. The total amount of energy in the universe will eventually run out. In millions of years, our sun will run out of energy and become a cold, dark ball. The fact that the sun is shining proves that the universe had a beginning.
Entropy is a fact of life. The universe moves irresistibly towards disorder. My body is wearing out. Unless I force my son to clean his room, it continually gets messier. The AA batteries in my flashlight stop working. Since the universe moves towards disorder, the fact that there is order in the universe today proves the universe had a beginning.
The universe has a beginning; therefore it must have a cause. But, by definition, God does not have a beginning. Since He has always existed, He never began to exist, thus He needs no cause.
Ted Musk April 13, 2015
Your video demonstrates how weak your “evidence” for God is. So I don’t understand why you would say, “there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence for God’s existence.”
Yes, all evidence suggests the universe we live in started from a single point, but that doesn’t mean it was created from “nothing”. Nothing is a very difficult thing to grasp as even empty space is something. What was before the Big Bang? I don’t know and neither do you, but you think you do because you blindly accept the claims of ancient men who wrote a book claiming to be from the creator of the universe.
It’s very clear that you have not studied astronomy or evolution. So if you don’t understand the claims for how the universe naturally came about or how evolution works, how can you honestly argue against it? At least study it before you disagree with it. By not even attempting to understand the scientific claims it demonstrates that you are closed-minded and have come to a conclusion before looking at the evidence. Clearly a poor way of coming to a better understanding reality.
If after learning about these fields of study you still disagree with the scientific consensus, use the scientific method to demonstrate why it is wrong and why you are correct. Write a paper and then have it peer reviewed. If the evidence shows you are correct, you will be applauded by scientists of all kind (and be rewarded a Nobel Prize) for helping the world come to a better understanding of reality.
But you won’t do that because there is no evidence that a biblical view of the world is correct. Just as no religious view could do this because they all lack evidence and are the result of either con artists, superstition or ignorance.
You don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics, you are repeating this argument from other Christian apologists who also didn’t understand it. Why are you doing this? Yes, in trillions of years all the stars in the universe will eventually die and the universe will go cold (at least that is the current understanding) but until then our planet is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. The earth gets its energy from our host star aka the sun, so the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t help your case.
Daniel King April 8, 2015
On the design argument, for every watch there must be a watchmaker. The complexity, order, and purpose of a watch strongly suggests intelligent design. When I look at a watch that tics every second in perfect synchronization I know it exists because of a skilled watchmaker. Logic tells me that in order for an intricate, marvelous, wonderful creation to exist, there must be a Creator. When I see the balance and beauty of creation, I know it was made by an intelligent designer.
The parts hidden within a watch are irreducibly complex and each part cannot function on its own without the other interconnected parts. Darwin admitted a flaw in his theory when he wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Like a watch, the DNA contained in the human genome is irreducibly complex.
Where do houses come from? Houses are built by builders. All of our experience tells us that houses do not build themselves. Hebrews 3:4 uses the argument from design, “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.”
When I see a house, carefully planned by an architect and built by a builder, I know that house is no accident. It did not just pop into existence by itself. When I think of who caused that house to be built, I realize that this universe we see must also have someone who caused it to appear and I say, “Yes, God is THERE!”
Where do paintings come from? The existence of a painting strongly suggests the existence of a painter. Paintings do not paint themselves. For every painting, there must be a painter.
Where does creation come from? Creation was created by a Creator. Just as a house does not build itself and a painting does not paint itself, so creation does not create itself.
Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary explanations. The random change of evolution can’t explain our existence.
A tiny bird is far more complicated then a 747 airplane. The bird has millions of interlocking cells all working together in unison to keep the bird in flight. The design of the bird is more precise then our most complicated airplane. It is absurd to imagine that a plane put itself together. So, why are evolutionists applauded for proposing that birds created themselves out of nothing? The evolutionist replies, “Birds appeared over millions of years of evolution.” But, if I start with nothing, that nothing will still be nothing if I wait one year or a million years.
The addition of millions of years of time does not solve the fundamental impossibility of design appearing from nothing. Take a piece of iron ore. Lay it on your desk. How many millions of years will you wait before the ore spontaneously forms itself into the intricate springs and levers that enable a watch to accurately tell time? Adding time to the equation does not adequately explain how order appears from disorder.
The argument from design is persuasive to me. The building does not build itself, a watch does not suddenly appear, and automobiles are carefully designed by intelligent engineers. A tornado spinning in a junkyard does not suddenly create a 747 airplane. Only a fool intent on denying the existence of a Creator believes that the intricate design of the human body could drag itself from the ooze of primordial mud.
Ted Musk April 13, 2015
I already addressed your design argument, do watches reproduce on their own like life can? Of course not! Watches are not organisms. Do you really think I don’t understand that watches, houses and paintings have creators? I obviously agree that they do, not sure why you continue to make the case for this. But again, they do not reproduce on their own. That is the problem with your argument. Please read about natural selection.
If you understood evolution, I think you would disagree that evolution can’t explain our existence. Evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by those who understand it and overwhelmingly denied by those who don’t.
Daniel King April 8, 2015
Let’s look at the claim that the earth is precisely designed for our existence: Norman Geisler writes:
“1. Oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. If it were 25 percent, fires would erupt, if 15 percent, human beings would suffocate.
2. If the gravitational force were altered by 1 part in 1040 (that’s 10 followed by forty zeros), the sun would not exist, and the moon would crash into the earth or sheer off into space. Even a slight increase in the force of gravity would result in all the stars being much more massive than our sun, with the effect that the sun would burn too rapidly and erratically to sustain life.
3. If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.
4. If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, we would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter’s gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that would otherwise strike earth.
5. If the thickness of the earth’s crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life untenable.
6. If the rotation of the earth took longer than twenty-four hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.”
7. If the axial tilt of the earth were altered slightly, surface temperature differences would be too great.
8. The precise tilt and rotation of the earth give us the seasons of the year. If the earth was tilted a few degrees more in either direction, life on earth would become impossible.
For more on the anthropic principle, I would refer you to William Lane Craig: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-teleological-argument-and-the-anthropic-principle
I see your video from Neil deGrasse Tyson and raise you with this video about the fine tuning of the universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA
Ted Musk April 13, 2015
I have to admit, it’s really frustrating having this conversation since you don’t understand science or the scientific claims on these issues. The fact is I completely understand your views as I used to believe them. But those views were very simple minded and were the result of poor critical thinking skills.
Are you going to at least admit that what you said in the video was inaccurate? Do you think someone who is intellectually honest would ignore all the evidence for why the universe is not designed for life and only look for reason why it is?
Obviously we are able to live on earth, so it’s not hard to find reasons for why we are able to live here. But to say the universe is design for life, is to ignore the fact that over 99% of the universe is completely inhospitable to us and would mean instant death. There is a reason why there isn’t life on every planet having this same discussion.
Daniel King April 8, 2015
On the changed lives argument, obviously I find my own life experience to be persuasive for the existence of God. I don’t expect you to accept my testimony, but my story multiplied by millions of other Christian stories should bear some weight. By the way, concerning your claim that every religion claims to better/change individuals lives I would assert that Christianity is the best of all the religious choices. For example, it can be argued that Christianity has a much better effect on people’s lives then say, Islam.
Ted Musk April 13, 2015
The fact you think your testimony and others should bear some weight, tells me you don’t understand logical fallacies. There are millions of stories from other religions, should those hold weight as well?
It's easy to make the claim that Christianity is better than Islam these days, but 1000 years ago that wouldn’t be so obvious. I think Buddhism or even Judaism make a better case than Christianity for improving one’s life these days, but it still doesn’t increase the credibility of their religious claims either.
Daniel King April 8, 2015
On morality: Yes, if I believed there was no God, I would behave in much more immoral ways. Many atheists have chosen not to believe in God, not because of intellectual reasons, but because they want to live life free of God’s moral laws.
The atheist’s intellectual problems are often a smoke screen covering moral rebellion (Little, Know Why You Believe, 24). For the atheist, there are no objective moral values. For the atheist, there is no difference in ultimate meaning between what Hitler did and what Mother Teresa did. But, the fact that atheists know there is a difference between right and wrong, proves that there is an objective moral standard of right and wrong.
The atheist denies the existence of God in order to escape the responsibility of what would be required of him if God did exist. If God does not exist, nothing would stop me from robbing a bank (if I could get away with it) or murdering my neighbor. If there is no ultimate right and wrong, then there is no personal right and wrong. All is permitted as long as it makes the individual feel good. This relativism ultimately leads to hopelessness and purposelessness. If the universe has no meaning, what meaning can there be for me to go to work in the morning or to love my wife or to even be alive?
Everyone in the world has an inherent sense of right and wrong. This is what Kant calls a “categorical imperative.” He calls it “categorical” because it is universal, everyone has a category of understanding that some things are wrong. He calls it “imperative” because everyone is impelled to act upon this moral understanding. Even when we try to ignore or erase our moral sense, it still remains. If we try to deny our moral sense or act against it, we feel guilt. It is this sense of guilt that everyone, both apologist and atheist, can agree upon.
If there is a moral law, there must be a moral law giver. If there is no objective morality, society would quickly fall apart. Without an external morality the only rule that would survive is that “might makes right.” Whoever has the biggest gun would rule. Without a supreme moral law giver there would be no moral distinction between right and wrong. Everything would be permissible based on one’s own preferences. Indeed, we see that when God is removed from the equation society slips towards the philosophy that, “If it feels right for me, then it is right.” This creates a society that celebrates homosexual marriage, uninhibited sexuality, and the killing of unborn babies.
Atheists might reply that rules are created by society and that anything society approves of is right and what society disapproves of is wrong. But, this approach gives us no reason to say that the pedophilia of Roman times was wrong or that the slavery of past eras was an injustice. If society determines what is right and wrong and their ancient societies approved of that behavior, who are we to judge them by the standards of our society?
There is a strong desire inside humans for justice to be done. When someone is murdered, we want the murderer to face justice for his evil deed. However, in this life sometimes justice is not meted out. Sometimes the innocent suffer unjustly and sometimes the guilty are never punished. This was the lament of the Psalmist, “Lord, how long will the wicked, How long will the wicked triumph?” (Psalm 94:3 NKJV). Despite the lack of justice in this world, we long for justice. Fortunately, the place where this justice will occur is in the afterlife.
If there is true justice, there must be a just judge who dispenses it. This judge must be morally perfect. In order to make perfect judgments, this judge must be omniscient. Only a judge who knows everything could perfectly dispense justice. But, in order to enforce his judgment, the judge must also be omnipotent, all-powerful. Thus, our inherent desire for ultimate justice requires a completely moral lawgiver who is all-knowing and all-powerful. This perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent judge is the One we call God.
Ted Musk April 13, 2015
Can you name one of these atheists you talk about? Because that makes absolutely no sense! I have never heard an atheist say, They have chosen not to believe in God because they want to live life free of God’s moral laws.” Try telling that one to atheist who are part of the Clergy Project and see what they say!
If there is an atheist who doesn’t believe in God for that reason it is extremely foolish. It sounds like something you heard as a child and have continued to believe it. Let’s think about this claim of yours, how would “not believing” in God help someone become free of God’s laws? Because if one is trying to free themselves of God’s laws then they would be recognizing that God exists as his laws couldn’t exists without him. This idea is very silly and clearly something Christians just made up.
If I thought there was evidence for the Christian God, I would believe in him but I couldn’t worship him as I think endorsing slavery (including giving instructions to sell ones daughter into slavery), genocide, killing children, demanding a woman to marry her rapists after he pays her father, etc. is immoral. Apparently you think these are instructions worthy of worship. But if I’m wrong and you agree these actions are immoral, how did you come to that conclusion if you believe “God’s” laws are objective? Because nowhere does God say just kidding!
I know you think these instructions no longer apply today, but the fact that anyone would defend these instructions at any period in time is completely immoral. I don’t need to worship a being to tell me that - I can figure that out on my own.
If you admit you would go out and commit horrible actions such as you have if God wasn’t real, then I’m not sure I want to encourage you to question the existence of god. I seriously don’t want you hurting people. I’m shocked that you would say those things, and really don’t know how to continue after such statements. But for me and most atheists, we appreciate our lives and want to make the best of our short time on this planet.
Ted Musk April 13, 2015
Your comments demonstrate just how immoral religion/Christianity is, despite it thinking it has a monopoly on morality. It seems in your view, morality is mostly determined by what one believes and you only believe because you’re afraid of what Yahweh would do to you if you didn’t believe in him. Plus, you think he’ll reward you with heaven if you do. This isn’t morality, morality is about being good despite the promise of a reward. If a moral god existed and heaven were real - this isn’t how a moral god would decide who is deserving of heaven. But apparently your God grants heaven to those who are willing to believe extraordinary claims on bad evidence. Basically, he thinks being gullible is the quality that is most deserving of heaven.
But I’m curious, why didn’t you mention immoral acts such as eating bacon, eating shellfish and wearing clothing of mixed fabrics? Your God was pretty clear about those in “his book”. You don’t eat pork or shrimp do you?
I mention these because it demonstrates how ridiculous it is to think the Bible is the word of an all-mighty moral law giver.
You say, “Without an external morality the only rule that would survive is that ‘might makes right.’ Whoever has the biggest gun would rule.” Yet that is precisely how you have determined that your God is moral.
(And BTW, it is disgusting that you think people are celebrating abortions just because they are pro-choice, no one is doing that and it shows how very little you understand the issue.)
Atheists don’t say, “anything society approves of is right and what society disapproves of is wrong.” It’s as if you haven’t taken the time to understand the views of most atheists including my own. I think you get your ideas of atheists from apologists like William Lane Craig and Ray Comfort, because they say silly things like this as well. Most atheists (at least atheists who are also humanists) decide if something is moral based on how it affects the lives of others. If an action doesn’t negatively affect others we tend to be okay with it, however, there are many issues that are complex and you can find atheists with many different views.
There is no evidence for an afterlife. If a god didn’t exists, injustice is something that we would experience all the time. And as you mentioned, that’s exactly the situation we find ourselves in. What does it say about a supposedly all-powerful and moral god who would let that be the case? I know if I was a god, I wouldn’t let those things happen on a regular basis.
You said, “If there is true justice, there must be a just judge who dispenses it. This judge must be morally perfect. In order to make perfect judgments, this judge must be omniscient. Only a judge who knows everything could perfectly dispense justice.”
Question, is it justice if a serial killer gets away with numerous murders, and then gives his life to Christ shortly before he dies - therefore spending eternity in heaven? Just curious how that is justice…
Daniel King April 8, 2015
Did Jesus rise from the dead?
Throughout history, there have been many religious teachers and wise philosophers. But, Jesus is unique in history because of the claim that He rose from the dead. All the other religious leaders have died and stayed dead. Buddha, Moses, Mohammad, and Confucius are all dead. But, Christianity claims that Jesus is alive.
If Christ truly rose from the dead and lives today, then His teachings must be taken seriously. If He was simply a first century human teacher who rotted away in the grave, then there is no harm in ignoring His teaching.
According to Paul, Christianity rises and falls on the resurrection of Christ “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Corinthians 15:14). If Jesus died and rose again three days later, then the Bible is true, but if Jesus is still dead we all might as well pocket our tithe and lock the church doors on our way home.
The resurrection of Jesus is not a repeatable experiment. One cannot scientifically kill Jesus again and observe the resurrection in the laboratory. The resurrection of Jesus was a one-time event that must be judged through the lens of historical reports. It is in this arena that there is a great deal of evidence for the resurrection.
Eyewitness Testimony Proves Jesus Rose from the Dead
Jesus showed himself alive with many “infallible proofs” over a period of forty days (Acts 1:3). He appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-32), to the eleven disciples hiding behind closed doors (John 20:19-23, 26-29; Mark 16:4-8; Luke 24:36-52), to some of his disciples who had returned to their fishing nets after the crucifixion (John 21:1-14), during his ascension (Luke 24:50), to Peter (1 Cor 15:5), to five hundred of his followers (1 Cor 15:6), to James (1 Cor. 15:7), and to Paul at his conversion (Acts 9:5; 1 Cor 15:8).
Ted Musk April 13, 2015
Not true at all, many deities have had similar qualities as Jesus and all predate him. Their characteristics vary from being born of a virgin, being the son of a god, and even traveling to another dimension/heaven. Extremely similar storylines as Jesus. So you can no longer claim, “Jesus is unique in history because of the claim that He rose from the dead” as it is simply not the case.
Dionysus, Krishna, and Osiris were all believed to have died and come back to life (there are many other deities like this and not everyone agrees on the details of these gods, but what we are certain of is that narratives similar to Jesus were very common in deities.) and most likely their stories were inspiration for when creating the Jesus character. What are the chances that an all-mighty God would think, “oh I like what those people did there – that’s a great idea, and maybe I’ll use that same plot for when I send my son down there”. Logic says no. Just as many ancient people stole characteristics from past gods when creating new ones, same thing happened when Jesus was invented.
You say Eyewitness testimony proves Jesus rose from the dead? First off, eyewitness testimony is the worst type of evidence, even today people think they see all kinds of crazy things and we don’t believe them and often each eyewitness sees something that contradicts other witnesses. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and eyewitness claims is the worst type of evidence.
Second, it’s not even eyewitnesses who wrote the Gospels (and we don’t even know who wrote the Gospels). All you have is a story either passed down and exaggerated over time and then wrote down 30-80 years later or the story was invented.
If Jesus really rose from the dead, what kind of God would decide to have the most important event ever in the universe in an area where most couldn’t read or write? Didn’t he know that over in China their society was far more advanced and his story would have been spread more accurately if he revealed himself there? Why would a God only communicate with one area of the world and leave it up to them to spread his message? This scenario/plan is exactly what we would expect to see if a society invented a god.
Daniel King April 8, 2015
Here are five theories about the resurrection of Christ. Take your pick which one is true:
1. Jesus did not really die on the cross. He only passed out and was later revived.
- The Roman army knew how to kill people. People crucified by the Roman army do not survive the crucifixion. Crucifixion was a horrible way to die.
- Even if Jesus had survived the crucifixion and passed out on the cross, there is no way he could have escaped the tomb in his weakened condition. In front of the tomb was an enormous stone and it was guarded by Roman soldiers. Even if Jesus had survived the torture of the crucifixion, it would have been impossible to move the stone or sneak past the guards.
- Even if Jesus had survived the crucifixion and managed to escape the tomb, his body would have been in such a horrible state that no one would have mistaken him for being resurrected. The people who saw Jesus reported that he had a glorified, resurrected body, not a body recovering from a tortured state.
2. The resurrection was a conspiracy perpetrated by some disciples who stole the body.
- If it was a conspiracy, how did the disciples steal the body? It was being guarded by Roman soldiers. They knew their lives would be forfeited if they failed in their assignment to guard the body.
- The disciples all gave their lives for their belief in the risen Christ. People may lie for personal profit, but few people continue the lie when their life is on the line.
3. The disciples hallucinated His resurrection. His resurrection was simply their imagination.
- There was no precedent for thinking that someone could come back from the dead. The Pharisees believed there would be a general resurrection at the end of time, but no one imagined that an individual would resurrect.
- Some of the people who witnessed the resurrected Christ were not his disciples before the resurrection. They became disciples because of witnessing his resurrection.
- The reports of Christ’s resurrection are not of the type that can be produced by a hallucination. Hallucinations are always individual occurrences, but over five hundred people saw Jesus at one time.
4. The account of His resurrection is a legend, a myth that grew up over a long period of time.
- Paul wrote 1 Corinthians within twenty years of Jesus’ resurrection. The witnesses to the resurrection that he mentions were still alive and available for anyone to interview. Paul’s words are written too soon to be myth. He regards the resurrection as a verifiable historical fact.
5. Jesus really rose from the dead.
- After all the other options are eliminated, we are left with only one. Jesus really did rise from the dead.
Ted Musk April 13, 2015
I’ve got to be honest with you, this conversation has been discouraging because you haven’t admitted that you were incorrect about even one thing and there were many things you said in your video that were incorrect. It demonstrates that you don’t care about what is true and are fine with making incorrect statements as long as they support your beliefs. This is incredibly dishonest.
I think the point of these types of discussions is to challenge our current views, because not everyone’s view can be accurate and we can all be wrong about some things (it’s why acknowledging facts and following evidence is so important). We clearly have different views yet it seems only one of us cares about evidence and facts. The way you defend your faith is the same way people of other faiths defend theirs. If one’s beliefs are so fragile that simply acknowledging facts would ruin their argument, then perhaps their beliefs are the result of wishful thinking.
What is encouraging, is that I think that there are even believers who will read this and see how poor your arguments are.
I do acknowledge the tough situation you are in. I understand that for many years you have been telling millions of people around the world that your biblical view is correct and rarely have to give good reasons for why. But when confronted with someone who simply challenges those views, you are faced with two options - either follow the evidence or defend your beliefs despite the evidence. I just hope that one day you will care more about understanding reality over defending a belief you want to be true.
Consider how ridiculous the story of Jesus dying for us is with this comic,
Son: Why couldn't God just forgive? Is that something he doesn't have the power to do? Like feeding starving children?
Dad: God can forgive, but He is also just. There must be a just punishment for sin. Jesus died in our place. He took our punishment.
Son: But Dad, it's only justice if you punish the people who did the bad thing, like when you send me to my room for asking too many questions. Punishing someone who didn't do anything isn't justice, and not punishing the people who did bad is mercy.
Dad: Son, go to your room!
*You never commented on Galileo and Giordano Bruno, since the Bible was the book men used to justify their actions toward these 2 scientists, I thought you would want to comment on that. Do you want to? I understand if not.
For the next year, I watched many lectures on varied topics along with countless debates about religion/god. After about a year of learning about evolution, astronomy, critical thinking skills, humanism, etc. I wanted to create a place where I could discuss religion/atheism and other issues. So I started the blog on September 10th, 2011—I called it Discovering Reason because that is what I felt I had done. Many would say I lost my religion but what I really did was discover reason—and I wanted to do my part to help others do the same. 
