Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?


Religion lies that the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is beyond the tools of science

The question, "Why is there anything when there might have been nothing at all?" seems to make you want to answer, "God the creator is the answer." But it in fact is a lookalike answer. It is saying something to give the misleading impression that there is an answer. It is a trick.

The simplest explanation is the most likely one

Occam's Razor urges that we must never multiply possible explanations unnecessarily.  In testing, the most straightforward explanation is most likely to be the right one.  The principle is central to science and philosophy and logic.

Logic is best seen as a tool for seeing what is or is not real and to weed out contradictions.  God is logic as God is love.  That is the Christian position.  So God is Occam’s Razor and should represent it. God logic makes it top consideration. So anything that contradicts the Razor is against God.

So if science cannot find God that means we must in the light of the Razor dismiss the concept.  It has no explanatory force.

Underlying assumption in favour of God

We are asked to respect the question of why something and not nothing? But why not ask, “Why does this prolific murderer exist instead of nothing?” If you want to know about a loving God then the question that matters most is why evil people exist instead of nothing and THEN ask why everything else exists instead of nothing. The question is divorced from moral God underpinnings and is really a science question. It is science to ask if some being made all things. The question if a loving being made all things is different for science is not about love but explanation.

God is the avoidance of a scientific answer
Richard Dawkins knows and says that God is an avoidance of an explanation for the existence of the universe though he is called an explanation for life and the universe.
Keith Ward says in his book Why There is Almost Certainly a God that it is not avoidance. The reason he gives for denying it is avoidance is that belief in God spurs us on to investigate and understand the universe/creation better with our god-given powers of investigation and reason. That is an odd thing to say for people investigate and they have no belief in a God. And what if you say, "I don't need to investigate with science. Life is learning anyway. Just living will do. God wants me to care about that only". And why do most believers have little or no interest in science? It is avoidance for there is nothing about the belief that encourages you to get the microscope and telescope out.
The argument that God is the explanation which is why we investigate the universe is frankly bizarre. It is like saying that you can explain who took your wallet and that is why you keep investigating. Explaining and investigating do not necessarily go together.
Ward insinuates that an atheist scientist is not a scientist at all and is not to be trusted. If somebody claims to experiment and investigate without a motive then you cannot trust or believe that person.
God or not we still have to try and understand the universe. God is irrelevant.
And where in the Bible are we commanded to engage in science and understand the universe? If God gives you the desire to investigate and to understand, it does not follow that you need to believe in him to exercise these qualities. In fact you would not need to believe. And what God given powers of investigation and reason did cavemen have? If God really wants us to reason, why do so few of us seem capable of it?

No matter how absurd a claim is you can use miracle to stop disproof

God is meant to answer the question but remember God is seen as the great miracle and the worker of the miracle of creation.  You can claim what you want and say its a miracle there is no proof that you are wrong.  Miracles are not merely outside the realm of scientific study. They undermine the very need for science. It is fatal to science if it does experiments and discovers something if there could be a chance that some demon is tampering secretly and in some undetectable magic way with the results. Science would have to eliminate the work of the demon before it could trust its results and it cannot eliminate that. Science is based on the assumption that magic and top magic is getting nothing to turn into something does not happen.

The question is questions

The question is a way of asking, "Why did God make those natural laws and not others?"  When you see that you see how the question is a trick.  There had to be something - period.  The question, "Why did God make those natural laws and not others?" is really an infinity of, "Why did God make this specific natural law at this specific time and not another one??"  You will get very few answers to such questions!  The question is a trick and disguises the endless complexity of the subject.

We must remember that natural law is a description of how everything has to randomly fall into some order.  Chaos has its limits but it is not controlled by laws.  So natural law is not a law made by a God or anybody but more a descriptive thing.  We say the sun must shine tomorrow but we are not talking law but description.

The simplicity disguise
The question, ”Why is there something rather than nothing?” is deceptive in its simplicity. In fact it raises an infinity of other questions. "Why is there a sun a billion light years away instead of no sun?" "Why is our suns light yellow and not white?" "Why is there a grain of dirt on such and such an exact spot countless light years away?" "Why is the universe full of dead matter with barely any life?" "Why does nature make breastmilk good for babies for a while and then insufficient as if it does not know how long a baby needs it?" "Why is my hair red and not black?" "Why do cats kill rabbits when they could have been programmed not to?" "Why is there life when there might have been no life?"

That takes away its force. Does it feel as impressive now? The more whys the more you see some intelligent God who loves us is not the answer. Religion condenses the question into one to hide the clear indications that God is not the answer.

Why life when there may have been no life?

Take the question, "Why life when there could be no life?" This question is more important than asking why there is something rather than nothing.  Why is there life now when once there was none?" is another good one. 

Imagine there is no life.  The hypothetical is a good way to test to see if things make sense.  Asking why there is something rather than nothing if there is no life and never will be certainly shows there is no loving creator God.  A creator of things is not as good or much of a creator as one who makes things out of love.  It is ridiculous to argue that merely existing calls for a loving creator.  It calls for one that is not about life but existence.  Existence and life are different things for life implies you are given life for you are valued.  He is not love.  Thus it follows that human existence in itself might indicate a God but does not prove it.  Human existence would just be another existing thing.  Asking, "Why life?" matters more than "Why anything?"

A claim that cannot be tested is no good for it can be denied or ignored as easily as it can be endorsed!

A claim that cannot be tested is no good for it can be denied or ignored as easily as it can be endorsed!  What cannot be tested to see if it is true or probably true is no good.  Such a test implies you are testing to see if it is false or probably false.  To test to see if something is true is also to test to see if it is false.

There is no way of testing that God made anything.  Or even that he MAY have made anything.  No believer can be serious when she says God made all things for if there is no test for or against then nobody has any reason to listen to her.  That is why a statement needs reasonable verification or refutation.  There must be evidence for or against.  The bigger the claim the more important the evidence for or against is.  The more important the explanation the more important it is for it to be open to verification and therefore falsification or vice versa. 

Wondering how the universe came to be and answering “God did it” is useless if the answer cannot be falsified.  That makes it useless.  And it poses as the biggest explanation of all and the theory of everything so if anything needs to be testable it does.  We all know that many claims need testing. You cannot just assume you have only a year to live.  It is up to the evidence and the best experts to decide that.

What if you think the creator is just a power not a proper God?  Believers in a proper God insist that it could be the explanation but is not.  They cannot just say that.  But they do.  What they are doing is admitting there is a menu of explanations and many that we have not and cannot think of and they dare to put one of them out there as if it were the sole candidate!!  You cannot just cherry-pick - you need to back up and support the best explanation with good evidence.  They cannot do that.


Science opposes assuming what you want to approve.  You assume nothing but just let the evidence speak.  God is definitely anti-science.