This question is loaded with baseless assumption. How, and by what standard and what proof, has the idea that existence requires a 'why' been settled? Or, for that matter, of a "God" being the only explanation for existence? Why should we take an as-yet unproven hypothesis (God) and treat it as though it needs disproving despite it being utterly unproven itself? To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens any idea that can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. It's ultimately a non-sequitor given that an idea which only speculates a reason based upon little more than human conjecture and provides no concrete incentive to take that reason seriously must be assumed to be the only reason. I could just as easy say "if there is no Poseidon why is there sea?"

The need for a 'why' is a natural, if rather juvenile, human tendency. If there is a God and he is 'why' we exist 'why' is there a God in the first place? I could go on and on like an annoying 5 year old asking 'why' ad infinitum but the fact is the laws of causality are not so cut and dry and our understanding of them is not so conclusive as to be able to state requiring 'why' unwaveringly as a prerequisite. 'Why' is an endless paradox. There comes a point where one must simply state "it just is" invalidating the 'why' question as a necessary prerequisite entirely. Infinite regress. 'How' is, in fact, a more relevant and mature question.

More assumptions. Where is the evidence that life needs intelligent interference to begin? If you are going to ask for proof against your supposition your supposition must first be proven or justified objectively. This question, like the last, assumes a requirement where no such requirement exists. "Intelligence" infers a conscious actor and it is the species-centric conceit of humanity that assumes this sentience has to be behind any action. Simply because we humans create via inspiration rooted in our intellect does not mean that intellect (or something akin to it - albeit greatly more advanced) is the ultimate force for creation in the universe. Our intelligence, our conscious, our sentience, may well simply be the net result of our component parts, of a brain capable of processing information at various degrees of sophistication. "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" kinda deal. Or at least it appears to be. All living things with brains are self-aware, the level to which they are is the variable and it is human beings, with the most developed cerebrums of all known life, that concordantly possess the greatest sense of self-awareness and thus the ability to question and speculate over our own existence and purpose.

Conscious starts out with a net result in mind, generally. The human bias in assigning this to our own existence is that we must have been 'preconceived' and built into what we are in line with this precondition owing to how 'sophisticated' a piece of engineering we are. But our very conscious is not necessarily the result of an intent to create conscious, rather a level of awareness evolved from a functioning brain no different fundamentally to any other life-form but is just sophisticated enough to question its own existence. As such we vainly believe this condition is somehow 'special' and must be intentional due to how complex and unlikely it seems to us. It is retroactive reasoning; a form of choice-supportive fallacy (though technically an eventuality, not a 'choice.' Never the less the fallacious rational remains the same.) Or, as Douglas Adams illustrates via "Puddle Thinking";

"... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

In addition the puddle might think, as he considers his shape and the little dint in the ground he rests in, how wondrously fortuitous it was that this dint in the ground matches his exact shape. How it too must have been made to have him in it. He does not consider the idea that, maybe, it is his shape that evolved in accordance with the dint, not the dint which was made with his shape in mind.

Another question that force-feeds us the desired answer without offering any kind of proof this "intelligent intervention" is necessary to achieve the ends in question. And again present is that same conceit of humanity that assumes a human-like intelligence is the only causative capable of all creation and existence. Irreducible complexity is fallacious in that all analogies used refer to objects made with a known, preexisting intent (watches, Boeing 747s, etc.) When a Boeing 747 is built the designer already knows what they are building, since there is no such proven, preexisting intent in biology why should we assume one is needed? Evolution has been shown as a process of trial and error, in which the beneficial elements are retained and the useless fazed out over millions of years, not a "bam, I make this thing instantly workable!" See again Douglas Adams' Puddle Analogy (above) which applies to this as well as it does the equally fallacious Fine Tuned Universe concept.

This just shows a gross misunderstanding of the fossil records. It slays me how these arm-chair observers can make enormous leaps based on a slight anomaly or mystery in mostly concise and current data and somehow, with far, far less supportive data to prove their idea, reach that idea without anything like the levels of scrutiny they subject to the idea they dislike. I'm no biology expert and neither, clearly, are the people who field these questions. The difference between us is I do not use my ignorance to attempt to fill the holes in the works of more knowledgeable people with my own unfalsifiable, personal beliefs. Anyway, my far more biology-savvy friend, C(anadian)Alex, offers a couple of reasons as to why major groups might emerge at the same time: "radical climate changes creating new niches, or a mass extinction event creating new voids to fill in the ecosystem."

There is a constant fallacy in these kind of questions, the Confirmation Bias. Those seeking to disprove evolution or whatever else do so out of their desire to 'save faith.' They have a vested and personal interest in ridding the world of anything that contradicts their beliefs. What we have, in evolution, is a universally accepted theory that has as good as been proven fact. I live in Japan. Here the majority of people are culturally Shinto or Buddhist. It is a secular society and thus nothing in their personal beliefs stands in the way of evolution being accepted. And it is because, lacking any personal bias against it, find nothing amiss with the scientific evidence in evolution's favour. Japanese told that many Americans reject evolution look at me with disbelief. They even featured the idea on a 'strange but true' style general interest TV show at some point with the panel being equally as bemused by the idea that accepted science could be rejected by a supposedly developed nation. If the 'science' against evolution held any sense of integrity it would stand on its own merits, regardless of one's faith, or lack there of. People would look at the idea of Creationism, or a Young Earth, and say, "well, you know I'm not Christian but the evidence does seem pretty good for what they're saying." But that does not happen. It does not happen at all in Japan and I'd wager not at all in any country where there isn't an ignorant but vocal religious majority taking issue with scientific fact. The only people who find any credibility with these counter-arguments are the religious and, as established, they have a serious case of Confirmation Bias going on. If non-religious, in reasonable numbers, also found the evidence against evolution or other scientific theories convincing then the Creationists and Young Earth-ists might have something. But such a thing is all but unheard of because only those biased by personal belief happen to find such 'evidence' convincing. They readily admit how much they rely on their faith yet they think they can look at faith-threatening ideas with an objective eye? Science has no vested interest in proving one thing over another. It is simply about learning what we can, in the integrity of how we prove something. If the scientists got something wrong and the evidence is irrefutable, they change their ideas. Sure, individual scientists are fallible and may become enamoured with their own ideas but that is why they have peer review and why only that which passes constant and ever-challenging scrutiny and attempted falsification is ever accepted as fact. There is no ultimate gain in proving one idea for the entirety of the world's scientists other than the prize of knowledge itself, unlike a religious belief which is, by the admission of its own advocates, something they are deeply and personally invested in having be 'right.'

This question is based upon a Wishful Thinking Bias: another logical fallacy. Just because the idea of an objective standard of right and wrong feels more comfortable/easy to understand to our minds does not validate the notion as a necessity in any way. Does there need to be an 'objective standard?' Humanity's immaturity requires an 'objective standard' lest we be faced with the horrifying idea of self-determination and personal responsibility. Right and wrong are concepts created by man but the most basic relate back to notions largely universal to humanity. Being killed creates a negative knock-on effect, thus there are laws in almost all societies governing killing. Being stolen from creates a negative knock-on effect therefore there are laws in almost all societies governing stealing. Evolutionarily speaking our psychology has come to identify concepts of 'good behaviour' and 'bad behaviour' beneficial to our survival and coexistence which have formed over time into morals and ethics. The mere existence of the concept of right and wrong proves it is innately part of our nature to perceive certain acts in such a way, objective or not objective. God or no God. If God were disproved tomorrow (though such a thing is, and will always be, impossible) we would still be the same people, the same race, with the same ideas of right and wrong. It is immaturity which requires someone to set these rules up for us and judge us based on them, rather like a child needs a parent to scold and reward them for their respective behaviours as they have not yet developed the responsibility to self-govern.

But right and wrong are not, and should not be, hard-wired notions that remain absolute. We use our ever-developing sense of reason and rationale to understand, to keep right and wrong shifting, working the kinks out as we go (like evolution.) It is childish, simplistic reasoning to require a black-and-white objective standard. Now, there are some things which we will always reason to be wrong, I am sure. But with the application of reason we may differentiate between human prejudice and universal 'wrong-doing,' though it may take time and effort. Again, invoking 'God' is a quick-fix and serves only to limit our understanding and capacity to engage issues critically and circumstantially.

Some religious folks will argue that God is good by mere definition. His actions are always good whether we understand them or not. If God is by definition "right" then there is no truly objective notion of "right" either. God is just 'good' arbitrarily, regardless of his actual actions. In other words there is no notion of 'right' to which God adheres, he just decides what is and isn't, which is a subjective notion, not objective. God could say murder is wrong and it is wrong. If this is an objective standard of 'wrong' then it will always be the case. It is inalienable and even God cannot alter that. But if God is by definition 'good' by simply being the only authority on the matter rather than 'good' existing as an objective, inalienable standard independent of even God then God could say murder is right and it suddenly becomes 'right' by default. That is not an objective standard of 'right,' it's a subjectively mutable, totalitarian dogma of 'right.'

First off the questioner clearly has no real idea of what is "real science." And again, we are subjected to this fallacious idea that intention must be behind action. But anyway, where is there any evidence for an "eternal self existing being with infinite intelligence?" How in any way, shape or form is that a plausible explanation? It's self-defeating reasoning for a start;


If something eternally existing is so logically unsound then does God, who they go on to claim as doing just that, not also qualify as logically unsound? If reason and cause are so important and so necessary a prerequisite for something to 'be' then how did God come to be? If God has always been then why the trouble conceiving the same of the universe? If one is willing to believe that God always existed, or just popped into being, then why not believe the same of the universe? Since both hypotheses require something to just "be" it is more logical to apply Occam's Razor and take the simpler notion, that there is no God and things just 'are' as they appear to be. The addition of a 'God' may seek to explain the universe but it only throws up more questions about 'God' and the nature of something that exists immaterially and independent of time and matter (undefinable) yet has also been assigned personal (definable) characteristics. Either way, never mind that God invoked in this manner is a Skyhook Fallacy. It is a speculative hypothesis made by ancient man. Why should it be leant such automatic credibility as a possibility when, again, there is nothing to support it but personal testimony, speculation and imagination?

The retort here is usually that 'matter'; that which is observable in this universe, cannot exist eternally as it has been shown to change and degrade over time. But God can and we cannot say otherwise for we are not able to test the nature of God. Assigning one set of rules for the universe and using God to explain them, then exempting God from those rules is not sound logic in any way, shape or form. It is an argument from Exceptionalism. It reminds me of the common playground tactic employed by kids when playing war games or some such:


The joy of the imagination is it obeys no rules other than those it assigns itself. Metaphysical arguments, be they theological or philosophical, are much the same. One can say, make up, argue, whatever conditions one likes but within the realms of the metaphysical, where anything is possible, there is no standard of reason. There is no accountability or burden of proof. The repeated moving of 'God' out of any realm where he/she/it may be defined or quantified absolves the theologian of the responsibility of presenting anything. Arguing from Exceptionalism in effect requires God's none-existence to facilitate itself. If God existed then the possibility of definition would also exist. Anything that exists, in some way, shape or form, can be defined in some way, shape or form, no matter how epic or vast they may be. The only way to protect something from definition (and with it limitations) is to keep it purely metaphysical. In other words, for it to be totally made up!

If Causality is so important then what 'caused' God? If God does not need a 'cause' then why does the universe?

The questioner will need to be more specific in what he/she is talking about. I differ again to Calex, who takes a shot at guessing what this extremely vague question is attempting to ask:

"I assume this is in reference to self-replication. I don't want to get too technical, and many books have been written on the subject, so I will keep it general: By chance proteins and amino acids just flowing around in a liquid, at varying temperatures, with various other elements, combining, recombining, etc... on a huge scale, over millions of years, various organisms were generated, some would eventually, through a chemical process that is well-known today, would be able to split (i.e. replicate)."

Perhaps because a 'signal' and 'a nucleus' are two very different things? A signal would imply it was broadcast and done so with a specific purpose in mind, with intention and direction. A nucleus on the other hand is part of the natural building blocks of the universe, unlike 'signals,' (though we really need to more accurately define what is meant by 'signal' in this scenario.) Again the author is using a continuing tautology: that complex information must be the result of a conscious, anthropomorphic intelligence, when no such proven requirement exists. Directed signals of information do not seem to occur in nature. Genetic coding does and is the result of billions of years of growth and entropy.

Either way I am not a scientist. If you want to know why scientists think what they do about this ask a scientist. All atheists are not, by default, scientists. What we do do is trust in a system which has proven itself time and time again with objective, tangible results and that scores of individuals committed to this system will rigorously test and attempt to falsify any claim until it stands up to the full brunt of this onslaught on the weight of its own objective truth (small T.) Nevertheless this is the one question here that at least resembles a coherent argument, though it still makes assumptions and draws a somewhat inappropriate analogy. But, like I say, since the question relates to a professional scientist's analysis of phenomena they are well-versed in and as I am not a professional scientist I cannot answer as soundly as I would like. But then the author is clearly not well-versed in the science here either so the question is not as sound as I would like either. Some more thoughts from Calex here that get the point across better than I can, I feel:

"Now, I am no astrophysicist, but in the same way, if there was a long string of prime numbers broadcast in a signal, it would strongly support the idea of sentient life. However, what we are seeing is more like a constant stream of numbers, the "primes" being out of order and separated by random strings of up to 400 random other numbers. one would have to be desperate to see anything but randomness."

First off the author should stop trying to set up straw-men with loaded questions that try to answer themselves. Secondly it is laughable that one should talk about "looking into things seriously" in the context of secular belief. The rejection of a hypothesis, assumed as true by the majority throughout pre-Enlightenment history, that has yet to be seriously given any evidential, tangible weight (God) is precisely due to people "looking into it seriously." Many very smart people have devoted their time to doing just that on both sides. Theologians and philosophers may tend to still believe but, as I have mentioned, their work resides entirely in the realms of the metaphysical. They deal in concepts, abstractions and ideas. Important things to wrack our brains over, no doubt. But when looking for an objective sense of "is it or isn't it/yes or no" speculating over purely metaphysical matters gets us nowhere. Only hard, serious evidence can do that and those devoted to that method of study; the biologists, cosmologists and physicists, are staggeringly majority Atheist. So I'd check your straw-men before you put them up cos they may just catch fire and topple over, burning down your own barn!

But to answer the question, yes, I have a number of reasons not to believe, reasons which would take forever to get into so I'll stick with the basics. Why I should believe the testimony of one religion over another when none can give me hard and convincing reasons to believe them? Why should I trust one specific religious text, written over several centuries by different authors, portraying varying accounts of the nature of 'God,' and that's only claim to truth is their own claim to truth?  Even within one religion why should I then trust any of the massively varied and divergent interpretations of that holy text, all of which insist on being the correct and accurate interpretation? Why should seeking to appease, and focusing my  energies on loving, an omnipotent and transcendent deity come before focusing my life on loving those around me who actually need my love, and on being a decent and altruistic human being? If worshipping him is more important than said altruism how can such a jealous, selfish and egocentric being claim to be a force for, and the path to, goodness and love? I'm assuming time won't be an issue which is a good thing as I will be doing a lot of arguing and questioning and so will a lot of other people.

But how about I ask you the same question with "Allah" inserted over "God?" Or "Odin?" Or "Brahma?" Or "Quezacotl?" Or "Zeus?" "Lord Xenu?" Or "Graknar The Iridescent: Lord of Infinite Energies?" Or... well, the list could go on.... Why don't you want to believe in Allah and will you hold yourself accountable before him if Allah, as described in the Qu'ran, exists?

In closing, just a couple more things to say. Each and every one of these questions contains, to varying degrees of blatancy, the "Begging The Question" Fallacy. These questions take the usual act of assuming God is a reasonable answer to all these questions, despite possessing no prior or accepted proof that God is a reasonable answer and proceed to quiz you as though that were the case. But let's, for arguments sake, say we were stumped on the issue and that a deity was the only reasonable explanation. It would require a whole mass of further evidence to prove this being as the Christian God, or Allah, or Yahweh of the Old Test., or any other culturally specific divine entity. Even when the theistic arguments do seem sound (which is rare) they only allude to Deism; 'a god,' not a personal, specific God. The author would be writing this about Allah had he/she been born in Egypt, it is little but cultural bias that assumes that proving the idea of god equates to proving "My God."

Believe in whatever you believe in, people. But quit wasting your time trying to claim legitimacy for the unfalsifiable. Objective Truth requires Objective Proof.

"Nothing from nowhere, I'm no one at all. Radiate, recognize one silent call. As we all form one dark flame..."  X