IDoNotGetIt

4. The law of cause & effect – in order to have an effect, there has to be a cause. Everything is caused by something.

So, causality is a proof of god?  Since that makes no since, I’m going to have to make some assumptions about what she is talking about here.  And since, none of her proofs are even slightly original or thought provoking, I’m going to assume that she is making the same tired old argument that has been made countless times by countless people before her.  “The universe was created, therefore there must have been a creator.”  All I can say about this is… FAIL!  The universe exist, from the best we can tell, it has always existed in one form or another.  The big bang theory does not describe the creation of the universe from nothing.  And even if we assume that the big bang itself required some kind of cause, that doesn’t mean the cause must be a god.  It could have been something mundane.

The other thing about this argument is that it applies just as equally to the god as it does to everything else.  You end up with an infinite regression because if god created the universe, who created god and who created that god and so on.

So here is what we KNOW:

1. Matter can not be created or destroyed.
2. The universe is made up of matter.

So where does the god requirement come in at?  It doesn’t, it isn’t necessary to explain anything that we know about the universe and in fact it only makes it more complicated to assume a god.

3. Try praying. What good is it when a mind is set to coincidence & disbelief regarding the positive outcome?

Been there, done that.  Praying has been researched multiple times and the conclusion is clear, it is not effective.  At best praying can have a small beneficial effect to the one doing the praying but this isn’t anything that couldn’t be accomplished through secular means like meditating or just relaxing.

Additionally, my mind isn’t set to “coincidence & disbelief.”  What a pile of rubbish that is.  Not believing ridiculous stories is something everyone does, all the time.  Religion seems to be a special exception to the rule when it comes to asking “should I believe this or not?”  Requiring evidence to back up extraordinary claims is the rule in all other aspects of our life.

2. How do you explain the paranormal, such as people witnessing positive or negative sightings, like ghosts or angels? I saw a ghost with a friend of mine – I am not a liar, an attention seeker. Neither was I overtired when this happened.

Explaining the paranormal is easy.  It doesn’t exist.  People have attempted to prove it countless times and failed.  As stated in the Day 1 post, personal experiences are not admissible as evidence.  I can’t verify it, nor can anyone else.  There are, however, many reasonable explanations for your experience (assuming that it is true in the first place).  You listed only three of countless possibilities in your denial of said explanations.

I would also like to point out that the existence of paranormal activity would not prove god exist.  And it drives me crazy when people take an unproven thing and offer it as evidence of some other unproven thing.  You need to prove that there is a such thing as paranormal activity (not just make unsupported claims) then you can use it as evidence in your god theory.

1. Whilst agreeing that random patterns occur naturally by chance, DNA however, consists of code, which requires a designer.

There are multiple problems with this statement.  First of all, even if someone proved that DNA had a designer, that wouldn’t be proof of god.  One day, we’ll be capable of synthesizing DNA.  We will accomplish this feat without becoming gods.  Even if someone found a trademark symbol in our DNA, that would only prove that it was designed, it would not prove who the designer was.

However, the fact is, that DNA does not require an intelligent designer, much less a god.  Evolution is not a random chance event.  The evolution of DNA occurred due to natural selection as well as some random chance.  Additionally, as she says, random patterns (isn’t that an oxymoron?) occur naturally, by chance.  But, non-random patterns also occur naturally, by chance.  She is assuming that the complexity of DNA suggest a designer but that is not necessary.

I can already tell this is going to be fun.  She does not have, even an elementary understanding of evolution and she is already making unsubstantiated claims.  i.e. “DNA… requires a designer”

I’m stealing a great idea from my friend.   He has a blog devoted to Windows Mobile programming and is doing this 30 days of .NET thing where every day for 30 days he is writing a different Windows Mobile application.  Go check it out if you’re interested.  Well I read this article on Pharyngula today.  Myers points out that, like all apologetics, these “proofs” are easily shredded.  However 50 at once… well, it’s just not worth it.  Scanning the list, it is obvious that there is absolutely nothing new.  Not one single item is original.  So I’m going to do 50 days of stupidity.  Each day for the next 50 days, I’ll take the next item on the list and… well, shred it.

I’m going to follow this post with my response to the first “proof” but before I do, I want to show how she is wrong from the first thing she says.

“It is easy to prove to yourself that God is real”

If you want to challenge your beliefs, the last thing you should be interested in is what evidence you need to prove something to yourself.  You need to find the evidence that will prove it to everyone else.  Finding “evidence”, often in the form of personal experience that substantiate your preconceived notions isn’t difficult.  Unfortunately, those don’t mean squat to anyone else.  If proving something to oneself was worth anything, we’d all be toasting bread in toasters powered from cold fusion and have cars floating on anti-gravity fields.  Both of these are examples of something that someone proved to themselves but, sadly, couldn’t prove to anyone else.