On the Ontological argument!

On the Ontological argument!

In the next part professor Dawkins attacks the so-called “ontological argument” again on the assumption that by refuting the way its author wrote it, he may succeed in disproving the creator!

And again I say that he must understand that healthy-minded people have always seen the rational necessity of there being a creator, ever since the dawn of mankind, long before Aquinas or Anselm, or any other theologian or philosopher who may exercise some form of mental luxury that is certainly not required or needed by any sane man to “prove” the ultimately clear fact that he was created, and that he ought to be humble and show gratitude to his great creator!

So again I should make it clear, that no matter how many more arguments of philosophers the professor may yet put forth and attempt to come around and manipulate or even argue against; none of this is really what moves every sane man to recognize the power and grace of his maker ever since his mind starts working! None of it is what really moves every man regardless of his faith, even an atheist, when in imminent danger of drowning or dying to raise his face to the heavens and cry out for God! Those are not signs of blind faith or feebleness of the mind; those are natural components of every healthy mind, and it‟s only sheer arrogance to view them to be some form of a delusion!

And those arguments here, ontological, a priori, a posteriori, or whatever, are no more than some verbal attempts by philosophers to express their own ways of proving what is actually one of the clearest facts of reason ever known to man! A fact that really needs no proof!

So no matter how they are written, they are NOT how normal human beings know that their creator exists! And even though its already enough a waste of time that one would have to go through reading this attempt by the professor, we have no choice but to answer to it, lest some weak-minded reader may be tempted to find it of any value!

First, and before bringing forth the argument, the professor makes this comment… I quote:

80

An odd aspect of Anselm's argument is that it was originally addressed not to humans but to God himself, in the form of a prayer (you'd think that any entity capable of listening to a prayer would need no convincing of his own existence).

(Dawkins, p. 80)

Well, whatever does this have to do with the validity of the argument‟s MEANING? The way this priest practices worship and prayer, he and whoever follows him on that, has nothing to do with the question in hand! That is, we can prove this man to be an innovator in choosing to use this or any other statement for a prayer to address the Lord with, however, this is not what we are examining here, is it? I can argue that not only the way this priest prays, but the way all Christians pray is indeed innovatory and relies on no reliable evidence at all that may prove that this is the way the Lord demands that He be worshipped! But is this what we‟re discussing here? Does this have anything to do with the rational validity of the argument itself?

Such comments by the author may indeed not be worthy of a comment, but I chose to make a commentary anyway because in the mind of a biased reader, one who is already biased against Christianity per se, or against religion altogether, such “noise” may indeed affect the way he makes his judgment and evaluation of what he reads! It‟s not a refuting argument yes, but the way it relates to the argument in question, “smokes” the mind of the reader even before the argument itself is presented! And to my mind, that‟s what it really is: Smoke!

Yes of course, we agree, no entity capable of listening to one‟s prayer “needs” any convincing of its own existence! But the question of whether or not He does demand that this particular argument be put in prayer to Him and that He be addressed with it is one thing and the examination of the validity of the argument itself is another! You‟d think that as a reasonable man, the professor would realize this rational distinction! Well, he doesn‟t! And such is the case with this book (The God Delusion) and with every other literature ever written for the cause of atheism! Inconsistent arguments,

81

false results and conclusions, and a clearly arbitrary attack against everything that has anything to do with God!

They repeatedly hold the refutation of a certain religion, as evidence for the refutation of the existence of the creator Himself and the concept of religion altogether! On trying to refute the very concept of God itself, you find him jumping repeatedly on certain objections that he has (regardless of whether or not they are arguably right) on certain teachings, practices or rulings of certain religions in particular! You can easily see a desperate man trying to do anything to “gather” as many pieces as he can of what he wishes could qualify as a solid argument for his case; anything at all!

Well I say: they may gather as many false scriptures or corrupt rituals or prayers from as many false religions as they wish, and make fun of them from now to the end of time; this does NOT disprove the rational fact that there has to be a single creator that is worthy of all worship!

The author then says:

It is possible to conceive, Anselm said, of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Even an atheist can conceive of such a superlative being, though he would deny its existence in the real world…‖

Well, as a matter of fact, I have to argue that the so called “ontological argument” does NOT prove the existence of the creator, and it is wrong to think of it as such. It rather demonstrates that a reasonable mind cannot dismiss the idea of His existence.

I mean; to say that since I can conceive of God, then he exists, makes it – in this particular form – open for anything else that you can also conceive of, and yet does not by necessity exist in reality at all! And it is here that someone like Dr. Dawkins could say: well, why not say then that since I can conceive of a flying tee-pot orbiting around the earth, then it has to exist? This is the point! It doesn‟t have to! And this is no proof!

The argument thus may better be written this way: If I could NOT conceive of the creator (as the greatest entity in existence) then I could not say

82

that He exists! This is sounder because as we demonstrated repeatedly in this literature, any meaning that is impossible to reason is impossible to exist in the outside world! A meaning like the trinity for example is the closest example to my mind right now! All those tricky nonsensical questions like (can God create another similar god?) or questions as such, fall under this category of meanings that are simply false and irrational altogether, and thus cannot be true!

Ergo, all that such an argument would really do is prove that the existence of the creator as almighty and perfect as He should be, does not in any way raise any rational objections whatsoever. Yes we CAN think of the existence of such an entity, and NO we have no rational reason whatsoever to reject this meaning! We have every reason to conceive of His existence, and there‟s not – on the other hand - a single reason not to, neither in the mind, nor in the world as we see it!

As a Muslim I never use such an argument to prove that the Lord exists! I do not say “since I can think of something that is greater than everything else, then that thing must exist, for it is too great not to, and thus the Lord exists”!

On further dissecting this meaning: “To exist is greater than not to exist”: I say, the meaning as such is false, because I could also think of the dullest and the worst thing ever, and say that for it „not to exist‟ is greater than otherwise! Does this mean then that it can‟t exist? Am I proving in this manner that such a thing does not exist? No!

So it turns out that we have to examine what exactly it is that we mean when we say “the greatest” or “greater”, and on what givens we make that stand. This of course will, as it turns out, leave this argument meaningless as a “standalone” proof! We simply know that there has to be a perfect being because we can see all sorts of signs for that being‟s mastery everywhere, and the very fact that we exist, and that we do what we do, in addition to the essential meaningfulness and purposefulness that His existence puts in life, in death, and in everything else, makes it a must that this being be the perfect being, capable of all, limited by none! We do not say then, that only since we can think of it, then it must be there! We can think of many things

83

indeed, but whether or not they really SHOULD exist, is clearly irrelevant! The existence of the creator is simply a NECESSITY of reason; unlike anything else a man can think of!

I cannot overlook this interesting comment by the professor: “Even an atheist can conceive of such a superlative being, though he would deny its existence in the real world‖

An entity than which nothing is greater, as such, is by necessity something that does exist, in reality not just in the mind! The “Chain of greatness” has to end at something than which nothing is greater! Even atheists – admits the professor - should recognize this meaning! So why would he deny its existence (whatever it is) in the real world? If we supposed that by “greatest” we are only talking about size – for example - then for the sake of the argument, that greatest thing ever, could be – according to an atheist‟s reasoning - a particular “star” or so, billions of light years away in the universe, for as far as the professor is concerned! So by what logic does he deny the existence of this “greatest entity of all” “in reality”? Or is it just because he doesn‟t like its being called a “being”?! In spite of all that reason necessitates, he would insist on the creator not being an extra-universal all-knowing being! And as I may come to demonstrate in another section, he does indeed believe in a „god‟ that is witless and material (existing within the universe); even though he does not call it “god”!

Yes, we don‟t prove the existence of the creator by means of this argument, but he, on the other hand, must understand that he is not making any case for atheism merely by making fun of it!

In commentary on a quotation by Bertrand Russell, the professor says:

―My own feeling, to the contrary, would have been an automatic,

deep suspicion of any line of reasoning that reached such a significant

conclusion without feeding in a single piece of data from the real world.‖(Dawkins, p. 82)

84

I would say; and that‟s exactly how every reasonable man should feel! We do not come to the conclusion that the creator exists “without feeding in a single piece of data from the real world”! On the absolute contrary I say: every single piece of data we get from the real world “proves” the creator! We do not use intuition alone, or the material world alone, to come to the natural conclusion that there has to be a creator, to which all perfectness should be ascribed!

This is exactly why we declare that the ontological argument is not at all sufficient and cannot be considered a standalone proof!

The professor then adds:

―Perhaps that indicates no more than that I am a scientist rather than a philosopher.‖

Well then, professor, you leave me no choice but wonder: if your territory of expertise is only science and you are not a philosopher, then what on earth are you doing here? This is philosophy you are discussing in this chapter, isn‟t it? First order philosophy, and A-priori arguments of philosophers, theologians, logicians and scholars of religion, not scientists!

Okay, let me remind you that human knowledge relies on both: Perception and Reasoning! The attempt by some to split the two paradigms “science” and “philosophy/rational knowledge” apart is to me and to every self respecting man of science and wisdom: an absolute demise of all human knowledge!

The process of rationalization, theorization, setting up rules and guidelines of knowledge, deciding on purposes, objectives and definitions of different disciplines of human knowledge, such fundamental definitions that tell us what “Science” itself is, what it is for, which way it should go, and what methods of research are to be called “science” and what else other methods should be called, this is not in itself “science” but is generally called philosophy of science! It is not “science”!

85

However, there is a great bulk of fundamental works that conventionally carry the name “science”, when they are actually theories of philosophy! Which means that examining their rationale does not demand laboratory experimentation; rather it takes a brilliant man who understands what he reads, understands the logic applied in deduction and the mathematics derived from it, so he could judge the rational validity of such theories, and decide on whether or not they are to be called “science” at all! And the reason why every layman could easily criticize the Darwinian philosophy and ravish its rationale without needing to acquire any certificate in biology, is the fact that its rational foundations are too false to demand any certificate of science or philosophy at all! It‟s really quite enough that it tries to synthesize an ongoing process (natural selection) from recurring events of chance (random mutation) that started all by chance, to end up with the claim that this mastery and perfection was not created at all! This is not a meaning that is too complicated to be refuted by a layperson!

It is natural that any theory of science should start by a “philosophical” assumption. But scientists have got to understand that if this basic philosophy underneath a given theory of science is rationally corrupt; not even a billion experiments or discoveries in the world could ever suffice to prove it! No piling up of „evidence‟ could do any good to a theory of science that is rationally corrupt in its basic philosophical assumptions, because none of those findings that are claimed to “prove it” qualifies – rationally – to be called “evidence”! If we are to expect of an experiment or of any form of observation to validate a meaning that is rationally false by necessity of reason, then this would result in at least one of two conclusions: (a) Observation is delusion and cannot be trusted, or (b) Rational and linguistic necessities are not binding, and thus reason itself is unreliable! Thus we say: Observation cannot contradict with rational necessities, or be taken for evidence to prove logical fallacies, and any theory of science that relies on false reasoning should only be classified as (pseudoscience), no matter how popular or mainstream it may have become!

However, in the absence of heavenly wisdom, many such theories have indeed become mainstream science, in a scientific academia that is literally

86

infested with atheists! Those scientists have agreed to make them mainstream, and they believe that they are somehow progressing in proving them; but this doesn‟t make them the truth! You find that phenomenon showing in almost every field of natural sciences! A scientist cannot start his research without a general framework of convictions – stemming from his embraced view of nature and the world (basically his belief system!) - that effectively determines his goals and objectives!

Physicists once moved on the philosophy of Newton and Euclid, today they are streamed in their sciences by the philosophy of Einstein and Max Plank! Most biologists before Darwin stemmed from a certain view of life that differed radically from that adopted by their majority today! The question of whether or not this stream of theory – and the philosophical doctrine that hosts it - from which a scientist emerges, and within which he works, is evidently true and verifiable, is one that may indeed have nothing to do with empirical testing and laboratory findings!

Many times, debaters with Dawkins would argue with him that his Darwinism – according to his narrow view of human knowledge – is not an object for science to prove or disprove, but is rather a stance of philosophy, or a world view upon which he and all Darwinians construct their scientific objectives and– ultimately – their faith, one that could easily be criticized by every reasonable man! Yet he insists that science has proven Darwinism to be a “better theory than creation”! What science? The problem – as he ought to understand – is as deep as debating whether or not this proposition he holds so dearly about „science‟ – as a branch of human knowledge - is reasonable or rationally valid to begin with!

What we choose to call design, he chooses to call natural selection! What we view to be perfectness and purposefulness, he chooses to view as dull randomness! What we claim to be explanatory knowledge that has to do with both this world and the world beyond, one that we hold to be verifiable knowledge, he readily claims to be pure myth and would choose to embrace a totally different explanatory thesis! It is obviously not a debate of science now, is it?

87

What an atheist fails to see is that, no longer for how many more centuries both parties may continue to research and pile up observatory knowledge, fossil findings, genetic discoveries and so forth, the dispute will never be resolved, because the difference between the two parties is not one that awaits an observatory evidence from the natural world to settle it down for good; it is a rational debate that has to do with the “philosophical” - or rather: logical - foundations of thought and of “scientific deduction” upon which the two schools stand!

They must understand that the problem is not with the tuning up or the calibration of the machines in their labs! The problem is far more fundamental than they think! It is one that has to be dealt with before the decision to go into the lab!

This is why Dawkins along with almost all atheists of our time are clearly confused between the two paradigms of human knowledge: the so called science, and the so called philosophy! They (wishfully) think that science proves their philosophical nonsense, when in fact it doesn‟t! A claim that is self evidently irrational cannot be proved (or disproved) by the scientific method. This is as far as any reasonable man may need to go in arguing with Darwinians! And the reason why I chose to examine the Darwinian thesis in some detail in this literature is not because I think this is where the problem is; the problem is deep at the very bottom of its major tenets! I did this (as yet to come) only to further demonstrate how rationally incoherent, inconsistent and self-contradictory the Darwinian myth really is, and to prove to the reader that had this fundamentally corrupt and incoherent theory been any other theory in any other discipline of science, with no bearing on the question of creation; it wouldn‟t have even made it through to this century without being effectively dismissed by every honest scientist, and taken for an example of what bad philosophy could do to natural science! Yet instead, it was taken for the foundation of modern biology!

Dawkins says, in many occasions, that he believes the subject matter here (dealing with God) is one that has everything to do with science, because he thinks that science seeks to answer those very same questions that “religion” is answering, only religion, he says, answers them wrong!

88

Well, who says that “religion” is wrong and “science” is right, in dealing with those particular questions? And how many more fossils do they still need to unearth to finally understand that neither Darwinism, nor any other opposing view can be proved or disproved as answer to this question by this so called “evidence”?

If by science he means direct observation and mere empirical research, then he‟s clearly not talking science in this book, for the most part! And if by this thin and narrow-minded view, he defines science, then he is really suffocating himself, and it is as though he‟s shouting out loud: “Watch me! I‟m standing at some place where – as a scientist – I‟m not supposed to be”! This is why many philosophers do indeed find this position the professor has gotten himself into; an act of intellectual suicide!

I‟m afraid the professor obviously doesn‟t know under what discipline of human knowledge this debate he is into really falls, and why!

If by a man of science, again, he means that his craft is taking observations and attempting to offer explanatory theories for them, then certainly this has everything to do with religion and with what philosophers do! Because if it is a rationally corrupt philosophy or religion that he stands upon, and from which his propositions emerge; then he is simply claiming fallacy, no matter what he calls it, and no matter what results he gets in his lab! This is simply because the lab, its experiments and their results, would then all come from previous convictions that are themselves rationally flawed!

If I believe, in advance, that for example finding traces of “water” on a certain planet, would stand as sound evidence for the existence of – or the mere possibility of - “natural life” there, then every process of research that I may build upon this view, and every process of “science” I may apply in search for that water, takes by necessity the very same judgment or criticism that this view itself should take! And the essential question here would then be: If I did find traces of water there, would this prove that there was or is or could ever be any form of natural life on that planet? Only a scientist driven by his academic ambitions and drenched in his personal belief in Darwinian evolution would argue that it does! But in fact it doesn‟t! Why? Because

89

science or no science, the very idea that life could emerge by accident from dead matter in a “primordial lake” is fundamentally false!

The philosophical question of whether or not it is necessary that everywhere in the universe we find water, we can expect to find life, is one that goes down to the roots of Darwinism, and the “myth” of the so called “primordial lake”! No matter how much “science” followers of this myth would do, they will never manage – by means of science – to prove or disprove it! They have to sit back, break free from the chain they are so rigidly bound to, close the lab for a while, and start searching somewhere else! Because it is only reasonable that if your fundamental claim itself is rationally valid and worthwhile, then so is every tool of science that seeks to serve it by experimentation, simulation and discovery! But if not, not!

And again I say this is why it is fairly easy for any reasonable educated well-read man to refute Darwinism without having to hold a PHD in microbiology, archeology, or paleontology! And it is exactly why – on the other hand - the professor here is thrusting his head boldly within what is viewed to be the territory of philosophers and theologians, without feeling that he needs to carry any particular credentials in philosophy or in theology to do so! It‟s a very basic level of human reasoning that we‟re discussing here! Much of it really has to do with this rational “common sense” that the professor so easily undermines, and describes as “misleading”! 8

------------------------------------------------

8 By the way: I‟m sorry to disappoint him, but it is by this very simple common sense itself that we can easily prove the Zeno paradox about Achilles and the tortoise to be nothing but nonsense! Obviously, all that “Achilles” has to do to catch up with the tortoise is to keep running until he does! Reasonable people did not have to wait until a theory of advanced mathematics comes along in modern times to help them understand this! And of course – most essentially – they did not doubt for a minute, because of that childish paradox, that Achilles would easily catch up with the tortoise! Yes they probably had to wait until a certain form of mathematics was developed to properly model and simulate this particular mathematical question here; but the fact remains; the paradox comes only from the way its conclusion is written! The conclusion that “he will never reach the tortoise” is clearly bogus! He will, clearly, keep running until the difference dissolves to zero, and there he will reach it! So I‟m amazed at the professor‟s attempt to use such games to cover the face of the sun! You‟d refuse the existence of a creator and wait until somebody proves to you, mathematically, something like the fact that Achilles has to be able to catch up with the tortoise? What a pity! But this is what Darwinism does to people‟s minds!

90

So, as we proceed with this literature, more of the rational distortion and fundamental corruption of reason upon which Dawkins founds his views and conclusions, and naturally his “science”, will be exposed.

Now I‟d like to highlight this statement in particular by the professor:

―I mean it as a compliment when I say that you could almost define a philosopher as someone who won't take common sense for an answer.‖(Dawkins, p.83)

I have to note here that just as long he does not make a clear definition of what he calls “common sense” we cannot choose to agree or disagree with this statement! For, if by common sense he means blind faith, and inherited norms that have never acquired inspection or arguing against in his community, then yes, by never taking that for an answer, it is a compliment for any reasonable man! But if by common sense he means those very basic axioms of reason that do not even demand to be proven in the eyes of any healthy mind to begin with; then this is certainly not a compliment! I‟m not to be called wise, or even sane, if I wrote a complete volume in attempt to prove that I exist, or that the world exists, am I?!

With indefinite and unparticular statements as such, the professor manages to create an atmosphere that leaves an uninformed reader compelled to think of his arguments as reasonable and worthwhile, when obviously they are not!

Now, still on the mission of debunking the ontological argument, the professor puts forth an argument by Douglass Gasking, which supposedly disproves god.

I quote:

―1 The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement

imaginable.

2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic

quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

91

3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more

impressive the achievement.

4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be nonexistence.

5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an

existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one

who created everything while not existing.

6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than

which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable

and incredible creator would be a God which did not

exist.

Ergo:

7 God does not exist.‖ (Dawkins, p.83)

Now even though the professor does – thankfully – admit that this argument doesn‟t work at all in disproving God, I find myself compelled to explain the precise reason why it doesn‟t, and why it has nothing to do with the question in hand. After all, if he thinks it‟s fun to bring it forth, then perhaps it‟s even more fun to destroy it. I hope he finds himself “entertained” as he reads this (if he ever does)!

Premise (1): true!

Premise (2): Absolutely true!

Premise (3): Now here comes the trick! “more impressive”! Reason denies the creator of the universe being in any way limited by what man is limited by! Why? Look around you at the way the universe is running and hopefully you‟ll see! Try to contemplate in the meaning that the creator of a system is by necessity not bound to the restrictions and boundaries he created in it, and you will see! He has to be far beyond universal limitations of any sort! And since “disability” or “handicap” is only a form of limitation that He created in this world (the purpose of which is not our topic here!), then it should follow that He be not attributed to any form of disability! This goes down to the rational argument of omnipotence and its essential meaning!

92

So no it‟s not “more impressive” that this universe be the work of a handicap, because it‟s already evidently impossible that it be in any way the work of even a super human!

Ergo, the entire argument collapses!

However, to further amuse the professor, I would like to add that on premise (4), the conclusion is clearly false as well! No the most formidable of handicap is not non-existence! Non-existence is nothingness, not an attribute to be impressed by! A totally paralyzed and incapable being is one thing, and a non-being is an entirely different issue! Yes a totally powerless being is as good as none at all (in terms of physical ability), but rationally, the two issues are not one and the same! And to prove the existence of a totally incapable being is not equal to proving a being‟s non-existence!

The professor then proceeds with sheer humor, to make fun of a number of “Comic” attempts written precisely to make fun of those who see the divine beyond every order in life, but may fail in expressing it in words. He quotes Huxley‟s mockery of a man who concludes that since infinity multiplied by naught equals any positive real number, then God is infinite creating existence from nothingness! Well this is no argument of course, no question! However, it doesn‟t mean that the very fact that you can do mathematics can‟t – in itself - be part of what proves the creator‟s existence to every reasonable man! But what is “a reasonable man”?

As I hope my reader will eventually conclude on his own after reading this literature: Atheists are not at all in good terms with basic human reason! Not that an atheist cannot do mathematics, practice natural sciences and research, or prove to have a significantly high IQ or earn a Nobel Prize, but because the magnitude of rational errors and fallacies upon which he founds his entire being and his entire process of knowledge and reasoning, and – sadly so – would attempt to prove and even battle for; is really outstandingly monumental! It‟s a real pity!

They are not at all stupid! In fact a majority of particularly smart scientists in the west are admittedly atheists! However, it‟s not that they can‟t do science, and excel at it; it‟s this false “faith” they choose to embrace that really

93

makes them – in terms of rationality - no better than those poor Indians dancing around a Wooden statue asking it for rain!

The professor brings forth such quotations as though it is only by means of such „mumbo jumbo‟ that sane people “prove” the existence of the creator! We do admit the ontological argument to be inadequate and insufficient! In fact, if I wished, I could quote a number of theologians and scholars from different faiths, theistic and even polytheistic that actually proved it inefficient and rephrased it in different ways! So what?! It‟s not making your case any good, professor, to go to some comic website and quote a number of jokes by atheists making fun of it!

This does not by any means prove your case!

Here‟s some of those jokes, I quote:

―36 Argument from Incomplete Devastation: A plane crashed

killing 143 passengers and crew. But one child survived

with only third-degree burns. Therefore God exists.

37 Argument from Possible Worlds: If things had been

different, then things would be different. That would be

bad. Therefore God exists.

38 Argument from Sheer Will: I do believe in God! I do

believe in God! I do I do I do. I do believe in God!

Therefore God exists.

39 Argument from Non-belief: The majority of the world's

population are non-believers in Christianity. This is just

what Satan intended. Therefore God exists.

40 Argument from Post-Death Experience: Person X died an

atheist. He now realizes his mistake. Therefore God exists.

41 Argument from Emotional Blackmail: God loves you.

How could you be so heartless as not to believe in him?

Therefore God exists.‖ (Dawkins, p.85)

Okay then, although this is not how a wise man should approach an issue as dangerous and serious as this, it wouldn‟t hurt to show the professor that we do have a sense of humor too!

94

So how about a few “funny” atheist arguments against the existence of the creator?

1 – Argument from spaghetti: Since there is no such a thing as the spaghetti monster, therefore there is no such a thing as “god” either!

2 – Argument from natural selection: Since someone finally managed to come up with an „elegant‟ natural explanation, then it is nature that runs the whole thing, and there is probably no such a thing as God!

3 – Argument from world criminals: Since a great deal of world criminals belong to religion, and many of them do horrendous crimes in the name of religion; therefore all religions are nonsense; ergo there is no God!

4 – Argument from Rotten remains: Since we have found many fossils of teeth and bones that look as though they come from an ape-like man, or a man-like ape, a fish-like reptile, or a reptile-like bird, therefore Darwin was right, Chimpanzees are our cousins, and there is no God!

5 – Argument from genetic change: Since genes do change on the course of generations, therefore they have been evolving themselves starting from a lake of proteins, controlling every living thing for their own survival; no place for a “god” there!

6 – Argument from empirical observation: Since nobody has ever seen “God” in the telescope, anywhere over the moon or around the solar system, therefore He does not exist!

7 - Argument from inheritance: Since all religions teach little kids to follow their faith from early childhood „as though‟ it were the truth, therefore all religions are false and “abusive”, and – or course - there is no God!

8 – Argument from particular false religions: Since it cannot be that God is both one and three, therefore there is no God at all!

9 – Argument from improbability: Since I think it is very improbable that the world was created, therefore there is no God!

95

10 – Argument from Sheer ignorance: I do not know why there has to be suffering in the world! Since there are those many things that I hate in the world and do not understand, therefore there can‟t be a creator! …..

Shall I continue?

Well I suppose any reasonable reader can see now that although the “Jokes” the professor puts forth to make fun of arguments for creation, are indeed too feeble to even consider, this list of “jokes” I just wrote as example of atheist arguments “against” the creator are really not jokes at all! Those are indeed the kinds of arguments atheists use to convince themselves that there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that there is a creator!