There were a series of interesting questions posed on the Richard Dawkins blog over the last couple of days. These are some of the more philosophical questions asked by the religious in an attempt to prove their god, Or at least prove that not all things are provable.
While i think these kinds of questions are facile in nature it's a good idea to have an answer ready, Because they will be asked and as you know, Any question that doesn't have an answer is seen as "evidence" of god by religious folks.
Anyway, I'll post some of the questions here along with my answers and i would be interested in hearing what answers you guys would give to these questions.
Q: You can't prove you love someone, So don't expect proof of god!
A: No i can't prove that i love someone because love is a feeling, A feeling is a neurological impulse that exists only in my brain. Is god unprovable because it's nothing more than a neurological impulse that exists only in your brain? If so, I would agree with you completely.
Q: Atheism is self-refuting because it asserts that everything in the universe, Including the atheist's own reasoning, came about as a result of non-rational forces. If that is indeed the case, Every argument employed by the atheist is, According to his own assertions, Incoherent and meaningless.
A: The universe came about by an inanimate force. Neither rational nor non-rational. Evolution however dictated that rationality, Logic and reason be beneficial to a species and as such is something we now, Through natural selection, Posses (well, some of us).
Q: Religionists like caricature non-believers as being unhappy, Depressed, Loveless, Indifferent, etc. If you don't believe in God, Then you must hate music, Art, Poetry, etc.
A: This has to be the biggest non sequitur argument I have ever heard, Though this very assertion was made to me only a few days ago. I pointed out an enormous list of composers who were atheists and moved on.
Q: Science can't tell us why we're here or what is the meaning of our lives.
A: This question assumes that we have a purpose or that we are here for a reason, Until this assertion can be proven true it's unreasonable to ask for a scientific answer regarding that purpose. But i would say were are here for the same "reason" as any other animal, Try to stay alive and have some babies.
Q: Why is there something rather than nothing? What about the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of the universe?
A: Someone on the Richard Dawkins blog gave a good answer: Have you ever noticed that most cities are built near a river or permanent water supply? it's almost as if the river was put there for the city. Of course, We know that the river wasn't put there for the city, The city is there because there is a river. The universe is the same, If it wasn't a place where we could exist, We wouldn't exist. There may be other universes where physics doesn't allow life, Even matter to exist, But nobody will know that because it's impossible to exist there. We happen to be in this one.
Q: Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists.
A: Saying Atheism is a religion is like saying bald is a hair colour and health is a sickness.
These are my responses to some of the more common questions. If you would like to give your own responses to these questions or any of the other questions please feel free to post them in a reply. It's a good idea to arm yourself with answers no matter how facile the question be. I would advise against giving a too detailed answer or defining yourself into a corner, The more you say the more opportunities they have to refute it.