A religion is an organized system of belief, most often assuming the existence of a higher power such as a supernatural almighty deity or an ultimate truth, first designed to enlighten humanity on the act of creation and produce specific prophecies that will come true if certain requirements are met. This case argues that supernatural deities do not exist, which entails the fact that all major religions are false and outdated phenomena outstripped by science, serving little other use than hampering additional scientific progress.
The cosmological argument
Some religious individuals argue that whatever begins to exist has a cause and since nothing causes itself, there has to be a First Cause, namely God. There are several objections to this argument, some of them being as following;
- What caused the First Cause? By making use of the cosmological argument one presupposes that an uncaused effect exists, enabling it to cause a chain of effects without being caused itself. Seeing that the argument is reliant upon the premise that all effects have a cause it is in consequence invalid.
- The First Cause is by no means equal to a deity. Even though the origin of the universe remains scientifically unexplained, it doesn’t justify supernatural religious claims.
The Teleological argument [Intelligent Design]
This argument states that some phenomena are too complex, or too apparently purposeful, to have occurred randomly. Therefore, these phenomena must have been designed by an intelligent or purposeful being (God).
– Who designed the designer? If an intelligent designer only is able to design irreducibly complex units, then an even more intelligent designer is necessary to design the original designer. This entails an infinite chain of designers. To counter this counter-argument some individuals make use of the cosmological argument. However, as explained above, this argument fails because it omits why a designer can be undersigned while the universe cannot.
William Paley’s watchmaker analogy makes use of this argument, and is to this date one of the most famous teleological arguments. He argues that there are structures which cannot function unless all substructures are present. By asserting that each substructure constitutes no benefit alone, evolutionary theory is unable to explain the substructures presence. Since the substructures presence cannot be explained, the whole structures presence cannot be explained either. Counter-arguments are as following:
- There is a probability that all substructures came into existence simultaneously.
- Substructures may have changed in function. A gradual replacement by several advantageous substructures’ function can lead to the evolution of structures claimed to be irreducibly complex.
The omnipotence paradox
Most, if not all, monotheistic religions claim the existence of an omnipotent God. This argument leaves the concept of omnipotence as a mere paradox unable to exist in a logical universe. If a deity is in fact omnipotent, then he is able to create a rock he himself cannot lift. Since he cannot lift the rock he just created he is not omnipotent.
Argument from free will
All monotheistic religions claim their god to be omniscient, and at the same time claim to have been given free will by the very same god. These two concepts are incompatible. Here is why: An omniscient being knows everything, including the future will of his supposed free willed- designees. Since the will is already known, it cannot be free at the same time.
Other[inductive] arguments state that a complete being (God) must also be dead or non-existing in order to be fully complete. Furthermore, some conclude that since most theistic religions eventually were regarded as untrue, all theistic religions are most likely to be untrue. Stephen F. Roberts formulated this beautifully by saying:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Dini ni mfumo wa imani ulioandaliwa, mara nyingi ukidhani kuwa kuna nguvu ya juu kama vile mungu wa juu wa asili au ukweli wa mwisho, iliyoundwa kwanza kuangazia ubinadamu juu ya kitendo cha uumbaji na kuzalisha unabii maalum ambao utatimizwa ikiwa mahitaji fulani yatatimizwa. Kesi hii inadai kwamba miungu ya ajabu haipo, ambayo inahusisha ukweli kwamba dini zote kuu ni uwongo na hali ya zamani iliyopitwa na wakati na sayansi, ikitumikia matumizi machache zaidi ya kuzuia maendeleo ya kisayansi ya ziada. "Kama vile watu wengine wa dini wanavyosema, ""kila kitu kinachotokea kina sababu,"" na kwa kuwa hakuna kitu kinachojitokeza chenyewe, lazima kuwe na Sababu ya Kwanza, yaani, Mungu." Kuna pingamizi kadhaa kwa hoja hii, baadhi yao ni kama ifuatavyo; - Nini kusababisha Sababu ya Kwanza? Kwa kutumia hoja ya cosmological mtu anafikiria kwamba athari isiyo na sababu ipo, kuifanya iweze kusababisha mlolongo wa athari bila kusababishwa yenyewe. Kuona kwamba hoja inategemea msingi kwamba athari zote zina sababu ni kwa sababu hiyo halali. - Sababu ya Kwanza kwa njia yoyote ile hailingani na mungu. Ingawa chanzo cha ulimwengu bado hakijaelezwa kisayansi, hakithibitisha madai ya kidini ya mambo ya ajabu. Hoja ya Teleolojia [Ubunifu wa Akili] Hoja hii inasema kwamba matukio fulani ni magumu sana, au yaonekana kuwa na kusudi, ili yaweze kutokea kwa nasibu. Kwa hiyo, lazima mambo hayo yawe yalitengenezwa na kiumbe mwenye akili au mwenye kusudi (Mungu). <unk> Ni nani aliyemwumba mbuni huyo? Ikiwa mbuni mwenye akili pekee ndiye anayeweza kubuni vipengele vyenye utata usioweza kupunguzwa, basi mbuni mwenye akili zaidi ni muhimu kubuni mbuni wa awali. Hilo linahusisha mfululizo usio na mwisho wa wabuni. Ili kupinga hoja hiyo, watu fulani hutumia hoja ya ulimwengu. Hata hivyo, kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, hoja hii inashindwa kwa sababu inaacha kwa nini mbuni anaweza kusainiwa wakati ulimwengu hauwezi. Mfano wa mtengenezaji wa saa wa William Paley hutumia hoja hii, na hadi leo ni moja ya hoja maarufu zaidi za teleolojia. Yeye anadai kwamba kuna miundo ambayo haiwezi kufanya kazi isipokuwa miundo yote iko. Kwa kudai kwamba kila muundo mdogo hauna faida peke yake, nadharia ya mageuzi haiwezi kueleza uwepo wa muundo mdogo. Kwa kuwa uwepo wa miundo ya chini hauwezi kuelezwa, uwepo wa miundo yote hauwezi kuelezwa pia. Counter-maelezo ni kama ifuatavyo: - Kuna uwezekano kwamba miundo yote ya chini alikuja kuwepo wakati mmoja. - Huenda miundo ya chini ilibadilika katika utendaji. Uingizwaji wa hatua kwa hatua na kazi kadhaa za miundo ya chini yenye faida inaweza kusababisha mageuzi ya miundo inayodaiwa kuwa ngumu sana. Tofauti ya Uwezo wa Kila Kitu Dini nyingi, ikiwa si zote, za monoteisti hudai kuwepo kwa Mungu mwenye uwezo wa kila kitu. Hoja hii inaacha dhana ya nguvu zote kama utata tu ambao hauwezi kuwepo katika ulimwengu wa mantiki. Ikiwa mungu ni mwenye nguvu zote, basi anaweza kuumba mwamba ambao yeye mwenyewe hawezi kuushusha. Kwa kuwa hawezi kuinua mwamba aliouumba tu, yeye si mwenye nguvu zote. "Kutokana na uhuru wa kuchagua, dini zote za ki-mungu-mmoja zinadai kwamba mungu wao anajua kila kitu, na wakati huohuo wanadai kwamba wamepokea uhuru wa kuchagua kutoka kwa mungu huyo huyo.""" Dhana hizo mbili hazipatani. Kwa nini? - Kwa sababu Mungu anajua kila kitu, kutia ndani mapenzi ya watu wake wa wakati ujao. Kwa kuwa mapenzi tayari yanajulikana, hayawezi kuwa huru wakati huohuo. Hoja nyingine [inductive] zinasema kwamba kiumbe kamili (Mungu) lazima pia awe amekufa au asiyepo ili awe kamili kabisa. Zaidi ya hayo, wengine hufikia mkataa kwamba kwa kuwa dini nyingi za theisti hatimaye zilionwa kuwa zisizo za kweli, dini zote za theisti zaelekea kuwa zisizo za kweli. Stephen F. Roberts alifafanua jambo hilo kwa njia nzuri hivi: <unk>Ninasema kwamba sisi sote wawili siamini kuna Mungu. Mimi tu kuamini katika Mungu mmoja chini ya wewe kufanya. Unapoelewa kwa nini wewe kufukuzwa miungu mingine yote iwezekanavyo, utaelewa kwa nini mimi kufukuzwa yako. <unk>