Arizona Atheist: Arguments Against God's Existence

He'd like some feedback on this blog post and I don't have the time right now. He writes:
The truth is, though, that I see nothing special about these arguments. Each of these arguments are fatally flawed when you think about them for just a few minutes (or when you look at the contradictory evidence).
Do you think he makes his case? Link

40 comments:

J.Park said...

I agree with him... there's so much contradictory arguments and evidences against both sides so that it's impossible to try to say what is right by reason.

It all comes down to whether you accept Christ or not, regardless of all the contradictions. Simple as that.

MAZZ said...

J. Park said: "I agree with him... there's so much contradictory arguments and evidences against both sides so that it's impossible to try to say what is right by reason."

I don't believe that is what the author was saying at all. I think he was saying that when you look at the arguments for a god they fall to logic. It does not all come down to whether you accept Christ or not because the acceptance of Christ does not change the way the universe really is. It does however alter your acceptance of logic.

Arizona Atheist said...

MAZZ is correct. After a few people give me some feedback I may want to clean up the writing a bit to make myself clearer, but yes, logic alone destroys these arguments; they are illogical (of course with some of the arguments it helps to be knowledgeable of the counter evidence).

I want to thank John again for posting my article.

eheffa said...

Arizona Atheist's blog quotes from Victor Stenger's book: "God: The Failed Hypothesis"

Stenger's book is a dispassionate rational, careful & devastating critique of the theist position. I can't comprehend how any open-minded theist could read it and not find themselves having to revise their beliefs.

I'm not sure why it is not quoted or referenced more often than it is...

Highly recommended.

-evan

Torgo said...

Arizona Atheist writes: "Take, for example, the experiment in which a feather is dropped along with a bowling ball (taking wind resistance out of the equation). Logic would dictate that the ball would hit the ground first, but in reality they would both hit the ground at the same time. This is an example of something that seems like a logical conclusion: a heavier object will fall faster, but if you eliminate the affect air has on the objects, they will fall at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time."

How does "logic dictate" that the ball will land first? We might expect that it would, but there is nothing logical about this in the sense of being deducible from the dropping of the feather and the ball. Logic is a matter of the relationships between statements, it cannot predict empirical events on its own.

Arizona Atheist said...

Hi Torgo,

I was referring to the fact that it seems more logical, or more likely, that a heavier object would fall to the ground faster than a lighter one. It seems to make more sense, to put it another way, that a heavier object would fall faster, thus hitting the ground first.

Torgo said...

AA,

Thanks for the reply. I understand the intuitive appeal of thinking the ball will fall faster. This example underscores the need to test ideas, rather than rely on such intuitions. I'm not free of them any more than most others, but the ability to test ideas gives us the objective means to test some claims and resolve the disputes you mention in your original essay.

Take for example William Lane Craig's first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which I think you used: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This seems intuitively obvious, or "logical" in the sense you use the term, but upon examination it is not deductively true, and cannot be shown to be inductively true. We intuitively think that the universe must have some cause, since it began to exist, but we do not have a sufficient data set to show this. We only have one universe, not many, so we can't know if, in this special case, this thing, the universe, has a cause, or has a cause of the usual sort. What seems logical misleads us into thinking we have certainty.

Thus, in this case, though there be competing opinions, both of which may seem on the surface to be reasonable, I think the skeptic can show that Craig's claim is not so obviously reasonable. Therefore, the two sides are not on equal footing.

Arizona Atheist said...

Hi there again, Torgo.

I agree completely and that was precisely the point I was trying to get across. I'm hoping that means I did a decent of job of communicating my thoughts. I'm curious what any theists might say about my post but haven't gotten any replies as of yet.

Al Moritz said...

Eheffa said:

Stenger's book is a dispassionate rational, careful & devastating critique of the theist position. I can't comprehend how any open-minded theist could read it and not find themselves having to revise their beliefs.

Stenger's arguments are sometimes laughable, such as his assertion that "nothing is unstable". This is philosophical and logical nonsense. Nothing has no properties. True nothing is, after all, nothing. And if he means the physical "nothing" of quantum vacuum, well, that is not nothing, it is a field.

Also on the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature Stenger entertains fringe opinions, which are outside mainstream science. Prominent atheist and agnostic cosmologists, such as Hawking, Rees, Davies, Linde, Vilenkin and even Weinberg, all know too well that the apparent fine-tuning is a serious issue, and how vanishingly small the odds for life are if the constants change just a bit.

Atheists rightfully scold believers when they follow fringe movements outside mainstream science, such as the anti-evolution Intelligent Design movement. I fully support their efforts, and have publicly argued against the Intelligent Design movement myself. Yet as demonstrated by the strong resonance of Stenger's writings in the atheist community, atheists are, ironically, just as prone to follow fringe opinions outside mainstream science, as long as they snugly fit into their world view.

It just goes to show that, contrary to their loud assertions, many (in my experience, most) atheists do not follow the evidence. They just follow their own prejudices.

Al Moritz said...

Eheffa said:

Stenger's book is a dispassionate rational, careful & devastating critique of the theist position.

Here is a dispassionate rational, careful & devastating critique of Stenger's book by the eminent cosmologist George Ellis:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/27736

J.L. Hinman said...

this guy proved himself not to understand much of anything when he treid to take me on on atheist watch. It was pathetic.

J.L. Hinman said...

I agree with him... there's so much contradictory arguments and evidences against both sides so that it's impossible to try to say what is right by reason.


there is no evidence against God nor can there be. All of his arguemnts are based upon straw man bs and not understanding Christian theology.

the best you can do is to knock out a couple of theological proposals here and there but you can't disprove God and the very idea that you could is seriously crazy.

Al Moritz said...

Arizona atheist writes on the posted link:

Even Stephen Hawking's more recent studies seem to cast doubt upon the Anthropic Principle. "He proposed that our universe is much less 'special' than the proponents of the Anthropic Principle claim it is. According to Hawking, there is a 98 percent chance that a universe of a type as our own will come from the Big Bang [emphasis in original].

Right. If that's the Flexiverse, big deal -- all possible string universes arose at the same time. Just another version of the multiverse, I guess.

Arizona Atheist said...

Well,well, if it isn't little Joe...

"It was pathetic."

Well, if what you call "pathetic" was me pointing out that every argument for god is a "god of the gaps" argument for which I gave examples for, and pointing out the flaws in your arguments then OK I'm "pathetic."

Of course, with you simply denying arguments with an astounding 'They're not god of the gap arguments' without any evidence, I think you should be looking in the mirror next time you say that.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, ignorance is bliss... isn't it Joey?

J.L. Hinman said...

Well, if what you call "pathetic" was me pointing out that every argument for god is a "god of the gaps" argument for which I gave examples for, and pointing out the flaws in your arguments then OK I'm "pathetic."

now you know very well that I expalined to you about five times, and four pointed it, why that is not the case. I went through showed 10 of my argumetns and went through each one and showed why it is not god of the gaps.

you did nto responnd to a single argument on any of the ten. you didn't respond to any of the four general points or any of the ten arguments. that's pretty pathetnic.

Not only did you keep repeating yourself and pretending my arugments werent' there, but other atheists were laughting at you.

the atheists on my board were laughing at you. they didn't even make excuses for you.

J.L. Hinman said...

I've said it before, I'll say it again, ignorance is bliss... isn't it Joey?

tell me Derrida's essay in which he aruges against hussel that there is no intentionality in the speaker?

tell me in what work Foucault argues that taxonomy is the demonstration of the socially consturcted naure of scince?

what was the arugement he made?

come on now mr knowledge, since you know so much surely you can answer these.

Maybe we should do one more in the field of God stuff OK?

show me who it was that motivated Norman Maclcom to re-examine the ontolgoical argument in modern terms?

How is the philopsher from whom Plantinga lifsts almost all his major moves in relation tot he modal argument?


Here's the bonus points. For the whole prize: tell me the basic argument that I made to show that my God arugment no 1 is not a God of the gaps argument?

If you beat that like you think you idd (in reality reailty you never even mentioned it) but you must know this. If I'm so ignorant how is it that I know so much more than you do?

if you really wont that argument why can't you tell me the one major issue in it?

Arizona Atheist said...

I'm not going to put Mr. Loftus' site in the middle of your nonsense. Atheists were laughing? I find that hard to believe. Any clear thinking atheist would likely agree with me: That all arguments for god are "god of the gap" arguments...and I did give examples why. Just have to go to your blog to see it for themselves. That fact is also copied on my blog in case you ever deleted my comment. If you want to argue with me you know where to find me.

Arizona Atheist said...

"the atheists on my board were laughing at you."

Looks like my suspicions are confirmed. Did a search for my name at your board and nothing at all came up. Either that's the wrong board, or you're lying. I'm betting on the later.

eheffa said...

Al Moritz said: Also on the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature Stenger entertains fringe opinions, which are outside mainstream science. Prominent atheist and agnostic cosmologists, such as Hawking, Rees, Davies, Linde, Vilenkin and even Weinberg, all know too well that the apparent fine-tuning is a serious issue, and how vanishingly small the odds for life are if the constants change just a bit.

The fine tuning argument is like saying that the odds of my winning the lottery are vanishingly small therefore my winning ticket is an indication of design or a deliberate manipulation by an outside agent to give me the win...

The fine tuning argument fails on many fronts but even if it were a real effect, the most likely key to the puzzle is not necessarily going to be a sky-god designer.
I'll look for your referenced essay, but I think that as far as I recall, Stenger's fringe theories as you call them, are no less viable than the idea that an eternal personal god (one who is unable or unwilling to communicate directly and clearly to his created people except through an ambiguous and grossly flawed collection of ancient transcripts) is somehow responsible for the existence of this "finely tuned universe.

The evidence for the veracity of the Biblical accounts is simply not there.

Stenger is far more honest & consistent with the data than any of Christian apologists I have ever read.

-evan

Al Moritz said...

J.L. Hinman,

shouting entire sentences in "bold font" won't help, and it's annoying.

J.L. Hinman said...

my critique of the blog

J.L. Hinman said...

shouting entire sentences in "bold font" won't help, and it's annoying.

it wasn't in caps.

J.L. Hinman said...

This blog shows total ignorance. I would bet AA has never read any original material at all on any of the topics he pretends to critique. He's clearly just regurgitating atheist web sites.

He seem to confuse emotive statements with actual logic, when he declares that claiming God is eternal is hypocrisy but never says why, unless it's his confused idea that to say the universe is not eternal means you can't say God is eternal.

J.L. Hinman said...

The fine tuning argument is like saying that the odds of my winning the lottery are vanishingly small therefore my winning ticket is an indication of design or a deliberate manipulation by an outside agent to give me the win...


you completey miss the point of the argument. It's not at all ike that.

what is like is saying that If I wont the lottery every time I played and I played all the time then it would be proof of cheating. that's exactly true. that is not an exaggeration that is literalyt he case. no statistician in the world would disagree wtih that.

the fine tuning thing requires millions of such coincidences all going the right way.

Al Moritz said...

Or, as astronomer-cosmologist Martin Rees (an atheist or agnostic) puts it (Just Six Numbers, p. 164):

"There are various ways of reacting to the apparent fine tuning of our six numbers. One hard-headed response is that we couldn't exist if these numbers weren't adjusted in the appropriate 'special' way: we manifestly are here, so there is nothing to be surprised about. Many scientists take this line, but it certainly leaves me unsatisfied. I'm impressed by a metaphor given by the Canadian philosopher John Leslie. Suppose you are facing a firing squad. Fifty marksmen take aim but they all miss. If they hadn't all missed you wouldn't have survived to ponder the matter. But you wouldn't just leave it at that -- you'd still be baffled, and would seek some further reason for your good fortune."

(As a consequence, Rees is an advocate of the multiverse theory. There is a reason why the multiverse theory is so popular – just “brute chance” is a hard thing to ponder seriously.)

Arizona Atheist said...

Well that was interesting. Not one argument debunked at all. Just a bunch of personal attacks and misunderstandings about some of the arguments like the Euthyphro dilemma; it means exactly what I said. As I said, god does nothing to solve the idea of morality and I proved this.

As far as the cosmological argument, there are opposing views and we're not sure which is correct at the moment, but saying "god did it," as I've said, is nothing but a god of the gaps argument.

"it's not worth further critique."

Good. I wouldn't want to have to watch you flail again in trying to argue against me.

This is the last I will post here on the subject to Hinman. I feel it's disrespectful to argue with this guy on someone else's comments so if Hinman wanted to go to my blog I wouldn't care. But I hope he doesn't. I don't need the headache. He's already shown he can't argue my points.

Al Moritz said...

Arizona Atheist:

Not one argument debunked at all.

Well, Stenger whom you cite in favor of your arguments was debunked and a link given where he is debunked some more.

Your statement:
Even Stephen Hawking's more recent studies seem to cast doubt upon the Anthropic Principle. "He proposed that our universe is much less 'special' than the proponents of the Anthropic Principle claim it is. According to Hawking, there is a 98 percent chance that a universe of a type as our own will come from the Big Bang,

was also debunked as it appears to apply to a de facto multiverse (the Flexiverse) instead of a single universe. The fact that he looks for a multiverse at this point is an indication that he still does take the anthropic principle very seriously, contrary to your assertion.

As for your other arguments, I don't care that much for them at this point.

Al Moritz said...

From Arizona Atheist's blog:

The fact is, though, that there are things that happen at the subatomic level which appear to have no cause. "When an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus" (Source: God: The Failed Hypothesis, by Victor J. Stenger, page 124). So it seems it's known that things can happen without a cause, which would put to rest the entire cosmological argument at the beginning.

Nonsense. Stenger confuses indeterminateness on the quantum level (lack of predictability) with lack of cause.

Arizona Atheist said...

Well, I did say the following in my post as well:

"Even assuming that the universe wasn't eternal, and the previous research was flawed in some way, it's pretty presumptuous of them to claim their god did it. They have no proof. All they have is a book written by very superstitious individuals who didn't know what we do today about the world and how it works. How theists can claim this book that is full of oftentimes silly and cruel statements and stories tells us how the universe came to be is dumb founding."

It's still a god of the gaps argument. They have not proven their god so even if some of what Stenger has to say is inaccurate, it does not prove their god. I also defend the current "big bang" model as well with some other research in case the "eternal" concept of the universe turns out to be false. But as I said, what it all boils down to is a god of the gaps argument.

But thank you for making me aware of those criticisms of Stenger.

Al Moritz said...

But thank you for making me aware of those criticisms of Stenger.

You're welcome.

Arizona Atheist said...

Al Moritz,

As I stated in my post cosmology is not my strong suit but I didn't quote Stenger in it's entirety. I think he is aware that it is an unpredictability in quantum events. He was attempting to debunk William Lane Craig. I'll quote Stenger in it's entirety so you can see what all he says.

Pages 123-125 of "God: The Failed Hypothesis":

"Craig claims that if it can be shown that the universe had a beginning, this is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a personal creator. He casts this in terms of the kakam cosmological argument, which is drawn from Islamic theology. The argument is possed as a syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The kalam argument has been severely challenged by philosophers on logical grounds, which need not be repeated here since we are focusing on the science.

In his writings, Craig takes the first premise to be self-evident, with no justification other than than common, everyday experience. That's the type of experience that tells us the world is flat. In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus.

Craig has retorted that quantum events are still 'caused,' just caused in a non predetermined manner - what he calls 'probabilistic causality.' In effect, Craig is thereby admitting that the 'cause' in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous - something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause, he destroys his own case for a predetermined creation.

We have a highly successful theory of probabilistic causes - quantum mechanics. It does not predict when a given event will occur and , indeed, assumes that individual events are not predetermined. The one exception occurs in the interpretation of quantum mechanics given by David Bohm. This assumes the existence of yet- undetected sub quantum forces. While this interpretation has some supporters, it is not generally accepted because it requires superluminal connections that violate the principles of special relativity. More important, no evidence for subquantum forces has been found....

But neither quantum mechanics nor any other existing theory - including Bohm's - can say anything about the behavior of an individual nucleus atom. The photons emitted in atomic transitions come into existence spontaneously, as do the particles emitted in nuclear radiation. By so appearing, without predetermination, they contradict the first premise."

I just wanted to post this so you could better see what he was explaining. Because of my lack of knowledge on these subjects I won't comment but I am curious what your thoughts are about this.

Al Moritz said...

Thanks for posting this. Before I analyze Stenger's text, let me clarify cause in quantum mechanics. Stenger says: "Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus."

I am glad that he brought up radioactivity as an example, since here the "no cause" idea about quantum events can be refuted particularly easily.

There appears to be some confusion as to whether the findings from quantum mechanics suggest a loosening of the bond between cause and effect. Such a loosening does not really take place. Yet what does happen in the realm of quantum processes, is that a cause does not have a deterministic effect anymore, but a probabilistic effect. That the bond between cause and effect is unbroken is proven by the fact that the statistical distribution of the effects can be represented by exact mathematical formulas.

Radioactive decay as an example

The cause for radioactive decay is the instability of certain types of atom which causes them to loose a particle, e.g. a beta-particle, and in the process to convert into another element. Yet radioactive decay is also a quantum process. If I have an agglomeration of 32-Phosphorus (32-P) atoms, or an agglomeration of molecules containing 32-P atoms, it is impossible to tell which one of the 32-P atoms will decay next to give stable 32-Sulfur (32-S). However, it is known that the half-life of 32-P is 14.28 days, i.e. after this time half of the material has decayed to 32-S, regardless which precise molecules out of the agglomeration of atoms do the decaying. This holds for any quantity of 32-P that is more than unimaginably miniscule. Even a chemically barely detectable amount – a trace amount – of 1 femtomol still has 600 million atoms 32-P atoms. Obviously, this is still such a huge number that, statistically, also this tiny trace amount will always decay with a half-life of precisely 14.28 days. The cause for the decay is the instability of the 32-P nucleus, and the effect is always this precisely determinable half-life. Thus, there is a clear correlation between cause and effect, a statistically determined correlation.

Certainly, on the local level of the lowest imaginable quantities, statistics cease to work, but the correlation between cause and effect is still there. Let us assume, hypothetically, that we have an agglomerate of only three 32-P atoms. One may decay in, let’s say, the next two minutes, one in 4 months, and another one in 10 months. Obviously, a statistically determined half-life of 14.28 days will only work on a global level of many atoms, but not on the local level of these three atoms. The effect is random – who can predict when exactly these three atoms will decay? Nobody can. But is the cause for the decay different from that for a larger agglomeration of 32-P atoms, for which a half-life of precisely 14.28 days could be determined? No, of course not. It is still the exact same instability of the 32-P nucleus. Thus, the effect of decay is still tied to that cause, even though the factor of precise statistical determinability falls away. The cause is the same, regardless if the effect is that the decay takes place within 2 minutes, or after 10 months.

It should be clear from this that the concepts of “random effect” and “cause-less effect” are two very different things. “Random” in science means “by chance”, “unpredictable”, “indeterministic” but not “uncaused”.

I strongly doubt that, in the entire history of scientific publishing, there is one single case of an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that reports a scientifically observed “effect without a cause” which is described as such.

Therefore, sentences like those in "God: The Failed Hypothesis", which you cite:

"For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus,"

would hardly fly in any peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Al Moritz said...

Now let's look at Stenger's text a bit further. There is an internal contradiction between those two statements of Stenger in this text:

1. We have a highly successful theory of probabilistic causes - quantum mechanics. It does not predict when a given event will occur and, indeed, assumes that individual events are not predetermined.

2. By so appearing, without predetermination, they contradict the first premise. ("Whatever begins to exist has a cause.")

In the first statement Stenger does not say that lack of predetermination means lack of cause -- after all, he connects it with the concept of "probabilistic cause".

In the second statement, however, he connects lack of predetermination with lack of cause.

Al Moritz said...

Stenger apparently believes that the universe could have started as a probabilistic quantum event. While this assumption is not a fringe opinion among cosmologists, I have a hard time accepting it as science -- after all, it is a speculation uncomfortably far removed from the pillars of observation and experiment, upon which science rests (my own work as a scientist is firmly rooted in observation and experiment as well -- on a daily basis).

As I have written elsewhere:

We know that quantum vacua can produce virtual particles and anti-particles that, however, eliminate each other in the tiniest fractions of milliseconds. Some extrapolate that the universe could have arisen in a similar manner from a quantum vacuum, from almost nothing. However, we do not have any theoretical, and even less experimental, evidence that would make a link between such hugely different events like the humble appearance of a tiny virtual particle and, even if it started on the quantum sub-microscopic level, an event of such unbelievable magnitude of energy as the Big Bang (the universe was 10E32 Kelvin hot a miniscule fraction of a second – Planck time of 10E-43 seconds – after its the beginning, that is "1 with 32 zeros behind it" Kelvin, or billions of billions of billions and more Kelvin). It is pure, wild speculation that has little to do with evidence-based science -- and all with fantasy run amok.

Arizona Atheist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Arizona Atheist said...

Hinman didn't seem to understand almost anything I wrote in my post. I decided to refute his rambling in a new post: http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2009/04/apologetic-nonsense.html

Al Moritz,

Thank you for your thoughts on Stenger's arguments.

Al Moritz said...

Thank you for your thoughts on Stenger's arguments.

You're welcome.

NathanielFisher said...

1) I think the first thing we should do when talking about God, is to define what God means. So Al Mortiz, what would you say God is?


2)

"Stenger apparently believes that the universe could have started as a probabilistic quantum event."

Al Mortiz, a theist or Christian(?)


My Agnostic-atheist response: Yes it *could have*. Maybe things have causes. Maybe they don't. That's the point Stenger is making in his book.

Theists/Christians: What Stenger says is rational speculation. However there is apparent, possible evidence for things not having causes. It's possible.

Stenger even gives scientific evidence of "no causes" (which itself could mean several differnt things)!

Remember this is all just speculation. But you can't really, no offense, simply argue "everything that begins to exist has a cause" when there is evidence NOT just from Stenger, that things might not have causes.

What about bubble chamber experiments that appear to show evidence of things having "no cause"? Stenger doesn't mention these "bubble chamber" experiments, other scientists have.

I could find you other examples of no cause experiments I think. It's not just Stenger speculating, many other scientists do too I *think* you'll find: Things don't necessarily have causes according to science. It goes against our intuition, but then so does evolution, but we all know almost for certain that evolution is true, right? Our intuitions can tell us that the world is "flat" but that doesn't mean the world is flat. So just because our intuitions tell us that things have causes that's really not a good reason to believe all things have causes. :)

Thanks.

NathanielFisher said...

1) I think the first thing we should do when talking about God, is to define what God means. So Al Mortiz, what would you say God is?


2)

"Stenger apparently believes that the universe could have started as a probabilistic quantum event."

Al Mortiz, a theist or Christian(?)


My Agnostic-atheist response: Yes it *could have*. Maybe things have causes. Maybe they don't. That's the point Stenger is making in his book.

Theists/Christians: What Stenger says is rational speculation. However there is apparent, possible evidence for things not having causes. It's possible.

Stenger even gives scientific evidence of "no causes" (which itself could mean several differnt things)!

Remember this is all just speculation. But you can't really, no offense, simply argue "everything that begins to exist has a cause" when there is evidence NOT just from Stenger, that things might not have causes.

What about bubble chamber experiments that appear to show evidence of things having "no cause"? Stenger doesn't mention these "bubble chamber" experiments, other scientists have.

I could find you other examples of no cause experiments I think. It's not just Stenger speculating, many other scientists do too I *think* you'll find: Things don't necessarily have causes according to science. It goes against our intuition, but then so does evolution, but we all know almost for certain that evolution is true, right? Our intuitions can tell us that the world is "flat" but that doesn't mean the world is flat. So just because our intuitions tell us that things have causes that's really not a good reason to believe all things have causes. :)

Thanks.

sreverhart said...

Some claim that energy is god. Will you please explain to me why this is NOT true? Since energy can neither be created or destroyed, then where does it come from, and who is to say that it is not, in fact, God? What is the best argument to use against this sort of claim? Please help. Thanks.