This is an edited summary of a speech byThe Public Debate Club In the discussion about God
for reference in other speeches presented Sign up for the next meeting

By Moshe - lawyer and accountant

In this speech, I want to show why God does not exist by also referring to the arguments put forward by Eyal (The missing watchmaker argument and statistical complexity) and two other arguments that are often used to prove that God supposedly exists: the argument of the need for morality and the argument of the harmonious universe.

The existing planner argument

This argument indicates that all kinds of phenomena in nature appear to the lay observer to be too intelligently designed to be created naturally, and therefore the assumption that they were created supernaturally and implicitly by God follows.

I want to start by pointing out that there is no reason to assume that if we have not been able to explain something to this day it means that it is supernatural - until a hundred years ago, for example, radioactivity was considered supernatural, and before that aviation was considered as such. Secondly, I want to show that even if something cannot be explained with our tools or in the future, this is not at all a proof of God's existence. This is simply a sign of an excellent subject to which a research budget should be directed.

indivisible complexity

In this argument, I want to say that there are elements in nature that reflect a complexity that there is no way to divide it while preserving its parts, and therefore the same phenomenon was necessarily created 'in one fell swoop', and therefore could not have been created by evolution by natural selection and was implicitly created by God.

This argument also has the logical fallacy that I presented in the previous argument, which shows that the inability to provide a scientific explanation does not mean that the religious explanation is correct. But here I want to make it clear that today there is no natural phenomenon that cannot be explained through an evolutionary mechanism, and more importantly, that even for the human eye (which the supporters of the complexity theory say cannot be assembled gradually while preserving the ability to see) it is possible to show a developmental path in which there are simpler eyes in reptiles, then even simpler eyes in fish, then simpler eyes in insects, and finally completely primitive eyes in microscopic creatures.

rules

Here it is customary to argue that the universe works too harmoniously, and that it does not make sense that it is arranged so beautifully for us. that the earth is at exactly the right distance from the sun, and that the atmosphere is at exactly the right concentration of oxygen.

In my opinion, this is simply a mistake of confusing the cause and the cause - the earth suits us so well because we evolved here to suit it. If it was not adapted we simply would not have evolved at all (as in all the other lifeless planets in the solar system) or we would have evolved in a different way that is hard for us to imagine, but which was adapted to the same situation. It makes sense that even then we would ask how it is that the planet is adapted to the same strange form we evolved into in that alternative evolution.

moral

Here the religious argument says that God is a necessary source of morality, and that without God people have no reason to be moral. Therefore, if God does not exist, people will behave in an animalistic manner.

The fact is that religious people have been very successful in behaving animalistically with each other since ancient times ('wipe out the Amalekite') up to and including 9/11. Moreover, since the laws of religion include internal contradictions, ambiguities and psychic ideas that no sane religious person is willing to accept (thou shalt not covet, for example) it turns out that religious people actually choose which moral values to believe and uphold, and therefore their morality is actually as human as the morality of an unbeliever.

And besides, even if God is necessary for morality, this does not mean that he exists at all...