Another excerpt from “Improbable: Is There Any Reason To Believe In God?”

Below is another excerpt from my book, this time from Chapter 5: A Godless Universe. Cosmological discoveries not only explain the origins of the universe, they show the unlikelihood of an ever-present creator who held our existence as important. Read and enjoy!

Our universe, including our sibling galaxies, is a magnificent, awe-inspiring and complicated system. There was once a time when life seemed much more simple, confined, and seemingly purposeful. The sky above ancient people presented mystery and intrigue, just as had other aspects of our biological existence on Earth – our intelligence and psychology, disease and viral infections, and geographical structures. From this mystery came inquiry, and through that inquiry came assumptions founded in the limited plausibility they understood. But ever since the time when God was the most plausible option, scientific thought and exploration has demonstrably proven those archaic beliefs as false. In the past, these hasty speculations were accepted rather quickly amongst these populations because there hadn’t existed differing and testable facts.

          I can completely respect their desire for truth, and while I do not accept God as a credible claim, it is expected from such a primitive and unknowing culture. Yet, what fascinates – and aggravates – me is that these foolish ideas have continued to persist while our understanding of science has grown. We no longer need the existence of God to provide the evidence for some of the most trivial questions, as science has answered these once-seemingly insurmountable questions. Today, supporters of religious faith have had to accept certain undeniable scientific facts, and in order for them to properly formulate a defense of such beliefs, the religious have resorted to taking illogical “leaps of faith” to prove their God exists. From where it stands today, most of the theist/atheist discussions almost always end or begin with the creation of the universe in which we dwell.

          As one would expect from an unscientific belief, it is to no surprise that the Abrahamic texts display nothing more than fanciful and erroneous interpretation of the visually-captured, alluding to the cultural misunderstanding of physical properties that exist inside and outside of the Earth’s atmosphere. As I’ve suggested and offered as an objective criticism, I would postulate the idea that if God were in fact the author of truth and that the writings he inspired were literal, what has been established throughout the centuries would be an accurate representation of reality as God is the creator of all and the Abrahamic texts would correspondingly agree. However, if God’s word is true, then why would such astronomical claims made in the Christian and Jewish Bible and Qur’an be so obviously false or misrepresented?

          Let us begin first with the Christian and Jewish Bible, more particularly the Old Testament. Genesis is the narrative of God’s creation which is believed to have been written by Moses, who is believed by most Christians and Jews to have been the author of much of the rest of the Old Testament. This must be believed by even the mot moderate of followers, because if they admit that their chosen scripture may be nothing more than a product of human fascination without any direct divine instruction, it would suggest the work to be nothing but fiction. Disproving much of the Abrahamic text is one of the most important tasks if the representation of truth is important. Exposing the falsehoods within the “Godly-inspired” texts have become reasonably easy with each and every conflicting scientific discovery – and with that, monotheists will find the driving force behind scientific inquiry to be blasphemous rather than exploratory. This is why I find it so critical to expose the book as nothing more than folkloric literature.

          With that being said, the book of Genesis conveys only one simple message: The pursuit of truth works without boundaries, often resulting in a self-created fantasy. So without a scientific perspective, that pursuit can lead one down the wrong path. According to the first chapter of Genesis, God simply willed space and the Earth into existence within a blink of an eye.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” – Genesis 1:1

This sort of statement asserts the claim that all that exists within space including Earth, were created within the same time frame, which is a significantly misleading proposition. Again, simplicity and purpose seem to be the defining characteristics regarding even just the first sentence. Later, it goes on to say that light existed after the creation of Earth which is another factual error.

“And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.” Genesis 1:3-5

“And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.” Genesis 1:14-19

Here, the scripture actually proposes that space was in form, and God quite literally set the sun, moon and stars in place so that the ground on Earth could eventually be habitable for humans. Never mind you that vegetation was put in place before the sun could assist in the photosynthesis process, as I’ve described earlier in this book.

“Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.” Genesis 1:11-13

Now, we understand that the laws of physics allow for all observable and comprehensible matter, so I would suggest that if God exists he then also implemented the laws that science has identified, and continues to today. Why would the creation process of Earth be any different? Never has it been identified, when the laws of physics weren’t necessary for the goings-on within our universe.  These represent the simple understanding from simple-minded people when it wasn’t understood that the sun was extremely vital to vegetative life. Today, people accept what science has told us in this aspect but it still does not extinguish the fact of the matter, which still remains: The book of Genesis is demonstrably and scientifically false in its claim, providing a plausible reason behind refuting the claim of purpose and the claim of creative intent for eternity.

          But perhaps the death of the God claim occurs deep in the cosmos, void of human presence and contact; places so incredible that the unbeknownst human couldn’t fathom its intricacy. Such is something I would speculate to be unneeded if we were, in fact, the reason why all of this even exists to begin with. Muslims also believed this world, all space and matter, was created with intention; implying the need for an intelligent creator.

          The Qur’anic scripture also portrays the same kinds of cosmological inaccuracies as the Bible – and at often times laughably absurd. The Qur’an describes the Sun setting as though it is being lowered into murky water.

“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: ‘O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.’” Qur’an 18:86

Perhaps this was because during hot nights set in a flat and dry landscape, the mirage effect takes place. This effect gives one the illusion that water may be present in the distance and that the sun is “disappearing” down beneath the “water.” The sunset also deceived those who first observed it, forcing them to unknowingly assume that the Earth was in a fixed position as we cannot feel ourselves rocketing through space while revolving around the Sun.

“It is God who made for you the earth a fixed place and heaven for an edifice; And He shaped you, and shaped you well, and provided you with the good things. That then is God, your Lord, so blessed be God, the Lord of all Being.” Qur’an 40:64

And like the Bible, the Qur’an tells that the Earth was created first and space, stars, and the moon were created secondly. Is it not ironic that God’s knowledge is only extendable as far as what was scientifically comprehensible during the Bronze Age?

“He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens. And He is knower of all things.” Qur’an 2:29

A commonality among most creation myths is that the Earth, understood as a suspended surface, must have been placed on a foundation because they may have understood the earth as a structure, much like the structures about which they were knowledgeable, and such structures beacon a foundation. As the Qur’an describes, these pillars can only be seen by Allah himself.

 “Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see.” Qur’an 13:2

 The way it was imagined 3,500 or so years ago was correct and thorough, though only according to their comprehension. They could identify sources of light, both during night and day. Yet, God had failed to convey the simple fact that the moon does not project its own light, only radiating the light from the sun on the opposite side of the planet. One could say that these sorts of discrepancies are something an intelligent creator wouldn’t have narrated.

          Let us pretend that the Biblical and Qur’anic accounts are accurate and thorough in reality, but the scientific findings of today are also of reality. What would that suggest? There is only one of two options: The Genesis account and subsequent Qur’anic scripture is accurate and the scientific findings are meant as a deceptive circumstance to test ones faith, or the Genesis account and subsequent Qur’anic scripture is false and now-irrelevant and the modern scientific understandings are the most factually-based conclusion one could reach. If this creator was so smart to have created every cosmological body, event, or phenomenon, why would he then misinform his liaison, Moses, in regards to its conception? The answer is precise: Man may have only created God, but a God most certainly hadn’t created the cosmos.

          Science cannot definitively verify the claim of God, since his existence hasn’t been scientifically determined. But what science has done, quite efficiently, is expose primal religious belief and determine where the line between actuality and folklore ought to be drawn. Aside from the theory of the big bang, most every cosmological finding has yet to be tested by the religious right, which is opposite to the anti-evolution movement in America and various other countries. Though the nature of space itself displays just as much intrigue and discovery as evolutionary sciences, rarely does one witness such an ardent push-back from the faith-based fundamentalists against space exploration throughout the world. Naturally, there have been young earth creationists who’ve posited atrocious scientific claims in order to prove the accuracy of the Bible, and unsurprisingly their viewpoints are regarded as unsubstantiated, as they ought to be. Generally speaking, the issue is rarely argued from the common monotheist, who have been too busy halting the civil rights of women and the members of the LGBT community.

          But why is this? It may be because most of the scientific evidence in regards to any cosmological finding can not be observed by the human eye, so the monotheists may be unable to draw their own conclusions. The science behind cosmology, which involves a hefty knowledge of physics, could be awfully confusing and intimidating to an individual without the appropriate schooling, and particularly in the case of the monotheist who may have already decided upon a conclusion before assessing information. Of course, theological-based universities churn out college graduates with equivalent experience as graduates from government-funded universities but their approach is what divides the two: one assesses the information and develops an understanding, while the other believes to understand the cause and identifies the evidence for such. Of the two, the answer as to which one is which ought to appear glaringly. As I presented previously, religion does something so important to an individual: It gives someone a sense of importance in a life wrought with pain, agony, and suffering.

          The Bible, Qur’an, and other religious doctrine certainly present the notion that we, in fact, are the most important living beings and that this world and universe is ours for the reaping, finely tuned for our exploitation. As long as this type of disinformation continues to swell from the faith-based, this assumption will persist. I have come to believe that perhaps our psychology may prevent this sort of maturity at a grander scale, but it isn’t an impossible destination. It is a matter of perspective, because if you wish to place your emotional well-being before factual evidence then that individual may never experience the wonder offered from the sky above. I find it humbling that my purpose in life is what I make of it, and the reason why I’m here is a miracle, not in a metaphysical sense but because of the sheer odds that were trumped in order for my presence to exist.

          This is often forgotten by monotheists as this perspective is eradicated by their belief in God. If the monotheist may decide to face this perspective head on, perhaps they ought to compare their lives with the amount of chaos and disorder found on Earth as well as space, suggesting the nonexistence of an all-encompassing motive or purpose. We humans all live under the same sky, and what exists far past the most outer layer of our galaxy only suggest that the monotheists selfishly-manifested delusion of importance may not be as factual as they wish to believe.

Please visit Amazon to buy “Improbable: Is There Any Reason To Believe In God?”

Hating on Faith

Recently, I published a comment on Twitter that read:

Faith’s a virtue? Wrong. Believing claims based on bad evidence isn’t commendable, it’s an insult to the human intellect. #Atheism

I received a number of re-tweets and favorites, but only one comment. It read:

@jdbrucker : Faith is idealistic, which is commendably virtuous. Quit hating. Empiricism isn’t commendable; it’s limited by human reality.

I wanted to elaborate a bit on what he said. So, faith is idealistic and commendably virtuous? Is Empiricism commendable and is it limited by human reality? First, I want to define faith. This being from the Oxford Dictionary:

1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
“This restores one’s faith in politicians”
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
“A system of religious belief: The Christian faith.”
“A strongly held belief or theory: The faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.”

Both would apply to the modern theist. Having complete trust in their religious figure-heads (pastors, priests, rabbis, the pope), reinforced by the doctrine of their identified religious institution. Is this trust founded on confirmatory evidences? No, it’s founded on one’s understanding of a spiritual reality – a reality that isn’t verifiable through scientific means. Convenient, isn’t it?

So it all goes back to how precious empirical truth is to someone. But the tweeter suggests that empiricism isn’t commendable, and fallible because it’s only conceivable by human means. Surely it’d be a different story if there were empirical evidence for the truthfulness of any particular religion. Sadly for them, there isn’t. What’s left is having an unwavering trust in what the religion teaches and preaches. This seems to be the dividing line between theism and atheism; whether there is good reason to have a trust in something of that nature. This is what I’ve attempted to explain in my book. Forming a belief on little demonstrable, universal data isn’t a good thing and as I’ve already said, it’s an insult to the human intellect. Much of the religious doctrines believed today have either been significantly proven  false or discredited to a certain point. Even a moderate belief in God carries unverifiable claims that hold little weight in scholarly debate. This is why most atheists “hate” on faith; it would force them to believe something that hasn’t been universally demonstrated to be correct.

Faith is often used as a tool by the theist in debate. They sometimes try to analytically demonstrate why atheists have faith in everyday happenings, somehow attempting to rationalize their own flawed faith. For instance:

  1. Atheists have faith that the sun will rise everyday.
  2. Atheists have faith their car will start.
  3. Atheists have faith in evolution.
  4. Atheists have faith in their spouses.

I have to say, faith doesn’t apply here.

  1. Much is known of the orbital sequence that our Earth shares with the Sun and with that knowledge, we can reasonably conclude that the Sun will rise tomorrow as it did this morning. 
  2. I will develop a scenario for the car-faith claim: Presumably, we start our vehicles everyday. It started the last time we drove it and it was in working order. There was an adequate amount of gas in the vehicle. Nothing is presently leaking out from underneath the vehicle. It’d be reasonable to conclude that, because of the confirmatory evidence, the vehicle will start. 
  3. Evolution is understood as the most likely cause of the diverse life on Earth. This conversation is like beating a dead horse. The information is there, the evidence (genetic and paleontological) is there, the science is there – Go take a look. 
  4. No one can anticipate the actions of others. In my case, my wife and I have a mutual agreement: If we choose to cheat, end the relationship before it occurs. I know it’s entirely possible for her to cheat and if she does, I will deal with it accordingly. It’s not faith, I entirely accept the likelihood.

If one wants to be rational, faith is useless. Having faith in a religious claim doesn’t require confirming, universal information to reinforce it. It doesn’t demonstrate validity in any correct way, it simply asks you to suspend your questioning faculties to believe.  I’m unwilling to do so, because I value analytic data and the education there of – something that is proven to exist. So, that is why I hate on faith.

Excerpt from “Improbable: Is There Any Reason To Believe In God?”

Below you will find an expert from my book “Improbable: Is There Any Reason To Believe In God” beginning with the first few paragraphs of Chapter 4, titled Morality. This chapter was perhaps the most interesting to write, so I hope you enjoy!

          We all seem to have a basis of understanding as to how we ought to treat one another. The origin and the existence of our innate moral display is almost as mysterious to many people as is the origin of the universe, but monotheists claim to have such certain knowledge that the non-religious do not. It is great to ponder such a question, but only through conversation and debate can we determine how to positively apply a progressive moral outline. Two main arguments exist among the atheist and theist communities, one being that is was a divine inception that created our inclination to be good and proper, and the other being that it is our biological necessity for such.

          Almost all monotheists are under the impression that our morally permissible behavior has been religiously inspired – a gift from God to be used as a tool to please him. Scientists, on the other hand, lean toward a more naturalistic basis for our willingness to treat others with compassion being needed in order to help a species survive. They also believe that we, as humans, have a very pliable psyche, and our society and culture help build upon that foundation. If a monotheist believes there to exist a divinely-inspired moral code, they must also believe their all-powerful God to have the utmost morality and would apply it accordingly if they wish to label him as omnibenevolent and omniscient.

          If our moral perspective has been inspired by God, there ought to be an ultimate and non-flexible moral code. With that code for absolute morality, God must also be superfluous when following such a code himself. Further more, I would suggest that a knowledgeable and metaphysical mind would demonstrate a moral code inconceivable to the human mind – assuming of course that a mind such as that exists. Yet, the moral perspective from 3,500 years ago was much different than it is today. Progressive modern societies have demonstrated that we can collectively decide that senseless and unwarranted murder is reprehensible – something that the god of Abraham could neither command nor display. Looking at the moral image of God with an objective eye could possibly present one with that realization, but religious belief today often lacks that sort of perceptiveness. Even a quick overview of the Constitution in America is greatly superior to anything that God has described with any moral esteem.

          In modern Christianity, the message of love and forgiveness is strewn about so carelessly that the God of the Old Testament if often forgotten. Through a well identifiable logical fallacy known as cherry picking, religious believers often neglect the horrifying and deplorable aspects of God, which may be either that or unknowing ignorance, and defend the God they’ve chosen to create through the positive scripture. But even that presentation is problematic; a god is timeless and transcendent. If the god of Abraham was real, and if scripture does accurately describe his disposition, these sorts of actions must be called into question, determining if God could have an infantile moral code compared to modern progressive civilizations. Still, ignorance toward scripture persists.

          Are we to suppose that the God of the Old Testament, which is also Jesus as they are one in the same, is no longer the God of destruction and mayhem, of which the Bible and Qur’an tell? I believe not, but the fact is clear – He most certainly is. Both the Bible and Qur’an demonstrate this God’s attribute of morbidity quiet eloquently and capriciously. To be a monotheist, I must believe that the kind, loving, and compassionate nature of the human is a product of the same God that commanded Saul to carry out the wholesale slaughter of Amelakite men, women and children as detailed in the first book of Samuel.

To buy “Improbable: Is There Any Reason To Believe In God” in paperback form, follow the link here:

Official Release – “Improbable: Is There Any Reason To Believe In God?”

My book is officially available for purchase on Amazon. It’s been an amazing journey, and it’s only just beginning. Below you’ll find the back cover description:

Throughout the course of human civilization, individuals have given themselves the duty of committing immoral acts in the name of the Abrahamic deity simply because they have been convinced or convinced themselves he is real and that he has their personal well-being in mind. But do these people have good reason to believe he exists or is indoctrination and the blind eye to blame? This book answers the key questions regarding the improbable existence of the God of Abraham:

  1. Do scientific facts support the idea that mankind is a product of a single supernatural and transcendent being? 
  2. Has biological life on Earth evolved from a single celled organism or was it intelligently designed?
  3. Can neurology, sociology, and psychology answer questions regarding religious experience?
  4. Is the God of Abraham omnibenevolent, portraying and prescribing a moral code one should expect from such an all-loving being? 
  5. Does morality have a spiritual basis or could the foundation have been poured into our species long ago through natural processes? 
  6. Does religious scripture ignore or support the scientific understanding regarding the creation of the cosmos?
  7. Are the foundations of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam of a divine origin or the products of man-made mythos?
  8. Does the historical record reinforce the existence of Jesus and Moses as described in the New and Old Testament? 

Refuting the God of Abraham through science and reason will undoubtedly spark the much needed epoch humanity must reach before we can call ourselves a rationally-mature species. This accomplishment lies in the hands of the undecided, those unwilling to believe but not yet ready to leave their faith behind. Before settling on faith, one must ask themselves a simple question: “Is there good reason to rely on faith, or could more fulfilling answers loom near?”

Thanks to everyone who’s supported this project. You can find the book on Amazon by clicking here. Clicking on the image on the right will also link you to the product page.

A Skeptic’s Special: Does Bigfoot Live?

Frame 352 from the film, alleged to depict a f...
Frame 352 from the film, alleged to depict a female “Bigfoot” mid-stride. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today, I’m going to focus my attention on skepticism; particularly about the field of study known as cryptozoology. Bigfoot, perhaps the most famous of all the cryptids, remains to be a popular subject today. From the television show In Search Of in the 1970’s to today’s almost-comical Finding Bigfoot and compulsively disappointing MonsterQuest, popular culture has fed the Bigfoot machine and spitting out a world-wide search for this elusive and cunning higher primate. To their dismay – and to the skeptic’s anticipation – the tangible evidence for such a beast has yet to be seen. If one looks into the cultural beliefs of forest-dwelling primitive human beings, stories of ape-like humans are found. Ranging from the Yeti of the Himalayas, the Yeren of Mongolia, the Hibagon of Japan, and the Yowie of Australia, hairy-covered bipedal beings might inhabit some of the most dense and treacherous forests all over the word. The United States as well has a past tainted in Native American folklore, and if one looks deep enough, stories of the Sasquatch would surface.

We’ve all heard to stories: Bigfoot approaches campers, loggers, hikers; Bigfoot walks across the road in front of traffic; “I fed Bigfoot berries from my back yard!” But is there a cornel of truth to these stories? What has science told us about the existence of the ever-famous Bigfoot?

This post is dedicated to the Sasquatch of the Pacific Northwest part of the United States and Canada. In order to adequately explain this phenomenon, I must return to the root of the issue. Various different ethnic groups tell many tales of the “Wildman” that which inhabits the surrounding landscape, offering something the children fear and men take out after. It wasn’t until the 1920’s did it hit the mainstream media with a several articles written by J. W. Burns, of which tell the various regional tales about the large apes that have been spoken of for several centuries. Coining the term Sasquatch, Burns began a trend – a household name – that would snowball into something many never believed could happen.

Now jump the late 1950’s. This was when the phenomenon transported into an entirely new dimension. Emerging from the woods in 1958, Californian Gerald Crew presented the public with plaster casts of massive footprints found in Bluff Creek. As a professional logger, Crew allegedly stumbled upon these prints while working this remote part of Northern California. Once the images of the casts hit the newspapers, the Sasquatch was given a more direct, sensible name: Bigfoot. But this wouldn’t be the last we would hear from the Bluff Creek Bigfoot. The casts were removed from an area in the same general place that would birth another, and the most distinguishable, piece of evidence.

It is 1967. Bigfoot can be seen striding along the creek bed, swinging its arms at a brisk pace. The camera is shaky, but steady enough to capture the creature turning its head to make eye contact with the camera operator before disappearing into the forests in front of it. Essentially, this was what happened when Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin ventured into the woods of Bluff Creek in search of the monster that laid waste to the headlines of various Californian newspapers. On horseback, they intended to find the evidence needed to prove its existence once and for all; ironically enough, they came forth with footage that would propel the legend of Bigfoot into a staple of American pop culture.

And so here we are today. The most ardent of “researchers” will tell you that they’ve experienced rocks being thrown at them, returned calls in response to their ever-so-humorous call blasting techniques, have come upon elaborate stick-houses, and the always-famous bear tacks…err, I mean to say Sasquatch tracks. These may lend some credibility to the believing observer, but they aren’t enough to come to a pleasant conclusion – and Bigfoot hunters know this. We have yet to recover a single body, a shred of hair, or clear photo of the creature. In my opinion, Bigfoot is of myth and legend, birthed from cultures all throughout the world centuries ago. Knowledge was limited then and the most logical approach was to project their own likeness on to the wilderness; home to an assortment of dangers. Now, we find ourselves embroiled in a dispute that will likely last many more decades to come; a dispute that we probably shouldn’t be having.

So, does Bigfoot live? In a sense, yes. Bigfoot is the embodiment of our own primitive yearnings. But is there an 8-foot bipedal hominid stalking around the forests of the Pacific Northwest? Probably not.

What Is Reasonable To Believe?

As the release of my book soon approaches, I’ve meant to discuss the issue of belief and what it takes before that belief is considered a rational one. Though this post will extend only as far as the God debate, reason could be applied to other kinds of beliefs which often regard the supernatural, paranormal, or conspiratorial. When one is in doubt of any claim, approaching the said claim from a non-subjective, skeptical standpoint can decrease ones gullibility, keeping the person from suffering anxiety, financial burden, and often times their health and livelihood. I press anyone to present a good reason why it isn’t in someone’s best interest to think a bit more critically about unsubstantiated claims. Thinking is good, but thinking clearly is better.

So what about the God claim must we think more rationally about? Almost everything, I am sorry to say. Let me use Christianity as the example for the post. Let’s say: If one dissects the Bible, sifting through the songs, poems, and parables, certain substantially viable claims are made. I will list a few below:

1. An eternal God is the architect and creator of all animate and inanimate matter, and he did so in six consecutive days.

2. A massive flood devastated land and life, covering the world completely.

3. A man (Jesus Christ) was born of a virgin, performed miracles, died and rose to life.

These included are, without a doubt, reasonable to believe. But does good reason exist for one to believe them? Do scientific and historical data reinforce these claims? This is an important key to cracking the puzzle that these Biblical claims present.

I could say, “I have seen a pink unicorn that feeds on four-leaf clovers.” This claim is reasonable or unreasonable. You ask, “Can I see it?” and I reply, “Not until you devote your life to praising it. After that, of course.” This pink unicorn could exist, and it might be factual to believe you can only see it after a devoted life of wooing it.

But how should one go about determining whether it is unreasonable? Can the existence of this unicorn be actively demonstrated and repeated without a positive confirmatory consideration? No. Does anything in the fossil record suggest that a single-horned horse ever lived? No. Though these answers do not blatantly suggest its absolute non-existence, these two questions bring some of the errors to light. They show that what I told you about the unicorn doesn’t seem to have the support to back the first claim. So, it is reasonable to not believe that what I’ve suggested is true. These deductions are used when testing the veracity of the previous Biblical claims I presented.

1. An eternal God is the architect and creator of all animate and inanimate matter, and he did so in six consecutive days. This is absolutely demonstrated to a point that could suggest truthfulness. But, it doesn’t. The evidence for evolution is staggering, and to believe in the singular-creation hypothesis one has to credibly discount the theory of evolution; this has yet be accomplished, though many have tried and failed. Again, if the one stating the claim cannot accurately prove that their positive claim is true, it is reasonable to discount it. Evidence against the Biblical claim about the creation of the universe is also in abundance. Scientists understand the most basic elements that make up the universe, they understand how these interact with one another, and how long they last. It is a fact that the evidence points toward the age of the universe being almost 14 billion years, Earths being 3.7 billion. In no way was this a fast process.

2. A massive flood devastated land and life, covering the world completely. Paleontologists and geologists have an incredible understanding of the sedimentary layering of Earth’s crust, thus they are well-equipped at identifying ancient water levels. It has never been the case that all the world’s geologists universally said, “Yes, there was a massive flood, and it encompassed the globe sometime between 10,000 to 6,000 years ago.” Importantly, it should be acknowledged that many cultures hold dear ancient stories about a massive flood, sometimes not encompassing the globe entirely. To be a Christian, one would have to definitively show how all other culture’s claims are wrong and how theirs is correct. The odds are incredibly against any monotheist that says, “No. All those other cultures were wrong. Yes, the global-flood idea has existed for thousands of years but throughout that time, my religion, and its doctrine, has gotten the story 100% right without an ounce of error, even holding strong throughout time as the manuscripts had been translated from one language to another language.” What an arrogant thing to believe.

3. A man (Jesus Christ) was born of a virgin, performed miracles, died and rose to life. This one focuses more on spiritual intervention and not physical interaction. According to the Christian faith, you must blindly believe in God to assume these as true. These could have happened, and a god could have assisted in the completion, but can one reasonably believe this as the case? We know how female humans become pregnant, we know the physical properties of liquid water, and we know what happens to the brain after someone dies; all of which would show these are immensely improbable happenings. If a ration person were to approach this story without knowledge of God, they would cast such claims aside and carry on with their lives. Understand that a healthy amount of confirmation bias (a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one’s beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one’s beliefs) is required to believe this foolishness. If you begin with the preconceived notion that Jesus was a living God, nothing that’s explained of Jesus’ nature will ever seem impossible. That is certainly an unreasonable stance to take.

Before considering religious claims as fact, think about whether they align with what is known about the natural universe or not. Think about God, and if he were to exist, and if he was an all-good god, would he have allowed his story-tellers do so in such blatantly and unknowingly untruthfulness? If it’s written in any holy book that God asks one to believe in him without hesitation, I say do not do so. That hesitation is what will keep one free from the Bronze Age, silly beliefs of our ancient ancestors; and by doing so one can live a much more fruitful, enjoyable life.