Keith Ward: Arguments for God's Existence (and an atheist's rebuttal)

It's great seeing a philosopher pretend to be an expert in biology and human-psychology (ego never gets in the way of pseudo-intellectualism). He assumes that God exists, then looks for God in everything. I wrote a poem a while ago that describes his way of perceiving the world perfectly.

ever look at the clouds?

stare up at them?

so many things to see

all sorts of objects

practically all of them

they work so hard

constantly creating

so many faces

so many boats

do they want credit?

it is impossible to know

The problem with many philosophers is that they get too hung up on "feelings", and are apparently unable to differentiate between feelings caused by beliefs vs. feelings caused by sensory input. In other words, they seem to rationalize that if people feel a sensation, that sensation must be caused by something "out there". And that something must be God! Creator of the universe! Why? because an old desert-book says so.

Any philosopher that believes God is a good explanation for the universe should find the nearest time machine and go back a few hundred years. All intelligent philosophers are atheist, or at the very least agnostic.

At the moment, there is no information to suggest the existence of God; therefore the idea of a God is apparently as man-made as a flat earth, and sin-causing disease. If something cannot be known to exist, then obviously there is no way to know about it. Atheism is a respectable position if the human psychology is understood and taken into account. We should be asking ourselves not whether or not there is a creator, but why we are asking the question when there is no valid reason to suppose there is one. We should understand the forces behind the way we process information (and not assume we process information correctly). If science has shown us anything, it is that we humans should not trust our intuition.