There are two sources, or starting points, for the idea that a god exist (the god idea).
Miscellanous notes about claims, evidence, and anomalies
1. Religious scripture or oral tradition that tells a story about a god, and claims the described god is the divine creator (supreme creator). The Bible and Koran are common sources, but there's nothing in these stories that could not have been invented by people. Revelation by an actual god was not necessary. There is no specific detailed information in any of these texts that only a god could have known.
2. The belief that there is some form of intelligence behind the energy and matter that started the universe. This is the first cause question. If the universe must have had a creator, then what created the creator? This is a mystery that cannot be explained by assuming an intelligent creator which would be an even bigger mystery. If we assume a creator always existed, then why not assume the universe, in some form, has always existed.
How can so many be wrong about the god idea? Because the human mind has not evolved far enough from our more primitive ancestors. Thinking is handicapped by inherited characteristics.
This is the end of the simple answer.
Religious individuals may incorporate both as a basis for their belief. Others who would describe themselves as non-religious or agnostic may embrace only the second view. Atheist would reject both views due to insufficient evidence. Once you get off the fundamental question of source, there will be an endless protracted debate. If neither of these two sources are associated with conclusive evidence of a divine/supreme creator, then there is no reason to pursue the question any further. The source for the god idea needs to contain concrete evidence of the actual god entity. The existence of something we can't explain, (the universe and it's various attributes) is not evidence that it was created by creator entity. It's just evidence of our ignorance. To state or debate that the source of morality, complexity, etc., is a supreme creator, takes an assumptive leap around the pivotal question. This makes for a lot of debating, but avoids the fundamental question that should be answered first.
Some individuals claim to have personal experiences with a god, and that these are a basis to believe a god exist. Personal experiences are not included here as a basis for the god idea. With no supporting evidence, these experiences should be considered constructs of the human mind, not actual interaction with a god. There is no way to demonstrate a god was involved. It should be noted that these experiences do not occur unless the person has already been exposed to that specific god idea from another source. An individual, who has never heard of a specific god, is very unlikely to have a personal experience that they relate to that god. The idea of that god preceeds the personal experience.
1. SCRIPTURE AS BASIS FOR EXISTENCE OF A GOD
Religious scriptures are not evidence for existence of a god because they contain no information that only a god could have known. These books contain nothing that mortal humans could not have invented. For any piece of scripture to be evidence that a god exist, it must contain factual information that only a god could have known at the time the original text was recorded. Facts that are verifiable today, but that the original authors could not have known.
If scriptures contained descriptions of early geographic conditions that the authors could not have known. Information like tectonic plate movement, or detail descriptions of prehistoric animals. This is information that was not available to those who were writing those texts. Those facts would have been information exclusive to a creator god, and evidence that a god exist. Religious scriptures have no information of this type. There are claims of prophecies and scientific knowledge in these books, but they do not stand up to skeptical scrutiny.
If claimed prophecies had included detail like specific dates, names, and places of future events that are verifiable today, that would have been information only a god could have know. The passages that are claimed to be prophecies require creative interpretation in order to match actual later events. An account of prophecy fulfillment written after the event occurred is not a prophecy. A prophecy date that has not arrived (future dated) is not a prophecy. A prophecy can also be self-fulfilling where the belief it will occur is a major force in causing the event. Religious scriptures contain no prophecies that accurately foretell a future event.
Miracles reported from over 2,000 years back should not be believed. There is no way to confirm a miracle story that old. If one of these stories was reported to occur today, few would believe it unless the incident happend under a highly controlled and observed environment. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is wise skepticism.
2. A NON-RELIGIOUS EXPLANATION FOR UNIVERSE ORIGIN OR CAUSE
There are non-religious people who also believe there is an intelligent creator behind the universe origin. This idea arrives from the need to identify a cause for the universe, or to explain the order and complexity that they see. The fallacy in this thought path is that it assumes one complex unknown (a god) to explain another complex unknown (ultimate universe origin). The explanation is more complex than the explained. The bigger unknown fallacy makes this idea an unreasonable source for believing in a creator god.
What was the first cause? We do not have a complete theory that explains the origin of our universe. In the scientific community that studies such matters, the Big Bang is the generally accepted theory about the start, or cause, of the expanding observable universe, but there is only conjecture about the Big Bang instant itself. Time is considered as an attribute of the space in our universe, and time is affected by speed and gravity. We can ask if time existed before the Big Bang, and since our concept of "cause" implies time. Was there a cause? Was there a "before" the Big Bang?
Even if there were good arguments, and some evidence, for a generic universe creator god, it would not point to any specific god, only a generic one. This makes the argument (the cosmological argument) a very weak point for support of any specific god.
CONCLUSION
The failure to establish a credible non-human source for the god idea means the other points of debate like evolution or the source of moral behavior are subordinate diversions, and not productive toward any conclusion. The debate about evolution in a religious context is much less significant than discussing where the god idea came from. Why debate evolution, and other points, as they relate to the existance or non-existance of a god if the very sources of the god idea are lacking evidence?
Apart from the analysis of sources, the actual existence of a god cannot be demonstrated. Such an entity cannot be detected by any of the basic human senses, or by any known scientific procedure. The idea or belief in a god, and the effect of this belief, can be demonstrated, but not the existence of the entity itself. By examining the evidence that people create the idea, and the lack of evidence that a god exists, we can arrive at the conclusion that there is no creator god. For the majority, their religious belief is determined by their culture. This is additional evidence that religion, and the associated gods are created and perpetuated by people.
MrWhy 07/16/2011
Anomalies
What is Evidence?
Claims That are Not Evidence