Reviews And Emails Like This Keep Me Going

By Fox (Charleston SC) - This review is from: Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (Paperback)

As a former fundamentalist Christian of 26 years, I shudder to think what my life may have turned out like, had I not randomly spotted this book at my local Good Will. I picked it up, expecting to have a good laugh at the stupid atheist. I never expected it would completely alter my life forever.

Ed Brayton, the Founder of Freethought Blogs, Comments

Ed wrote:

I’m really saddened by all this infighting, not because there is disagreement on how to approach these matters — such disagreement is inevitable, even healthy — but because it is becoming so personal and nasty. I think John has done and continues to do very important work; I would not have invited him to join FTB in the first place if that were not true. And I do understand his decision to leave FTB and do not harbor any ill will at all over it. I hope he continues to do the great work he’s always done at his own blog. But it is also clear to me that John is incredibly thin-skinned. Even civil disagreement, such as Natalie’s post, is called an “attack” by “mean-spirited” people who are out to get him. Natalie may well be wrong in her criticism — who among us has not been at times? — but that is easily responded to in an equally civil manner rather than with “Oh my god, they’re attacking me!”

I Do Not Like Arguing With Atheists

That's right. I don't. Not one bit. I learn from other atheists, that's for damned sure. But given my focus and goals I dislike it to the extreme. For it wastes my time when I should be spending it arguing against evangelical Christians, and they visit me here. That's one of the reasons I have not argued against other atheists much at all. And that was one of the major reasons I left Freethought Blogs. There were just too many atheists and not enough Christians. I found myself arguing with the atheist commenters, some of whom showed no better critical thinking skills then the ignorant believers I have encountered here time and again. Atheists do not, on the whole, have much better critical thinking skills than the general populace. We don't see it until there is a disagreement, for until then it looks like we agree because we are good thinkers. They also didn't show me much respect, at least, that's what I felt. So it's better for me over here. I wish them all well, a few of whom I consider my friends. They can do their thing. I'll do my thing. But I learned something. I might argue against other atheists from time to time when I see ignorance. Hell, maybe I'll even permanently change the header to this blog to "Debunking Ignorance." How does it look to you? ;-) [Edit, I've changed it back.]

Defending Christianity Depends on Fallacious Reasoning, Part 2

I introduced this topic previously. It's quite possible that if you can think of an informal fallacy then there are some Christians who depend on it to defend their faith.

Before going into several specific examples let me introduce the topic. Psychology has proved that as human beings we are not all that rational or logical. This is a fact about all of us to various degrees. None of us is like Spock in Star Trek, none of us. We are all social creatures, emotional creatures, and habitual creatures, as well as rational creatures. The rational part of us is subservient in many cases to the rest of who we are. Much of what we think and defend is what we prefer to believe, especially when we're taught it by someone we like and respect.

Educated people admit these findings. Christians, especially evangelicals, will respond with the all too familiar "you too" fallacy. They will argue that these findings explain why people don't believe in their particular understanding of the Bible; that skeptics prefer not to believe. However, one reason why this is fallacious reasoning is because there are too many "you's" to "too" as I've said before. Evangelicals would have to say this about anyone and everyone who does not accept their understanding of the Bible, which includes not just people who identify as skeptics or atheists, but people in all religious sects who are not evangelicals. The biggest reason why this is fallacious reasoning is because these facts say something about them too. They believe what they prefer to believe. They are not all that rational, and so forth. So to deflect what the facts say about themselves by fostering it on others is clearly fallacious reasoning. My contention is based on what psychology tells us, which means we should all be skeptics, we should all trust only what the sciences teach us. That point continues to be ignored by many believers. Instead, they turn into science deniers in order to irrationally maintain their faith against the probabilities.

How To Increase Traffic to Your Blog or Website

[First Posted 12/16/09] Since I get asked this from time to time let me share what I did a few years ago to increase traffic to DC...

When I started Blogging there weren't as many blogs so it was easier to get noticed. But what I did tirelessly was to read other blogs and then link back to something I said on my own blog. I did it often, all of the time. That got me noticed. Then people would read what I wrote. If they liked it they came back. And I engaged popular blogs where many people already visited. I challenged the Christian sites, or on skeptical blogs I made substantive comments. Then what happened is that sometimes the authors would respond in a post of their own, which drove even more traffic my way. Remember, even bad publicity is publicity[!] Being the atheist that I am, Christian sites will tear into you so be better prepared for that than I was. It's very hard not to wallow in the mire with people who personally attack you, but that's what happened. Nonetheless, these sites have readers who will come and stay at your blog for a while.

Why Must People Always Personally Attack Apostates?

It's typical of human nature to say nasty things about someone who leaves a church, ministry, or social grouping of any kind. "He wasn't one of us in the first place." "He has some big problems." People do this. When it happens we should expect it. Christians do it with former believers. Skeptics do it too. They do it with people who become believers again. They also do it when one leaves their social grouping. I left Freethought Blogs. Now the attacks have started even though up until recently I have not said anything negative about my experience there. If Natalie Reed's post is not indicative of the “mean-spirited” atheists at Freethought Blogs then what is, even if many of them are not like her at all.

Six Thoughtful Links

Professor Matt McCormick's slides for a lecture on What is Atheism?

Christianity Disproved.

Debunking the Arguments of Fundamentalists by Winston Wu.

Adam Tells God Goodbye.

Brilliantly Stupid: How To Kill a Creationist Bill

On January 31, 2012, the Indiana Senate voted 28-22 in favor of Senate Bill 89, which was previously amended to read: “The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology.” As a Hoosier from Indiana I'm pleased to learn this bill is now dead in the water. You can read more about it right here.

Private Subjective Experience is No Evidence At All: Against William Lane Craig's Inner Witness of the Spirit

Since I've written a lot against Craig's claim of the inner witness of the Spirit I've decided to gather together the most important posts about it here. Christians are claiming I am ignorant about what he claims. Nope, I'm not. That's a typical response. I understand that Craig is not claiming this inner witness is sufficient to convince other people to believe. He's claiming instead that this supposed inner witness is sufficient to convince him. Thomas Larsen even asked if I've read Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief, as if that would straighten me out. He said the questions I pose about this "are elementary and, frankly, quite embarrassing for you." But given the looks of Larsen he was still in diapers as I was taking a master's level class with Bill Craig at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School on Plantinga's epistemology. And I have read through the important parts of Plantinga's book and dissected them in Why I Became an Atheist.

My argument in a link below is that it doesn't matter how you dress it up philosophically. A delusion is a delusion is a delusion. I'm arguing that Bill Craig is deluded to claim such a thing and that he should know better. I know he's not trying to convince anyone else that he experienced it. He distinguishes between knowing Christianity is true from showing it to be true. He claims to know it's true by the inner witness of the Spirit. I'm trying to disabuse him of this claim, as impossible as it is to do so with a deluded person. And even if I can't, there are more reasonable Christians listening in who might be persuaded against Craig. I'm trying to point out to reasonable people how deluded such a claim is, regardless of whether any Christian sees it for what it is.

Listen up, God spoke to Moses privately, and privately to Paul, and likewise to Joseph Smith, and to Mohammed, and to many Pentecostals, and to David Koresh, and to many of the prophets we read in the Old Testament. Why does God always speak to people privately? Why do most people claim to know God in a private way? A private subjective experience has no more evidence for it than none at all. Given that most people are delusional when they make such claims it's extremely probable Craig is too. The ONLY reason evangelicals buy into this is because they need to believe. They would never entertain Craig's claim if they were a Mormon, or Muslim, Catholic, or Jew.

Answering Some of My Critics

Around the web I have several detractors. They accuse me of a few things which I’d like to take the time to answer. I’m accused of being an egotistical self-promoting control freak who censors comments at DC and bans people off his Blog who disagree with me. I’m accused of wanting fame and financial gain. I'm accused of being childish and abrasive. Granted this comes from a small fringe of people but since their noise is discovered by search engines I should respond.

I’ve tried to resist responding to such ignorant and false drivel before. I know I cannot satisfy the people making such accusations. I also know that by responding I’ll give them more fodder. But here goes.

Some Atheists are Schmucks ;-)

Some of them remind me of Christians when disagreement arises. Enjoy.

David Marshall "Knows" God is Not Silent!

One of the arguments why Richard Carrier is not a Christian is that God is silent. David Marshall, author of several Christian apologetic books, says instead that he knows God is not silent. He said of Carrier and me that our claim is one we "cannot possibly know to be true. " Really?

The Scale of the Universe

Link. Drag the square at the bottom from left to right and back. Where is God? ;-) Nikita Khrushchev later said after Russian Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin flew into space in 1961 that "Gagarin flew into space, but didn't see any god there." Such a comment was laughed at by believers, but there would have been a time in the ancient past when it would be startling news.

The OTF for Mormonism

Mormons assume other religions have the burden of proof. They assume human not divine authors to their holy book(s). They assume a human not a divine origin to their faiths. They critically evaluate all other religions by reason and science.

In Defense of Rebecca Watson

This is one of my posts when I was at Freethought Blogs.

On Divisive Atheists and Some Freethought Bloggers

In February 2002, four years before his book The God Delusion was released in 2006, Richard Dawkins called atheists to arms in a TED talk. His talk wasn’t aired until April of 2007. He makes it clear he wants a campaign much like the gays used to gain acceptability in American society. His final sentence was, "let's all stop being so damned respectful."

At that point there was a split among atheists. A line was drawn in the sand. Although I admit that his approach has been very effective in getting people to take notice of atheists, at the same time I object to the demand that other atheists must adopt that same attitude or approach.

Quote of the Day, With Examples

If the same kind of reasoning produces support for two different conclusions then the reasoning is delusional. By your host here, John W. Loftus ;-)

--Example 1) Ontological arguments for God's existence equally support the Oriental conception of God, or a trickster god.
--Example 2) The same kind of arguments exonerating God from being evil also work in reverse to exonerate an evil God from being good.
--Example 3) Arguments deflecting the problem of divine hiddenness for the Christian God also work to deflect the problem of divine hiddenness for Zeus, Odin, Thor, Re, Hathor, Apollo, and Artemis.
--Example 4) Pascal's beneficial argument to support belief in the Christian God also works to support the evil Egyptian god Set (Seth), and the Greek gods Minos, Styx, Tartaros and Thanatos.
--Example 5) Arguments supporting the proper basically of belief in the Christian God also work to support the proper basically of belief in Allah. Somebody stop me!

BBC Program "Phantoms in the Brain" Hosted by V.S. Ramachandran

This is an episode from a BBC program hosted by neurologist V.S. Ramachandran that explains his key findings in certain instances of brain damage that have long been viewed as mere curiosities by the scientific community.

Is William Lane Craig Dishonest With the Facts? I've Drawn a Line in the Sand.

Most people know that I defend William Lane Craig against the charge that he is dishonest as an apologist. Among skeptics I am his biggest defender, perhaps the only one. But I have just asked him three questions about the inner witness of the Holy Spirit that if he refuses to answer I can only conclude he is not being honest with the facts, and will defend him no more. He might have other reasons for not answering them, but I can only conclude he can't do so reasonably. Here they are:

*Sigh* The Inner Witness of the Spirit Again

Christian, do you agree that objective evidence is external to the knower and can be verified by a third party at least in principle? Yes or no? How then can any third party verify a claim such as someone else's inner witness of the Spirit? At least someone's claim to be abducted by aliens is able to be verified in principle by a third party. Anyone in any religion or sect within one can claim to have had a veridical religious experience. These claims are a dime a dozen when they cannot be verified even in principle by a third party. That makes all of these claims subject to the charge of delusion, and as such, no evidence at all EVEN TO SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE HAD ONE! Q.E.D.

The 2011 About.com Readers' Choice Awards for Agnosticism / Atheism

[Edit: just a reminder] You can nominate your favorite book, blog, podcast, community, Ad and so forth, until February 15th, right here. Then you can vote for your favorites from February 22nd until March 21st. Winners will be announced March 30, 2012. My anthology The Christian Delusion won last year. With the publication in 2011 of The End of Christianity I'm hoping it could win this year. Nominate away. The more nominations it gets the better chance it will be selected for the voting that follows.

Richard Carrier's Book "Why I am Not a Christian" is Excellent!

Carrier's book can be found here,which I highly recommend. Here's a brief summary of it:

Bradley Bowen: "the devil is in the details"

Before reading what he wrote, Bowen tells us about himself:

I was a devout Evangelical Christian from 1970 to 1982. The study of philosophy, especially philosophy of religion, led me to see that my Christian faith was founded on weak and faulty arguments. I followed where reason led me, and left Christianity in favor of skepticism, critical thinking, and a secular humanist worldview. Background in Philosophy - B.A. in philosophy from Sonoma State University. M.A. in philosophy from University of Windsor. Candidate for PhD in philosophy from University of California at Santa Barbara.

What Are the Chances That Christianity is True?

;-)

An Interview With Richard Carrier About His Book, "Proving History"

Richard Carrier has kindly agreed to answer some questions I posed after reading his soon to be released book Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. 2012). This book introduces Bayes’s Theorem as a basis for assessing whether or not Jesus existed, a subject he will deal with in a forthcoming book titled, “On the Historicity of Jesus Christ.”

Quote of the Day, by articulett on the OTF ;-)

You can believe whatever goofy shit you want-- but if you want us to take your beliefs more seriously than you take the goofy shit that others believe in, you would need to give us the kind of evidence that you would require from them to take their beliefs seriously.

You Can Now Pre-Order My Revised Book, WIBA

Click here: Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity.It has 536 pages, a 110 more than the previous edition. It's such a massive revision my publisher is treating it as a new book.

Jesus Christ, CEO, By Dr. Hector Avalos

Faith-based companies are "courting" legal troubles, he argues.

Chris Hallquist: Does Dr. Craig Win All His Debates?

Chris describes himself as one having "a masters degree in philosophy from the University of Notre Dame, but hates academic philosophy." I like that. From my experience there is either scientifically informed philosophy or there is scientifically uninformed philosophy. Scientifically uninformed philosophy is a crock, and that's my philosophy. The problem is that way too much academic philosophy is scientifically uninformed. That's why I don't place too much value on it as I've said. Now on to Chris on whether Dr. Craig wins all his debates:

Is Scientific Evidence Enough To Show That A Miracle Didn't Happen?

I previously endorsed Richard Carrier's "slam dunk" case against a solar eclipse at the death of Jesus. But an interesting discussion took place in the comments concerning scientific evidence and miracles. Here it is for further discussion.

Quote of the Day, by Kel

Self-authenticating private evidence is useless,
because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it.

An Explanation About the Books I Recommend

There are lots of books not listed in my sidebar. So let me explain my choices since some authors might feel slighted for not seeing their book listed. Hint: It probably means nothing at all.

There are other considerations.

I have not read everything. There are a lot of books I have not heard about yet. There are more being published every week, especially ebooks. And keep in mind I don't have the space in the sidebar to list all of the books I know. Furthermore, I have tested some books but they don't sell well here. Books that don't sell I don't keep on the list. Books that sell well factor in my choices. There are even a few books I place in the sidebar because they are important to be aware of, although I might not agree with some important aspects in them.

I hope this helps. If your book isn't listed it probably means nothing at all. Cheers.

------------------

If you'd like to recommend a book or two or more, do so below and tell us why you recommend it.

Defending Christianity Depends on Fallacious Reasoning

Christian apologists probably violate every informal fallacy at some point or another in order to defend their faith. See for yourselves:

About.com Agnosticism/Atheism: Logical Fallacies FAQ.

No Beliefs: List of common fallacies.

Humbug: The Skeptic's Field Guide.

The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe: Top 20 Logical Fallacies.

How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age.

Believing Bullshit: How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole.

William Lane Craig: "Christian belief is not based on the historical evidence."

This is the very last sentence Craig writes that can be read here, which is his conclusion after dealing with the problem of Lessing's Ugly Broad Ditch. This is where I think Christians are impaled on the horns of a dilemma. Let me explain.

Delusional on a Grand Scale: Assessing The Inner Witness of the Spirit

William Lane Craig claims the inner witness of the Spirit "trumps all other evidence." It is "an intrinsic defeater-defeater" for anyone who experiences to it. So even if I don't have that witness, and even if I don't like the idea of such a witness, I'm in no position to judge that he does not possess it. Craig claims this inner witness provides all the evidence he needs to know Jesus personally and that Jesus is his savior. This witness is sufficient for him. It defeats any evidence to the contrary as utterly irrelevant. But this is delusional on a grand scale. How do you convince a delusional person like this? I probably can't. That's the power of a delusion like this. So for people not impervious to reason let me speak to them. What Craig is doing is sophistry plain and simple. He's describing a subjective experience and claiming it's an objective veridical experience that defeats all other objective evidence. Now it's one thing to say a subjective experience is to be considered objective evidence, as delusional as that is. It's another thing entirely to say a subjective experience carries more weight than all objective evidence. People wonder why I call Christians delusional. You need not wonder any more.

Richard Carrier On The Eclipse of the Sun At The Death of Jesus

I've received an uncorrected advance reading copy of Richard Carrier's book Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus. I'll say more about it later after I've finished reading it. But he highlights a serious problem for inerrantists that I'd like to share. In chapter three he evaluates the claim of the gospels that at the death of Jesus "there was darkness over the whole world from the sixth hour until the ninth" (Mark 15:33; Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44-45). If it was meant to be taken literally per Luke, who claims it was an eclipse of the sun ("...for the sun stopped shining"), it could not have happened.

"Why We Must Treat the Bible No Differently Than Any Other Book" By Biblical Scholar James A. Metzger

...many theologians and biblical scholars continue to speak of the Christian God in only the most sterling manner: as, for instance, all-loving, just, infinitely wise, and inexhaustibly merciful. But this is not the God of the Bible – not even close. If that were the God of the Bible, I would retain little respect for its authors, who would have proven themselves far more interested in promoting a fiction they liked than in bearing witness to the terrible, unpredictable Power they felt best accounted for (often unseemly) facts on the ground. There’s just no way that the omnibenevolent, all-wise Sovereign of traditional Christianity created and presides over this place. No, if there’s a God at all, he’s likely just the sort we find in the Bible – magnanimous and cruel, loving and spiteful, noble and base, impulsive and deliberate, intelligent and incompetent, responsible and spectacularly negligent. A little like us, in fact, but with a lot more power. Link

"On Visions and Resurrections" by Gary J. Whittenberger

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that the hallucination hypothesis is a plausible explanation of the post-crucifixion “appearances” of Jesus, and to defend it against some of the current criticisms of Christian apologists. Link

The Empty Rhetoric of Christian Apologists

Previously I described several deceptive apologetic strategies. I want to highlight one more: The use of empty rhetoric utterly lacking in substance.

Dr. Avalos challenges the claim that our country was founded as a "Christian nation."

Dr. Avalos has a guest editorial in politically-influential The Des Moines Register that challenges this claim put forth by a previous letter. Read Hector's response right here. He's right! But even if he is wrong, which he is not, there is no going back in time. Many Christians themselves support a secular government, and for good reasons.

Julian Haydon Writes to His Nephew

You have probably never heard of Julian but he is one of the unsung heroes among skeptics. Here we see him writing his nephew on Adam's supposed free choice in the garden.

Not Even an Omniscient God Could Convince Me That I Willfully Reject Christianity Against the Overwhelming Evidence

I cannot conceive of an omniscient God being able to do this given all that I know about Christianity, the Bible, theology, philosophy, science, and the history of the church. For God to do this he would have to re-create this universe and basically rewrite history itself. But what is done is done. If however, it takes omniscience (or near omniscience) to show the Christian faith is true, then God should also know that without it I could not think otherwise. I might be wrong. But not even an omniscient God can show me that I willfully reject Christianity against the overwhelming evidence given that I am not omniscient and given what I find in this world. What the evidence leads me to think is that the Christian faith is wildly improbable.

There is No Hell! There is No Satan! There Is Nothing Here To Worry About!

It's like evangelicals never open a book by a biblical scholar. Please become informed, please. Stop reading only those texts that agree with your views. Expand your horizons.

Read Dr. Alan E. Bernstein's Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds.

Read Dr. T.J. Wray and Dr. Gregory Mobley's The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots.

Christianity: Where Emotions Rule and All the Rules of Logic Don't Apply

I think it can be demonstrated that when people are emotionally engaged they do not think or argue well at all. That's why it is said that "love is blind." Romantically involved couples do not see the faults in their lovers that others see. Likewise, when people are angry with someone there is literally nothing good that person can do. Emotions get in the way of sound reasoning. This can be seen everywhere we look. When people are experiencing a great amount of stress they are told not to make any important decisions. The reason is clear. Because they probably won't make good ones. When people have an emotional commitment to some sort of project they will continue pursuing it even after it has been shown to be a failure. That's why successful businesses need "new blood" with "new ideas" every so often.

I have argued that defending Christianity makes otherwise intelligent people look stupid. This is why. Christianity is where emotions rule and "all the rules of logic don't apply" (a reference to Bob Seger's song Chances Are). Believers think they have a personal relationship with Jesus. They are emotionally engaged in the same way as the examples above illustrate of the human condition. They cannot think or reason well at all.

The Christian Delusion is Never More Apparent

Just once--once mind you--I'd like to see just one believer, only one, who will say, "Hey, I'm like most people. What I believe is based on my cultural prejudices just like most everyone else." I have never heard one believer admit this, not one, even though in a scientific poll Michael Shermer found that 9 out of 10 people say that other people adopt their religious faith because of cultural influences and emotional reasons. Every single one of them claims to be the exception to the rule, to a person.

William Lane Craig: "No Amount of Evidence or Reasoning Could Convince Me I'm Wrong"

Essentially this is what Bill Craig says in his regular Q&A (Question 244). Just think what the strongest objective evidence against the evangelical belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus would be, if found. It would be the bones of Jesus, that is, DNA evidence. Craig admits that if the bones of Jesus were found it would falsify his faith, but this is an utterly empty admission, pure rhetoric without any substance at all. For Craig claims that even in the face of this strong objective evidence he would still believe Jesus was bodily raised from the dead. Why? Because for him, the subjective "witness of the Holy Spirit is an intrinsic defeater-defeater for anyone who attends to it." He even predicts "we can be confident that no such discovery will ever be made because we have the self-authenticating witness of the Spirit that Jesus is risen." That is, "given the witness of the Spirit, no such evidence could be forthcoming." Who in their right mind would ever predict what evidence can be found based solely on a subjective experience?

Michael Licona Refuses to Debate Me

Michael Licona is a Christian friend of mine. I have met Mike and had pleasant conversations with him. He moderated the debate I had with David Wood on whether God exists, seen here. The first time I met him was at the 2009 Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting where I was on a panel discussing Bill Maher's movie Religulous. My talk can be read here.

Michael Licona's scholarly expertise is on the resurrection of Jesus where he wrote a massive book on the topic.

But he refuses to debate me on the resurrection.

Here is our recent email exchange:

How to Win Friends and Influence People to Atheism

I have said that I try to persuade believers by overwhelming them with a plethora of arguments, and I am vilified for it. But given the fact that believers must be convinced their faith is nearly impossible before they will ever consider it to be improbable, this is what their faith forces me to do if I want to convince them they are wrong. You see, I know a lot more than I can tell. Based on everything I know, I know Christianity is a delusion. The only thing left to do at that point is to convince Christians they are wrong. And they are. In the September/October 2009 issue of American Atheist (pp. 18-20) David Eller argues this is what Christians have been doing on behalf of their faith. They seek to persuade. And they have been doing it a lot longer than atheists. I've just learned from what they are already doing.

The Outsider Test for Faith is For People Who Really Want to Know the Truth

The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is for people who really want to know if their faith is true. If they do, then it can be likened to a commitment to go on a diet. Just like a person who wants to lose weight so also the OTF demands the same kind of personal commitment. No one can make such a commitment for another person. But that's the first step. It takes resolve. It takes discipline to begin it and to consistently carry through with it.

It's Possible God Exists Even Though All Life Has Evolved

The implications of evolution are enormous, as I have said before. But even though all life has evolved it's still possible for a supernatural force (or being) to exist. To see this all we need to do is look at what dog breeders do on a regular basis. They manipulate the breeding habits of their dogs to produce new breeds all of the time. In a like manner some kind of god could act like these dog breeders by manipulating the environment and breeding habits of the various species on earth to produce new ones. Doing so would not violate the evolutionary process. It would merely inject purposeful direction into it. I admit this. It's possible God exists even though all life has evolved. But how reasonable is it to suppose this scenario is the case? Not much. Let me discuss such a claim, and then open it up for more discussion.