Does Zeus exist: A scientific inquiry
I have stolen a creationist article from here, and have replaced every word God with Zeus. Observe.
* * *
Does Zeus Exist – A Scientific Inquiry
Does Zeus Exist? The other day I was asked to prove the existence of Zeus. It was a one-on-one conversation with a skeptical friend, who somehow thrust the burden of proof on me. He didn’t want the religious, moral or philosophical arguments — He wanted the scientific “proof.”
Does Zeus Exist – Is a Scientific Approach Possible?
When it comes to the question, “Does Zeus Exist,” there are really only two possible conclusions: Zeus either is, or He isn’t. There’s no half-way. There’s no sliding scale. Whether you’re an atheist or whether you’re a theist, there’s a certain level of knowledge, and there’s a certain level of faith.
I thought for a moment… Can I prove the existence of Zeus — scientifically? In my religious/moral/philosophical experience, He’s been proven to me. However, my friend hasn’t walked the same journey as me. He wants the facts — he wants the naturalistic proof for a supernatural reality.
I came to the conclusion that my friend’s question was a fair one. He deserved my best attempt at an answer. So, I gave it a shot…
Does Zeus Exist – A Scientific Examination of the Evidence
Zeus may not be provable through mathematical formulae or properties of physics, but we live in an era where the evidence of an Intelligent Designer is all around us. Just look through the Hubble Telescope and peer to the edge of the massive cosmos. View the monitor of an electron-scanning microscope and delve into the intricate world of a microscopic cell. Try to comprehend the massive library of complex information inherent in the digital code that turns a fertilized egg into a human being. Study principles of quantum mechanics and investigate the world of extra-dimensionality. Review the nature of your conscience, subconscious, standards of morality, and thoughts of religion. Then, try to reconcile all of these realities with a basic theory of randomness and chaos.

Evolution: The basic theory of randomness. Obviously.
(From the undergraduate textbook “Evolution” by Ridley.)
Based on what we know today, I truly believe that atheism (not believing in Zeus) is a much bigger “leap of faith” than theism (believing that some kind of god, ie. Zeus, exists).
I asked my friend, “Have you really thought about some of the evidences for Zeus? Or, are you presupposing a purely naturalistic world, and closing your eyes to some of the possible evidence? If I propose some observational evidence, are you even open to examining it?”
My friend asked me to go on. So, here’s my attempt at some basic scientific observations that point to Zeus:
- Causation. Zeus provides the best explanation for the existence of the universe and all that’s in it. (The alternative theory is that “nothing” exploded and resulted in everything that we see.)
- Order. Zeus provides the best explanation for abstract notions such as numbers, mathematical formulae, chemical-based processes, and natural laws. (The alternative theory is that the chaotic first elements ordered themselves into complex information systems.)
- Design. Zeus provides the best explanation for the absolute complexity inherent in cosmological, stellar, planetary, chemical and biological systems. (The alternative theory is that random chance engineered apparent design.) [Fuck you too.]
- Encoded Instructions. Zeus provides the best explanation for the digital DNA code contained in and controlling the functions of all life on earth. (The alternative theory is that complex code, such as binary code running computers, can pop into existence without any kind of programming, testing and debugging process.)
- Irreducible Complexity. Zeus provides the best explanation for fully functioning biological organisms, systems, and subsystems that couldn’t come about through gradual evolutionary process without totally ceasing to exist at lower, evolutionary levels. (The alternative theory is that biological systems took huge, unseen leaps from simple to complex without any guided process or forward-looking instructions.)
- Duality. Zeus provides the best explanation for the separate human functions of brain and conscience (matter and mind). (The alternative theory is monism — only matter exists and the human brain only appears to have a separate subconscious ability.)
- Morality. Zeus provides the best explanation for the existence of love, emotion, altruism, and inherent moral/ethical values throughout the world. (The alternative theory is that unguided materialistic processes evolve higher human consciousness.)
Lightning. Zeus provides the best explanation for lightning.
(The alternate theory is that clouds somehow randomly become
negatively and positively charged and some weirder
improbable shit happens by accident.)
Does Zeus Exist – A Scientific Conclusion
When it comes to the question of “Does Zeus Exist,” there are only two scientific worldviews — Someone/Something (Zeus) did it, or it did itself. Whether it’s the beginning of the cosmos or the beginning of life, the beginning of mankind or the beginning of mind, either Someone/Something is responsible for everything we see or it’s responsible for itself.
“Does Zeus Exist?” Is this really a question for science at all? Actually, it seems this is a matter of forensic science, since we can’t re-create the birth of the universe or the formation of first life in a laboratory. Therefore, we collect the observable evidence in our world and apply our forensic investigation skills to analyze its collective meaning. In the end, we all need to collect and examine the evidence for ourselves. Ultimately, whether couched as scientific inquiry or purely religious/moral/philosophical faith, it’s not a matter for the laboratory. It’s a personal, investigative decision for each and every one of us.
* * *
Now do you see how stupid your arguments are?

Thor
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4327660&id=589666776
Hahahaha That’s so funny!!!
Thank you for your work. I have been praying to Zeus three times daily for six months, and I have never been in better physical, emotional, and financial health. Zeus is indeed worthy of our worship and trust. I might add that fellow Greek, Criss Angel, is his only contemporary Son, put on this Earth to help everyone BELIEVE in themselves, and “magic.”
Yours in Zeus,
Grant M
Well..only reason i have a hard time believing in Zeus is because he left no signs..yahweh,God from the bible,leaves signs, so many signs,and so on,if zeus does exist please,show me signs he has left,or something,or scripts,of a prophet or him saying things that have come true in some shape or form..
anyway my email is xkyouchiha@hotmail.com,please get back to me.
bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!gay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Well..only reason i have a hard time believing in Zeus is because he left no signs..”
Nonsense… you’ve never heard of thunderstorms?
no
wew
zeus is the great hero of greec in the game zeus is last hiter
Dan, Thunderstorms are a part of nature that existed before Zues was made up but nice try.
Shaye,
Have you ever seen a lightning bolt form naturally? I haven’t. I’ve never seen one from close enough to see how its formed. And you’re trying to convince me that THAT much electricity forms naturally???
yoyoyoy
zeus doesnt exist…yuh guys are gay
The intelligent design argument is so stupid.
You’re basically arguing, all complex objects (the cosmos, life) need a beginning and a creator, hence the most complex object (god) exists without being created or having a beginning.
It is so stupid to say, hey look through the telescope, the universe is complicated hence created, by an even more complicated thing, that wasn’t created.
What makes us think, that we can even get anywhere near to proving whether Zeus exists or not. It is possible, that we are even further removed from understanding the scheme of things, as an ant is of understanding our intelligence.
The odds are enormous for order to come about from nothing or chaos without a guiding hand. However, if time is not a factor then enormous odds are also not a factor. In other words anything can happen, no matter at what odds in an unlimited amount of time.
If we can say that Zeus was always there, we can equally say that the universe with it’s chaos and order was also always there. In other words by creating a Zeus we are merely making an attempt to satisfy our total ignorance on the whole subject.
Having said all this, I’m now safe to say that a genuine belief in some sort of diety is definitely a lot more beneficial than the opposite. Unfortunately this does not prove conclusively that such beliefs are true or untrue.
Fact is, the subject is beyond our puny brains and our current level of knowledge. Even if a diety could be proved, we should be lucky that human beings were it’s first intelligent creations. That is wishful thinking to the extreme, but I can’t say categorically that it isn’t. So back to the drawing board.
it’s juz a myth. Impossible!!!!!!!!!! but zeus in “God of War” 2 is really cool. Why aren’t he electrify?????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHA:D
Maurice: You were doing pretty well until you made the assertion that belief in a diety is significantly preferable to the alternative. Atheists tend to be as happy, as moral, and more educated than theists. What exactly is the benefit?
Xujhan: Your question deserves an answer. You are only partly right.
in questioning my assertion however. Consider the following thoughts.
(a) Yes, a strong belief in anything (it doesn’t necessarily have to be in a Diety can make people live good moral lives and in turn be happy). If that be the case why not focus on a Diety. At least a Diety will capture the imagination of many more folks.
(b) In fact Atheists especially the more educated ones are even happier than Theists. They thrive in the satisfaction that their intellect has worked it all out. Merely believing without the backup of one’s intellect can’t beat that. So they would like to profess.
Fact is, the great majority of the people on earth have little or no intellect. Belief in some sort of Diety to them is not only essential it is absolutely necessary for them to lead a happy and moral life.
At least it gives them a meaning to life to such an extent, that the fact of whether or not a diety exists, becomes irrelevant. Their strong belief replaces their lack of intellect on the subject.
Of course their are also believer’s in a Diety who have great intellect and are not merely sheep like believers, but like the intellectual Atheists they are in the great minority.
Finally their are also the non intellectual Atheists who manage to lead happy and moral lives. Again they also join the minority. It could be argued however, that these are not really true Atheists, as their conviction of the non-existence of a Diety is relatively weak.
As far as I’m concerned both true Atheists and Theists are unwittingly hypocritical. Fact is that neither can be sure of their assertions. Even I, who chooses to sit on the fence am guilty as well, as my thoughts, may be just as hypocritical as their’s. At least I don’t profess to know all the answers.
IOW you’re saying to the majority of humanity, “Don’t try to be intelligent; you’re not. Just give up and enjoy your stupidity.”
What a wonderfully horrible message to be spreading.
I agree it is horrible. I’m not spreading the message I’m just stating a fact. It appears that the majority of mankind need some sort of crutch like a Diety to give them meaning to life. Try spreading Atheism or anything else and see how far you get. Religion seems to spread a lot easier, as it requires very little thought by those not disposed to deep thinking.
Even if you managed to convince people of the absurdity of a Diety existing, would you also succeed in getting people to lead moral lives?. I know the word “moral” is subjective but I’m sure you know what I mean.
The thought of a Diety looking over mankind has more chance of doing that, than otherwise, even though this belief is far from perfect it is standing the test of time. Other beliefs come and go but religious belief persists. It assists in keeping people together as if they were part of a great team. That in itself cannot be bad until mankind evolves sufficiently to accept that their destinity does not lie in the hands of a Diety. Yes religion are the cause of many wars, but these wars would occur anyway under many other pretexts.
Whilst humans are evolving they might as well be pacified even by false belief.
Once human beings have learnt to live together in harmony through free will and not force, then and only then, maybe will they be in a position to accept the absence of a Diety without abandoning all the laws which keep their society together.
It took mankind an eternity to rid themselves of idol worshipping. Maybe the same will happen with a Diety and all forms of ridiculous worship. Until scientists can come up with a decent alternative mankind will continue to believe in the land of “Father Christmas”. What the scientists tell us at the moment is just as hard to believe as what we hear from our Church leaders. So what message other than this horrible message do you have in mind?
What a silly thing to say.
instead of making self rightious comments, lets have some reasoning on your part on the issue. Try big bang theory for a start and what came before it. Church leaders make me sick with their dogma, but so do you on the other side of the coin.
Neither of you can hit the nail on the head. For that matter nor can I.
The whole argument you made is based on a complete misapprehension of what atheism entails. Atheism is a position regarding the existence of God. That is all. You can appeal to morality all you wish, but this does not change the fact whether God exists or not. Saying that “belief in God” should be encouraged because it is “beneficial” simply distracts from the whole purpose of the debate.
The course of human evolution has always been compelled by transformations of thoughts and ideas. Atheism is one of those ideas, and no one should expect the whole world to turn godless overnight. So, whilst it is true that a lot of people still depend on God to give them meaning to their lives, it does not follow that people should not be encouraged to think about what they believe, or that facts don’t matter. To say that old ideas are preferable to the new for the sake of “comfort of mind” is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard said from a person who appears as well rehearsed in the subject-matter as you are. I’m disappointed.
You’re making the mistake of false equivalence, Maurice. IOW, religious doctrine asserts that they know full well how the universe came into existence, and astronomy tells us what happened ONLY as far back as 10^-37 seconds after what we can only think was a Big Bang. If you’ve read any journal article on the subject, you’d know that scientists AREN’T asserting certainty on anything before that.
THAT’S false equivalence for you.
Tim and Dan you are both quite right of course, but between religious false certainty and scientific theory we are no nearer the real truth.
I know that by introducing morality into the debate I’m going off at a tangent, but the fact that morality and efhics exist as well as human consciousness should give us some clues. Afterall how can consciousness occur from mere inordinate matter without any preordained design.
Neither of you could deny catergorically that a Diety exists. It doesn’t have to comply with religious doctrine, which in my view is just too childish for words. Atoms can form into life, but how do they create the degree of consciousness that human beings possess?
Is there a certain level where intelligence turns into consciousness. If such a level exists, then one day computers or robots could well take over. Finally if there are degrees of consciousness, then how far up the scale is man’s? All questions but no answers.
Thanks for your views..
More false equivalence.
False equivalence seems to upset you into taking great delight in correcting me. So what! We are after……. answers not semantics on how you choose to speak the language.
I don’t profess to be an expert on exactitudes. I just want answers!.
If it makes you feel good correcting me each step of the way then so be it. Once I have learnt to speak your language then maybe we will get somewhere. Maybe not as the problem is beyond us at the moment and possibly will be forever more.
Maurice,
If you’re really interested in truth and answers, you have to be willing to think enough to avoid being so inconsistent with logic.
Or put it this way Maurice: It’s not your English that is bad (it’s pretty good if you’re not a native English speaker), it’s your logic.
Dan,Tim and Xujhan,
My logic is indeed faulty. On an issue such as this, conventional thought can also mislead, Firstly who says that the facts that are at our disposal are guaranteed to be true. Even if most of them were true, we don’t have enough of them to arrive at an answer by mere human logic.
Throughout the ages many great logicians would have solved the mysteries by now if logic was of essence.
I believe that by brainstorming all our facts logically or not, we could unwittingly give each other clues towards advancement on the problem. Discussions such as this can be very helpful if we refrain from being too critical of each other.
You and Tim have devoted your answers to being critical of my form of thinking. Instead either of you have not contributed much more to what has been written in the brilliantly presented article above.
I’m not satisfied with the presumed fact that the existence of a Zeus is improbable or impossible. So what! The real question is how and why did everything come to exist or always existed in the first place. Even the question is questionable as I only presume that a “how” and “why” is available or necessary.
We maybe looking for something that also doesn’t exist.
Maybe Luke on the 12th May above is cleverer than all of us. He has long ago ceased to take any of this seriously and has retreated into “???” and “Ha Ha’s”. What do you have to say for him?
Lets have some of your thoughts. I know my limitations and I don’t need to be reminded of them by you guys. Your logic by the way has brought you to a standstill. You need guys like me to get you moving on the issue. Come on admit it. Lets see what you and your logic can do!.
Dear Dan and Tim,
remember your views are not just for my sake. Lets bring others into the discussion the more the merrier. This facility is very much being under utilised. If I have not set the ball rolling, somebody else might!.
You sound almost Discordian. Cool.
Religious people. Scientists, on the other hand, only ever say that given the evidence such-and-such appears to be true. When pressed, they’ll give statistical analyses of how certain they are. But no right-minded scientist will EVER tell you they’re 100% certain about something. Heck, even universal constants are not necessarily truly universal.
So I disagree with Tim – you don’t sound discordian, you sound like you don’t understand how scientists actually work.
Please don’t make any more replies commenting on what I know and what I don’t know about scientists or religious people. All that is irrelevant. What you could more fruitfully do is reply with more info on your positive views on the subject matter being discussed. My comments and your interpretation of them should be merely ignored if you either don’t agree or you know that they are wrong.
You seem to pick on the wrong things I have written, whilst making no comments on anything else.
We are not looking for 100% answers, just suppositions which can be discarded or fitted into place later. If you don’t think I’m worthy of discussing the matters further than just say so, and I will shut up!.
If you’re not interested in correction when you’re wrong, then please don’t pretend to be interested in having any correct answers.
Maurice, I do think you are onto something here. To be honest, your views are not too different from mine. Having said that, I do stand with Dan in that you are strawmanning the position held by atheists and/or scientists, which unfortunately renders your arguments mostly invalid. Keep chewing on it, though.
You’re supposed to appreciate correction.
Before we go any further do you guys mind telling me who you are, and your level of studies on these issues. Tim and Dan don’t give me any clues.
As you can see I’m just a mere mortal who happens to be interested in this subject.
So far though, apart from tearing me to pieces we haven’t established much contribution from yourselves. If you guys are well versed on the subject, then lets have your credentials. If they turn out to be impecable, then I apologise for my timerity and will accept your corrections with humilty and gratitude. If not, it doesn’t matter as long as you contribute with some of your own views on the subject..
This facility should not be used for personal fueds. Your replies and views should be made available for all to read. Nobody is interested in hearing about my inexactitudes and your thoughts about them.
Me: https://profiles.google.com/cellsnbirds
My CV + educational background are there for you to read.
Oh and by the way, I could care less if you or anyone else apologizes for anything. What I hope for, what my criticisms were for, was to get you to think more critically about your own assumptions and conclusions.
Likewise, I welcome it when others challenge me and find faults in my thinking process. I know full well it’s tough hearing criticism, but we don’t improve any other way.
@MSL – An argument stands on it’s own merit or lack of thereof, it has nothing to do with someones credentials unless one wants to commit an appeal to authority fallacy.
I’m 16, I have no credentials.
NoReligion,
Yes that’s true. Credentials are only a weak indicator of whether someone knows what they’re talking about. Take Tim for example, I’m more than twice his age and yet he’s always struck me as a smart guy for just a teenager; there are lots of well-credentialed crackpots out there too. But still, it wasn’t all that bad of Maurice to ask, as he doesn’t seem to be able to judge on his own whether what we’ve said is accurate or not.
Great article. Thank you. Hopefully it will help someone get away from the stupid christian religion because it’s exactly the same thing. Zeus and god have the same exact of proof: 0, and if you want to go into the morality arguments and put some god of the gaps in, zeus fits them perfectly too, as does any other form of diety. Also, it was funny to read through the comments and notice that a few idiots didn’t realize that the article was a parody and actually started a debate about their stupid god yahve
)). Again, good job!
i totaly believe inZeus, whenever im not feeling happy or im sad, etc etc, i just think for a while about the gods, then i think more on Zeus that the others! then it almost always rains, with lightning and thunder, the whole bit, if thats not a sign , i dont know what is!
hey.. I study Greek gods. But i’m not really sure if this article is worth debating for. It’s not even real, I mean, Zeus is not real. Like, myths include gods and monsters and stuff, and so to say: MYTH. people, your intelligent! don’t go wasting it on something this stupid. Especially you people: Maurice, Dan, Tim. if its okay, i want to study the meaning of the word “myth” and “reality”, no really! anyway, just saying. Good comments, though. pretty cool too say, ae. alright, back on the read.
i do know Zeus and the other Olympians, even the lower ones. mention Pan and Dionysus etc., also do know monsters and monstresses and well, yeah, they only prove something not REAL. in which case increases the truth that gods do not exist. for the fact that gods and monsters are myth, and monsters aren’t real and imaginary, makes it the same for gods. if monsters aren’t real why would gods do? they both fall into the same category, MYTH. MYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYTHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGY
don’t you dare the GODS . .
im zeus bow before me
I beleive in the gods and that’s because
1.Im a grand daughter of Zeus
2.Everytime I pray to them they answer…unlike when I was a christian
3.I’VE BEEN TO OLYMPUS!!!
I think you all approaching the whole matter trespassing the wrong way.
If you read Kosmogonia by Isiodos or Orpheas, you will realize how real all these could be.
Of course its not really necessary to think gods like something spiritual. But something superior? Oh yes.
Hint: the word mythology doesnt means something unreal. In greeks means the description of a fact.
PS Sorry for my english, its not my native language, Im greek.
people say that they worshiped idols well look around people who believe in jesus. jesus is such an idol to christian religions. well lets see has jesus done anything for you or the fact is people are to dumb sided to relize there are things in the universe that are unexplained such as the pyrimds of giza. if they used the methods on which people say using thousands of men, animals and pullies well it mathematicaly would never had finshed in time. so ask your self why didnt the gods or aliens didnt leave no sign well maybe they didnt want to or the fact is we are to stupid not to see around us.(the guy who knows from experience)
zeus is better than the rest, so why not?
Now try replacing Zeus with donkey-dong and see what happens… Nothing. In either case all you have done is renamed that entity (which the original author refers to as ‘God’) with a different name. The point is that the properties accorded to the entity ‘God’ don’t change merely by renaming it – ‘a rose by any other name smells just as sweet’ and all that! Let me say this again to be clear: changing the name of an object doesn’t change it’s properties regardless of whether that object has existence independent of minds or not!
For example the number 1 exists only within minds (as far as we know.) Then let Zeus be the new name of 1, and donkey-dong be the new name of 2, so
Zeus + Zeus = donkey-dong
This is *still* a true statement even though the change in name makes it seem very silly indeed.
Thus the farce fails because the properties accorded to the entity ‘God’ as meant by the original author no more belong to Zeus than to a donkey’s penis! We can be pretty sure of this because if that author had wanted his argument to refer to Zeus he would have probably used that name to begin with. Since he didn’t, he probably was referring to some other propositional entity possessing properties quite distinct from those usually associated with Zeus.
The original author’s argument is either true or false on its on merits or failings – NOT because you rename the referent noun therein.
If zeus didn’t really exist now why would there be statue of him recorded??