GOD & PROOF

lol, now its not really the interpretations its the people behind them i'm sure you've heard that before though haha!

jk

 

that is interesting, bizarre, but interesting. the problem with the accusations it that the Bible covers ten times the material. If Marx or Hitler had tried to write a book that covered the same depth of information as the bible then it could be compared. The Bible has been misquoted and used to excuse bad behaviour more than Batman, Superman, and Spiderman put together. I guess that is worth mentioning, oh yeah and tv guide too.. So don't go dissing that literary best seller, tv guide, either. but the bible's fair game.

 

I think the Bible is a work of genius, I just don't think anybody knows what it means.


I like what Joseph Campbell said; "Anybody, christian or skeptic, who thinks the bible is supposed to be read literally is missing the point".

 

That sounds funny.

Literal:: adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression... nevermind

 

I think words mean different things to different people. In order to find a words primary meaning in any given instance you'd have to become the person who said it.

Personally I think the Tower of Babel story in Genisis marks the moment where mankind forgot that words are just symbols and that each person's interpretation of something symbolic is to some extent unique to that person.

I think it's why two people can wind up at each other's throats, thinking they're disagreeing, when they're actually saying the same thing and don't even know it because they're saying it in different ways.

 

Growing up I was raised in a strict catholic environment... church, catholic school, the whole nine yards. Needless to say it didnt take that long to abandon ship and open my mind to alternative faiths, beliefs, whatever you want to call them, never actually settling on one again. I graduated college a little over a year ago and began working as an intensive care nurse. Now i cant firmly give you proof, but i can tell you of my experiences and how they've reshaped my thoughts in the last year.

A few months ago I had a patient who came to me with an absolutely devistating dianosis and was being placed on comfort care. The hardest part for me in caring for this patient was that his family, who could no longer bare to see him in his passing state, stopped visiting and he was left alone in a hospital bed.

I spent the final 7 hours of his life holding his hand and listening to him pray, again this is not solid evidence... but i can't begin to describe the energy coming from him and the peace that evoked the room as he passed. It was overwhelming and beyond humbling.

This is just one of many experiences I have had in the last year that has helped to reground my faith in a higher power. I can honestly say its not something thats ever going to have me reattending church on a weekly/daily or even monthly basis... its not something I've never felt in those places. I feel closer to God at work with every new day and patient.

 

Ah...what the heck, I'll bite:

Answer two questions for me.

1. What would constitute as evidence for you? I know you've mentioned "philosophical reasoning," and "undeniable evidence," but that's incredible broad and ambiguous. I mean just what constitutes "philosophical reasoning" to you? The cosmological arguement? The teleological argument? The Moral argument? The Ontological argument? The argument from Reason? The argument from Conscious? The argument from abstract entities? The argument from evil (yes, from evil) The argument from contingencies? The argument from the impossiblity of the contray? Etc... And just what constites "undeniable evidence" to you? Evidence of the reliablity of the Bible? Of the Resurrection? Changed lives of the believer? Or perhaps all the arguments in conjunction with the evidence?

2. In keeping with your standard for excepting or rejecting God, what "philosophical reasong" and or "undeniable evidence" do you have for the nonexistence of God? I think we already went over why this isn't a fallacy, but if you still think it is then please show me why. Otherwise present your evidence for God's nonexistence.

 

Erasmus and Hikaru Zero,


Thanks again for the kind words! I'm still here, I just no longer have the time for lengthy debates like I did before.

 

It's about time someone asked good questions here. I would take any (I'll say three) strong arguments you have as long as you could convince one that to believe them is more reasonable than not to. As I said, I am not beyond accepting the existence of a "deity" provided the arguments are greater than their counters.

But, I will give you a heads up, it won't be easy. I am not easily swayed, but alas...I can be. Any reasonable person should be open-minded enough to be able to be convinced without being gullible.

It is a fallacy because you are asking me to prove the "non-existence" of something that you have shown no good reason exists in the first place. Any scholar of logic will see right through this. How could one prove such as that?!? I mean to prove the "non-existence" of an intangible, invisible omni-max entity which transcends the natural?? HA HA HA... C'mon Jatom...for pete's sake--you're much smarter than that. It is universal negative. It is a logical fallacy. But, if you can prove why my fairy godmother doesn't exist and I'll go along with it.

But, the only thing you can do is use the most reasonable assessment to show that my fairy godmother is less likely to exist than to not exist. The same way with "God". Theism is the initial claim. Atheism is absence of theism. Without the claim of theism, atheists would not have anything to be the absence of. Thus, the burden is on you-- the theist, the inital claimant. But, if you want to shift it, then prove (with concrete evidence) that there is no fairy godmothers and I'll go along with it.

 

Why three? Wouldn’t one be enough? I mean after all if one is truth, then there is a God of some sort. Why would you then need two more? Anyway you mention that you would believe so long as it was more “reasonable” to believe the arguments then not to. You further qualify this by saying that you would accept that a deity exist so long as the arguments in it’s favor are “greater” than their counters. Perhaps we should start here. What exactly do you mean by “reasonable” and “greater”? Do you mean that when given two contrary views, say the existence of gremlins vs. the nonexistence of gremlins, one ought to go with the case that supplies more evidence? Or do you mean something else? Explain. Also by what means is one to determine which case holds the “greater” evidence?

When you say it’s a fallacy because it’s a universal negative, you mean that a universal negative cannot be proven right? So this is the same as saying there exist no proof for a universal negative. But that is a universal negative. So if I am to believe you here, then there is likewise no proof for your "universal negative fallacy" claim since the claim is a universal negative.

At any rate, you can prove a universal negatives deductively (what to you think arguments against God’s existence are?) and the nature of our existence makes it very hard, but not logically impossible, to prove some universal negatives inductively.

This analogy along with the “pink unicorn” one, needs to die a horrible and painful death. The affirmation or denial of God initials many positive claims in one’s world view. When one denies that God exist, it has an affect on his most ultimate principles, and these fan down to the less important questions. An atheist metaphysic, epistemology, and ethic must be vastly different from the theist (and particularly a Christian theist). Affirming or denying the existence of Santa Clause will have no such effect. And set aside from that, if one has a world view which does not allow for Santa Clause, and his world view is shown to be correct, then Santa Clause doesn’t exist. Don’t believe that it’s that simple? A naturalist, broadly speaking, is one who denies the supernatural. So by implication, miracles cannot exist since they require the supernatural. Even if something really is a miracle, the naturist will always interpret it by his naturalist principles. Hence a miracle will become a mere act of nature, and even if the event can’t be explained yet, the naturalist has faith that science will someday be able to explain it.

 

Sorry about all the typo's, I guess by brain isn't working right now

 

Why three? Because I pulled it out of my ass, that's why. Three for each your godheads, how's that? As far as "greater" or "reasonable", it isn't that vague. You supply a piece of evidence that you think leads to "God", if I find that there is no logical answer to it, then I will admit that there is an open file on that particular issue and that it is a "mystery" of sorts. If you can lead to further evidence how this "mystery" could lead to proof of something beyond the natural, then it would be easier to consider the option of the "supernatural" --thus easier to conceive of a "God". Simple enough?

Save your semantic games for those who will play them. I don't. I have already went over why it IS a universal negative. Now, prove that fairy godmothers don't exist and I'll take up your word games which attempt (and fail) to refute the knowledge of logic itself. The depths you theists go to do your gymnastic apologetics to be considered as even a possibility is mind-boggling. You cannot PROVE the "non-existence" of something such as your imaginary friend you call "God" because it is impossible to have any kind of hard evidence--just as you have no hard evidence of the existence of "God". But, two things: 1) The burden of proof is on you. 2) All I asked for was merely a philosophical or natural argument which would lead me to believe that the "God" concept is a possibility. Are you or are you not going to engage me on this matter?

I deny the supernatural because I doubt its existence because I have no evidence for it. If you can provide evidence or even a more convincing argument for its existence than against, I will be more than happy to take it into consideration.

 

Alright Libertine let me put this another way:

You want arguments for the existence of God right? But your criterion is that these arguments be “reasonable.” I believe that this is where the problem starts. Suppose I were to supply you with the “stock” arguments for the existence of God. That He is the Uncaused First cause, that He is the Great Designer, that He is the foundation for Morality, etc., etc. My contention is that you will reject these as unreasonable, or else reject them on the basis of the “greater” argument against them. After all, it’s not as if you really need me or any other Christian here to supply you with these arguments. You can find them on many websites and books that do a far better job of this than any us here can. And set aside from this, I’m sure that just as any other atheist (and Christian apologist for that matter) you have your “stock” answers for arguments. The problem, then, lies in your criterion; in what you call “reasonable” and “greater” evidence, since this is the standard you use to judge arguments. My intention here is not simply to give you arguments to disassemble, and in doing so merely trim the branches off the tree which will grow back stronger in due time. I want to strike at the root: What does mean to be “reasonable”? What is “greater” evidence? What is “reason”? Is in consistent with, and possible in, your world view? This is my route, and this will be my case for theism generally, and Christianity specifically. If you’re interested, then let’s continue. Otherwise, if all you want are stock evidences, then I'll refer you to some websites and books, and I’ll give you my evidence which is Christ dying on the Cross for my sins, saving me, and promising future glory.

And for future reference, I would really appreciate it if you didn’t rely on such argumentation. I have neither the time nor inclination to play “semantic games,” with you. And I hardly consider a topic as important as the one we are now discussing, to be desiring of such dishonesty. God is of central importance here, and it is He who I revere and glorify. I find the practices you accuse me of as being disrespectful to Him. Also, why do continually classify me with certain groups, and pin dishonest intentions on me? Why should I even believe that you are being serious in your inquiry? If I do manage to give you a convincing argument, will you ultimately write it off? Reasoning that, “it was just an argument that came from the mouth of that dishonest apologist Jatom”?

Anyway, let me get to your argument here. You say that the burden of proof is on me. On this point I will echo what I said during our last discussion only in more detail. To say that burden of proof is on me, is to assume that we share the exact same world view with the exception of the “God belief.” If this really were the case, then I guess it would be correct to say that I had the burden of proof since God would be my positive assertion. However, this is not the case. Both atheism and theism are complete systems of thought that make many positive assertions about reality, and as such, both need to be argued for. Everybody’s world view is made up of ultimate guiding principles that dictates what he or she believes. Broadly speaking these principles deal with metaphysics (“what is“), epistemology (“how I know what I know”, and ethics (“with is right and wrong”). Atheism is not just a “lack of belief” but a wholly different construction of these ultimate principles which has different answers to ultimate questions: Are morals absolute or are they relative, and what does this mean regarding our moral judgments? Is there an immaterial realm, or is all that exist physical? And if all is physical, what do we make things such as laws, reason, and duty? One will answer each of these questions differently on the basis of Christianity or atheism. One’s world view largely determines how he views reality, and how he lives his life. Ultimately everybody’s world view is different. What this means is that in this case, the burden of proof is just as much yours as it is mine.

As for the whole “you cannot prove a universal negative,” it turns out that that very statement is a universal negative. But as I said before, you can prove a universal negative. Let me show you. Would I be correct in saying, “there exist no such object as a squared-circle” or “there are no married bachelors“? Yes. Can I prove it? Yep. A squared-circle is a contradiction; it’s incoherent--a confused expression. An object cannot both be a square and a circle at the same time and in the same sense. The same for “married bachelors.” This is how one proves a universal negative deductively, and this is the same thing the atheist does when he tries to show that the idea of God is incoherent--that His attributes contradict each other, for example. The problem is when one tries to prove a universal negative inductively. But the problem here is a practical one, not a logical one.

Set aside from that, I’m not looking for “proof” of your position, only evidence (which may be your proof). And as for the fairy godmothers, I do not think that my Christian world view allows for them. Therefore if my world view is shown to be true, then logically fairy godmothers do not exist. But this is a nonissue, we’re not here to talk about fairytales.

The resurrection of Christ. Perhaps you should do research on the topic.

 

Hmmm...you're not very "evangelical" are ya?

I am not going to get into a word game with you. So to show you that I am open to your evidence. Let us suspend all criteria (just for the time being) and hear your "evidence" or story and then we'll go back and just apply certain questions to your provided evidence. This way we can continue the debate and I will show you that I am ATTEMPTING to allow you to control the flow of the debate first, then we can engage in philosophical inquiry. Deal?

Even though I see your point about many atheists, I would state that the original meaning of atheism is not a "positive" belief system but rather a negative of theism.

But, I digress. Yes, if I made a positive claim it would be my burden. However, I was under the assumption that we were arguing theism vs. atheism, not various atheists' thoughts vs. various Christians'. My point is that with atheism being the negative and theism the positive, the burden is on the claimant.

I cannot prove the "non existence" of any type of deity because I would have to have some criteria by which to do so. I have none. I have none because such a deity is unknown and violates known principles of logic. Thus, I have no reason to even conceive of such, much less deny it. All I deny is anything which violates what is known principles of logic and nature. Thus, if you consider this as "positive atheism"--I am guilty.

I'll let you chase those rabbits with linguists and logicians. All I know is that such an argument as you proposed to me is impossible to prove. But, unlike you, I admit it. You obviously consider "god" possible to prove, right? So, prove it.

Of course, I do understand you attempt to tie up the debate in such games of semantics. Is it to avoid embarrassment, perhaps? Maybe not. Maybe so. But, just to show you how fair I am, I will dismiss the "universal negative" argument and agree to the inductive argument to show that the CLAIMS (there's that word again) of "God" (i.e. his attributes) are, indeed, contradictory and incoherent to the rational mind. HOWEVER, you seem to be attempting to engage in an offensive attack on a negative philosophy without stepping up and defending your claim (a positive)--theism.

This is quite slick, I admit. But, unfortunately, I am failing buy into it without a payoff.

I was under the impression that fairy godmothers were entities much like your "God". There is much evidence for both--that is, if you count subjective experiences and the belief in the supernatural. As far as it being a nonissue, I see no proof that your version of the supernatural (i.e. GOD) is not a fairytale.

I have researched it. Remember, I once named it and claimed it. Until, I realized all the loops I had to jump through to keep the system from collapsing on itself with all its contradictory mumbo-jumbo.

Luckily, I "saw the light".

 

I would like to offer two cents, first commenting on the universal negative business. Your examples are solely based on definition and language. A square is defined in such a way that to have circular properties would render it no-longer-a-square. A square doesn't have properties of a circle, and that is a concept created by men, defined by men, and has no basis in the natural world. If you were to say there are no humans with six eyes, you would never be able to prove that. You cannot prove the nonexistence of something tangible, or something that might possibly exist. If there's a possibility of it's existance, you can't prove its nonexistance.


Next, my issue with this quote:

That's kinda the debate here, no? Who knows if that happened? Nobody alive today, that's for sure. As far as most of the world is concerned, that's a myth. A story. A lie. And there's no cause to believe otherwise. Not one reason to think that it's anything more than some fantasy some guy wrote down.

 

Actually I’m very evangelical.

I don’t think that it is possible to suspend all criteria. Instead we must examine these criteria. But anyway, my “evidence” for theism is that given your anti-theistic view, it is not possible to have this standard of “reason,” nor is it possible to have an objective standard by which one has the ability to judge which evidence is “greater.” Furthermore, I contend that there can be no standard that tells one that he ought to follow the more reasonable or greater evidence. My reasons are numerous, but for now it will suffice to say that given you world view, any standard must ultimately be grounded only in the human mind, and therefore amounts to nothing more than mere opinion. Given your world view, telling one that he ought to follow what is more reasonable, is arbitrary at best. However, if you don’t think that this is the case (which you obviously don’t since you constantly make reference “reason”) then make a case for an objective standard. If it is the case that atheism is false, then logically theism must be true.

Ironically enough, I believe this to be nothing more than a play on words. I can simply define theism as a negation of the negation of atheism. Stating that I simply lack a belief in the atheist’s lack of belief. Anyway, my point was that being an atheist forces one to interpret reality differently (just as being a theist does). Many atheist would have us believe that the whole matter is like an atheist and a theist on a road trip together. They are in the same car, do and see the same things, and have the exact same experiences while on this trip. In fact, the only difference is that the theist believes that there is a driver of the car, and the atheist simply “lacks” this belief. But in reality, the whole matter is quite different. You see, the atheist and theist don’t do, see, and experience the same things. In fact, they aren’t even in the same car! They’re in different cars, on different sides of the planet, on different trips, at different times, with different purposes. You and I have completely different world views. The problem with this whole burden of proof argument is that it assumes neutrality. It assumes that we are in the same car. But we are not. If I present an evidence such as the historicity of the resurrection of Christ, under who’s world view am I to interpret the evidence? Under yours? Under mine? Everybody brings their own presuppositions to the table, and it’s not until we began to examine these that we get somewhere. Ultimately, what it boils down to is the consistency of one’s world view. This means that ultimately, everyone must defend his own world view. So what is your evidence for your atheism?

Ok now stop right there! How does this deity violate the laws of logic? If it violates the laws of logic can it exist? If it can’t, and if you show that this deity violates the laws of logic, then haven’t you just proven a universal negative?

Name it and claim it? Yuck!! I hope you didn’t learn your theology from televangelists!

 

Granted

Correct. It is a violation of the law of contradiction. The same goes for a married bachelor.

I would agree that a cicle is a concept, but I would not say that it was created.

A human with six eyes is not logically impossible. It is not the same as saying there can exist no squared-circle. A squared-circle is incoherent. It is a logical contradiction, and is false by definition. A human with six eyes requires empirical research to prove or disprove, a squared-circle does not. A way to prove a universal negative is to show that it is somehow logically impossible. But there is another way. If one's world view does not allow for six-eyed humans, and his world view is shown to be true, then logically six-eyed humans cannot exist.

 

I have to admit I am thrown aback a little by your methods. Most Christians WANT to establish a common ground and then build their case from there. This is what most apologists do as well. However, you seem to conclude that there is no way to establish common ground unless I make some sort of jump into your vehicle (a leap of faith?) which I will not do because I can not do it without lying to myself. And since I did that for 20 years + already, I will not do it any longer. It makes me feel icky.

Ok. It is obvious that you and I will probably find no way in which to debate this issue and that we are on separate sides of the fence. My question to you then is this: HOW Do you explain my transformation from evangelical Christian apologist to atheism? Because, even though I see the stages I went through, I cannot say to myself that it was ONE thing, but rather a combination of things. If I can become one from another, could it be possible that the reverse could happen? If so, would it not be through argumentation and dialogue with knowledgeable Christians (such as yourself)?

I think it is clear that an omni-max deity violates the laws of logic and I have presented that case at least twice here. Most logicians would agree as well. Logic is pretty rigid.

No, I was schooled from birth through college by Christian scholars (my father, his father and the Christian school, the Christian academy/college...etc...etc.), not televangelists.

 

.... fricken post...

 

Nope, all you need is for God to "show you the money", then you will stop spouting foolishness. Sometimes, the only way to stop a kid from acting out (attacking their parents, siblings, God and / or their self, etc.) is a good hard metaphorical smack to the noggin.

Do you forget the application of Godel's Incompleteness Theorum to logic? Logic is not "rigid", it flows like magma.

It would be nice to see a post describing exactly how your insufficient understanding of logic backed you into the corner you are in. Especially your statement that an omni-max deity violates the 'laws of logic'.