GOD & PROOF

If you want to know what is going to happen over in Israel, try reading in the Old Testament the prophecy in Ezk. chapters 37,38, and 39.

 

I don't have a vehicle here. I am hitchiking. You are the one with a vehicle. You are the one who is certain. I am a mere vagabond just searching.

Excuse me, that method doesn't work with a smart atheist. Because he is just wandering along. He doesn't have a "position", so to speak. My "position" is just BEING. You have the position--defend it.

Not so. I don't hold a position. I make claims or denials if something cannot be proven, but as I have always said, I am open-minded to accept proof. I hold no position. You claim there is a "God", I say "show me why". I am nothing more than a blank slate for you -- go ahead PROVE AWAY!

Well, until you gave good reason for the existence of this "God", why not attribute it this way??

I have no convictions. I am a blank slate. You have a position to defend. Defend it. You are called to defend it. Why should I "defend" a "disbelief" when you've given no reason to believe in the first place? Ha ha!!

Your heart is an organ which pumps blood. Thus, you must be referring to one's emotions. So, whenever I can be emotionally broken and govern myself on this, then I am ready for it? Is Kool-Aid involved too?

In other words, you don't want to make a statement and defend it because it's easier to play my role.

Because I have no "convictions". You do, why are you unwilling to challenge them?

You are not doing a very good job as of yet.

So convince me.

I don't have a religious belief system. I DISBELIEVE Christianity. Convince me I am wrong.

I was brought up Southern Baptist, went Pentecostal, went Episcopal for a while and even studied in Catholicism for a couple of years.

 

POOR LIB! were you Church of God or UPC?

 

Neither "NON-DENOMINATIONAL". Tongues, slain, dancing, flopping around on the floor. Now, mind you, I NEVER did any these things, but I was surrounded by it. I never much got into the Pentecostal movement, the more structured, organized and educational denominations were more my taste.

Although, the music was good.

 

I never flopped around on the floor, I have spoke in tounges, was touched and I blacked out, and I like jumping etc etc! Like and old fashion rave!!!!!!!! That was one of my biggest problems with the UPC it lacks the educational fun behind it. Its hard to get your mind fed when you jump and down all service!

 

Do you mean to tell me you don't have a world view? Of course you have one, and you use "logic" and "reason" in this world view. And I think that logic and reasoning would not be possible given your world view. I've given my reason, and if I'm correct your world view is false, making theism true. But if you disagree then give your case.

Of course you have a postion and it's called a world view.

I've given my case, if there is no God then the very reasoning process you use would not be possible.

But I've given my reason several times times and you've yet to offer a response

No? You have not convictions? Are morals absolute or relative? Is sensory perception reliable or not? Is one able to obtain truth through reason or no? You mean to tell me that you have no convictions on any of the questions I just asked? In one post you say, "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" If you have no convictions, then why is your conviction here that one should except the "more reasonable" argument? Dont' kid yourself, you have convictions just as I do.

Weren't you educated by Christian scholars? Rarely does "heart" in the bible merely mean emotions. Rather "heart" has to do with the will.

Well you seem to be enjoying it so why can't I ? Seriously though, I've given my argument like 20 times now.

Nah, if you really had no convictions, you'd be a rock or something that has no beliefs about anything.

It's not in my hands

Whenever you're ready

And I DISBELIEVE atheism. And so far, since you haven't answered my argument, I have proven you wrong.

Ok, but what were your beliefs regarding at least some of the topics I mentioned last post?

 

You've given your argument 20 times?? Ahh...must've been asleep. Try for 21.

Whenever YOU'RE ready to defend your faith.

I have no faith to defend.

 

I don't mean to be rude, but it sounds like you have faith (if that's what you want to call it) in your own beliefs. What I mean is, not believing in god is different from not knowing what you believe in.. and in my eyes you need faith to believe anything about something that can never be 100% proven right or wrong.

If I said to you : "Oxygen doesn't exist", how would you prove that wrong? You can't see it, you can't smell it, there's no way of perceiving it. Your arguments would be: you read it in a book, most people believe it, it's part of a system that works.. which are the exact arguments which you aren't willing to believe about god. You simply have faith in its existance because it makes sense to you.

 

Libertine,
That last comment says it all.
Probably not in the way you would like.

 

I "get" it, Erasmus.

But, unfortunately, I don't consider that an insult.

I don't consider "faith" a value like you do.

I consider it wishful thinking.

 

You could compress and supercool it, and use it to start stuff on fire. You could energize it and convert it to ozone, which has an odor. You could rust some iron. Oxygen is percievable. God is not. If you want to say so, then sure, faith can play its small part in everything. But the atheist view, correct me if I'm wrong, is that logic and reason, which are themselves devoid of faith, are better to live by than belief in something that violates both of them.

 

Only indirectly (by its effects upon other matter).

Actually, God is perceivable in the same way (indirectly), by God's effect upon things that already are perceived (including your own self).

God violates neither, it just so happens that atheists do not yet have enough information to realise this.

 

So much for your faith in your ability to reason. Might as well not believe anything you think.

Faith is something that is gained by experience, there are so many minute reasons for it that it cannot be summed up by one finite experience (such as your faith in your reasoning ability- you have been wrong in the past, yet you have been right enough times to keep on pluggin, only altering your thoughts (saying 'this reasoning is incorrect') when new information presents itself).

 

Oxygen can be directly observable to everyone by condensing it. God may be "percieved" by people, but hasn't made any public appearances recently (that I know of). Many people's perception of god is to another a coincidence, a fluke, or a logical conclusion.

God violates logic by saying one thing and doing another. By creating man in his image when many things that are a component of man are unnecessary and wouldn't be useful to a lone diety. By leaving as his only evidence for his existence a book written by men. God violates reason in many similar ways, and also by being impercievable on this plane of existence. Since there is no solid evidence of any other planes existing, there's no reason to think god exists.

 

Haha, ouch.

 

Got your own definition for "faith" too, I see.

 

Which would prove that air can be supercooled. It doesn't prove anything about the existence of Oxygen.

Nah. You can only burn things that have phlogiston in them. It is the phlogiston that burns, there is no such thing as oxygen (which is what the majority of scientists believed for a very long time).

Which would prove you can make air smell funny. It, by itself, doesn't prove anything about the existence of Oxygen.

Which proves that iron rusts, not that there is this invisible stuff that is in the air that combines with iron to make a new type of material. At best, you have proven that there is a change in the iron, but that does not the prove the existence of the element Oxygen.

Everything you presented requires foundational assumptions about the way we think the world works. If I deny the assumptions, then I can deny your proofs. This is the same tactic that skeptics use. You may say that I am crazy for forwarding the above, but you only think so because I have rejected your world-view. If you want to disagree, support the above examples without reference to chemistry or chemical laws (which are also immaterial, so I deny them as well).

 

What is a world view? It can be defined in many differing ways, but for simplicities sake, I’m going to define it as a network of beliefs and presuppositions held by one, and is the means by which he proceeds to answer all life’s ultimate and minor questions. It is the foundation of one’s whole system of thought. And it is these governing principles that will guide one's thoughts and actions. But let me give an example to make this definition more concrete.

Let’s say that there is a person who holds to a world view which is strictly evidential. Perhaps the touchstone proposition for her evidential viewpoint is, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” That is, this is the governing principle of her world view, and it is by this principle that she proceeds to live her life. Perhaps throughout the course of her life she will run into several Christians whom she confronts by this principle. “Show me the evidence for God,” she may say, “and for your Christian faith! For you see, if there is insufficient evidence, or worst, if there is no evidence at all, then it is wrong for both me and you to believe.”

So what’s the point here? The point is that she would have a pre-conviction, which would guide and govern her thoughts and actions. She will not accept the Christian’s faith if he does not first meet her criterion by providing sufficient evidence for that faith. Now I believe that there will always be more than just one guiding principle. For example, we will say that she also has a comment to naturalism; she believes that all events can be exampled in terms of natural causes—that to posit the supernatural in any case is unnecessary, even primitive, and reminiscent of ancient men who knew no better and therefore had no choice but to rely on such superstitious babble.

So we can already see that she holds to a set of convictions which guide her choices. She will not choose to believe in God so long as this “God” claim doesn’t meet her (A) criterion for sufficient evidence, and (B) her naturalistic restraints. So how is the theist to offer evidence that meets such a narrow view? How can the Christian give evidence that meets this criteria? He can’t, for you see she has already excluded God from the get-go. She has a commitment (faith) to naturalism, therefore, all events must have natural causes, but since God is supernatural, He can never be a variable in any equation, and must be excluded from any explanation.

But is it true that there is no evidence for God? Psalms 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” A Christian will be inclined to answer that yes there is much evidence for God. Everything from the created order itself, which testifies of His wisdom, power, plan, and glory, to history which shows the deliverance of His people, and His resurrection from the dead. Everything from a rose, to the skeptic himself is testimony of not only God’s existence, but also His power, love, righteousness, and glory. So while the Christian obviously believes that there is much evidence, the skeptic from our illustration above would believe that there is absolutely no evidence. How does this happen? The Christian does not hold to the same world view as the skeptic does. He does not believe that every event must be explained in terms of natural causes. And he may be inclined to point out that one problem of her evidentialist approach is that it is ultimately self-defeating since it refers to itself, and cannot give the sufficient evidence required to sustain itself. So at the heart of the matter is the fact that the theist and the skeptic have different world views. So when the skeptic goes up to the Christian, and demands that he give evidence for his faith, she’s simply assuming that her (evidentialist and naturalistic) world view is true. But the theist denies her principles and it is, therefore, up to her to show that her principles are in fact true, since if they are not true, then she has no right to demand that the Christian follow them. So to break it down further, this is what usually ends up happening:

The skeptic with her commitment to evidentialism and naturalism says:
Skeptic: You must show me that God exist
The Theist with his own convictions responds:
Theist: No, I deny your principles; therefore, you must instead show me that your world view is true. If it is true, then I must accept it and deliver evidence on your terms.
The skeptic, still assuming her principles are true eventhough they were just challenged says:
Skeptic: No, the burden of proof is on you, you must show me that God exist

This is what usually happens since the skeptic is usually unable/unwilling to see that he has a position that needs to be defended (and if you don’t believe me, then just make note of the fact that my discussion with Libertine has progressed in the very same way as the mock dialogue above). But you see, only if her worldview is true must the theist show her that that God exist and on her own terms. But the theist denies this world view, since it is biased against God from the start. Since the theist denies the principles by which she concludes that he must show her evidence, she must now show that her principles are correct. And it is ironic that the skeptic rarely even bothers to show why she thinks her view is true, and in doing so, she makes herself guilty of the very crime she accuses the Christian of! But it works both ways, since they both bring their differing world views to the table, and since they both deny each other’s world views, they must both show their views to be true. An that is where our discussion now rest. So, how do I plan to show my theism to be true? Like this:

If the above argument is true, then the very tools of reason the skeptic uses testifies against the truth of his world view. And if her anti-theistic world view is false, then the theistic world view is true—case closed, God exist. But if it isn't, then she must show why. In the process, she will be defending her own position.

 

A lot of babble.

Here's the point. We know that nature exists, obviously. We know that causes exist. And as science (and common sense) shows, x-like causes produce x-like results. In other words, natural "results" are the result of natural "causes". This is evident to even the novice thinker.

History has shown that evolution is going on. History has shown that humans are educating themselves through science each and every day. In ancient times all unexplained and mysterious phenomena was attributed to some unknown force (usually a god or monster). The fire on the mountain, the light, the smoke, the rumbling--all caused by a "god". The thunder and lightning, again, "God". All unexplained phenomena become "forbidden" or "mysterious". Cults, superstitions, and even religions were built upon these beliefs.

As time progressed, however, science began to discover that these previously unexplained events could be explained by natural means. Suddenly, once science began to offer theories (both right and wrong), bat around ideas, and EUREKA! most of these "supernatural" explanations dropped out of existence and later became something to joke and laugh about for later generations.

Religious beliefs not only "filled the gaps" with attributing whatever was unexplained with the "supernatural", but also became coercive once the "man behind the curtain" was revealed. Galileo is a perfect example of what happens to those who challenge "in stone" beliefs based on "supernatural mysteries".

The "God" filler has been used since the beginning of time. From the mountain/volcano (proven false), to the clouds (proven false), to outside the earth/sky/space (false), to the universe (none found in the observable universe), to "outside" the universe (???). It seems the ignorance keeps pushing itself back and back and back. Science seems to have evicted "God" from the volcano to some "outer limits" where he is safe--where we cannot go.

The "world view" that JATOM keeps talking about is this. Throughout history the "supernatural" world view has been obliterated by the natural. By reality. By facts. By reason. By the cold hard truth.

Now, we have Christians who believe the sun revolves around the earth (see:Galileo), who believe in evolution, who believe that the Bible isn't inerrant (they acknowledge translation errors), who even believe that the Bible should be taken metaphorically and not literally. In other words, different brands for different people.

Christian apologetics make it easy to defend the Bible by using philosophical arguments and trying to equal the "supernatural" view (for which they've given no reason EVEN EXISTS in the first place) with the naturalistic view (which is obvious).

Jatom can play his semantic games, his philosophy games all he wants, but the point is clear: THE BURDEN OF PROOF is on him. The "Supernaturalist" must give the naturalist AT LEAST SOME REASON to EVEN CONSIDER the supernatural. And using "subjective experience" or I-felt-it-was-God arguments don't make the cut in a real discussion regarding these issues.

Time after time the supernaturalist declared the gap filled by the supernatural. Yet, time after time the naturalist eventually upended that fallacious argument, filled the gap with reality and the supernaturalist had to conform to the truth--even though he still wanted to carry his "mystic baggage" with him, thus the invention of apologetics.

So, Jatom, the ball is in your court. Serve when ready.

 

If you could prove the supernatural, would it still be supernatural?