david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (03/19/84)
[*] As a short introductory, my original request to Tim Stoehr was to provide his overwhelming evidence which demonstrated the non-existence of God. As an aside, I noted that many intelligent men believed in God, and that there must have been *something* that convinced them (I have moved this from net.flame). Tim responds: > What about all the people who believed in God and don't now, such as > myself, what convinced them? This is a very legitimate question, which forms the basis of our discussion: "What evidence is there for the non-existence of God?" Tim proceeds to answer his own question: > In the 25+ years that I have lived, I have witnessed absolutely nothing > that pointed to the existence of God. That, in itself, is rather > convincing to me. Granted I've never seen a black hole either, but > there is evidence that they exist. Where is the evidence that God > exists? Now this is a very legitimate question, one which I will try to address, but I must first object that this is NOT the original question. I have asked for his evidence which shows the non-existence of God, which Tim has told us is (and I quote) "overwhelming." If I may be so bold, the rest of Tim's article is based on the question "What evidence is there *for* God?" (in addition to attacks on Christianity, which are beside the main point). I understand and can respect the position of an honest skeptic (although of course I think he is mistaken). But to accept a position due to non-evidence, and to boldly state *that* as "ovewhelming" evidence against a position, is incorrect (argumentum ad ignorantium). We can't assume a man is a crook if we have no evidence that he *isn't* a crook. We can't assume anything. This is the position of the agnostic (if I understand that term correctly), not the atheist; so perhaps Tim has only misunderstood his own position. > Don't tell me that "2,000 years ago there was..." The details > of what went on 2,000 years ago nobody knows, noone can say that if > Jesus existed, that he lied, or not, about being the son of God. Why drag Christianity into this? Of course, I am as willing as anyone to enter such a debate (and, likely as not, get in over my head). But again I must re-state the original question: to produce the evidence for the *non-existence* of God. Theism vs. Non-Theism can be discussed at great length without discussing Christianity in particular. > Let's > examine something that we know more about, again, I point to the total > lack of real, current evidence, of any kind. And I don't care if on > sunday morning I can turn on the TV and listen to people say they've "talked > to God", etc. Without knowing it, Tim is defining the data requirements to believe in the existence of God. What has been ruled out? a) any historical evidence b) any eyewitness testimony As I see it, about the only thing left is a miracle, and no small one at that. For a philosophy which excludes the supernatural, there are no miracles; they can in the last be explained as an illusion, or an unexplained law of Nature. My only response can be that such a philosophy begs the question. God does not exist because no evidence meets our standards. Our standards are such that God does not exist. >Christianity has survived as a philosophy, it does not depend on the existence > of God. Now I am only a layman, and not as well versed in Christianity as I'd like to be. But from my limited knowledge, my only response to Tim can be one of flat contradiction. As a suggestion, read "Mere Christanity" by C.S. Lewis, or better still, one or two of the gospels (John would do quite nicely). Hopefully these will clarify the misconception that Christianity does not depend on God. Separating the Christian philosophy and the Christian theosophy is the one thing we must not do. Jesus did not leave that option open to us. He did not intend to. > How does one explain that a single Creator exists, while many other > religions on this planet are inconsistent with this, many older than > Christianity. The American Indians had many different beliefs in many > different gods, before the good Christians decided to wipe out > the filthy godless heathens. Simple enough. Christianity is wrong, or the inconsistent religions are wrong (or all of them are wrong, which is the atheist's view). But these inconsistencies are certainly no proof that God doesn't exist. There were many inconsistancies in explanations for our own solar system. They could all be wrong, but the planets would still orbit the sun. And while the statement about the Indians carries some emotional appeal against Christianity, it has little to do with the existence of God. > Many cultures have invented gods to explain the existence of the mountains > and the animals etc. And God created the Earth and life on it?, how is > this attitude different from the ancient false belief that the sun is > a flaming chariot? Both are just simplistic explanations for what > someone couldn't explain. What makes a belief in God different than > someone believing the earth is giant turtle walking around the sun? Here is an interesting idea. It appears that mankind, throughout civilization, has always believed in a god or gods. This, of course, is no proof that God exists, but keep it in mind. Tim's basic idea, as I see it, is that science has sufficiently advanced mankind to the point where we no longer require God as an explanation for Nature. I'll use Tim's example: Long ago (some) people believed the sun was a flaming chariot. Modern science, of course, has shown that the sun is a mixture of hydrogen and helium, fusion and fission, etc. and that the earth orbits the sun via gravity (or, as the physicists would tell us, it travels in a straight line in warped space). So what? Either is simply an explanation of the laws of Nature. Niether can explain to us the Originator of those laws. The belief that these laws were not the product of some Intelligence, I submit, is a greater leap of faith than the Theist's belief that they were. > Why did many Christians violently reject the theory of evolution, even > when we know that evolution happens, if by no more that survival of > the fittest? I will object first that evolution is only a theory, it can never be "proven." As a side note, I happen to believe this theory, and that it does not conflict with the biblical account given in Genesis. I have kept silent on the Great Creationist Debate, as I am relatively ignorant when it comes to such matters. Even so, I must (again) point out that this has very little to do with the existence of the Christian God, and much less a Supreme Being. > Man was created in God's image and God created the universe, right? That is the Judeo-Christian concept of God. There are others. > What a conceited notion, that we are the favored species in the universe, > or at least close to it. People are no more special than any other > animal, except he has the ability to obliterate the rest, and himself > as well. I would also be conceited if I said that the earth is round because I commanded it so. Of course, this is wrong, but the earth is still round. Either the earth is round or it isn't, regardless of the reasons I believe it is so. Additionally, from a Christian viewpoint, there is nothing to suggest that man is the favored species in the universe. The Bible does not contain any information on such matters, and if it is a manual provided by God for the earth, we should not expect it to. Such information would be extraneous. In summary, the only evidence for the non-existence of God produced here is in the form of another question, "Where's the evidence *for* the existence of God?" I find it interesting that the initial roles of offense/defense in this argument were at once reversed, attempting to put not simply Theism but Christianity itself in the dock. This was never intended on my part; the original question could have been addressed outside the scope of Christianity (for a time, at least). I would have enjoyed playing the role of antagonist for a change; and, I suspect, if we could keep to the original proposition, I should find a great number of individuals, Christian and non-Christian, to come to my aid. But if no one else cares to play protagonist, if all are content to play the role of offense, or alternatively, critic (which is a much easier job than defending one's own beliefs), I have tried to provide enough meat to attack. I would not want it said of me that I intellectually cornered anyone. :-) But I will add this for good measure: "The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork." -- Psalm 19:1 Another fellow repeated the psalm, although he may not have known it: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incompehensible universe, forms my idea of God." -- Albert Einstein Lastly, I'll make a few suggestions to those wishing to respond. I had hoped that the discussion would focus on Theism vs. Non-Theism, with the Non-Theists defending their beliefs. This was my original question, and throughout this article I've tried to steer the discussion along these lines. Tim has taken the opportunity to make an attack on Christianity in particular. I am not criticizing him for this; he asks some honest and sincere questions. But that was not the original topic of discussion. In any responses to this article, at least be honest and tell us the basis for your reply. But I had hoped for something different; it would be refreshing to see some support for the existence of God from the point of view of a religion other than Christianity. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
tims@mako.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (03/21/84)
Mr. Norris is incorrect to say that I provided no evidence for the non-existence of God. Lack of evidence of existence plus the classification of the belief in God into the class of simplistic explanations of the unknown is indeed evidence, but is, by no means, proof. If you want absolute proof that God doesn't exist, well, of course, there is none. But if you believe in many things that there is no proof on non-existence, and at the same time there is no real evidence of existence, then perhaps you believe in alot of weird things, besides God. Prove to me that vampires don't exist. Show me proof that flying whales don't exist, you can't, but you don't believe in them either. The universe is full of mysteries, but to just up and say that God created it defies all logic. Anyway, if you assume that God created the universe and life, then you are assuming the existence of an entity far more complex than anything within the universe which that entity had the understanding and the ability to create. The question I then pose to Mr. Norris is, who/what created God?
kechkayl@ecn-ee.UUCP (03/22/84)
#R:ssc-vax:-89600:ecn-ee:18600008:000:821 ecn-ee!kechkayl Mar 22 02:32:00 1984 [Offering to the non-existant line muncher] I think that in any discussions of this sort, the burden of proof must be on the Theists. Non-Thiests simply say that they do not think that god exists because they have no evidence that cannot easily be otherwise explained. If Theists wish us to believe that there is a god, they must give us some proof of this proposition. Sorry, but the following chains of reasoning are not good enough: 1) "I believe in God because the Bible says so." "I believe in the Bible because God says so." 2) "I believe in God because he changed my life." "God changed my life because I believe in Him" Please attempt to give answers that offer logical proof. [ You have 5 minutes . . . Ready, Set, GO! :-) ] Thomas Ruschak pur-ee!kechkayl "Aiee! A toy robot!"
tims@mako.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (03/22/84)
> First of all I personally don't know anyone who once believed in > God but for some reason don't believe now. Did they really believe > in the first place? Did you REALLY believe in the first place? I DID and don't now. I was brought up in a Christian household and like most children, I believed what my parents insisted to be true. However, the time came when I could think for myself, without being bound to childhood beliefs. > And what exactly would it take to convince you of the existence > of God? A world wide cure of all deadly diseases? > A loved one being resurrected? It all depends on the circumstances. If science defeated disease with its means, that would not convince me of God's existence. However, if these diseases just mysteriously vanished, still that doesn't mean there is a God. Now, if someone came along and publicly announced that disease would be cured by God, and it happened, I might be convinced. But the fact remains, nothing ever happens that points to the existence of a God. All the ifs in the world don't change that. Show me some godly intervention, there is none. > Even if all these things were > to happen, you would still not be convinced... You are making an assumption that you know nothing of. But what should I expect from someone who believes in the existence of God? > You say that "if Jesus existed...", as if there is some chance > He didn't. There's quite a bit of chance that he didn't. But that doesn't matter, there are thousands and thousands of people throughout history and today that have claimed to be divine. > But there is evidence that he indeed did exist. I'm > not totally sure but He is referenced in some ancient manuscripts > as the One from Nazareth causing all the comotion... > (ancient manuscripts other then the Bible that is...) > I don't know about Him claiming to be the Son of God, but He > did say that "...I and my Father are One..", which would imply > more then being the Son!!! > The things that went on 2000 yrs ago are documented in the Bible, > not real detail, but nevertheless documented. You actually firmly believe what ancient manuscripts say? Or do you only believe the ones that say what you want to believe, the ones that confirm what you've been taught? There are plenty of ancient, and not so ancient manuscripts, documents, whatever, that are completely inconsistent with the notion of God. But those are different, right? > Arn't millions of people wasting their time if God does not exist? Not really, isn't there a lot of Christian philosophy about how to conduct your life that doesn't directly depend on the existence of God? > The theory of Man evolving from lower forms of life just doesn't > jibe with Scriptures, however, couldn't God have His hand in other > forms of evolution? When Adam and Eve were created, couldn't God > have said: " OK you two, let's see what you can evolve into!"? > And if not for going against the command of God, could have > who knows, evolved into some super intelligent species. > Much speculation could take place in this area. I suppose that could have happened, though I see no reason to believe that it did. > What??? You consider yourself no more special then an alley cat, or > a wombat for that matter? Come on now, I for one put myself well above > every non human animal on this earth. > Didn't God say man should have dominion over the animals? > That's the way it was meant to be, that's the way it should be. > What makes you think otherwise? What makes me think otherwise? Open your eyes, man. Look at the other life forms around you. Take that alley cat you mentioned, for example. You are far more similar to that cat than you are different. Look at its skeleton, its chemical composition, its eyes, its hair, its brain and nervous system, its organs, its behavior they are remarkably similar to those of a human. Sure, you would like to believe that humans have dominion over the rest of the animals, don't you think that could have something to do with the fact that you happen to be a human. People dominate the earth because they have a larger brain, vocal cords to speak with and versatile hands for manipulating objects. This has allow him to develop technology, and technology allows him to dominate the world. People are physically inferior in many ways to many animals. Don't you think it natural for humans to invent the idea that they are above the other species? Man's physiological configuration is just one of the many adaptations that allow survival. Once dinosaurs ruled the earth, where was man's dominion then? Their time is gone, and some day man's will be too, despite any supposed God-given dominion.
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (03/23/84)
Tim Stoehr is asking a very silly question. Who created God? The answer is obvious: Man created god. I think the Book of Genesis got somewhat confused. It starts In the beginning God ......... created man. If you rearrange the first chapter of Genesis to read: "In the beginning Man .... created god ", your problem will be solved. -- Yosi Hoshen Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312)-979-7321 Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
tims@mako.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (03/23/84)
> And, as so many opponents of Christianity do, you're imprisoning yourself > by insisting that God be demonstrable solely to the rational mind. On the contrary, I tend to believe that God is demonstrable solely to the irrational mind. > Still, you have not been looking in the right places for evidence; OK, then you show me the evidence. > Do you believe the histories of, say, the Roman Empire that > were written at that time period? You believe every historical fact on > authority, because someone whom you perceive as reliable has told you so. I believe the basics of this, the details are UNKNOWN. The roman emporers claimed to be divine, and lots of people believed that at the time. Do you? > And finally, why not believe those who say that they have talked > with God, or been miraculously healed by Him... For the same reason that I will not believe the many who claim to have been taken aboard flying saucers.
tims@mako.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (03/23/84)
> It's a very tempting belief, you say, and yet you don't embrace it? Why, > pray tell, is the opposite belief (that there is no God, no life after > death-- or before it for that matter, no hope, no love) more tempting?? You imply that people should believe that which is comforting. Why don't you believe that you will never grow old and feeble? Because this defies rational belief. I won't believe in God just because it comforting. You also say that one doesn't believe in love and hope if one doesn't believe in God. I have plenty of love and hope, but I don't have to look to God for it. If you do, that's your limitation, don't believe that everyone is saddled with it.
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (03/27/84)
> = Ruschak > I think that in any discussions of this sort, the burden of proof > must be on the Theists. Non-Theists simply say that they do not think that > god exists because they have no evidence that cannot easily be otherwise > explained. If Theists wish us to believe that there is a god, they must > give us some proof of this proposition. Sorry, but the following chains of > reasoning are not good enough: > 1) "I believe in God because the Bible says so." > "I believe in the Bible because God says so." > 2) "I believe in God because he changed my life." > "God changed my life because I believe in Him" I believed in God, initially, partially because some things in the Bible clicked and made sense. Since then, God has changed my life because of my relationship to him. I encourage you to read my response to Rich Rosen's "leap of faith" article, which is appropriate to this article also. (You've probably already read it, since I posted it to this group a little while before this article.) I repeat the main point--the way for you to get proof is to try it yourself. -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Have you hugged your junk mail today?
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (03/27/84)
> = Stoehr > Mr. Norris is incorrect to say that I provided no evidence for the > non-existence of God. Lack of evidence of existence plus the > classification of the belief in God into the class of simplistic > explanations of the unknown is indeed evidence, but is, by no > means, proof. Aren't you, in a way, assuming what you're wanting to prove? You have provided no hard evidence that belief in God is a "simplistic explanation of the unknown." > If you want absolute proof that God doesn't exist, well, of course, > there is none. If you want absolute, in the sense of mathematical or physical-science, proof that God does exist, I know of none. Anyway, let me give you some Bible verses to think about, whose truth is being admirably proved: .... For Christ did not send me [the apostle Paul] to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles [non-Jews, in this context], but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. [Here comes the kicker:] For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. [I Corinthians 1:17-25] One can distill from this the same thing I said in my response to Rich Rosen's "leap of faith" article (which I encourage you to read, if you haven't already): You can't really prove God or understand Him without actually trying Him out. > The universe is full of mysteries, but to just up and say that > God created it defies all logic. Oh? Consider how much logic would have been required to set up the universe. Remember that if nothing existed, God would have had to make up, out of His head, all the natural laws that we take for granted. If you were a spirit entity, would you be able to think up, say, the inverse square law, if you had never seen it in operation? > Anyway, if you assume that God created the universe and life, then > you are assuming the existence of an entity far more complex than > anything within the universe which that entity had the understanding > and the ability to create. The question I then pose to Mr. Norris > is, who/what created God? You admit that God as we conceive Him is much more complex than his creation, yet you ask for something even greater and more complex than that? You really are finding every possible excuse to resist God, aren't you? Not only do you refuse to even try believing in God based on all the evidence in favor of His existence (cited in other articles), but you ask us to produce a super-God. Why not simply relax, rest, quit fighting? "Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." [Jesus's words, as recorded in Matthew 11:28-30] Anyway, asking for a level of indirection in Godhood is really just philosophical/theological speculation, which if followed to its logical conclusion wouldn't have a logical conclusion; you would keep asking "who created this nth-level Creator?", for n=1 to infinity, and you would never get any closer to the One than Whom there is no greater--which would suit Satan fine. Which do you prefer to follow--God or Satan? It all comes down to that choice in the end. -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Have you hugged your junk mail today?