lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (03/05/91)
In article <Feb.27.00.20.35.1991.8705@athos.rutgers.edu> gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >A while back somebody posted that she wondered why Christians could >believe in such superstitious nonsense. [several circular argument modles delted for brevity] >In point of fact, the only person who can be an atheist is God Himself. >To say dogmatically, "There is no God!" requires one to know all things, >to be all places at the same time, and have all power. Thus, you would >have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, i.e., God! Atheism >is a theological absurdity. It is self-refuting. I must agree with you here. Athiests are every bit as dogmatic (and many times much more annoying) than fundamentalists. Which is, of course, why I'm an agnostic. >As for Christianity being a crutch, Christianity is shown to be true >because it does meet all the needs of man. This is a curious statement. Please be aware! I am not attacking you... (some of the rather heated mail I get seems to indicate that any time I don't agree with someone I'm "attacking" them. 8-0 ) How does Christianity "meet the needs" of man any better than, say, Buddhism? Or Islam or Judaism? Or any other realigion or system of beliefs (ie New Age)? It would seem to me that some other religions or systems of belief are equaly as effective at "meeting the needs" of men (or women), if not better, than Christianity. On what do you base idea that Christianity meets these needs? Because it has worked for you? Fine! But it falls should for many other people (ie those of us with skeptical minds...). >Since God created man, He >knows what man needs. Thus, it is only logical to assume that the >religion which the true and living God reveals will meet those needs. >This position actually proves what it set out to refute. It proves that religion (any religion in which the adherants truely belive what they are told) serves a useful function in society. It abates fear of death and the unknown, provides social interaction with like-minded individuals etc... (I'm assuming thesea are some of the things that qualify as "meeting the needs of men"...) It does not, however, in any way "prove" the existence of your god (or any god for that matter). Jeff Lindborg
jeff@ics.uci.edu (Jeff Erickson) (03/05/91)
I don't normally read or post to this group, but someone on alt.atheism pointed here as a place to find examples of flawed arguments against atheism. In case you're wondering, alt.atheism is a great place to find flawed arguments against Christianity. gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: | First is the idea that God cannot exist and therefore does not exist. | The actual form of this is: (P = Premise; C = Conclusion) | P: Since God does not exist, | C: there cannot be any evidence that He does exist. | P: Since there cannot be any evidence for God's existence, | C: all theistic evidences must somehow be false. | P: Since all theistic evidences are false, | C: God does not exist. | It is a circular argument, which are not valid proof for any position. You're right. I have heard many atheists argue against God's existence this way. However, I have also heard Christians use this same argument to "prove" that God DOES exist. A good example of this is the last paragraph of your post. You are presupposing that all atheists reach their conclusions by circular reasoning. That is no more true than the equivalent statements about Christians. | In point of fact, the only person who can be an atheist is God Himself. Hogwash. | To say dogmatically, "There is no God!" requires one to know all things, | to be all places at the same time, and have all power. Thus, you would | have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, i.e., God! Atheism | is a theological absurdity. It is self-refuting. It is also ridiculous. To say dogmatically "There is no God!" only requires that the speaker believe that there is no God. To state correctly that there is no God only requires that there be no God. To know that there is no God only requires that you know that there is no God. Nothing else. Likewise, to say dogmatically "There is a God!" only requires that the speaker believe that there is a God. To state correctly that there is a God only requires the existence of God. To know that there is a God only requires that you know that there is a God. Nothing else. | As for Christianity being a crutch, Christianity is shown to be true | because it does meet all the needs of man(1). Since God(2) created man(3), | He knows what man needs(4). Thus, it is only logical to assume that the | religion which the true and living God reveals(5) will meet those needs(4). | This position actually proves what it set out to refute. (1) You are presupposing that Christianity meets all man's needs. It may very well meet all your needs, but it does not meet all of mine. (2) You are presupposing that God exists. (3) You are presupposing that God created man. (4) You are presupposing that God knows what man needs. This does not logically follow from "God created man". It does logically follow from "God is omniscient," but then THAT is your presupposition. (5) You are presupposing that Christianity was revealed by God. (6) You are presupposing that any religion revealed by God would meet man's needs. Do you have evidence to support these suppositions? To you have evidence to show that your evidence is accurate? And so on? My point is that it is not possible (IMHO) to prove one way or the other whether God exists or doesn't. There are logical arguments and evidence to support both possibilities. At some point, everyone should weigh the evidence on both sides of the issue and decide which way to believe (or decide not to choose). Many people, unfortunately, accept one doctrine or the other blindly. In other words, take the log out of your own eye. -- Jeff Erickson \ Do What Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law. jeff@ics.uci.edu \ Love is the Law, Love under Will. jeff@128.195.1.1 \ There is no Law beyond Do What Thou Wilt. \ -- Crowley, et al.
rab7166@venus.tamu.edu (BAKER, RICHARD ALAN) (03/05/91)
Atheism is proposed to be meaningless because people cann't know everything, but this same argument can be used to say that any belief is meaningless. IE Christians do not know everything therefore they cannot _believe_ that there is only one god. This premise could also be used to dismise all beliefs, but this is kind of silly. The idea that no one can prove the existence of anything is a common philosophical argument. Thus there is no way that someone can say that when they put there hand in fire it will be hot. Even though every time they put there hand in fire before it was hot. Similarly if someone on Earth has never had an experience of a god, has never meet any one who had an experence of a god, and has noticed that the most religious people of his acquaintance do not believe in modern day miracles, this does _not_ mean that tommorrow this same person might not bump into the the good old neighborhood god, but there is A LOT of evidence that supports otherwise. I do not put my hand in fire; I do not put my faith in ghost, gods, demons, devils, spirits, ghouls, dragons, flying cows, or any other entity that has no evidence of existence or logical mecanism for existence. Thanks -db
bobb@vice.ico.tek.com (Bob Beauchaine) (03/06/91)
In article <Feb.27.00.20.35.1991.8705@athos.rutgers.edu> gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >In point of fact, the only person who can be an atheist is God Himself. >To say dogmatically, "There is no God!" requires one to know all things, >to be all places at the same time, and have all power. Thus, you would >have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, i.e., God! Atheism >is a theological absurdity. It is self-refuting. > Your position would indeed be correct *if* your definition of atheism was accurate. If you were to take a short sojourn in alt.atheism, you would soon see that very few if any atheists subscribe to the tenet that they know for a fact God does not exist. The vast majority opinion of atheists (at least on alt.atheism) is that given the available evidence, there is absolutely no reason to believe that God exists. It's the same situation as you proposing the existence of pink unicorns. I could in no way prove that they did not exist (proof of non-existence is quite impossible), yet my inability to prove you wrong would in no way lend credibility to your claim. Dogmatic atheism is a theological absurdity. I think you will find that there are very few dogmatic atheists, though. >As for Christianity being a crutch, Christianity is shown to be true >because it does meet all the needs of man. Since God created man, He >knows what man needs. Thus, it is only logical to assume that the >religion which the true and living God reveals will meet those needs. >This position actually proves what it set out to refute. > Sorry, but hardly an iron clad proof of the existence of God. Again, as you said above, you are begging the question. If God did indeed create man, than the above *might* be true. But then, that's the question we're asking, isn't it? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM ...And malt does more than Milton can to justify God's ways to man. - A.E.Housman
salem@racquel.sri.com (Bruce B. Salem) (03/07/91)
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >In article <Feb.27.00.20.35.1991.8705@athos.rutgers.edu> gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >>A while back somebody posted that she wondered why Christians could >>believe in such superstitious nonsense. >[several circular argument modles delted for brevity] >>In point of fact, the only person who can be an atheist is God Himself. >>To say dogmatically, "There is no God!" requires one to know all things, >>to be all places at the same time, and have all power. Thus, you would >>have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, i.e., God! Atheism >>is a theological absurdity. It is self-refuting. A cleaver argument, indeed! Only God can have Absolute Knowledge. >I must agree with you here. Athiests are every bit as dogmatic (and many >times much more annoying) than fundamentalists. Which is, of course, why >I'm an agnostic. The Atheist says that he KNOWS God doesn't exist. In arguing with Theists an Atheist is falling into the same trap of having Absolute Knowledge as some Theists. [My use of caps is intentional.] The Agnostic says that he doesn't know if God exists. He can behave either as if God does or does not exist. I have heard that there is an additional school of thought which holds that the question "Does God Exist?" not only can't be answered, it is meaningless. I lean toward this opinion. I have heard that there is a recognized term for this view. Does anyone know what it is, and please no flippant response? >>As for Christianity being a crutch, Christianity is shown to be true >>because it does meet all the needs of man. > How does Christianity "meet the needs" of man any better than, say, >Buddhism? Or Islam or Judaism? Or any other realigion or system of >beliefs (ie New Age)? It would seem to me that some other religions or >systems of belief are equaly as effective at "meeting the needs" of >men (or women), if not better, than Christianity. On what do you base >idea that Christianity meets these needs? Because it has worked for >you? Fine! But it falls should for many other people (ie those of us >with skeptical minds...). This may relate to the opinion that the question of God's existance is meaningless. Where in the scheme of things does an ad hoc justification of any religion such as "meets the needs of man" fit in? If the justification for religion or God hinges on some self-referential state in people, then can it be distinguished from any other idle thought, fantesy, dream, myth, or prejudice of Man? It seems to me that nay self-respecting Theist would have to do better than the above as a justification for God or religion. Bruce Salem
henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl resort Henning) (03/08/91)
BAKER, RICHARD ALAN writes: > ... The idea that no one can prove the existence of >anything is a common philosophical argument. >Thus there is no way that someone can say that when they put there hand in >fire it will be hot. Even though every time they put there hand in fire before >it was hot. Experience cautions me from sticking my hand too near a lit gas-burner; yet experience also informs me that one can put out a candle flame with one's fingers (carefully) without serious pain, and that my finger can remain within a sterno-flame for even somewhat longer without burning. I might never have found this out, had I stuck devoutly to the canon my mother taught me when I was young. Coals which appear to have burned down to ash, and no longer flame, can nonetheless burn; and steam can scald (the injury sustained is still, technically, a "burn"). "Fire burns" and "burning hurts" are useful starting-points, but they don't tell the whole story. My mother wasn't wrong, she merely simplified for the sake of safety. This served a useful purpose. This is all within verifiable experience (kids, you can try this at home -- but I'm not responsible :-) Heaven and god, e.g., are neither within verifiable experience, nor (IMHO) reasonable extrapolations of verifiable experience. They neither compel [my] belief, nor serve [me] a useful purpose. kph -- "The shrewder mobs of America, who dislike having two minds upon a subject, both determine and act upon it drunk; by which means a world of cold and tedious speculation is dispensed with." -- Washington Irving
technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Tech News Account) (03/09/91)
As an atheist I do NOT "believe that god doesn't exist"
nor do I "believe that god does exist"
RATHER, I "do not believe that god does exist"
It's not that I believe in her NON-existence, rather I don't believe in its
EXISTENCE.
There are three possible results one can reach:
1. There is more evidence FOR the existence than AGAINST = BELIEVE TRUE
2. There is more evidence AGAINST the existence than FOR = BELIEVE FALSE
3. There is equal or NO evidence either way= DOES NOT MATTER
The claim that god exists, for me, is like the claim that Centaurs exist:
There is NO evidence FOR the existence of centaurs, and there is NO evidence
AGAINST the existence of centaurs.
Therefore I *DO NOT HOLD THE BELIEF* that "centaurs do exist"
In the same way, I *DO NOT HOLD THE BELIEF* that "god does exist"
There is not enough evidence either way to for a valid conclusion.
This is the way many atheists see it- the question "DOES god exist?" cannot
be answered, since you cannot prove it, or disprove it.
--
Technology News- IIT`s weekly student newspaper. Subscriptions available.
kadokev@iitvax.bitnet technews@iitmax.edu
My employer disagrees.
[This position is normally described as "agnostic". When someone says
they are atheist, most people take them to mean they are convinced
that God does not exist. To quote the Merriam-Webster 3rd Collegiate:
"agnostic: ... of or relating to the belief that the existence of any
ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable." under
atheist: "an ATHEIST is one who denies the existence of God and
rejects all religious faith and practice; an AGNOSTIC withholds belief
because he is unwilling to accept the evidence of revelation and
spiritual experience." --clh]tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (03/09/91)
In article <Mar.8.00.48.48.1991.24674@athos.rutgers.edu> henning@acsu.buffalo.edu (Karl resort Henning) writes: >Heaven and god, e.g., are neither within verifiable experience, nor >(IMHO) reasonable extrapolations of verifiable experience. They >neither compel [my] belief, nor serve [me] a useful purpose. All this talk about proving the existance of God/heaven/faith reminds me of a conversation I had with one of our researchers here a while ago. I have consulted with her a number of times, (my job here involves a great deal of consulting with faculty/researchers), but hadn't seen her for a while. When I saw her on a transit bus I asked her what she was up to and why we hadn't seen her over at the computer center. She said that she had been performing a number of experiments, and that she would be over to see us in a while. I asked about the research she was doing, and found her descriptions fascinating. Seeing my enthusiasm she was kind enough to invite me over to her lab so I could see for myself the setup, and a demonstration so I could better understand her procedures. ("Ultra-Sonic LASER Spectroscopy" I believe was the phrase). You can understand my confusion, what does Ultra-Sonic have to do with LASERs? Trust me, it all makes sense. In a few hours, she showed what she was up to, and in response to my questions explained a lot of theoretical physics which I have read about, but never quite gotten a handle on. When we were done, we stood in the hall talking about the various hierarchies of matter. And as we got small enough, I said "and beyond that lies the realm of black magic", (I was referring to quantum physics). She lauged, and said, "You know, people say to me, 'You're a scientist! how can you believe in God?'. I ask them, 'Do you believe in electrons?' 'Have you ever seen an electron?'" To be honest, noone has seen an electron. We have seen evidence that seems to support the theory that electrons exist. Her reply: "What if I tell you I see evidence of God all around? What if I tell you I can see God in your eyes?" Now, I've played with electricity. I did experiments in school. I never came close to proving the existance of electrons. Basically, a lot of people I trusted _told_ me there were electrons, and I choose to believe them. None of them ever proved the existance of electrons either, some of them had done experiments, the results of which can be partially explained by the existance of "electrons". Now, I can't prove to you that God exists. I can, (like my physicist friend), tell you I have seen evidence that God exists. Much of my thinking about God comes from the fact that a lot of people who I trust told me that there was a God. So, one can say that people faced with a world full of things they don't understand postulate the existance of a diety or dieties in an effort to try to make sense of their surroundings. If I postulate the existance of a diety, and find supporting evidence, is my belief in the diety any more irrational than my belief in electrons? We'll be using the theory that electrons exist up until the time when a better working theory comes along, (and a while after, better working is a matter of opinion), and even if we discard the theory of electrons, we will only discard it for a new theory, (not provable fact only theory). Neuton postulated his theories about gravity, Einstein refined them, now I hear a couple of chaps up at Cornell have found a flaw in relativety, so another refinement may be just down the road. Has reality changed? No, just our theories, based upon our observations and our imaginations in an effort to make sense of reality as we perceive it. I find no evidence in the limited science I know to refute the existance of a diety. There is evidence to suggest that some biblical accounts as we understand them may be in error. Still, even of this, there is no proof. (*Sigh*) but I ramble on... You get the idea. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
boris@monsoon.Berkeley.EDU (Boris Chen) (03/11/91)
In article <Mar.8.22.54.16.1991.20172@athos.rutgers.edu> technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Tech News Account) writes: >The claim that god exists, for me, is like the claim that Centaurs exist: > >There is NO evidence FOR the existence of centaurs, and there is NO evidence >AGAINST the existence of centaurs. > >Therefore I *DO NOT HOLD THE BELIEF* that "centaurs do exist" > >In the same way, I *DO NOT HOLD THE BELIEF* that "god does exist" > > >[This position is normally described as "agnostic". When someone says >they are atheist, most people take them to mean they are convinced >that God does not exist. To quote the Merriam-Webster 3rd Collegiate: >[deleted for brevity] >spiritual experience." --clh] Generally, Atheists go by what is called Occam's Razor, where you only believe in what there is reason to believe in, and not in what may possible exist. Of course, in this case, the person does not believe there to be evidence that supports the existence of God, and in fact, to them, to accept the existence of God is equivalent to the acceptance of undetectable creatures living in the closet. Thus, though most people can't prove that there are undetectable creatures living in the closet, they generally do not believe that undetectable magical creatures live in the closet -- to the point of denying their (UMC's) existence. Occam's Razor is of itself a necessary a priori principle, yet I do not think it is applicable in the case of God, since I believe that there is evidence of His existence. +==================================================================+ + Boris Chen || Berkeley, CA || boris@ocf.berkeley.edu + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + "And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares, and... + + neither will they learn war anymore." ---Micah 4:3 + +==================================================================+