camerontigris

Found this charming bit of work on a Christian website giving a step-by-step method for refuting atheism. Flawed, to be sure...but this one is pretty slick. Care to pick this one apart???


1. I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God.

That does not mean there is no God. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports his existence.

Therefore, it is possible that God exists.
If it is possible, then faith has its place.
If it is possible that God exists, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that God may exist but no proof can be had for His existence.)

2. It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God.

But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence. Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism.

3. Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable?

If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state that there is no evidence for God.

If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it?
Does Christianity fit within that criteria? If not, why not?

4. Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable?

Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic?

For example: Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory? Even if that did happen, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know?

Does your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not realistic?
Do you want him to make square circles, or some other self-contradictory phenomena or make a rock so big He cannot pick it up? If God exists, He has created the laws of logic. He, then, cannot violate those laws.

5. Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented?

Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can?

But, do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur?

If so, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence.
If so, then God becomes unknowable to you and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position.

Do you define the miraculous out of existence? If so, on what basis do you do this?

If you assume that science can explain all phenomena then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof. If you made that assumption, it is, after all, only an assumption.



DOH ***yer right after all*** Amen! Hallelujiah!! :notworthy

Philosoft

This is also known as "The Proof for any Bloody Thing Your Feeble Mind Can Imagine."

Or at least it should be.

Silent Dave

1 & 2. Using this logic, the theist would have to admit that it is possible that evidence for the nonexistence of God exists. Why, then, is the Christian unwilling to become an agnostic?

3. I don't have a huge problem with that, and neither do most atheists. I wonder what evidence for atheism the Christian would consider acceptable. If the Christian says "none," as he almost certainly will, then he is a hypocrite.

4. The atheist can simply respond, "If it ever actually happens -- God appears to me in a manner that no reasonable person could doubt, and I dismiss it as a hallucination or somesuch -- you can say 'I told you so.' Until then, you simply have to take my word that I would find such evidence compelling, or further discussion is pointless. That is, unless you have a presupposition that the miraculous cannot occur . . .?"

Additionally, if God is construed as having created the laws of logic, then the Christian concedes the truth of atheism even as he argues against it, since any act of communication presupposes the necessary (i.e. non-contingent) truth of the laws of logic.

5. Atheists don't rule out the possibility of the miraculous. Rather, they judge all miracle claims by the same empirical standards by which Christians judge miracle claims from non-Christian sources.

I feel sorry for the would-be apologists who take that list seriously. It might work on the uninformed atheist, but the first time he tries it on a halfway-educated atheist, his evangelistic dreams shall be dashed upon the rocks. That is, until a better-sounding but equally inane how-to-refute-atheism website comes along.

Feel free to send this along to the site's author.


Dave

diana

I have a simple answer, I think, to all that hogwash.

I don't think theism or atheism can be supported with evidence. One is a statement of belief and the other is a statement of lack of belief. Belief (or lack of belief) is not contingent upon evidence. Only knowledge is, and we don't know if there's a god. That makes us all agnostic, as gnosticism speaks of knowledge.

Furthermore, Xnty is based upon their lack of knowledge. They call it "faith."

To argue for or against belief with supposed evidence is to forget that belief and evidence mix like oil and water.

d

camerontigris

My apologies all...I didn't include a link with the original post. So here it is:

http://www.carm.org/atheism/noevidence.htm

There are also some "straw man" dialogues copied from IM between a theist and a supposed atheist. Naturally the atheist wasn't very good, got caught up using the theist's "logic," and quickly found himself in a bind. Interesting stuff, but I agree with d who points out the evidence is not part of the theist equation. No wonder these kinds of discussion keep going in circles! :banghead:

Unusual Suspect

I would simply add that most of the examples that theists use as evidence <B>for</b>god have perfectly rational explanations that don't depend on faith, ie, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

Catana

Silent Dave

Yeah, I'd be shocked as hell if Matt Slick ever agreed to a fair fight.


Dave

diana

Theists shoot themselves in the collective foot if they produce actual evidence of God, as evidence precludes faith, which by biblical definition, is based upon hope and nothing else.

However, all of the "perfectly rational explanations" I've seen produced as evidence of God only turn out to be evidence of themselves.

A very simplistic example is the "Just look around you! All of this couldn't have just evolved!" argument (which in its more complex forms involve discussions of the statistics of biology/chemistry/physics). In the end, all everything around me is evidence of is itself.

d

Daggah

The entire list starts off with a straw man (assuming atheism = belief that that there are no gods.) These apologetics are typical; i.e., they're not very good at all.

anime

I'm a Christian, but I am not at all a fan of Matt Slick.

I did a spoof of one of his pages here.