HRG

Moving the goalposts ? You started by asserting that it is illogical to assume uncaused phenomena. Next you excused your God from the requirement of being caused. Now we have arrived that it is "illogical to deny a possible cause when you cannot positively assert etc."

So you won't deny my cat as a possible cause for the universe, since you cannot positively assert that it was your God ?

This thread becomes rapidly an excellent case study for apologetic evasions.

HRG.

WJ

Finch!

If you're still out there, job well done! We got the Religious Atheist's selling their wares [beliefs] again! We've proved our point!!!

Logically inconsistent!


Walrus

Oolon Colluphid

Sorry, coming a bit late to this, and have skimmed as best I can, don't think this has been covered but....

I thought we all agreed that some sort of god is a logical possibility. Enough already, done, agreed.

So AF, get on with it. Please define this god that we are supposed to believe in or not.

TTFN, Oolon Colluphid

sidewinder

You're joking, right? He didn't answer most of the objections to his original and subsequent posts. His excuse is that he doesn't have time because of his work, which is fair enough. However, he thinks by not answering objections to his posts, that he somehow has proven his position. What a joke. I didn't see any atheists on here selling any beliefs. They engaged Finch in debate and he basically dropped out. I didn't hear any atheist say "don't believe in a god or you'll burn in hell."

Atticus_Finch

One final response and I will start a new string entitled "Proof of the existence of God".

Most of the criticisms of my posts misunderstand the basic premise. That is not a criticism of you who criticized, so let me attempt to clarify.

I did not attempt to make any positive statement about the logical consistency of belief in god. Therefore, I did not respond to the posts which addressed that issue. I asserted, and still assert, a very limited point. That is, atheism, as defined by me, denies the existence of god or the supernatural. (I know a number of you state that atheist only deny that there is proof of god, etc. I think that is more properly defined as agnosticism but it is not my job to give you a name). I choose a definition simply for the purpose of making sure we were all talking about the same thing.

My limited point was that if you don't know how the universe came to exist or that it has always existed then it is logically inconsistent to deny one possible explanation for its existence. I do not assert that this rules out other possible explanations or a preference for others. One can speculate that the universe was created by the collision of two universes or that it has always existed but I am aware of no proof for either proposition. You can say "We don't know that yet" but that should not rule out the possible existence of god as the first cause.

I have been accused of excepting God's eternal existence from my own logical argument. Read my posts carefully and in context and you will see that the logical argument related only to the internal logic of atheism. Since I do not accept the proposition that all phenonmenon must have a material, non-supernatural explantion it is not internally illogical for me to believe in God.

Finally, although there were few serious answers to my question regarding what it would take for you to believe in god, I did give much thought overnight to the question of what would cause me to abandon belief. I am a Christian. The fundamental basis for my belief is the life, claims, death and resurrection of Christ. If that were shown to be untrue then I would have a serious problem with my Christian faith.

Regards,

Finch

MOJO-JOJO

Literally volumes of good, logical, cogent essays and research in the SecWeb library. Anyone got a ready-made set of links where he can begin?

Just promise us that after reading and digesting the evidence and possibilities asserted, you won't retreat to a position of blind, loyal ignorance like our friend Kurt Wise here;

<a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html" target="_blank">Sadly, An Honest Creationist</a>

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: MOJO-JOJO ]</p>

MadMordigan

That is, atheism, as defined by me, denies the existence of god or the supernatural. (I know a number of you state that atheist only deny that there is proof of god, etc. I think that is more properly defined as agnosticism but it is not my job to give you a name). I choose a definition simply for the purpose of making sure we were all talking about the same thing.

It may not be you job to give us a name. But it is your job to argue against the views we actually hold, not the ones you imagine us to hold. Someone with more of a brain than I can come up with the name of this fallacy for you.

sidewinder

I, for one, am tired of debating definitions. It appears there will be no agreement on this. I would not deny that one possible cause for matter is a divine, eternal being. If this was proposed, I would ask, what is the evidence that this being is the actual cause of matter. Further, you admit that there are other possibilities. With these, I would ask, what is the evidence for these possibilities. I would grant that the most likely possibility is the one that is proven with evidence. This would be my preference, and not because I want it to be my preference, but it's the one that is proven most likely by the current evidence available. Just because you are apparently not aware of other possibilities, does not mean that they don't exist and that they are not more likely to be true than your position. Have you ever researched the other possibilities? If not, how do you know that your position is correct?

What do you mean you'd have a serious problem? I should think you'd have to renounce it completely since you claim to live by truth. I would suggest checking out the Sec Web library for some different viewpoints on those "claims of Christ."

Mageth

The fundamental basis for my belief is the life, claims, death and resurrection of Christ. If that were shown to be untrue then I would have a serious problem with my Christian faith.

Do you think it's true or that it's possible or probable that it's true? I think one should approach the story of the ressurection similarly to the "creation" of the universe.

That's the way I approached it when I was a theist. Looking at the story of the ressurection closely, I came to the conclusion that there are other explanations for what's recorded in the bible that are equally or, in some cases, more probable (e.g. fabricated/embellished by the writers - we know people embellish and fabricate) than that Jesus was God, ressurected from the dead, etc.

So, like "creation," one can only define "possible" explanations to the ressurection story, due to insufficient evidence.

DarkBronzePlant

I disagree with the suggestion that AF is a troll. WJ, on the other hand...

Okay, AF, you've kind of answered what it would take to dispell your beliefs, although you were a bit vague. Anyhow, to try to answer your question, it would go something like this: I don't believe in god because there is zero credible evidence for his existence. And there is overwhelming evidence for his non-existence. And the reason that I even care to discuss and debate is because we live in a society where religion plays such a strong role, even for those who are not religious at all, and I think that sucks.

That being said, I am not wedded to the idea that no god exists. By that, I mean I would not fight tool and nail to not believe in god if the evidence overwhelmingly proved to me that god did indeed exist. I have no vested interest to do so. Quite the contrary; if available evidence satisfied me that god did exist, it would behoov me to then live my life as a good Xtian.

So what would that take? Well, it would probably take two categories of things to happen. One, I'd have to start seeing "miracles". I mean, the people in bible stories got to see all of these fantastic, super-natural things happen, why don't we? And I am talking things that without a doubt defy anything we can conceive about science, physics, etc... Not just wierd coincidences, or "beating the odds" type of stories. Two--and this would probably be the hardest one to overcome--there would have to be no other explanation than the Christian god. Because, unlike some people I know, I am not content to say "I don't get it, therefore the most popular god did it."

The problem I see here is that the Christian god is just not designed to provide this type of proof. On the contrary, said god was designed to be mysterious, to not really show himself but to a select few, until after death, when it is "too late." So even if I would start seeing miracles occur all around me, suddenly it wouldn't look very much like the Christian god anymore.

Anyhow, that's an honest attempt, at least, to answer your question, since you attempted to answer mine.