Philosoft

How very bait-and-switchy of you. The statements made by the Greeks are all the positive evidence that exists for Zeus. Falsifying those statements is the absolute limit of evidence for Zeus' non-existence. What you are asking is that we falsify statements about Zeus that haven't even been made. Insulting indeed.

<strong> It's probably asking too much, but you really ought to stop using the words 'proof' and 'prove' in this context.

<strong> Please be consistent. Is observation of the top of Mt. Olympus good evidence for Zeus' non-existence or not?

<strong> You seem to be asking for a natural proof of an entity with only supernatural properties. This is meaningless and it will not be logically possible to do so no matter how many ways you ask. I don't know what you are trying to accomplish but you have earned a pyrrhic victory at best.

I'm glad you only asked for evidence for George Washington's existence because there's tons of that around. Now, if you somehow think we should be able to prove George Washington existed, I'm going to have to logically bitch-slap you again.

faded_Glory

agapeo,

I have no idea where you want to drag this discussion to. Theists claim that god(s) exist. That is a positive claim. Where is the proof? You don't have any? Fine with me. You still want to believe in them? Fine with me too. What's your problem??

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

fG

agapeo

[I'm glad you only asked for evidence for George Washington's existence because there's tons of that around. Now, if you somehow think we should be able to prove George Washington existed, I'm going to have to logically bitch-slap you again.]

"bitch-slap" That's rich. Sounds kinda kinky. I might like it. So, does your evidence consist of artifacts and/or the testimony of others?

Philosoft

Either. Both. Take your pick. Where are you going with this?

agapeo

[Either. Both. Take your pick. Where are you going with this?]

Let's go with the testimony of others. You first, I'd like to see where you're going with it.

Philosoft

Sorry dude, I'm not going anywhere with it. This discussion has nothing to do with the historicity of George Washington. I suppose you are trying to equate the testimonial evidence of GW with the testimonial evidence for Jeezus or something. Suffice to say these are not analagous, for reasons that have been hashed and rehashed on this very board.

Andrew_theist

Well there was a fella about two thousand years ago who claimed to be God…

No. Considering Christ never put a pen to paper was born in a small village in a harsh backward time with no mass communications. Yet he is arguably the best known man in history.

From God’s perspective it could be more our failure to believe than God’s failure to reveal. Also as believers in Christ we should be exemplifying Him in action and indeed (not just running out the mouth). One reason is many believers have a ‘lack of belief’ so you could call them weak atheists.

Agreed my experience would be subjective. However there is a cumulative factor to consider. Not only my experience but thousands of others and the other things I brought out in the debate. I don’t know if God is selective. Have you assumed the existence of God and asked for confirmation in some way? Have you attempted to chat with God as if he was there as an act of faith?

You seem like an open-minded fellow without an axe to grind. Study it like you might anything else. There are loads of debates. Here is a link on the topic.
<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9604/articles/girard.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9604/articles/girard.html</a>

No, that is not the default position for folks like Max or Michael. They are uncomfortable leaving it uncertain and deduce naturalism in lieu of any evidence.

In the market place of philosophies you have two major products being advanced. Neither of them comes with ironclad guarantees. Theism is the only philosophy that attempts to answer the questions why are we here? Are we here by plan or accident? Why is there something rather than nothing? Naturalism doesn’t really attempt to answer such questions. If some natural process created the universe we are no closer to knowing the above questions. This only pushes the envelope back further. Theism proposes a resolution by invoking an uncreated creator, which is the ultimate cause and requires no explanation. It removes the surprise that we should find ourselves in a universe uniquely designed to accommodate sentient beings. It removes the surprise that most of us feel that humans are of special value and therefore provides a basis for condemning acts of dictators or commissars and even common criminals. It informs of that we are here on purpose and not just the fortuitous recipients of apparent design. This is what I meant by theism providing an understanding of the world that naturalism can’t or doesn’t attempt to. In the long run naturalism is a closed system. The only answer it can produce right or wrong is some naturalist explanation. It intrinsically invokes an endless recession of events.

Being realistic I don’t deny that theism has its difficulties as well. Which is the real God? Did God create this place and us and leave the scene? Has God communicated with us? If God is good why is there suffering?

If you decide that God is the most likely answer then you have other decisions to make. If it got to that point I would be happy to share my conclusions.

I read the best atheism has to offer and nothing has come close to ‘robbing’ my beliefs. My website is open to any and all who would like to convince me my notion of theism is crackpot. What I find most often is their own thoughts are rarely critically examined. In your case I don’t think you have an axe to grind. If scientists were to declare in cosmology or biological systems that are now deemed apparent design is actual design would that tilt the argument far enough in favor of theism?

lpetrich

First, I'm disappointed that Andrew has responded to neither me nor MadMax.

Christ the myth, maybe, but not whatever real person might have been behind it, if any at all.

A hollow attempt at exculpation. A being that chooses not to make Itself very apparent ought not to complain about skepticism about its existence. Especially some supposed omnipotent being who never bothers to set people straight when they push false beliefs about It.

False dichotomy. There are legions of possibilities.

The cause of your existence is your two (human) parents -- unless you had popped into existence from thin air.

Which implies that there exists some entity whose existence is unaccounted for. Which could always be the physical Universe. And what kind of entity would that argument demonstrate? It could demonstrate the existence of Tootchko the Magnificent, who creates Universes just for the hell of it.

A Universe-creator need have no special interest in humanity. And only an extremely tiny fraction of the Universe is readily accessible to us. Try surviving in outer space some time and you will see what you mean. Or exploring the interior of the Earth or the Sun.

However, that need not stop us from caring about ourselves and wanting to punish wickedness.

Let's say that our existence was brought about by genetic engineering performed by some extraterrestrial visitors. Our existence would then have whatever purpose they had in mind, which could be our entertainment value for them. Imagine them sitting in their spaceships disguised as asteroids in some distant part of the Solar System and them watching our antics as relayed by spy stations.

madmax2976

Andrew is confusing the issues here. His original claim concerned the actions of what Jesus supposedly did 2000 years ago. Now he attempts sneak in what devoted followers of Christianity have done over the many centuries after his death and attribute the cause of the "fame" to the man himself. He is ignoring the fact that outside the writings of a few devoted followers, contemporaneous writers were largely oblivious to this supposed miracle worker/saviour.

But of course. Leave precious little evidence of yourself and when your creations fail to be convinced by the arguments that are given, blame them for their disblief. Convenient.

Here Andrew conveniently ignores the fact the a great many of the experiences of others flatly contradict his own beliefs. Thus I'd bet there are many claimed "experiences" of others which he would readily discount. Once he figures out why he would discount their claimed experiences, perhaps he'll understand why we likewise discount his. (Of course accepting personal experience as evidence, particularly for extraordinary claims, is a path with a very slippery slope.)

I suggest you attempt to "chat" with Odin or Zeus as an act of faith because - hey - you never know. If you have enough faith, you might just believe they really do exist. If you don't, then obviously you didn't have enough faith.

This is getting to be such an old and tiresome a claim by Andrew I getting to the point where I'm going to outright label him dishonest. The evidence in favor of naturalism is overwhelming. It is Andrew and his ilk that insist on jumping to conclusions in the face of mystery's. Naturalists realize that a mystery is just that - a mystery. Based on the evidence in favor of naturalism and the complete failure of supernaturalism, many will logically assume that naturalistic answers will be found regarding some phenomena which we do not currently understand. This is completely reasonable. Others may simply admit they don't know and move on. This is also reasonable. It is theists like Andrew that illogically flail against the evidence in front of them, grasping on to the "gaps" and jumping to conclusions.

Flat out false. Naturalism and theism are hardly the only two "products" in the market place of philosophies.

On the contrary, using naturalism as a basis, we are more likely to arrive at answers to such questions since we are more likely to actually achieve understanding of the world than if we resort to supernatural explanations. Andrew continually confuses his ability to speculate with his ability to actually answer the questions he poses.

Yes, it speculates in the face of the unexplained and assumes its speculation is actually true without actual evidence to support it other than pointing out that the phenomena is unexplained.

Yes, its quite a surprise that the physical constants of the universe would help to produce organisms which are actually compatible with those constants.

Ah here it is. The ageless propensity of the human ego to inflate itself. Humans don't just have meaning and purpose here on earth to each other - they have cosmic meaning and purpose. Human arrogance knows no bounds I suppose.

I'll just note that atheists have at least as good a basis if not a better one for doing the same things.

Grossly misleading. It does not "inform" you of any such thing. I suspect what it does do is allow you to engage in speculation and leap to the conclusions you wanted to be true all along.

The problem is that theism does not provide understanding at all, so this is a false claim. If it provided real understanding then it would actually be able to explain the phenomean and support the explanation with evidence. At best what theism does is engage in conjecture and then leap to the conclusion that its conjecture is the actual truth, perhaps due to the emotional appeal of the conclusion.

Of course the "difficulties" are even more fundamental than these.

"Crackpot" is a subjective term. Theism simply doesn't have the evidence to support it. It even has a large amount of evidence against it, depending on the type of theism in question.

No, because unlike theists, scientists don't simply "declare" something to be true. Scientists actually attempt to demonstrate that something is true, and if unable to do so, they wait for further evidence before publishing actual conclusions. If scientists could actually obtain evidence that the world was "intelligently designed" that would "tilt" the argument in favor of theism. Unfortunately for theism, this hypothetical evidence hasn't materialized yet.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

Vorkosigan

No, that is not the default position for folks like Max or Michael. They are uncomfortable leaving it uncertain and deduce naturalism in lieu of any evidence.

Yes, Andrew, I am so clever I thought of naturalism all by myself. I never even read a word of the last 500 years of western science and philosophy, and my bookshelf is full of cookbooks, picture dictionaries, and highway maps.

In the market place of philosophies you have two major products being advanced.

Confucianism, Buddhism, New Age, Mysticism...how many times, Andrew, will it take before it sinks in that you sound like a raving ethnocentric?

Theism is the only philosophy that attempts to answer the questions why are we here? Are we here by plan or accident? Why is there something rather than nothing?

Here on planet earth, many different philosophies, including naturalism, think about questions like this all the time.

There is no such thing as "the philosophy of theism." There are only specific theisms, Christianity, Islam, Folk Taoism, Kikuyu religion, Hinduism....

Naturalism doesn’t really attempt to answer such questions.

Right. Certainly no naturalist has ever attempted to answer whether we are here by plan or by accident.

If some natural process created the universe we are no closer to knowing the above questions.

If natural processes created the universe, then you'd have your answers, wouldn't you?

This only pushes the envelope back further. Theism proposes a resolution by invoking an uncreated creator, which is the ultimate cause and requires no explanation.

Huh? There are many different versions of the creation of the gods as there are of theisms. Many ancient peoples thought the existence of gods required some explanation. The Voluspa, one of the old norse poems, says that the gods were born after a period of primeval chaos. And that's just one example. If course, in the Greek religion mother earth produced Uranus....

But who cares about details? They are all theisms, and far superior in explanatory power than naturalism, at least according to Andrew.

Stop spouting, and start reading. Doesn't your bookshelf even contain a single "Introduction to World Religions" or something similar?

It removes the surprise that we should find ourselves in a universe uniquely designed to accommodate sentient beings.

Yes, I agree that a universe designed for intelligent beings, with 99% of it useless to them, is certainly a unique design approach. Surprising, even.

I for one am not suprised to find myself suited for a universe I evolved for.

Please demonstrate that the universe is designed for intelligent beings, Andrew.

It removes the surprise that most of us feel that humans are of special value and therefore provides a basis for condemning acts of dictators or commissars and even common criminals.

One needs to be a theist to condemn evil? Damn, were those Buddhists and Confucians confused about things. Billions of people, unaware that they were on shaky ground in opposing evil. Amazing how they erected societies that were better-run than any in Europe until the late 18th century.

Andrew, I'm going to be charitable and assume that you are simply ignorant, and not a raving ethnocentric idiot. I suggest, as a mental exercise, whenever you want to make one of your patented fatuous generalizations, think about whether it applies to religions outside of your own.

It informs of that we are here on purpose and not just the fortuitous recipients of apparent design.

I am here on purpose. My parents wanted a child.

This is what I meant by theism providing an understanding of the world that naturalism can’t or doesn’t attempt to.

You're argument seems to be that you are unhappy and uncomfortable being an evolved creature, so therefore theism -- any theism -- beats naturalism. Scintillating.

In the long run naturalism is a closed system. The only answer it can produce right or wrong is some naturalist explanation. It intrinsically invokes an endless recession of events.

So does theism. Who created god?

For Christ's sake, Andrew, will you go read some books?

Michael