Samhain

*Sigh* I honestly can't wait to re-type every argument against the Christian god which has been made, again. I wish these theists would come up with something original, instead of rewording this stuff to make it more cryptic and cause more confusion.

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

Malaclypse the Younger

As always precision dispels equivocation.

Firstly atheism, even strong atheism, is not a knowledge statement, it is a belief statement.

It is also a statement, not about God, but about the word "God"--the atheist merely claims that this word does not appear analytically to reference anything in objective reality. The assumptions necessary to give this word objective meaning are not credible and the conclusions from those assumptions appear at best to be entirely divorced from reality, and at worst so ethically vicious as to cause the humanist to repel in horror.


Another note. Pay attention to this, because it's important:

Temporal causality is not a component of logic.

Did you get that? It's important. I'll say it again.

Temporal causality is not a component of logic.

The idea of causality appears nowhere in the definition of logic. There is absolutely nothing logically contradictory about the denial of causality. It appears--even under modal logic--that at best causality is very useful ontological assumption to explain this particular actual world. But there is nothing in (modal) logic itself to deny that there are possible worlds where uncaused events happen, or where causality is not bound to spacetime.

Non causality is merely contradictory to the assumption of causality. But there is no real need to assume causality; one can conclude it from evidential arguments, in which case it is purely a posteriori (although indirect) and conditional.

WJ

I agree. The point has already been made that (the Religion of) Atheism is logically inconsistent.
Is there anything else to say?

Perhaps the atheist might want to sell some more of their faith?

Hey, this is like a chatroom!

Godless Sodomite

I agree completely. Had I known from the first post that this would end up being yet another attempt to demonstrate the "truth" of xianity, I never would have responded at all. We've all been here before. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is familiar with apologetic arguments and impressed by none of them.

Don't beat the dead horse.

-Jerry

Synaesthesia

Atticus,
If you base your assertion that "everything that exists has a cause" upon a naturalistic paradigm, I can only respond that it is a straw man. Materialists recognize, as do theists, the difficulties created by simplistic notions of causation.

Since it is clear that everyone rejects this premise, you have not demonstrated any logical inconsistency. You have merely pointed out that where the universe comes from is a mystery, and is as much a mystery to theists as it is to naturalists. If you cannot account for where God comes from, you have not accounted for where the universe comes from. Simply defining him as always existing is no more satisfactory as an explanation for the universe as defining the physical world as always having existed.

This failure is NOT logically inconsistent, it is an admission that we are human and that we do not always have the answers.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

WJ

I couldn't agree more. The concept of God is not logically possible; as it should be! And Atheism is logically inconsistent; as it should be!

So much for apriori logic!

sir drinks-a-lot

Atticus Finch: Your first post is wrong in so many ways, it is hard to tell where to begin.

This is not my belief, and not the belief of alot of people who call themselves atheists. But instead of debating definitions I'll accept yours - Atheism: The Belief that there is no God.

Does not follow.

Wrong.

Wrong. I can think of tons of them.

This I will agree with.

This conclusion must be discarded because it was derived from the above statements.

Carry on.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: sir drinks-a-lot ]</p>

MOJO-JOJO

Ahhhhh...but this is the internet--point, click, copy & paste. Just a shame we have to waste time doing it over and over and over and over....

sir drinks-a-lot

Sorry, I missed the whole second page when I did my previous post.

So, I see we have a new proof of god coming to the table. Suggestion: Abandon this thread and start a new one entitled "Proof of God"

Atticus_Finch

First, I was not aware that originality was a requirement for posting a topic. If so, we should all stop posting anything. These topics have been debated in one form or another for thousands of years. I doubt a truly original thought has ever been posted here.

I simply wanted to start by pointing out that atheism, as defined as the belief that there is no god or supernatural, is logically inconsistent where one can not positively state how the universe came to exist. With that establised, we can now move on to what evidence does exist for god.

Second, lets begin the discussion of the proof for the existence of God. I believe I should begin with an admission. The evidence for the existence of god in general, and the Christian god is in particular, is not "beyond a reasonable doubt". I believe it is substantial and persuasive but do not suppose that it defies any challenge. I will not rely on the bible as self-proving, however, the bible is evidence for the existence of god and I will make reference to it as a piece of evidence. This is a point upon which I will elaborate later.

Before I begin my proof, I would like to pose a question to the self-described atheists and agnostics reading this: What proof do you require to believe in god in general and the christian god in particular?

Regards,

Finch