copernicus

Synaesthesia, this is one of my favorite themes as well. The difference between atheism and theism is that atheists reject all gods, whereas theists reject all gods but their own. Lack of belief is by no means restricted to atheists. So the plausibility that some god or gods exist must be measured against the plausibility that other gods exist. Given all the proposed gods throughout human history, it is highly improbable that any particular god(s) exist. This is not an absolute proof that god(s) don't exist. It is merely an argument that they are highly implausible. And that is what most of our beliefs are based on--plausibility, not absolute certainty. One can deny the existence of god(s) on the grounds of implausibility, just as one denies the existence of other implausible imaginary beings--Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Old Man Winter, and so on.

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: copernicus ]</p>

Blinn

Just skimmed through these posts and it seemed that Brainboy was having a little difficulty explaining "Satanism." I'll help him out a little here, not that I know anything about it, but there is a fairly objective website that does a good job of explaining many religions.

Here's the section on <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanism.htm" target="_blank">Satanism</a>

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]</p>

Vic

One may also ask the question why atheists believe in the Big Bang when no one was there to record it? In the end it becomes a matter of faith and belief. You may well say that because the Uniserse is expanding there must have been a time when all matter was compressed to almost nothing. That is a belief. Theists believe in a God (I like to call it "the force" a la Star Trek) that sat on that matter to compress it. If one goes further back with questions the atheist will ask "who created God?" and the theist will reply "He was always there". But the theist can ask "where did this compressed matter come from?" and will get the reply "why, it was always there". So a circular argument is created which will lead nowhere. Logically though, I think it takes just as much faith in believing that matter was there all the time (how did it come into existence) as in a creator (at what period of his life did he start the creation?)

oriecat

Does George Lucas know about this?!

DaveJes1979

Any first-year philosophy student should laugh their head off at the claim that "there is no God...period" that is supported by a genetic fallacy (criticizing a belief based on its historical origin). This fallacy aside, the demand for proof for a UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE proposition like that is a tall order. How do you intend on demonstrating that there is no God? What if God simply lies outside of your knowledge or experience? You are going to have to deal with these sorts of issues before you make the callous and mindless claim that no God exists.

I would also criticize the historical proof that was given at the beginning of this thread. Christianity traces its roots to long before there was a church that had a power. It traces its roots to ancient Judaism. The Christian church itself was not a power at all in the early centuries of existence. It was persecuted in the Roman Empire until Constantine, in the 4th century. Of course, there were times in history (towards the middle ages) where the church DID abuse its power, but that in no way serves as a disproof of Christianity or of God, since this was certainly not a consistent expression of the Christian worldview. These sorts of considerations make me think that the author of this thread simply did not think through his superficial, emotionally-driven argument with any amount of criticality.

Not only this, but the author completely ignored the arguments that have been advanced in favor of God's existence. How can one even pretend to deny God's existence so dogmatically without even addressing them?? If one wishes to deny God's existence, one has to meet the transcendental challenge that Christians have laid on the table. That is, how can an atheistic worldview account for knowledge at all? Either science, morality, logic, or otherwise? How can you even justify attaching a subject and predicate? The Christian worldview has a foundation to account for these things, as God Himself is Truth and logical (thus providing a foundation for logic), has ordered the universe in His providence (allowing science), and Himself is Good and has issued forth moral decrees (thus justifying moral norms).

We, as Christians, have eagerly awaited a cogent reply to these sort of questions. I believe we will always continue to.

Dave Gadbois

Datheron

DaveJes1979,

**Presuppositionism alert**

Alright. Then show me that there was no "God killer" that killed "God" (in all three Christian varieties, if you will) a long time ago.

Or, in other words, the One True Christian (tm) fallacy. While it's true that one cannot derive Christian doctrine appropriately from corrupt Christians, one also has to notice that the Christian doctrine has changed, perhaps "evolved" over the years. Hence the thousands of denominations that exist. Gives some food for thought, hm?

Ah, there's the presuppositionist appeal. Instead of repeating what has already been discussed to death on this board, though, why don't you go back a bit and look for those threads that address that issue?

Or, if you want, think about this dilemma. I have here in front of me a plate of teriyaki chicken. I claim that it is the truth, the way to salvation, the creator of the Universe and God, and is contingent to everything that exists. By definition, then, God is a phony, his omni-x a sham, and therefore unreliable as the source of your knowledge. By definition, my teriyaki chicken is the source of all knowledge. Show me that you can have any knowledge whatsoever.

DaveJes1979

datheron: Alright. Then show me that there was no "God killer" that killed "God" (in all three Christian varieties, if you will) a long time ago.

Dave: such a statement is simply self-refuting nonsense, though. God is, by defenition, life, and is, by nature, eternal, omnipotent, etc. etc. "Death" or "killed" have literally no meaning in reference to God like this.


datheron: Or, in other words, the One True Christian (tm) fallacy. While it's true that one cannot derive Christian doctrine appropriately from corrupt Christians, one also has to notice that the Christian doctrine has changed, perhaps "evolved" over the years. Hence the thousands of denominations that exist. Gives some food for thought, hm?

Dave: I am saying that, if one is looking for a consistent expression of the Christian faith - one must look to Scripture. Even the most noble Christian is not completely consistent, although he might be a fine example.

datheron: Or, if you want, think about this dilemma. I have here in front of me a plate of teriyaki chicken. I claim that it is the truth, the way to salvation, the creator of the Universe and God, and is contingent to everything that exists. By definition, then, God is a phony, his omni-x a sham, and therefore unreliable as the source of your knowledge. By definition, my teriyaki chicken is the source of all knowledge. Show me that you can have any knowledge whatsoever.

Dave: the things you have appealed to are material and contingent in nature - and are thus disqualified. I am sorry, friend, you cannot simply substitute anything you wish to into the transcendental challenge and hope that it will provide a coherent precondition for the intelligibility of reality.

Dave Gadbois

Mageth

Dave said:

I am sorry, friend, you cannot simply substitute anything you wish to into the transcendental challenge and hope that it will provide a coherent precondition for the intelligibility of reality.

And previously said:

God is, by defenition, life, and is, by nature, eternal, omnipotent, etc. etc. "Death" or "killed" have literally no meaning in reference to God like this.

So you can "substitute anything you wish to into the transcendental challenge and hope that it will provide a coherent precondition for the intelligibility of reality?" That's exactly what you're doing with this definition. Why should we accept this definition of god, any more than anyone else's?

DaveJes1979

Actually, you bring up an interesting point, but you failed to piece it together.

It is BECAUSE God is Life itself, eternal, and omnipotent that it can be said that He is the precondition for knowledge. ONLY One with these attributes could possibly be self-existent (thus distinguishing Himself from creation), could have the power to order the universe (thus accounting for logic and science), guide history (giving meaning to history), etc. etc.

The transcendental argument works for God because "God", as conceived, is not a semantically empty shell of a word. "God" entails definite attributes, which go to sustain our claim that He can and does provide a basis for knowledge.

Dave Gadbois

Philosoft

I beg to differ. What does "God" refer to?

<strong> You can throw out attributes all you like later, but you first have to show there's something to attribute them to.