PDA

View Full Version : Thought you all might enjoy this....



Brandan
10-10-01, 03:52 PM
I found this article on carm.org here: http://www.carm.org/atheism/noevidence.htm

I'd like to hear what you think of it....



1. I don't see any convincing evidence for the existence of God,
A. That does not mean there is no God.
i. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that
evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least
supports his existence.
a. Therefore, it is possible that God exists.
i. If it is possible, then faith has its place.
ii. If it is possible that God exists, then you should be
an agnostic (an agnostic holds that God may
exist but he is unknowable.)
B. It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God.
i. But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence
would need to be known to show there is no evidence.
a. Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any
one person, it is possible that evidence exists that
supports theism.
C. Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable?
i. If you have not decided what evidence would be
sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state that
there is no evidence for God.
ii. If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is
it?
a. Does Christianity fit within that criteria?
i. If not, why not?
D. Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not
reasonable?
i. Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He
exists) that is not realistic? For example
a. Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing
glory?
i. 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?
ii. How would you know?
ii. Does your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not
realistic?
a. 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?
b. If God exists, He has created the laws of logic. He,
then, cannot violate those laws.
E. Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented?
i. Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you
being as objective as you can?
ii. But, do you have a presupposition that God does not
exist or that the miraculous cannot occur?
a. If so, then you cannot objectively examine the
evidence.
i. Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding
the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing
evidence for God's existence.
a. If so, then God becomes unknowable to you
and you have forced yourself into an
atheistic/agnostic position.
b. Do you define the miraculous out of existence?
i. If so, on what basis do you do this?
iii. If you assume that science can explain all phenomena
then there can be no miraculous evidence ever
submitted as proof.
a. If you made that assumption, it is, after all, only an
assumption.

smugg
10-10-01, 06:03 PM
"Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports his existence...If it is possible that God exists, then you should be an agnostic "

This cuts both ways and makes us all agnostics. Can anyone here say there is no evidence for the existence of Apollo? Shiva? Thor? It's okay with me if you guys continue to deny their existence, but it means you aren't really being honest.(!?!?)

"since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism."

This statement is so broad as to be almost useless. Again, with this line of thinking, no idea should ever be discarded. I mean, there's no way we can have all evidence, right? So maybe the astronauts don't need their space suits when they're working on the shuttle in orbit. Just because one or two die doesn't mean they all will -- eventually we'll find the one who can breathe in outer space just like it was described by Savinien Cyrano de Bergerac.

Gosh, this is a scary line of reasoning. Without discernment, any claim is just as valid as another! We'd have to give equal credence to the veracity of every UFO claim, sewer monster, and Catholic visions of the Virgin.

No, I think that at a certain point, lack of evidence itself becomes fairly compelling.

"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."

I'd like to point out that I never claimed that there is no evidence for God. My position is that there is far more evidence that our universe seems to run on its own by natural means. What evidence there is for God is merely weaker than the other kind.

"Does Christianity fit within that criteria?"

I'm a little confused by this one. Is the question whether the existence of Christianity counts as evidence? If so, sure, it can be evidence. It's just not particularly compelling evidence since Judaism would be evidence for Jesus' human status and Buddhism would have to be evidence for Nirvana.

I'd have to answer 'D' like this:

D) no, it is undefined. 1) nope. That's silly; putting expectations on a myth... a) Absolutely not -- I'd probably die of fright when approached by the guy who created plagues and yeast infections i & ii) It could be possible to hallucinate such an experience but it would doubtlessly change my thinking. Whether it was verifiable would depend on the circumstances.

"Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented?"

Sure, I have nothing to prove (get it? ;)). Does the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry have anything to prove?

"...If so, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence."

er... what? This must be a typo. If so, then so. I think what the author probably means is that no one can be objective. Of course, I reject this: I'm pretty good at it.

"Do you define the miraculous out of existence?"

I have no idea what this means. I'm gonna need some help on this exam.

"If you assume that science can explain all phenomena..."

This, like many religions, is really just anthropomorphism. The implication is that science is itself an entity which proves and disproves things. That's not really how it works. A true proof is only applicable in logic; "science" just works with models and tries to refine them to the most likely scenario.

One of the reasons "God" and "science" so often butt heads is the idea of falsifiability. The 'God model' can never be tested scientifically because it is unfalsifiable (which is really all this article is stating). Every defense of God can always fall back on the old 'God can do anything' or even the oft presented 'God works in mysterious ways.'

So, I suppose, does Woden, Allah, and E.T.

jhamrick
10-11-01, 10:48 PM
Smugg,
you posted stuff about Woden, allah, and E.T. here and actually you're point is well taken. However, that was not the focus of this reasoning. It was to show through logic, the possibility of God's existance, and that's hard to argue.

I agree with you on the Christianity thing though. I didn't really see where that fit into the line of reason.

Lts
10-12-01, 07:06 PM
""Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented?"

Sure, I have nothing to prove (get it? ). Does the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry have anything to prove?

"...If so, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence."

er... what? This must be a typo. If so, then so. I think what the author probably means is that no one can be objective. Of course, I reject this. I'm pretty good at it. "


Kinda saids it all huh?
He is objective and he saids he is good at it.
Guess we will have to take his objective word for it LOL