Atheists: you cannot disprove the existence of GOd

[Nickkname]

Atheists don’t care about disproving God. They think they already have the proof that God dose not exist. Plus, even when believers give arguments for the existence of God, they draw conclusions that support their own disbelief - as if the arguments are against the existence of God. Such is the fallacy and silliness of atheism.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Atheists don’t care about disproving God. They think they already have the proof that God dose not exist. Plus, even when believers give arguments for the existence of God, they draw conclusions that support their own disbelief - as if the arguments are against the existence of God. Such is the fallacy and silliness of atheism.

Hmmm. That quote needs a little work…

“Theists don’t care about proving God. They think they already have the proof that God dose exist. Plus, even when nonbelievers give arguments for the nonexistence of God, they draw conclusions that support their own belief - as if the arguments are for the existence of God. Such is the fallacy and silliness of theism.”

There. See how easy it is to throw stones? No real arguments are needed, just thoughtless assertions. So much for this being a “friendly, academic/theological thread” as the OP had hoped.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Most young people are Atheists, agnostics, or “lazy” believers. I can tell you that just at my school. People tend to believe more then they are older. Maybe in there 40, and 50s when they don’t seem invincible.

I was a committed, believing catholic for over 40 years. Now I’m an atheist, so you may need to come up with another theory of belief; preferably one that isn’t based on fear of death.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Actually, not at all. The key word in this argument is “allow.” The opposite of “allow” is “prevent.” A loving God could not “prevent” evil from being freely chosen because then He would not be loving.

The “free-will defense” is philosophically and theologically inane. In fact not only is it erroneous from the point of view of reason but from the point of view of faith it is bordering on heresy.

Philosophically and logically speaking, “love requires freedom” is a fallacy, based on an equivocation on the meaning of “freedom”. Love requires the freedom to choose good, not the freedom to choose evil, and the argument that the ability to freely choose good necessarily implies the ability to freely choose evil is a fallacy. God Himself freely chooses good, but He does not have the ability to choose evil. The same goes for the souls in heaven.

Now I prevent my children from freely choosing evil. I prevent my children from harming themselves or others, insofar as I am able to do so. If I did not do so I would not be a loving parent. I take away my children’s “freedom” to choose evil for themselves or others. A loving God would not be loving if He did not prevent evil from being freely chosen, assuming He has the real ability to do so. A loving God takes away His children’s “freedom” in that regard, without in any way impairing their freedom to choose good.

Moreover, according to traditional theologies on grace, God can, and does, intervene with His grace to prevent evil from being freely chosen. It does not coerce the will, but it infallibly brings about the object (choosing good) anyway. The “free-will” defense in effect denies to God the ability to grant infallibly efficacious grace.

God perhaps could have chosen to create those whome He knew would only chose good.

And, if so, Christianity is in big trouble. The needless creation of those who would choose evil means that the omnibenevolent God of Christianity does not exist.

The fact of the matter is, however, that evil exists. The point, then, is that this DOES NOT, however RULE OUT the existence of God… God CAN still exist and be a loving God even though evil exists because permiting evil to occur is in fact the loving thing to do because love requires freedom.

Refuted above. “Freedom” is freedom to choose good, not freedom to choose evil.

Again, the real thing to talk about here is evil itself. Tell me, what is evil? How can you tell me what an evil action is and what a good action is? What is benevolence? What is love? These are the real questions to ask… and the questions that atheists can’t answer correctly.

Sorry, this evasion won’t work. Atheists are using “good”, “evil”, “benevolence”, and “love” in precisely the way theists mean the terms, and on that basis, not on whatever they might themselves consider the terms to mean, refuting the theists’ idea of God.

As I said above, the only way to refute the argument is to address the contention that the suffering and evil is needless and pointless.

 

[St_Aloysius]

The primary difference between theism and atheism appears to be the response to these questions. The response of the believer generally reveals an underlying assumption that faith is a valid starting point for the acquisition of knowledge; while the nonbeliever rejects faith as a starting point in favor of evidence, reason and logic.

I disagree. The atheist and theist both begin with certain self-evident first principles: I exist, at least in a relational or analogical sense. This is self-evident, despite what Descartes’ rambling says to the contrary.

If there were no such first principles, man could never attain knowledge on any subject, for he would always have to justify even the most basic and elemental truths through exhaustive cognitive thought and philosophical reasoning.

It is inappropriate to refer to God as a being, and thus to impose certain limitations which are not befitting of the Deity. Rather, he is Being itself: uncaused, eternal, and infinite.

Man shares in his Being, participates in it, and so exists only in a relational sense. Man, and all matter, is then simply an opening through which the Infinite manifests itself. By observing finite objects and things, we arrive at a sound conclusion which affirms the existence of the Infinite, and begin to understand that materialistic things reflect (albeit in an imperfect way) this Infinitude.

Since it is philosophically and scientifically demonstrable that the material universe, inasmuch as it is subject to the laws of duration and cannot account for a completion of an infinite past, is finite, and therefore caused, it is only fitting that we seek out a probable Cause in the Infinite, which naturally is beyond the scope of human observation or intellectual comprehension.

As the universe and its material things are caused and the cause of the totality of these caused things cannot logically reside within that totality, it is only logical that a First Cause exist distinct from that totality, in the Infinite, free of dependeny or want of substance.

From its actions as creative agent, we might infer volition and intellect on its part, and thus begin to describe it in more personal terms. However, this is an entirely different subject.

I humbly propose this sloppily arranged, sub-par theory as the thoughts of a 14-year-old boy sitting in his PJs at his laptop craving a smoothie.

Peace!

 

[MerryAtheist]

Not so. The believer accepts some things purely on faith, true, but much of what we accept is logical, in accordance with reason and has some evidence.

“much” but not all?

If you give some examples of what we accept that you think is not rational or logical, or there is no evidence for, I can hopefully show you why I think it is rational or logical and point you to the evidence.

The underlying assumption of all Catholic thought is that “God exists”, and all arguments seem to have that as an a priori assertion. For instance, in the Catechism, the existence of God is assumed from page 1. There is no serious effort made to show how “God, the first principle and last end of all things can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason (36)”, there is only the assertion that this is so.

It’s all too easy to make assertions without backing them up with evidence, as Nickkname has shown in the post above. But true knowledge must be backed up with logical, reasonable arguments that support the evidence. There simply is no clear and convincing evidence for God’s existence. Arguments from design and cosmology are not sufficient, because natural explanations are, if not already at hand, at least more probable than supernatural ones. Philosophical arguments for God are interesting, but often have faulty assumptions, do not correspond to reality, or hide behind incomprehensible concepts.

The fact of the matter is that everyone accepts a whole lot of “truths” on faith. You can’t possibly know everything. How do you know that Darwin existed? Did you meet him? Could not it be a conspiracy (as many people claim religion to be because they weren’t there to witness it)? We all take so much on faith, what we watch on the news, what we learn in school. The examples are endless… how do we know that black holes exist? Have you personally actually seen one with a telescope? The most we can say is someone else said so and it seems logical. Well that’s what Christians today say. Someone else said so and it seems logical, and there’s evidence for it. Everyone whether they like it or not has to have faith about something or we are stuck believing nothing.

You seem to be equating knowledge of God with ignorance. On that point we agree. As for your other examples…

We have photographs of Darwin as well as direct descendants currently living today. There are writings by Darwin (perhaps you’ve heard of them) and contemporary witnesses to his existence.

Astronomers theorize the existence of black holes because such objects fit the evidence (bending light, astronomical mass, etc.). There is no competing theory that fits the evidence better; so until a better theory comes along, the existence of black holes is accepted as a rational, logical solution.

Where are the photos of God? Where are his descendants? Where are his writings? What evidence is supported by God’s existence that isn’t better explained by natural events/causes? Until such evidence is presented to support the God hypothesis, the rational, logical position must be rejection of the concept.

 

[MerryAtheist]

It is inappropriate to refer to God as a being, and thus to impose certain limitations which are not befitting of the Deity. Rather, he is Being itself: uncaused, eternal, and infinite.

Again, the basic assumption rises again: “If God exists, he must be uncaused, eternal, and infinite.” Based on what evidence?

Since it is philosophically and scientifically demonstrable that the material universe, inasmuch as it is subject to the laws of duration and cannot account for a completion of an infinite past, is finite, and therefore caused, it is only fitting that we seek out a probable Cause in the Infinite, which naturally is beyond the scope of human observation or intellectual comprehension.

Alternatively, it may also be more fitting to not rush in and assume causes without evidence. The beginning of the universe is the biggest gap in our knowledge, and may always be so. It’s certainly acceptable to not propose any answer until such time as more and better evidence is collected. Perhaps, the universe wasn’t caused; perhaps the universe was inevitable?

As the universe and its material things are caused and the cause of the totality of these caused things cannot logically reside within that totality, it is only logical that a First Cause exist distinct from that totality, in the Infinite, free of dependeny or want of substance.

That’s a completely untestable hypothesis.

At any rate, how can you or anyone be sure of anything regarding the universe’s beginning. You yourself state that it is “beyond human intellectual comprehension”, though I can’t help notice that you nevertheless jumped right on in with an explanation.

I humbly propose this sloppily arranged, sub-par theory as the thoughts of a 14-year-old boy sitting in his PJs at his laptop craving a smoothie.

Well then, get thee to a smoothie, young man.

 

[Paladin_V]

Philosophically and logically speaking, “love requires freedom” is a fallacy, based on an equivocation on the meaning of “freedom”. Love requires the freedom to choose good, not the freedom to choose evil, and the argument that the ability to freely choose good necessarily implies the ability to freely choose evil is a fallacy. God Himself freely chooses good, but He does not have the ability to choose evil. The same goes for the souls in heaven.

Okay, so a loving God gives me the freedom to choose good. But he doesn’t allow me to choose evil. This means that there is no way that I can choose evil because God does not permit it to happen. So anything I do is good then? Clearly not so.

Think about this… if you have the free will to choose good… that means you are not forced to choose good. If you are not forced to choose good, it means that you can choose good… or you can choose evil. Free will does not mean you are allowed to choose evil and get away with it. All it means is that you are, in fact, able to choose evil. This is very obvious, just by the fact that evil exists. If you weren’t able to choose evil because God didn’t permit it, then how is it that evil exists?

It is a mistake to say that the souls in heaven “can’t” choose evil. The “won’t” because they are experiencing the beatific vision.

Now I prevent my children from freely choosing evil. I prevent my children from harming themselves or others, insofar as I am able to do so. If I did not do so I would not be a loving parent. I take away my children’s “freedom” to choose evil for themselves or others. A loving God would not be loving if He did not prevent evil from being freely chosen, assuming He has the real ability to do so. A loving God takes away His children’s “freedom” in that regard, without in any way impairing their freedom to choose good.

I’m sure you are a loving parent and you do steer your children away from evil. But they can still choose it and will still choose it, despite your efforts. Therefore, they have the freedom to do so. They will suffer consequences when they do, because you love them. But the fact remains, they have free will, they are in fact free to will evil.

Moreover, according to traditional theologies on grace, God can, and does, intervene with His grace to prevent evil from being freely chosen. It does not coerce the will, but it infallibly brings about the object (choosing good) anyway. The “free-will” defense in effect denies to God the ability to grant infallibly efficacious grace.

Yes… I agree… God can infallibily bring about good without violating our free will. Why God doesn’t do this in every case is a mystery. The free will defense does not deny God this ability or contradict this at all. The thing that’s really hard to grasp is how it is that God can infallibly bring about good without violating our free will. Understanding this requires an understanding of the subtleties of grace and nature. Another topic for another time…

The fact remains that evil exists. Therefore since we do in fact choose evil, we are free to choose it. It doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences, it just means that we can, in fact choose it.

 

[BlaineTog]

The burden of proof is on you.

“Burden of proof” is a concept only useful in structured debate, when the object is to win rather than to discover the truth. If you are interested in the truth, you should be willing to look into any proposition you can as deeply as you can. And if you aren’t interested in truth, then why should we have any interest in wasting our time speaking with you?

The response of the believer generally reveals an underlying assumption that faith is a valid starting point for the acquisition of knowledge; while the nonbeliever rejects faith as a starting point in favor of evidence, reason and logic.

Everyone takes base principles on faith. You, I assume, take at least logic, sense perception, the external world in general, and that the future will resemble the past. None of these are beyond doubt; they are thus beliefs.

SeekingCatholic:

Now I prevent my children from freely choosing evil. I prevent my children from harming themselves or others, insofar as I am able to do so.

You take away your children’s ability to perform evil, not to choose it. However, you don’t do this forever; you want them to choose not to perform evil, not just not perform out because they are being prevented. When your children become teenagers, you have to start giving them more ability to act as they choose, and when they are adults, you certainly have no ability to force them do one thing or another. Plus, sometimes, you might allow them to do something bad so that they won’t do it in the future; you let them learn from the experience, since they demonstrably haven’t learned from merely being told.

It’s all too easy to make assertions without backing them up with evidence, as Nickkname has shown in the post above. But true knowledge must be backed up with logical, reasonable arguments that support the evidence.

Then prove the law of noncontradiction without using the law of noncontradiction. Prove that the future must resemble the past without claming that it always had up until now.

There simply is no clear and convincing evidence for God’s existence.

There is no certain evidence for God’s existence. Billions of people have been convinced, though, so your statement is incorrect on its face.

Arguments from design and cosmology are not sufficient, because natural explanations are, if not already at hand, at least more probable than supernatural ones.

Natural explanations and arguments from design aren’t at cross-purposes; they have little to do with each other, in fact, unless you define “Natural explanation” as “things just happen, what the hell,” in which case you’re cheating with your definitions.

Philosophical arguments for God are interesting, but often have faulty assumptions, do not correspond to reality, or hide behind incomprehensible concepts.

Agreed. They are, as Kant said, a “mare’s nest of fallacies,” or something to that effect.

Where are the photos of God?

Everywhere.

Where are his descendants?

Yourself and myself. All of humanity, in fact.

Where are his writings?

The Bible.

What evidence is supported by God’s existence that isn’t better explained by natural events/causes?

Existence. The world has a high degree of apparent design. It makes more sense for there to be a designer than for this all to have happened totally by chance. Thus, God explains the evidence better. This doesn’t prove his existence, of course, and you can object that the “God hypothesis” raises more questions than it solves, but hey, you phrased the questions, not me.

Obviously, I’m being a bit quipish with my answers, and I’m not saying I know these things infallibly, but just because you have a question doesn’t mean I don’t have an answer that I think is true even if I can’t prove it.

Until such evidence is presented to support the God hypothesis, the rational, logical position must be rejection of the concept.

Logic is not the only method of making decisions or finding beliefs. All beliefs must ultimately not contradict logic, but you can have an intuitive feel on something without necessarily being able to pin it down and still be absolutely right. Art, for example, uses nonlogical modes of thought all the time. The painter generally isn’t able to give you a logical reason for why each brush stroke is where it should be, but this doesn’t mean that the strokes are misplaced.

(Continued below)

 

[BlaineTog]

(Concluded from above)

Again, the basic assumption rises again: “If God exists, he must be uncaused, eternal, and infinite.” Based on what evidence?

This is a definitional question, not an evidential one. “All bachelors are unmarried men” doesn’t need evidence to confirm it, because its truth is in its identity.

Perhaps, the universe wasn’t caused; perhaps the universe was inevitable?

But doesn’t this seem to contradict at least some evidence?

*At any rate, how can you or anyone be sure of anything regarding the universe’s beginning. You yourself state that it is “beyond human intellectual comprehension”, though I can’t help notice that you nevertheless jumped right on in with an explanation.*It’s an important question that demands answering. Every action you might ever want or need to take in your life is potentially effected. Every thought could change to be totally different depending on what the answer to this question is. It is certainly reasonable to take care in answering the question, but answer it you must, for if you don’t do so explicitly, you will necessarily do so implicitly (ie in your actions), and actions performed using merely implicit rules can easily be hypocritical, self-defeating, or absurd, and they can go awry as often as not.

 

[Paladin_V]

Again, the basic assumption rises again: “If God exists, he must be uncaused, eternal, and infinite.” Based on what evidence?

Based on the idea of unmoved mover. This is logic and science. The law of conservation of mass, energy, and entropy tells us that these cannot be created or destroyed, only change form. Well, from where did the mass, energy, and entropy in the universe come? Clearly, there must be something, or someone, that is the origin of all of the universe. Either the universe was created, or it always, for all eternity, has existed. Those are the only two options.

 

[joeybaggz]

Astronomers theorize the existence of black holes because such objects fit the evidence (bending light, astronomical mass, etc.). There is no competing theory that fits the evidence better; so until a better theory comes along, the existence of black holes is accepted as a rational, logical solution.

Interesting, you present well the three degrees of separation of atheistic argument.

1. A theory fits evidence
2. evidence is accepted as a rational, logical, solution
3. A rational, logical, solution, is a fact. Therefore the theory ( a conjecture) is a fact.

Atheists engage in this intellectual sleight of hand all the time. A theory, if posited over and over and over becomes an accepted “fact” . Hitler (and my use of Hitler’s writing is not intended as Hitler being analogous with atheists) wrote in Mein Kampf a famous statement; “tell a lie often enough and the masses will come to accept it as truth”

This is the problem with an atheist’s proclamations of fact. There are multitudes of gaps in evolution theory, the big bang, etc. and the theories that fill those gaps have, over time, come to be considered as fact by the atheist. And to the theist their subsequent arguments based on those ‘facts’ are invalid. Granted they are good theories, they are just not facts.

 

[Paladin_V]

“much” but not all?

Nope, not all. But the exception doesn’t prove the rule. Most can be very rationally backed up.

The underlying assumption of all Catholic thought is that “God exists”, and all arguments seem to have that as an a priori assertion.

Not true… some Catholic thought is devoted to asserting why it is we believe that God exists and why this is rational. See St. Thomas Aquanias’ five proofs.

Further though, Catholicism accepts that God exists because stories have been passed down from generation to generation of God actually becoming human and telling us, “Hey, I’m really here!” (to paraphrase ). The first Catholics were there and witnessed Jesus and came to believe that he was in fact God. Scripture contains the record of how and why the first Christians came to believe Jesus was God.

What matters for us today is, do we believe those stories or not? Do we take those stories to be true partly trusting our ancestors, but partly because the stories are rational? Or do we say, no, we don’t trust our ancestors, or the stories, or we don’t think the stories are rational.

So if you are looking for why we believe God exists, then look into scripture and the traditions of the Church. Those tell the stories of why we believe. The only thing left to debate is whether or not those stories are true and rational.

But true knowledge must be backed up with logical, reasonable arguments that support the evidence. There simply is no clear and convincing evidence for God’s existence. Arguments from design and cosmology are not sufficient, because natural explanations are, if not already at hand, at least more probable than supernatural ones.

If you are looking for God to show up physically and perform all sorts of miracles, or you won’t believe, then I’m not too sure what to say. I don’t think natural explanations are sufficient at all. I believe God has come because I believe the stories of the coming of a person who claimed to be God, partly on faith, partly because I have found everything, or most everything to be logical, and partly because it makes everything fit together.

We have photographs of Darwin as well as direct descendants currently living today. There are writings by Darwin (perhaps you’ve heard of them) and contemporary witnesses to his existence.

Astronomers theorize the existence of black holes because such objects fit the evidence (bending light, astronomical mass, etc.). There is no competing theory that fits the evidence better; so until a better theory comes along, the existence of black holes is accepted as a rational, logical solution.

Where are the photos of God? Where are his descendants? Where are his writings? What evidence is supported by God’s existence that isn’t better explained by natural events/causes? Until such evidence is presented to support the God hypothesis, the rational, logical position must be rejection of the concept.

But how do I know that those photos are of him? How do I know people didn’t just dress someone up and make a bunch of claims about them… it’s happened before. How do I know that those writings are his and not just part of a conspiracy? After all, that’s whats claimed about the writings of Christianity. The disciples got together and made up this whole elaborate story about this guy named Jesus who was pretty chill, right? Why should this be different? Why should I believe those witnesses and not the Christian witnesses?

Or with black holes… why should I believe the astronomers (I happen to work for NASA so I do believe them )? Or… because there’s no better theory? That’s why I should believe in them? I haven’t actually seen them (even if I could). I haven’t studied them. All I have is the word of a bunch of nerds like myself that they measured some stuff and it seems like there should be a supermassive gravitational vortex that sucks in even light so that you can’t it except for radiation it spews out.

The point I was trying to make was not that black holes don’t exist or Darwin didn’t say what he did. I was trying to make the point that everyone takes most things… probably close to everything… on faith. A reasonable faith, but still faith. I think the real issue that you have (correct me if I’m wrong) is that there seems to be no physical evidence right in front of you to make you say, “hey, God exists.”

What I’d like to discuss is the reality of evil, or of a standard of good conduct, or goodness. I think these are part of reality that we can agree on and I think the fact that humans naturally feel a standard of goodness points to the reality of God. This (human conscience), I think, is something that is rational and can’t be explained by natural causes.

 

[MerryAtheist]

Interesting, you present well the three degrees of separation of atheistic argument.

1. A theory fits evidence
2. evidence is accepted as a rational, logical, solution
3. A rational, logical, solution, is a fact. Therefore the theory ( a conjecture) is a fact.

Atheists engage in this intellectual sleight of hand all the time. A theory, if posited over and over and over becomes an accepted “fact” . Hitler (and my use of Hitler’s writing is not intended as Hitler being analogous with atheists) wrote in Mein Kampf a famous statement; “tell a lie often enough and the masses will come to accept it as truth”

This is the problem with an atheist’s proclamations of fact. There are multitudes of gaps in evolution theory, the big bang, etc. and the theories that fill those gaps have, over time, come to be considered as fact by the atheist. And to the theist their subsequent arguments based on those ‘facts’ are invalid. Granted they are good theories, they are just not facts.

Wow! Do you have a better theory to explain the bending of the paths of light rays, x-ray emissions from ionized atoms, random variations of x-ray emissions in binary systems, etc.? The astronomy world awaits your daring thesis.

I did not equate theories with facts. Your points are not an accurate representation of my views. In particular:

1. evidence is accepted as a rational, logical, solution

Evidence is NOT a solution. I’m surprised that you would think it so, particularly from what I have written. Strange…

1. A rational, logical, solution, is a fact. Therefore the theory ( a conjecture) is a fact.

Again, where have I asserted that any solution or theory is a fact?

By misrepresenting and mischaracterizing my arguments, you do yourself no favors, but only poison the well for your own arguments, which I’d be delighted to read when you are finished constructing your strawman attacks.

 

[MerryAtheist]

For the record, I’m not biting on the OP’s challenge to “disprove the existence of God”.

I really jumped in because my interests lay more with the means of gaining knowledge, and how that can influence one’s perception of reality. So if you wish to continue on with the “existence of evil and good” angle, be my guest, but it’s not really my bailiwick.

And, Paladin, to answer your assertion about my motivations, my atheism is not entirely a matter of lack of evidence (though that certainly plays a part).

To be honest, among the arguments that are most prominent to me is the definitional one. That is, there doesn’t seem to be a consistent, coherent, non-contradictory definition of God that holds up to rational criticism. I think that if God were defined clearly, it would be much easier to prove or disprove (and believe or disbelieve); but the whole concept of God is much too slippery to make enough rational sense to justify belief.

So, I am agnostic when it comes to knowledge of God, because the word is too poorly defined. As a result of this lack of knowledge, I am an atheist because I cannot believe in something so ill-defined.

 

[joeybaggz]

The response of the believer generally reveals an underlying assumption that faith is a valid starting point for the acquisition of knowledge; while the nonbeliever rejects faith as a starting point in favor of evidence, reason and logic.

“rejects faith”… How do even walk out your front door in the morning? Atheists act on faith all the time. When asked the question who are your parents, the atheist (if he’s honest) will name a man and a woman. That’s faith. No human being knows their parents at birth. The atheist has faith in the two people who raised him, a hall of records, hospital records, whatever. An atheist acts on faith when he stops at a red light and believes that the driver behind will stop too. Or when going through an intersection, he acts on faith that others will stop at a red light. Or that when you step on the brakes the car will stop and the brakes are defective. It goes on, ad infinitum.

But then atheists reject faith. Of course without faith every atheist would have to be agoraphobic because it is impossible to prove everything needed to function sanely in society according to the burden of proof demanded by an atheist. Unless that burden of proof only is valid in an argument about the existence of God.

Ah, you may say that you don’t reject the idea of faith, but you can only have faith in something that is proveable. You know, I enjoy the evidence, reason, and logic point. I’ll bet that you have faith in your memory, that you believe that in that four pounds of grey glop between your ears, it resides. Now, prove it exists, you can’t. You cannot point to a part of the brain that says “memory” because unlike the hand for instance, it is concealed within the brain. Maybe you can excise a part, or clamp it off (if that’s possible) and say because it seems to negate the existence of the memory, that part of the brain has to be it. No, it’s still just a brain and the memory is somewhere else, it’s simply that stimulating or destroying that part of the brain affects the memory. It resides elsewhere, maybe in the pons, or in the distal portion of the medulla oblongata. Or maybe, the memory is actually a function of the entire brain and to affect one part of the brain is to negate the function of the memory completely.

But you would say, logically, that the memory exists because, we can prove it, because we experience its effects. Ah, you experience the effects of something that you can’t prove exists - other than you experience its effects. A little circular isn’t it? Sort of the same argument for God, isn’t it, at least from the theists point of view. But the atheist, denies a God exists, and that a perfectly ordered cosmos that is self perpetuating and self regenerative, came into existence by the random and chaotic action of elements that spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing. Well, if it floats your boat… though it doesn’t seem very logical to me.

Faith and belief are two different things. Belief is subject to verifiable, demonstrable proof. Faith is not. Yet the atheist acts on faith all the time. Not very reasonable, logical, or consistent is it. Especially in light of your statement.

Oh, and I love your statement about Darwin and pictures. It always amuses me that people say God doesn’t exist and Jesus Christ was a myth, and then turn around and name the second cousin of the brother in law, of the second wife of Pharoah Rameses the II. Oh, but you have proveable evidence. Please, what you have is the remants of a DIsney movie set.

Jesus said, “if you want to know the Father, know me, for I and my Father are one and the same”. God doesn’t exist, Jesus is a myth, but we have incontrovertable evidence of the fact that some bones found in a gorge in Africa prove beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that a theory about evolution is certain fact? Please.

 

[joeybaggz]

Oh, and one more thing. Thank you for being rational, calm, and precise in your arguments. The last post by an atheist started to fall victim to ad hominen assaults. Of course he was simply running the Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett playbook by the numbers. If I read one more post about the Flying Spaghettin Monster or the orbiting teapot, I’ll puke in my soup.

Personally, I think an discussion/argument between Catholics and theists on one hand, and atheists on the other is a little like discussing the economic effect of relocating the manufacture of durable goods from the Pacific Rim to Eastern Europe, in the barrio in Mexico City … to a nine year old … in Swedish.

At some point, its pointless.

Cheers

 

[Miles_Militis]

“Burden of proof” is a concept only useful in structured debate, when the object is to win rather than to discover the truth.

Aren’t they one in the same? Doesn’t one win a debate by proving their case to be superior (a.k.a. the truth). You can’t ask me to disprove God anymore then I can ask you to disprove Santa Clause.

If you are interested in the truth, you should be willing to look into any proposition you can as deeply as you can.

When did I say I wasn’t? But you need to give me a proposition to look into. That was the meaning behind my entire post.

And if you aren’t interested in truth, then why should we have any interest in wasting our time speaking with you?

I’m sorry, but did you bother to read my post? Or was it just so unclear that it was not understandable? All I’m asking is for you to present an argument for God’s existence. I have been skimming this thread but have yet to see one (save Aquinas being referred to).

If you are so convinced you are right, then present an argument.

BlaineTog:

MerryAtheist:

There simply is no clear and convincing evidence for God’s existence.

There is no certain evidence for God’s existence. Billions of people have been convinced, though, so your statement is incorrect on its face.

Um, how exactly is it incorrect? He said you have no evidence, you said people have been convinced. Your statement had nothing to do with MerryAtheist’s (except to agree with him you have no evidence).

---

Let me lay my motivation on the table here. There are too many Catholic’s out there who try to argue their point, to try and witness through argumentation, debate, and apologetics to others. But my problem, and what downright ticks me off to no end, is the Catholics that run out into the battlefield full-speed with no idea what the hell they are doing.

I don’t claim to be an excellent debater, in fact most atheists I run into are better then myself. But if you can’t prove your case even to me, then how in the name of all that is holy can you hope to do any good to anyone else? I have seen / debated too many people that were utterly convinced Catholicism was a completely foolish religion and required complete abandonment of reason, all because they talked to people who could put together a logical argument to save their lives. As a result I has to work incredibly hard just to convince them that Catholicism was even remotely possible without abandoning all reason.

They mean well, but do so much harm. Now I’m not saying anyone here is one of these people. What I am doing is trying to push you to refine and develop your skills by calling you out on arguments that are incorrect or poorly structured.

So I place myself in the position of the atheist. As far as I am concerned I have no reason to believe in God. Make your case.

 

[Karmastrike]

I was a committed, believing catholic for over 40 years. Now I’m an atheist, so you may need to come up with another theory of belief; preferably one that isn’t based on fear of death.

TBH friend, I’m not scaired of death. I’m not in mortal sin, what do I have to fear?

 

[BlaineTog]

Aren’t they one in the same? Doesn’t one win a debate by proving their case to be superior (a.k.a. the truth).

Clearly, you’ve never been in a structured debate (ie the kind that has judges and is scored). Those are about having superior rhetoric, which can go either way, no matter how absurd the sides are. Most of the time, though, unstructured debates end up working out this way anyway too.

You don’t “win” by proving your side to be superior. You win by helping all participants come to a better understanding of the truth. It may be that one person in the discussion is totally right and the other is totally wrong, but thinking about it in terms of “sides” is inherently treacherous.

When did I say I wasn’t?

You didn’t. I was making a hypothetical statement, indicated by the word “if.”

*I’m sorry, but did you bother to read my post? All I’m asking is for you to present an argument for God’s existence. I have been skimming this thread but have yet to see one (save Aquinas being referred to).

If you are so convinced you are right, then present an argument.*

I was only objecting to your use of “burden of proof.”

Any in any case, there are no logically coherent proofs for God’s existence, and I’m not claiming to give one. There are only appeals. But I can make appeals to aesthetics and design and love and joy 'til the cows come home and it isn’t going to mean anything to you, because belief in God is more than a simply intellectual issue. The whole point is that it isn’t merely an action of the intellect.

Um, how exactly is it incorrect? He said you have no evidence, you said people have been convinced. Your statement had nothing to do with MerryAtheist’s (except to agree with him you have no evidence).

I said nothing of the sort. I said there was no certain evidence, not that there was no evidence at all. You cannot calculate whether God exists or not. Faith is a love/trust relationship. Evidence exists, however, in terms of spiritual and aesthetic experiences, moments of inspiration, feelings of love, and that God just glows. Billions of people have found this evidence convincing. Ergo, the statement “there is no convincing evidence” is incorrect. Now, he could say “I have seen no evidence that convinces me,” and that would be another matter.

This isn’t a science any more than living with your spouse is a science or telling your children how much you love them is a science.

But if you can’t prove your case even to me, then how in the name of all that is holy can you hope to do any good to anyone else?

By loving them. As St. Francis said, “Preach the word always. When necessary, use words.”