Gnostic Atheism

[PRmerger]

And just to be clear, I am starting from the presupposition that God’s existence has already been proved.

I often hear: well, ok. God could exist (else, how else do we explain the Something coming from Nothing, which is a scientific fact). But how do we get from the God of Creation to the Christian God?

And that’s when we go: because the Christian God rose from the dead.

 

[PRmerger]

“Once you concede that I am right, you will see that my argument is logically inevitable.”

Emmm…no.

There are a few folks here who can understand how to dialogue by offering a concession in order to further the argument.

If you can’t do this, then…

 

[PRmerger]

Here’s an example of how an atheist can discuss with a believer, in a mature way:

Atheist, “Well, your God says that [fill in the blank with a Bible thing] and that means A, B and C.”

We understand that he isn’t actually changing his mind about his atheism.
He is only granting God’s existence in order to further the dialogue.

Only an immature debater says, “Aha! You’ve just said that God exists! Checkmate, atheist!”

A mature debater engages him in his conclusions about A, B and C. He doesn’t think for a second that the atheist has just converted.

 

[Vico]

That there was an actual person named Yeshua living during the time of Pilot who had a brother named James and a following of people who believed he rose from the dead, yeah that is something that can be proved or disproved in principle. If I were to say those things weren’t true, you could legitimately demand I provide evidence to back up my claim.

Demanding proof that he is not God Incarnate is another shell game. That the story is internally inconsistent, violates the laws of physics and everything we know about biology is just swept aside with the claim that it is a miracle. (People can’t walk on water? That just proves he is God.) It is impossible to disprove by design. Prove that the Dalai Llama isn’t the reincarnation of Buddha. You can’t, but once again it doesn’t make it true.

Personally I don’t expect proof of these things. I imagine that some might try a deceptive and evasive action or ploy.

Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. 2 For by this the ancients obtained a testimony.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Huh? please elaborate.

You seemed to be suggesting that in order to say that they know God doesn’t exist, an atheist would have to know everything there is to know. That isn’t the case because knowledge doesn’t require absolute certainty, only reasonable certainty. If an atheist has enough evidence and sound arguments on their side, they may feel that their confidence in God’s non-existence is high enough to qualify as knowledge, even if they admit that they could still be wrong.

And proof is too high a standard for these sorts of arguments. Some people may think that this or that deductive argument for or against God’s existence works, but for the most part you’re going to get the most mileage out of evidential arguments.

 

[reggieM]

You seemed to be suggesting that in order to say that they know God doesn’t exist, an atheist would have to know everything there is to know. That isn’t the case because knowledge doesn’t require absolute certainty, only reasonable certainty. If an atheist has enough evidence and sound arguments on their side, they may feel that their confidence in God’s non-existence is high enough to qualify as knowledge, even if they admit that they could still be wrong.

And proof is too high a standard for these sorts of arguments. Some people may think that this or that deductive argument for or against God’s existence works, but for the most part you’re going to get the most mileage out of evidential arguments.

Knowing, for example, that everyone who claimed to have a direct, personal experience of God was wrong would be very difficult. One would have to know quite a lot. For example, Jesus claimed to have a direct personal experience of God and He worked miracles that He offered as evidence of His claim. Some of his disciples made the same claim, working similar miracles. People who encountered the disciples had similar experiences. Then, through the history of the Catholic Church, for example, there is historical evidence of many saints and noted Catholics who also claimed a personal encounter with God and worked miracles that were witnessed by others.
Concluding, on whatever basis, that all of this is false - especially without detailed investigation of each case, I think would be very difficult and would require a lifetime of study and analysis.

 

[Bradski]

I would imagine that proving that everyone who claimed to have been abducted by aliens was wrong would be quite difficult as well.

 

[reggieM]

I would imagine that proving that everyone who claimed to have been abducted by aliens was wrong would be quite difficult as well.

You’ve got 50 years of history confined to one culture, versus 3,000 years of world history and global culture. I wouldn’t call that a very close comparison.

 

[Bradski]

I see what you mean. Lots of people believe it so it must be true. And if more people believe it, it becomes more true.

So Hinduism was true before Christianity became popular, but now it’s less true. Or did it become false when there were more Christians?

 

[TheCuriousCat]

What is equally important to realize from a purely rational perspective is that it also doesn’t make it demonstrably false.

True, being unfalsifiable doesn’t make it false, but it does put the burden of proof on someone who is claiming it is true.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Well, it’s only logical that if God exists, and God is offering you a chance to be with Him, and you say NOPE, that hell is what you desire for yourself.

And it’s also logical that if you believe that, you would be willing to fool yourself and reject any argument to the contrary out of hand. On the other hand, if I’m wrong, I’d be embarrassed and that’s it. I could back in communion with the Church in under 24 hours. It would actually be a net positive for me to be wrong. Logically speaking, who is more likely to let their emotions cloud their judgment?

I would not believe in Christ as the 2nd Person of the Godhead if the resurrection didn’t happen.

And I wouldn’t believe in God if you could prove He doesn’t exist, such as by offering some sort of evidence for His nonexistence, or by offering some rational argument to show that God is a contradiction.

That’s exactly my point, The way that God is described it is unfalsifiable. If anyone points out that something is contradictory, the faithful will just move the goalposts.

Or if the bones of Christ could be presented. That would prove the resurrection didn’t happen, right?

And how could one do that? Bones don’t come with a serial number. Besides, if there was an all-powerful God, couldn’t he have left his bones behind on Earth after his ascension to be retrieved when the dead rise again? There is an answer for everything. Even if I somehow could prove to your satisfaction that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, it doesn’t prove there isn’t a God. There are lots of religions who believe in God without thinking that Jesus is God.

I don’t understand this statement. How have people spent centuries makint sure it is impossible to disprove?

Theologians, apologists, philosophers have spent centuries refining an understanding of God in order to be impossible to disprove.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Well, first you have to concede the argument that God exists.

If God exists, then, yes, God could incarnate and then rise from the dead, yes?

If you cede the possibility that there is a God, absolutely nothing is impossible. I could claim that God took me on a trip around Jupiter last night, and you couldn’t disprove it.

 

[PRmerger]

If you cede the possibility that there is a God, absolutely nothing is impossible. I could claim that God took me on a trip around Jupiter last night, and you couldn’t disprove it.

Right.

So you can’t say that you don’t believe in the resurrection because no man could rise from the dead, and therefore you’re an atheist.

That’s circular, right?

 

[PRmerger]

If you cede the possibility that there is a God, absolutely nothing is impossible. I could claim that God took me on a trip around Jupiter last night, and you couldn’t disprove it.

And let me clarify: absolutely nothing that’s logically possible is impossible.

God can’t make a square circle or a married bachelor. Logically impossible.

 

[PRmerger]

And it’s also logical that if you believe that, you would be willing to fool yourself and reject any argument to the contrary out of hand. On the other hand, if I’m wrong, I’d be embarrassed and that’s it. I could back in communion with the Church in under 24 hours. It would actually be a net positive for me to be wrong.

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me.

Could you please explicate what you mean here?

Logically speaking, who is more likely to let their emotions cloud their judgment?

Let’s just be clear: I am one of the least emotional persons about my decision to be a Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s exactly my point, The way that God is described it is unfalsifiable. If anyone points out that something is contradictory, the faithful will just move the goalposts.

Why don’t you offer something that you think is contradictory and therefore proves that God doesn’t exist?

 

[TheCuriousCat]

And let me clarify: absolutely nothing that’s logically possible is impossible.

God can’t make a square circle or a married bachelor. Logically impossible.

Yeah, I got that. Me flying around Jupiter isn’t logically impossible. Neither is me having a microscopic leprechaun as a best friend. If you accept that there is a being that can toss all of the physical laws of the universe out the window at a moment’s notice, then you can’t say anything is impossible, except a logical impossibility.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Why don’t you offer something that you think is contradictory and therefore proves that God doesn’t exist?

Are you reading my arguments at all? I have already addressed this about 5 times. I’m not doing it again.

 

[PRmerger]

And how could one do that? Bones don’t come with a serial number.

I think science is up to the task.

And regardless, we now have a position that contradicts your assertion. You say the resurrection can’t be proven false.

Clearly,it can. If Jesus’ bones are ever found in his grave, case closed. Christianity is false.

Besides, if there was an all-powerful God, couldn’t he have left his bones behind on Earth after his ascension to be retrieved when the dead rise again?

I tell you frankly: if Jesus’ bones were proven to have remained on earth, I would no longer be a Christian.

Even if I somehow could prove to your satisfaction that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, it doesn’t prove there isn’t a God. There are lots of religions who believe in God without thinking that Jesus is God.

You are right here.

You’d still need an explanation for how something came from nothing.

Theologians, apologists, philosophers have spent centuries refining an understanding of God in order to be impossible to disprove.

This is simply begging the question.

Give us some refutations to the arguments for God’s existence, and then we can chat.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Right.

So you can’t say that you don’t believe in the resurrection because no man could rise from the dead, and therefore you’re an atheist.

That’s circular, right?

No, I’m saying that people don’t rise from the dead. If you want me to believe it happened, you have to prove it. Then you would also have to prove that it happened for the reason you said it happened. Until you can do that, I’m going to side with basic biology.