Atheism, Logical?

[-Cp]

Atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. More specifically, traditional atheism argues that there never was and never will be a God. But is this position rationally justifiable?

Atheism positively affirms that there is no God. But can the atheist be certain of this claim? You see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you would have to possess Godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind’s limited nature precludes these special abilities. The atheist’s dogmatic claim is therefore clearly unjustifiable. The atheist is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.

The atheistic world view is inadequate for many other reasons as well. First, atheism cannot adequately explain the existence of the world. Like all other things, the world in which we live cries out for an explanation which is clearly beyond itself — however, the atheist is unable to provide one. Second, the atheistic world view is unable to provide the necessary preconditions to account for the laws of science, the universal laws of logic — and, of course, absolute moral standards. In short, the atheistic world view cannot account for the meaningful realities of life.

If individual atheists are serious about truth when it comes to God, let them consider the claims of Jesus Christ. He claimed to be none other than God in human flesh (John 1:1). This astounding claim was supported, however, by His matchless personal character, His fulfillment of predictive prophecy, His incredible influence on human history — and most importantly, the historical fact of His resurrection from the dead. The evidence is definitely there for the skeptic to analyze. As Francis Schaeffer, the noted apologist, stated: “God is there and He is not silent.” God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19). Ultimately man does not deny the existence of God for lack of evidence, but because man does not want to be accountable to his creator.

 

[-Cp]

“Come on, man! We live in an age of scientific enlightenment — you can’t really mean that you still believe there’s a God. Get real, I mean I used to believe there was a God too, but that was when I was still in kindergarten — in diapers. Now I’d need some proof….”

The fact of the matter is that reasons for believing that there’s a God are too numerous, I hardly know where to begin. The first reason I believe in God is that we are totally incapable of rationally explaining the world without a God. Take the universe, for example. Science has successfully demonstrated that the universe had a specific beginning — and that it is now running down due to the lack of available energy. In fact, the universe in which we live is dying of heat loss. Now since our scientific understanding rules out an eternal universe, and since it is totally irrational to believe that the universe sprang from nothing, the only rational explanation is that a supernatural being created the world in which we live; and that this being is all-powerful, intelligent, moral, and, of course, self-existent.

The next reason I believe there’s a God is that atheism is incapable of accounting for the vast array of phenomena which we experience every single day. An atheistic world view cannot adequately account for such things as, the universal laws of logic, laws of science, not to mention, standards of morality. In addition, if there is no God, then there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to life — we are little more than animals.

But the real reason I believe there’s a God is that He has revealed Himself to me through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed to be God in human flesh (John 8:58). Now this is an astounding claim, but He supported the claim by His matchless personal character, His fulfillment of predictive prophecy, by His influence on human history, but most significantly, by His historical resurrection from the dead. Now, if you are looking for God — you need look no further than Jesus Christ Himself. He was either a liar, a lunatic , a legend, or He was, in fact, Lord. Now I think if you’ll examine the evidence, you’ll agree with me that He was the Lord, the one who spoke and the universe leapt into existence.

 

[White knight]

Man will use science to pull back the curtain and will revel the wizard hiding behind these mysteries.
Man will create through technology his own God to watch over man. We call him TIA or Ra

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I, as an athiest or agnostic, as yet to be determined, do not try to disprove God.

I believe in Ockhams Razor and therefore if all of this can be explained without a magical force behind it all, I'll go with that explanation.

 

[kassandra]

Firstly John 1:1 is almost certainly a redacted part of the text in order to give orthadoxy to a Gospel with many Gnostic overtones (first mentioned in St. Ireneus: Against all Heresies - a book about the Gnostics). So claim that "The word became flesh" is not in any sense a direct message from Jesus.



Theism and Atheism both have thier problems. The cosmolgical arguments that you put forward are most eloquently refuted by Kant (himself a devout Christian) in the Cirtique of Pure Reason (book III Chapter III I think), he also refutes any ontological proofs. Even Sceptical arguments (such as Hume or Berekly [given a certain reading] ) can be used to justify an atheisitic position.

To be honest, as you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about, and a pretty shoddy reading of the bible I don't think that your justification of Theism should be taken too seriously:

now go read something other than the bible.

 

[dmp]

Couple of things...

Firstly John 1:1 is almost certainly a redacted part of the text in order to give orthadoxy to a Gospel with many Gnostic overtones (first mentioned in St. Ireneus: Against all Heresies - a book about the Gnostics). So claim that "The word became flesh" is not in any sense a direct message from Jesus.

Says who? Alsost Certainly...that means 'I have no f'ing clue..but maybe'.

Theism and Atheism both have thier problems. The cosmolgical arguments that you put forward are most eloquently refuted by Kant (himself a devout Christian) in the Cirtique of Pure Reason (book III Chapter III I think), he also refutes any ontological proofs. Even Sceptical arguments (such as Hume or Berekly [given a certain reading] ) can be used to justify an atheisitic position.

What? Given your following comments, I'd guess you copied that bit of text from google.

To be honest, as you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about, and a pretty shoddy reading of the bible I don't think that your justification of Theism should be taken too seriously:

now go read something other than the bible.

[/quote]

This isn't the same language as the first couple paragraphs. Please don't become a copy&paste whore.

Say what you mean...explain what you mean the best you can. If you plagarize, cite the source (goes for all members)...

And...Newbies on High-Horses suck.

if the shoe fits...


welcome to the board.

 

[kassandra]

Actually my knowledge of Kant is thanks to Professor Anderson at Oxford University (where I study).

I am not sure I understand your last point (by the way How do I quote?)

The problem that Theism presents philosophy is one of the analytically true existential statment, in other word how can we claim existance for what we cannot know (God, as I am sure you agree, is unkowable). The cosmolgical proof of God fails for a number of reasons. The most susinct of these is Humes. To argue that the very existence of the universe is a proof of God is to use an analogy (though this is not immediately apparent). The analogy is one that Paley admits in his cosmolgical proof: the analogy of the watchmaker. To assume that the universe has a creator is bound up in our principles of cause-effect. We see a complex object (the universe) and so posit a maker (God) because in our expereince anything complicated (e.g. a watch) has to be made by someone.

So far so good...

Hume argues this on two levels, the first is that of causality, Hume denies that we can ever prove causality (This is a long and complex argument if anyone is interested in it I would suggest reading Russel on Hume). The second level is that of analogy. Hume correctly points out that any analogy is imperfect (if it were perfect then you would be describeing the actual case rather than one like it). If your analogy is not perfect then there is room for doubt, this applies to any form cosmological argument as it relies on an analogous interpretation of emprical evidence.

Kant does take this idea further but in a typically opaque manner. To fully understand it requires an understanding of Trancidentalism, however the basics of the argument is expressed more neatly in Hume

 

[dmp]

God IS Knowable...


hit the 'quote' button to quote the person whose msg you'd wish to, uh, quote

 

[kassandra]

God is knowable? (I missed a essay on this today actually!)

Well there are those who argue that God is knowable, for example the process school of theology, Jurgen Moltmann, Paul Fiddes etc... Though process theology does 'downgrade' God. However I personaly take the Bathian line on this. God is trancendent of all his creation (this is a matter of doctrine),If God is trancendent then by extention he cannot be known through entirely emprical means (A process theologian would take issue with God's trancendence). This means that nay knowledge of God has to come in the form of revelation. This act of revelation (best expressed in Christ according to Barth) is the only manner through which we know God. Hence Christian doctrine states that God is unkowable (revelation seen as sepereate and superior to knowledge). In the debate of the existence of God revelation has to be discounted becase it would be circular to argue that: God exists because God told me. God is assumed at the outset.

So the only path by which God is 'knowable' (revelation) is irrelevent when it come to the discussion of his existance (at a conceptual level, I understand that personal revelation is fundimentaly what causes a person to beleive or not).

I may be a new boy here but don't assume I'm dumb

 

[dmp]

I may be a new boy here but don't assume I'm dumb

what does that have to do with anything?

 

[kassandra]

don't get sidelined i was enjoying our debate,

The comment was directed at the slanderous accusation I copied off google. By the way I am flattered That you were sufficiently impressed with it to assume I did not write it...

 

[nakedemperor]

Atheism positively affirms that there is no God. But can the atheist be certain of this claim? You see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you would have to possess Godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind’s limited nature precludes these special abilities. The atheist’s dogmatic claim is therefore clearly unjustifiable. The atheist is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.

I am an agnostic, but your logic is flawed, -Cp. It states that in order to be certain that no God exists, one would have to have knowledge that humans don't have. This is, at this point in time, true. However, it is not a logically refutation of the claim "there is no God" because the same logic can be applied to the claim "there is a God". Ergo, in order to be certain God exists, one would have to have knowledge that humans don't have.

The atheistic world view is inadequate for many other reasons as well. First, atheism cannot adequately explain the existence of the world. Like all other things, the world in which we live cries out for an explanation which is clearly beyond itself — however, the atheist is unable to provide one. Second, the atheistic world view is unable to provide the necessary preconditions to account for the laws of science, the universal laws of logic — and, of course, absolute moral standards. In short, the atheistic world view cannot account for the meaningful realities of life.

Atheism does not SEEK to explain the existence of the world. Atheism is merely a denial of the claim that God created the world. The claim that the world "cries out for an explanation which is clearly beyond itself" is a flowery non-sequitor. I uh, don't hear any crying out. Similarly, atheism does not SEEK to "provide the necessary preconditions to account for the laws of science" and especially "absolute moral standards". That would be like refuting the validity Gym class because it didn't teach you anything about math.

Ultimately man does not deny the existence of God for lack of evidence, but because man does not want to be accountable to his creator.

Haha, funny. I give credit where credit is due. And, in point of fact, all atheists and agnostics believe what they believe because of a lack of evidence. Forgive me for scoffing at the claim that someone was "resurected from the dead" as a historical fact. As someone who otherwise clamors unceasingly for "facts" and "support" and "evidence", your defense here is kind of thing. Except for the "matchless personal character" bit...that almost had me.

 

[dmp]

don't get sidelined i was enjoying our debate

I am not sidelined, nor am I in your debate. I'm pointing to the schizophrenic nature of your posts - it's as if you are coping the 'intellectual' stuff from Google, then adding your own 'Yeah! Suck-a-Cock!' comments at the end:

"You don't have a clue.."

"don't assume I'm dumb.."

Were you simply just bragging about your self-perceived intelligence with that last line?

 

[dmp]

And, in point of fact, all atheists and agnostics believe what they believe because of a lack of evidence. .

Frankly, I've not met ANYONE who honestly looked for evidence to keep the same opinion after the evidence was presented.

 

[kassandra]

I don't entirely understand how my posts are scitzophrenic (by the way you mean multiple personality distorder). Just becase I can both know what I am talking about and have a direct style of debate does not mean I am either plagiarising or metaly ill.

I am merely trying to express my arguments in the most accurate manner that I can. You find me arrogant: I suppose I will have to live with that.

 

[dmp]

I don't entirely understand how my posts are scitzophrenic (by the way you mean multiple personality distorder). Just becase I can both know what I am talking about and have a direct style of debate does not mean I am either plagiarising or metaly ill.

Then perhaps you 'are' dumber than you suppose. My replies are pretty clear.

I am merely trying to express my arguments in the most accurate manner that I can. You find me arrogant: I suppose I will have to live with that.

sure. Whatever floats your boat. Just be 'nice'...

 

[JohnGalt]

HAHA, just thought that I would throw this in... http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=af_agnostics


This is one of Maddox's April Fools day pages. Man he rocks. That is just the opposite of the way he really is.
Check out the rest of his real site if you want to go to heaven. Wow that sounded authoritive.

 

[manu1959]

god's existance can not be proven .... the belief that there is a god is easily proven

 

[dilloduck]

and the point of proving or disproving that god exists is-----------?

 

[manu1959]

and the point of proving or disproving that god exists is-----------?

from my perspective none ... religion is a matter of faith ... you either belive or you don't ... from where i sit if it gets you through the day great ... as for me never found much use for it ...