I hear this all the time. I have "ample evidence against the existence of your or any other God or gods," and I'm just not seeing it. Per your own words again, "Now, this isn't an absolute proof against the existence of God." So which is it? Is there ample evidence or not?
Even your acclaimed dependence upon "evidence" assumes the human ability to consider a certain body of material and/or facts and then make an unbridled and "reasonable" decision as to which claim is true or false. The problem being, of course, is that the kind of reality you endorse, a godless, i.e. purely naturalistic universe, binds the "mind" of man. It reduces it to the sum of its total parts as merely physical and chemical reactions. It is determinism in its scariest form. Each thought, or decision, then is the product of prior physical and chemical conditions and nothing else.
So, your assumption regarding "evidence" itself, assumes something about the human mind that your atheism, consistently held, does not allow.
Any attempt therefore, to posit evidence is to borrow the assumptions inherent to a theistic universe rather than the materialistic one you endorse. In an atheistic universe, the mind and brain are synonymous and that idea spawns some very serious problems - among which is the elimination of free will. So, how can you follow the evidence if the means to do so is abolished.
Finally, the assumption that Science is the only valid source of knowledge is naive. Knowledge is possible via historical investigation, reason, as well as intuitively, i.e. the universalistic knowledge of God you mentioned earlier. Science, in fact, is also unable to determine moral decisions. Scientist may created the "Bomb," but it cannot determine if or when it should be used. Neither can science verify reason because reason is an assumed reality rather than something that can be subjected to the scientific method.
1st, The point I was making was that any number of wrong answers do not annul the possibility a right one, and in the case of God's existence, just because a number of contradictory claims are available, it does not exclude the possibility that one of the views or even another view is actually true.
2nd, Even the existence of various religions, by people separated geographically, offers no evidence that God does not exist. If anything it is evidence of his actual existence as indicated by the innate and universal God consciousness of humanity at large. Even mainline atheists concur with this universality and innateness.
Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, for example, concede the troubling universality of the dualistic/theistic slant of human beings universally and innately. Referring to a "dualistic" view of the mind, both men concede this troubling reality when, according to their materialistic atheism, No such reality exists. Of course, if they concede the actual existence of mind as a separate non-physical entity from the physical brain, then that would point to an immaterial first cause, namely, God.
(Dennett, Consciousness Explained. p 37)
(Dawkins, The God Delusion. p 179)
Even the former atheist of atheists, Antony Flew has conceded this universal and innate "natural" bent of the human race as evidence of God's existence.
Here I quote a very small excerpt from the book I am currently writing, "The Miracles of Atheism,"
"Antony Flew concurringly noted the validity of this argument. i.e. the universality of knowledge of the divine, as “By far, the headiest challenge” to atheism. Referencing Alvin Platinga’s idea that “theism is a properly basic belief,” along with other basic beliefs about things like “other minds or memory” challenging. He also refers to the “Thomist Philosopher, Ralph McInerny” who declared belief in God to be natural. “So much so,” said Flew, 'that the idea of God is almost innate, which seems like a prima facie argument against atheism.'” (There is a God, p 55)
3rd, the very real possibility that sinful men pervert the universal and "consistent" revelation made available to them exists. In fact, that is the explanation that the Apostle Paul gives (Romans 1). The revelation, as you say, is consistent, but man "does not like to retain God in their knowledge" and changes it to make it more palatable than the actual knowledge available to them.
So, actual and universal knowledge of God exists but when perverted by a rebellious race, it would rise in the many and various forms you cite.
We will deal with these issues first, Andrew, and then we will move on to your other "arguments." I await your response to the above comments. It is very easy to overload the readers in this kind of forum with too many discussions going on at a time.
"God is on the losing side of history.
There are many phenomena that were
originally explained by divine
providence but are now explained by
math, science, logic, or closer
historical study. Take mental illness:
originally, people believed that
mental illness was the result of
demonic possession, but now we know
that it comes from psychological
trauma and chemical imbalances in the
brain. On the other hand, there is
nothing that was ever explained by
science, math, logic, or history that
is now explained by religion. This
indicates that religion is not an
independent source of truth, but
rather a story that people make up to
explain strange phenomena until real
explanations become available."
But.....
Which phenomena were explained as "divine providence" that has now been explained by "science?" Concerning the idea that "people thought mental illness was the result of demonic possession", I'm not sure what "people" you mean.
Remember, just as a large number of religions do not nullify the possibility of one of them being true, the fact of misdiagnosis does not mean that some mental illnesses might be caused by demonic possession or oppression.
As far as evidence against the
existence of god, off the top of my
head… The sheer number of religions
that exist in the world is evidence
against the existence of God. Each
religion has wildly different views of
spirituality and divinity. Some
believe in one God, others believe in
many, and still others believe not in
gods but in abstract spiritual forces.
If there really were a God, she or he
would presumably provide the same
revelation to every culture. The fact
that each culture has its own unique
religion, one clearly suited to that
culture and inconsistent with other
religions, implies that religion is
just a faculty of the human
imagination.
Andrew, the issue you raise here is no more an argument against the existence of God than the existence of an infinite number of wrong answers to 2+2=4 annuls the existence of a right answer.
And just because we conclude, logically, I might add, that all of the exclusionary claims can't all be true, it does not preclude the possibility of one being true.
Hence, your argument does not qualify as evidence against the existence of God.
I will post other answers either tonight or in the morning as I have time to get to them.
To begin, I never said that "Belief in God determines morality." I said that "one's view of ultimate reality determines one's view of morality." That means that even an atheistic materialist like Richard Dawkins believes that people "dance to their DNA." This means that his view of reality, dictates his view of morality. As he sees it, morality as such has only to do with one's predetermined DNA. Thus, his worldview, his view of ultimate reality, rules out the existence of human volition.
"So do you have an actual argument for
government patronage of religion, or
are you just diverting?"
My Answer: No diversion here. I have never believed that religious patronage should be mandatory, but I do believe that the "free exercise" should not be stifled as it is in growing instances.
I just think the "evidence" against God's existence if more important than what we think about politics. After all, one's view of ultimate reality dictates one's view on government and its limits as well as morality, don't you think?
Hence, I will take each paragraph and answer if you will do the same for my questions to you - agreed?
I will answer the issues note here in this public forum, in one post at a time, and you can answer a set of questions I will ask here as well. Then we will go to the email discussion you mentioned, if you like.
Not sure what you mean by "concrete" in regard to the bible.
I would not say that every fragment is worthless and may, in fact, give insight to certain historical particulars, but since the testimony of the Bible is so good concerning Jesus and confirmed with his physical resurrection, those testimonies concering the Messiah are accurate and serve as the plumline on Jesus, his life and ministry.
The bible was completed within a few decades of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection. it was written by mostly eyewitnesses, particulalry to the resurrected Christ, or by a close associate to the apostles, Luke for example. The witnesses were reliable, particularly since most of them gave their lives for the truth claims they made with the physical resurrection being central to their Gospel - a clear indication that they really beleived that they saw Jesus inhis resurrected body.
The evidence for the bible's authenticity and accuracy is phenomenal.
If you could clarify what you mean it will give me a better indication as to where I need to go with the answer.
link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Is There Really a War on Christmas?
OOOPS... Not sure why the outline appears as it does above. The final number "1" was supposed to be number "3."
I tried to fix it, but was unable to.
Oh well, I'll just await your response, Andrew.
Tony
link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Is There Really a War on Christmas?
Hello Andrew,
I hear this all the time. I have "ample evidence against the existence of your or any other God or gods," and I'm just not seeing it. Per your own words again, "Now, this isn't an absolute proof against the existence of God." So which is it? Is there ample evidence or not? Even your acclaimed dependence upon "evidence" assumes the human ability to consider a certain body of material and/or facts and then make an unbridled and "reasonable" decision as to which claim is true or false. The problem being, of course, is that the kind of reality you endorse, a godless, i.e. purely naturalistic universe, binds the "mind" of man. It reduces it to the sum of its total parts as merely physical and chemical reactions. It is determinism in its scariest form. Each thought, or decision, then is the product of prior physical and chemical conditions and nothing else.
So, your assumption regarding "evidence" itself, assumes something about the human mind that your atheism, consistently held, does not allow.
Any attempt therefore, to posit evidence is to borrow the assumptions inherent to a theistic universe rather than the materialistic one you endorse. In an atheistic universe, the mind and brain are synonymous and that idea spawns some very serious problems - among which is the elimination of free will. So, how can you follow the evidence if the means to do so is abolished.
Tony
link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Is There Really a War on Christmas?
Hello Andrew,
1st, The point I was making was that any number of wrong answers do not annul the possibility a right one, and in the case of God's existence, just because a number of contradictory claims are available, it does not exclude the possibility that one of the views or even another view is actually true.
2nd, Even the existence of various religions, by people separated geographically, offers no evidence that God does not exist. If anything it is evidence of his actual existence as indicated by the innate and universal God consciousness of humanity at large. Even mainline atheists concur with this universality and innateness.
Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, for example, concede the troubling universality of the dualistic/theistic slant of human beings universally and innately. Referring to a "dualistic" view of the mind, both men concede this troubling reality when, according to their materialistic atheism, No such reality exists. Of course, if they concede the actual existence of mind as a separate non-physical entity from the physical brain, then that would point to an immaterial first cause, namely, God.
(Dennett, Consciousness Explained. p 37) (Dawkins, The God Delusion. p 179)
Even the former atheist of atheists, Antony Flew has conceded this universal and innate "natural" bent of the human race as evidence of God's existence. Here I quote a very small excerpt from the book I am currently writing, "The Miracles of Atheism,"
"Antony Flew concurringly noted the validity of this argument. i.e. the universality of knowledge of the divine, as “By far, the headiest challenge” to atheism. Referencing Alvin Platinga’s idea that “theism is a properly basic belief,” along with other basic beliefs about things like “other minds or memory” challenging. He also refers to the “Thomist Philosopher, Ralph McInerny” who declared belief in God to be natural. “So much so,” said Flew, 'that the idea of God is almost innate, which seems like a prima facie argument against atheism.'” (There is a God, p 55)
3rd, the very real possibility that sinful men pervert the universal and "consistent" revelation made available to them exists. In fact, that is the explanation that the Apostle Paul gives (Romans 1). The revelation, as you say, is consistent, but man "does not like to retain God in their knowledge" and changes it to make it more palatable than the actual knowledge available to them.
So, actual and universal knowledge of God exists but when perverted by a rebellious race, it would rise in the many and various forms you cite.
Tony
link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Is There Really a War on Christmas?
We will deal with these issues first, Andrew, and then we will move on to your other "arguments." I await your response to the above comments. It is very easy to overload the readers in this kind of forum with too many discussions going on at a time.
Thank you for the interaction.
Tony Watts
link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Is There Really a War on Christmas?
Hello again Andrew
You said,
But.....
Which phenomena were explained as "divine providence" that has now been explained by "science?" Concerning the idea that "people thought mental illness was the result of demonic possession", I'm not sure what "people" you mean.
Remember, just as a large number of religions do not nullify the possibility of one of them being true, the fact of misdiagnosis does not mean that some mental illnesses might be caused by demonic possession or oppression.
Tony
link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Is There Really a War on Christmas?
Hello Andrew,
You said,
Andrew, the issue you raise here is no more an argument against the existence of God than the existence of an infinite number of wrong answers to 2+2=4 annuls the existence of a right answer.
And just because we conclude, logically, I might add, that all of the exclusionary claims can't all be true, it does not preclude the possibility of one being true.
Hence, your argument does not qualify as evidence against the existence of God.
I will post other answers either tonight or in the morning as I have time to get to them.
Tony
link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Is There Really a War on Christmas?
Hello Andrew,
To begin, I never said that "Belief in God determines morality." I said that "one's view of ultimate reality determines one's view of morality." That means that even an atheistic materialist like Richard Dawkins believes that people "dance to their DNA." This means that his view of reality, dictates his view of morality. As he sees it, morality as such has only to do with one's predetermined DNA. Thus, his worldview, his view of ultimate reality, rules out the existence of human volition.
link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Is There Really a War on Christmas?
Hey man,
Thanks for responding. I didn’t think you would.
You said:
My Answer: No diversion here. I have never believed that religious patronage should be mandatory, but I do believe that the "free exercise" should not be stifled as it is in growing instances. I just think the "evidence" against God's existence if more important than what we think about politics. After all, one's view of ultimate reality dictates one's view on government and its limits as well as morality, don't you think? Hence, I will take each paragraph and answer if you will do the same for my questions to you - agreed?
I will answer the issues note here in this public forum, in one post at a time, and you can answer a set of questions I will ask here as well. Then we will go to the email discussion you mentioned, if you like.
I look forward to the interaction - in any venue.
link2eternity 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Is There Really a War on Christmas?
I'd be very interested in entertaining your "ample evidence" for God's nonexistence.
Tony
link2eternity 11 months ago
Jesus, Give Back the Wheel!
Hello again, SH59,
Not sure what you mean by "concrete" in regard to the bible.
I would not say that every fragment is worthless and may, in fact, give insight to certain historical particulars, but since the testimony of the Bible is so good concerning Jesus and confirmed with his physical resurrection, those testimonies concering the Messiah are accurate and serve as the plumline on Jesus, his life and ministry.
The bible was completed within a few decades of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection. it was written by mostly eyewitnesses, particulalry to the resurrected Christ, or by a close associate to the apostles, Luke for example. The witnesses were reliable, particularly since most of them gave their lives for the truth claims they made with the physical resurrection being central to their Gospel - a clear indication that they really beleived that they saw Jesus inhis resurrected body.
The evidence for the bible's authenticity and accuracy is phenomenal.
If you could clarify what you mean it will give me a better indication as to where I need to go with the answer.
Enjoying the interaction.
Tony