What If There Is a God?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that the revelations do not match up? There are two explanations considered - a theistic one or a "personal introspection is unreliable" one. The reason atheists prefer the latter is not because God doesnt exist but because reliable methods of getting at the truth agree with each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that argument. And there's a tremendous amount of debate that swirls around it. What I see normally happening is both sides declare victory in the debate and leave the table. They essentially both proclaim their premise at that point. The Religious go back to their business and the radical Atheists pronounce a crusade to abolish religion. My point is they should focus in on that point of contention and continue to discuss it. At least until they come to where they can agree to disagree.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyone arguing against the theist position who begins with the premise "There is no God" is clearly not making a very logically persuasive argument. I dont think this is a very common tactic though.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
He will readily admit he can't prove it. But he will give explanations for why he finds his belief reasonable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Under those conditions he's better off in the "tis so" , "tis not" exchanges. We'd save a lot of time because I'd gladly concede that he finds his beliefs reasonable and that he can't prove them.
What the heck does he want to debate?


luckyme

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He will readily admit he can't prove it. But he will give explanations for why he finds his belief reasonable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Under those conditions he's better off in the "tis so" , "tis not" exchanges. We'd save a lot of time because I'd gladly concede that he finds his beliefs reasonable and that he can't prove them.
What the heck does he want to debate?


luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

You brought up your debate with him luckyme. The question is how this relates to the OP. I adressed that in the part of my post you failed to quote,

-----------------
Now you look at that along with the fact that there are numerous various interpretations that many people simliarly believe and you conclude there is no possible explanation for that scenario that actually involves some kind of God which these people are having experiences with.

I don't see that as a logical concusion on your part. That's really your premise that you keep proclaiming over and over again.
------------------

PairTheBoard

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course the individual Theist is going to believe that his interpretation is the correct one. That's why he believes it. He will readily admit he can't prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Believers CAN prove it. The trouble is, there is no proof...

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the individual Theist is going to believe that his interpretation is the correct one. That's why he believes it. He will readily admit he can't prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Believers CAN prove it. The trouble is, there is no proof...

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean there are no believers? Or have I misunderstood..? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Schmitty 87]

PairTheBoard:

If the evangelical Christian God does indeed exist, certainly any critique I could make of "Him" would evaporate. MidGe has written that he would fight such a monstrous being, but I don't think that that would be proper. I may demand to have my day in court (just like Job), but what must God say but "You are through no doing of your own?" How could I respond but to curse my creation and beg for mercy?

When I say that I find the Evangelical idea of a final judgment to be ridiculous, of course I am presuming that there will be no final judgment. Were I to presume that the judgment did exist, the idea would no longer be so abhorrent, as it would simply be a routine fact of life. I acknowledge that my presumption that the Evangelical Christian God does not exist is the basis for my finding that particular religion utterly ridiculous.

I still don't see the logical problem with my making such a presumption though. It's not as if the presumption is entirely unfounded, even if I do not spell out the reasons every time I call Pat Robertson a fool. Were I to say that I find the Evangelical religion intolerant, and thus uncharacteristic of God, I would still then have the problem that I'm presuming a definition of tolerance and of the characteristics of God.

If I call someone ridiculous for believing 2+2=5, that of course would be a result of my presumption that 2+2 does not equal 5. Must I reinvent algebra before making the critique? And must I also prove that my presumption of algebra as correct is correct?

Religion is the same, not in the sense that the truth/non-truth of a religion is as widely accepted/not-accepted as 2+2=4, but in the sense that belief/non-belief are both the result of many presumptions. If God exists, then atheist presumptions are wrong, and thus their critiques are ridiculous (of course an atheist may still say religion is a dividing force, etc., but that is not a critique based on the presumption that God does not exist). If God does not exist, then theist presumptions are wrong, and thus their assertions are ridiculous (of course a theist may still say that the commandments are good, etc., but that is not an assertion that must be based on the presumption that God exists).

As for the validity of various conflicting presumptions, this again depends on a presumption about the definition of valid. Is it what feels right? Is it based on personal experience? In science?

One thing I will say is that (for example) the Christian presumption that Abraham's willingness to kill his son is a holy act is absurd. It's just that the Christian embraces the absurdity whereas the athiest shuns it. And I suppose you're right that some might find killing one's son to naturally be a good thing, and that they could be correct for all we know, but must we really have that argument? IMO, the Christian should not be afraid in the least to acknowledge the absurdity of some of their beliefs. Only then can they be (paradoxically) reasonable. If I were to believe that the existence of God was as clear as a rock lying on the ground, then I would be being unreasonable, because it is not as clear. And if I wanted to assert that actually it is that clear and that it's just that some of us are not capable of seeing it, then how can someone argue with me? They may say "Well, I don't see God and I see the rock", and I may respond "Well, I do see God and I see the rock too." The conversation can go no further. Only if I acknowledge the seeming absurdity of believing in God can the conversation possibly continue (provided my friend reasonably acknowledges that absurdity marks many aspects of life).

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the individual Theist is going to believe that his interpretation is the correct one. That's why he believes it. He will readily admit he can't prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Believers CAN prove it. The trouble is, there is no proof...

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean there are no believers? Or have I misunderstood..? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think NotReady will admit he can't prove it. But he will claim that he "knows" it. It's a tricky thing that I think Atheists make too much of. He's not claiming scientific knowledge. It's really a peculiar religiously technical use of the word that they understand in their special way. I think the purpose for it is to help people feel secure in their beliefs. It's an "in for a penny in for a pound" kind of thing.

There is some merit to it in my opinion. There are a lot of situations where once you decide to go for it, you are better off going for it with gusto than to just making a "tenuous" effort. I learned that word listening to women commentators overuse it when describing weak play by women tennis competitors.

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If God exists, then atheist presumptions are wrong, and thus their critiques are ridiculous ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Couple of problems with that.
1)Atheists didn't get up one morning and say, "let's presume there is no god" many western atheists arrived by some torturous route, starting from a religious upbringing. But in any culture around the world being an atheism is something you conclude, not something you presume.

2) God's existence would likely leave most of the atheist critiques of religion intact. Since the argument they raise is about the evidence claimed by theists and with the huge variety of religious claims currently and in the past there will still be a high failure rate. Iow, the argument isn't "god doesn't exist" the argument is "you have no evidence he does." that will mostly hold up.

[ QUOTE ]
If I were to believe that the existence of God was as clear as a rock lying on the ground, then I would be being unreasonable, because it is not as clear. And if I wanted to assert that actually it is that clear and that it's just that some of us are not capable of seeing it, then how can someone argue with me? They may say "Well, I don't see God and I see the rock", and I may respond "Well, I do see God and I see the rock too." The conversation can go no further. Only if I acknowledge the seeming absurdity of believing in God can the conversation possibly continue (provided my friend reasonably acknowledges that absurdity marks many aspects of life).


[/ QUOTE ]

That's related to how i see it also. What's to debate with someone claiming special powers and that their position is not subject to logical examination. Roll of the eyes and moving on is as good as anything, see if there's anything happening at the alien abductee meeting.

thanks, luckyme

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
2) God's existence would likely leave most of the atheist critiques of religion intact. Since the argument they raise is about the evidence claimed by theists and with the huge variety of religious claims currently and in the past there will still be a high failure rate. Iow, the argument isn't "god doesn't exist" the argument is "you have no evidence he does." that will mostly hold up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok agreed, but when you use the whole no evidence thing to write books called "The God Delusion" then it seems that you are also claiming that God does not exist. (which is not to argue with you, only to say that even the most brilliant atheists don't stick to the you don't have any evidence thing without making some claims of their own)

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) God's existence would likely leave most of the atheist critiques of religion intact. Since the argument they raise is about the evidence claimed by theists and with the huge variety of religious claims currently and in the past there will still be a high failure rate. Iow, the argument isn't "god doesn't exist" the argument is "you have no evidence he does." that will mostly hold up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok agreed, but when you use the whole no evidence thing to write books called "The God Delusion" then it seems that you are also claiming that God does not exist. (which is not to argue with you, only to say that even the most brilliant atheists don't stick to the you don't have any evidence thing without making some claims of their own)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I follow the 'claims of their own' part.

"god does not exist" statements are usually a result of rounding, unless a theist foolishly makes a specific enough claim that is falsifiable. For the more usual, fuzzy-edged, vague propertied gods about all you can do is try and show that their 'evidence' has reasonable doubt you can hide the grand canyon in.

It would be a strange exchange that goes -
"God exists because who else would make dinosaurs."
"god doesn't exist."

DS would have to rank them both lower than Moron if they continue past that point along the same vien.

The 'god doesn't exist' statement shows up at the output end of a theistic claim.
"We should stone wayward women like god instructs."
"god doesn't exist"

It's use there is a valid rebuttal of the theist argument on stoning. It's the normal debate point of calling attention that the premise the argument is built on hasn't been established. Happens in most non-religious arguments also, it's the commonest issue.

luckyme