|
|
#1
09-07-2007, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
It Wouldn\'t Take Much
A lot of theists like to go beyond insufficient evidence as the reason why atheists and agnostics don't believe. They insist on making the further claim that we're somehow against God. That we don't want to believe and go out of our way not to. I think what many don't realize is that it wouldn't take much for most of us to seriously take another look on whether or not there is a god. It certainly wouldn't take any earth shattering miracle like a sea parting, or extreme instances of known physical laws being turned on their head. How about if just....
High priests were immune to deadly diseases? The pope or some other religious leader lived to an age beyond 200 years old? The pope or some other high religious leader invoked a successful mass community prayer to eliminate AIDS or cancer from the earth? 10,000 or more people all simultaneously received the same sign or message from God about a particular thing? One accurate modern day prediction with details from a religious authority, such as the foretelling of the internet back in 1960? Of course, theists will be quick to point out that God doesn't need to do any of this. But it's worth noting that none of the above things are unreasonable. In fact, I would argue that at least some of them should be things we'd expect if there really were a god. Has there not been a single pope or religious leader who has pleased God enough through his services that God wouldn't want to keep him around for 500 years or so? Why wouldn't God allow those who serve Him in high order some degree of immunity from the suffering of deadly diseases? I understand He doesn't have to, or even that we should expect it, but why wouldn't He? I think anyone who is a theist who believes in a personal God should be bothered that none of these things ever happen. Forget the big miracles you've never seen. Just the complete and utter absence of little ones like these should greatly trouble you that they never ever occur. 
|
|
#3
09-07-2007, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: It Wouldn\'t Take Much
[ QUOTE ]
I think Dawkins sums up your point quite nicely when he states that the universe would be a very different place if there was a personal God. [/ QUOTE ] I missed this. In what aspects should we expect a different universe if there were a personal God? The things I listed, and what else? Where does Dawkins say this?
|
|
#4
09-07-2007, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: It Wouldn\'t Take Much
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think Dawkins sums up your point quite nicely when he states that the universe would be a very different place if there was a personal God. [/ QUOTE ] I missed this. In what aspects should we expect a different universe if there were a personal God? The things I listed, and what else? Where does Dawkins say this? [/ QUOTE ] He mentions this quote, usually in his debates. For a specific instance he states this in his opening statement with his debate with Alistor McGrath. Here is the link. Debate I assume what he means when he says this can perhaps be evidenced by miracles in general. If a God actually did break the laws of physics to perform these tasks, there would be evidence of such, and that evidence would provide as a result a much different Universe. However, more interesting I think, is Neil D. Tyson's similar argument; that if there was a design with us in mind, that design would be much more efficient. Exampled by the fact that we breath, talk, eat all out of the same hole, or that our spinal cord is built out of non-healing cells as opposed to say some copper wiring, or the sheer existance of the fact that it appears the Universe is trying to kill us at every turn. In short, if a Personal God would build us a Universe ust for us, we should expect a much more human friendly design.
|
|
#5
09-07-2007, 05:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: It Wouldn\'t Take Much
He uses this tactic as a way of refuting Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria idea, and I think he is correct. The God that most Christians claim to believe in is a scientifically testable entity, whether they want to admit it or not. They must answer this question: Would there be any conceivable way to tell the difference between a Universe where God existed or one where he did not? If they say yes, God is testable, if they say no, God is irrelevant.
There are workarounds to this problem, NotReady would probably claim that the question is invalid in that "Universe in which God doesn't exist" is a meaningless phrase. Thats fine, I don't think this argument is the Great Disproof of God, but its still a valid objection, IMO and something Christians should have to have an answer for.
|
|
#6
09-07-2007, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: It Wouldn\'t Take Much
[ QUOTE ]
I missed this. In what aspects should we expect a different universe if there were a personal God? The things I listed, and what else? Where does Dawkins say this? [/ QUOTE ] Read The God Delusion, particularly chapter four. He expounds on this point in great detail, and the book is really a great read from start to finish.
|
|
#7
09-07-2007, 08:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: It Wouldn\'t Take Much
In the Dark Ages everybody loved God and they were rewarded with nothing but disease and war.
|
|
#10
09-08-2007, 12:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: It Wouldn\'t Take Much
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] High priests were immune to deadly diseases? [/ QUOTE ] An entire universe appeared seemingly out of nothing for no apparent reason? [/ QUOTE ] But think of all the universes that didn't! So its only 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% likely God doesn't exist?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
