Friday, July 4, 2008

Rant Alert

I couldn't resist posting my thoughts on this article...

Atheists are those who deny the existence of a divine, supreme being (which is usually called “God”).

As usual, assuming their god is the only one worth mentioning.

...atheism and Christianity both believe in the existence or non-existence of God. Neither one “proves” it. (I must clarify that when I use the term “prove”, I mean it strictly in the empirical, deductive, or inductive senses. I realize that this narrow definition leaves the door open to potential misunderstanding, but I simply don’t have the space to clarify further.)

What other kind of proof is there? Oh, I know, he's probably talking about feelings

The first type says that there’s enough evidence to disprove the existence of God (empirical argument). The second type of argument says that the idea of God itself is illogical (inductive or deductive argument).
So is there enough evidence to disprove the existence of God?

Um, problem...It is not our duty to disprove God. The burden is on you. Atheists do not have to gather evidence to disprove your God, but we do demand that you provide evidence for a thing's existence before we are compelled to believe it! And while we're at it, have you gathered enough evidence to disprove all of the other gods before you reject them?

Well, the problem with this approach is that evidence is something that applies to the physical world. But how are you going to measure and record God?...
God, in His totality, is inaccessible to our senses. You can’t put Him on a scale or hold a ruler up to Him, and our idea of evidence doesn’t quite apply to him. This means that you cannot finally prove or disprove the existence of God based upon evidence.

How convenient.

atheists often point out that in the Bible, the Christian God is said to change His mind. If God is all-knowing, how could it be said that he changes his mind?...
. We, being finite beings, limited in both knowledge and power, apply our logic to our own finite, limited world. But can we apply the logic of the finite to the infinite? Can we apply human logic to the mind of God? ...
just because 2+2=4 in our mind, it doesn’t have to be that way in God’s. So just because God seems inconsistent to us might only be the result of applying our finite logic to the infinite God.

Then why are believers constantly applying their finite logic to presume to understand the mind of god? (e.g. God sent the hurricane to punish homosexuals)

Not everything that is true is “provable.” For example, we had no evidence of Neptune and Pluto until the telescope was invented.

Is he implying that with the advances of science we will someday be able to see god?

And when you watch the news or read the paper, you generally trust that the information that they are conveying to you without needing to research all of it yourself.

Some of us trust the information that we hear on the news, and some of us think Fox is fair and balanced.

What would your life be like if you had to definitively prove everything to yourself? You would have to prove that your shower would work in the morning and that your toast was truly made from the ingredients listed on the label. How would you know if the law of gravity hadn’t been repealed or that the lettuce in your salad wasn’t tainted or that someone hadn’t bombed your car? The point is, you couldn’t. Technically, most everything that you do on a day-to-day basis isn’t “proved.” it’s believed.

Problem is, all of these things can be tested. The existence of god cannot. Is he suggesting that I should give belief in god as much thought as I give to whether the sun will come up tomorrow?

So is it so unreasonable to believe that something is true even though it hasn’t been thoroughly tested by a double-blind clinical trial?

Yes. It is unreasonable to believe in leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, Zeus, reincarnation, and the flying spaghetti monster. Why is your god any different?

But I would argue that it’s completely reasonable to believe things that can’t be proven by a whole mountain of evidence.

"A whole mountain of evidence"? You don't even have an ant hill of evidence.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

No comments: