From: posting-system@google.com Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 10:43 AM To: brian@holtz.org Subject: Re: Questions for theists Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: brian@holtz.org (Brian Holtz) Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: Questions for theists References: <29c16047.0201201120.20bd234f@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.236.1.8 Message-ID: <29c16047.0201241042.1225ad1a@posting.google.com> A Christian wrote via private email: > I don't think one can indisputably prove God's existence, but > I do believe God has given us enough reason to believe in him. Why would God give us more reason to believe in, say, evolution or the Big Bang than in his existence? > People don't accept it for a number of reasons, but it boils > down to not wanting to know God. That's simply false. I most assuredly want to know whether there's a God, whether I'm going to hell, etc. > > In how many years do you expect there will be a consensus for > > your positiona s widespread as that supporting (say) heliocentrism? > > Never. So not only has God not made it obvious that he exists, but he hasn't even "given us enough reason" so that the idea of his existence could ever win in the marketplace of ideas. This makes it simply evil of him to nevertheless demand acknowledgement of his existence. > > Do you think there will ever be any compelling new evidence > > for your god, such as new miracles? > > God has provided miracles throughout history and will continue > to do so. But God obviously hasn't provided any *compelling* miracle evidence, or else most rational people would be Christians. I take it from your previous comments that he won't be getting any more competent in creating compelling miracle evidence. > Archaeological discoveries have confirmed facts that were > previously known only in the Bible And not one of those "facts" is convincing evidence of the Christian God's existence. > If [Judaism] too were proven false, I > would investigate Islam, possibly other monotheistic religions. If Judaism's Yahweh does not exist, then neither does Allah, because they are the same deity. Why would you assume monotheism is true, independently of the tradition established by that nomad with the fertility problems (Abraham)? > It makes no sense to me to say > that the universe and human life got here without a God Well, it makes no sense to *me* to say that God got here without some other God. If God can be necessarily existent, then so can the universe. > there would have to be a convincing explanation for my > experiences of God There is: whatever explanation you're already using for other people's "experiences of God" that are contradictory to your own. > it would have to be shown that [Christianity] was nonsensical - > that the doctrines in the Bible were irreconcilably contradictory Despite his silly asceticism and communitarianism, Jesus's teachings were not bad compared to other religions (like Judaism). The only fatal flaws in his reported teachings are 1) the infinite punishment of hell and 2) his endorsement of Judaism's belief in the ridiculously mythical god El/Yahweh. > > If you believe that your holy book made non-trivial prophecies > > that were later fulfilled, how do you explain that professional > > historians deny any such prophecies were actually recorded > > before the predicted event? > > Everyone is biased; there will always be atheist professional > historians claiming one date of authorship and Christian > professional historians claiming another. Though I'm sure there > are some Christian historians agreeing with the secular historians, > and vice versa Any professional historian who believes the Bible made a successful non-trivial prophecy but remains secular or atheistic is a fool, and I'm fairly certain you can't name any such person. Which is more likely: that Christian historians believe in such prophecies because of irrational dogma, or that non-Christian historians deny such prophecies because of irrational dogma? Everyone may be biased, but when Christians are the lone holdouts on such an issue, it's ludicrous to say everyone is *equally* biased. > AFAIK, personality is largely nature, though it can be > influenced by other things. Infants have individual, unique > souls, which would presumably represent their core personalities So when a sperm enters an egg, a soul is instantly instantiated and it is already shy or smart or paranoid or whatever? Wow, I didn't think people could say such a thing anymore with a straight face. :-) > Even if you are "basically good," you are not 100% good, > therefore you will deserve punishment in some amount. So I won't get the "eternal hellfire" that Jesus promised in Mat 18:8? > if it's so obvious that > God doesn't exist, why are there so many theists? Humans naturally wish for an afterlife and for parental protection and guidance, which is probably why these features are the core of the overwhelming majority of religions. > Is atheism falsifiable? Yours may be - at least _you_ have > a reasonable definition of supernatural :-) - but it appears > many people's atheism is not. Yes, perhaps they are subject to the natural adolescent human need to rebel against parental protection and guidance. > why God doesn't prove himself to everyone - he can't, without taking > away our freedom of thought. That argument is a sad attempt to excuse the absence of good theistic arguments. Indeed, it blatantly contradicts many other theistic arguments, such as the "proofs" of God's existence or the claim that even without revelation all people have a natural sense of right and wrong. That argument can be turned around: 1. It would be wrong for a perfect and punishing God not to reveal himself and his rules. 2. It would be wrong for a perfect and punishing God to reveal himself and his rules and thus take away our freedom of thought. Therefore, a perfect and punishing God cannot exist. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net