Laika: There are LOTS of tea pots revolving around the sun.

NGB: Can you please elaborate on this more?

Tom: Provided you have a little imagination, it's not difficult...

The earth revolves around the sun. Therefore everything on the earth revolves around the sun as well, including all the tea pots on earth. They are, in fact, revolving around the sun.

Perspective, NGB. Perspective.

Anyhow, I'd like to post when I'm able. Perhaps later today.

Tom

Nogodblog-

Thanks for the response.

It’s going to be difficult for us all to carry on a separate discussion with you. I’ll want to comments on things you say to others and they’ll want to do the same. And if you’re posting separate posts to each of us it’s going to complicate the discussion and make it difficult to follow. I suggest we all get on the same page and all agree on a few essential points to discuss. So what I’ll do here is respond a bit to your comments to me and then suggest how we can proceed if you’re still interested.

I’d really like to call you by some name rather than “nogodblod” (NGB). That’s a little impersonal. Are you David Silverman from www.nogodblog.com? If so, how about David? If not, then give me some name to refer to you by. Is that OK?

--------------

Tom: Why is this [disproving God] important to you?

NGB: It is important because I consider it entirely stupid and illogical on my fellow human beings part to be so illogical and irrational and belive in something which is created from nowhere and is based on few "holy" books and "anicent&outdated" thinking process…

Tom: It would be very interesting to pursue the question of whether or not (and if so, why) it ought to be important to you as an atheist that people believe in God. Mere belief in the existence of some god does not itself necessarily translate into dangerous or evil behavior or otherwise threaten our existence or survival. It doesn’t obviously ruin peoples’ lives or make them less conscientious or profitable citizens. It doesn’t turn them into freaks who are unable to excel in life and engage in loving sincere relationships and family life and make lasting contributions to society. So even IF their belief in God is false and illogical, it doesn’t follow that it ought to be of any great concern to you or any other atheist. I feel like suggesting that you just get over it, stop worrying about fixing everything you consider to be illogical about other people, and move on with life.

Now, I like to think of myself as a lover of logic. So I’m looking at your explanation and am struggling a bit to understand your point really. You say that disproving the existence of God is important to you because:

“I consider it entirely stupid and illogical…to be so illogical and irrational [to] believe in something which is created from nowhere and is based on a few holy book and outdated thinking processes.”

First, by “something which is created from nowhere” do you mean to refer to God’s creating the world out of nothing? If so, then perhaps this can be one issue we’ll want to discuss: the coherence of the notion of creation ex nihilo. For now I just want to get clear on a list of issues.

Second, there’s nothing illogical per se about 'basing beliefs upon the information found in books' (whether holy books or not). So I don’t see what rule of logic prohibits our basing any of our beliefs whatsoever on the information we come by in books. Can you really make a case for the “illogical” status of such beliefs? I’m afraid you cannot. I’m not suggesting that all claims made by so-called holy books are by definition truthful. I'm suggesting that they're are not by definition false (simply by virtue of being found in so-called holy books). But your argument appears to be just this--that all claims made by so-called holy books are by definition false just by virtue of their being made by the authors of books considered by some to be holy. But there’s nothing “logical” about your reasoning here.

Third, since you don’t specify what “thinking processes” you consider to be "outdated," I can’t know what you mean and so engage it. You’ll need to be very specific about such claims.

-------------------

Tom: I don't think there are any "concrete proofs" for or against God's existence…

NGB: onus of the prooof lies with the one's who say GOD exists…

Tom: On the contrary, in a debate like this the onus of proof lies with all who make disputable truth-claims. Since we’re disputing each other’s truth claims, it lies with each of us to make our case for our beliefs. If your idea of debate here is that the non-existence of God should be assumed and any theist has to outright prove otherwise, then this debate is over before it begins. You can’t assume your conclusion. You have to argue it.

So let’s get clear on something. You showed up here and wanted a debate. So make your case for atheism or be on your way. I don’t mean to be rude, but any other kind of debate would be pointless and I just don't have time to waste in pointless chatter.

And let’s get clear too on just what we’re debating. The topic of debate is: “The possibility of the existence of God”. Logically speaking all that’s required to falsify the atheist’s claim that “God does not exist” is the proposition “It’s possible that God exists.” You’re not an agnostic. As an atheist you’re making the stronger claim that “God does not in fact exist.” All that’s logically required to falsify this is the possibility of the existence of some god. In fact, if you can’t prove the “impossibility” of any god’s existence, you really have no justification for claiming God doesn’t in fact exist.

So please prepare yourself to argue “the logical impossibility of God,” while we’ll be preparing ourselves to argue “the logical possibility of God.” THAT is the debate. There’s no other debate worth having. If you agree to this, we can move on.

--------------------

NGB: …for example "lets assume you are my friend and one day you call me on my phone and tell me you have bought a cat, which according to me where much possible, and I say "great nice to know that" then you say " hey, you know what my cat can sing , dance, or even speak about quantum physics" I say " hah, thats not possible, prove it" then you say " no, you come and prove that I have the cat" so situation is like this where the onus lies on theists to prove what they belive is true not vice versa…

Tom: I’m sorry to say NGB that this example is not at all analogous to the debate over claims made by theists and atheists. Not even close. You just assume the truth of atheism and then require those who disagree to ‘prove’ otherwise. It’s universally acknowledged (because it’s the universal experience of human beings interacting with a world of cats) and demonstrably the case that cats don’t sing, dance, or speak about quantum physics. So for me to claim I have such a cat would be to lay claim to what is universally and demonstrably not the case. To establish that I actually have such a cat I’d have to produce the cat. But the non-existence of God is not universally and demonstrably the case. There is no universally acknowledged experience of the non-existence of God that’s analogous to humanity’s universal experience of cats as non-dancing and non-speaking animals. There is nothing in human experience that by definition or by way of analogy to your example is incompatible with the notion of God’s existing.

So as I said, if you want to begin by assuming you're right and make the debate entirely a matter of our having to indisputably prove God’s existence, then the debate is over. Nobody is interested in such debate. And if it makes you feel good to consider this a “win,” so be it. It doesn’t bother us in the least. I don’t need you to feel one way or the other about my beliefs or the results of our conversations. But if you will agree (as you should) that both sides in a debate over the possible existence of God equally share the burden of defending their claims, then I’d be interested in talking to you.

Since you’re the guest, you may begin by listing the specific reasons you have for believing in the impossibility of God's existence.

I’m all ears.

------------------------

Tom: But I do think that both believeing and disbelieving in God can be rational.

NGB: please explain why beliving is rational

Tom: As I said, both belief in the existence of God and disbelief in the existence of God can be rational provided both appeal to evidence and make claims that are meaningful. Evidence isn’t always obviously “conclusive.” Sometimes a piece of evidence will “point” in a certain direction without itself necessitating a particular conclusion. So to say that belief in God is rational just means (a) it’s based on evidence that points to the possible existence of God, or the probability of God's existing, and (b) that belief in God does not contradict any known rule of logic or any other proposition known to be true.

So NGB, you will need to produce some proposition:

(1) the truth of which is indisputable

AND

(2) which cannot be conjointly true with the proposition “some divine being exists.”

Can you produce ONE such proposition?

--------------------------

Tom: God (if he exists) hasn't chosen to overwhelm us with evidence of himself.

NGB: how do you know that[?]

Tom: Quite easiliy. Its truth is self-evident and a part of all our experience. Obviously there is no universally overwhelmingly indisputably conclusive evidence that God exists. You don't dispute this. And neither do I. We are in fact NOT overwhelmed with indisputably conclusive proof of God’s existence. So it follows that “if” (note the conditional) God were to exist, he cannot have overwhelmed us with indisputably conclusive evidence of his existence. If he did provided such evidence, we’d be overwhelmingly and indiputably convinced by it. But we’re not overwhelmingly convinced. So it follows: "if" God exists, his existence is compatible with our not being overwhelmingly convinced that he exists.

Logic 101.

Tom: He leaves us room

NGB: why[?]

Tom: Now you're asking good questions. My personal belief is that the sort of personal, morally responsibly and loving relationship God created us for requires a bit of ambiguity. What God is after in the relationship would be ruled out if God were to overwhelm us and leave us no plausible way of escaping him if we didn't want to relate to him. Since the sort of loving relationship God desires with us requires freedom to say "yes" or "no" to him, our exercising that freedom requires a context in which we are given room to choose. Ambiguity is that room. It's a gift, not a curse.

----------------------

NGB: am not clear on what you want to say, so you say even if I produce you evidence that GOD does not exist, you will still say he/she/it does exist?

Tom: Not all “evidence” is obviously conclusive. And none of us has perfect understanding of all truth. We’re finite knowers (atheists included). So we have epistemic limitations we have to live with. We sometimes have to do the best we can and live with the ambiguity of evidence. Some evidences ‘point’ in a particular direction without logically necessitating a particular conclusion.

So I can concede that there may be evidence which, given our lack of perfect understanding, ‘points’ inconclusively in the direction of God’s non-existence without being required to conclude that God does not in fact exist. And the same thing applies to God’s existence. It’s not a matter of passively conceding the obvious, as if you just feed evidence into a computer and it spits out the conclusion. One makes a choice to determine one’s self with respect to the evidence for and against God’s existence.

NGB, I’m surprised at some of the questions you’re asking me. You came on advertising yourself as a fully informed perfectly convinced atheist, as if you’ve considered ALL the possible arguments. But your questions tell me that this is the first time you’ve seen some of this.

-------------------------

NGB: All I say is this: you cannot prove something which does not exist, like if I tell you there is a tea pot revolving around sun(quoted from someone)

Tom: And all I say is, So what? Of course we can’t “prove the existence of that which does not exist.” Nobody is trying to do this. Again, NGB, you’re committing the very bad mistake of assuming the point of debate. In this debate we will not be assuming God exists nor assuming he does not exist. We’re simply approaching the question of the possibility of God’s existence open-mindedly and asking ourselves, What evidence is there for this or that conclusion? and Is any of the evidence indisputably conclusive?

If you want us all to assume the truth of YOUR position and then dig our way out of the whole by having to produce indisputably conclusive “proof” that God does in fact exist, then nobody here is interested in discussing things with you. Nor should they. Nor would any atheist who really understands reasonable debate. No such proofs exist (for or against God’s existence).

---------------------------

So, can you agree to the following three guidelines for our debate?

(1) The question of debate: The logical possibility of the existence of God. You’ll offer reasons for your believing in the impossibility of God’s existence. We’ll offer reasons for our believing in the possibility of God’s existence.

(2) The assumptions: No conclusion to this question is to be ‘assumed.’ Both sides share the same responsibility to argue their evidence.

(3) You, NGB, are up to the podium first. It’s your thread that you began. So begin by presenting your case for ‘the impossibility of the existence of God’.

If you’ll agree to these, then let the games begin. Otherwise, have a nice day.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 9/19/2006 8:10:07 PM (GMT-5)

If we don't watch it, what could be productive, informative debates end up being people simply SERMONIZING each other in the guise of rational deliberation and discussion.

Y'all know what I'm talking about...

Post Edited (TGB) : 9/19/2006 7:50:29 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (John N. Darby) : 9/20/2006 3:09:27 PM (GMT-5)

This is LONG and TORTUROUS! I apologize. But I didn’t want to rush through my responses. I think I’m done here. I don’t expect you, NGB, to offer any real argument for the logical impossibility that any divine being exists. Unless you do so, I’m disinclined to keep engaging you. I’m glad you stopped by. I was hoping you’d offer something substantive, something I had not seen before. But there’s nothing new in your arguments, and nothing even remotely close to an argument to the question of our debate: the logical possibility of God’s existence.

------------------

NGB: Let say this, you show superman comics to your son/daughter/friend, and then say hey thats a story afterwards you see that your son/daughter/friend start worshipping that superman and think they will come to save them in their trouble time, what will you do? allow them to think like that and be in illusion or tell them the truth that it is after all comics, not real?

Tom: Two things: (1) You once again are assuming the point of debate. You’re assuming God doesn’t exist. And (2) you’re equating belief in God to belief in and worship of comic-strip heroes. But it’s obvious that WE created comic-strip heroes. They are OUR creation and they’re fictions. But it is NOT obvious that WE created God and that God is a fiction. This is the point of debate, NGB.

-------------------- 

TGB (previously): Second, there’s nothing illogical per se about 'basing beliefs upon the information found in books' (whether holy books or not). So I don’t see what rule of logic prohibits our basing any of our beliefs whatsoever on the information we come by in books. Can you really make a case for the “illogical” status of such beliefs? I’m afraid you cannot.

NGB: Yes I can make a case… Now what is illogical in bible or any other holy book is this, you have set of historic events which claim existance of a supernatural power on earth which created this universe, how different is this compared to superman/spiderman comics?

Tom: It’s VERY different. And you’re failure to appreciate how they’re different is responsible for some bad reasoning on your part. The point is, there is no rule of ‘logic’ that demands that “belief in the actual existence of a divine being” be equivalent to “belief in the actual existence of Spiderman.” The question of debate is: Are these equivalent? You’re assuming they are and then using that assumption to argue your point. Maybe that works for you on other discussion forums. It won’t work here.

-------------------

NGB: …both are only in books no evidence or lab experiment has shown that it is true, and there are very stupid writings which say "if you dont belive in jesus you wont get salvation" does that mean I will meet, hindu's,muslims, and other religion people in hell?

Tom: You may not like the idea of hell (I don’t either, and not all theists believe the existence of a loving God is compatible with an eternal hell, so they don’t believe in such a hell), but you’re not offering any ‘logical’ reason for why such a thing couldn’t ‘possibly’ be the case. You just keep saying, “It’s stupid.” Salvation coming to human beings through a single person is NOT in itself a ‘logical’ impossibility. You said you’d establish the irrational or illogical status of theism. Where’s your case? So far you’ve essentially just said you don’t like the idea, it doesn’t sit well with you, it’s apparently offensive and stupid. But none of this establishes the irrational or illogical status of theism. We’re discussing the ‘logical possibility of God’s existence, so let’s have you list which laws or rules of logic make the existence of a divine being impossible.

--------------------------

TGB (previously): I’m not suggesting that all claims made by so-called holy books are by definition truthful. I'm suggesting that they're are not by definition false (simply by virtue of being found in so-called holy books).

NGB: …there are really superficial things in these holy books…

Tom: I’m sure there are some superficial claims made in Scripture. But superficial doesn’t equate to irrational or illogical.

NGB: …which is sometimes very absurd,

Tom: You’re not demonstrating the absurdity.

NGB: …and you base your entire belief system on something like that?

Tom: No, I don’t base my “entire” system of beliefs about God on the Bible. But so far as the Bible is concerned, which specific biblical truth-claims have you demonstrated the absurdity of?

NGB: Why do you want belive bible just because it is holy why dont you question it like you do for your maths teacher in your kindegarden?

Tom: I don’t belief the Bible “because” it’s holy. I believe the Bible because I’ve found its explanation of the world and the human condition to be true. When I live in the Bible’s story, when I embrace its claims, I find that it works. I apprehend a correspondence between its claims and the reality of the world. I call it holy in response to this. Precisely the opposite of how you describe it.

And if you hang around here for any length of time, NGB, you’ll see lots of us submit the Bible to critical study. Not all of us believe the Bible is free of all possible error either. There’s quite a bit of diversity among theists regarding the nature of Scripture. For myself, I’m harder on the Bible than I am any other book (text books, science books, etc.). Given the psalmist’s context, beliefs, and the meaning of “fool” in Old Testament sapiential literature, I don’t at all find the psalmist’s claim that “the fool has said in his heart ‘There is no God’” an “absurdity.” You’re free to disagree. You may find this silly or absurd. Fine. That’s your privilege. But the incredulity you feel isn’t itself a proof that the Bible is true or false. It’s not at all obvious that thinking atheism is a kind of ‘foolishness’ is absurd. To make that claim you’d have to establish the logical impossibility of the existence of any god. That’s what you’re here to do and it’s what we’re waiting for.

-------------------

TGB (previously): Third, since you don’t specify what “thinking processes” you consider to be "outdated," I can’t know what you mean and so engage it. You’ll need to be very specific about such claims.

NGB: Just think about those "thinking" processes which where usually associated with GOD creations; like the rain god's who create rains, the devils which create fever in humans, earth being the center point and sun revolving around it, am talking about such medival, outdated, sensless and stupid thinking with which your GOD was originated, only difference is you are giving it a sophisticated look now.

Tom: This won’t fly, NGB. We’ve conclusively demonstrated, for example, that the Sun and not the earth is the center of our solar system. But that doesn’t itself disprove “belief in God.” Nor does the fact that we’ve shown how climate works, how rain is produced in a natural system of cause and effect, etc., itself demonstrate that no god can possibly exist. It just doesn’t follow logically that because we can explain fevers and weather patterns in natural terms that any further explanation of the created order is by definition irrational. That’s just not true.

Remember, you’re here to prove the ‘logical impossibility of the existence of any god.” You’re not even close yet.

-------------------

TGB (previously): I don't think there are any "concrete proofs" for or against God's existence…

NGB (previously): onus of the prooof lies with the one's who say GOD exists…

TGB (previously): On the contrary, in a debate like this the onus of proof lies with all who make disputable truth-claims. Since we’re disputing each other’s truth claims, it lies with each of us to make our case for our beliefs. If your idea of debate here is that the non-existence of God should be assumed and any theist has to outright prove otherwise, then this debate is over before it begins. You can’t assume your conclusion. You have to argue it.

NGB: Question now arises, what is a truth? by defintion it means: a fact that has been verified or conformity to reality or actuality (if you dont agree with me then you must tell me what you mean by truth). So if you hold your GOD against this definition then he/she/it becomes false immidately, that means as a atheist I'm not questionning a "truth" claim and that means you are the one who claims it to be truth, so you have to explain that it is not false.

Tom: Verification has nothing to do with the truth-value of propositions. A true proposition doesn’t ‘become’ true when we verify its truth. It might be true and we are ignorant of its truth. Verification has to do with justifying our claims about a proposition’s truth-value. But when you say truth is “conformity to reality” you’re on the mark! Yes, with that I agree. I agree that truth (so far as debate over truth claims is concerned) is an attribute of propositions. A proposition is true if it corresponds to reality. “God exists” is true if and only if God exists whether or not we can verify this. “God does not exist” is true if and only if God does not exist whether or not we can verify this. But NGB, our verifying it, our knowing which is the case, is not as simple a matter as you seem to think.

Our means for verifying truth, for determining correspondence or conformity to reality, do not always yield unambiguous answers. We don’t perfectly apprehend all reality and so don’t perfectly apprehend all the grounding conditions for all propositions. We are finite, incomplete knowers. You mistakenly assume that the absence of apprehension on our part of some truth grounds for a particular proposition is equivalent to apprehending the falsity of the proposition in question. But that just doesn’t follow. And given the very nature of theistic belief, one is not justified in claiming to know there is no God on the basis of not having produced God in a laboratory test tube or objectively observed evidence that makes his existence obviously indisputable. Lack of such demonstration of God does not itself prove that God does not in fact exist. But as an atheist, it’s this logical impossibility you must demonstrate.

--------------------

NGB: I think I have made enough points already about atheism, but still you want to read me more on this you can do so by visiting my blog at o3.indiatimes.com/nogod.

Tom: Hold on a second. You think that what you’ve said thus far about atheism demonstrates conclusively that God cannot possibly exist? That’s it? You’re finished presenting your case for the impossibility of God?

NGB, you haven’t even started! You have yet to offer anything that comes close to demonstrating the logical impossibility of God.

Come on, now. It’s not difficult. Just list your reasons (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) for believing in the impossibility of God’s existence. List those rules or laws of logic (propositional, modal, fuzzy, ANY logic you think will help you out) that you feel are violated by theism. Perhaps the law identity? Or the law of non-contradiction? Perhaps bivalence? Perhaps entailment? Which one? Which rule of logic do theists violate?

-------------------

TGB (previously): In fact, if you can’t prove the “impossibility” of any god’s existence, you really have no justification for claiming God doesn’t in fact exist.

NGB: Read my previous comment about "truth" and "GOD", apart from that,I can ask you a question: I tell you superman exists, can you refute that claim?

Tom: I can easily refute it by noting, as I did above in this post, the dissimilarity between your comic-strip analogy an theistic belief. There’s no bite to your objection here because what you offer as an analogy is not sufficiently similar to ground the comparison. It’s no analogy at all.

Understand, NGB, just what the correspondence theory of truth says. It says that a proposition is true just in case reality is as the proposition asserts. It doesn’t say anything about how or whether this correspondence must be known by us. If the correspondence can be apprehended by us, fine; we are then justified in claiming what the truth-value of some proposition is. But we can’t always prove indisputably and for all whether or how correspondence obtains. That doesn’t itself establish truth-value. It just means truth value is not immediately obvious.

---------------------

TGB (previously): So please prepare yourself to argue “the logical impossibility of God,” while we’ll be preparing ourselves to argue “the logical possibility of God.” THAT is the debate. There’s no other debate worth having. If you agree to this, we can move on.

NGB: I think by now you might have realized that it is the direction this debate is going.

Tom: This is your first post responding to my request that you set out to prove ‘the impossibility of God’. And I’m still waiting for your first argument for this ‘impossibility’.

----------------------

NGB (previously): …for example "lets assume you are my friend and one day you call me on my phone and tell me you have bought a cat, which according to me where much possible, and I say "great nice to know that" then you say " hey, you know what my cat can sing , dance, or even speak about quantum physics" I say " hah, thats not possible, prove it" then you say " no, you come and prove that I have the cat" so situation is like this where the onus lies on theists to prove what they belive is true not vice versa…

TGB (previously): ...... So for me to claim I have such a cat would be to lay claim to what is universally and demonstrably not the case. To establish that I actually have such a cat I’d have to produce the cat. But the non-existence of God is not universally and demonstrably the case. There is no universally acknowledged experience of the non-existence of God that’s analogous to humanity’s universal experience of cats as non-dancing and non-speaking animals.

NGB: As a atheist I exist, I dont belive in your GOD, isnt that proof enough for you that there are athiests around you and that is universally acknowledged fact.

Tom: You’re missing the point. I don’t dispute the ‘existence of atheists’. The existence of atheists certainly IS an indisputable and universally acknowledged reality. I never claimed otherwise. What I said was there is no universally acknowledged experience of ‘the non-existence of God’ (in a sense analogous to the universally acknowledged experience of cats as non-speaking, non-dancing animals). The non-existence of God is NOT analogous, in terms of shared human experience, to the non-existence of speaking, dancing cats.

-------------------

NGB: I have already defended my claims to say that your GOD does not exist and not just because I feel so (like most theists do), now its your turn to list down your points and we will definetly have a debate "which has both sides" in mind.

Tom: Then our debate is finished without your having produced a single argument for the ‘logical impossibility of God’. You haven’t even come close. If you think you have, then you don’t understand logical impossibility.

Let’s make it simple. In the following syllogism fill in the premises (make 4, 5, or 10 of them if you wish) with indisputably true propositions from which the conclusion follows. I’ve filled in the conclusion because that’s what you want to prove—the logical impossibility of God.

Premise 1:

Premise 2:

Premise 3:

Conclusion: Therefore, it is logically impossible that any divine being exist.

Fill in the premises for me.

---------------------

TGB (previously): Since you’re the guest, you may begin by listing the specific reasons you have for believing in the impossibility of God's existence. I’m all ears.

NGB: I will replay my usual comments here: 1. I always get an answer saying “GOD“ exists because they feel so, when I say “prove GOD“

Tom: You haven’t gotten that from me. In fact, I haven’t yet argued anything at all in favor of God’s existence. You are still at the podium. I’m still waiting for that syllogism from you.

NGB: 2. Anything can be constructed because of pure faith, example, super man, spiderman, may be women categories so that I should not be gender biased.

Tom: Wonder Woman! But this proves nothing about the truth or falsity of theism. It doesn’t follow that because we do dream up fictitious comic-strip heroes that we have in fact dreamt up God. No rule of logic makes the latter follow the former.

NGB: 3. Faith is nothing but telling your brain repeatedly something created this universe, but you cant prove it,but it stil exists.

Tom: Where did you pick up that definition of faith? It doesn’t at all resemble the process I and many other theists go through in concluding that God exists.

NGB: 4. Unfortunately faith does not answer everything…

Tom: I don’t claim that faith does answer “everything.”

NGB: …you cannot keep telling yourself that this world is a beautiful place and you are lucky to live here…

Tom: I’ve never told myself that. Not all theists take such a naïve view of the human condition.

NGB: 5. GOD who is such a superpower should be impotent because he/she/it cannot control what he/she/it created… for example a flood in coastal india gulping a 2 month old baby which does not even know what is GOD!

Tom: This doesn’t prove that no possible god exists. It only rules out certain versions of God, like the God who is supposedly (a) perfectly loving AND who (b) unconditionally determines all the evils in our world. I will agree with you that THIS God can't exist. God cannot be perfectly loving and so determining. If this is the God you’re out to disprove, then I’ll join you in the task, since I share your disbelief in such a God. But that’s not the only possible God.

NGB: 6. Somehow, GOD is always introduced in one's life by others!, he/she does not get them automatically registered in their brain; I call this a constructive and traditional brainwash.

Tom: Did YOU get E=mc2 on your own, registered automatically in your brain? Or was it introduced into your life? I think the latter. Coming by our beliefs through the influence of engaging others is a normal (and wonderful) thing. It doesn’t always amount to brainwashing. What’s important is that each person takes the responsibility to think critically and as objectively as possible when they need to.

NGB: 7. How much ever the belivers say there is only one GOD to justify the stupidness the religions have introduced in the society, they forget that they(belivers in single GOD) have been bought up in one or the other reigion

Tom: But NGB, there are versions of theism that don’t attempt to justify stupid beliefs (like the earth’s being the center of the solar system). And there’s no ‘logical’ connection between some of the stupid things theists have believed in and their belief in God. Some atheists believe in stupid things. But that doesn’t automatically mean atheism is false. It’s a bit more complicated than that. And lastly, there’s nothing about being ‘brought up’ in theism that itself necessitates the falsity of theism, unless being brought up to believe something guarantees the falsity of the belief. I was brought up in the belief of many things that are in fact true.

NGB: 8. There are really stupid logic applied like ; tell me who created this universe? must be a super power isnt it? ; okey, agreed we dont know from where all this started, but how can you just simplify this by saying something called GOD created this?, aren't you neglecting the rational part of your brain when you ask questions like this?

Tom: A spark of hope! I’d like to take this No. 8 and start a new thread. There’s some hope here for a good discussion. But let me just say that no theist argues simplistically that this argument you speak of (the cause/effect relationship and the contingency of the material universe) proves the existence of the Christian God. But it does prove something. What that something is would make a great discussion.

NGB: …and mind you these are only some of them not all, will also leave you with this picture which was taken in Sudan, where a baby is crawling towards food and a vulture is waiting to eat on it after it would die because of hunger. Now what is your GOD doing when this was happening?

Tom: He’s (a) doing all he can to prevent such evils given the constraints of the free sort of cosmos he chose to create, and (b) hanging on the Cross suffering. What he’s NOT doing (I don’t believe) is pushing all the buttons determining that such things happen.

---------------------------

TGB: But I do think that both believeing and disbelieving in God can be rational.

NGB: please explain why beliving is rational

TGB : So to say that belief in God is rational just means (a) it’s based on evidence that points to the possible existence of God, or the probability of God's existing, and (b) that belief in God does not contradict any known rule of logic or any other proposition known to be true.

NGB: The other known rule or logic or proposition to contradict GOD is there is absolutely no evidence.

Tom: NGB, do you know what a “rule of logic” is? There's no rule of logic that says "that for which we have no evidence cannot exist." And we haven't even gotten to evidence for God's existence. We're still waiting on your evidence that no god can possibly exist.

--------------------------

Tom: So NGB, you will need to produce some proposition:

(1) the truth of which is indisputable
and
(2) which cannot be conjointly true with the proposition “some divine being exists.”

Can you produce ONE such proposition?

NGB: Can you take the podium and explain why your "proclaimed" "truth" is "indisputable"?

Tom: If you mean some claim of mine that God's existence is indisputable, I haven’t made that claim. It's not a claim I would make. So I'm not interested in trying to defend it.

But YOU do argue that God’s non-existence is indisputable and obviously logically impossible. If you know what “logically impossible” means, then you know that for any proposition P whose truth is logically necessary, it follows that all other truths are compatible with P. So if you want to PROVE the non-existence of God, you could do it by producing just a single TRUE proposition whose truth is incompatible with the claim that “some divine being exists.” So let me ask again: can you produce such a proposition? Just one. One simple sentence, indisputably true, which is incompatible with the claim that "some divine being exists."

---------------------

Tom: God (if he exists) hasn't chosen to overwhelm us with evidence of himself.

NGB: You start your argument itself with "if" so everything else which follows that immediately becomes an "assumption"…

Tom: Nothing about their truth value is assumed. It’s what’s known as a ‘conditional’ proposition. And conditionals can be true or false. In this case I’m not asserting theism or atheism. Which is actually the case is irrelevant to the conditional. There’s nothing here that threatens your atheism, NGB. Atheism might be true. It makes no difference to the truth-value of the conditional. All I’m saying is that if there is a God, his existence would have to be compatible with the existence of our world as we know it, for we cannot deny the latter.

-------------------

TGB: Quite easiliy. Its truth is self-evident and a part of all our experience. Obviously there is no universally overwhelmingly indisputably conclusive evidence that God exists. You don't dispute this. And neither do I. We are in fact NOT overwhelmed with indisputably conclusive proof of God’s existence. So it follows that “if” (note the conditional) God were to exist, he cannot have overwhelmed us with indisputably conclusive evidence of his existence. If he did provided such evidence, we’d be overwhelmingly and indiputably convinced by it. But we’re not overwhelmingly convinced. So it follows: "if" God exists, his existence is compatible with our not being overwhelmingly convinced that he exists.

NGB: Again lots of "if"(s) am waiting for your "indisputable" truth of "existance"

Tom: OK, I think we’re finished NGB. You don’t seem to grasp even the elementary principles of logic or propositions. Sorry to say so, NGB, but you’re not sticking to the subject or addressing the issue.

The “if’s” I posit don’t assume the actual existence of God. They’re conditionals. No atheist needs to be afraid of them.

And my comments didn’t propose an argument for God’s actual existence. All I was doing was answering your question: How do I know that God, if he existed, has not overwhelmed us with indisputable proof of his existence? You asked me this. My answer is simple (and correct): We are clearly not overwhelmed with evidence for his existence, so IF God existed (even assuming he doesn’t!), his existence would have to be compatible with our not being overwhelmed by him.

-------------------------

Tom: Not all “evidence” is obviously conclusive. And none of us has perfect understanding of all truth. We’re finite knowers (atheists included). So we have epistemic limitations we have to live with. We sometimes have to do the best we can and live with the ambiguity of evidence. Some evidences ‘point’ in a particular direction without logically necessitating a particular conclusion.

NGB: and what is that some evidence which "point" at correct things without a particular conclusion?

Tom: I’m happy to discuss it AFTER you finish your opening arguments for the impossibility of God. Until now you have offered no evidence whatsoever for this impossibility. And so long as you continue to skirt around this question, just calling people stupid and claiming this or that is obvious to you, without really offering succinct premises for the impossibility of any divine being, I’m not inclined to take the podium myself. So you finish first.

-------------------

Tom: So I can concede that there may be evidence which, given our lack of perfect understanding, ‘points’ inconclusively in the direction of God’s non-existence without being required to conclude that God does not in fact exist. And the same thing applies to God’s existence. It’s not a matter of passively conceding the obvious, as if you just feed evidence into a computer and it spits out the conclusion. One makes a choice to determine one’s self with respect to the evidence for and against God’s existence.

NGB: When you have a lack of perfect understanding, how can you prove that in fact there is "evidence"?

Tom: Lack of perfect understanding is not the same as lack of all understanding. We are obviously able to understand some things. The understanding we do possess does not require that we understand all things perfectly. No one of us is omniscient. But that doesn’t mean we are all ignorant of all things and possess no knowledge whatsoever.

NGB: …it like saying I dont know if there is evidence but it may exist, which in itself, a very false argument.

Tom: I’m not arguing “I don’t know if there is any evidence but it may exist.” I’m saying “There IS evidence, but the evidence is inconclusive.” Not all evidence is conclusive.

-------------------------

Tom: I’m surprised at some of the questions you’re asking me. You came on advertising yourself as a fully informed perfectly convinced atheist, as if you’ve considered ALL the possible arguments. But your questions tell me that this is the first time you’ve seen some of this.

NGB: I didnt adverstise myself as any particualr type of atheist…

Tom: You have and continue to come across as very confidently informed in your atheism.

NGB: …and by the way asking similar questions you have earlier seen means I want to know each theist view which have been obviously different.

Tom: I don’t follow you here.

-------------------------

Tom: Of course we can’t “prove the existence of that which does not exist.” Nobody is trying to do this. Again, NGB, you’re committing the very bad mistake of assuming the point of debate. In this debate we will not be assuming God exists nor assuming he does not exist. We’re simply approaching the question of the possibility of God’s existence…

NGB: Okey agreed you are trying to approach the question if god exists, now all the while you have claimed directly/indirectly the subject called GOD exists, otherwise, you would not have defended it so much, then isnt that conlusion from your side? I'm countering only that.

Tom: Not sure I’m following you. But let me offer this:

(1) I’ve been clear on what I’m willing to discuss with you, and that is ‘the logical possibility of God (or any divine being)’. I say ‘any divine being’ because as an atheist you deny the possibility of any divine being, not just the Christian’s notion of the divine. So you’ll need to substantiate this ‘impossibility’.

(2) I’d defend both the possibility of ‘any divine being’ and the possibility of “GOD” (the Christian notion of God) equally.

-------------------------

Tom: If you want us all to assume the truth of YOUR position and then dig our way out of the whole by having to produce indisputably conclusive “proof” that God does in fact exist, then nobody here is interested in discussing things with you. Nor should they. Nor would any atheist who really understands reasonable debate. No such proofs exist (for or against God’s existence).

NGB: You have already said you have "indisputable" claim/proof, now you dont have to show me the proof at least list down points why you think so.

Tom: You are totally misreading me, NGB. But I’m not being vague. I clearly DENIED that I have indisputable proof the existence of God. Look at my words: No such proofs exist! How can respond by saying I have already said I have indisputable proof. No no. I deny that there is such proof.

But YOU, NGB, appear to think that YOU have indisputable proof for the non-existence of ANY divine being whatsoever. YOU are making the claim to such knowledge, not me.

Again, YOU’RE the guest. YOU started the thread. YOU take the podium first and give us what indisputable evidence you have for the impossibility of any divine being’s existing. The ball is in YOUR court my friend. Don’t pass it to me. YOU are up to bat.

---------------------

Tom: So, can you agree to the following three guidelines for our debate?...

NGB: Sure, I have answerd most of this in my post…

Tom: You have offered ZERO arguments for the ‘logical impossibility of God.” You’ve only observed or insinuated that theists have historically believed in some very silly things, that you’re offended by the idea that salvation should be made available through a single person, that an eternal hell is offensive and stupid, that it’s silly to suppose non-Christians aren’t saved, and you’ve questioned where God is when terrible tragedy strikes innocent children.

I can TOTALLY appreciate all your sensibilities here NGB. Really I can. I share some of them! But none of them is an argument for the ‘logical impossibility of the existence of any divine being’.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 9/20/2006 10:06:53 PM (GMT-5)

If I may just jump in here for a sec and make note of a few observations...

NGB, I hope you realize the effort Tom has put in to all of this, but I don't think you understand what he's requesting. He's asking you to give a positive case for atheism, not a negative case against theism. All you've been doing is giving lots of negative arguments against theism, but you have not given any positive case for atheism.

The negative case that you've been presenting has been basically: "my opposition states A, B, and C as evidence for their claims. Here is why they are wrong. Therefore, my postion is correct." That's not good enough. Additionally, you're only giving assertion after assertion with no philosophical argument: no set of premises, logic (working it out), or conclusion.

You have stated that theists are illogical, so Tom has been discussing this issue with you strictly within the arena of logic... but you haven't engaged! You haven't been logical yourself. We really would like to see your positive case for atheism. That ought to look something like this: "We all agree that X and Y are true. If Z is true, God doesn't exist. We see that Z is in fact true because blah blah blah about X and Y. Therefore, God doesn't exist." The underlined segments are very important elements that must be included in your arguments.

To put it in another way, if you've heard of modus ponens and modus tollens (see Wikipedia if you haven't heard of them), here's what it appears that you've been stating:

theists state "if p then q" (let q=God)

~p, therefore ~q.       (In logic, the ~ means "not").    However, this is a fallacious, vacuous argument, called denying the antecedent.

However.... Tom has not been asking for your argument to be this:

atheists state "if p then q" (this time let q=not God)

p, therefore q.

So please, help us... give a positive case. Don't give any more assertions or any more conclusions without any logical reasoning behind them.

Post Edited (Violin for God) : 9/20/2006 7:41:11 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (TGB) : 9/22/2006 7:35:00 AM (GMT-5)

.........................................................................

 

God’s revelation to us in his Son and Holy Spirit asserts man’s capacity for real knowledge, as distinct from mere notional information and correct opinion. If our theological knowledge in faith is real knowledge and not simply conceptual correspondence—if St. Thomas Aquinas was right when he said, “actus credentis non terminatur ad enuntiabile sed ad rem”; “the act of the believer does not terminate in the proposition but in the reality”—if this is so, then how much more is it so of lesser matters. If in faith man’s mind has been transformed and elevated by the Holy Spirit to know God himself, there is no reason to deny that man can know other things in themselves.

To know the truth, then, is really to know the truth, not simply to hold to certain ideas that “correspond to” the truth. To know the truth is an act formally different from holding opinions and beliefs that happen to be correct. To know the truth is to have one’s mind shaped by real form, rei forma; it is something quite other than venturing an accurate and well-informed guess about reality. Real knowledge, therefore, is not some kind of inwardly symmetric and coherent web of basic beliefs that “correspond” to reality in varying degrees of probability. To know the truth is to have one’s mind contoured by the shape of being. That which makes a res to be a res is its forma, its morphe, and to know that res is to have one’s mind shaped by that same form. Thus, real knowledge, the knowledge of reality, is not correspondence but communion. To know is to become one with the truth, co-gnosco.

In this matter how have we fallen so far from convictions that were obvious to our distant ancestors in the faith? I submit that the villain here is Immanuel Kant, for whom thought consisted in the mental organization of sense experience. According to Kant no “thing in itself,” no res in se, no Ding an sich can be known. I beg to make my own the following analysis of Kantian philosophy by Norman L. Geisler:

Lost in [Kant’s] model of the knowing process was the ability to know reality. If Kant was right, we know how we know, but we no longer really know. . . . [T]he net epistemological gain was the ultimate ontological loss. . . . What is left is the thing-to-me, which is appearance but not reality. Thus, Kant’s view ends in epistemological agnosticism.

.

This is from an article (and speech) by Patrick Henry Reardon, Editor of Touchstone Mag. the article can be found at  http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-06-085-f  

Post Edited (TGB) : 9/20/2006 9:46:18 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 9/20/2006 10:02:44 PM (GMT-5)

This next part is not another response or question for Tom. Its a second part (same LINK), that also needs to be considered.

Even among Christians, this distrust of man’s ability to apprehend universal truths has led to some strange developments in recent times. For example, it has forced several eminent contemporary Christian apologists (such as Wolfhart Pannenberg, Clark Pinnock, J. W. Montgomery, and Gary Habermas) to attempt what—as far as I can tell—no early Christian apologist would ever have thought of attempting. Namely, to appeal to the Resurrection of Christ as a major argument for Theism. This approach, I submit, is a massive departure from the thought of St. Paul, who argued for Theism, not from the Resurrection of Christ, but from the principle of causality with respect to the created world. In other words, St. Paul appealed to metaphysics, and it is apparently their distrust in metaphysics that prompts some modern apologists not to follow Paul in this regard. Similarly, another prominent apologist, Alvin Plantinga, treats the Ontological Argument as though it were an argument from probability. This is quite remarkable. Probability is something measurable; it pertains to quantity. The Ontological Argument, however, is a deductive argument, which is either valid or invalid. Validity is a question of quality, not quantity. There is nothing measurable about it.

 

So..... We have Paul writing Romans 1 & 2, refering to what the reader firmly DOES believe about the created world, and it fits. What is appealed to as an arguement is the very thing that anyone else arguing would appeal to also. (If they are not agnostic about the possibility of knowing anything at all)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 9/20/2006 10:17:39 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (TGB) : 9/20/2006 10:35:10 PM (GMT-5)

By reason of this total divorce of logic from the Logos, we find already in Roscelinus the substance of those notions characteristic of nominalism, ideas that are with us still and have certainly had their consequences. Nominalism’s denial of the mind’s ability to know anything real above itself quickly led to the disrepute of metaphysics and eventually cut the ground from under everything else to which metaphysics gives rise, such as the prescriptive authority of inherited language, the anchoring of the moral imagination, and the defining validation of law. I have argued elsewhere that...

Nominalism also produced modern materialism. Nothing so turned Western man’s thoughts back to the things of earth than this sudden persuasion of his being unable to grasp anything higher. The denial of man’s ability to perceive transcendent, intellectual realities above himself guaranteed that the Western mind would thenceforth turn ever more completely toward the only reality that remained, physical reality, the world of matter. (“Materialism and the Abdication of Intellect,” Epiphany, 1997)

 

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/print.php?id=16-06-085-f

What struck me last night, hearing this, was the part about the prescriptive authority of inherited language. While "Logos" at the top refers, I think, to the spokenness of Creation, where what is brought into being is given a nature and a potentiality, etc.; the "authority of inherited language" part facinates me. I'm facinated by the suggestion that language is a partner to the Creation. And I'm reminded of the importance of Adam naming the animals. Something of the spokenness of the animals entered into language: both the animals and language would be affected.

.

So, to be frank, there is nothing about the idea of language being an abstract "map" ('necessarily one step removed from reality') that appeals to me. I don't like it. And I think I reject it. (Do you really need it?)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 9/20/2006 10:49:52 PM (GMT-5)

POW: I'd suspect that Reardon objects to the division (which you make) of ideas from experience. I bet he keeps them together. You, on the other hand, seem to divide them -- because you think you should or have to -- before beginning at all.

Tom: I think they're related but distinct. I want to keep them together, but I observe a difference. We in fact do make this distinction. We do it all the time. I’m fine with Rearadon’s emphasis upon true knowledge of a thing being experiential knowledge of that thing. But it doesn’t seem to me that he objects to the division per se between “knowledge about X” and “knowledge of X.” How could he? The distinction is self-evident. We do in fact know “about” things which we have not experientially comprehended. That’s all that grounds the de dicto/de re distinction. That just IS the distincton. Reardon seems to me just to want to insist that until we experientially comprehend a thing, we don’t really “know” it in the required sense, the fullest sense possible, the sort of knowledge of God we ought to seek. I heartily agree to this. I just don’t think de dicto knowledge is illusory or that de dicto and de re are in fact one and the same. I don’t think he would say this either.

---------------------

POW: Lets see what he said about language: “By reason of this total divorce of logic from the Logos, we find already in Roscelinus the substance of those notions characteristic of nominalism, ideas that are with us still and have certainly had their consequences. Nominalism’s denial of the mind’s ability to know anything real above itself quickly led to the disrepute of metaphysics and eventually cut the ground from under everything else to which metaphysics gives rise, such as the prescriptive authority of inherited language…”

Tom: I'm not sure what he has in mind. But I can think of a sense in which I certain do deny the “prescriptive authority of inherited language.”

I don’t deny that the meanings and usages of words which a society determines for itself over time exercises a certain determining influence (an “authority”) over children who grow up in that society and learn to function in it. They get socialized. If they want to be a part of THAT society, interact and discourse in THAT society, they have to submit themselves to the authority and language rules of THAT society. If that’s all Reardon has in mind, then sure, I agree.

But by “inherited language” he can't mean ‘language’ as such, i.e., the linguistic faculties we possess. Rather, I suspect that by “inherited  language” he means something like the “traditional beliefs” we are raised with, the whole set of beliefs and doctrines we inherit and are socialized into. In this case I do deny the prescriptive authority of inherited language. We are not unquestioningly to assume that the beliefs and doctrines we inherit are true, that they accurately map the way the world (or God) really is. I am far more suspicious of tradition than you are POW. I don't think we possess the authority to expect people to affirm beliefs independent of personally verifying their truth through experiential comprehension of the thing (whether it be things mathematical, scientific, geographical, or theological) simply because those are the beliefs they “inherited.” Each generation has to renew the tradition for themselves. That’s how what’s really true survives and what’s false gets weeded out. The process is never complete, but we keep at it.

I also object to the idea that even if our language (doctrine) about God is true, that believing it is itself the required experience of God which God seeks for and with us. “Claims” or “language” in and of themselves possess no authority whatsoever. They’re just linguistic entities (de dicto). Language only becomes authoritative by virtue of the thing in itself (de re).

----------------------

POW: “…Nothing so turned Western man’s thoughts back to the things of earth than this sudden persuasion of his being unable to grasp anything higher. The denial of man’s ability to perceive transcendent, intellectual realities above himself guaranteed that the Western mind would thenceforth turn ever more completely toward the only reality that remained, physical reality, the world of matter. (“Materialism and the Abdication of Intellect,” Epiphany, 1997)

Tom: I totally agree. I’m not a nominalist anyhow! But realists can affirm the distinction between de dicto and de re knowledge.

POW: And I'm reminded of the importance of Adam naming the animals. Something of the spokenness of the animals entered into language: both the animals and language would be affected.

Tom: Certainly. When we speak, we ‘act’—‘we’ act. ‘We’ (de re, the thing itself) are present and offered to others in the words we speak. The distinction between de dicto and de re doesn’t deny this. One can truly experience another person through language. We can create through language, yes. Language can mediate an experience of the other person that ends up transcending the language itself, even if it’s gotten to through language. When a husband and wife “say” to each other “I love you,” they’re offering more than mere words. Each person's re (if you will), the “thing” that is him or her, is extended to the other in through language, and when the words are heard and embraced, there’s an experience of the other person that transcends language even if language is necessary to the experience. To deny this distinction is to say there is no experience of another that transcends the language we employ in communicating with one another, something I doubt you believe. So sure, words can create. But the words THAT create are not themselves WHAT the words create. There’s a distinction.

----------------------

POW: So, to be frank, there is nothing about the idea of language being an abstract "map" ('necessarily one step removed from reality') that appeals to me. I don't like it. And I think I reject it. (Do you really need it?)

Tom: Hey, if it doesn’t help you, don’t bother with it. Reject it if you need to. But the distinction helps me, a great deal. I’m not suggesting two entirely distinct realms or dimensions that have nothing to do with one another. de dicto knowledge ‘about’ God and de re experience ‘of’ God are indivisible in the sense that God de re determines the content of any truthful de dicto knowledge we might have about God. But it’s asymmetrical. Knowledge de dicto conforms to de re realities. But de re realities aren’t constituted by what we believe de dicto to be the case. We could be wrong. But reality is never other than it actually is. Language conforms or doesn’t conform to reality, not visa-versa.

So a map of Chicago and the city itself ARE related, as are correct doctrine and God related. But mere intellectual possession of the former doesn’t equate to an experience of the latter. Knowing facts about Chicago (its population, location, ethnic make-up, crime rate, professional sports teams, average temperatures, etc.—all of which constitutes real ‘knowledge’ even if de dicto knowledge) isn’t the same thing as experiencing Chicago de re (walking its streets, meeting its people, eating in its restaurants, attending its concerts, going to a Cubs game, fishing in Lake Michigan, etc.). I don’t see how you can deny this distinction (which is the only distinction I’m making) or why you would want to. But if you think you need to and it helps you, great.

If I and some friends set out to visit Chicago to have some fun but we end up in Milwaukee because I happen to have a map of Milwaukee with the name "Chicago" mistakenly written on it, it would be silly of me just stand in downtown Milwaukee insisting that we really are in Chicago since the map I have says "Chicago" on it. No, we adjust our maps to reality, not visa versa. No map (even an "inherited linguistic map") is itself the territory it describes.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 9/21/2006 10:05:36 AM (GMT-5)