Posted on 07/28/2013 8:22:20 PM PDT by Patriot Politics
A Question for Atheists: The Book of God's Existence Atheists maintain that rejection of faith is superior to practicing faith. However, despite this commonly held view, one may at least force an atheist to admit he/she is capable of practicing faith. Simply ask this question:
Suppose there exists a book simply titled "The Book of God's Existence" which, using formal logic and reasoning, proves the existence of God. However, if one who does not already believe in God reads this book that person is doomed to eternal damnation. Many prominent and vocal atheists have read the book intending to prove it wrong, but in each case they immediately become depressed believing their fate in Hell is assured.
You, as an atheist, are not convinced that the book is correct. In fact, you're almost certain that it can be proven wrong since you discover it is simply a modified ontological argument and have successfully found logical fallacies in numerous other similar arguments. What do you do?
There are only 3 valid actions that an atheist may take:
Refuse to read the book, but continue to deny God's existence. Refuse to read the book, but accept God's existence. Read the book. Each action requires a display of faith, either in God or one's self. Here's why:
1. If they respond with "I wouldn't read the book, but I wouldn't believe in God either" they express a blind faith that the book is fallacious without examination of its contents and in direct conflict with the evidence that every atheist who has read the book believes in God--even those who were most vocal about their non belief.
2.If they respond with "I wouldn't read the book, but I would believe in God's existence" they express a blind faith that the book is correct without examination of its contents and accept the testimony of those who have read it as correct without any real proof to validate their claims. Most importantly, however, they also express a faith in God.
3. Unfortunately, this is the choice most atheists would make. If they respond to the question with "I would just read the book" they express a blind faith that their intuition of the book's fallibility is correct without any evidence. Further, they show a faith that the testimony of all the atheists who read the book is misguided despite the fact that each person who read the book was a strong atheist before, most likely including others that had also successfully refuted other ontological arguments. However, the greatest faith they place is in their belief that they will not be damned to Hell for reading the book without assurance.
Final Thoughts
In the end, each person is "granted a measure of faith" (Romans 12:3) by God, and an atheist is no different. Despite the claims that they will not express any faith, they are quite capable of doing so in many different situations. This question is simply a thought experiment to point out that they are indeed capable of faith.
I only have faith in what I can see hear smell taste and touch. Everything else is Voodoo.
AS an atheist I beg to differ. You see a link between religion and an after life. I see no logical reason for such an assumption. I believe the conciseness exists after physical death.
But I believe it's a natural phenomenon not a spiritual one.
Philosophy 101 is the existence of God argument.
Atheist: Prove to me that God exists, because I “do not” believe God exists
Deist: Prove to me God does not exist, because I “do” believe God exists
Now the deist has an easier job than the atheist because he is proving a positive to the atheist, while the atheist has to prove a negative to the deist. That is a topic in itself but just let it be known that math majors do everything in their power to avoid doing a mathematical proof by proving a negative for a reason.
Nevertheless, both sides essentially need to shove this “God” or “lack of God” in a bottle so they can prove 100% that they were right in their assertion. Without 100% evidence that the assertion is right, there is room for doubt, and therefore the assertion is an article of faith to the the individual making the assertion.
Modern atheist are so busy patting themselves on the back that they are scientifically and intellectually superior to all other thinkers, that they never question that this argument has been going on since the beginning of civilization for a reason. The deist are more accepting of divergent opinions since they don’t have any problem with a belief being an article of faith.
An insomniac agnostic dyslexic salamander stays up all night wondering if there is a dog and named it Halla...
</inside joke>
Huh? I don’t think that word means what you think it means...
*ouch*
The new one’s named Seven.
Work with that.
:^P
Of Nine?
NO!
LOL
It’s a Blue Oyster Cult reference from the song “Le Invisibles” on the Imaginos album.
Her registered name is Desdinova’s Magna Of Illusion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53HZ7LoqhSQ
[listen for the “Seven, seven” refrain]
Next you'll tell me you're a Hawkwind fan.
Hope you're doing ok Sal.
That’s interesting...perhaps this argument is not for atheists but instead agnostics? Because after all, they are the ones that try to refrain from any strong opinion one way or the other (as does weak atheism)
I suppose the motivation for such foolishness in usually otherwise sane people is to avoid accountability and engage in a sort of operational nihilism-hedonism where only one’s base urges and desires are met.
Thank you for the feedback!
Thank you very much for this thorough criticism!
But perhaps I should have went into more detail about what I meant in the article...I intended the reason for damnation after reading the book to be something along the lines of “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost” since this is the only “unforgivable sin” Jesus speaks of. The book would show (in addition to God’s existence) that since they distrusted the conviction of the Holy Ghost and instead had to resort to absolute evidence that God exists, then they must display no faith since its pretty clear (eg. If God revealed himself with 100% certainty, then it takes no faith to believe in God)
As for the mechanics of knowing the argument without reading the book...you could assume that someone who read the book previously told you the form of the argument. However, since a standard ontological argument can be refuted it doesn’t reveal God’s existence alone.
As for the proving of faith:
If they read the book, then they must be reasonably sure that there is no threat of Hell. After all, if there is the slightest chance that they could be eternally tortured then the risks are too great and the person either 1. incredibly stupid for continuing anyways given the gravity of the consequences or 2. convinced that the work is incorrect despite evidence to the contrary.
As for the number of atheists that read the work, suppose that enough atheists have read it to cover every school of atheistic, agnostic and ignostic thought and were all familiar with every refutation to all arguments for the existence of God.
May I ask if you have any suggestions for rectifying these mistakes?
Personally I think atheism is much more like an operational nihilistic hedonism in which the person is centered on the self: self gratification (if not openly, then under the guise of enlightenment) with only the submission to societal morals, ethics and standards without any supernatural consequences.
Essentially, I think atheists act as if there is no greater purpose of life and all is ultimately meaningless (nihilism) while feeding ones hungers and urges (basic desires as well as the desire to have peace of mind, intellectual superiority, etc.
It is for this reason (basking in perceived intellectual ‘freedom’ and superiority) that I think many atheists are so vehemently opposed to the idea of God.
Of course, this is simply a conjecture.
Those who posit that there absolutely isn’t a God is an example of a strong atheist.
What you described could either be a weak atheist (one who asserts that there probably isn’t a God, but isn’t sure) an agnostic (one who asserts that there is no way to know for sure weather or not God exists) or an ignostic (one who asserts that the question of weather God exists is meaningless because a consistent definition of what God is cannot be known)
Although God’s motives for what He does and His ultimate plan are far beyond our comprehension (eg explaining the nuances of nuclear fusion to an ant)I suspect the reason God does not reveal Himself with 100% certainty is because faith in Christ is necessary for salvation and blatant facts take no faith to believe. That’s basically the premise behind the “read the book and you’re damned” theme.
Perhaps God sees fit to reveal small portions of the greater plan to specific people (such as revealing Hell to an atheist and then reviving them) in order to aid people’s struggling faith? Whatever reason it is, I’m sure it’s much more complex and intricate than one could possibly understand.
Your belief that consciousness is not predicated on biologic life (although a common assertion between these two arguments) is a fallacy within the naturalist world view. If the universe is the only existence there is (ie. no supernatural interference within the world) and consciousness is simply a byproduct of various chemical reactions within the brain (medically verified) then it would logically follow that a person’s consciousness would cease to exist once brain metabolism has halted in a naturalistic universe.
In essence, a continuation of consciousness after death in a naturalistic universe must be impossible.
Thank you for your point. I used the word faith to mean any belief held without proof or evidence of its truthfulness. Although it’s never directly related to a faith in God, the main purpose of the piece was to stop hard nosed atheists that pride themselves of “only believing what there is evidence for.” Perhaps this could be used to reason with agnostics as well? If you have any ideas how the argument or explanation could be reworked to be better at accomplishing the task of showing how all display faith to some degree I would greatly appreciate it!
I’m afraid your fourth choice of non action is the same as either the first choice: not reading the book with continuing non belief in God. You would have essentially convinced yourself that the work is bogus and erroneous despite its apparent conversion of many people to a theistic world view. Would you not even read the work? If only to prove it wrong?
No that's my point. It is predicated on biological life. Not any religion. The brain works using bioeletrical energy. Synapse firing and so forth. The question is to be what happens to that energy when the solid brain stops functioning.
If you call that energy a soul or a ghost depends on faith so to speak.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.