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.
What you describe isn’t atheism, its apatheism (ie. apathy toward the question of God and religion.)
Of course many of the things that religion does seem silly and even ridiculous, but in the end religion is largely meaningless. Its a convenient way to unify believers, but other than that it can never formulate or maintain a personal relationship with God (which is necessary for salvation.)
Further, even when the definition of faith is broadened, even atheists have faith that there is no God without any evidence to support this, an example of an argumentum e silentio fallacy.
If you wanted to exercise no or little faith, you’d be an agnostic and declare that you have no faith there is a God or there isn’t.
And I think we’re learning with the NFL Network’s “experiment” that short rest football is just bad. 90% of the Thursday night games since they’ve been rebirthed are atrocious, even when good teams are playing the lack of game prep and recuperation is evident on the field. But we still watch.
No it’s atheism. Lack of believing. Some atheists take that to a near religious level, believing very fervently that there is no God. But most simply don’t believe in God. There’s an important difference between active belief in a lack (which I like to call anti-theism), and merely lack of belief (actual atheism). Most atheists, having opted out of belief, then move on with their lives, it’s not a big deal one way or the other.
Agnosticism is VASTLY different than you portray. Agnosticism says there’s probably something but we haven’t figured it out yet.
The big difference shows up in the thought experiment of what happens if God knocked on your door and said “hi”, in a very literal no interpretations necessary sense. An agnostic would now have the answer and know what to worship and how. An atheist still wouldn’t worship, because he’s not a worshiping kind of guy.
As I say rationalization is the second greatest human drive.
The “what if” I mention can be answered, btw. Not just a hypothetical.
People will always find a way to not believe something, if they don’t want to. Despite evidence. They rip the evidence, they rip how it’s presented, or who’s presenting it, or name call, or just shout various catch phrases.
Your thought experiment contradicts your assertion that atheism is “merely lack of belief.” If God literally knocked on an atheists door and said hi, then there would be extremely strong evidence for the existence of God. However, despite this evidence, the atheist would continue to posit that there is no God. It isn’t a lack of belief, but instead a belief that there is no God.
Blatant facts can also be rejected. There are multiple ways to dismiss actual facts.
Thomas is an example. The fact was Jesus did rise from the dead, and that the others saw Him. Thomas dismissed those facts. Via rationalization and rejecting the language, the presenter, the way it’s presented, the methodology, how the facts were obtained, etc you can reject facts a whole host of ways.
I thought the ideas of logic and reason were formulated so that facts, regardless of their presentation or method of revelation, were identified and accepted.
Isn’t it these same ideas of logic and reason that atheists pride themselves on being masters of? Why then would an atheist deny blatant facts and logical conclusions?
Reread my comment about rationalization.
But for an atheist that’s not a good reason to worship. Sure He knocked on the door, so now we know He exists, but so what. Here look at the dictionary definition of belief:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child’s belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
Especially look at #4, most atheists aren’t going to suddenly join a religion because God knocked on the door. We’ve been living our lives just fine not in a religion and having God drop by isn’t a good reason to change that. Because it IS a lack of belief in God for most. It’s a passive verb situation, not active.
Actually, I had to go look up Hawkwind and who should pop up in the video?
LEMMY!
Wow..he was so young he looked nearly unborn!
;D
You gotta walk before you run, and you’d be amazed at how many have found Christ by first admitting that, ultimately, they don’t really know if there’s a God.
Admitting a God is possible is the first step, and the very first thing it does is convince all onlookers of the intellectual dishonesty of the secular humanist (which is really what an atheist is).
As such, it is so much easier to prove there are no such thing as atheists than it is to prove there is no such thing as God.
I think the distinction you’re making is between faith and theology. You can have faith in various things but still not believe in the supernatural.
What you describe as "much more logical" sounds to me like throwing up your hands and saying, "I give up. It's must be magic!"
What ypu seem to feel is an impossible-to-conceive vast continuum of hierarchies, others see as a frontier of knowledge to explore and understand.
Exactly. He’s weighing all kinds of faith, including perfectly non-spiritual material survival assumptions, as religious faith. I have “faith” the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, not because of God or religion or anything in that sphere, but because that’s what always happens as there’s really not much reason to expect it to not happen again tomorrow.
What do you think? Does this argument prove even atheists have faith?
<><><><><><<>
This argument is an answer desperately searching for a question.
Of course atheists can have faith; it’s just not in an otherworldly, unseen, unprovable God.
No, it’s not “throwing my hands up” and saying “its magic!” It’s making a sound conclusion that there must be a first cause of the universe. If you say that its the multiverse, then there must be a first cause of that. If you say its a tier 2 multiverse then there must be a cause of that. If you say a teir 3 multiverse, then there must be a first cause of that ad infinitum. Eventually there must be some cause that itself has no beginning and therefor no cause of its own.
Although there may be an infinite number of unifying universes, eventually there must be something to cause them all. Although the conclusion that it is God is, admittedly, a non sequiter based on the premises, the conclusion that there is some being or object that itself has no cause is not. Therefore, by pure logic alone, such an entity must exist.
But it's a long way from a force that, by some manner beyond our puny power to comprehend (now), caused the multiverse to spin into existence in an infinite number of ways one of which leads to unique you, and a conscious being who intervenes in human affairs, demands to be worshipped and doesn't want you to masturbate.
Then neither do I since I believe that faith in God has mountains of evidence. Belief that an incredibly stable and efficient ecological system like Earth could come from a million different random chances is what is preposterous.
Plus, there are a few things that defy logic but are central to our existence. For example, if you freeze oxygen, it condenses. If you freeze hydrogen, it condenses. But if you freeze water, which is nothing but hydrogen and oxygen, it expands. No scientist can make sense of that yet those who believe God orders the universe can accept it as part of His plan.
On the contrary...one can easily imagine a God that isn't eternal. Just as the universe isn't infinite (although it's pretty darn big), one can come up with a God that isn't eternal (but is pretty darn big). The ancient Greek gods come to mind. They were powerful, but they had their flaws (and how...). They certainly weren't eternal.
Since God is eternal, one can conclude that he will always exist and always has (a priori.) Using this single attribute, a very strong argument can be made for God’s existence. Namely, the first cause argument.
Saying that God (or gods) is eternal is an assumption, as pointed out above. The ancients didn't think so, and who's to say that they were wrong compared to the majority opinion today on such matters? It's not as if it's falsifiable...hence, ignosticism.
Given the temporal geometry of the universe (ie. it has a beginning) then it makes sense the universe has a cause since all things that have beginnings have causes.
Actually, the Big Bang theory doesn't posit a beginning as such...rather, it describes the universe when it was extremely hot and dense approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago. It does not make any predictions or descriptions of the universe (whatever that means in context) previous to that. To put it another way, a long time ago the universe was extremely hot and dense and started expanding, but before that point in time? Your guess is as good as mine.
There is (as yet) simply no good information on what was around before the Big Bang. Maybe the universe has a true "beginning". Maybe it doesn't. Until it's falsifiable, the question is pointless (but amusing to speculate on, granted).
What if God punishes faith, and only rewards skepticism? We can play "what if" all day...
The “what if” I mention can be answered, btw. Not just a hypothetical.
Well of course it can be answered. If God wants people to believe in Him without having to see Him personally, than those that do so will please him, and those that don't won't.
Note the important word, "if"...also the assumption that God exists in the first place.
People will always find a way to not believe something, if they don’t want to. Despite evidence. They rip the evidence, they rip how it’s presented, or who’s presenting it, or name call, or just shout various catch phrases.
Conversely: People will always find a way to believe something, if they want to. Despite the lack of evidence. They rip the very concept of pointing out the lack of evidence, or how the lack is presented, or who's presenting it, or name call, or just shout various catch phrases.
The trick on either side of an argument is to try to be objective, and not let emotion or assumptions get in the way. Good luck with that...
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.