Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jeff@ics.uci.edu (Jeff Erickson) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Why believe? Message-ID: Date: 5 Mar 91 04:59:11 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS Lines: 84 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I don't normally read or post to this group, but someone on alt.atheism pointed here as a place to find examples of flawed arguments against atheism. In case you're wondering, alt.atheism is a great place to find flawed arguments against Christianity. gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: | First is the idea that God cannot exist and therefore does not exist. | The actual form of this is: (P = Premise; C = Conclusion) | P: Since God does not exist, | C: there cannot be any evidence that He does exist. | P: Since there cannot be any evidence for God's existence, | C: all theistic evidences must somehow be false. | P: Since all theistic evidences are false, | C: God does not exist. | It is a circular argument, which are not valid proof for any position. You're right. I have heard many atheists argue against God's existence this way. However, I have also heard Christians use this same argument to "prove" that God DOES exist. A good example of this is the last paragraph of your post. You are presupposing that all atheists reach their conclusions by circular reasoning. That is no more true than the equivalent statements about Christians. | In point of fact, the only person who can be an atheist is God Himself. Hogwash. | To say dogmatically, "There is no God!" requires one to know all things, | to be all places at the same time, and have all power. Thus, you would | have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, i.e., God! Atheism | is a theological absurdity. It is self-refuting. It is also ridiculous. To say dogmatically "There is no God!" only requires that the speaker believe that there is no God. To state correctly that there is no God only requires that there be no God. To know that there is no God only requires that you know that there is no God. Nothing else. Likewise, to say dogmatically "There is a God!" only requires that the speaker believe that there is a God. To state correctly that there is a God only requires the existence of God. To know that there is a God only requires that you know that there is a God. Nothing else. | As for Christianity being a crutch, Christianity is shown to be true | because it does meet all the needs of man(1). Since God(2) created man(3), | He knows what man needs(4). Thus, it is only logical to assume that the | religion which the true and living God reveals(5) will meet those needs(4). | This position actually proves what it set out to refute. (1) You are presupposing that Christianity meets all man's needs. It may very well meet all your needs, but it does not meet all of mine. (2) You are presupposing that God exists. (3) You are presupposing that God created man. (4) You are presupposing that God knows what man needs. This does not logically follow from "God created man". It does logically follow from "God is omniscient," but then THAT is your presupposition. (5) You are presupposing that Christianity was revealed by God. (6) You are presupposing that any religion revealed by God would meet man's needs. Do you have evidence to support these suppositions? To you have evidence to show that your evidence is accurate? And so on? My point is that it is not possible (IMHO) to prove one way or the other whether God exists or doesn't. There are logical arguments and evidence to support both possibilities. At some point, everyone should weigh the evidence on both sides of the issue and decide which way to believe (or decide not to choose). Many people, unfortunately, accept one doctrine or the other blindly. In other words, take the log out of your own eye. -- Jeff Erickson \ Do What Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law. jeff@ics.uci.edu \ Love is the Law, Love under Will. jeff@128.195.1.1 \ There is no Law beyond Do What Thou Wilt. \ -- Crowley, et al.