Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq
From: aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: non-evidence for the non-existence of non-god
Message-ID: <621@pucc-h>
Date: Tue, 27-Mar-84 10:15:15 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.621
Posted: Tue Mar 27 10:15:15 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Mar-84 07:08:15 EST
References: <896@ssc-vax.UUCP>, <519@pyuxn.UUCP>
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 144

I'll try to answer a few of Rich Rosen's points from the article this is
following up:

>> = David Norris
>  = Rich Rosen

> How did this discussion get twisted into a debate on evidence for the
> non-existence of god, as David Norris claims?  Any debate on such a
> subject is futile; how do you prove that there are no five-legged
> horses?  [What's that you say, "there aren't any found in nature"???
> But there could be, couldn't there??  Ones we've never seen.
> Just because no human has ever seen one doesn't mean that they don't
> exist, right?]  Logically, the burden of proof must rest with those who
> claim that there ARE five-legged horses (*and* deities), and I have seen no
> evidence (that stands any reasonable test) of either.

By analogy with your bracketed argument, just because no human presently
living (to my knowledge) has seen God Himself doesn't mean that He doesn't
exist.  God doesn't work entierly through the mind; however, He also does
not exclude the mind as a way of reaching people.  It is worthy of note
that one friend of mine, who used to go about attacking Christians (verbally,
not physically) left and right, finally decided to be fair and read up on
what he was attacking, with the idea of coming to a cease-fire; when he read
the Bible, he found that Christianity made sense, so he chose to become a
Christian -- and the sudden change in his attitude startled numbers of
people, especially the Christians he had formerly attacked.  (Scott Bowyer,
are you reading this [if you have an account]?)

> David may claim that it is he who has asked for evidence, but let's be
> realistic about who should be requested to supply evidence.  He says we
> can't assume that someone is a crook simply because there is no evidence
> that he/she is not a crook.  Just as our legal system assumes that one
> is not a crook until it is proven that they are, we can assume that there
> is no deity unless there is direct proof.  A neutral or skeptical position
> would be "I don't see any evidence of A, but show me some and you'll
> convince me", and not "I don't see any evidence of A, so either
> show me evidence of A or evidence of not A to convince me either way."
> To lend credence to a position based only on the possibility of evidence
> for that position is tantamount to being biased toward that position.

I think it would be more reasonable for you to supply evidence than to
continue flaming.  Of course, you run into the problem that there isn't
conclusive evidence of God's nonexistence.  To turn another of your
arguments around:  I'd say we can't assume that ALL the Christians over
the millennia have been either deluded or lying unless there's direct
proof of that.  As discussed in other articles, the direct proof of God's
existence doesn't come only to the rational mind.  (Remember that the
resurrected Jesus did not appear to the skeptics such as the Pharisees and
Pontius Pilate--he appeared to the believers.)

Pardon my puzzlement, but let me rephrase your two quoted sentences:
"I don't believe in A at all; show me evidence of A and you'll convince me."
"I am open to either A or not-A; show me evidence on either side and you'll
convince me."  You hold to the first of these.  I would say that refusing to
allow the possibility of a position is tantamount to, nay, identical to,
being biased against that position; i.e. you are hardly neutral--but you are
very skeptical (how on earth do you consider "neutral" and "skeptical"
synonyms?).

> It is clear that one must decide a priori that god exists and then work
> an argument around it to make a point.  When Tim decried testimony from
> people who claim they've talked to god as unverifiable and potentially
> inaccurate, David claims that Tim is thus ruling out "historical evidence"
> and "eyewitness testimony".

I grant that most people arguing in favor of God have already decided He
exists (though we MAY have an exception in this group, Judy at UT-Austin).
I do not have Dave's reply to Tim in front of me; but I would say that the
New Testament writers were recording something of tremendous importance to
all of them--the key point being that they saw Jesus alive after seeing Him
dead.  As to eyewitness testimony:  There are people who have been healed of
various diseases through what would seem to be divine power; there was a
segment on "That's Incredible!" a few months back about one such case; and
to what would you attribute the healings that occur through Oral Roberts?
I'd say you are indeed ruling out historical evidence and eyewitness
testimony.

> The point is (again) let's see some hard reasons why you believe that there
> is a god.  I feel confident that every single one of them can be cut down
> logically.  The bottom line then becomes that no one can prove that there
> is or isn't a god.  The question then becomes "Why then choose to believe or
> not believe?"

How about that.  We agree.  I don't think that one can produce a purely
rational proof of God's existence--only points which strongly favor the
proposition.  I note again the relish with which you say that arguments in
God's favor can be "cut down"; you really are on the attack, aren't you?
You might as well admit that your objections to God are not founded on
purely rational grounds; if they were, I don't think you'd feel constrained
to attack so vehemently.

Anyway, I chose to believe originally because the whole plan and history of
God showed itself to me as consistent--i.e. the sacrifice of Jesus fulfilling
the sacrifices in the Old Testament.  I continue to believe because I see
changes in me due to my relationship with God, and because I see love from
Christians that I don't get from others.  In fact, one friend of mine has said
that several years ago, when I was in much worse psychological and spiritual
condition than now, she loved me, even though she didn't like me much!  Now
she likes me.  Her persistent love & concern for someone who was indeed highly
unlikable could not have come from her own resources alone, especially
considering that others had (and still have) similar love and concern; it had
to come from some even more loving and concerned Person.

> The incredible gall of assuming that someone or something "originated" the
> system and the laws of the universe is (apparently) not apparent to some.

Why is it gall?  Why is it gall to believe (not assume) that the beauty
of the stars, or of a spring flower, are God's poetry?  Isn't it greater gall
to fight for the opposite point of view?

>> ...from a Christian viewpoint, there is nothing to suggest
>> that man is the favored species in the universe.  The Bible does not
>> contain any information on such matters...

> Doesn't the notion of "man [sic] created in sin" and all of that imply that
> god created the world for humans to "toil in", to behave a certain way
> (as a test?), and reap their rewards in an afterlife?  I'm not debating
> those notions now, but doesn't the fact that ideas like that are abundant
> in Christianity imply that "man" is the "focus" of god's creation?  It
> sounds like that to me...

Eh?  Man was not created in sin.  Admittedly King David wrote (in a Psalm,
I think) "in sin did my mother conceive me"; but I don't think that was
God's original plan.  The point of the Garden of Eden story was that if you
break full fellowship with God and go your own way, you're only hurting
yourself.  I don't think God originally intended things to be as tough as
they are.

I think the point David Norris was making can be distilled from the word
"universe".  Man would appear to be the focus of God's creation as regards
the earth; but we don't know anything about creatures that may exist on
other planets; there may be such creatures who have never broken fellowship
with God; there may be creatures who did, and required redemption just as
we did.  The Bible says nothing either way; I think it's probably better for
us to allow the possibility of other sentients in the universe, rather than
stuff ourselves with pride about being the center of the universe, or the
focus of God's creation.

Well, this is already too long....

-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
Have you hugged your junk mail today?