Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Achieving The Impossible


quicksand

Recommended Posts

I was listening to one of the latest podcast of the Atheist Experience (presented by the ASA) and near the end a caller had quickly shifted the burden of proof back toward the hosts, Matt and Tracie, to prove God's existence. What? We, who argue frequently with theists, especially of the Christian variety, are quite used to this tactic when we've pinned the theist in their own incoherence.

 

Well... let us take this challenge and prove God's existence since Christians have never been able to do that themselves. Let's do their heavy-lifting.

 

Groundwork.

 

1. Arguments are not allowed. Arguments based upon ignorance not allowed. Arguments that beg the question are not allowed. Arguments that appeal to faith are not allowed. No type of argument is allowed at anytime. This includes any cosmological argument.

 

Only evidence is acceptable.

 

2. Mode of inquiry will be the scientific method. We will make predictions and see how accurate those predictions are. Data must be collected per experiment. Methods must be falsifiable. No experiment that is falsifiable will be accepted.

 

3. Definitions

 

3b. God. God is a supernatural being and is "of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." Note: This is a general working definition of what a general god is.

 

3c. Scientific Method.

 

3d. Nature/Natural. Nature is anything in the universe. It is the universe. In a dichotomy between [supernatural and natural, it is anything that is not supernatural.

 

3e. Evidence. If we were looking to prove Bigfoot's existence we would ask for a carcass or a skull. If we wanted evidence of a leprechaun, we would want to see his pot-of-gold.

 

The Problem

 

01. In order to prove God's existence (a supernatural being) we need to first understand that humans are not supernatural beings and that our science, or methods, and our tools and instruments are of the natural world and not a supernatural world. To do so, we will need a supernatural reasoning and science before we can begin. This being the case, we will first need to develop a supernatural reasoning (as any reasoning done now and within in ourselves is of the natural variety) followed by supernatural tools and instruments before we can collect evidence, formulate a hypothesis, and then test that hypothesis. If at anytime we use reasoning rooted within the natural world (or ourselves) we will only be describing the physical aspects and phenomena of the natural world, of the universe, and not the supernatural world of God's existence. However, in order to do this we will need to develop a supernatural reasoning so we can develop this supernatural engineering to in order to construct these supernatural tools and instruments.

 

02. If at anytime we fail to develop supernatural tools or instruments, we will fail to collect data on God and only show something about nature and not God and the supernatural. If, at anytime, we say that the distinction between the natural world and the supernatural is not important or harmonize the two and choose to blur the lines between the two, we've only invalidated what we've hope to confirm and have conceded the inquiry to hopeless, pitiless, incoherence.

 

Okay. That's briefly the problem. Feel free to add to it and design an experiment.

 

:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once we discover the Babel Fish this argument will be over and done with:

 

God refuses to prove that (S)He exists because proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing.

 

Man then counters that the Babel fish is a dead giveaway because it could not have evolved by chance. It therefore proves God exists, but by God's own arguments God does not exists.

 

God realizes (S)He hadn't thought of that and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading those words in the OP still has me believing that judgments that are about metaphysics are wholly up to the individual and it should be left as such. The non-theist will think the theist irrational and vice-versa, but with the intellectual freedom that is allowed in our supposedly free, pluralistic and democratic society, we are allowed to hold such beliefs as truth as long as they don't interfere with the beliefs of any other person.

 

Also, the OP is worded in a such a way that this there no possible that the non-theist can provide proof for at the non-existence or existence of a deity. In my mind, that scientific jargon would look like Chinese legalese to a not-so sophisticated theist, but a sophisticated one could come with language just as extreme to render the non-theist just as culpable.

 

Because of these battles, these so-called games of the mind, I don't see the reason for the theist and non-theist to argue. It is a necessary dialogue to have in a free and open society, but sometimes it devolves into character assassination and ad-hominem attacks. Overall, this is likely why I hold the position that "one or other and both can be correct".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quicksand,

 

Your reasoning seems correct and the same with your conclusions. This is what I have been saying for months though you say it without the "Christianeze" that many find offensive. This tool you mention is called in the Bible the mind of the spirit. Without being given this tool by God, you cannot know Him. Thus, those who do not have this tool cannot be convinced that God exists and those that do have it cannot be convinced that He does not. Great job laying out the disconnect.

 

Matt,

 

I, also, agree with what you stated. We have to agree to peacefully co-exist and to discuss with one another knowing from the start that neither side possesses the same tools by which to convince the other of what they know to be true. It really is great when we quit striving and accept others and their beliefs as their own and let it go.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This tool you mention is called in the Bible the mind of the spirit. Without being given this tool by God, you cannot know Him. Thus, those who do not have this tool cannot be convinced that God exists and those that do have it cannot be convinced that He does not.

 

Hmmm, apparently God gave me a faulty tool...

 

Didn't even have the decency to back it up with a Craftsman unlimited warranty either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God made all sorts of mistakes... gays, women who expect equal rights in the home.... all sorts of bad stuff, isn't that right John?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all were born with this "faulty tool" as our spirit was dead or inactive. The difference is whether we stay that way or not or just learn to live with it. We are all different and some prefer to live life without a knowledge of God and others do not. It is all good in the end. But the OP is correct that you cannot know God without repairing the damage of the fall to our inner man.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder who's at fault here for giving us this "faulty tool" in the first place. Gee, it couldn't possibly be God's fault, could it? Oh no, it's our fault for not understanding a God that didn't give us the tools to understand him with in the first place because obviously God must be perfect at everything (note the sarcasm). He's even perfect at miscommunicating with us! Glory! Does this make God perfectly imperfect? Isn't that an oxymoron? Oh wait, I forgot that Kratos is ignoring me for reasons I can't understand (must be one of those "God's mysterious ways" things), so I'm probably just wasting my time responding here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all were born with this "faulty tool" as our spirit was dead or inactive.

 

So what about for those of us that have it break in the middle of use?

 

What? We just weren't using it right? We didn't lube it often enough? Didn't do correct maintenance?

 

This "special knowledge" line of thought is bullshit and you know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder who's at fault here for giving us this "faulty tool" in the first place. Gee, it couldn't possibly be God's fault, could it? Oh no, it's our fault for not understanding a God that didn't give us the tools to understand him with in the first place because obviously God must be perfect at everything (note the sarcasm). He's even perfect at miscommunicating with us! Glory! Does this make God perfectly imperfect? Isn't that an oxymoron? Oh wait, I forgot that Kratos is ignoring me for reasons I can't understand (must be one of those "God's mysterious ways" things), so I'm probably just wasting my time responding here.

 

He thinks you're a nasty man...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.