Comments on Atheism is Dead: Challenge to Atheists

On the contrary, the challenge should be put towar...

2008-09-21T17:13:00.000-06:00

On the contrary, the challenge should be put towards theists to prove the supernatural. To date there have been no supernatural findings, so it is up to those who assert the supernatural to come up with proof. Besides that, there are also many studies which do well to debunk the idea of the supernatural in the first place. NDE's and OBE's have been found to be at the level of the brain only and not anything supernatural; there have been many studies that prayer does not work, and that ghosts seem to be caused by electromagnetic fields.

This site is a sham; full of pseudo-intellectuals.

"Whilst caught up in all the arguements for and ag...

2008-09-03T09:57:00.000-06:00

"Whilst caught up in all the arguements for and against God many of you have missed a simple point. The reality is that you cannot prove materialism is correct through purely materialist methods. Indeed no one here has provided any actual empirical evidence to prove that the material world is all that there is, simply because it can't be done. Or to put it another way, one cannot empirically test something that is non-empirical."

Nor do we have any evidence for supernatural claims. Without evidence for even the existence of anything supernatural, there is no reason to believe that anything supernatural exists. Otherwise, we might as well believe any and all supernatural claims.

Furthermore, if the non-empirical cannot be tested empirically, how can it be tested?

"It is like me asking for you all to provide testable proof that we are not all merely simulations in a giant game of Sim City."

The same question could be asked of theists. Can they disprove it? Why are the claims of god(s) any more valid?

"Just as you cannot demand from God (if we enter the proposition he is real) to submit himself to any kind of tests. Indeed if we follow the proposition he is real then we already know he will not and a lack of intercession proves nothing."

There's no reason to presuppose that a god or gods exist. Nor does "lack of intercession" by any supernatural being demonstrate its existence. Obviously, a non-existent being also would not submit to tests.

"Odin is also testible. Simply await Ragnarok. If it does not occur, then no Odin."

The same could be said about the Christian God and the Rapture. Assuming you thoroughly disproved Zeus and Odin, two down, only several thousand more to go!

"On a side note, a great number of atheist replies here read like something Pat Robertson would write. Just switch a couple words around and *bang* instant Republican talking points."

For example?

"On a side note, a great number of atheist replies...

2008-09-03T05:18:00.000-06:00

"On a side note, a great number of atheist replies here read like something Pat Robertson would write. Just switch a couple words around and *bang* instant Republican talking points."

Do you mind pointing out a few of these? I'm not being facetious; if I am guilty of this behavior I would definitely want to know about it in order to improve myself.

@inquisitormelvinI don't think that you can say th...

2008-09-02T23:03:00.000-06:00

@inquisitormelvin

I don't think that you can say that if Zeus is testable in this way the Abrahamic Gods are not. Numerous times in the old testament God supposedly intervened to turn people into salt, declare his unending support for the people of Israel (look how that turned out for them), and destroy entire cities and communities because they were sinful. These seem pretty Zeus-like, but on a massive scale. As for Ragnarok... that's like saying that the Christian Gods are empirically demonstrable if you just wait for the Apocolypse. It works if you presume the assumption to be true, but it doesn't help us much until the arbitrary event happens and it's too late, so it's in effect useless.

Hi. Short time reader , first time responder. Whil...

2008-09-01T01:39:00.000-06:00

Hi. Short time reader , first time responder. While there is alot of very fun vitriol and strawman arguements here I thought I'd insert my two cents. Whilst caught up in all the arguements for and against God many of you have missed a simple point. The reality is that you cannot prove materialism is correct through purely materialist methods. Indeed no one here has provided any actual empirical evidence to prove that the material world is all that there is, simply because it can't be done. Or to put it another way, one cannot empirically test something that is non-empirical. It is like me asking for you all to provide testable proof that we are not all merely simulations in a giant game of Sim City. Just as you cannot demand from God (if we enter the proposition he is real) to submit himself to any kind of tests. Indeed if we follow the proposition he is real then we already know he will not and a lack of intercession proves nothing. As a side point, disproving Zeus is in fact testible. Positing his existence, we can easily determine his reality by testing his nature. We know he is a fickle god who routinely attacks any who challenge or insult him. To test Zeus' existence merely step outside and spit on his name. If you are not struck by lightning then Zeus does not exist. Odin is also testible. Simply await Ragnarok. If it does not occur, then no Odin. Catnarok is a very different matter. But, I've typed long enough. Just for references I am a Democrat Agnostic.

On a side note, a great number of atheist replies here read like something Pat Robertson would write. Just switch a couple words around and *bang* instant Republican talking points.

"I am not using the Bible as the word of god, just...

2008-08-27T03:17:00.000-06:00

"I am not using the Bible as the word of god, just as a set of historical documents."

Well therein lies the rub: how do you know that the Bible reflects historical facts? That's the material point; if there were strong evidence as to the historicity of the gospels we would hardly be having this discussion today, the question would be settled. That the estimated veracity of the bible has decreased with the advance of investigation techniques and modern science and literature studies is a major clue where things are heading. We're not skeptical of the Bible today because we are dumber than 500 years ago. We're skeptical for different reasons.

I don't know how to understand your accusation that I am "relying on pseudo-scholarship" while you are reading the Bible as historical truth!?

I meant to post this: Prayer works: http://www1.ws...

2008-08-25T07:09:00.000-06:00

I meant to post this: Prayer works:

http://www1.wsvn.com/features/articles/specialreport/MI75423

God Bless

Hi AdoniasI think this can be my last post with yo...

2008-08-25T05:59:00.000-06:00

Hi Adonias

I think this can be my last post with you on this topic as you:

1. rely on psuedo-scholarship, sensationalism and speculation rather than following where all the evidence leads

(you completely miss the argument: I am not using the Bible as the word of god, just as a set of historical documents. Therefore I am not using a circular argument)

2. You still keep dodging. You have not provided any responses to the original 12 questions posted by Stan.

Have a nice day

Peace

Mr Patel

mr patel, you're quite the mind job.You theists ke...

2008-08-20T19:34:00.000-06:00

mr patel, you're quite the mind job.

You theists keep the God hypothesis immune to disproof by arbitrarily inventing special explanations. This makes the hypothesis veridically worthless, and the rest is all smoke and mirrors. And in the absence of positive evidence, you rebuke atheists for failing to provide a negative?

You want empirical evidence that your God doesn't exist? Prayer doesn't work. That's an experimental, empirical fact. How come you don't already accept this? Because there's no principle or theory pinning down the definition of God, so you can always invent special excuses to explain away anything you like. And you do. Full well knowing this and yet calling on atheists to "empirically disprove" God is the ultimate act of disingenuousness.

Do you imagine that you are somehow being clever by asking atheists to provide a negative that you perfectly well know can not be produced? And when atheists point this out to you in an attempt to educate you, you call that a "dodge," even though you have failed to provide a single shred of positive evidence yourself? This is rank hypocrisy and a dumbfounding denial of reality.

I really do not expect any empirical evidence from you, since I am aware of the reality of it, but I do expect you to acknowledge this absence of evidence, and I do expect you to understand the impossibility of what you're requesting—even stan admitted as much, although maybe for different reasons.

Citing the Bible as evidence for God is just circular. Your belief that you have "evidence" for Jesus and the resurrection by oral tradition is silly, and your obsession about 1 Cor 15 is a red herring that has been debunked by Price and others: TRADITION ODER INTERPOLATION?

It is quite funny, and very predictable, that from the list of astrotheology references that I rounded up you would pull out Acharya S to ogle at and ridicule. Is this because she's the only one you know about, thanks to her controversial reputation? Are you aware that she bases most of her ideas on the material of Massey, Graves, Frazer and others, and are you even aware what they wrote about?

You ask: "Can you point me to evidence where A.S own theories on oral traditions are so well accepted by majority of biblical scholars please?" This is another hilarious and oxymoronic request. By definition, anything that goes against the establishment will of course not be "well accepted" by the same! I'm sure you believe that this is "proof" of something! I'm in no way defending Acharya S or her theories, but you should be aware that if you invoke oral traditions in the bible as a source of historical truth, then you have no rationale for disregarding the claims of oral tradition in extrabiblical sources, and you should be open to the implications from comparative religion. Obviously you're not, so there's some major hypocrisy going on there somewhere.

You ask: "I wonder how the this folklore missed other Biblical scholars, even skeptics?" I have no idea, but I also don't know if your claim that they did is true. But quite possibly, bible scholars are not generally experts on folk lore! Dundes was. You don't seem to understand what it means to invoke oral tradition, and that's why I told you to look up Dundes. Oral traditions that become codified into text at a later stage will leave telltale signs revealing their folkloristic origins. Those signs are all over the Bible (and the Koran as well).

Between astrotheology, Jewish myth-making, folk lore, political construction and Christian interpolation and harmonization—we have all the explanatory framework for understanding what the Bible is. God need not apply.

But then, this is just another "dodge" as viewed from within your delusional cloister.

A suggestion for your future is to read a book before commenting on its contents.

"I think it is the atheists that are really desperate for a new dictionary, particularly so they can re-define the accpeted definition of atheism."

It is entirely up to you whether you want to keep arguing against straw men, but don't expect real flesh and blood atheists to comply with your theory of what is "accepted."

Mr. Patel:"Also, oral tradtions proclaiming the re...

2008-08-20T14:52:00.000-06:00

Mr. Patel:

"Also, oral tradtions proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus that were well established within 3 years of the Event, which is even agreed upon by skeptics http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm
Not forgetting the conversions of Church Persecutor Paul, and James the brother of Jesus, and the empty tomb
When investigated in detail, a very compelling case can be made for the death & resurrection of Jesus of Nazereth."

Riight.

R. M. Price takes care of Habermas's extrapolations on the resurrection of Jesus in chapter 12 of his book Jesus is Dead.

A member of the infamous Jesus seminar! The group that use coloured beads to establish what happened in history. Not a reliable method by any strech... anyway, his book, judging by the reviews, uses ad-homs, has no index, no footnotes, very little references about authors and sayings/writing pertaining to them (leading to many assertions on Price behalf) and is just a re-hash of the various internet postings (which are dealt with in detail by The Case for the Real Jesus http://www.amazon.com/Case-Real-Jesus-Journalist-Investigates/dp/031024210X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219262551&sr=8-1 )

Price's explanation for a non-physical resurrection is actually dealt with by N.T. Wright, and is also dealt with in significant portions by the mentioned book above. As one sound and extensive review wrote, it seems as though Price has problems following where the evidence leads. The positive reviews did mention Price has a sense of humour in his writing style though, so I could probably read it for a little chuckle?

Considering the above - why should I trust it?

Anyways, Habermas had Price owned in this debate

http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/search/label/Robert%20Price

On the demise of Biblical history, check out Hector Avalos: How Archaeology Killed Biblical History - Part 1 of 2

My response is best summed up by the one most atheists love to hate, JP Holding
http://www.tektonics.org/af/avalos01.html

Seeing as you referred to oral tradition, you may want to read up on it's presence (i.e. folk lore) in the Bible: Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore (Alan Dundes, 1999)

So this book explains as folklore: events such as the death of Jesus, the belief that the disciples seen him alive after, (a belief they would die for), the conversion of Paul, James, the empty tomb? The admission of embarassing evidence in the gospels? Enemy attestation in other historical documents? (Afterall, this is the evidence I am using, so the book had better have explanations for ALL these events!) These are events that are accepted by the majority of scholars that study them (although not always leading to belief in the Risen Jesus) and only rejected by the fringe - rejected more than often due their own agendas. But hey, Folklore explains all of the above, right?

Hmmm. Another huge strech needed there methinks. I wonder how the this folklore missed other Biblical scholars, even skeptics? Maybe you could read this link

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm

and explain how the folklore was unnoticed by nearly 2000 scholars (believers, skeptics) on the subject of Jesus, His death & resurrection.

Incidentally, on the topic of oral tradition, how do you feel about the astrotheological claims of scholars like Massey, Graves and Frazer, and in modern times Earl Doherty, Acharya S, Robert M. Price and many others? And on the hero myth in particular we have Campbell and Raglan; what of their accounts? If you invoke "oral traditions"....you're opening the floodgates.....

Acharya S?!?!? Sorry even Dawkins forum once posted that she is not-all there when it comes to her crazy assertions. And if you read the last link I posted, you can see how oral tradition in 1 Cor 15 can be established and accepted by scholars to well within 3 years of Jesus being on earth. Can you point me to evidence where A.S own theories on oral traditions are so well accepted by majority of biblical scholars please?

The only floodgates that are truly being opened are evidence for Jesus death & resurrection.

Adonais wrote: "Indeed—where is the empirical testable proof FOR God?"

Patel: "Maybe some suggestions/explanations for that can be put in another topic later on?

In the meantime what we see in this statement from Adonias is the classic dodge.

We are asking YOU to put forward the empirical this time (Cue the "We don't need to show the emperical, we just have the default 'lack of belief'").

If you can't do it, then don't apply double standards and ask us to provide the emperical, unless you don't mind being seen as hypocritical."

Ahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaahhhhhhh

Hah. Oh hahahheeeee....

On a serious note, although you don't deserve it

---arrogance slipping through a little?---

ever since I gravitated to this blog, the request for theists to present their evidence has been a recurring theme on my agenda, and restated frequently. But mysteriously, the blog writers have never humored me.

And here we have stan asking atheists for an empirical disproof of God, and then we have YOU saying that atheists asking for reciprocation in the form of an empirical proof FOR God is hypocritical, and calling my request for reciprocation a "dodge"?

Sorry mate, but you do dodge. An extensive discussion with you & MedicineMan shows this on MedicineMans initial post to this blog. You demand us for empirical proof, whilst at the same time dodging our request to you/other atheists to provide proof for your beliefs: you are applying double standards.

And dodging.

It is not Double standards IF you can ask/demand us for proof AND also provide your own emperical proof for your own beliefs WHEN we request it. We are both playing the game with the same rules.

But you don't provide, you dodge. You expect the emprical from us, but refuse/cannot give emperical yourself. Dodge.

I guess there's logic, and then there's theo-logic. If you keep this up we're going to need a new dictionary.

I think it is the atheists that are really desperate for a new dictionary, particularly so they can re-define the accpeted definition of atheism.

http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/search/label/Atheism%20definition%20of

I can only think that your reply will again - dodge (particularly emperical proof for your own beliefs) - and be full of more grammatical gymanastics as to try and show you have an intellectual edge... but go ahead.

God Bless & Peace

Mr Patel

Yeah, I'm not doing a very good job explaining mys...

2008-08-20T07:49:00.000-06:00

Yeah, I'm not doing a very good job explaining myself here, in fact I don't really think I have a point at all. Just yammering away I guess. I don't take it too serious, arguing gods existance is akin to argueing who the best batman was.

"Other than Christianity what proof of god whatsoe...

2008-08-20T05:15:00.000-06:00

"Other than Christianity what proof of god whatsoever do you offer to say that god is omniscient? Or omnipotent? Is it because people think he is? You are free to define your imaginary being as you will, but atheists exist and stand, They are defined by existance, not fantasy.
Oh Craig, you are working so hard and getting nowhere."

Scary Jesus, I agree that the existence of a God is still not demonstrated, but that was not what you set out to do in your argument. You set out, if I understand correctly, to demonstrate that the concept of hell means that the Christian God cannot rightly be conceived of as benevolent.

I agree with you on this point to a large degree, but the argument you posted for it was confused and cluttered, and you can't expect someone who disagrees with you to take you seriously if you do not have a case in which the steps of your logic are explicitly and dispassionately demonstrated.

Back to the imaginary being comment, if you start from the premise that God is imaginary then this entire debate is meaningless as you have assumed that the topic of debate is nonexistent. It seems like a cheap way out of your previous statements honestly, just shutting down the debate.

As for proof that God is omnipotent and omniscient, it's more a matter of omnipotence (or at least great and inexplicable power) and/or great knowledge are considered to be some of the characteristics that define God(s) and separate him/her/them from us mere mortals. If a God doesn't have at least one of these characteristics, it becomes questionable why they are thought of as a God in the first place since the definition of a God implies that they have some great power. So in that sense it is a consensus that God has at least omnipotence or omniscience of some kind, but it is a consensus inherent to the terminology that's being used. I am unclear as to what point you are trying to advance by denying a theoretical God omnipotence or omniscience anyway. What case does that advance?

Additionally, I know that this is teh internetz, but you should really be more polite to the people you debate with, if you truly want to make a genuine argument and learn instead of just expressing your opinion. I am not sure if this was your intention but you come off as somewhat arrogant and condescending in my view. That is not conducive to open and honest debate and perpetuates negative stereotypes that prevent future discussions from taking place.

"God is typically conceived to have at least the f...

2008-08-19T23:50:00.000-06:00

"God is typically conceived to have at least the first two attributes, outside Christianity."

Intersting, why would they concieve that apart from Christianity?

You are Christian bent at this age in your life I imagine. Other than Christianity what proof of god whatsoever do you offer to say that god is omniscient? Or omnipotent? Is it because people think he is? You are free to define your imaginary being as you will, but atheists exist and stand, They are defined by existance, not fantasy.

Oh Craig, you are working so hard and getting nowhere.

atomic one,I'm glad you found my response somewhat...

2008-08-19T21:42:00.000-06:00

atomic one,

I'm glad you found my response somewhat helpful, and I was glad you picked up the same error in scary's response that I pointed out.

I'm just writing a quick post for now, due to time constraints. I don't think that Christianity (or Abrahamic faiths in general) support premise 6. As I pointed out as a quick example, Christianity teaches that God cannot lie:

You may also find this article helpful about the problem of evil. William Craig says that he grappled with the problem of evil for quite a while - I personally have never felt it as being too strong of a problem, so have not given it the depth of thought that it deserves:

Anyway, this is just a quick response for now. I may give a more in-depth one when I have time. Thanks for your reply.

but if there ever was a place for provocative rhet...

2008-08-19T21:26:00.000-06:00

but if there ever was a place for provocative rhetoric as opposed to argument, it's on this blog wouldn't you agree?

Nope. This blog may have its share, but it's by no means the epitomical example.

You are correct again, it is very specific to Christianity.. BUT so are these.

1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omniscient
3. God is benevolent

No they're not. God is typically conceived to have at least the first two attributes, outside Christianity. Only when you enter into polytheism does it become common to see a more anthropomorphised sense of deity - with limited power, omniscience and benevolence.

There is no reason a "God" would have to be any of these 3 either.

Sure, if you see no reason why you can't redefine words on the fly. There's no reason why "atheist" would have to refer to someone who does not believe in God - we just happened to define it so that it does refer to that. So too does God typically refer to a being with those three traits above - even outside of Christianity. God typically refers to an eternal necessarily existant being who had the freedom and power to create the universe as He pleased. If you want to talk about some other entity, then you'll just miss the mark.

So yes I think my version is stronger because it illustrates the internal contradiction of the Christian "God". Which is really what most of you believe anyway.

As I pointed out in my original reply to you, even *if* I take your argument seriously, I see no reason why the premise you added makes God's existence more unlikely than the formulation 'the atomic one' presented. You haven't explained why, or pointed out where this contradiction lies. As a Christian, it might be an important point to me personally, but:
* You haven't demonstrated why this argument makes Christianity untenable (or improbable) - there seems to be little or no logical connection between the premises, so you need to explicitly point them out
* Even if I were convinced Christianity was untenable, I would still be a theist. My belief in God's existence is not just dependent on my Christian faith - be He called Allah, Zeus, Yahweh or whatever. He exists, and the problem of evil is supposed to show that my belief that He exists is improbable. Your formulation fails to do that.

I'd simply ask, what proof do we have that "God" is benevolent?
Why does "God" have to be omniscient?
Why does he have to be omnipotent?

Again, you're free to postulate such an entity, but don't call it God. It is an unreasonable strategy of yours to redefine words to make your point, and in fact belies desperation.

So but at best just shows that the Christian conception of hell is contradictory with the existence of God. is exactly what I was hoping to achieve.

Yet you failed to take even the most basic steps towards achieving this. Where's your argument?

As a response to Scary Jesus' comment that "1. God...

2008-08-19T16:50:00.000-06:00

As a response to Scary Jesus' comment that

"1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omniscient
3. God is benevolent
4. There is evil in the world."

Is a construction that only applies to the Christian God, it's actually broadly applicable to basically every monotheistic Abrahamic religion including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and might be applicable to some lesser known faiths such as Bahai (I don't have the knowledge of these faiths to know whether this is true or not.) As such it encompasses the vast majority of religious faith on the earth. I think the only major movements that are excluded are Hinduism (which also believes in a single God that is essentially the aggregate of all consciousness, and therefore can theoretically include evil which exempts it from applicability), Buddhism (in which the poetic mystical stuff can in nearly all cases be interpreted as metaphor, and doesn't explicitly posit a deity).

If you say that there is a God, but he doesn't necessarily have the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, or benevolence, then it raises the question of what qualities are necessary for a being to be a God? I could claim that I am a God who is simply not omniscient or omnipotent (though I like to think I'm benevolent ;-) ) but that wouldn't fly for most people. So what qualities does God have to have in order to be God?

I was impressed by the strength of croath's and st...

2008-08-19T16:43:00.000-06:00

I was impressed by the strength of croath's and stan's arguments, as it's the first time that I've found a convincing rebuttal of the problem of evil construction.

However, I think that premise 6 is implied by most religious texts that posit a God in particular; all of the Abrahamic faiths certainly, and basically every other religion I've looked at (with the possible exception of certain interpretations of Buddhism) give considerable emphasis to miracles, which are almost by definition demonstrations of God's ability to warp causality at least with his will, performing what is essentially magic. If God can make people turn into pillars of salt and help Noah somehow fit every animal in the world onto a tiny boat (just as the easiest example, though there are equivalent ones from nearly every religion if you look hard enough), he certainly could've worked out a way to reduce evil and suffering.

Another point is that God is said to have created the universe from scratch, and if you accept that this had any causal power at all you should accept that the start state of the universe has some effect on the starting state and conditions each person finds themselves in. Theoretically without even using premise 6, if God created the universe, and is omniscient, he should have been able to create it such that the conditions of the life each person was born into nudged them along in such a way that their sufferings would be minimized even with the full exercise of free will. He doesn't necessarily need ALL powers to do this; just the ones he is usually attributed. Many theists argue that this would not be "true" freedom of will, but I argue that if that definition of free will is used, then we already don't have it because circumstances that exist already heavily impact our lives and development. It wouldn't have made a difference if he designed things differently in such a way that less misfortunes would have happened (he's omniscient so he should know how too =p).

However the point about God not necessarily having to be omnibenevolent was spot on. I am just wondering though, if God is not omnibenevolent, what defines the boundaries of his supposed benevolence? What determines whether he behaves benevolently or malevolently? And what is the maximum amount of cruelness God is allowed while he remains "benevolent"? It seems like if God is not omnibenevolent then his benevolence is reduced to a question of interpretation of what benevolence is...

For instance, if a man has a gun and can shoot me, but instead steals all of my stuff, I could consider him benevolent because he didn't kill me or malevolent because he robbed me. Admittedly that is an extreme example, but it introduces a peculiar gray area into the debate that is interesting.

As for the question of moral standards that Stan raised, I disagree with the premise that there being no God means that there are no objective goods or evils in the world. That may be the case, but it doesn't follow definitively from atheism and you have not sufficiently demonstrated it for my taste.

And as for Croath's question of where the burden of proof lies and my not sufficiently explaining that, I did not talk about it because the arguments that I would make are some of the same arguments that were raised endlessly by atheists and agnostics in the past few comment threads. I didn't find the rebuttals by theists convincing, and it had been talked to death so much that I really wanted to change the subject of the debate because this seems to be a sticking point that no one can come to a compromise on. Suffice it to say if I had to take a position, I would agree that since nobody comes into the world with a knowledge of any religious system, agnosticism is the ground floor of belief and therefore religion is the proposition that has to be proven, not its antithesis. I consider myself an agnostic, or as some have chosen to define it a "weak athiest," (I'm not interested in terminology debates) in that I have not seen convincing evidence to believe in the existence of a God yet but am open to the possibility if it can be supported and demonstrated to my liking.

So in summary, while I am not convinced that a God exists by this necessarily, I am now convinced that it is theoretically possible for a God to exist, if he encompasses some mixture of both good and evil, instead of being only good.

"otherwise it seems that you're just trying to be ...

2008-08-19T07:36:00.000-06:00

"otherwise it seems that you're just trying to be provocative, with more rhetoric than argument.
"

It's quite possible I am doing just that, but if there ever was a place for provocative rhetoric as opposed to argument, it's on this blog wouldn't you agree?

"This one is very specific to Christianity - this argument won't show that there is no God, but at best just shows that the Christian conception of hell is contradictory with the existence of God. In that sense it is much weaker"

You are correct again, it is very specific to Christianity.. BUT so are these.

1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omniscient
3. God is benevolent

There is no reason a "God" would have to be any of these 3 either.
Those are Christian-type concepts of what "God" is. So yes I think my version is stronger because it illustrates the internal contradiction of the Christian "God". Which is really what most of you believe anyway.

Here's how I as a believer of a generic "God" would deal with the following:

1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omniscient
3. God is benevolent
4. There is evil in the world.

I'd simply ask, what proof do we have that "God" is benevolent?
Why does "God" have to be omniscient?
Why does he have to be omnipotent?

The original group of internally contradictory statements only make sense in a Christian-type framework as well.

So but at best just shows that the Christian conception of hell is contradictory with the existence of God. is exactly what I was hoping to achieve.

Scary,I'd consider this version to be stronger:1. ...

2008-08-18T19:08:00.000-06:00

Scary,

I'd consider this version to be stronger:

1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omniscient
3. God is benevolent
4. God allows some of his creations to suffer intolerably for eternity in hell.

Two responses:
1. This one is very specific to Christianity - this argument won't show that there is no God, but at best just shows that the Christian conception of hell is contradictory with the existence of God. In that sense it is much weaker
2. I don't see why you think this is stronger, unless you're ignorant of Christian theology. You will need to explicitly point out where the strength in this formulation lies - otherwise it seems that you're just trying to be provocative, with more rhetoric than argument.

I'd consider this version to be stronger:1. God is...

2008-08-18T17:42:00.000-06:00

I'd consider this version to be stronger:

1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omniscient
3. God is benevolent
4. God allows some of his creations to suffer intolerably for eternity in hell.

How about this?- Mankind has a history of inventin...

2008-08-18T11:34:00.000-06:00

How about this?

- Mankind has a history of inventing imaginary gods in order to personify nature so that he can control it, or at least have a relationship with it in hopes of appeasing it to some degree. "I'm worried the rain isn't going to come this planting season. I need to sacrifice/dance/shake a stick/etc to make the Rain God happy so that he sends the rain." Humankind has done this, by some estimates, 30,000 to over a million times throughout history. Godchecker.com currently has a database of 2,850 gods.

- Mankind has revealed itself to be a "compulsive liar" in this respect, so why should I believe it now? Fool me once shame on you, fool me 2,850 times, shame on me?

- Thousands of years ago, lightning was outside the realm of human understanding. There simply was no explanation of how it could work. Lack of explanation = it must be Zeus! Hurtling lightning bolts from the sky! Little did people know at the time that if they had simply waited another few thousand years, we'd be creating lightning ourselves with simple machines. Belief in Zeus isn't necessary anymore.

- Extend that situation to modern times. We don't currently have an explanation for the origin of the universe. What if in the year 2,000,000 A.D. universe-creating kits are including in every children's lab set sold at Toys R US? "Create your own universe! Watch abiogenesis happen as cells form from the primordial soup! Then watch them evolve into creatures! What kind of animals will YOUR kit produce! Fun for the whole family!" I'm not saying that's going to happen; I'm just saying there is a large historical precedent for it.

Mr. Patel:"Also, oral tradtions proclaiming the re...

2008-08-18T10:05:00.000-06:00

Hi atomic one,Your post looked interesting, so I t...

2008-08-18T07:52:00.000-06:00

Hi atomic one,

Your post looked interesting, so I thought I might respond.

Personally I don't think that the burden of proof should be on atheists to demonstrate that any sort of entity DOESN'T exist

If your opinion is the minority opinion, and/or there is some evidence for the view you oppose, then you owe an account of why you disagree. And most atheists do this. On a very simple level, the question "why don't you believe in God?" deserves some sort of answer. If most of the world thinks that God exists, saying "because there's no evidence" is a justification itself - you are rejecting the claim that there is any evidence. Or your response might be, "the evidence is weak compared to the reasons to think God does not exist" - here you argue that any evidence presented for God's existence is weak and better explained some other way. At any rate, you do offer reasons for thinking either that God does not exist, or the reasons why some think He exists are weak.

The problem of evil is probably the biggest problem for theists, but it is not unresolvable. So far as I've seen, it usually boils down to an increase in the probability that God does not exist. ie, the current level of evil makes it more improbable that God exists - not impossible. When you weight the evidence, the problem of evil might tip the scales for you.

The following statements cannot all be simultaneously true under any circumstances:

1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omniscient
3. God is benevolent
4. There is evil in the world.

There is no inherent contradiction in these statements. We might add the following proposition to make the contradiction exist:
5. A benevolent being will always reduce evil to the maximum of their ability

Then your argument is that an omniscient and omnipotent being will be able to eliminate all evil totally if he wishes, and being benevolent means He would. You add the following:
6. An omnipotent being can rewrite the laws of logic and causality

I see my job as being to show you that no inherent contradiction exists. I agree that evil makes it less probable that God exists. I also think that it is the strongest argument that atheists have, but that it doesn't deductively show that God does not exist.

One answer to the problem of evil is free will, as you mention. Premise 5 might be true. But there might also be a true proposition like:
7. It is evil to override the will of a free agent

Then suddenly (ignoring premise 6) it becomes impossible for an omniscient, omipotent benevolent being to eliminate *all* evil. There must be some weighting of moral statements. Eg, "it is wrong to take a life", but "it is more wrong to let a serial killer live than it is to preserve life". Or, "meditating on murder is wrong", but "preventing someone from meditating on murder if they choose is wrong". Perhaps the latter is a greater evil.

Your response to this approach was something like premise 6, which I reject. Your claim was that premises 1->4 alone present an unresolvable contradiction. That's simply not true - adding premise 5 (which strengthens your argument) and premise 7, gives a non-contradictory set. You need to claim the unwarranted premise 6. I hold the idea that omnipotence is limited to those things which are logically possible, and that the logically impossible is impossible even for God. There are things that God cannot do, rather than simply does not wish to do. One common example is that God could not make a square circle (as we normally understand these terms). So drop premise 6, and add this premise:
8. An omnipotent being can do all and only those actions which are not logically impossible
We take logical impossibility as being something that cannot ever be true, in any possible world.

And this premise is both very plausible, and resonates with the Christian understanding of God - for example, Christians say that God cannot lie. Not just that He chooses not to, but that He is incapable of doing it.

Please debunk me, because if possible I truly would like to believe in a God. I just can't see any way that doing so makes sense, at all. It seems like a comfort blanket, wishful thinking.

I hope that I've helped clear this up for you, and shown you that there is no inherent contradiction in those four premises without adding extra ones. The above is only one solution to the problem of evil, and there's a few. Once you step over this major hurdle (the problem of evil), you can realise that the worst is behind you. It's then time to look at some of the arguments and reasons for thinking God does exist - those arguments that increase the probability in your own mind that He does exist. For me, I don't doubt God's existence. But for others like yourself I can understand that these things make it harder.

The atomic one said:"The following statements cann...

2008-08-17T14:45:00.000-06:00

The atomic one said:

"The following statements cannot all be simultaneously true under any circumstances:

1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omniscient
3. God is benevolent
4. There is evil in the world.

And,

"Please debunk me, because if possible I truly would like to believe in a God.

If you are serious about the last part, then consider this: you did not say OMNI-benevolent. For example, no parent who wishes that his children progress in wisdom protects them from all danger. He allows them to experience danger and learn from it. You might argue that there is a difference in degree, that humans are exposed to pain and death... and that is true and valid... BUT the difference in degree goes on to include differences in magnitude between Atheist reality and theist reality.

Atheist reality ceases at death; therefore it is to be shunned and perpetual life here on earth is to be sought. So for the Atheist, death is evil. Or at least not a personal benefit.

For the theist, life does not end at death, it continues on a different plane, different dimensions, in a better fashion.

So experiencing pain and death is not pleasant, but it is not "evil" as is defined by the Atheist - relativist. And relatively speaking, the Atheist is not able to define an "ABSOLUTE" moral value of either good or evil, so is pain and suffering really evil? Many, many Atheists have thought not.

Thus the argument from evil is a relativist argument from a relativist non-morality launchpad, and therefore only has meaning to those of similar relative moral underpinnings. Since it has no ABSOLUTE value, the argument from evil is a failure in a logical sense, under which truth is, in fact, an absolute must. Any premise that is less than true, is necessarily false. The argument from evil is false.

"Indeed—where is the empirical testable proof FOR ...

2008-08-17T10:03:00.000-06:00

"Indeed—where is the empirical testable proof FOR God?"

Maybe some suggestions/explanations for that can be put in another topic later on?

In the meantime what we see in this statement from Adonias is the classic dodge.

We are asking YOU to put forward the empirical this time (Cue the "We don't need to show the emperical, we just have the default 'lack of belief'").

If you can't do it, then don't apply double standards and ask us to provide the emperical, unless you don't mind being seen as hypocritical.

Peace