From: epowers@mccoy (POWERS)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: A proof that there is no god
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:52:53 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <bernt.budde-240193154211@macbug.udac.uu.se>  
bernt.budde@udac.uu.se (Bernt Budde) writes:
> Caveat:My old high school teacher in philosophy showed you can't  
disproof a
> theory that changes itself to suit new facts, by asking us to kill the
> theory that friction comes from small, green guys sitting on everything  
and
> holding hands.
> 
> OK, a bit stronger title than I'm really arguing for, but it got you  
this
> far!
> 
> First, let me tell the newsgroup that I'm sorry for posting old
> information. I've tried this kind of arguing on theists before and never
> gotten a good answer. Please feel free to suggest changes and  
improvements.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> Proof:
> 
> I'm doing an assumption about the nature of religious faiths: A faith  
can't
> really say that all religions are true, since most religions say that  
all
> other religions are false.


	I've always wanted to hear an answer from the New Age Movement on  
this one!

> 
> You can split all ways on how to find truths in two groups: external and
> internal. With "external" I mean that you look on the world (not
> neccessarily experimental or physics here) and draw conclusions from it  
and
> with "internal", that you think things out (or some god tells you them  
in
> your mind).

	You can't gain knowledge without the use of both at the same time.

> 
> A) Lets start with externally gained knowledge:
> 
> The arguments based on the existence of a world, the existence of
> intelligent life, etc are weak. First, because there are models on how  
it
> could come into being (says the physicists, I trust them. If you don't,
> study math and physics a decade or two and disprove them! Also, see FAQ  
for
> watchmaker)

	I've been in science too long to automatically trust scientists.   
We're not gods any more than anyone else, we do make mistakes-- as a  
community, no less!  We trust each other less than you trust us (as far as  
the correctness of our explanations goes)!  A model proves very little,  
and is hardly better than an imaginative explanation of the workings of  
the supernatural until it has been tested, discarded, resurrected,  
discarded again, used as mulch, and finally dug up again and published  
once more.
	Also, our theories don't explain everything, because our methods  
of discovery and explanation are based on unproven and unprovable  
assumptions.  


 and second, IF a god existed, how can you be sure it was your
> religion's god's footprints you see, and not the Moslim's god or the
> Christians?

	Just like with a scientific hypothesis, you would need to become  
very familiar with the consequences of each possibility.  Your  
observations should eventually fit some and not others.  CS Lewis said he  
eventually came down to a choice between Hinduism and Christianity.  I  
disagree with his two final choices, but at least someone has gone through  
this sort of process to their own satisfaction.


> 
> If you argue that the bible is something that must come from some god,
> because of some special reasons, I would counter with lots of errors and
> known history falsifications. I can safely say that these arguments are
> easily countered; after all, there are many, many more and better  
witnesses
> to that Elvis lives (to steal an old formulation from a local COM  
system)
> than that Jesus came back.

	Every lengthy list like this that I have seen has been really  
cheesy, with the authors obviously sneering without thinking.  I have  
found a few examples in each list where both a naturalistic explanation  
and a theistic explanation would fit equally well.  When neither has a  
particular advantage over the other, I guess people take the explanation  
that they really beleived all along, whether it be theistic or not.
 
> 
> I think we can write off all external proofs for at least christianity.
> 
> B) Internal proofs, then? God has told you the truth itself, eh?
> 
> The obvious problem are that these things aren't verifiable. But it's  
well
> known that strange chemicals, low blood sugar, repetition of formulas,
> certain mental diseases, etc can make you see and hear things. Some self
> suggestion probably helps a long way, too (this atheists name for  
prayer).
> One thing these experiences have in common is that you see and hear  
things
> that are in your idea world (not exactly the same, but I think UFO  
reports
> were much more seldom before space flight became a common idea).
> 
> Of course, when lots of people have the same insight into how some god  
has
> ordained the world, it counts for something, even though for some  
strange
> reason no one ever hear the voice of some god (that is already  
worshipped
> somewhere else) he didn't know existed before the visions... (If there  
were
> some one true religion, it should be a common occurrence.)
> 
> The problem with this is simply that for every person X that is inspired  
to
> believe something about some god, literally a billion++ people are  
inspired
> to believe he is wrong (and they get the one and only truth and X will
> burn/freeze in hell/whatever). Now, person X has two avenues. 1) Agree  
with
> the atheist regarding those billion++ people and make the supposition  
that
> they are doing some heavy self suggestion because they need some  
religion
> for whatever reason. 2) Believe that some Satan/whatever has whispered  
bad
> lies into their ears.
> 
> One problem with both solutions is that as far as I've been able to
> ascertain, there is no qualitative difference between the faith that is
> instilled in the believers. E g, people have died for a lot of differing
> faiths rather than change their minds, there has been religiously  
inspired
> soldiers fighing to death in the name of a lot of contradicting truths,
> etc, etc. If there was a true god and one truth, there should be SOME  
way
> of telling it from all false prophets!
> 
> This all speaks for that from the beginning religion was a psychological
> mechanism that evolved in people to keep groups working together.

	Hmmm.  So far, I haven't seen anything here that was at all like  
evidence for an evolutionary theory of the development of religion.  This  
conclusion seems a bit out of place.  
> 
> This should safely write off internal ways of gaining knowledge.
> 
> QED
> 
> What have we reached for conclusion? That there is no rational reasons  
to
> suppose that any religion is true. If some god existed, they could  
always
> prove their own existence, but they seem not to care..


	You actually did a pretty good job.  Let me see, your conclusion  
that there is no rational reason to suppose a god exists is based on one  
thing, really, it seems to me: that a scientific approach is the only way  
to gain new knowledge.  God is cut out of "external" evidences because  
science assumes that anything observed is always caused by nature, not  
supernature.  And "internal" evidences are invalid because they don't fit  
the scientific need for repeatability.  Have I got it right?
						Erik Powers
> 
> 
> Bernt 'Bug' Budde, UDAC