From: epowers@spock (POWERS,  ERIK  LEE )
Subject: Re: BELIEVERS: WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU NOT BELIEVE IN GOD?
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 04:57:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.152120.3842@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)  
writes:
> house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) writes:
> >"Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
> >
> >>Also, since a fair number of god believers also read this newsgroup, I am 
> >>curious what would make them no longer believe that god existed.
> >
> >What would make you believe that no-one named Pietr Arbuthnotfinkle
> >Levinwarkldom II ever existed?
> >
> >My point: It is hard to think up proofs of the non-existence of an entity.
> 
> Good point: but what if I were to say, "Pietr Arbuthnotfinkle
> Levinwarkldom II is a small cloud floating directly above your head
> and guiding your every action with invisible puppet-strings," or
> "there are little gremlins behind you sticking their tongues out at
> you and everybody can see them but you, because they hide from you
> when you turn to look, and nobody will admit to you that they exist
> because nobody wants to let you in on the joke"?

			Here I think you have pinned down a major difference between atheism and  
Christianity.  Most atheists I know are pretty sure that even if the Christian  
God did exist, there would be no more effect on their lives than the  
abovementioned gremlins.  The Christians, on the other hand, are sure that the  
existence of God would make a great deal of difference.

> 
> It's very difficult to say that a specific entity never existed.  But
> as soon as you begin tacking qualifications onto that existence --
> such as "God is above the laws of physics, & God can cause miracles, &
> God knows what is in your mind, &c." -- you can draw on your own
> experience to cast considerable doubt that an entity with these
> qualifications could exist in your world.

			I don't know about this.  When I start off with the assumption that there is  
nothing above the laws of physics, I have to say that everything is the result  
of physics acting on a particular physical situation, including my thoughts.   
When my thoughts are no more than chemical reactions, I'm not sure I can trust  
them.  So I would say my "experience" leads me to believe there has to be  
SOMETHING that is outside of nature.

> 
> If you say God is just another person like you or I, then I'd have no
> way to argue with you that he doesn't exist.  But since your other
> claims about him contradict what I believe I know about the universe,
> you've got to back them up.
> 
> >(However, as many atheists on this board claim to have previously been
> >theists, there obviously are quite a few theists who do have a non-belief
> >threshhold, whether they can articulate it or not.)
> 
> It's not as easy as that.  Atheists say, "If you can show me x, y, and
> z, then I will believe that your god exists."  Theists say, "It is
> impossible to conceive that God does not exist.  Usually when a theist
> becomes an atheist it isn't because he's been shown something he
> didn't see before, but rather because he grew disillusioned with his
> religious teachings and finally realized how empty they are.

			Wasn't that Occam's argument for the existence of God?  It's funny you  
mention it, because I have never heard a theist use that argument.  If I did,  
they'd only use it once.  I have only rarely heard atheists say "show me x, y,  
and z, and I'll accept that as proof of God's existence."  Of the x, y, and z,  
cases I have heard of, the existence of any god would still be in doubt, and,  
in many cases, the Christian concept of God would have to be thrown out the  
window entirely. 

																											Erik Powers 

> 
> -- 
> _/_/_/  Brian Kendig                       
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24859 talk.religion.misc:25053