From: baillie@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Stephen Baillie)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: God does exist! (Was Re: Non-Religious Practice)
Date: 12 Oct 92 06:21:51 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia

schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:

>wity@iastate.edu (Wity Ganda) writes:

>>In article <Sep.23.23.58.05.1992.3331@athos.rutgers.edu> jwong@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Jack Wong) writes:
>>>
>>>     I'm a non-religious person.  What I don't like about
>>>     religion is that I think it tends to split people apart
>>>     more than uniting them.  One group say their god is real and
>>>     another say their god is the only god.  Since all you religious
>>>     believer claim there is a god, why can't you prove that there is
>>>     one.  Oh, I know what you all will say, the Bible says there is.
>>>     I've heard that line over a million times.  Sorry, but I'm not
>>>     used to believing what I don't see or experience.  


>>Some people keep saying, "Prove to me that God exists!"
>>To those people, we can just say, "PROVE TO ME THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST!"
>>It is impossible to prove that God does not exist.

>This arguement is hollow, since it leads to an obvious contradiction--
>someone who followed this logic would necessarily have to believe in the
>existence of every imaginable, possible object for which there is no 
>evidence.  In fact it would necessarily lead the believer to believe not
>only in the Judeo/christian god but in an infinite number of gods that are
>only slightly different to God to those that are wholely opposite to him.
>(this is a result of our now having to believe in all beings we can't 
>disprove)

If a person was to stick to what I understand as the "scientific method"
then they must, if they are honest with themselves, be prepared to
accept the possibility of any and every new theory being correct.
Note the word "possibility".  When confronted by a new theory (or 
evidence which suggests a different interpretation) they must decide
for themselves the merit of the new thing.  In most cases this involves
a comparison of conflicting hypotheses.

Should a scientist then consider that the earth might be flat?  By all
means they (we?) should.  Applying our reasoning to the evidence of our
senses and the reports of those we have no reason not to believe, we
come to the conclusion that the earth is very likely spherical.

Similarly there are questions involving the existence of a God.
Hypothesis A : There is no God.
Hypothesis B : There is a God.
The scientific approach to these (obviously contradictory) hypotheses
is to examine the evidence, considering of course how much various sources
(our own observations, the reports of others, the contents of the bible)
can be relied upon, and attempt to form a conclusion.

If your conclusion is honestly that there is no God then the position of
an atheist is justified.  In my case I came to the conclusion that the
universe as observed, and most importantly life as we know it, is most
improbable without an external cause.  If someone can provide evidence
or an alternative hypothesis that makes more sense than the existance of
a God, then I must, to be honest with myself, accept that hypothesis.
To date I retain a belief in the existance of God.

If the conclusion is that there is _A_ God, then the next question is
which one.  Here again we have a number of mutually exclusive hypotheses
(often referred to as "religions").  Again, an honest comparison is
called for.

My opinion is that the claims of the man called Jesus mark him as the
God he claimed to be, or as a dangerous, possibly insane, individual.
I do not see that the latter possibility is consistent with what evidence
we do have.  Of course, the accuracy of the Bible is called into question,
but I consider it to be sufficiently verified by historical evidence to
give considerable, if not final, authority to its words.

[bits culled]

>It always returns to faith, it would be much better for people to just admit
>they believe in god for irrational reasons.

That is, of course, based on the assumption that we do.  I do not accept
that assumption.  Incomplete knowledge is by no means the same as
irrationality.

Steve.

-- 
"If we shadows have offended, Think but this and all is mended:
 That you have but slumbered here, While these visions did appear.
 And this weak and idle theme, no more yielding but a dream."
baillie@munta.cs.mu.oz.au (Stephen Baillie)