From: kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Keywords: FAQ, atheism
Date: 8 Sep 92 00:06:15 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <BuaqqB2w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>> Perhaps it would be good if someone took it upon themselves 
>> to provide an archive file for all the rational "proofs" of
>> [Gg]od and their rebuttals, and then just refer to it in the
>> FAQ. That might cut down on rehashing.
>
>I'm happy to do this if people suggest which proofs should be included.  The
>problem is that most of the "proofs of god" which we see are disguised so as
>not to look like what they actually are.  For instance, we see lots of
>versions of "argument from design with a bit of handwaving", and hundreds of
>variations of "proof by entirely circular argument".
>

You can start off by examining popular claimed attributes of a god, before
going onto actual arguments for such a god's existence--statements like,
"God is omniscient," "God is all-loving, or good," and "God is omnipotent."

I'm looking at _Philosophical Problems and Arguments:  An Introduction_, ed. 
by Cornman, Lehrer, and Pappas, and you may want to follow roughly the outline
that they've set up in their book for the chapter on God.  The order of
arguments they examine are:

  (1)  APPEAL TO EXPERIENCE OF GOD:  Using someone's religious/mystical
       experience, or supposed revelations and miracles to justify the
       existence of God.  _PPA:AI_ separates the above into two categories,
       of which they discuss the arguments for and against in detail.  I'm
       sure that one can forego such an approach in the FAQ and be done with
       this quicker.
  (2)  FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT:  Aquinas' argument which hinges on the impossibi-
       lity of an infinite causal chain, and its various interpretations.
  (3)  ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY:  Assuming that only contingent things exist;
       deriving the statement that at some time in the past, nothing existed;
       arriving at nothing existing today; and concluding that since something
       does exist, then it is false that only contingent things exist, and 
       a necessary being exists too.
  (4)  ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN:  Usual arguments we've heard time and again.
  (5)  ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS:  Both Descartes' and St. Anselm's version, the
       former postulating the existence of God because he is perfect (and
       existence is perfect), and the latter first postulating that if "the
       greatest being possible does not exist, then it is possible that there
       exists a being greater than the greatest being possible," a statement
       I have trouble with right off the bat.
  (6)  PRAGMATIC JUSTIFICATION:  William James' "Will to Believe" argument,
       similar in form to Pascal's Wager.
  (7)  MORAL OBJECTIVITY:  Mentioned in a problem not in the main text, but
       basically argues where would our morality come from if there was no
       God (an argument which hinges on the existence of moral objectivity).

[rest of article deleted]
>
>
>mathew

On a more fun note, in addition to the Darwin fish information, someone should
re-compile the list of bands with atheistic songs! :)

>-- 
>"When nothing's funny it gets easy to laugh 
> at the drop of a hat, or a bomb" -- DEVO


--
*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy     *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu      *  dog dog a ding dang depa depa . . ."            *
*                           *                         --"Don't Let's Start"    *