I’m thinking of posting a few of these types of threads as an exercise for all serious debaters. This is the first one, I’m hoping they turn out successful.
To successfully debate an idea, you must understand what you are fighting against. I think the best way to do this is to try arguing FOR it. So let’s try it.
Theists, in one post, defend Atheism.
Atheists, pick a religion and defend it.
Let’s see how this goes.
Wow… this is actually a really FUN sounding idea!
I would argue against the Christian God, by trying to show, that, given the truth of this Christian God, (and the resulting worldview) then rational thought would not be possible.
I mean…just think about it. Here this “omnipotent” God is, who by definition, can enter this reality any time He wants, and make changes in any way He so sovereignly chooses. How could I ever consistently do science? It may be true that apples fall from trees one minute, but… suppose God decides to enter into His creation, and “change” gravity?
What if God decides to “change” the laws of non contradiction? Could He even DO such a thing? If God cannot do all things, then He is not (as the Bible describes) omnipotent!
Given the ability of God to be sporadic…and completely arbitrary, us humans have no way of believing that one action causes another. Actions would be nothing more than the arbitrary will of God, which could change at any moment. All conclusions, all thoughts, all logic, for the Christian is only utilized inconsistent with their view of an omnipotent sovereign God. (See Michael Martins TANG argument!)
I would also point out that the Christian God violates the very revealed moral “goodness” that His law supposedly outlines! (Imagine that…) God lies, and causes innocent people to die (almost regularly,) and also, the practical promises of the Bible, (such as mountains moving via faith, and asking / seeking / knocking being a guaranteed way to get an answer) are demonstrably false.
So… there are three arguments I would make against the Christian God, (were I content with being completely irrational myself.)
Thanks for playing along, have some car wax and saltine crackers as a booby prize.
Since I was the ONLY player… therefore, the ONLY winner… I think I’ll hold out for at least one of those giant stuffed animals… or… maybe a Dr. Suess “Cat in the Hat” top hat…
I can’t. My stance on religion was shaped by the fact that I couldn’t defend a religion.
Oh noes, I guess i’m a bad debater.
…Well if you can’t, perhaps you shouldn’t post telling me as much? The point wasn’t to say “I find the stance too irrational to support.”, the point was to encourage people to understand the opposite side. What are arguements a person would use to defend the opposite stance?
I don’t want to be crucified, but I’ll try to play… I don’t qualify myself as either, so this might turn out to be my actual opinion.
Most rejection of God springs from a misunderstanding of His nature. As humans, we are bound to have some problems conceptualizing that which is beyond our immediate experience of the world. The fact that we cannot directly experience reality is by no means grounds to deny that our perceptions come from some external source. This is a necessary assumption that both theists and atheists alike make. The difference is what we call that external source.
The wondrous transformations some religious mystics have undergone seem to suggest that if there is some sort of Otherness underlying our experiences, when we choose to embrace it, it is benevolent. Many call it God. Stories in which there is a God-person that seems cruel, it is usually because we cannot see the ultimate consequences of the God-person’s actions. Alternatively, it is a reflection of our experience that the universe does not always align with our expectations and self-imposed morality. Life is cruel when we cannot accept it.
Holy texts such as the Bible can have many messages, historical and metaphoric, instructional and explanatory, often expressed in the same few words. This in itself is an astounding accomplishment for any one text. However, this makes it confusing and somewhat easily corrupted. The fact is that men spilt the ink on the pages and then those pages were passed through and revised by many other men before ever being translated. Often the original meaning of a passage has been lost through translation and censorship.
The other problem is that it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to interact with what we perceive to be, as Paul Tillich would say, “the ground of all being”. The holy triumvirate, for example, is an attempt to be able to understand and communicate with the source/power we feel at the bottom of things, and to stir that power within ourselves. This is not an arbitrary force, but in order to interact with it, we simplify it and turn it into a symbol that very much is arbitrary. When the symbolic Father god-person gets confused with the other meaning of God: the omnipotent, omnipresent, essence of life, we run into paradoxes and inconsistencies. This does not mean that God does not exist, however.
What it suggests is that only way God could change the law of gravity would be to change how we conceptualize the world itself (specifically the interaction between so-called ‘objects’), and if such a change occurred, we would be unable to realize that our entire way of thinking had occurred. For most, however, its just easier to visualize Dad pointing a finger.
That would be a good debate. But after a full understanding is reached, people also feel less need to talk about it, for the task of learning has been completed. People who do not have a full understanding, feel a greater need to talk, ask and find faults, therefor most debates are made by people who do not have a complete understanding, and those are not really good debates. Instead they are sling-shots and opinions, ignorance, curiousity and an eagerness to evaluate or judge everything.
That’s the thing. If you really press a Christian they’ll eventually tell you that they can’t prove God to you, but you have to have a personal revelation. Once you have this magical moment you can understand everything the Lord tells you, and if for some reason you come to this point and revert to atheism…well you never really had ‘the moment’. This is the basis on which Christianity lies, and also Islam and maybe Judaism to a lesser extent.
If I had to support a religion it would be one of the more innocuous ones like Buddhism that teaches pacifism and acceptance; one that doesn’t cause, as far as I know, more harm than good. But that’s hardly a departure from my life philosophy.
If I had to support a Biblical religion I guess I would try to cite the pyschological needs that it fulfills, the inherent evil of humanity and the fact that an objective moral code without God is impossible, unexplained miracles and coincidences, and the good it brings out in people. But I don’t really see being able to defend the Bible…you could cite it as a historical document which in some cases is true, but you still need that personal revelation to truly defend the religion.
As Van Til would say, “The proof of the Christian God, is that, without Him, you cannot prove anything.”
Perhaps Van Til just wasn’t “pushed” hard enough?
That just makes the Christian God an axiom. You still have to prove him.
You mean… appeal to foundational presuppositions that are more authoritative than God Himself… thereby exposing your own non Christian bias?
But…wait… I’m supposed to be arguing the Atheist God haters position… and YOU are supposed to be arguing the Christian position.
Perhaps if you…(Mr. Anthem) played along, we could see how well you can articulate the Christian position…although, given what you’ve said above, and your comments in other parts of this forum…I’m not sure how grand of a spectacle I should expect.
God gives wisdom to those who ask for it!
I’m askin’
God bless…
That’s just it. I’m saying it’s impossible to articulate the Christian position because there shouldn’t be one. Your authority comes from God and the only way you can know he exists is to have a personal revelation. Tell me if I’m missing something here in your position. Oh wait, I’m not.
The best argument I’ve heard for the Bible (though it’s still flawed) is to argue from the impossibility of a moral code without God, and that’s how I would choose to argue it.
God doesn’t give you anything if you ask for it. Try praying really hard for that pony.
Please stop blessing me. It’s unwelcome.
How can you hate what you do not believe to exist? This comment is not only rude, it’s uneducated and not necessary.
If you are incapable of arguing for the other side, don’t do it. I’m asking you nicely not to waste thread space telling me that you disagree with the other side so much that you are incapable of engaging in a role reversal.
I find it ironic that the only guy to have participated in this thread, is the one being accused of possibly being incapable of doing so.
Please, hold your emotions in check, and try not to run off on the red-herring.
I think not believing in your creator is kind of rude, (but you’ll have to forgive me for that.)
Perhaps you should present an argument about why someone who blatantly denies their Sovereign Creator can rightly be said to be in an active state of “hate” against Him?
Take a look in the mirror. I was not talking about not not being capable of participating. I was addressing the fact that you are attacking beliefs. This thread is not for stating your opinions about other beliefs, the ENTIRE point is to post a small arguement in favor of the belief you disagree with.
Ideally, people would be able to hold a debate in this form, but it seems that people just don’t wanna.
As to your question-
People can easily hate the IDEA of God, not the deity they view as non-existant.
Shotgun, your criticism of Christianity is nothing particular to that faith. No faith can reconcile induction. Just because in Christianity, the consistency of nature is due to god, doesn’t make this a special case.
I fact, it could be argued that it is the very consistency of nature that supports the idea of God. Because, without God, there is no firm foundation. God, as a person, has a character, a constant way of acting that is visible in the all His works. For the law of gravity to cease to function as it has would be like your mother walking in and punching you in the face. It would be entirely out of character.
Similarly, we can rule out God’s breaking His own laws of morality. God can be understood to do good because it is his character. When your parents take away the candy, you can be assured that they are acting in your best interests, and even if you don’t understand it at the time, you know that it is an act of love. Similarly, we are God’s children, and we can be assured that, since he has given us everything, when he takes he does so with the best of intentions. God’s love is His character, and it is entirely logical to trust in that.
Dammit…now I can’t tell if people are following the rules or if they are just arguing with each other because I don’t know if Carleas is a theist or not.
Mr. Carleas!
Thanks for playing…this should be fun. (Although, I AM confused as to your actual position on this topic…are you indeed arguing a contrary position from that of the one you would normally hold?) Either way, I’ll argue against what you’ve presented here, from the standpoint of one of the various strands of Atheism.
You begin by making this claim:
Shotgun, your criticism of Christianity is nothing particular to that faith.
I will show why this is not accurate in a moment. I do maintain that my arguments (while possibly being applicable to other systems) specifically relate to the Christian religion.
You then make this statement:
No faith can reconcile induction.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this. Could you possibly mean: “No faith can account for induction?” or…“No religion or system of thought can reconcile our general observations and reliance upon inductive inferences, with any philosophically viable explanation?”
If that is what you mean, then I find it ironic that you go on to claim that Christianity does exactly THAT, by making this claim “…in Christianity, the consistency of nature is due to god…”
Are you admitting, that despite Christianities claim to be able to “account” for inductive inferences, it still cannot do so? (You said that no faith can, right?)
Technically, this detail reduces your entire argument to absurdity, but…me being the valiant guy that I am, (contrary to what Ms. Maytacera may tell you) I’ll overlook this, and critique the rest of the argument you present.
If you’ll allow me to attempt (as fairly as possible) a reconstruction of your argument.
You make the claim that, “…without God, there is no firm (epistemological) foundation…” and then you go on to list the attributes of the Christian God, that would make the Christians inductive “foundations” sure, (as a counter point to my argument.) This is your first attempt at a counter-point to my post.
Well, to begin, you make the claim that without God, there is no “firm foundation,” (I’m assuming you mean epistemic foundation for inductive inferences.) This is a claim that you leave un-argued, and instead choose to articulate certain attributes about the (presumably) Christian God, to show that indeed the Christian God is able to account for inductive inferences.
Certainly, as an Atheist, I would disagree that Christianity provides the ONLY firm foundation. My entire argument is that it cannot. Given the attributes of God, (as articulated by orthodox Christianity) He, (the Christian God) cannot be reconciled with any form of consistent induction.
You provide the following illustration to support your claim that the Christian God can provide for induction:
“For the law of gravity to cease to function as it has would be like your mother walking in and punching you in the face. It would be entirely out of character.”
But, it seems that you’re not very educated about the God that you’re trying to argue in defense of. For your illustration to be accurate, you would have to posit a mother, who slaps, and also hugs her son (in what seems to be a completely random manner.) Christians will admit, (in their attempts to answer the “argument from evil”) that we often don’t know or realize the reasons behind Gods mysterious providence, (providence which allows babies to die, and also horrible sinners to win the lottery.) If God is a mother, He is a very inconsistent one. I’ve even heard Christian preachers warn against “planning for tomorrow” because the Christian knows that tomorrow, (or even the next instant) isn’t promised to us!
No, given the specific attributes of the Christian God, no Christian can consistently utilize inductive inferences, and if they do, they are doing so inconsistently with their metaphysical and theological claims.
You then go on to present a counter argument to my second point.
You say that we can conclude that God would not contradict His own moral precepts, since it is not in His nature or “character” to do so.
Again, you make a similar analogy about parents taking candy away from their children. (The children, who may not understand why this “bad” thing is happening, nevertheless must realize that it is ultimately for their own good.)
But, would the parents, knowing their child would be tortured for eternity, bring the child into existence anyway? Wouldn’t that violate their own character? (A Character that only wants what is best for their child!)
Positing a “free will” does not help in this situation, since God would still be violating His own “loving” character by allowing someone to be created who He KNOWS will go to Hell.
To conclude: Your critique of my arguments fail, since in the first case, you fail to adequately support your own premise, and in the second case, you fail to take into account the damnable situations that MUST of necessity exist, which point towards the Christian God (necessarily) violating His own moral character!
Thanks for playing though Mr. Carleas, and I hope to hear from you soon!
Shotgun
(In case anyone is wondering whether I’m playing or proselytizing, see my thread on materialism. I think this thread is a great idea, Tace.)
Mr. Shotgun! So grateful for your reply! I understand your feeling that Christianity is inconsistent (believe me, I’ve been there too), but I really feel that your criticisms are without merit.
In the first instance, allow me to better support my claim. First, to clarify that claim: the problem of induction is something that no system can solve. In your initial attack on Christianity, you state that “Given the ability of God to be sporadic. . . Actions would be nothing more than the arbitrary will of God, which could change at any moment.” This is merely the general problem of induction, dressed up in Christian garb. No matter where you derive your epistemic foundation, it is always subject to the same failing.
However, accepting induction and God makes perfect sense. This is what I meant when I said that “in Christianity, the consistency of nature is due to God”. We must simply accept that there is a constancy in nature. But we must also reconcile that acceptance with whatever the rest of our metaphysics includes. Avoiding a deterioration into chaos is an active process, and a universe with no Great Steward could not. There must be something that keeps matter functioning in an orderly way, that keeps the laws constant, that makes our induction possible.
God is the most logical such Something. God’s person-hood is totally in line with the way the universe works. Yes, sometimes it is unpredictable (babies die, horrible sinners win the lottery), and that is to be expected of a person: is there any person whose actions you can completely predict? And yet there is a clear constancy, a personality to the cosmos. If the universe were merely a big clock, babies wouldn’t die unpredictably. There needs to be a Person to account for both its predictability and its unpredictability.
In the second point, you raise the ever popular “problem” of positing an all loving God counter to eternal punishment. But it must be understood, there is much more to hell than simple torture. First, we must consider that the Bible was written by humans, and though it reports the words of Jesus, it does so in a form that humans can understand. Problems such as the one your present are artifacts of the language that is used.
Hell, eternal torment, that is a mere metaphor for the absence of God, and of God’s love. When Jesus speaks of “the fire of hell” in Matthew 5:22, He warns it for anyone who calls his brother a fool. This rejection of those you are called to love and to forgive is a rejection-by-proxy of God’s love. And it is the very absence of God’s love that is the torment. The symbol of fire represents the pain of is estrangement.
As for the ‘eternity’ of it, look at the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (John 16:19-31). Here, Abraham tells ‘the rich man’ that “those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.” But this is nothing more than the story of the rich young man that prompts Jesus to teach “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Jesus says that by giving away all his possessions, the rich man will find eternal life with Him. But a rich man will never find that life, and will never see the Kingdom of God. Worldly riches must be shed, and as long as people cling to worldly goods, and shun the priceless love that God offers, they will be tormented. This is just tough love!
(Oh jealous spirits of Materialism, spare me your physically painful wrath!)