Excerpt
"It would be good if we could begin right away by affirming that there is a God — it would be a solid foundation beneath our feet — but I realise that some may not be able to do this with confidence. To them, God is either vague or unreal, or they are not sure He even exists."
Now, i could accept a writing that goes like "There is God.", but i cannot accept a writing that goes like "...there is a God.". The first writing is a person reiterating his own beliefs, that there is a thing called "God". But the second phrase is simply imposing one's opinion that if there is a god, it has to be my god. The proper casing would therefore be "...there is a god.".
Excerpt
"Atheists and agnostics often ask the question: “Can you prove that God exists?” When I am asked that question my reply is usually along the lines of: “No, I can’t prove that He exists any more than you can prove He doesn’t exist, but I can show you how you yourself can have it proved.”"
This is what analysts of debate call the burden of proof. The person making a positive assertion, would have the responsiblity of proving it. One does not need to prove that god does not exist, because it was never proven to exist in the first place. An example here would help illustrate. I could say that there is an invisible elf who tickles us whenever we laugh. That is why we laugh. Now give me evidence that such an elf does not exist or i will have to say the elf exists. (note thatyou can only prove laughter has other effecting symptoms, but not that the elf is non-existent) Unreasonable, no?
Excerpt
"Consider this scenario for a moment: imagine looking at a glorious sunset with a friend who momentarily has his back turned to it and you say: “Just look at that beautiful sunset.” What would your response be if he said: “Prove it to me”? Wouldn’t you say: “Well turn around and it will prove itself to you”? Then what if he persisted: “No, I won’t turn around. Prove it to me”? Is he being fair?"
The analogy is quite an unfair analogy itself. If said friend did in fact turn around to look at the sunset, he could still have done so under the premise of non-believing that a sunset is occuring but with an open-mind to look at the evidence that is presented. Where is the 'glaring' evidence that we could turn around to even look at before we decide to believe or not.
Asking a person to believe in a positive assertion without providing evidence or support for it, would then require a more appropriate analogy than that given. It would be more like :
"Just look at that rainbow colored sunset." says me.
"Where?" says friend.
"You have to believe in it to see it." says me.
"But how can i believe in something that you cannot show to me?" says friend.
"
So does rainbow colored sunsets exist or is that credulity?
Excerpt
"How could a universe such as this, I reasoned — a universe filled with a cosmic orderliness that stretches from the molecule to the furthermost star — come together by chance? And how could this orderliness just happen to stay together by chance throughout the millennia?"
There are pre-suppositions associated with this argument.
One, the universe is created by something.
Two, the universe, without god is entropy.
True, with my limited knowledge in physics i cannot answer how the universe came about. Some one with knowledge on vacuum particle might be able to. But bringing god into the question answers nothing but creates more questions. What is god? How did god create the universe out of nothing? By twidding his fingers? What did god do before he created the universe? Why did god create the universe? Did he become bored? Who created god if everything has a cause.
If a theist can accept that god was not created and simply exists, why can't he/she accept that the universe was not created and simply exists. Point two assumes that natural laws cannot exists in this world without god. How can anyone be so sure of that? Personal opinion?
"There are, of course, many who regard the concept of God as an exceedingly simple explanation of everything, and who regard scientific elucidations as either incomplete or ponderous. However, that is a self-delusion. Such views are generally held by people who do not understand the scientific method. Indeed, to believe that the assertion that God is an explanation (of anything, let alone everything) is intellectually contemptible, for it amounts to an admission of ignorance packaged into the pretence of an explanation. To aver that 'God did it' is worse than an admission of ignorance, for it shrouds ignorance in deceit.", Oxford Chemistry Professor Peter Atkins
Excerpt
"Job, after hearing these strong words, was left in no doubt that God was all-powerful.
Of all the things to quote in the bible, the story of Job was quoted. And no less that it was talked about when talking about suffering of mankind. The assumption here was that god is good. How does one determine if god is good? Personal opinion? To say that the bible says god is good is circular resoning, for the bible is god's word. Saying oneself as good and writing it into a book doesn't make one good. One need to show it through actions. And god using Job to gamble with satan doesn't show for goodliness (read the bible).
Excerpt
"The attraction of this ... is enormous. If you are a god, you can make your own rules and nobody can argue with you. Laying down the law is, after all, one of the privileges of divinity. Unlike Christianity, there are no “Ten Commandments” or a “Sermon on the Mount” to provide moral guidance"
Here, Hughes was refering to advocates of New Age. Like him, i do not believe anyone is god. But he is making the argument of morality. That morality comes from god. Then the question to ask would naturally be, what if one day he discovered that god doesn't exists? Would he become immoral and go around killing people? The answer would be no. Because as learning social beings, we want to live in harmony and not kill people (do not unto others what you would not others do unto you, confucius observed). Morality is a result of humans living together, and it has no meaning beyond humankind. What use would god have for human morals?
The ten commandments are not always the ten commandments. There are around 380+ commandments in the bible, and no where is it stated that the current ten commandments are the ones to be followed. Who makes the decision to select those ten out of the many commandments from the bible? And on what basis did he make such decision? Divine inspiration? Or personal opinion?
Excerpt
"To go through life and not know Him is to have existence without meaning."
It is truly unfortunate that there are people in this world who find life meaningless in the absence of a god. I'll quote from some bulletin board.
The question:
"What gives life meaning? Family, friends, wealth, etc. These are the common responses of the anti-theist. Yet, what if you were to lose them? Where would meaning be found?? Within yourself? Unless we have some trancendent purpose no matter how hard we try our search for meaning will ultimatly let you down."
The response:
"Yes, you can lose them, that's why they are so precious to have. What is more valuable, something that is rare or something that you can have anywhere, all the time, with no fear of loss? The fact that our loved ones can be taken from us, and our own lives will end someday, gives meaning to the time that you have to live, and gives value to the few moments you have to enjoy the company of others. This need for transcendence is just an unwillingness to accept mortality.
If a finite period of time is meaningless, why is an infinity of time meaningful? If my earthly life is meaningless, how does extending that out to infinity give it meaning? Infinity times zero is zero."
Somewhere along the way, people lose sight of the fact that religions are made by people, for people. And it is but one of the ways in which people use to deny the definite eventuality of a finite and very mortal life. It would be nice to live forever. But in the advent that we cannot live forever, it is this, the one and only life that we have, that is precious and meaningful, that we must cherish.
Much of the arguments were extracted from Christianity : Bogus Beyond Belief.
No comments:
Post a Comment