Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

If You Could Ask An Atheist A Question, What Would It Be?


thessalonian

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1575694' date='Jun 18 2008, 11:44 PM']If you say that God has not been proven, yet still accept that God cannot be *dis*proven, then aren't you really saying that it comes down to a matter of personal choice whether to believe or not?
I think we call that faith.[/quote]
No! I am most certainly [b][u][i]NOT[/i][/u][/b] saying that it comes down to personal choice! Truth is absolute and objective. Do you agree? If so, how can you say that whether or not such an incredibly important fact such as the existence of a supreme being can ever possibly be a matter of personal choice?

However, there has been insufficient for the existence of god. You can believe anything you'd like, but if you don't have sufficient evidence to back it up, you're not going to convince me to believe you.

I do not believe in blind faith. I take after Doubting Thomas and believe firmly in the same principles put forth in [url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:21;&version=49;"]1 Th 5:21[/url]. It is not unreasonable to be skeptical. I doubt because if I did not, I might fall for anything that anyone says without needing to back it up.

Edited by JustJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nihil Obstat

[quote name='JustJ' post='1575710' date='Jun 18 2008, 10:51 PM']No! I am most certainly [b][u][i]NOT[/i][/u][/b] saying that it comes down to personal choice! Truth is absolute and objective. Do you agree? If so, how can you say that whether or not such an incredibly important fact such as the existence of a supreme being can ever possibly be a matter of personal choice?

However, there has been insufficient for the existence of god. You can believe anything you'd like, but if you don't have sufficient evidence to back it up, you're not going to convince me to believe you.

I do not believe in blind faith. I take after Doubting Thomas and believe firmly in the same principles put forth in [url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Thessalonians%205:21;&version=49;"]1 Th 5:21[/url]. It is not unreasonable to be skeptical. I doubt because if I did not, I might fall for anything that anyone says without needing to back it up.[/quote]

Of course I believe in moral absolutism.
I'm actually just trying to get into your head, which I find extremely taxing.
You say that you're basing your belief on evidence, yes? Admirable, to be sure. You said yourself though that no evidence disproves the existence of God. Therefore it would seem to some that you're only choosing which 'non-evidences' (I just made up that term. Pronounce it as non-evidencees) to agree with.
Playing "devils' advocate", to be sure. ;)

Sorry, I accidentaly posted something three times. Browser error.

Edited by Nihil Obstat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nihil Obstat

...and...
My apologies to the Phatmass Phorum. I forgot the no debate rule in Transmundane Lane. My bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1575718' date='Jun 18 2008, 11:59 PM']Of course I believe in moral absolutism.
I'm actually just trying to get into your head, which I find extremely taxing.
You say that you're basing your belief on evidence, yes? Admirable, to be sure. You said yourself though that no evidence disproves the existence of God. Therefore it would seem to some that you're only choosing which 'non-evidences' (I just made up that term. Pronounce it as non-evidencees) to agree with.
Playing "devils' advocate", to be sure. ;)

My apologies to the Phatmass Phorum. I forgot that we can't debate here. I'll stop now.[/quote]
...Well, are we really debating? I see this as an extension of the current discussion we're having, not to mention still very much on topic of me answering questions posed to atheists, a very healthy questioning of my beliefs. I would encourage it! And if we need to move our discussion, just tell me where to go so that we can continue. I will not back down until it is shown that I am most likely wrong, at which point I will gladly change my views and my lifestyle appropriately. (I could hardly reconcile much of my political philosophy with religion, for example, but I won't get into that, as I noticed there's a forum specifically for that. ;) )

Now, I am not saying that there definitely is no god. There is no proof for that. However, the evidence that there is all seems to suggest that the world runs according to a natural order without the intervention of the divine. As such, my conclusion is that there is almost certainly no god that interacts with the natural world on any perceptible level.

Please note that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is not proof, but it is one more peg against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nihil Obstat

You say the world runs according to natural order... that's fine, I can definitely agree with that...
...but...
what if this natural order *is* God? Or more specifically, what if God is behind the natural order?
I just don't see any contradiction there. After all, there's no evidence against it.
"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence"? Don't a lot of atheists like the idea of "innocent until proven guilty"? I'm not sure if I caught what you're saying or not, and also it's getting really late for me. :) That's on a tangent in any case, just semantics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1575767' date='Jun 19 2008, 12:25 AM']You say the world runs according to natural order... that's fine, I can definitely agree with that...
...but...
what if this natural order *is* God? Or more specifically, what if God is behind the natural order?
I just don't see any contradiction there. After all, there's no evidence against it.
"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence"? Don't a lot of atheists like the idea of "innocent until proven guilty"? I'm not sure if I caught what you're saying or not, and also it's getting really late for me. :) That's on a tangent in any case, just semantics.[/quote]
This isn't a matter of innocence or guilt. This is a matter of what is or isn't true. Nothing is to be completely accepted true until it can be reasonably shown to have some support for it. Why should it be any other way? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nihil Obstat

[quote name='JustJ' post='1575779' date='Jun 18 2008, 11:36 PM']This isn't a matter of innocence or guilt. This is a matter of what is or isn't true. Nothing is to be completely accepted true until it can be reasonably shown to have some support for it. Why should it be any other way? :)[/quote]

My innocent until proven guilty thing was mostly off topic. The first part was the gist of my point.
It seems to me that science can't answer everything with certainty either. Obviously it's done extremely well, and is definitely one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind, but you can't prove beyond any doubt how the universe came to exist, or even the earth for that matter.
Of course, it has reasonable support.
On the other hand, so does God.
The only difference is that in your opinion, our reasonable support isn't reasonable enough. The same could be said about any scientific theory. Well almost any. Pythagorean's Theorem seems pretty airtight to me, not being a mathematician by ant stretch. ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...