Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: non-evidence for the non-existence of non-god
Message-ID: <519@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Mar-84 16:11:06 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.519
Posted: Thu Mar 22 16:11:06 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Mar-84 21:30:10 EST
References: <896@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 86

How did this discussion get twisted into a debate on evidence for the
non-existence of god, as David Norris claims?  Any debate on such a
subject is futile; how do you prove that there are no five-legged
horses?  [What's that you say, "there aren't any found in nature"???
But there could be, couldn't there??  Ones we've never seen.
Just because no human has ever seen one doesn't mean that they don't
exist, right?]  Logically, the burden of proof must rest with those who
claim that there ARE five-legged horses (*and* deities), and I have seen no
evidence (that stands any reasonable test) of either.  Where's the beef, David?
(Oh, no, Ubizmo has just condemned me to eternal damnation for uttering
the unholy words... :-)

David may claim that it is he who has asked for evidence, but let's be
realistic about who should be requested to supply evidence.  He says we
can't assume that someone is a crook simply because there is no evidence
that he/she is not a crook.  Just as our legal system assumes that one
is not a crook until it is proven that they are, we can assume that there
is no deity unless there is direct proof.  A neutral or skeptical position
would be "I don't see any evidence of A, but show me some and you'll
convince me", and not "I don't see any evidence of A, so either
show me evidence of A or evidence of not A to convince me either way."
To lend credence to a position based only on the possibility of evidence
for that position is tantamount to being biased toward that position.
It is clear that one must decide a priori that god exists and then work
an argument around it to make a point.  When Tim decried testimony from
people who claim they've talked to god as unverifiable and potentially
inaccurate, David claims that Tim is thus ruling out "historical evidence"
and "eyewitness testimony".  Apparently, David chooses to scrutinize other
people's arguments and evidence, while being much more lax with his own.

The point is (again) let's see some hard reasons why you believe that there
is a god.  I feel confident that every single one of them can be cut down
logically.  The bottom line then becomes that no one can prove that there is
or isn't a god.  The question then becomes "Why then choose to believe or not
believe?"

David says:
> It appears that mankind, throughout civilization, has always believed in a
> god or gods.  This, of course, is no proof that God exists, but keep it in
> mind.  Tim's basic idea, as I see it, is that science has sufficiently
> advanced mankind to the point where we no longer require God as an
> explanation for Nature.  Either [of the scientific or religious views] is
> simply an explanation of the laws of Nature.  Neither can explain to us the
> Originator of those laws. The belief that these laws were not the product of
> some Intelligence, I submit, is a greater leap of faith than the Theist's
> belief that they were.

And I submit otherwise.  The incredible gall of assuming that someone or
something "originated" the system and the laws of the universe is (apparently)
not apparent to some.  This is akin to saying that determinism implies a
"determiner", or that the lack of it implies "free will".  There *are* views
of consciousness that state that our illusion of "mind" is a result of internal
self-referentiality.  This god we debate about could just be that consciousness
for the closed system we call the universe. Now, this is just a speculation,
but it is a rational speculation based on accumulated knowledge and logical
thought.  But before we take such speculations and make them into givens, let's
look at whether or not such speculations are even necessary to describe the
universe.  If, as David says, god is no longer necessary to explain nature
(was it ever?), then logically if one is to believe in the existence of a god
one would have to find other reasons.  Like... [INSERT REASON HERE]

It is interesting (and refreshing) to see that David believes in the theory
of evolution as an explanation for the development of life on earth, and
moreover that he sees the theory as being in harmony with the Genesis story.
I have to strongly agree here. [WHAT?  WHO SAID THAT?  -ED.]  (But that
doesn't mean/prove that Genesis was divinely authored.)  Does anyone recall
that during the Scopes trial, one clergyman came out and said something like
"the theory of evolution is the most beautiful interpretation of the Genesis
story he had ever heard"??  (Could someone please provide a reference...)

Finally David says:
> ...from a Christian viewpoint, there is nothing to suggest
> that man is the favored species in the universe.  The Bible does not contain
> any information on such matters...

Doesn't the notion of "man [sic] created in sin" and all of that imply that
god created the world for humans to "toil in", to behave a certain way
(as a test?), and reap their rewards in an afterlife?  I'm not debating
those notions now, but doesn't the fact that ideas like that are abundant in
Christianity imply that "man" is the "focus" of god's creation?  It sounds
like that to me...

Never ASSUME, because when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME...
-- 
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
			Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr