Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: The (non-)existence of God
Message-ID: <896@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Mar-84 14:12:59 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.896
Posted: Mon Mar 19 14:12:59 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Mar-84 00:42:54 EST
Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
Lines: 184

[*]
As a short introductory, my original request to Tim Stoehr was to provide
his overwhelming evidence which demonstrated the non-existence of God.  As
an aside, I noted that many intelligent men believed in God, and that there
must have been *something* that convinced them (I have moved this from
net.flame).  Tim responds:

> What about all the people who believed in God and don't now, such as
> myself, what convinced them?

This is a very legitimate question, which forms the basis of our discussion:
"What evidence is there for the non-existence of God?"  Tim proceeds to
answer his own question:

> In the 25+ years that I have lived, I have witnessed absolutely nothing
> that pointed to the existence of God.  That, in itself, is rather
> convincing to me.  Granted I've never seen a black hole either, but
> there is evidence that they exist.  Where is the evidence that God
> exists?

Now this is a very legitimate question, one which I will try to address, but
I must first object that this is NOT the original question.  I have asked
for his evidence which shows the non-existence of God, which Tim has told
us is (and I quote) "overwhelming."  If I may be so bold, the rest of Tim's
article is based on the question "What evidence is there *for* God?" (in 
addition to attacks on Christianity, which are beside the main point).
 
I understand and can respect the position of an honest skeptic (although of
course I think he is mistaken).  But to accept a position due to non-evidence,
and to boldly state *that* as "ovewhelming" evidence against a position, is
incorrect (argumentum ad ignorantium).  We can't assume a man is a crook if
we have no evidence that he *isn't* a crook.  We can't assume anything.  This
is the position of the agnostic (if I understand that term correctly), not the
atheist; so perhaps Tim has only misunderstood his own position.

> Don't tell me that "2,000 years ago there was..."  The details
> of what went on 2,000 years ago nobody knows, noone can say that if
> Jesus existed, that he lied, or not, about being the son of God.

Why drag Christianity into this?  Of course, I am as willing as anyone to
enter such a debate (and, likely as not, get in over my head).  But again
I must re-state the original question: to produce the evidence for the
*non-existence* of God.  Theism vs. Non-Theism can be discussed at great length
without discussing Christianity in particular.

> Let's
> examine something that we know more about, again, I point to the total
> lack of real, current evidence, of any kind.  And I don't care if on
> sunday morning I can turn on the TV and listen to people say they've "talked
> to God", etc.

Without knowing it, Tim is defining the data requirements to believe in
the existence of God.  What has been ruled out?
	a) any historical evidence
	b) any eyewitness testimony
As I see it, about the only thing left is a miracle, and no small one at that.
For a philosophy which excludes the supernatural, there are no miracles; they
can in the last be explained as an illusion, or an unexplained law of Nature.
My only response can be that such a philosophy begs the question.  God does
not exist because no evidence meets our standards.  Our standards are such 
that God does not exist.

>Christianity has survived as a philosophy, it does not depend on the existence
> of God.

Now I am only a layman, and not as well versed in Christianity as I'd like to
be.  But from my limited knowledge, my only response to Tim can be one of
flat contradiction.  As a suggestion, read "Mere Christanity" by C.S. Lewis,
or better still, one or two of the gospels (John would do quite nicely).  
Hopefully these will clarify the misconception that Christianity does not
depend on God.  Separating the Christian philosophy and the Christian
theosophy is the one thing we must not do.  Jesus did not leave that option
open to us.  He did not intend to.

> How does one explain that a single Creator exists, while many other
> religions on this planet are inconsistent with this, many older than
> Christianity.  The American Indians had many different beliefs in many
> different gods, before the good Christians decided to wipe out
> the filthy godless heathens.

Simple enough.  Christianity is wrong, or the inconsistent religions are
wrong (or all of them are wrong, which is the atheist's view).  But these
inconsistencies are certainly no proof that God doesn't exist.  There were
many inconsistancies in explanations for our own solar system.  They could all
be wrong, but the planets would still orbit the sun.  And while the statement
about the Indians carries some emotional appeal against Christianity, it has
little to do with the existence of God.

> Many cultures have invented gods to explain the existence of the mountains
> and the animals etc.  And God created the Earth and life on it?, how is
> this attitude different from the ancient false belief that the sun is
> a flaming chariot?  Both are just simplistic explanations for what
> someone couldn't explain.  What makes a belief in God different than
> someone believing the earth is giant turtle walking around the sun?

Here is an interesting idea.  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.  I'll use Tim's example:  Long ago (some) people believed the sun was
a flaming chariot.  Modern science, of course, has shown that the sun is a
mixture of hydrogen and helium, fusion and fission, etc. and that the earth
orbits the sun via gravity (or, as the physicists would tell us, it travels in
a straight line in warped space).  So what?  Either is simply an explanation
of the laws of Nature.  Niether 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.

> Why did many Christians violently reject the theory of evolution, even
> when we know that evolution happens, if by no more that survival of
> the fittest?

I will object first that evolution is only a theory, it can never be
"proven."  As a side note, I happen to believe this theory, and that it 
does not conflict with the biblical account given in Genesis.  I have kept
silent on the Great Creationist Debate, as I am relatively ignorant when it
comes to such matters.  Even so, I must (again) point out that this has very
little to do with the existence of the Christian God, and much less a Supreme
Being.

> Man was created in God's image and God created the universe, right?

That is the Judeo-Christian concept of God.  There are others.

> What a conceited notion, that we are the favored species in the universe,
> or at least close to it.  People are no more special than any other
> animal, except he has the ability to obliterate the rest, and himself
> as well.

I would also be conceited if I said that the earth is round because I
commanded it so.  Of course, this is wrong, but the earth is still round.
Either the earth is round or it isn't, regardless of the reasons I believe it
is so.  Additionally, 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, and if it is a manual provided by God for the
earth, we should not expect it to.  Such information would be extraneous.

In summary, the only evidence for the non-existence of God produced here
is in the form of another question, "Where's the evidence *for* the existence
of God?"  I find it interesting that the initial roles of offense/defense
in this argument were at once reversed, attempting to put not simply
Theism but Christianity itself in the dock.  This was never intended
on my part; the original question could have been addressed outside the
scope of Christianity (for a time, at least).  I would have enjoyed playing
the role of antagonist for a change; and, I suspect, if we could keep to the
original proposition, I should find a great number of individuals, Christian
and non-Christian, to come to my aid.

But if no one else cares to play protagonist, if all are content
to play the role of offense, or alternatively, critic (which is a much
easier job than defending one's own beliefs), I have tried to provide enough
meat to attack.  I would not want it said of me that I intellectually cornered
anyone. :-)  But I will add this for good measure:

   "The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims
    his handiwork."
                                    -- Psalm 19:1

Another fellow repeated the psalm, although he may not have known it:
 
   "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior
    Spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive
    with our frail and feeble minds.  That deeply emotional conviction of
    the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the
    incompehensible universe, forms my idea of God."
                                    -- Albert Einstein

Lastly, I'll make a few suggestions to those wishing to respond.  I had hoped 
that the discussion would focus on Theism vs. Non-Theism, with the Non-Theists
defending their beliefs.  This was my original question, and throughout this
article I've tried to steer the discussion along these lines.  Tim has taken
the opportunity to make an attack on Christianity in particular.  I am not
criticizing him for this; he asks some honest and sincere questions.  But that
was not the original topic of discussion.

In any responses to this article, at least be honest and tell us the basis for
your reply.  But I had hoped for something different;  it would be refreshing
to see some support for the existence of God from the point of view of a
religion other than Christianity.

	-- David Norris        :-)
	-- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david