There is no God - proving the negative

An anonymous comment on one of my posts here challenged the often argued atheist position that it is unreasonable to expect them to prove there is no God - as one can’t prove a negative. I left the anonymous comment there – of course it is correct - we prove negatives all the time.

Equally absurd, is that while arguing that you can’t prove the negative, many atheists actually claim that they have proven that there is no God. Simply put, the PoE - Problem of Evil - (or ‘Argument from Evil’ if you prefer) seeks to prove that God and evil cannot co-exist and since evil exists it deduces that there is no God.


Now some atheists have an interesting dilemma – if you can’t prove a negative then the PoE is worthless … if they credit the PoE then they accept the burden of proving their view that there is no God – or they retreat into agnosticism.

It is my view that the distinction between so called ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ atheists is nonsense. Either you believe God exists or you don’t – if you can’t figure out which, and many people are searching, then being agnostic is at least an honest position.

In terms of the atheist/theist debate however there is no hiding place in ‘you can’t prove a negative’, nor is there a defence in saying that being atheist is not ‘believing there is no God’, but simply ‘not believing that God exists’ while not acknowledging implicit belief in the corollary.

A number of atheists still set great store in the PoE – it creeps into most of their arguments at some point. While it is certainly not valid as an argument – it is flawed through and through and to believe its conclusion is more of a act of faith than believing in unicorns – it is none the less an interesting source of questions. Why do we have evil? Why are there negative consequences to some of our actions? Why do some people choose evil? What of the innocent victims of evil? Where/how does God fit into an evil world? … … etc etc.

I often wonder why so many atheists cling to the myth of the Argument from Evil. Is it simply that as people, when we choose to believe something (even a negative) we seek justification. In many ways it is so much more important for atheists to convince themselves that they are right than theists – after all, being wrong as an atheist means there really is an afterlife and who knows what else.

It must be very difficult to believe the negative – there is no God. It is an absolute position and it is not a singular position. There being no God implies there is no afterlife, no metaphysical phenomenon etc. This is such a vulnerable position, any evidence to the contrary undermines the absolute nature of atheist belief – no wonder so many atheists are so emphatic about requiring absolute proof to shake their absolute position.

Of course the weakness of the Argument from Evil is a real threat to atheist belief – if one can’t prove there is no God, well perhaps there is.

Now I don’t expect a single conclusive argument that God does not exist from atheists, but it would be interesting to see at least one that comes close, or perhaps an assembly of arguments or evidence that produces a weighting in favour of atheism. Failing that all we have from the atheist camp is a call to groundless faith in the proposition that there is no God.
To expect theists to provide proof (accumulated argument and evidence) of their position while atheists avoid doing so is intellectual nonsense brewed in a teacup. It is reasonable to ask anyone to justify what they believe – if they respond that they have no reason, just no one has convinced them of an alternative position, then one should question if their position is borne from reason and rational argument or faith?
I for one admire the faith of many atheists I have met – it stands firm in the face of all reasonable argument and evidence.

Read More...

Summary only...

It is really that simple

While indulging in the theist atheist debate over the last few months I have come to realise that there is only one question that really needs to be answered. The rest are qualifiers at best.

No it not the Problem of Evil which seems to be immortal in spite of being thoroughly defeated in ways too numerous to mention.

Nor is it the question of proof that God exists – many atheists appear to hold to a belief that is beyond logic, for many their faith is indeed strong.

There are two very important questions:
* Do we have freewill?
* How are we different from the complete thinking, singing, dancing, simulated human on the horizon of science?
But these questions only allude to the key and are themselves not the key.

The hub of the issue remains for me the existence of a metaphysical realm. While it may not obviously answer the freewill question, it does set us aside from machines. Of course you could argue that the spirit realm has/can colonise machines and perhaps that is what we are, colonised bio-mechanical devices – but none the less occupied in a metaphysical sense. So where I am really going with this is that the true crux of the issue is; “do we have a metaphysical or spiritual element?”.

How would we know if we had a spiritual element or not? – the $64,000 question! (my but inflation has taken its toll!).

Firstly we would have to seek the evidence within ourselves and secondly we would look to confirm it in others. The evidence would of course be metaphysical – no point using a metal detector to find wood.

The area I risk bumping into is that of brain chemistry and emotions – how to distinguish between the normal functioning (or even malfunctioning) of our bodily machine and metaphysical effects? We know quite a lot about brain function and personality etc. We know how sadness manifests itself in the brain and we know the areas of brain involved in math and memory. Clearly the human machine can function on a day-to-day basis as we would expect any fine machine to function.

So where and when does the metaphysical become relevant? It would be pointless for the spirit to occupy us merely as a physical home if it did not have a purpose – what are the options?
* To direct the body to do what it would not otherwise do – that is achieve some physical objective of the spirit.
* Provide a vehicle for the spirit to improve itself, or in some way to meet its own personal non-physical objectives.
Now I don’t know the answer, but either of the above (and perhaps other reasons you may think of) would most likely manifest themselves in ways which direct or influence our actions.

At this point I keep coming back to examples of metaphysical experiences (not necessarily religious in nature) that those whom I trust and respect have had. These range from premonition to telepathy like events and visual manifestations (yea call it seeing that which is not there – but not to be confused with hallucinations from wacky-backy or whatever). As for myself, yes I have a few events that defy scientific or probabilistic explanation.

However I find myself returning to the incident of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. This is a more powerful example to use than personal incidents which tend to be less open to scrutiny, less verifiable and easier to attack. But there are other well known incidents besides Paul’s, William Wilberforce’s conversion to name but one.

How does this convince me? The hypothesis “There is no metaphysical realm” is an absolute statement, all I need is a single metaphysical event to discredit it. In practice I am spoilt for choice, there are too many events to credibly dismiss then all as frauds or insanity.

With the existence of a metaphysical realm established, the existence of God is but a small step which I will keep for later.

Read More...

Summary only...

I wish you a most blessed Christmas

The year end has not sneaked up on me – it just came so fast I never saw it coming. So I will be off for a few weeks, retreating to the back of beyond, away from phones, power and broadband. Christmas, ah yes, I will be escaping the debate on whether it is inclusive or not to not include references to Christ in Christmas, or to ask if the season should be renamed Spendfest … I will miss the exchanges here, I appreciate the stimulating comments you bring – thank you.

So, a few days ahead of time I want to wish all my visitors a very happy and blessed Christmas, a time to relax and refresh the spirit.

God bless you all!

Read More...

Summary only...

Am I a secret atheist?

There is a lot said by some atheists that I agree with, to the extent that you may even ask if I have aligned myself with the dark side.

Some atheists say:
" the bible is not actually accurate or true" – and I agree;
" religion has been used as the reason for war and atrocity" – and I agree;
" I could not believe in a God who inflicts suffering on the scale we see it today in the world" – and I agree;
" God did not communicate with us in an unambiguous way – he could have made it easier of us" – and I agree;
" that the creation story in the bible is a myth and that evolution happened" – and I agree;
" that Christians can't agree among themselves on doctrine" – and I agree;
" there is no proof that God exists, in the end you need faith to believe" – and I agree;
" it is illogical to believe in a God that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, it creates irrational states" – and I agree;
" God could have given unambiguous proof of His existence" – and I agree;
" God could have eliminated evil from this world" – and I agree;
" that an atheist could do any moral action done by a theist and could hold any moral view held by a theist" – and I agree
" that the burden of proof lies with one asserts that there is a God" – and I agree
" you can't categorically prove that anyone had a religious experience" – and I agree.

So I guess I must be an atheist!

… yet …

I understand that the bible is neither inerrant nor literally true, it, together with other religious texts and the tradition of the Church form God's revelation to us.
I know that some people have used (and some still do use) religion to divide, to spread hate and horror and I know that doing that is contrary to Christ's teaching.
I know that there is suffering on a massive scale in this world and that most of it brought about by people exercising their freewill to win power or resources and in so doing go against Christ's message of love and I know that if we all responded unselfishly in love to the plight of others the world would be a much better place for all. I understand that freewill is one of the greatest gifts we have and that we seriously abuse it.
I know God has left space for us to work on his revelations to us to establish the truth in our hearts rather than superficially from a precise text. He has given us the choice of believing or not.
I know about evolution and I have some understanding about the elements of creation, I appreciate the fine balance in the laws of physics and the code system around DNA that I know there is room for a creator in a rational view of the world.
I know the Christian church is fragmented with some deep divisions, some a clear result of human weakness and greed, but I can't escape the common teaching of love for one another even if it is obviously not universally practised.
I know there is no absolute proof that God exists, in the end you need faith to believe, in the same way you need faith to believe there is no God. Needing faith implies choice, choice establishes our moral character. I can't prove there is a God but I am open to accepting the preponderance of evidence that there is.
I know the tri-omni atheist arguments are superficially attractive, but I know they are not new and that scholars far wiser than I have confronted them and debunked them and that I can read and assess their arguments for myself – I get to choose what I believe.
I know God could have given us absolute proof that He existed and then we would have had no choice but to believe.
I know the idea of a world without evil is superficially tempting, but one without freewill and without consequences would be a world without learning or growth, like an eternal living death. I am pleased God was wise enough to spare us that.
I know you don't have to believe in God to be a good person, I just don't see why people who don't believe in an after life would want to do anything other than maximise selfish pleasure within whatever social constraints they choose to acknowledge. I know Christianity preaches a selflessness that is exemplified by those who have given their lives for strangers and I admire that.
I understand about teapots, I have reviewed the evidence that there is a God and accepted it. I also accept that those who assert that there is no God have taken on that burden of proof and note that I am yet to be persuaded by them.
I know you can't prove a religious or metaphysical experiences, but people I know, trust and respect have had them and I believe them sane - I have too and I think I am sane – I know St. Paul would have been crazy to fake his conversion in order to change from persecutor to persecuted, as would have been Wilbur Wilberforce in faking his conversion experience to take on the might of the slave trade at the expense of his health.

So what does that mean? That I am aware of the most powerful of atheist arguments (I have not listed them all above, nor dealt with each fully) but I can see where they are coming from and I still believe in God. While the exact nature of my belief may not be all that conventional I can still say I believe there is a God.

Read More...

Summary only...

It's not about the science

Drawn by what I saw as a common position on a/theism I recently read Joe Hinman’s testimony on his DOXA site http://www.doxa.ws/Theology/Testamony.html

While I note some similarities between his journey and my own, what struck me most was some of the revelations we seem to have shared – call them insights if you will, but I know I could not have got there myself.

Now the specifics are different but the messages are similar.

Firstly that of a form of universality. I was struggling with the idea of a right or wrong religion – everybody should be able to get to heaven, right? But why then did Christ appear to teach exclusivity. JH got his revelation from Romans 2, I got mine from John 1:1

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

In a moment of clarity I can only explain as a revelation I saw this passage to mean that God was about truth, a message and that the ‘Word’, the message was all important. For Christians the ‘Word’ is manifest in Christ, but the same Word is revealed to all, each in their own way – this makes all religions potentially true; the test of their validity lies in their alignment with what can be referred to as God’s greater purpose (not going into a silly debate about differences and discernment – either you want to see it or you don’t).

When Christ speaks of Him being the “the way the truth ..” etc He refers to the Word which while it is Christ also extends beyond Christ to all. Christians (actually the Jews) had the privilege of a very close encounter with the Word, I have no idea how close the encounter may be for other faiths, but I am certain that the Word, the message of God by which we can all come to know God has been revealed to all.

Now this may not be a scholarly interpretation of the passage, but it was what was revealed to me by the passage.

A second revelation JH and I share is that different things can mean different things to different people – the bible has to be the quintessential example – but also that we don’t have to be in exact agreement to share a belief in God.

How then do I explain the diversity of religious teaching – they can’t all be right. I don’t really have to, there is a core message that all can come to and there is human distortion of the message by all who have tried to pass it on – me included, right here and now.

What the experience did show me was that we have a spiritual component that is capable of far more than our conscious (or even sub-conscious) selves. Sometimes, we manage to see through what ever separates us – a veil is a good analogy – and life is different, everything is different. Of course we now know where in the brain the interface is active. Science has yet to find the other end of the “phone line”, the spirit – and is most unlikely to ever do so.

This is of course where the big difference between atheist and theist lies. Not in a belief in God, yes that too, but the real nub of the difference is in the existence of a spiritual realm.

This difference leads to some irreconcilable differences between atheist and theist.

1) The atheist is limited to an intellectual position. Theists can intellectualise their position but they have a spiritual dimension that the atheist cannot acknowledge.

Unfortunately this difference often leads theists to limit their argument with atheists to intellectual debate – I for one have been guilty of this. We need to get over it and accept that our personal spiritual experiences are part of our belief. The fact that we can’t “prove” them to others is of no concern – faith is a personal thing, a bit like love; I love my wife, can’t prove it to others in conclusive intellectual terms but it is true.

2) The atheist view tends to be absolute – there is no God. I won’t go into the strong/weak atheist position because while some people may be making up their minds, they are listening to people who have usually stepped off the fence. The problem with an absolute position is that it has to be defended in its totality. A tired child not wanting to walk may say “there is sand in my shoe” (yes I live in a country where children encounter sand) – a parent’s response may “no there isn’t” but victory is the child’s when an examination of the shoe eventually reveals a single grain tucked away in the lining.

Any single spiritual experience defeats the atheist position. Hence the intense argument against miracles and the rather gratuitous “I am sure they believed that is what it was” response to all personal experiences.

Thethird and crucial revelation JH and I share is that of the importance of freewill. We may differ in the detail but the thrust is the same. This revelation is important as it addresses the Argument of Evil which is a cornerstone of maintaining an atheist belief. In essence one has to elevate the worth of freewill above that of human suffering. Atheists argue that if we suffer through the exercise of freewill (our own or that of others) but that God could have prevented it by making us “all good” and placed us in a world with only positive outcomes. They argue that God was therefore in error in giving us freewill as the consequences outweigh any benefits, present God as condoning suffering (not omni-benevolent) and at the very least being impotent in its prevention – all leading to a case that there is no God.

Without going into the detail, as I now see it, freewill is what enables growth. To curtail any negative outcome from the exercise of freewill God would have to:

i) deprive us of all choice
ii) or only enable choices with options that all had exactly the same value to everyone directly or indirectly associated with the choice now and in the future (absurd, if all options have an equal outcome for all and for all time then there is really no choice)
iii) Micro manage every situation in violation of all physical laws at all time – it would be OK to skydive sans parachute, fire would not burn, guns could not kill etc.

Yet we live in a dynamic world with laws of nature that work and we grow/learn intellectually and with increasing experience. Reason renders the no freewill option either absurd or of no possible value – so we have the opportunity to make choices; do good or harm, see the consequences and learn, all of which enables to draw us closer to that which we call God or to distance ourselves from God. We can make choices that have negative outcomes for us and/or others. God has revealed (through the “Word”) how we ought to try and live our lives and has provided ongoing coaching in the form of a connection with the spiritual realm, the Holy Spirit of the traditional Christian Trinity. So God has not abandoned us to our plight, plus there is prayer and the opportunity that gives us to draw on its power (not in an unlimited sense) to improve outcomes.

This leads us back to the fundamental difference between atheist and theist – belief in a spiritual realm. Religion is not the issue that really divides us, nor is the bible or its interpretation. IF we agree that there is a spiritual realm then we can resolve the other issues in time.

A problem that atheists seem to have in coming to grips with a spiritual realm is their starting point. Most start from within the context of a particular religion and test the minutia of the religion – if they find inconsistency or flaws in logic, out goes the baby with the bathwater. The true starting point is to seek an answer to the existence of a spiritual realm. This is the fourth revelation we share – although it is not as obvious as the others. Once we have found our answer to the existence of the spiritual realm we can then seek the religion or group which best provides us with a platform from which to exercise it. Interesting that JH and I both ended up near the Catholics, but that can only be of interest.

Of course in seeking the answer to the existence of a spiritual realm we should use the right tools. We are looking for evidence of mainly personal relationships, maybe involving groups. Atheists are content to point science at the question and chuckle “told you so” when science can’t prove a spiritual realm exists (they usually omit to mention that “inconclusive” works both ways). But science is not the right tool – we do not use it judge works of art, we understand it has limitations but persist in trying it on a realm it is not relevant to.

Enough – peace to all.

Read More...

Summary only...

It looks like a religion, it barks like a religion

Naughty of me, but when I found the First Church of Atheism I just could not resist this post.

You have the seminal texts,
you have the evangelists complete with click to donate web sites,
you need faith to believe (well strong atheists anyway - weak atheists need faith not to believe),
you have the regular meetings,
you have the T-shirts,
now you have the church www.firstchurchofatheism.com complete with ordained ministers,

... and you still don't have an atheist religion?

Peace - Hamba kahle

Read More...

Summary only...

Why does he do that?

I have been trying to find the time to do a full post, but alas …

So as a teaser, I can’t go past the lecture I heard recently by Sam Harris, regarded by some as the more balanced of the big three atheist evangelists. I could and probably should devote a whole post to the nonsense of Harris and his fellow travellers, but for now I will pick one example from the lecture that really lit up my nonsense filter.

Sam Harris is fond of this quoting Luke 19:27 to prove his point that the NT promotes horrors, if your nonsense filter has too fine a setting you can pick it up at minute 17 - or you can play a game of spotting the interweave of truth and deception in the preceding 17 minutes, but it will be boring!

Any sensible reading of the whole parable Luke 19:11-27

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=19&version=31

makes it obvious that the words in verse 27 are those of the king in the parable and relate to the citizens referred to in verse 14. But not so for Harris who presents them as a decree by Jesus to kill those who do not submit to his rule. Come on … is this an example of the intellectual high ground claimed by reasonable, rational and logical atheists?

Now don’t you just wonder why Sam Harris resorts to intellectual fraud of this type? Why, if the teachings of Jesus are, as he says, evil, does he have to make it up? How is Harris different from the religious fanatics or Christian evangelists he so roundly condemns for using similar tactics?

Perhaps a healthy dose of atheist scepticism would go a long way to revealing the true nature or intent of the atheist evangelists. Should we not be asking what the likely impact on society is of such divisive preaching – or of any divisive teaching for that matter. More so, should we not ask why Harris et al want to discredit the “love thy neighbour” message of Christ and replace it by one of division and intolerance?

Read More...

Summary only...