A recent post by Bob Seidensticker, "Atheists: What Would It Take to Change Your Mind?", is well worth reading but I do feel compelled to point out that there really isn't much in it that should surprise an atheist, or non-theist. I also consider the questions he poses at the end to now be foregone conclusions. Theologians and apologists have been making bogus claims about atheists being closed-minded and issuing disingenuous challenges over "proof" for centuries. We have always, as a whole, answered back without their ever attempting to meet their own standards or challenges. So, the notion that we need to routinely answer such charges is a matter of double standards and hypocrisy on their part. Personally, I have no problem with reiterating what is acceptable as proof and certainly have no problem with re-assessing what I believe and why. I think we should all do precisely that.
I have actually written a few posts on what I would consider decent proof for the existence of God.
"Proof of God: Scenario1" (February 25, 2012)
"Proof of God: Scenario 2" (March 12, 2012)
"Proof of God: Scenario 3" (March 24, 2012)
And, of course, a number of atheists far more eloquent than I have also written on this topic. Off the top of my head I recall reading similar things from Greta Christina and Richard Dawkins.
Showing posts with label Proof of God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Proof of God. Show all posts
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Proof of God: Scenario 3
The complete eradication of all diseases and disorders would also be pretty good proof that God exists. By eradication I mean that not only would there be no new cases of things like AIDS, Cancer, Autism, Epilepsy, etc... but all previously diagnosed cases are cured. We have been fighting diseases and disorders for as long as our species has existed. We have made progress, to be sure, but we are no where near having the ability to wipe out all such ailments. There is also no reason to believe we ever will be. If it all just went away I would have to seriously consider divine intervention as the source.
I can foresee some theists objecting to this on a couple of points. The standard free will dodge would no doubt be attempted. I have pointed out how pathetic this approach is on numerous occasions so I won't go into it here beyond stating that a perfect being is incompatible with free will. Another objection I can foresee is the negative affect such a cure-all would have on the planet's limited resources. Overpopulation, which is already a problem, would become intensified. I'd point out that since we are talking about God there is no reason fertility rates couldn't be adjusted. Instead of a monthly menstral cycle why could women not have an annual cycle. I doubt there are any women who object to only having a period once a year. Men reach maximum sperm production within three days. Why not stretch that out as well. Spent seamen being replaced over the course of months rather than days would also seriously drop fertility rates. If God does exist and did create us then God should be able to make such adjustments.
In any case, the sudden and permanent disappearance of all diseases and disorders would definitely constitute proof of God's existence in my opinion.
I can foresee some theists objecting to this on a couple of points. The standard free will dodge would no doubt be attempted. I have pointed out how pathetic this approach is on numerous occasions so I won't go into it here beyond stating that a perfect being is incompatible with free will. Another objection I can foresee is the negative affect such a cure-all would have on the planet's limited resources. Overpopulation, which is already a problem, would become intensified. I'd point out that since we are talking about God there is no reason fertility rates couldn't be adjusted. Instead of a monthly menstral cycle why could women not have an annual cycle. I doubt there are any women who object to only having a period once a year. Men reach maximum sperm production within three days. Why not stretch that out as well. Spent seamen being replaced over the course of months rather than days would also seriously drop fertility rates. If God does exist and did create us then God should be able to make such adjustments.
In any case, the sudden and permanent disappearance of all diseases and disorders would definitely constitute proof of God's existence in my opinion.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Proof of God: Scenario 2
It can and has been argued that aggression has served a variety of evolutionary purposes. However, it no longer seems to be of any benefit to our species in today's world. We also don't seem to be able to prevent it.
Another scenario I would accept as proof of God's existence is the cessation of all forms of human aggression. Since it no longer seems to be of benefit to us and we can't seem to end it ourselves there is no reason God could not solve the problem for us. I am fully aware of the rationale many theist use to contradict this idea. Free will has always been a pathetic excuse. I do not know a single person who has chosen to be mugged or asked for children to shoot other children. Since, I and others routinely push for crime prevention measures and gun control why are we made to suffer along with those who refuse do do anything useful about these problems. If God created us and our world then there is no reason God cannot make such a modification as the elimination of all aggression. There would still be plenty for us to disagree and make decisions on. So assuming that free will is even possibly in the presence of a supreme being, which it isn't, it would be unaffected by the absence of aggression.
Another scenario I would accept as proof of God's existence is the cessation of all forms of human aggression. Since it no longer seems to be of benefit to us and we can't seem to end it ourselves there is no reason God could not solve the problem for us. I am fully aware of the rationale many theist use to contradict this idea. Free will has always been a pathetic excuse. I do not know a single person who has chosen to be mugged or asked for children to shoot other children. Since, I and others routinely push for crime prevention measures and gun control why are we made to suffer along with those who refuse do do anything useful about these problems. If God created us and our world then there is no reason God cannot make such a modification as the elimination of all aggression. There would still be plenty for us to disagree and make decisions on. So assuming that free will is even possibly in the presence of a supreme being, which it isn't, it would be unaffected by the absence of aggression.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Proof of God: Scenario 1
One of the false accusations theists like to level at atheists is that we are just as faithful as they are. They insist that no amount of proof would change our point of view. Bullshit. I'd set aside the fact that theists have no proof but that is, in part, the point of this post. Other atheists have talked about what would constitute proof but I'd like to add a few more.
The first scenario I would accept as proof of God's existence is a simple message conveyed in a not so simple way. A message along the lines of, "I am God, I exist," would be sufficient provided it was delivered simultaneously all over the world in every possible language and medium for no less than an hour. Every written media (newspapers, magazines, books, billboards, etc.) spontaneously becomes re-written to contain that one message. Also all TV, cable, satellite, phone, radio, and internet venues carry the message. For good measure, it should also be broadcast telepathically. If God exists I see no reason this should not be possible. In the same token I cannot conceive of how an individual or group of individuals could possibly pull off such a message. Creating and coordinating a message in such a wide variety of media for even a short space of time would be virtually impossible. Re-writing and altering already created content in even one media would be impossible. And, since there is no such thing as telepathy (this avenue of message delivery could be shorter to avoid long-term harm) there could be no human agency involved. Group delusions have occurred but never on such a massive scale. It is also highly unlikely that after a half hour or more that a decent chunk of the Scientific community would not think to record the message in various ways. The skeptic/atheist/free thinker community would also probably seek to record it in various ways. It would then be verifiable beyond reasonable doubt.
I would accept that as proof. Anyone care to hold their breath waiting for this one?
The first scenario I would accept as proof of God's existence is a simple message conveyed in a not so simple way. A message along the lines of, "I am God, I exist," would be sufficient provided it was delivered simultaneously all over the world in every possible language and medium for no less than an hour. Every written media (newspapers, magazines, books, billboards, etc.) spontaneously becomes re-written to contain that one message. Also all TV, cable, satellite, phone, radio, and internet venues carry the message. For good measure, it should also be broadcast telepathically. If God exists I see no reason this should not be possible. In the same token I cannot conceive of how an individual or group of individuals could possibly pull off such a message. Creating and coordinating a message in such a wide variety of media for even a short space of time would be virtually impossible. Re-writing and altering already created content in even one media would be impossible. And, since there is no such thing as telepathy (this avenue of message delivery could be shorter to avoid long-term harm) there could be no human agency involved. Group delusions have occurred but never on such a massive scale. It is also highly unlikely that after a half hour or more that a decent chunk of the Scientific community would not think to record the message in various ways. The skeptic/atheist/free thinker community would also probably seek to record it in various ways. It would then be verifiable beyond reasonable doubt.
I would accept that as proof. Anyone care to hold their breath waiting for this one?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)