Post by Kevin on Mar 23, 2020 9:01:32 GMT -7
There is absolutely no logical relationship between the existence or non-existence of God and the arguments which someone advances to prove or disprove that existence. God’s existence or non-existence does not depend on human belief or denial. God can logically exist or not exist, regardless of whether everyone affirmed of denies His existence.
Since God’s existence or non-existence does not depend on us, this should prove to be quite humbling to both the theists and atheists alike. Atheists are quite irrational when they announce that God does not exist because they feel they have refuted some particular theistic argument. What they fail to understand is that refuting a theistic argument, set forth by someone, does not logically negate the existence of God. It is totally irrational to think that it does.
Theists also need to be reminded that God does not exist just because they think they can prove that He exists. God’s existence is not dependent on their ability to demonstrate it to those who do not want it demonstrated.
Here’s an illustration. When the early explorers form Australia described an animal, which lived in the water, had the bill of a duck, the fur of a beaver, laid eggs, and was a mammal, such claims were dismissed as “unthinkable” by European rationalists. Even when skins of this animal were brought to Europe, they were denounced as clumsy frauds.
Obviously, someone had sewed together various parts from different animals. It was not until someone brought to Europe a live animal that it was grudgingly admitted that such a creature actually existed.
What is germane to my point is that while the arguments rages back and forth in Europe as to whether or not such an animal existed, the duckbilled platypus blissfully continued its life of ease because its existence did not depend on whether Europeans believed in him or not.
If some or all of the theistic arguments presented by one particular author are discovered to be weak or invalid, this cannot logically decide the issue of God’s existence. Since there are thousands of books, in which different authors present many different kinds are arguments for the exist3ence of God, it is irrational to assume that if you have answered one of them you have answered them all.
Nor are all arguments created equal. Some of them are good and some of them are bad. Some are weak and others strong. Some are logically valid and others invalid. Some are smart and some are stupid.
Down through the years, theists and atheists alike have given some really poor arguments to prove their case. For example, the argument that “Something is true if you believe it” is just as absurd as saying, “Something is false if you disbelieve it.” Reality does not have to conform to what you think it to be.
#atheism
Since God’s existence or non-existence does not depend on us, this should prove to be quite humbling to both the theists and atheists alike. Atheists are quite irrational when they announce that God does not exist because they feel they have refuted some particular theistic argument. What they fail to understand is that refuting a theistic argument, set forth by someone, does not logically negate the existence of God. It is totally irrational to think that it does.
Theists also need to be reminded that God does not exist just because they think they can prove that He exists. God’s existence is not dependent on their ability to demonstrate it to those who do not want it demonstrated.
Here’s an illustration. When the early explorers form Australia described an animal, which lived in the water, had the bill of a duck, the fur of a beaver, laid eggs, and was a mammal, such claims were dismissed as “unthinkable” by European rationalists. Even when skins of this animal were brought to Europe, they were denounced as clumsy frauds.
Obviously, someone had sewed together various parts from different animals. It was not until someone brought to Europe a live animal that it was grudgingly admitted that such a creature actually existed.
What is germane to my point is that while the arguments rages back and forth in Europe as to whether or not such an animal existed, the duckbilled platypus blissfully continued its life of ease because its existence did not depend on whether Europeans believed in him or not.
If some or all of the theistic arguments presented by one particular author are discovered to be weak or invalid, this cannot logically decide the issue of God’s existence. Since there are thousands of books, in which different authors present many different kinds are arguments for the exist3ence of God, it is irrational to assume that if you have answered one of them you have answered them all.
Nor are all arguments created equal. Some of them are good and some of them are bad. Some are weak and others strong. Some are logically valid and others invalid. Some are smart and some are stupid.
Down through the years, theists and atheists alike have given some really poor arguments to prove their case. For example, the argument that “Something is true if you believe it” is just as absurd as saying, “Something is false if you disbelieve it.” Reality does not have to conform to what you think it to be.
#atheism