Christians: convince me.
Listen up, you blogging Christians: you are being ridiculous with your circular arguments about the existence of God.
I've been following a line of discussion about the transcendental argument of God's existence (often shortened to TAG) on the Debunking Christianity and Pressing the Antithesis blogs, as well as published discussion between Michael Martin and John Frame. You can argue all you like about "If Knowledge Then God," but it comes down to the fact that you have decided to believe in God without physical proof.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. The bad thing is that you attempt to prove it using faulty logic. The argument can be (over)simplified to this: "If laws of logic are possible then God exists, because God is the necessary precondition for logic. Laws of logic are possible. Therefore, God exists." However, there is no agreement (except perhaps among transcendentalists) that God is the necessary precondition for logic. There is no way to demonstrate to an atheist that the Christian God is the necessary precondition for logic--any more than a Muslim could make *you* believe that Allah is a necessary precondition for logic.
One interesting thing that many Christian bloggers have pointed out is that many atheists use science and logic as their absolute truth, much like legalistic Christians use the Bible as the absolute truth.
To point out the possibilities, however, is a good first step for both parties. Certainly one can admit *possibilities* without accepting them as fact. See the argument below for an example.
I think it would do Christians a lot of good if they stopped acting superior to atheists, though. The insulting, condesending tones some of these discussions take push athiests further away from God, which is the opposite of what Christians want. Right?
I've been following a line of discussion about the transcendental argument of God's existence (often shortened to TAG) on the Debunking Christianity and Pressing the Antithesis blogs, as well as published discussion between Michael Martin and John Frame. You can argue all you like about "If Knowledge Then God," but it comes down to the fact that you have decided to believe in God without physical proof.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. The bad thing is that you attempt to prove it using faulty logic. The argument can be (over)simplified to this: "If laws of logic are possible then God exists, because God is the necessary precondition for logic. Laws of logic are possible. Therefore, God exists." However, there is no agreement (except perhaps among transcendentalists) that God is the necessary precondition for logic. There is no way to demonstrate to an atheist that the Christian God is the necessary precondition for logic--any more than a Muslim could make *you* believe that Allah is a necessary precondition for logic.
One interesting thing that many Christian bloggers have pointed out is that many atheists use science and logic as their absolute truth, much like legalistic Christians use the Bible as the absolute truth.
To point out the possibilities, however, is a good first step for both parties. Certainly one can admit *possibilities* without accepting them as fact. See the argument below for an example.
I think it would do Christians a lot of good if they stopped acting superior to atheists, though. The insulting, condesending tones some of these discussions take push athiests further away from God, which is the opposite of what Christians want. Right?
posted by SuperSkeptic at 9:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home