| Home | Our Hope | |
| Bible Study |
|
January 17, 2010 |
| Atheism | ||
The range of beliefs about the existence of God spans, spans Theism (God exists), Agnosticism (it is not possible to know if God exists), and Atheism (God does not exist). Within Atheism there are soft Atheists (God probably does not exist), Hard Atheists (God absolutely does not exist), and Anti-theists (God absolutely does not exist and all references to Him must be removed from society).coin
The terms that will be used in this study to describe both sides are Theist and Atheist.
The basis for this argument is "I see no evidence God ever existed or exists today and nothing requires God to exist in the future". Prior to science becoming the foundation for Atheism, this was the primary argument for Atheists. "The world is as it has always been." Science changed this. Explain
"Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of God:
Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
Look for such evidence with an open mind.
If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.
This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity and is modified form of the argument from a lack-of-evidence: God, as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we fail to find that evidence, God cannot exist as defined. The modification limits the sort of evidence to that which can be predicted and tested via the scientific method."1
The problem with this argument is that absence if evidence is not proof of anything. Absence of evidence can only become proof if you have searched everywhere with every method. Explain
The basis for this argument is that evil is incompatible with the concept of a God. It comes in two forms deductive and inductive. Deductive arguments are very strong if their logic is correct. First we’ll look at the deductive argument. It attempts to define all the possible combinations of God’s desires and responses to evil in the world.
"The earliest formulation of the Argument from Evil comes from the Greek philosopher Epicurus, writing in the early 3rd century BCE:
1. Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot,
2. or he can but does not want to,
3. or he cannot and does not want to,
4. or lastly he can and wants to.
5. If he wants to remove evil, and cannot,
6. he is not omnipotent;
7. If he can, but does not want to,
8. he is not benevolent; [kind]
9. If he neither can nor wants to,
10. he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent;
11. But if God can abolish evil and wants to,
12. how does evil exist?
"Common means for [responding to this argument] are to argue that evil is necessary for the existence of free will, virtues, and other qualities we humans need."2
Next we cover the inductive form of the argument
"[The inductive form of this] argument might, for example, argue that a sufficiently benevolent and powerful being that warrants the label "god" would be able to at least reduce the amount of suffering in world — not eliminate it entirely, just reduce it. Therefore, the existence of any unjustified and unnecessary suffering indicates that such a being probably doesn't exist. Such forms of the Argument from Evil don't generally justify denying the existence of gods, but it does justify rejecting belief in the existence of gods and being an atheist.
"Theodicies in response to inductive forms of the Argument from Evil may have to argue that each instance of suffering is indeed justified and necessary — not an easy task because even a single unjustified instance of suffering is potentially enough to render the existence of a god too unlikely to bother with."3
The omniscience arguments of atheism are among the most complex because they involve looking backward and forward in time. They are also the most strongly predicated on the arrogant notion that the author understands both the reality of this shadow of God’s world that we live in and the reality of God’s world.
"[O]mniscience is one of the more problematic aspects of alleged gods. It conflicts not only with the reality we all know, but also with other alleged characteristics which gods tend to have. In fact, the concept of omniscience is so badly flawed that it casts serious doubt upon the validity of traditional god-concepts which have made use of it as a characteristic."4
"[One particular] issue is whether or not genuine omniscience is in any way compatible with free will - either ours or the alleged god's. To start with our free will, it has been observed many times that if a god knows the future with infallible certainty, then what this god knows will necessarily happen - there is no possibility for anything else to occur. We are, then, incapable of altering the future. […]. If a god knows who will win the next presidential election, then it isn't possible for anyone else to win. That's predestination - and some theologians have unflinchingly embraced it, for example John Calvin."5
Predestine - To fix upon, decide, or decree in advance.
In summary, this argument against the existence of God is this. If God was omniscient, we would have no free will. We are convinced that we have free will. Therefore there is no omniscient God.
This author isn’t being entirely candid. He is making assumptions that he isn’t making clear to the reader. He is assuming that the future was determined without any consideration for the decision process going on within the subject. Because of this assumption, we can hardly be surprised with the outcome; predestination and no free will.
Demo
Let’s consider the result of this view of free will. There would be no responsibility for one’s actions. After all, they were not done by choice but because there was no free will. God would be unjust if he was to punish people for their sins. And our justice systems would be unjust and would have to be shut down. We would live our lives as little machines, like a train running on tracks.
Next the author gives slight coverage to one of the other views about omniscience. Notice how he characterizes this view.
"Others, however, have recognized that this is a tremendous problem and have sought to remedy it. A few try to argue that their god is "outside time," and hence sees the whole course of history all at once. But this removes god from the realm of intelligibility and knowability, and reduces theism to an incoherent agnosticism.6
Who decided that God should be intelligible and knowable to man? Not God. He said, "Your ways are not my ways". It also isn’t clear how this would reduce theism to an incoherent belief that it is not possible to know if God exists. This author can’t (or won’t) understand that it could be possible to know the future without determining the future. A person can still have free will even if God knows the decision.
There is another important question in the omniscience / free will discussion. What can God reveal to a man about man’s future? In the Atheists preferred view of omniscience, described first above, they assume God would be willing to reveal a man’s future to him. This results in the conflict between free will and omniscience.
In Theist views of omniscience and free will, God will not reveal enough of man’s future to him so that he would make a different decision. Is this consistent with the Bible? Yes, the Bible never provides a lot of detail via prophecy. We also see Jesus saying, "about that day or that hour no one except the Father knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son". Demo2 - YHWH
In many fields of science, some of the problems have multiple solutions or no exact solution and it has become common to express these in terms of probability. Therefore some of the questions about God or God’s creation are asked in terms of probability. This usually means there is an inherent assumption that there is no God. This can leave the Theist stuck for an answer to the question.
The best example I have seen was a TV debate that included a priest and two scientists from different fields. One question was "In the entire universe, how many planets have life that is capable of radio communication?" The background to this question is a probabilistic equation, called the Drake equation7, which breaks the question into more manageable pieces. The foundation for this equation is evolution.
The two scientists produced estimates in the hundreds or thousands and were able to explain why they thought these were reasonable numbers. The priest’s answer was 1 and he was not able to give any support for it, Biblical or otherwise. He looked foolish.
The best answer a person can give in situations like this is to make it clear from the start that the question is flawed and that the universe is a result of creation, not probabilities.
In a similar way to what we saw with omniscience, Atheists try to use omnipotence to show that omnipotence is incompatible with God. The idea is to show that omnipotence conflicts with itself and is therefore impossible, thus an omnipotent God is impossible.
The simplest example is posed as a question, "Can God make a rock so large that he can’t lift it". The conflict here is between the power to create an object and the power to move an object. The question itself is nonsense in our universe. At the farthest limit, if God made a rock the size of the universe, where would He move it to - the universe is entirely filled by the rock. But at far smaller sizes the rules of the universe dictate that the rock would immediately shrink to nothing in a black hole. finite
Some Atheists, when they find their arguments are unconvincing, will resort to other techniques. Atheists have called Theists cavemen and similar names, referred to religion as primitive, and made personal verbal attacks on Theists. Generally this isn’t done just to hurt the Theist, but to express a truly held belief that is consistent with the Liberal Left and Progressive movements. That is, human beings have moved from more primitive stages of existence and thought, and are moving toward human perfection. To them Theism is seen as a primitive stage that we are evolving away from.
Despite what they may say or do, our duty is to love them.
Despite what an Atheist may claim, no one has ever found proof that God does not exist. Every argument that has been put forward has been found to contain flaws. But those who are unfamiliar with the flaws could find the arguments very convincing. So this study has provided some background about the thinking of Atheists and some of the arguments they use, a type of armor if you like.
"Are your pets Rapture-ready? A new business promises to care for the pets of people who are transported suddenly to heaven in the Rapture […] That’s where Bart Centre - pet lover and atheist - comes in. For $110 (U.S.), he and his network of pet rescuers, confirmed atheists all, will go to your house in the event of the Rapture, and rescue your dog, cat or other pet, and care for it for the rest of its life or until the end of the world, whichever comes first." - The Globe and Mail
1 http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/GodScience.htm
2 http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/EvilSuffering.htm
3 http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/EvilSuffering.htm
4 http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/arg/blatheo_osci.htm
5 http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/atheo/blatheo_osci_freewill.htm
6 http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/atheo/blatheo_osci_freewill.htm