Re: Psalm 14:1 on another level -- *some* atheists are fools!
- Don't write off Psalm 14:1 completely!
--- In ChristianityVSOtherWorldViewsAndReligions@yahoogroups.com,
diana wilson <dwilsontx@> wrote:
>This is a valid modus tollens argument:
> IF GOD EXISTS...THERE WOULD BE PROOF OF A GOD...
> THERE IS NONE...END OF STORY
P1: If 'A', then 'B'.
C: Then not-'A'.
In this case:
P1: If God exists, then there would be proof.
P2: There is no proof.
C: Therefore, there is no God.
While the argument is *valid*, it remains Diana's
responsibility to prove the argument is *sound* --
that is, that both of her premises are "true".
She has made two positive claims here:
1) That if God exists, there will be proof of that.
2) There is no proof.
Regarding the first claim, I think that Diana will have
a very hard time showing the statement is true -- there
are probably a lot of things that exist for which we have
neither proof nor even any idea of their existence.
Regarding the second claim, it will be very difficult
for Diana to unilaterally define what constitutes
The idea that the "burden of proof" falls exclusively
on the believer is incorrect -- the burden of proof
falls on WHOEVER makes a truth claim, such as these
two statements by Diana.
It is also not quite correct to assume that the "default
position" is that there is no God. If you are a member
of a society that overwhelmingly accepts the existence
of God, and you yourself have no faith, the default
position, for you, is to figure out for yourself why it
is that you are making the positive assertion, whether
explicitly expressed or not, that the majority of the
society is wrong -- and then you should be able to
offer a rational argument to that end.
There is also the problem of explaining what appears to
be the biological reality that humans are "hard-wired"
for faith, as they say. If that is indeed the case, then
those who reject faith are suppressing one of their
most "natural" inclinations, which could hardly be viewed
as conducive to mental and emotional stability.
As far as this idea of "multiverses" goes, Diana seems
to think that because something can be shown to be a
mathematical possibility, then it is automatically a
reality, which is analogous to saying that because an
engineer can design a bridge that will work, the bridge
must exist. The truth is that the multiverse is just
one of many possibilities, and was largely conceived as
an explanation for quantum mechanics -- but there is no
real evidence, according to some physicists, that any
such exotic explanation is needed. It may simply be
that everything "exists" right here in this Universe,
but that we don't really know what "matter" is.
For those who are interested, here is a paper:
Issues in the Philosophy of Cosmology
George F R Ellis. 3/30/06
Ellis is a theist and a world-class cosmologist, who has
proposed a model of the Universe that he says "works
almost as well as the real one". Even if you don't
have the math (as I don't) to understand all the formulae
in this paper, it is written in a way that you can skip
over the equations and get the gist of what he is saying.
He points out that even if the multiverse did exist, we
could never hope to have any proof of that, since another
universe *by definition* could have no causal connection
to this one -- that is, there can be no exchange of
information between them -- no light, no gravity, no
mathematics, no nothing.
What I am getting at is that there is thus more real-world
"proof" of the existence of God than there is for any
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism