concerning "Truth"

[xalexfromblackx]

ok so im debating with my freind..and he says his beliefs are right because he BELIEVES they are...

so i ask him why it's truth just cuz he believes it..

and he says that it is because it i cant prove it wrong

so i say "well i dont need to prove you wrong since the burden of proof falls on the party making the assertion of truth"

and hes like.."yea well im an idiot! dur dur!" (he just repeated him bum argument even though i just handed im his ass)

so i was wondering, am i right??

i mean..the theists are always raving about..well theres no proof AGAINST him!!!

and im always like..silly..

so yea...i was just thinkin about that..

peace``

[AuntieSocial]

Well, alex, it is generally accepted that the onus of proof is on the person making the claim or assertion. For example, if I told you that there was an invisible purple elephant levitating in my backyard, you would be completely in your right (and rationale) to not believe me ... unless, I could offer some evidence of my levitating unseen elephant.

The question of a deity is similar to my elephant. It is a "being" that is invisible and can do some pretty amazing things. If the deity was my elephant (ok, let's ignore the fact that Ganesha is an elephant), your friend wouldn't believe me for a moment, and rightfully so. He would certainly ask me for some evidence (or, most likely, dismiss me outright).

As far as proving that his God doesn't exist, it isn't entirely impossible. It is much harder when you are trying to prove that no gods exist, but when you are looking at a particular god, it can be done. Every believer has assigned attributes to their deity. This deity has qualities. Most of these qualities, when examined on an individual basis, can be refutted. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that there is no deity, only that the deity that particular believer is describing is illogical.

BTW, if your friend says that he has faith, there is really no point in pursuing the debate. I usually thank them for their honesty and leave it at that ... the definition of faith is "to accept something as true without logic or reason." It is quite a daunting task to counter 'faith' since logic and reason are not factored into the initial belief anyway.

[xalexfromblackx]

ok, well how do i disprove the christian god?

[AuntieSocial]

I think the first thing you need to determine is what your friend believes about his deity. There are many different Christian theologies, each one is mutually exclusive of the others

i.e.,

Catholics believe that the priesthood is the conduit to God, protestants believe that each of us can contact God individually (which was the first heretical offence ... the Gnostics believed that the relationship was personal and sophia (or wisdom) was attained directly)

Calvinists believe in preordination, while others believe in free will.

There are some items that are pretty common, especially with those who don't subscribe to any particular religion:

God is Omnibenevelant (LOVE)
The God, as depicted in the Bible, can hardly be considered a loving God. If you look at the carnage that is commanded by the God as evidence of worship, the idea of love is the furthest from mind.

Many Christians will say that Jesus changed that, but this concept has some flaws:
1) This supposes that the Father God made a mistake (and this isn't the first mistake he made)
2) Jesus himself is reputed to have said he didn't come to change the laws, but uphold them. He even criticized the Jews for not punishing their disobedient children according to the laws (the penalty was death)
3) Jesus was either a separate deity (came to correct his Father's mistakes), not a deity at all (having no effect on the Father God) or, equally culpable for the carnage in the OT (if he was a part of the triune God).

God is Omnipresent - where is he? Anything that has presence would leave evidence of its being there. There is no evidence trail of this god other than the 'personal experiences' of his adherants

God is omniscient - if your friend believes in free will, that is contrary to the concept of an all-knowing God. If the god already knows what your choices will be, he has already made plans for you making that choice (I like telling people that their god already knew I would be an atheist, so I must be doing His will).

God is omnipotent - how could an all powerful god make such a faulty creation? Why did he have to wipe it out completely at the time of the Flood (which isn't historical, according to weather patterns, geology and animal distributions)? Why would he need to sacrifice himself (in the form of his son)? If he had limitless power, he would have been able to change things without such drastic measures.

Here's a Christian website that explores some of the Omni-attributes of the Christian God ... www.rationalchristianity.net/omni.html. Keep in mind that this is a Christian Apologist website and their aim is to refute the atheists ... but you might want to explore some of the articles and explanations on this site. You may encounter some of them as rebuttals to your position.

The creation myth can be easily debunked by looking at the contradicting accounts in Genesis. Also, how did god make day and night prior to there being a Sun & Moon (and since when was the Moon a source of light unto itself?) The idea of an Intelligent Designer is a little more difficult, but the existence of redundant/ineffectual organs and birth defect are indication that we were not designed to funtion as we do, but are rather products of our environment/evolutionary processes. Someone who is more science-minded could probably provide better resources for this aspect.

The list goes on ... and it all depends on what the theist feels his/her God is capable of. In reality, there is no solitary "Christian God" ... there are as many gods as there are Christians ... or at least there are as many are there are Christian sects.

[Dugald]

Auntie, you're my hero! What a concise and effective list. I've been brushing up against these very contradictions, but you've put it all into exceptionally clear terms. Thank you!

[AuntieSocial]

You're quite welcome, Dugald. I have spent a lot of time researching the roots of Christianity, especially the political and religious turmoil of the 1st Century CE. Some would say that I've spent too much time, considering the fact that I'm not a believer. I do think that if more people tried to put the gospels into the perspective of the times they depict, they would come away from the exercise with at least a heightened skepticism.

I realise that my arguments will not convince a person who believes because of 'blind faith', but my main reason for looking into the various attributes of the Christian God (and other supernatural beings) is for my own interest. I am an atheist because of the overwhelming absense of evidence. I feel that I need to investigate the various attributes in order to satisfy my curiousity. If I say that there is insufficient evidence, but failed to look into any so-called evidence that was provided, I would be untruthful (to myself and others).

This quest for understanding has lead me to other areas of interest, in particular epistimology (the philosophy of belief) and anthropolgy. These are the topics I will be studying when I return to University (hopefully this September, if my health will support both working and studying by then).

As for being your hero ... well,

[Dugald]

No need to be embarassed, I simply meant that you deliver a thoughtful and articulate argument, with research to back it. I aspire to be so well-versed and well-spoken.

[Franc28]

Truth is a property of propositions. That property consists of being attained by rational processes.

"Truth" is not an unattainable ideal, or an absolutist position. Science pertains to a great deal of true propositions, even many universal propositions. So does philosophy, and technical disciplines, and many other fields besides.