I have been debating with myself one specific point which essentially stems from the fallacy that a lack of evidence is not an evidence of lack. (Note that this a purely a thought experiment, not a claim, and that, on balance, the whole set of arguments against theism outweigh one possible philosophical issue which only relates to intellectual decency.)

Essentially, the fact that there is a lack of evidence to support theistic views does not mean that it's evidence of a lack of God. Imagine God to be something similar to our 21st century minds and technology like the continent of America was to 15th century Europe.

(Side note: To avoid potential nitpicking about this specific premise, I know that America was discovered and rediscovered, but the "official" discovery was an accident as the goal of the expedition was to find India. That some in the 15th century Europe might even have been aware that America existed is a bit irrelevant as society as a whole certainly did not believe it was there, and it's the mindset of those who did not believe which is interesting.)

Now, try to enter this mindset and think that God is in a similar situation. Just like the 15th century mindset and technology could not comprehend the continent of America, the mindsets and technology today is not capable of providing the evidence required to detect or understand a divinity.

Therefore, a God may exist (but it doesn't matter).



Edit: The title was erroneous in it's use of the word "for". This is not an argument for theisim, it's an argument not against theism. Thanks to Kasu for this insight.


Views: 225

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ok, found why my first post didn't link to the comment I wanted to reply to, and got the mark this time. Lots of nested scripts here and using no-scripts breaks the scripts needed for replying to a comment rather then the topic. > Just noting that in case any one else has the issue and didn't figure it out yet br />
Any way, on to the post. Mr Walker, may I ask why you feel that they must see this? The reason I ask is I hear a quite similar statement from theists about atheists, or frankly, any one that doesn't support their flavor. You offer your statement as a given, with nothing to show why you feel that way. If the concept was truly as clear as you feel it is, then there would be no debate on the subject. You look at the vastness and know that nothing could deliberately build this. they look at the same thing and think 'Something like this couldn't just happen by chance'.

It is just as clear to theists as it is to you, from the exact same evidence. If you find a watch in the middle of the Sahara, you don't assume it 'just happened'. You assume some one made it and brought it there. you may argue how it got there, if it is quality or crap, but you don't say it just formed there by chance. The theists look at the universe exactly the same way you and I would look at a watch. Part of it is they confuse 'natural selection' or 'chain of events' with 'random chance'. Religion is not known for engendering its follower with critical thinking skills, or a wealth of knowledge. They focus on faith and what they feel is commonsense.

Also, how can you state with such conviction that 'ALL gods are man-made.'? Aside from the nit picky, woman thought up some, there is the question of is there anything else out there in the universe? If there is, then they may also have faith in god/s. Then there is the issue of if there is other life out there, and it has visited Earth, were they mistaken for, or perhaps claimed to be gods? There is enough evidence that /something/ odd happened in our history, that I feel a reasonable mind would at least allow for the possibility of not fully understanding everything at this time. Even if you discount the anomalies, just look at the history behind stating that something /must be so/ before all the evidence is in.

I am not saying that you are wrong, I am simply saying that to make such a statement of such seeming certainty requires that it be made out of faith and not reason. Science does not disprove God, it simply strives to understand what is, and your comment sounds identical in form to those we strike down of the theists. If you are a man of science, as I get the feeling you feel you are, then you know the fallacy of declaring any sweeping fact that can not be proven or dis-proven. Do keep in mind that science is far from immune to the same unfounded assumptions and certainties that are the hallmark of any faith, and is just as prone to attracting zealots that parrot but do not understand. To many, science is their faith, and they protect it rabidly.

Always leave room for questions, room for the unknown. When we are certain then we stop questioning and looking. When we do that, it stops being science and starts being a faith. Scientists call things a theory because they understand that it is only a working model, and may well be superseded by a better working model some day. Allow for the same room in your own ideas, or please, show the proof that it is no longer your theory but a confirm-able fact.

I'd like to defend the statement "Bottom line - ALL gods are man-made."

Unless you count direct divine intervention, which is a silly notion on a number of levels, or the divine being working by some underhanded way in our minds which science can't explain (and never will be able to), then the Gods that are worshipped must be man-made. 

Now, this does not mean a divine being can't exist nor that we wouldn't be innately able to understand it. We innately knew complex mathematical models, such as vectoring, which we utlize everytime we throw a moving object (i.e. a rock) at a moving object (i.e. a bird), before we were able to formalize it. But this part just leads to another conundrum, if we can some day scientifically explain a divine being, is it then a divine being? 

On the other hand... What if what defines the human experience is the ability to create Gods? I know of no other creature with this ability, and it appears we've been doing it for some time.

Argument for theism: While talking with un-evolved theists they will make the objection that without god there would be no morality. Without god they would be raping, pillaging, and killing. To these folks I say "theism" should be your way, for some the idea of heaven and hell is good and safer for the rest of us. (tongue in cheek)

WITH god there has been millenia of raping, pillaging & killing. How much worse could it get ? Rhetorical question - ignore it.
Check out Genesis 6 - the sons of god were raping women from the beginning!  What the hell does that say about the divine morality of Yahweh et al?  Furthermore, considering those rapist sons of his are mentioned in Genesis 6, how are we supposed to buy that 'only son' sales pitch offered in John 3:16?


© 2020   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service