Comments on: There’s probably no God?

By: Bosco Peters

Bosco Peters — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 06:56:49 +0000

Good to have you visit, Madeleine, and I appreciated Matt’s post and the discussion following. My post was only really about one of the billboards, and I’ve been thinking about the other two – with some similarities with Matt’s points.

By: Madeleine

Madeleine — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:07:43 +0000

Now that they are on billboards we have had some fun fisking them http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/07/theres-probably-no-god-fisking-atheist-billboards.html. Come see

By: Kerry

Kerry — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:56:36 +0000

Matthew Holloway said regarding the wording on the bus ads: “probably” is about being intellectually honest about the limits of human knowledge…

If it’s not about advertising standards then it’s about the history of the atheist/theist debate.

I used to think that it was silly for people to believe there was no God on the grounds that for any to make such a claim implied they had an absolute and ultimate knowledge of the Universe. Atheists who know the history of their position know that this is no longer a tenable position to hold because they were too often reminded of its absolute claim on knowledge by consistent theists. That is intellectual honesty.

However now I hold a different view, even soft atheists are not intellectually honest because the view they hold is contrary to what an “intellectually honest” person would agree to. The universe “declares the glory of God” but the soft atheist suppresses what his “intellectual honesty” should tell him because he (with an internal bias) is at war with God. What is most common in the atheistic arsenal is a strong dependence on science, the imperical method, the laws of logic etc. What they don’t acknowledge is the fact that on assuming the scientific method they are already prejudging the existence or non-existence of God. That method itself assumes a random/chance universe as its basis.

By: Kerry

Kerry — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:29:41 +0000

Hi just a point regarding the idea that atheists define atheism as a “lack of belief in God” Whatever method they like to use to refrain from making a positive statement regarding their beliefs, they still have to posit a worldview that makes sense. They still have to find answers to- origins, morality, meaning and suchlike questions otherwise it is just an empty sound they make.

By: Patti Lao-Wood

Patti Lao-Wood — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:25:58 +0000

@Morgan

I cant speak for all atheists nor can I speak for all Christians but some atheists are rightly put off seeking the Christ because of overzealous Christians. Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists etc are no threat to Christianity – the Gospel is in the hands of Christians regardless of anything.
Serving humanity does not mean converting humanity and the ‘plethora of religions’ you refer to, has nothing to do with ones compulsion to follow a particular ‘god’ ..the plethora only adds favor to the atheist argument. A glut of anything on the market does not add value!

And in my humble opinion – Christians ARE the tangible and measurable evidence of a very present God…unfortunately some adopt the pose and very little else.

By: morgan

morgan — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:22:58 +0000

@Patti Lao-Wood;

Do you really think that atheists are such because of over zealous Christians? Given the plethora of religions that are out there there should be ample options for them to pick from if they’ve been scared off of Christianity.

Do you not think that they are that way more due to a lack of any tangible or measurable evidence for gods, the supernatural or “higher” beings?

By: Patti Lao-Wood

Patti Lao-Wood — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:12:33 +0000

My point was that some atheists are as such, because some christians are the worst manifestations of the things pertaining to the Christian faith. Atheists are no threat to any faith – its zealous christians that worry me. The God I worship is the God of gods…its not complicated. Other gods must exist or who is God the God of…? According to Scripture there are other gods but our focus is on the God of them all.

By: morgan

morgan — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:31:44 +0000

@John Sobert Sylvest
Do you chose not to worship them for the same reasons? i.e. a lack of evidence for their existence in the first place?

By: Patti Lao-Wood

Patti Lao-Wood — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:39:56 +0000

Thanks John Sobert Sylvest. I empathize with Atheists to some degree, the god that many Christians promote is not the one Im familiar with either. My God cares not a jot whats advertised on the side of buses – Hes more concerned with what inhabits/inhibits the passengers. Gandhi said something like ‘Of Jesus I have no doubts but of his followers I have my concerns’. I have the greatest respect for many a great thinker/ orator on the things pertaining to our faith – but unlike Christ, their data is questionable. Sorry Bosco – that was rattling around in my head and I had to get it out

By: John Sobert Sylvest

John Sobert Sylvest — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:00:58 +0000

I’ve met quite a few atheists over the years, all who’d rejected gods whom I would never choose to worship either.

By: morgan

morgan — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:11:47 +0000

@bosco
Cool. For those that missed it the post was back here.

By: Bosco Peters

Bosco Peters — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:55:25 +0000

In relation to some of the comments, it is worth being reminded that the concept of the “Big Bang” was first proposed by a priest, Georges Lemaître, when the scientific community presumed that the universe was eternal (steady state). So much so that, while Fr Georges called his proposal “the hypothesis of the primeval atom”, others mocked his idea, with Fred Hoyle sarcastically calling it his “Big Bang” theory. It has only been a little over four decades that atheists have had to agree with theists that the universe had a beginning and have been scrambling ever since to make sense of this – every theory I have seen has tended to require more complicated acts of faith than the elegant, simple acceptance that God is.

@Morgan
I don’t know what you thought I would find in your post contrary to the comments policy (linked from my original post) – I only run this site voluntarily, by myself, & in spare moments – because it is such a popular site it receives a lot of spam (over 10,000 currently). I thought that was all well explained in my comments policy. Doing a search for “probably” I managed to find it and it is now on the site.

By: morgan

morgan — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:16:10 +0000

@Bosco
Are you censoring the posts? There was another post addressing the use of the word “probably” that I posted after the comment about them having crossed the $20,000 mark.

I’ve got a screen capture of it with the “awaiting moderation” banner so I know it was posted okay.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:35:23 +0000

Attention atheists, please research the kalam argument and William Lane Craig. It explains how the latest cosmological scientific theories are in support existence for a cause for the whole physical universe.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/how-to-defend-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-just-like-william-lane-craig/

Stop using play on words and old fallacious arguments. If you’re really interested to know the truth, then start digging into philosophy and modern scientific findings. Read from both sides or you will just be fooling yourselves.

By: Bosco Peters

Bosco Peters — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:04:43 +0000

It is interesting so far in this very good discussion, and thank you all for your positive contributions, that those arguing for atheism appear to be following certain pre-set lines, rather than actually engaging with the material in this thread. Those arguing for theism are responding to specific points made. No theists here have so far presented an exclusivist position, as it is termed in Philosophy of Religion, yet that is assumed in the arguments presented by atheists here. No theist has so far distracted the thread as atheists have by talking about different religions, rather than focus on the question at hand, “There’s probably no God?”

Thanks John for raising this thread from the alpha level of God being a “supernatural being” that I was wanting to move away from as I mentioned at the start, towards kappa and beyond, also for the link which adds the Ontological Argument, recently interestingly revived by Gödel and others, to the Cosmological Argument mentioned above (also recently revived, as noted there). I think, John, Paul in a comment above was offering $1000 you might like to claim ☺ (although he did switch from seeking a “definition” to wanting an “explanation” – whatever an “explanation of God” might mean).

@Chris
I do not think I need add anything to John’s response to your idea that only that which is measurable can have a physical effect on the world and thus have a point in our daily lives. As to your inability to find a single Christian who can explain why God “hides” – that, surely would be covered in the most basic apologetic text you must have turned to? CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters Chapter 8 surely must be known to many Christians that you have turned to – to pick just the first simple very well-known text that springs to my mind.

If there are new points not covered in the comments above, I hope people will continue to add them. Otherwise, thank you all again for the positive tone of this thread, and let us hope that this quality of discussion continues when the actual advertisements are run.