Proof of God’s Existence- Introduction

“What would constitute an adequate proof, to you, for the existence of God?” It’s a common question on the tip of many a Christian’s tongue when confronted with skepticism regarding their theistic worldview, yes? Responses from skeptics generally revolve around some kind of convincing display(s) of ‘miraculous’ interventions, or other manifestations i.e. events beyond the generally accepted, deterministic norms of the most current naturalistic paradigm, and supported by scientific methodology such as observation, controlled testing, repeatability and the like. Christians counter such requirements on several fronts. Some of the more common responses are:

God exists in a supernatural realm beyond our means of investigation.

Many, if not most, real events are neither observable nor repeatable, such as Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon.

There is no clear distinction between natural and so-called supernatural events,

All so-called ‘proof’ has a subjective element, so there’s really no such thing as absolute proof for ANYTHING. Everything is a matter of belief to some degree, from gods to puppy dogs.

God purposefully confounds any naturally-based investigations aimed His way-to test the saints, to get people to concentrate more on the ‘spiritual’ side of their lives, or simply because he likes rubbing skeptics’ noses in their own limitations.

Of course, all these arguments would work equally well in defending claims which are held to be patently untrue by the huge majority of human beings alive today, from the existence of leprechauns, to Richard Dawkin’s Flying Spaghetti Monster. Within the mental space of all hypothesized possibilities, all things are possible. We could argue all day (and many people do) about the details of what constitutes proof, or evidence, or even what might be more likely amongst competing premises. But these sorts of conversations rarely lead anywhere productive. I’ve always believed that constructive dialogue has to proceed from commonly accepted experiential ground; otherwise, things are destined to spiral downward into fruitless contests comprised of words about words, and nothing more. Perhaps not so surprisingly, many apologists I’ve read and interacted with seem right at home in these muddy waters, where every otherwise assumed factually oriented statement is punctuated by an epistemic question mark. It’s always frustrating; and, more to the point, fruitless when it comes to ascertaining where the truth actually lies. Argument for arguments sake, is the way I see it.

However, for argument’s sake I’m willing to concede, for the purposes of this series, to the apologist’s gambit that all statements of fact, or proofs, are actually merely opinions to one extent or another. What I’m not willing to entertain is the idea that all opinions are of equal value, or veracity. Most apologists I know would agree with this, EXCEPT when it comes to seriously weighing the evidence supporting their own theistic worldviews...especially as the field of inquiry narrows in on the particulars of their own more-or-less distinct religious beliefs. When that happens, suddenly the common-sense practice we use everyday in the weighing of evidences goes out the window, and the investigative bar is lowered to what amounts to “Your proofs are as crappy as ours, so we’ll stick to the convictions that make us comfortable, thank you very much!”

When I say common-sense practices, I’m generally challenged as to what the term ‘common-sense’ might entail; and that, indeed, common-sense is not nearly so common as I might imply. Furthermore, I seem to be hung on my own petard philosophically speaking since, as an atheist, the things I believe concerning the alleged existence of certain deities are quite UNcommon amongst the world’s populace. Fair enough. My rebuttal is that there are, indeed, areas of life in which our normative habits of investigating reality are thrown out the window. There are psychological reasons for why this is so, but I don’t intend to go into them here. Instead, I’d like to demonstrate, by a series of hypothetical examples, just how common-sense inquiry naturally proceeds, and how the processing of this inquiry leads to what we call ‘belief’. I’ll also take a stab at differentiating between the notion of ‘belief’ and ‘fact’; and while from a purely epistemic position this appears to be a hopeless case, it is a ‘fact’ that we draw such distinctions all the time, and that, indeed, religion is not immune from the same sorts of questions and judgments that we make from moment to moment in our everyday lives.

An Open Letter to Spanish Inquisitor, PhillyChief, John Evo, The Chaplain, That Other Guy, Ildi, and Any Others Who Are Sick and Tired of cl...

First of all, most of us who’ve dealt with the notorious cl for any length of time know what the guy’s all about, so I won’t waste anybody’s time revisiting the details. We’ve all said our pieces many times over, most recently here, which was precipitated by a thread conversation here. Many of us have in times past suggested that we just ignore the guy. Easy to say. Hard to do...or, so it seems. The reasons for this run the gamut from best intentions to perverse satisfaction. But I think it’s plain to most that dialoguing with cl is fruitless. cl does, indeed, ‘suck the life out of the threads’, his presence virtually guaranteeing a derailment of whatever’s being discussed. Agreed?

What I’d like to suggest is a pact amongst the likeminded- the ‘haters’ as cl surely would dub us- to simply ignore the guy. I know, I know! LOL! Easy to say, yes? But it’s become absolutely crystal clear to me that cl does not have the ability to play well with others. At least, not with those who seriously challenge him. The funny thing is, though, this guy lives and dies on his special brand of contention, the kind we’re all sickeningly familiar with. We all know that what cl fears the most is inattention. So why not all of us give him some of that kind of medicine, in spades! Oh, I know at first it’ll be very, very tempting to default, as he uses every horseshitish trick in his book to try and gain control of the threads. But if everybody concerned would just hold fast to this one maxim- IGNORE CL- and as he found himself cut off from the negative energy he needs to feed himself, eventually the guy’s gonna slither off to better hunting grounds, no? At least, that’s my take on it.

Look, we’ve all been over the same ground again and again with cl. The writing’s on the wall, man! But all of us who complain about him have the power to end this shit. We can simply pretend he’s not there. When we see his comments in the thread, we can simply scroll right past then, and continue the conversation minus the headache. He needs this stuff, but...do we? And, hey! I’m not pointing any fingers here; I’m at least as guilty as everybody else for feeding this troll, probably more than many. But isn’t everybody sick to death of his crap- of his lies, and utter bad faith argumentation?

I’m sure this suggestion won’t play well with cl/kirkc/sfatheist/etc/etc/etc, but if we can manage to hang tough with this persona non grata approach, I truly believe all of our blogs will be the better for it. For those of you who like cl, or support him for this or that reason, or whatever, well...I’m really not talking to you. You can feel free to ignore all this, and continue on continuing on, including lambasting me for making such a godawful, antifreedomofspeech suggestion. But I know that many of you feel this is the right thing to do, only the dynamic of blogging often makes the temptation of responding to trolls too great to pass up. Well, I’m just suggesting that you pass it up, anyway, and I’ll do my best to do the same. For myself, I intend to simply breeze on by anything with ‘cl’ attached to it, and continue as if he isn’t even there. I’m not saying it’ll be easy, but I know it’s for the best. I am so sick and tired of seeing interesting post after interesting post turned into the ‘Look at ME, I’m cl’ show, and I know that at least some of you feel the same way. Let’s do something about it, before another six months rolls around and I read YET ANOTHER THREAD about how justified and unjustified evidences boil down to the same thing, about how science is really just faith, about how all the mean ol’ atheists are just following Philly’s lead in attacking cl because his arguments are just so gosh darned better, and especially before I read YET ANOTHER GODDAMNED RENDITION ABOUT THOSE FUCKING VIDEOGAMES FALLING OFF THE GODDAMNED TV!. Enough, already! LOLOLOL!

Comments are open, though I will continue to ban those who post simply to disrupt. My call.

P.S. This message applies to cl clones as well. ‘Nuff said.