I played the game. I got to question 14 before taking a hit. I took two hits and had to bite the bullet once. Here's my response to those hits:
The question was: "As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality." And I took a hit with this statement: "Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith." Here's the problem: It is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist in the absence of strong evidence that it does, but that doesn't make the belief any less a matter of faith. It is a logically valid position to take. It is logically valid, even with all of the evidence that God does exist (there's far more evidence that God exists than there is of the Loch Ness Monster) to be an atheist, because, while there is ample evidence of God, there isn't enough to make belief in God as obvious a conclusion that the sun shines. Whether you believe in God or not, the evidence can only sway you so far in either direction, at some point all belief about God is a matter of pure faith. Since faith is irrational, it is not irrational to believe or disbelieve in either God or the Loch Ness monster. Another hit: "In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet." Just because it is possible for God to do something, doesn't mean He will do it. God can make an infinite number of angels dance on a pin, but there is no reason to believe that He will. Since God exists outside the universe, our conception of reality and rationality, from God's perspective is limited. We can have a rational discussion about God, even though it is possible for God to make 1+1=72, because we only have the order of this universe available to us on which to base rational claims. We are constrained by our limited vision, not God's ability. There is no logical disconnect between believing that God can make 1+1=72 and believing that he won't. God is not a jester. He's provided us with a logically predictable universe. Any rational discussion about God will take this into account. And to bite the bullet: "Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!" It's not a contradiction because a person can base his or her faith on whatever basis he or she chooses. It is justifiable to have no external evidence and still believe in God. It is also justifiable to believe in God based on evidence. These are not mutually exclusive points of view. It is not valid for me to attack another person's beliefs because he reached his conclusions through a different method than me. A person has right to belief through whatever method he or she chooses. The response to my answers presupposes that it is logical for me to criticize another person's method at arriving at a faith-based answer. I believe this is not only logically false, but ethically wrong. H. ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
