I don't normally post something so large, but I think to understand this argument, this chunk needs to be put together.  Scroll to the bottom for the link to the article.  Your comments are appreciated!

"Now this may seem too whimsical to be taken seriously, but the important point is this: however one envisions convincing scientific evidence of God, let's suppose we've got it. Let's further suppose that this god is pretty much the god we all expected to find -- not Aristotle's reclusive thought-contemplating-itself god or Plato's disappointingly limited Demiurge, but the "golden rule," Ten Commandments kind of god with whom we are all pretty familiar. This God is now on the same footing as gravity, evolution, and the germ theory of disease. He is an accepted scientific fact. Now what?


Well nothing major -- only the end of both atheism and Christianity. If scientific atheists are true to their convictions, then it seems that they have no choice but to become theists. Their worldview is based on evidence and the evidence says there's a god.

But it's also the end of Christianity. For those who find Christianity to be a stubbornly abhorrent strain of the religion virus, this ought to be a moment of much rejoicing. How so? A fundamental tenet of Christianity is free will. It is no stretch to say that Christianity without free will is simply not Christianity anymore. The Christian God grants humans free will and will not interfere with its exercise. Humans are free to believe or not believe, free to follow God's laws or free to sin and separate themselves from God. God condemns no one. People condemn themselves. This is all standard, mainline Christian theology and it all gets utterly demolished by convincing scientific evidence of God.

We really aren't free to believe or not believe in germs, gravity, evolution or other firmly established scientific facts. We can foolishly try to deny them, but their effects are with us and their laws hold regardless of our attitude. If I jump off a cliff, it matters not a whit whether I believe in gravity; I'm gonna fall. The laws of physics, Mendelian genetics, viral contagion, etc. -- my beliefs about these things are irrelevant. I follow their dictates. I suffer or enjoy their consequences.

The Christian God is not supposed to be like that (at least not in this life). His laws are not the laws of physics. One believes in him and follows his laws out of love and gratitude, not because of being compelled by necessity. It's my choice if I want to hate my neighbor. If I see a greater immediate gain from not doing unto others, then I should be able to do that and God can't get in my way. But if God is like gravity, then I will suffer the consequences of breaking his laws just as surely as I'll break my neck if I step off a cliff. Love of God is as meaningless as love of the inverse square law. "

Read the rest here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-j-rossano/would-evidence-for-god...

What think you??

Tags: belief, god, physics, science

Views: 10

Replies to This Discussion

I didn't include this passage, but I think he puts eloquently a thought I often have: "For those who believe, hints of God are everywhere. But none are convincing."
What your saying is what if what does exist were over run by that which can not exist.
There is no sense in this.
I call shenanigans. There are several branches of Christianity that reject free will already. Additionally, even if you know that such a god exists, that would force no one to worship it. For instance, in Christian mythology, the Devil knew God and still rebelled.

Additionally, already existent data shows we can violate "God's laws". It isn't like gravity didn't exist before we discovered the equations that it works by. People would be just as free to worship nonsense or nothing at all just as they are now.

Lastly:
We really aren't free to believe or not believe in germs, gravity, evolution or other firmly established scientific facts. We can foolishly try to deny them, but their effects are with us and their laws hold regardless of our attitude.

Ha! Of COURSE people believe and don't believe in the science. They are scientific facts, but that doesn't mean you have to believe them. You are free to be wrong. If a god exists, you'd still be free to be wrong.

The writer is a moron. Okay, that's unfair, I'm only judging from the block excerpts...does the writer later say "Just kidding!"?
...however one envisions convincing scientific evidence of God, let's suppose we've got it. Let's further suppose that this god is pretty much the god we all expected to find -- not Aristotle's reclusive thought-contemplating-itself god or Plato's disappointingly limited Demiurge, but the "golden rule," Ten Commandments kind of god with whom we are all pretty familiar.

This article belongs in a philosophy group.

Nonetheless, the assumption upon which it is founded (that a good just god can be reasonably hypothesized) is absurd on its face for the following reasons:

1.) As a loving being such a god would not want to subjugate thus making the Christian, Judaic and Islamic concepts of it self-contradictory in nature.
2.) In having free will it would be able to become evil thus again (and more comprehensively) making it self-contradictory in nature.

Consequently, the proposition that scientific evidence might be discovered that justifies the making of a hypothesis that a good just god exists must be false and, in this, not worth entertaining.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service