Resting my case
I rest my case, or to put it differently, I give up. I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to argue religion with an Atheist. The playing field isn't level. We don't work with the same building blocks.
The problem is simply that the theist's world is bigger than that of the atheist. By that I mean that the theist accepts the supernatural (that is things outside of nature) as well as the Natural, while the atheist only accepts the latter. Arguments stemming from the supernatural are not accepted by the atheist.
An analogy to this would be to try and argue with someone who don't accept the complex number system that the square root of negative one is not only possible, but is equal to i. I am aware that this analogy is perhaps too simple, even ridiculous, but the point is that the theist has more to work with. Of course we can still argue about the validity of things derived from supernatural principles. We could even argue that accepting the supernatural detracts from proper natural investigation. But neither of these should detract from my argument.
I believe in the current world, very little convincing arguments remain on the Natural side. Whatever remains is suitably explained away by Gap theory or by claiming that science will eventually provide an answer. The supernatural arguments are not admissible. One could say that as far as the atheist goes (those that are convinced of their position), all questions worth asking has either been answered, or can reasonably be expected to be answered in the near future.
As such, the theist has very little to work with when arguing with the atheist. I'd go as far as saying you might as well give up. We will forever be perplexed by the basic believes held by the other group.
There ends my basic argument. One more question, separate from this, would be whether it is at all possible to swing the committed atheist. The answer to this is yes, but it will not be the works of a man. Perhaps the Apostle Paul said this best:I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
The problem is simply that the theist's world is bigger than that of the atheist. By that I mean that the theist accepts the supernatural (that is things outside of nature) as well as the Natural, while the atheist only accepts the latter. Arguments stemming from the supernatural are not accepted by the atheist.
An analogy to this would be to try and argue with someone who don't accept the complex number system that the square root of negative one is not only possible, but is equal to i. I am aware that this analogy is perhaps too simple, even ridiculous, but the point is that the theist has more to work with. Of course we can still argue about the validity of things derived from supernatural principles. We could even argue that accepting the supernatural detracts from proper natural investigation. But neither of these should detract from my argument.
I believe in the current world, very little convincing arguments remain on the Natural side. Whatever remains is suitably explained away by Gap theory or by claiming that science will eventually provide an answer. The supernatural arguments are not admissible. One could say that as far as the atheist goes (those that are convinced of their position), all questions worth asking has either been answered, or can reasonably be expected to be answered in the near future.
As such, the theist has very little to work with when arguing with the atheist. I'd go as far as saying you might as well give up. We will forever be perplexed by the basic believes held by the other group.
There ends my basic argument. One more question, separate from this, would be whether it is at all possible to swing the committed atheist. The answer to this is yes, but it will not be the works of a man. Perhaps the Apostle Paul said this best:I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
posted by ispburger at 7:22 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home