| "It is a function of the welfare state to turn adults into children." » |
Debate on God: "Absurdity of the Converse"
I have a long-time friend who I grew up with and is also a fellow bulldog. He knew me "back when" I was a Christian. Somewhere amidst the business of growing up I gave up my beliefs (See my category on religion). However, its only been a relatively recent phenomena that I've managed to catch up old friends on my changes in philosophy.
All of that is a bit of back story. Matt is a good friend and we agreed to have a little fun with some debate on the topic of religion. I challenged Matt to make a "case for God" and he obliged with his post Absurdity of the Converse (AotC). Therein, Matt notes:
The case for God that I maintain is that without Him, I wouldn't be able to make a case for anything. The proof of the existence of God is the absurdity of the converse. The atheist has no rational way to account for universal abstracts, particularly laws of thought (e.g. laws of logic, moral absolutes). Any use of the immaterial cannot be explained by the atheist.
AotC strikes me as an argument that presumes the conclusion (Perhaps the fallacy of many questions). Said differently, for someone who believes in God, the idea that God does not exist must be absurd.
As a non-believer, I'd rebut with a similar claim:
The theist* has no rational way to account for the existence of God. If God exists, where? If God exists, how does God interact with existence? Simply put: the theist believes in the immaterial, though it cannot be rationally proven. To an atheist this notion is absurd — thus, the absurdity of the converse cuts both ways.
Beyond the above, I'd argue that moral absolutes and laws of logic are human constructs. They are ideas / information / postulates. Is 2+2=4 proof of God's existence? If so, how?
One might argue that God commanded certain moral absolutes - i.e. the ten commandments or maybe even the laws of physics; however, this again presupposes the conclusion. Even assuming scientifically provable "laws" somehow prove God's existence (Though the mechanics here are all but clear), we still have the problem of turtles all the way down.
*Using this term loosely to refer to a believer in God.