REPLY #21b TO|
Boldfaced statements are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
Italicized/emphasized comments prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.
My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text and are prefaced by my initials (MB).
This is the second of a three-part reply. Select the "Go to next reply" link at the end of each part to read the next part of the reply.
The jury would note that you have yet to explain why
the statement "God exists" is not a positive position and,
therefore, escapes bearing the burden of proof.
(R) It has been explained.
(MB) It has been rationalized -- not explained. All you have ever done to
refute it has been to restate your original claim and fail to understand the
basic logic involved.
Instead, you have chosen to justify it solely by saying that it
can't be disproven. That argument doesn't work to support any
other positive claim of the existence of any given phenomena. Why
should the jury accept it in this case?
(R) I don't justify my belief simply because it can't be disproved.
I justify it by saying it is impossible to either prove or disprove
whether or not God exists, and it is just as valid to conclude He
does as to conclude He does not.
(MB) That's merely saying the same thing in more words -- except it adds
additional logic errors and makes even less sense.
There has been no such inapplicability shown. The jury
would note that what has been shown is a misunderstanding of
those other beliefs.
(R) Inapplicability has been shown in every instance. The
examples have all fallen into one of three categories, though
number 2 seems to be the favorite: 1.) physical phenomenon,
subject to proof or disproof on the basis of physical evidence,
(MB) Since the debate involves whether or not God created the universe or that
it arose through natural causes, how could a discussion of the evidence for the
physical phenomena that comprises the whole of the universe possibly be
(R) 2.) fictional inventions, which by definition, cannot exist,
(MB) We have seen that you're hazy on your own definition of fiction while
failing to show how God can be considered to be anything other than fiction.
Again, this is hardly inapplicable.
(R) and 3.) supernatural phenomenon, which are very difficult to either prove
or disprove, and whose existence is probably related to the existence of God.
(MB) If we are to believe in anything supernatural, it is certainly applicable
to discuss such things. If we can't show that any such things exist, then they
can't be used as support for anything.
Also, there has been an avoidance of the
question of why a belief in God is superior to a belief in any
other deity and/or religion or to a belief in no deity or religion
at all. Before any particular religion can be shown to be equal
to or superior to science, it must first be shown to be equal to
or superior to any competing religious belief. They can't all be
(R) I haven't avoided this question at all, I've readily admitted
that unsupported beliefs in any deity, or in no deity at all, are equal,
with none inherently superior to the others. As a matter of fact, this
is my central argument.
(MB) Again, you do exactly what you deny doing. Can you understand that it is
impossible for two mutually-contradictory beliefs to both be true? If so, you
can't claim that all religious beliefs are equal. In fact, the only way they
could be considered to be equal is if they were all considered to be wrong!
Now, if you're willing to say that, I'll agree with you.
(R) As far as the question of "rightness" goes, it is highly unlikely that
any specific set of religious beliefs is entirely correct, however,
most may contain at least some element of truth and are, in part, right.
(MB) That's the analog of a work of fiction containing non-fictional elements.
The basic story itself remains fiction.
Simple dispute without specific rebuttal is not sufficient.
So far, the strongest argument in rebuttal has been "No, it
(R) Here are the maxims in question, and the previously stated
(MB) OK, let's review the nonsense...
(R) 1.) "If something exists, it can easily be proven to exist."
Things exist of which we do not have the knowledge or means to
prove their existence, yet they continue to exist despite the fact we
cannot easily prove they do. (ref. the planet Pluto)
(MB) True, but how this is supposed to refute my statement is beyond me.
Pluto's existence was confirmed when our accumulated knowledge and technology
made it possible. It was never within the realm of the supernatural. All we
had to do to prove its existence was spot it in the sky.
(R) 2.) "It is impossible to prove something does not exist."
All that is necessary to prove something does not exist is to
demonstrate something else which cannot allow it to exist. (ref.
carbon-based life on the moon)
(MB) I already showed how this is an invalid example as there are carbon-based
life forms on Earth which could survive on the Moon. Ignoring them is not a
refutation of my statement.
(R) 3.) "The statement that something exists bears the burden of
Any claim must stand or fall on its own merits. In the case of
opposing claims of existence, whichever has the weight of
conclusive evidence on its side is the one held to be true. If there is
no evidence and neither can be proven true, then neither is
inherently superior to the other.
These rebuttals did not merely say, "No, it doesn't," when they
were first stated, and they do not say that here.
(MB) These aren't rebuttals of what I said. In fact, you support it up until
the point where you drag out the "neither side has any support" nonsense again.
That's when you say "No, it doesn't" to the demand of logic that the positive
position bears the burden of proof.
So, you've swung and missed three times. You're out, I'm afraid...
The jury would also note that you have asked numerous
specific questions about scientific knowledge of various
phenomena. Normally, in these debates, these questions are
the preface to a claim that "Science doesn't know how it
works. Therefore, God must have done it". Unfortunately, I
have answered all of your questions so that tactic could not be
(R) I'm assuming you are again referring to the discussion of the
hydrogen atom. If so, you have miss-guessed my purpose, for
those questions are to illustrate our lack of understanding of the
(MB) If I answered all of your questions, how has that shown any lack of
(R) I never have to fall back on the argument you're
attempting to saddle me with. If there are any other points where
you think I do, please let me know so I can clarify my purpose for
you. That way, you won't have to engage in groundless
speculation about my motives.
(MB) You never got a chance to fall back on your ulterior motive since I
successfully answered all of your questions. Several times you have alluded to
a view that imperfect understanding means that God can't be ruled out. You're
not the only Christian apologist who has tried to support God by finding
Yet, despite this, the jury would notice a continued refusal to
acknowledge that there is any support for my position.
(R) Your position is that science proves there is no God.
(MB) Amazing! How many times will you continue to trot out this erroneous assessment?
Taking all of the aforementioned things into account, how
do you think the jury would decide?
(R) If this is your summation for the jury, you'd better re-think it.
It's got a couple of holes in it.
(MB) None have yet been demonstrated. So far, my case is airtight.
You have answered this one yourself. Questions of pure
philosophy, morality and politics are different from questions
of the reality of the universe.
(R) Such questions are different from questions of physical
reality, but there are realities other than that which is physical.
Philosophical, moral, political, and spiritual realities, to name a few.
Which are important because they affect the physical reality we
(MB) How are these things to be considered to be "realities"? Do they exist if
there are no humans to invent them? How do they affect physical reality in any
way? They laws of physics are not affected in any way by anything that humans
The universe could not have been created by philosophy.
Three quarks make a proton no matter which side of the political
aisle you occupy. "All men are created equal" is a statement of
philosophy and does not describe anything in physical reality.
(R) It sure does! It describes the ideal state of all human beings,
everywhere. It is absolutely, 100 percent true, whether you live in
America or China or Afghanistan. All men, all human beings, are
and by right ought to be, unequivocally equal before the law, their
fellow men, and God.
(MB) How can you make that claim? What natural law makes it unavoidable? How
is the physical reality of a human being affected by his philosophy? While I
certainly consider that sentiment to be a good one, there's nothing to support
it as being absolute truth everywhere and for everybody. In fact, it's hard to
support such a thing as being upheld by anything more than a minority of the
population of the Earth -- and they have only held it over the past few
In fact, it can't even be said to be philosophically true. It is
for Americans, of course, but how about for any society that still
promotes the old feudal system of varying degrees of nobility?
(R) All you have to do to demonstrate the validity of this basic
premise is consider the alternative. If all men are not created equal,
then some are superior to others. What is the basis of this
supposed superiority? Station of birth? Or race? Or some sort of
"evolutionary superiority," as in Social Darwinism? Even if any of
these bizarre and evil ideas were true (and they are *not*) they lead
to only one thing. They lead inexorably and inevitably to tyranny.
(MB) It all depends upon how you define "equal". Certainly you won't try to
argue that all men are physically and intellectually equal? According to the
Bible, God doesn't even believe that all men are equal. "Equal" in your sense
is another emotional argument -- which I thought you were trying to avoid.
(R) On the other hand, "All men are created equal," is the foundation
of freedom, and can be held to be philosophically true merely for
that reason. That the principle is not practiced in all countries
means nothing. It is still true, and is the foundation of the only just
form of government, democracy.
(MB) It's only philosophically true for those who believe that freedom and
democracy are the best. The fact that not all men and nations believe that
proves my point. Finally, our form of government is not a "democracy", we live
in a "republic".
The President of the United States is still essentially equal to
you and I, but try to tell a King that he is the equal of his subjects.
(R) There aren't a lot of absolute monarchs left in the world, but
what they think makes no difference to what is true.
(MB) That is silly. How can you define to them that their country's form of
government isn't "true"? If they really believed that they were wrong, they
wouldn't still be in power.
(R) In counter-point, try to tell your average Briton that he/she is inferior
Queen Elizabeth and see what answer you get.
(MB) I'd get absolute agreement from the majority of them. I know because I've
known and served with many Brits in the course of my military career. They may
not take the monarchy as seriously as they once did, but there aren't many of
them who won't kneel in Her Majesty's presence.
So, statements like this are not equivalent to statements that
claim the existence of some given phenomena and do not increase
basic knowledge. Therefore, I must ask again -- what other
positive positions do you hold simply because nobody can prove
they aren't so?
(R) Statements such "All men are created equal" have a direct
and vitally important effect on our day-to-day lives, and greatly
increase our basic understanding and knowledge of mankind's place
in the universe -- much more so than many of the theoretical
concepts of pure science.
(MB) The universe is totally unaffected by anything that Man thinks. It is
solely determined and guided by the laws of science. Man's philosophies only
have relevance to the people who believe in them and only at the time and place
where they are believed. Three centuries ago, you'd have been hard-pressed to
find a place where making a public statement that "All men are created equal"
wouldn't have caused you to be branded as a heretic, laughed out of town, or
dragged before the authorities and punished. This, by itself, should prove that
the statement is nothing but philosophy rather than any sort of absolute truth.
(R) What possible use to me in my daily
existence is the fact that three quarks make a proton?
(MB) It is of the most fundamental importance, since if it was not so, you
wouldn't *have* a daily existence! We wouldn't have to worry about whether or
not all men were created equal since there wouldn't be any men. If the basic
fundamentals of the universe aren't important to you, then what *is* important?
(R) I may not be able to prove that all men are created equal, but no
one will ever convince me they are not, and my belief can be
justified by that fact alone.
(MB) This is being "open-minded", I suppose?
(R) This is true of dozens of other beliefs I
hold, most of which can be traced directly to my belief in God -- the
fundamental premise of my philosophy of life.
(MB) So, this proves the point that a flawed premise leads to flawed
Any reasonable idea can be corrupted by the
predispositions inherent in strong beliefs.
(R) Hummm. Seems to me I've said this already, but you
disagreed by saying only religious people do such things.
(MB) Not true. Unreason, illogic and inappropriate use of sound ideas are not
exclusive to religion. It's just that it is more predominant therein since the
entirety of religion is based upon a fundamentally flawed premise that requires
more corruptions of reason for continued belief.
anyway, let me point out, Social Darwinism is not a reasonable
idea. It is nothing more than another attempt by those who would
practice tyranny to justify the idea that some men have the right to
rule others. It is no different in this way than the theory of divine
right. Distilled to its very essence, Social Darwinism, like its
grand-child, Nazism, is a theory of racial superiority. Such theories
lead inevitably to holocaust.
(MB) I think you're extrapolating beyond the scope of the original point. What
was originally branded "Social Darwinism" was merely an economic idea that
success arises through overcoming all competition. This is not "racial
superiority" by any stretch of the imagination. It's survival of the fittest
from an economics point-of-view. It was originally used to describe the
so-called "robber barons" of the late 1800's. But, making money was their
concern -- not ruling anybody else through tyranny or any other political means.
The conditions that gave rise to the robber barons arose when the government
relaxed restrictions on business in order to try to rebuild the economy after
the devastations of the Civil War. To equate it with Nazism is nonsense.
Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.0 .......... Last Update: 04 Jun 98
Earthlink Network Home Page
Go to next reply
Return to "Religion" essay
Back to Philosophy page