Reason Prostituted

There's no evidence for God's existence. This is a popular claim of atheists. But no matter how you try to argue for evidence for God or supernaturalism, they don't accept it and keep claiming there is no evidence. What to do? Put them to provide evidence for their atheistic and naturalistic worldview. See these articles: How to Respond to a Supercilious Atheist. Presumption of Atheism and the ‘Insufficient Evidence’ Objection to Belief in God.

"There's no reason to believe in God" says the atheist, "there's no evidence of his existence". "But what is the evidence that God does not exist" replies the theist. "Sure you have faith that God does not exist". "I don't have to provide evidence that God does not exist more than the evidence I have to provide to show that Santa does not exist. If you are congruent and reject the existence of Santa you should also reject the existence of God. Where's the proof that Santa does not exist?” Such is a line of reasoning popular among atheists. I call it "the Santa Claus argument". It conveys the idea that God is a fiction character. But what is the basis of this idea? It seems to be based in the idea that God does not exist. But if this is the case, this argument (sic) is question begging, because this is precisely the issue at stake. Some atheists seem to imply that God does not exist because the concept of God is a hu

There is no agreement about the definition of atheism, not even in those who call themselves atheists. Some authors say that atheism is denial of God. That is the most popular definition among non-atheists, and is often contrasted to agnosticism. Others say that atheism is lack of belief in God, and that this lack of belief doesn't necessarily imply denial of the existence of God. This is the definition that is most used by internet atheists, and is used to effectively avoid the burden of the proof. These atheists say they don't have to prove the non existence of God. Those who claim that God exists are the ones obliged to prove that God exists, no the other way around. They elevate this to a general epistemological principle. This definition of atheism as a lack of belief allows the atheist to appear neutral and ingenuous about the issue of God, without the need to call themselves "agnostics", label that is despised by atheists for being too weak. In order to disting

The traditional arguments for the existence of God, even when they don't achieve their purpose, at least help us to discern a concept of Her. Such is the case of the teleological argument, also known as argument from design, that, when put together with the cosmological argument, gives us an idea of what we should understand when we are talking about God. The teleological argument can be understood as an analogy between the things the human being create and the things that exist in nature. Intelligence is the ability that allows the capacity of creation for the human being. The teleological argument says that there should be something analogous to the human intelligence that has created the things that exists in nature. The cosmological argument is based in the idea that everything has a cause, reason of being or explanation, even when we don't know it. Based in this principle, we reached the conclusion that everything that exists must have an ultimate explanation, which is the

It is not necessary to think about the Supreme Being as a personal god. Pantheism claims the Universe is God, that God is all that exists. This does not mean the God of theism is equivalent to the Universe. That would be absurd because Theism clearly distinguish the Creator from Creation. Pantheistic conceptions are found everywhere in oriental religions. In occidental tradition, Baruch Spinoza was the philosopher who stood out in defense of Pantheism. Spinoza’s pantheism was a monism of one only substance and many attributes. He believed in some kind of pre-designer Soul who committed suicide in the act of creation of matter. Some people believe the Universe is some kind of living being. But the pantheism that interests me, and that can also be interesting to atheists is Naturalistic Pantheism, the one that some call Scientific Pantheism. (I considered this last term an oxymoron). Naturalistic Pantheism is based in the feeling of awe and amazement that some people feel when contempl

The concept of God profiled in the ontological argument of Saint Anselm is that of a distant and impassible God: incapable of experimenting surprise, incapable of feeling any kind of emotion she can’t risk anything. Pascal was right in his rejections of this cold philosophical god, choosing instead a more biblical faith. This philosophical theism is not compatible with practical theism that is lived in Christian religion. The simple act of prayer seeks to influence God, but trying to influence God is pointless when she is conceived as the Absolute. It’s no wonder many believers of orthodox piety are trying to make a reformulation of their faith in order to make it more open and existential than metaphysical. A relational approach to theology drives us to reject the concept of a distant and cold god, locked in his infinitude. Process Theology Whitehead and Harshorne were the ones to provide a philosophical frame for a more biblical and practical theism. (Whitehead was co-author with B