Re: God

Daniel Gilliland (
Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:38:21 -0700 (MST)

David A. Musick wrote:
> My belief is that unless a theory is logically inconsistent or disagrees
> with experiential evidence, then it cannot be rejected entirely. Of
> course, theories with much supporting evidence should be considered more
> applicable to reality than those with little or none. But there is no
> rational basis for *rejecting* a theory without sufficient evidence
> against it.

What theory are atheists rejecting? The statement "God exists" is a
null theory. What does it tell us? What can it predict? How can it even
be inconsistent or compared to experimental evidence, when it tells us
nothing? At least Christianity goes past "God exists" to describe further
implications, as inconsistent and disagreeable as those implications might
be. There's no use in entertaining a theory unless it has some describable
effect. You are right, atheists cannot prove there are no gods, but the
**burden of proof is not theirs**. I doubt you would complain anywhere near
as much when I say that there is no small band playing in my radio. It is
certainly *possible*, within the laws of physics, that hitherto-unknown small
people of Earth occupy my radio, and are now playing a stunning variety of
modern music, but it is so unlikely that I feel entirely rational when I say
that it is not occurring... but that's just a closed-minded atheist talking.

Do a websearch for "James Randi" or "Occam's Razor" sometime.