Atheism includes any philosophy which claims that no God or gods exist, including any rational or reasoning creator of the universe.
Keywords: Atheism, Philosophy, God, Rational, Veracity, False, Belief, Reason, Contradictory, Argument From Reason.
Atheistic claims are false .
Any view regarding the external world that denies the possibility of rational thought regarding the external world prohibits warrant for the deductive process and is thus deductively false.
Premise 1: If premises begin to exist without reason, then conclusions drawn from them are also without reason.
Premise 2: If there is no god, all initial human premises about the external world begin to exist without reason.
Conclusion: Therefore, if there is no god, all human conclusions about the external world are also without reason.
If there is no god, there is no reason to accept the universality or the invariance of logic or the deductive process, making atheistic claims themselves deductively false.
This Argument from Reason demonstrates that god exists.
In Printed Form
Along with numerous other authors including Don Landis, Bodie Hodge and Roger Patterson, Timothy McCabe contributes analyses of various world religions and cults in this volume from Master Books.
"Why are books of faith, such as the Bible or Koran, seething with so much violence? Do you think that there is a relationship between the violence that has been perpetrated in the name of religion and the books of faith?"
The word "violence" often carries with it a connotation of evil. However, the definition of the word does not necessitate any kind of moral association. According to dictionary.com, the first definition of violence is "swift and intense force". Thus, we could comfortably say that a batter hits a baseball with violence, or a carpenter drives a nail into a piece of wood with violence. I can think of no one who would find these violent tasks to be inherently evil.
"Is there a question to which you all would give the same - or almost the same - answer?"
I certainly can't speak authoritatively for the opinion of anyone other than myself, but it seems to me that everyone can easily be convinced to agree that if something is, then it is; and also that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same way. In other words, the Laws of Logic are valid. An interesting point to note, however, is that holding to the Laws of Logic can only be rationally justified under Christian assumptions.
"If there is a God, but there is no evidence to be found for his existence except subjective experiences, is it not reasonable to assume that if he does exist, he does not want us to know about it?"
The conclusion does not seem reasonable to me. First, the premise is very unclear, and I will explain what I mean. Second, in the only way I can see that the premise could be considered true, the conclusion does not seem to be reasonably based on it. AN UNCLEAR PREMISE First, the premise seems unclear in that it seems to suggest that evidence is the only way to justifiably be convinced of something. But note that rational thought cannot exist without reason behind it.