Ten Things Christians Should Keep In Mind When Debating Atheists

[Margee]

I was given permission (by John W. Loftus) to share these ten important points that Christians Should Keep in Mind When Debating Atheists. I found these to be really good!!

 

1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Consequently, the burden of proof is on the theist rather than the atheist.

 

2. Science has radically altered how we understand the universe, so theism must grapple with the implications of science before offering prescientific beliefs as truth.

 

3. There is a gap between natural theology and revealed theology. Arguing for a prime mover is not the same thing as arguing for any faith tradition.

 

4. An atheist is under no obligation to take your theology seriously. It's your belief, you need to justify it in secular terms. Just as a Hindu or a Scientologist would.

 

5. The problem of miracles is a serious challenge that must be overcome for any testimony or private revelation of the divine to be taken as veridical.

 

6. Faith is not an [sound] epistemology, and the retreat to faith is a concession of the failure of the belief to be defended on rational grounds.

 

7. The link between theism and morality has been conceptually (Euthyphro dilemma), empirically (evolutionary ethics), and culturally (morality existing without theism) discredited. Thus coupling God with the notion of Good is not only misleading, but trying to own a fundamental aspect of the human condition.

 

8. Atheism is not materialism. Materialism is a scientific doctrine, while atheism is a stance on the position of gods. Arguing against materialism is not going to make the case for theism.

 

9. Atheism is a conclusion, not a worldview. Atheism is not an answer to life, the universe, and everything - just the conclusion that theism isn't.

 

10. Attack the arguments for what is said, not what isn't. Though this should apply to everyone - not just theists. Arguing against interpretations not in the text is setting up a caricature, as is arguing against uncharitable interpretations of what is said.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Thanks, Margee, brilliant.

 

Could someone please explain 3 and 8 for me?

[Deidre]

This is very insightful!

 

I learned something a long time ago, it's a rather famous quote but very poignant to all of this.

 

"To a non-believer, no explanation will ever be enough, and to a believer, none is necessary."

 

I will plant seeds with theists, but I'm done "debating" them because being a theist once myself, looking back no one could "talk me out of my beliefs." Atheism is something one comes to on his/her own.

 

Nice thread, Margee!

[DoubtingNate]

I think 9 is really really important. Non belief is not a position to be defended. It is a perspective that asks others to try harder at defending THEIR position.

 

For me it really boils down to the criteria for 'evidence.' Good evidence makes accurate predictions; Christianity, time and time again fails to predict anything that corresponds with reality.

[Jedah]

Number 9 really is important, because so many theists completely fail to understand it. They seem to think that atheism claims to have all the answers that they are currently getting from theism, when the reality is almost exactly the opposite. Atheism is the rejection that the religious answers are correct, and then from that point on all answers are found from philosophy and science.

 

http://reason-being.com/index.php/2013/02/22/debating-theists-i-dont-know-is-an-acceptable-answer/

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 Things Christians DO Think About When Debating Atheists

 

1.  jesus is real, neener neener NEENER!

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.  You are so going to hell.

[DoubtingNate]

Gods word is the only thing stopping us from murdering everyone!!!

[Neverlandrut]

Most of them don't understand the burden of proof. Consequently, many of them try to shift the burden of proof to the atheist. They don't understand that a lack of belief does not require justification because it makes no claim. The one making the claim has the burden of proof. If

They fail to meet that burden, then the atheist is not obliged to accept the claim. Many respond by saying, "You can't prove me wrong!" They fail to understand that the inability prove something wrong does not render it correct by default. If we accepted as true every claim that could not be proven false, then we would have no basis for determining reality.

[MitoXon]

Christians doesn't really make sense. I plant my seeds in some christians I talk to, I don't think I will ever talk them out of it. There is no proof of god. I have prayed so many times, and it always goes unanswered.

[Wololo]

I want to step in as a newcomer to these forums.

 

God isn't provable or unprovable in empirical terms. God necessarily exists outside the universe (so as not to be affected by it). You can't prove or disprove something that is not bound by the rules of the universe. Asking Christians to empirically prove his existence is asking a false question. You can't empirically prove love exists. You can't empirically prove that the number 2 exists. Anything that is abstract is proven only through logic and/or philosophy or something like that.

 

To argue that God exists because of the natural world is not going to work. We shouldn't do it. The argument for God exists philosophically, not physically.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I want to step in as a newcomer to these forums.

 

God isn't provable or unprovable in empirical terms. God necessarily exists outside the universe (so as not to be affected by it). You can't prove or disprove something that is not bound by the rules of the universe. Asking Christians to empirically prove his existence is asking a false question. You can't empirically prove love exists. You can't empirically prove that the number 2 exists. Anything that is abstract is proven only through logic and/or philosophy or something like that.

 

To argue that God exists because of the natural world is not going to work. We shouldn't do it. The argument for God exists philosophically, not physically.

Why do you believe god exists?

[sdelsolray]

I want to step in as a newcomer to these forums.

…

 

Welcome.

 

…

God isn't provable or unprovable in empirical terms.

…

 

 

FIrst things first.  Please define this "God".

 

"Proving" only applies in mathematics and logic, not in science.  Science deals with empirical evidence and the inferences that can be drawn from it.

 

…

God necessarily exists outside the universe (so as not to be affected by it).

…

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.  Please define "universe".  Let me help.  Let's define "universe" as everything that exists.  Using that definition, this "God", if it exists, is part of the universe.  Of course we know that this God exists in the minds of believers in that God.  Thus, this God (existing only in the minds of believers) is within the universe.

 

Simple.

 

…You can't prove or disprove something that is not bound by the rules of the universe.

…

 

 

What are the "rules of the universe"?

 

…

Asking Christians to empirically prove his existence is asking a false question.

…

 

Perhaps.  But that is not the question often asked.  The question, more accurately put, is, "Do you have empirical evidence supporting your mere assertion that this God exists?"

 

…

You can't empirically prove love exists.

…

 

 

No, but I can provide significant relevant empirical evidence which strongly suggests that love exists, according to an agreed definition of the word "love".

 

…

You can't empirically prove that the number 2 exists.

…

 

Sure I can.  You just used it in a sentence.

 

The number "2" is a human mental construct used as a descriptor of a certain quantity of some things.

 

…Anything that is abstract is proven only through logic and/or philosophy or something like that.

…

 

Nothing is proven in philosophy.  Ever.

 

It seems like you are claiming your "God" is abstract.

 

…

To argue that God exists because of the natural world is not going to work. We shouldn't do it.

…

Good, because that would be a fallacious argument.

 

…

The argument for God exists philosophically, not physically.

Really?  So, do you claim there is no empirical evidence supporting the claim for the actual existence of this "God" (the one I asked you to define above)?

 

Homework assignment:  Study the Special Pleading Fallacy.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I want to step in as a newcomer to these forums.

 

God isn't provable or unprovable in empirical terms. God necessarily exists outside the universe (so as not to be affected by it). You can't prove or disprove something that is not bound by the rules of the universe. Asking Christians to empirically prove his existence is asking a false question. You can't empirically prove love exists. You can't empirically prove that the number 2 exists. Anything that is abstract is proven only through logic and/or philosophy or something like that.

 

To argue that God exists because of the natural world is not going to work. We shouldn't do it. The argument for God exists philosophically, not physically.

This is nothing more than an eloquent dodge.  To begin with you assert that god exists outside of this universe; if I follow your argument to its logical conclusion, you would need to accept my claim that, according to your own words, god does not exist in this universe.  Then we could toy around with the multi-verse hypothesis and try to figure out if god exists in some other universe.  You, no doubt, would claim god exists outside of all universes, and I would ask you to accept, again by your own words, that god does not exist.

 

Secondly, if jesus is god, and if jesus really lived on earth, and if jesus really does come into your heart if you ask him to, then god necessarily does exist within the universe and has, at least as far as being crucified, been affected by it.  Moreover, the holy spirit, which baptizes and empowers all True Believers^TM does so within the confines of the same planet of the same galaxy in the same universe as those who killed jesus.  So, as you can see, your mere assertion is so flimsy that it can be completely undone by christian doctrine--a rare quality indeed.

 

Thirdly, no one can prove or disprove the existence of the loch ness monster, bigfoot, or leprechauns.  Do you believe they exist?  Based upon you logic, you either do believe in them or you are an incredible hypocrite.  

 

Lastly, whatever can or cannot be proven, the simple fact is that everything you believe in is founded upon faith.  Faith is, by definition, acceptance without proof.  Here's another thing that none of us can prove or disprove: your own existence.  You might be a genuine person out there somewhere who set up an account because you think that we haven't heard any of your arguments before; or, I might have set up your account just to fuck with people.  Can you prove otherwise?  I may not be able to prove that my son's love for me is true, but he provides me with evidence on a daily basis that it is.  I'm not required to accept his love on faith; I have proof that, at least, supports the claim.

[Wololo]

@sdelsolray:

God is not something you can define with any sort of completeness. Let's go over a few things.

 

There are several reasons why God can't exist as part of the universe. The most important reason is that the creator of the universe can't exist inside it. If God created the universe, he can't be encompassed by it. That would be illogical. He can't be limited by it either. To exist inside the universe and be bound by its laws is not possible if you created it. This is why science is irrelevant to the discussion of God. The one who allegedly created the universe can't be bound by its rules. This is why if God exists, he can't be inside the universe in his entirety. Perhaps only as a manifestation. This is why that discussion is a dead end. Nobody can prove he exists or doesn't exist by using science (which is about questions, not answers ANYWAY).

 

The universe is everything physical in existence. I would dispute that there are things that are nonphysical, and that they exist irrespective of the universe...such as numbers...or concepts like love. There is a lot more to that argument. God would have to be nonphysical, and would have to exist outside of the universe. It makes us uncomfortable to consider anything outside of the universe because it cannot be verified empirically. There issues with empiricism though.

 

No, I don't have empirical evidence for his existence, because God as a whole cannot be a physical entity. We can turn the flashlight on in the dark room, but we shouldn't assume that everything in the room is going to be lit up by that type of light. Maybe we need a UV light or another kind of light to reveal things that are nonphysical. That's the general idea.

 

The rules of the universe I was referring to are physical ones that we have discovered by asking scientific questions and exploring. Science is a powerful, wonderful tool and I encourage everyone to use it to keep from fooling themselves about such things.

 

I want to cut to the core here in terms of my neoplatonic framework as opposed to materialism. How do you tell one configuration of matter from another? How can you tell the difference between 2 pennies, and 2 cathedrals? They are both 2 objects, but not the same. What makes the distinction between the two types of objects? I can answer those questions easily, but I want to know what you think. How can you tell a lump of coal from a piece of paper? The reason I ask these questions is because I assert that numbers are nonphysical concepts that can be manifest physically. The number 2 exists without matter. Love exists without things that love. If you were to wipe out everything in existence, concepts would remain.

 

Ah, but science never proves anything either. It's the question, not the answer. Many of our 'scientific' beliefs from 1000 years ago have been long abandoned. We're constantly learning more and more through the process of science, but it will never truly be complete. Science is much like philosophy in that it's a tool used to explore. God as a whole entity is abstract, at least so far as he doesn't exist physically in the universe at this time. That isn't to say that he can't manifest himself physically (as he did with Jesus), but Jesus was not everything that God was, because he was bound by the laws of the universe.

 

The argument for and against God is a philosophical one. You can search in the world for him all you want, but you're going to be stuck with a burden of proof and you're not going to find anything. Even though Jesus existed as a man  (which is generally accepted at the scholarly level), we don't have physical evidence of his divinity, nor do we have physical evidence of his resurrection aside from the written testimony of some men.

 

There is no special pleading. I use science. I use logic. I use philosophy. I'm debating on similar terms to you. The rules apply to my pursuit of God too. Being in the universe, I am limited to a perspective of an observer on Earth, so I will abide by its rules in my search.

 

 

I want to step in as a newcomer to these forums.

 

God isn't provable or unprovable in empirical terms. God necessarily exists outside the universe (so as not to be affected by it). You can't prove or disprove something that is not bound by the rules of the universe. Asking Christians to empirically prove his existence is asking a false question. You can't empirically prove love exists. You can't empirically prove that the number 2 exists. Anything that is abstract is proven only through logic and/or philosophy or something like that.

 

To argue that God exists because of the natural world is not going to work. We shouldn't do it. The argument for God exists philosophically, not physically.

This is nothing more than an eloquent dodge.  To begin with you assert that god exists outside of this universe; if I follow your argument to its logical conclusion, you would need to accept my claim that, according to your own words, god does not exist in this universe.  Then we could toy around with the multi-verse hypothesis and try to figure out if god exists in some other universe.  You, no doubt, would claim god exists outside of all universes, and I would ask you to accept, again by your own words, that god does not exist.

 

Secondly, if jesus is god, and if jesus really lived on earth, and if jesus really does come into your heart if you ask him to, then god necessarily does exist within the universe and has, at least as far as being crucified, been affected by it.  Moreover, the holy spirit, which baptizes and empowers all True Believers^TM does so within the confines of the same planet of the same galaxy in the same universe as those who killed jesus.  So, as you can see, your mere assertion is so flimsy that it can be completely undone by christian doctrine--a rare quality indeed.

 

Thirdly, no one can prove or disprove the existence of the loch ness monster, bigfoot, or leprechauns.  Do you believe they exist?  Based upon you logic, you either do believe in them or you are an incredible hypocrite.  

 

Lastly, whatever can or cannot be proven, the simple fact is that everything you believe in is founded upon faith.  Faith is, by definition, acceptance without proof.  Here's another thing that none of us can prove or disprove: your own existence.  You might be a genuine person out there somewhere who set up an account because you think that we haven't heard any of your arguments before; or, I might have set up your account just to fuck with people.  Can you prove otherwise?  I may not be able to prove that my son's love for me is true, but he provides me with evidence on a daily basis that it is.  I'm not required to accept his love on faith; I have proof that, at least, supports the claim.

 

 

No, God does not exist physically in the universe. There is more than just the physical here. That's something that is fundamental to my perspective, so you may want to refer to the questions I asked above. I'd like to know how far your materialism goes before we run into a question you can't answer. I've gone down that road before.

 

Yes, God exists in the universe, just not as the complete God. There are also manifestations. God can exist as a man, physically (with all its limitations), and he can exist as spirit, which is nonphysical. You don't interact with a physical deity, being that Jesus is long gone. You interact with a spiritual one. In Christianity, you would know that as the Holy Spirit. The moment God enters the universe, he abides by his own limitations. There is no reason why he wouldn't. Why make rules if you're just going to contradict them? Doesn't make any sense. God is logical (if he created everything to run on logic, it would be something derived from him).

 

Those creatures are physical things. Without evidence for something physical, you shouldn't assume it exists (outside of conjecture). When we talk God, we leave the physical behind.

 

No, faith is confidence in things that are unseen. I don't agree with your definition. That isn't even a Christian definition (Hebrews 11 is where you can find one). You have faith in your beliefs, because you don't know they are certainly true (something I hope to show some of you as we go on.) Everyone has faith in their beliefs, because there really is no certainty aside from perhaps the fact that we are alive and thinking (as I tip my hat to Descartes). Faith is unavoidable. Blind faith is foolish. We need to know the difference.

[Orbit]

Any faith is surrendering reason to superstition. Either a thing is demonstrable outside the Bible, in the real world, or it isn't. God is not demonstrable outside of the Bible, so there is really nothing to say. Your whole house of cards relies on the indemonstrable--faith. Evidence from the Bible isn't evidence--it's a tautology, self-referential.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Wololo, why is your god male?

[Wololo]

Only because saying "it" sounds weird. God doesn't have a gender. If you want to say "she", go ahead. There are times when even the Bible gives God female traits, like saying that he gathers his children like a mother hen gathers her chicks.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Only because saying "it" sounds weird. God doesn't have a gender. If you want to say "she", go ahead. There are times when even the Bible gives God female traits, like saying that he gathers his children like a mother hen gathers her chicks.

Referring to a god as "it" doesn't sound wierd to me. But that wasn't really my point, which was to let you know that 99.9% of the bible gives god (highly) masculine personality traits.  This is because it was written by men in a highly patriarchal primitive society where women's only perceived value was sexual and reproductive.  The bible provides the foundation for sexism in the culture of every country where xianity spread.  Have you ever read the bible from cover to cover?  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 The moment God enters the universe, he abides by his own limitations. There is no reason why he wouldn't. Why make rules if you're just going to contradict them? Doesn't make any sense. God is logical (if he created everything to run on logic, it would be something derived from him).

Oh, I had the mistaken understanding that god could somehow break the limitations of the universe and perform miracles.  Silly me!  Where did I get such an idea?  But then, that leaves you needing to explain how god performs miracles without breaking the limitations (laws) of the physical universe.

 

Have you considered that if your god is simple enough to be understood by a finite mind such as your own, then he/she/it is too simple to be worthy of worship?

 

Hey, do you think you could maybe come up with something more original and creative than mere groundless assertions?  They get old after a while.

[bornagainathiest]

Wololo wrote...

 

"The argument for and against God is a philosophical one."

 

That might be so for your god, who or whatever that is.

 

But the god of the Bible is another matter entirely.  

Scripture makes a truth claim (God created all things) which CAN be refuted if science discovers that the material universe (in one form or another) has always existed.  An eternal physical universe (or multiverse) requires no creator.  Therefore, should science discover such a thing, then the god of the Bible will be ruled as creator.  This will bring all the other truth claims in the Bible into doubt.

 

​No philosophical argument against god's existence will be required - science can do the job quite nicely, thank you very much!  

[Ousian]

I agree with Wololo on the point that you can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist by empirical methods, philosophy, logic or reason.  Anybody who claims absolute knowledge about a supernatural existential claim without at least a modicum of agnosticism is being naive, in my opinion;  just as the Christian can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that God exists, the atheist can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that he does not.  

 

However, the Christian should be cognizant that the burden of proof lies on him/her for establishing rationale concerning his/her beliefs.  The claim of atheism is a response to the claim of religious doctrine.  

You can't empirically prove that the number 2 exists. Anything that is abstract is proven only through logic and/or philosophy or something like that.

 

To argue that God exists because of the natural world is not going to work. We shouldn't do it. The argument for God exists philosophically, not physically.

 I do not agree with this statement however.  There's a significantly false dichotomy between a number and God.  The number 2 is an abstract concept invented by man as part of the study of mathematics to explain how the world works; nobody is claiming the number 2 has any physical presence or literal existence.  A deity, however, is a being which exists within reality (omnipresence) to a certain degree and has a significant impact on the way you interpret the world around us.  Sure, you can't prove the number 2 exists, such a pursuit is meaningless.  However, if you presume the number 2 does exist, as an abstract idea at the least, then there are certain repercussions.  If I were to lay out a doctrine describing the number 2, how the number 2 behaves, and how the number 2 interacts with the laws of mathematics, and then go to show how using the number 2 in the context of mathematics and science produces repeatable, verifiable results, then I can show that a belief in the number 2 is a rational dogma.  Similarly, if the Christian can show that the repercussions of belief in God is rational, in other words the natural world corresponds with such a belief, than such a belief would be rational.  You set about "proving" the existence of God is the same way you "prove" the existence of the number 2: not by some philosophical argument that either of these concepts exist in and of themselves, but that the world we live in and the reality around us acts in accordance with the belief in either of these concepts.  I can show that the belief in the number 2 is a reasonable belief because reality seems to follow the laws of mathematics, can you show the world around us rationally reflects a belief in God?  

[Sexton Blake]

Number 11. Atheism is a disbelief in gods and nothing more. It comes with no rules, no code of living and no lifestyle. People do not do bad (or good) because they are athiests.

[sdelsolray]

 

@sdelsolray:

 

God is not something you can define with any sort of completeness. 

 

Speak for yourself, not others.  I would appear that you do not have a definition for your particular "God".

 

Let's go over a few things.

 

OK.

 

There are several reasons why God can't exist as part of the universe. The most important reason is that the creator of the universe can't exist inside it. 

 

You have yet to establish this God exists in the first instance.  You have yet to establish that this God created the universe.  You have yet to establish that the universe was actually created or that it needed to be created in order to exist.  You merely assert these things.  Assuming this God did exist (other than in your mind), and assuming it is omnipotent, it can choose to exist within the universe and nowhere else.  Of course, much depends on the definition of the universe, as I pointed out above.  You therefore must define the universe as something less that all that exists.  

 

If God created the universe, he can't be encompassed by it. 

 

Sure it can.  See above.

 

That would be illogical. 

 

Not at all.

 

He can't be limited by it either. 

 

Except when it chooses otherwise.  Remember, it's omnipotent, according to you (at least I suspect your missing definition of your God would include omnipotence - please tell me if my assumption is incorrect).

 

To exist inside the universe and be bound by its laws is not possible if you created it. 

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.  Another mere assertion. 

 

This is why science is irrelevant to the discussion of God. 

 

Your merely asserted premises have already been shot down.  Try again.

 

The one who allegedly created the universe can't be bound by its rules. 

 

A repetition of a prior mere assertion.

 

This is why if God exists, he can't be inside the universe in his entirety. 

 

A conclusion based on mere assertions is not worthy of comment.

 

Perhaps only as a manifestation. 

 

Now your getting somewhere.  Perhaps this God is "only" a manifestation of your mind.  Just perhaps.

 

This is why that discussion is a dead end. 

 

Then why do you write over 1,000 words discussing it?

 

Nobody can prove he exists or doesn't exist by using science (which is about questions, not answers ANYWAY).

 

You have already forget the earlier lesson.  Science proves nothing.  It merely provides rational inferred explanations and predictions based on bodies of relevant evidence.

 

The universe is everything physical in existence. 

 

Is this your definition of the "universe"?

 

I would dispute that there are things that are nonphysical, and that they exist irrespective of the universe...such as numbers...or concepts like love.  There is a lot more to that argument. 

 

OK.

 

God would have to be nonphysical, and would have to exist outside of the universe. 

 

Another mere assertion.

 

It makes us uncomfortable to consider anything outside of the universe because it cannot be verified empirically. 

 

Again, speak for yourself, not others.

 

There issues with empiricism though.

 

I'm sure there are.

 

No, I don't have empirical evidence for his existence, because God as a whole cannot be a physical entity. 

 

How convenient.

 

We can turn the flashlight on in the dark room, but we shouldn't assume that everything in the room is going to be lit up by that type of light. Maybe we need a UV light or another kind of light to reveal things that are nonphysical. That's the general idea.

 

No, I shouldn't assume that at all, particularly when I already know that my eyes are only capable of sensing a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.  Yes, maybe.  Then again, maybe not.  Speculation can be fun.

 

The rules of the universe I was referring to are physical ones that we have discovered by asking scientific questions and exploring. Science is a powerful, wonderful tool and I encourage everyone to use it to keep from fooling themselves about such things.

 

OK.

 

I want to cut to the core here in terms of my neoplatonic framework as opposed to materialism. How do you tell one configuration of matter from another? How can you tell the difference between 2 pennies, and 2 cathedrals? They are both 2 objects, but not the same. What makes the distinction between the two types of objects? I can answer those questions easily, but I want to know what you think. How can you tell a lump of coal from a piece of paper? The reason I ask these questions is because I assert that numbers are nonphysical concepts that can be manifest physically. 

 

Lotsa questions.  Third century philosophy is interesting, as is 15th century, 17th century and modern philosophy.  They do nothing to demonstrate the existence of your chosen sky fairies.

 

The number 2 exists without matter. 

 

Wrong.  Without a sentient brain, the number 2 does not exist.

 

Love exists without things that love. 

 

Show me where.  On the surface of Mars?  Inside of a black hole?

 

If you were to wipe out everything in existence, concepts would remain.

 

Where would they remain?

 

Ah, but science never proves anything either. 

 

Correct.

 

It's the question, not the answer. Many of our 'scientific' beliefs from 1000 years ago have been long abandoned. 

 

Thanks to the scientific method, more specifically falsifiability. 

 

We're constantly learning more and more through the process of science, but it will never truly be complete. Science is much like philosophy in that it's a tool used to explore. 

 

Science is a child of philosophy and has generated aspects that philosophy does not have.

 

God as a whole entity is abstract, at least so far as he doesn't exist physically in the universe at this time. 

 

I agree.  The human brain has created many constructs.

 

That isn't to say that he can't manifest himself physically (as he did with Jesus), but Jesus was not everything that God was, because he was bound by the laws of the universe.

 

More mere assertions.

 

The argument for and against God is a philosophical one. 

 

I can be.  It is also a scientific question.

 

You can search in the world for him all you want, but you're going to be stuck with a burden of proof and you're not going to find anything. 

 

Wrong.  You're the one making the claim this "God" exists.  You have the burden of proof.

 

Even though Jesus existed as a man  (which is generally accepted at the scholarly level), we don't have physical evidence of his divinity, nor do we have physical evidence of his resurrection aside from the written testimony of some men.

 

That's some paltry evidence.  Got any more?

 

There is no special pleading. 

 

Sure there is.  According to you, your God can't be defined.  It isn't subject to testing or observation.  It is exempt from empirical testing.  No doubt you will claim this God has no creator itself, etc.  Classic Special Pleading.

 

I use science. I use logic. 

 

Except when you don't, which seems to be quite frequently.

 

I use philosophy. 

 

Yes, you attempt to hide your sky fairies in philosophy.

 

I'm debating on similar terms to you. 

 

OK.

 

The rules apply to my pursuit of God too. 

 

What rules?

 

Being in the universe, I am limited to a perspective of an observer on Earth, so I will abide by its rules in my search.

 

Cool.  Keep up the good work.

 

[bornagainathiest]

I agree with Wololo on the point that you can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist by empirical methods, philosophy, logic or reason.  Anybody who claims absolute knowledge about a supernatural existential claim without at least a modicum of agnosticism is being naive, in my opinion;  just as the Christian can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that God exists, the atheist can't claim to know beyond a shadow of the doubt that he does not.  

 

However, the Christian should be cognizant that the burden of proof lies on him/her for establishing rationale concerning his/her beliefs.  The claim of atheism is a response to the claim of religious doctrine.  

 

I'm not sure that I agree, BL.

 

It's the Bible that ties god to our reality and it's the Bible that makes claims which can be addressed by science.

So, rather than science being unable to investigate God directly (because He's beyond empirical investigation) science is able to tell us about the physical universe.  If the universe is shown to be eternal, then the truth claim enshrined in scripture (that God created everything) is shown to be false. Then, by inference, all the other truth claims in the Bible are brought into doubt.

 

Please note that I'm not suggesting that the universe or multiverse IS eternal.

 

But such a discovery would refute the God of the Bible.  

Not by directly disproving His existence, but by disproving the book that Christians claim speaks of His existence.

 

Therefore, I contend that, in this particular case, empirical methods would disprove the existence of the God of the Bible.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Wololo]

 

 The moment God enters the universe, he abides by his own limitations. There is no reason why he wouldn't. Why make rules if you're just going to contradict them? Doesn't make any sense. God is logical (if he created everything to run on logic, it would be something derived from him).

Oh, I had the mistaken understanding that god could somehow break the limitations of the universe and perform miracles.  Silly me!  Where did I get such an idea?  But then, that leaves you needing to explain how god performs miracles without breaking the limitations (laws) of the physical universe.

 

Have you considered that if your god is simple enough to be understood by a finite mind such as your own, then he/she/it is too simple to be worthy of worship?

 

Hey, do you think you could maybe come up with something more original and creative than mere groundless assertions?  They get old after a while.

 

 

I don't see how creating and abiding by your own limitations and rules is weak. In fact, I can't do things like turn water into wine. I can't walk on water. Those are things that Jesus would have over me. Plenty powerful.

 

No, I don't understand God. He goes beyond my comprehension, it's just that your questions haven't reached that point yet. I have a massive list of questions without answers. My finite mind runs into problems all the time.

 

Here's something to chew on that might shed light on what I'm getting at. There is no such thing as supernatural, rather there is the perfection of the natural. God is not more than the natural (as in extra and not necessary), but rather he is the perfection and ultimate embodiment of nature. It does not take long for the discussion to turn in a philosophical direction.

 

Wololo wrote...

 

"The argument for and against God is a philosophical one."

 

That might be so for your god, who or whatever that is.

 

But the god of the Bible is another matter entirely.  

Scripture makes a truth claim (God created all things) which CAN be refuted if science discovers that the material universe (in one form or another) has always existed.  An eternal physical universe (or multiverse) requires no creator.  Therefore, should science discover such a thing, then the god of the Bible will be ruled as creator.  This will bring all the other truth claims in the Bible into doubt.

 

​No philosophical argument against god's existence will be required - science can do the job quite nicely, thank you very much!  

 

Okay. Let me know when you figure out that the universe has always existed. So far the Big Bang appears to be more and more likely. There was a recent discovery made about the polarization of light waves after the Big Bang (link) and gravitational ripples (link). While not 100% verified yet, the case for the Big Bang is building, so I think you're going to be searching for a long time.

 

Good luck with your science.