Keep in mind that as I respond to you, I believe in God.
Before I accepted Christ, everything made sense by science, nature, patterns, etc. God wasn't real because I couldn't see Him. Once I accepted Him, His evidence was everywhere.
You know, I had an original response that people have largely ignored. I don't understand why everyone is so against the idea of God? I first presented an idea of simply proving there is a god, this to me, should be the first logical debate.
So my question to all atheists would be, if God does not exist, what else is plausible based on the evidence we have now? We do know everything works in patterns, cause and effect, etc. I would like for other posters to please express what they think. I also believe that responding with "I don't know" should be supported with firm evidence of why they don't know.
We cannot have a healthy conversation with non believers since I do feel that we are just put under a microscope for them to prick and prod.
So here is my question for non believers, what do you believe and why?
Okay lets go back to the "proving there is a God" part. For the record, I believe a being identified as "God" exists.
If you go back to the beginning of all things, the beginning of the universe ... and you want to attribute that beginning to some sort of being or agency (i.e. God) ... right there, you already have an issue. You cannot PROVE it (I'm not talking mathematical proof, but the common everyday use of the term "proof").
Even if God Himself were to show up and somehow transport you back in time to show you Himself all that was created, that is still not PROOF. Do you know why ? It's not proof, because of our place in the causal chain:
We were not there to witness the beginning, before the beginning took place. Thus, anyone who would claim to be responsible for it ... we either take their word for it, or we don't. It could be proven to us, if we were there in the beginning to see for ourselves. But we aren't. Our awareness arguably showed up sometime after. Even if we get transported there somehow LATER ... it's still later. It's still later in the casual chain.
Let me give an example:
Let's say a car accident takes place in front of you, hitting a pedestrian. With your own eyes, you can see who hit who. You may even have it on video tape. Thus, you have evidence, and you/yourself saw the entire thing transpire, the before and after.
If you didn't witness it ... but you heard about it, you can go on evidence and the testimony of witnesses, and make a decision. But quite literally, for you/yourself ... since you were not there, you would need to trust the evidence and the witnesses and the hearsay, to see what corroborated what, and then make a deduction based on that.
This is where we are with the "beginning". Because of our place in the chain of cause and effect, we cannot know for certain what took place before the first cause. 100 different entities could claim responsibility, and provide all kinds of evidence ... but it boils down to we either trust them, or we don't. Unless we were somehow there at the beginning to see God do this creating.
So to use the universe as PROOF of a creator .... what creator ? Why pick one over the other ? And furthermore, it's arguably not proof. It boils down to trust, belief, faith perhaps, etc.
Furthermore, you would need to be able to show how that creative force was still around today. How they were applicable. And I'm sure you aware there are a myriad of creation stories and accounts to choose from, all across our history. So why one over the other ?
If you want to prove that a being named "God" exists TODAY ... and throw out all the ideas about creating a universe, or which religion says what ... and go strictly off of proving such a being exists in some fashion TODAY, then that's another matter. Thus, I would argue you CAN have a healthy conversation with "unbelievers" because of the very fact they are going to prick and prod. If you allow it, it will keep you intellectually honest, it will show you which aspects of your own beliefs stand up to the basics perhaps. In my experience, it is that very pricking and proding which has helped me to establish my own beliefs concerning reality. To help weed out the nonsense from the actual.
If you show up and claim to be a doctor, for example ... people are going to want to see you perform tasks associated with a doctor. If you can't ... then what's the point of saying, "I'm a doctor," and trying to get people to believe you ? Are you a doctor of snake oil or the real thing ? Show and demonstrate ... talk is "cheap". Let what you demonstrate speak for itself. If you can't demonstrate it, don't be surprised if people do not take your word for it or believe you.
What do you think ?
