How can Christians better understand what a non-theist believes?

[Munising]

I understand that according to the logic you're using you come to the conclusion that there is no God.But what I am wondering is how can you be sure that the logic you're using IS the ultimate measure to tell if God exists?

It is the ultimate measure to determine the existence of something which possesses two fundamentally conflicting characteristics.

Here's a good example:
If your God simultaneously loves everyone and also doesn't love everyone.

That is a god that has two fundamentally conflicting characteristics and therefore cannot exist.

Likewise, if you posit a god that loves everyone, can do anything and knows everything, that god also cannot exist - unless you redefine "love", "anything" and "everything".

 

[steve_bakr]

I'm not the one who has introduced disagreeing viewpoints. Others have, and I have responded accordingly.

What is a "typical atheist"?

How do you determine when an "ask a(n) insert-a-type-of-person-here a question" type of thread as being answered?

Then why bother to call them Santa and the Tooth Fairy? Why not call them parents?

There is nothing to indicate the God of the Bible is anything other than fictional.

The burden of proof is not upon me to show that God doesn't exist. The burden of proof is upon you to show he does exist.

I suggest you read Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note this part:

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

Also read Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note this part:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

The existence of God is self-evident. I don't feel any particular need to "prove" the existence of God to an avowed atheist. But the atheist's own point of reference--opposition to God--itself affirms God's existence. His own limitations points to the infinite horizon that he sets himself up against, but is affirmed by the very nature of human existence. That is, man is a trsnscendent being who reaches out beyond himself and thus affirms the infinite horizon.

 

[steve_bakr]

Correct. A god either exists or doesn't exist. What each of us believes has no bearing on that truth.

Since there isn't sufficient evidence that a god exists, I don't hold the belief that a god exists. When sufficient evidence is forthcoming, then I'll move towards holding a belief that a god exists. Until then, for me to believe a god exists would be dishonest, disrespectful and irresponsible to both myself and to others.

No need for dishonesty. I don't expect an avowed atheist to say he believes in God, nor do I expect him to be convinced through "debate." Conversion, if it does happen--and indeed it may not happen--would possibly be mediated through critical events in life.

 

[steve_bakr]

It is the ultimate measure to determine the existence of something which possesses two fundamentally conflicting characteristics.

Here's a good example:
If your God simultaneously loves everyone and also doesn't love everyone.

That is a god that has two fundamentally conflicting characteristics and therefore cannot exist.

Likewise, if you posit a god that loves everyone, can do anything and knows everything, that god also cannot exist - unless you redefine "love", "anything" and "everything".

We would first have to assume that we have fully investigated the meaning of "love," "anything," and "everything." We would also have to understand what it means for God to so love humanity that he seeks to give the ultimate gift to man, which is himself. That might help in our examination of love. We also have to re-examiine our pre-conceptions about the word "God."

 

[steve_bakr]

If you're correct, then you should be able to show me how the following two can both be true:
1) A plus B is equal to C
2) C minus B is not equal to A

As I think I already demonstrated, such logical constructs can be very useful, but are not always compatible with reality. We saw this in our question about whether light is a wave or particle, or perhaps problems in quantum physics.

My position is that it is impossible for God not to exist. Our validation of that would be found in examining our own human experience, such as in the transcendental anthropology of Karl Rahner.

 

[aiki]

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Of course the very glaring problem with this is that the God argued for by Christian philosophers is enormously different from a tiny teapot, which has a profound bearing upon the kinds of things Christian philosophers posit about God and the reasonableness of doing so. For a full explanation of the problem(s) with Russell's Teapot analogy check out the following:

Is God Imaginary? | Reasonable Faith

Selah.

 

[Munising]

Of course the very glaring problem with this is that the God argued for by Christian philosophers is enormously different from a tiny teapot, which has a profound bearing upon the kinds of things Christian philosophers posit about God and the reasonableness of doing so. For a full explanation of the problem(s) with Russell's Teapot analogy check out the following:

Is God Imaginary? | Reasonable Faith

Selah.

The parallel is that both the teapot and the Christian God can be posited and that neither can be detected.

 

[Munising]

If I say, "I don't believe Bigfoot exists," then I am making a knowledge claim that requires justification. If I say, "I have no belief about Bigfoot's existence," then I am saying I have no opinion about Bigfoot, pro or con. As I pointed out before, negative assertions/statements can and are proved, so the atheist can't escape his responsibility for justifying their belief that God does not exist by declaring himself exempt from providing proof. And if the atheist states that he has no belief at all about Bigfoot, then he effectively removes himself from discussion about Bigfoot. What is there to say when one doesn't believe Bigfoot exists and that one doesn't believe Bigfoot doesn't exist?

If my assumption that you don't believe Bigfoot exists, then by your logic, the burden of proof is upon you to show that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Following that logic, can you prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?

But this doesn't prove God doesn't exist, nor does it show that the reasons Christians have for believing in God are not rational and sound. All it shows is your unwillingness to concede to the import of the evidence in favor of God's existence. It isn't of any value to say, "I don't find the evidence compelling." What you must do to show the other side is in error is demonstrate that their evidence is clearly faulty or unreasonable. If you can do that, then you can argue for more than your mere bias or opinion (which is what you're doing at the moment).

Can you show that I'm in error when I posit that there are thousands of purple unicorns roaming the plains of western Kansas?

That depends. If the unicorns are merely invisible, then that would mean they are only visually imperceptible. We could hear them, surely, roaming the plains in such a huge number. We would see the result of their movements on the plain, see the grass they had eaten, and their manure piles. We could smell them, as well. Of course, none of these things are evident on the plains of Kansas so it is very unlikely that such vast numbers of unicorns are actually there.

What if I were to posit that these unicorns are undetectable and never leave any physical trace of their existence? How would you go about disproving them?

What you seem to miss is that saying, "I have no belief in God at all," makes your atheism on par with saying, "My cat has no belief in God." If someone said this to me about their cat, it would be quite a trivial and pointless remark - just as it is when you say it about yourself.

It is on a par with "My cat has no belief in God". As I said in my OP, I do not hold a belief that a god exists.

Either you're being purposefully obtuse or you're not reading my posts well. Go back and re-read what I've said about the import of not having any belief in God whatsoever. Tell me how what I wrote is not true of such a perspective.

You're being purposely evasive. Please answer my question.

What do you think my viewpoint is? Do you think it is something other than "I don't hold the belief that a god exists"? If so, what do you think it is?

 

[Munising]

The existence of God is self-evident.

Oh really? Then what real thing in this universe/world that non-believers can observe is it you are calling "God"?

I don't feel any particular need to "prove" the existence of God to an avowed atheist. But the atheist's own point of reference--opposition to God--itself affirms God's existence.

You must be referring to people who believe God exists and hate or oppose such a God. Atheists don't hold a position of opposition to things which they don't even believe to exist.

I might hold a position of opposition to The fictional character Roadrunner or perhaps the fictional character Wiley Coyote, but I don't believe either to exist.

His own limitations points to the infinite horizon that he sets himself up against, but is affirmed by the very nature of human existence. That is, man is a trsnscendent being who reaches out beyond himself and thus affirms the infinite horizon.

And your point?

 

[Munising]

No need for dishonesty. I don't expect an avowed atheist to say he believes in God, nor do I expect him to be convinced through "debate." Conversion, if it does happen--and indeed it may not happen--would possibly be mediated through critical events in life.

The god which many Christians have posited would not become evident through critical events in life, but through undeniable demonstrations of omniscience and omnipotence.

 

[Munising]

We would first have to assume that we have fully investigated the meaning of "love," "anything," and "everything." We would also have to understand what it means for God to so love humanity that he seeks to give the ultimate gift to man, which is himself. That might help in our examination of love. We also have to re-examiine our pre-conceptions about the word "God."

When you say God loves everyone, can do anything and knows everything, what do you mean by:
1) Loves
2) Anything
3) Knows
4) Everything

 

[JGG]

What it means is that our logic is a little construct that we have by which we measure certain concepts as in geometry. But the infinite is beyond these constructs and you cannot measure that by which things are measured.

Okay, but then how does one show that God exists at all? Which construct do you use?

I am not trying to convert someone who does not want to be converted. I am, however, promoting a deeper understanding of the subject--i.e. understanding the subject from a philosophical point of view. Otherwise, the argument against God gets boring.

I do not have an argument against God. I only have reasons why I don't believe you when you say there is one. You're promoting a deeper understanding of a subject, of which we have no actual understanding. A philosophical point of view is a subjective point of view.

I have studied eastern philosophies. I'm not sure if you are educated on that, but I'm sure we can both agree to reject these philosophies, even though they are at least as extensive and well founded as the ones you're putting forth. And yet, there is a huge part of the world that accepts them, and rejects yours. Their philosophy is no less valid than yours, and yet you expect me to say "Oh, well yes, clearly yours is better, because you say so.

If all you can present to me is nakedly biased theology, I just can't get on board with that. Show me evidence, and we can discuss.

Immanuel Kant, for example, who inspired some of the transcendental anthropology of Karl Rahner with his "turn to the subject," concluded that it is not possible to have a knowledgable experience of God, whereby Rahner concluded that a certain knowledge of God is unavoidable.

Why should I accept that anything Kant, Rahner or you say is true?

I am not encountering here arguments such as these but an ABC-type simplistic approach and a disdain for education or simply a lack of awareness of the depth of the subject.

But you understand that "this guy says.." is not depth. It is merely an argument from authority, which is not a good argument.

Even an atheist at some point considers seriously the problem of the existence of God--or will. The subject is embedded in our nature and that is why you come to a Christian forum to talk about it.

I have. I was once a believer. I'm not now. That's not why I'm here though.

I imagine that if you were an atheist through and through you wouldn't be here or think about the subject even from the limited standpoint that you are proposing.

What's a through and through atheist exactly?

To say that my standpoint is limited is because you take liberties on these concepts. You want these subjects to be deep, and they are if you want them to be, I suppose. I do not indulge in that unless someone can show me that there is reason for me to indulge. Again, I'm sure you put no stock in the concepts of Atman or Brahman, even though the philosophies behind them is quite extensive. I enjoy learning about Hinduism, Buddhism and Thaoism, but the question of whether I'm going to accept these philosophies ends with the first unsubstantiated assertion. The same is true of Christian philosophies.

So, in a sense, your actions and protests affirm God in a certain way.

Yeah, but by that reasoning there is nothing that does not affirm God, which suggests that there is actually no way to really affirm God.

I am all for understanding the non-Christian, atheist, or agnostic and I try to do that. But this thread seems to really not be about that but about a limited attempt at discrediting God.

Have I discredited God? I have only explained why I don't believe in the Christian God (or any god concept I have encountered).

BTW, I like the question, "What does it mean?" and could talk about it at length. The question is, "Are you a "hearer of the word"? It may be that you are not at this time.

Actually, the question is "why would I hear it?" Of course before that would be "what is it?"

 

[steve_bakr]

Oh really? Then what real thing in this universe/world that non-believers can observe is it you are calling "God"?

You must be referring to people who believe God exists and hate or oppose such a God. Atheists don't hold a position of opposition to things which they don't even believe to exist.

I might hold a position of opposition to The fictional character Roadrunner or perhaps the fictional character Wiley Coyote, but I don't believe either to exist.

And your point?

The self-evidence of God is both in the existence of the universe and the transcendental experience of an infinite horizon in the background of everything we do or experience. But this statement is part of an entire systematic theology which requires at least a short book to explain. That is partly why I asked you to read, "The Theology of Karl Rahner," by Steven Buller on your Kindle app.

I study the Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, and he did not spend a lot of time on "proofs" of the existence of God. There are proofs that have been put forward, but I don't think they are useful in reference to an avowed atheist such as yourself.

I have suggested that a decision about God happens at a deeper level than that of quasi-logical arguments about tooth fairies, unicorns, teapots or whatever. Do you love your neighbor and assist the needy or do you live a life of self-centered interests without concern for others? That is the kind of decision that is made at a deeper level than an explicit avowal of belief or atheism.

If you love your neighbor, I would suggest that you are living a life that is not entirely incompatible with a Christian life. Sure, it is desirable that you have an explicit belief in God. But according to Karl Rahner and Catholic theology, an atheist who loves his neighbor as himself is not living a life that is completely incompatible with the Christian life.

Evidence of your search for truth might be found in your concern for those who are suffering and with the problem of evil, which you brought up in one of your posts.

So, these are the things that I would be interested in finding out about you rather than trying to convince you explicitly that God exists.

 

[Munising]

The self-evidence of God is both in the existence of the universe and the transcendental experience of an infinite horizon in the background of everything we do or experience. But this statement is part of an entire systematic theology which requires at least a short book to explain. That is partly why I asked you to read, "The Theology of Karl Rahner," by Steven Buller on your Kindle app.

Keep it simple. You don't need a book to describe something which can easily be observed. These evasive tactics are very common among Christians and do more to suggest you and other Christians have doubts that your god exists than they do to help show your god exists. If God exists and is observable, then please tell me what real thing in this universe it is you are calling "God"?

Whatever it is, here are some other questions about it:
1) Is it often known by a term other than "God"?
2) Does it contain mass?
3) Is it subjective?

I study the Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, and he did not spend a lot of time on "proofs" of the existence of God. There are proofs that have been put forward, but I don't think they are useful in reference to an avowed atheist such as yourself.

What real thing in this universe is it that Rahner called "God"?

I have suggested that a decision about God happens at a deeper level than that of quasi-logical arguments about tooth fairies, unicorns, teapots or whatever. Do you love your neighbor and assist the needy or do you live a life of self-centered interests without concern for others?

This isn't about morals/values/ethics. This is about whether or not a supreme being exists. I think I cautioned you what it suggests when you get evasive.

That is the kind of decision that is made at a deeper level than an explicit avowal of belief or atheism.

If you love your neighbor, I would suggest that you are living a life that is not entirely incompatible with a Christian life.

The "love your neighbor" lifestyle is independent of one's belief or lack of belief in a supreme being. If humans didn't have a "love your neighbor" mentality, they probably would have killed each other off and thus would be extinct.

Sure, it is desirable that you have an explicit belief in God. But according to Karl Rahner and Catholic theology, an atheist who loves his neighbor as himself is not living a life that is completely incompatible with the Christian life.

Living a "Christian life" and believing a god exists are two unrelated things.

Evidence of your search for truth might be found in your concern for those who are suffering and with the problem of evil, which you brought up in one of your posts.

How can you reconcile the problem of evil? Why does God allow for there to be people who rape children? The difference between me and your god is if I could stop a child from getting raped, I would.

So, these are the things that I would be interested in finding out about you rather than trying to convince you explicitly that God exists.

We can have a separate discussion about those things - I am definitely open to that. But not here. Please PM me.

 

[aiki]

If my assumption that you don't believe Bigfoot exists, then by your logic, the burden of proof is upon you to show that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Following that logic, can you prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist?

This sort of silly argumentation is thoroughly defeated in the explanation you will find through the link I gave you. If you really want to understand the basis for Christian belief, you will read it and consider it. If all you want to do here is fortify your position and shoot arrows of criticism at Christianity, then I suspect you'll be unwilling to engage the thinking laid out in the explanation.

But this doesn't prove God doesn't exist, nor does it show that the reasons Christians have for believing in God are not rational and sound. All it shows is your unwillingness to concede to the import of the evidence in favor of God's existence. It isn't of any value to say, "I don't find the evidence compelling." What you must do to show the other side is in error is demonstrate that their evidence is clearly faulty or unreasonable. If you can do that, then you can argue for more than your mere bias or opinion (which is what you're doing at the moment).

Can you show that I'm in error when I posit that there are thousands of purple unicorns roaming the plains of western Kansas?

See, this sort of response suggests to me that you aren't really interested in truth or in understanding the Christian basis for belief in God. You completely ignored my point, which was that saying you "don't find the evidence compelling" does not prove God does not exist. All it does is reveal your attitude toward the evidence. What's more, you wouldn't be asking this sort of a question if you had read the explanation via the link I offered. If you had read the explanation (and understood it), you would see how sophomoric your question is.

That depends. If the unicorns are merely invisible, then that would mean they are only visually imperceptible. We could hear them, surely, roaming the plains in such a huge number. We would see the result of their movements on the plain, see the grass they had eaten, and their manure piles. We could smell them, as well. Of course, none of these things are evident on the plains of Kansas so it is very unlikely that such vast numbers of unicorns are actually there.

What if I were to posit that these unicorns are undetectable and never leave any physical trace of their existence? How would you go about disproving them?

Well, now, seeing your challenge has failed, you are attempting to move the goalposts. This would be dishonest in a game of soccer and its dishonest here, too.

What you seem to miss is that saying, "I have no belief in God at all," makes your atheism on par with saying, "My cat has no belief in God." If someone said this to me about their cat, it would be quite a trivial and pointless remark - just as it is when you say it about yourself.

It is on a par with "My cat has no belief in God". As I said in my OP, I do not hold a belief that a god exists.

Since you recognize how trivial your absence of belief in God is as a perspective concerning God, I wonder at your willingness to offer it.

Either you're being purposefully obtuse or you're not reading my posts well. Go back and re-read what I've said about the import of not having any belief in God whatsoever. Tell me how what I wrote is not true of such a perspective.

You're being purposely evasive. Please answer my question.

What do you think my viewpoint is? Do you think it is something other than "I don't hold the belief that a god exists"? If so, what do you think it is?

No, I'm not being purposely evasive, I'm merely unwilling to repeat myself when all you have to do to see what I said the first time is scroll back through this thread.

Selah.

 

[steve_bakr]

Keep it simple. You don't need a book to describe something which can easily be observed. These evasive tactics are very common among Christians and do more to suggest you and other Christians have doubts that your god exists than they do to help show your god exists. If God exists and is observable, then please tell me what real thing in this universe it is you are calling "God"?

Whatever it is, here are some other questions about it:
1) Is it often known by a term other than "God"?
2) Does it contain mass?
3) Is it subjective?

What real thing in this universe is it that Rahner called "God"?

This isn't about morals/values/ethics. This is about whether or not a supreme being exists. I think I cautioned you what it suggests when you get evasive.

The "love your neighbor" lifestyle is independent of one's belief or lack of belief in a supreme being. If humans didn't have a "love your neighbor" mentality, they probably would have killed each other off and thus would be extinct.

Living a "Christian life" and believing a god exists are two unrelated things.

How can you reconcile the problem of evil? Why does God allow for there to be people who rape children? The difference between me and your god is if I could stop a child from getting raped, I would.

We can have a separate discussion about those things - I am definitely open to that. But not here. Please PM me.

I don't have doubts about the existence of God (been there, done that) because I know God exists.

1. Yes, God has been referred to by different names and in different terms.
2. God is totally other than his creation, so that "mass" does not apply to God. Neither can he be measured because he is that by which everything is measured. God is not an object among other objects or an element in a larger household of reality.
3. God is objective but the experience of God is subjective and transcendental.

I don't have all the answers to the problem of evil. But I suspect that it has a lot to do with the free will of man. Also, if God intervened in all our affairs, free will would only be a myth. I agree that it is unconscionable that evils like rape are committed, but this again goes back to man himself. My big question at one time was why did God allow the holocaust.

I was suggesting that when a person loves his neighbor he has implicitly affirmed God.

 

[Munising]

This sort of silly argumentation is thoroughly defeated in the explanation you will find through the link I gave you. If you really want to understand the basis for Christian belief, you will read it and consider it. If all you want to do here is fortify your position and shoot arrows of criticism at Christianity, then I suspect you'll be unwilling to engage the thinking laid out in the explanation.

The type of evasiveness you're engaging in is precisely what strongly suggests that people such as yourself actually doubt that your god is real. Now tell me, is the burden of proof upon you to show that Bigfoot doesn't exist or is it upon those who posit that Bigfoot does exist?

See, this sort of response suggests to me that you aren't really interested in truth or in understanding the Christian basis for belief in God.

Upon what basis do you believe that a supreme being exists?

You completely ignored my point, which was that saying you "don't find the evidence compelling" does not prove God does not exist.

While I have never been presented with evidence that a god does exist, I have also never been presented with evidence that god (other than self-contradictory gods) doesn't exist. But since no one has ever brought forward compelling evidence that a god does exist, I would be lying to myself and others to say that I believe a god exists.

All it does is reveal your attitude toward the evidence.

What evidence is there that a god does exist? If you feel the evidence is observable to atheists, then what real thing in this world is it you are calling "God"?

What's more, you wouldn't be asking this sort of a question if you had read the explanation via the link I offered. If you had read the explanation (and understood it), you would see how sophomoric your question is.

Well, now, seeing your challenge has failed, you are attempting to move the goalposts. This would be dishonest in a game of soccer and its dishonest here, too.

Once again, your evasiveness strongly suggests you have serious doubts about the validity of your god. So once again: What if I were to posit that these unicorns are undetectable and never leave any physical trace of their existence? How would you go about disproving them?

Since you recognize how trivial your absence of belief in God is as a perspective concerning God, I wonder at your willingness to offer it.

My willingness to offer what?

No, I'm not being purposely evasive, I'm merely unwilling to repeat myself when all you have to do to see what I said the first time is scroll back through this thread.

I wouldn't accuse you of being evasive if you weren't coming across as evasive. Try to be a little introspective and you'll see that you're being evasive.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I was asked a series of questions earlier, regarding my conversion from atheism. Below are my answers and my conclusion:

When you say "turn to God" do you believe that a god exists?

It may be rude to answer "obviously" but, obviously.

Please explain what you personally experienced when "He granted" you faith. How would you know it was God who granted you faith?

I went from a state of unbelief to a state of belief in an instant. I'm not sure in whose interests it would be for some external third party to grant me a faith in God, and there was definitely no self-interest at work as I was perfectly happy as a non-believer, just as you are. Although, to be fair, I did hang around Christian forums just as you do, possibly waiting for that incontrovertible evidence which never came.

When you say "called" do you mean to believe a god exists?

No, not asked to believe; given the ability to believe.

An atheist doesn't come to believe a god exists through his heart. He does it through his head - through evidence which when presented is compelling enough to warrant a belief that a god exists.

Wrong. No man will ever reach the conclusion that God exists and come to love him through intellectual strivings alone. Some may come to the conclusion that A "god" exists when comparing the two scenarios regarding the formation of the universe - that nothing times nothing equals everything, or that all was created. However, this isn't belief in a specifically Christian God.

When you say "turn to God" do you mean make the choice to choose to believe that a god exists?

No, I don't mean making a choice. As an atheist I felt unable to choose God, no matter how hard I might have tried. That's where you are now. I mean I instantly believed in something which before I had been unable to believe in. No choice involved.

And what evidence is this?

Any thing at all. You look at the night sky and see the sky; I look and I see God's work. You look at an ant and see an ant; I see as miracle of engineering and the work of God. You see DNA and thing "that's a pretty impressive result from a series of happy accidents", where I see a plan.

Atheists don't have presuppositions. They merely look at the evidence which is presented to them and come to a responsible and honest conclusion if the evidence warrants a belief that a god exists.

No atheist is entirely neutral. If God turned up on a Harley with a host of angels your immediate first thought would not be "Now I believe". It would more likely be your last thought following a series of analytical judgements, the first thought being "It can't be". Presupposition.

Small creatures are evidence of small creatures. The magnificent cosmos is evidence of the magnificent cosmos. Neither are evidence that a god exists.

They are all evidence to a believer. They are not proof however. So many people who claim to be intelligent debaters here don't know the difference between evidence and proof. Evidence is that which leads to a likely conclusion based upon presuppositions. You - "This hip bone is evidence of a transitional being between two known evolutionary states of existence"; me - "This hip bone is from a different animal". See what I mean? My conclusion is God, yours is "I dunno, but it can't be God".

An ant is an ant regardless if humans believe a god exists.

True. I'm talking about the value we each might assign to that ant and our understanding of how it came to be. You may see it as the pinnacle of ant-based evolution. The ant as we know it has been around for millions of years. I might see it as a wonderful example of God's hand at work.

Interesting that Christians are so certain about things like the cosmos, biology, the history of the universe, etc., yet scientists aren't sure about these things. And it's very ironic that these "know-it-all" Christians are telling atheists they must "humble" themselves in front of the lord. Atheists already admit they don't know. The Christians who claim to know this much are the pinnacle of human arrogance.

I think the pinnacle of human arrogance lies in those who say "We don't know the answer, but yours must be wrong".

And I wouldn't dream of telling an atheist to humble himself in front of the Lord; if God wants you he'll come and get you just as he did me.

 

[aiki]

The type of evasiveness you're engaging in is precisely what strongly suggests that people such as yourself actually doubt that your god is real. Now tell me, is the burden of proof upon you to show that Bigfoot doesn't exist or is it upon those who posit that Bigfoot does exist?

If I assert that Bigfoot doesn't exist, then I am obliged to offer a rationale for that assertion.

I understand that it is comforting for you to think that Christians are secretly just as unpersuaded of their belief in God as you appear to be, but this isn't so in my case.

If anyone is being evasive, it is you. More than evasive, you have outright ignored what is being said to you. You don't, as a result, seem like you are trying to get at the truth, but rather that you have already found it and think Christians ought to acknowledge that the "truth" you've found defeats their belief in God.

Upon what basis do you believe that a supreme being exists?

The existence of the universe. "Ex nihilo, nihilo fit."
The extreme fine-tuning of the universe for life.
The existence of an innate moral sense among humans.
The resurrection of Christ.
The existence of information (on a genetic level, first of all).
My daily experience of God.
And so on.

While I have never been presented with evidence that a god does exist, I have also never been presented with evidence that god (other than self-contradictory gods) doesn't exist. But since no one has ever brought forward compelling evidence that a god does exist, I would be lying to myself and others to say that I believe a god exists.

Then you ought to look more closely at the evidence and at why you don't find it compelling while so many others do. The problem isn't, I think, with the evidence.

Once again, your evasiveness strongly suggests you have serious doubts about the validity of your god.

LOL! You see what you want see, I guess.

So once again: What if I were to posit that these unicorns are undetectable and never leave any physical trace of their existence? How would you go about disproving them?

Why are you moving the goalposts?

I wouldn't accuse you of being evasive if you weren't coming across as evasive. Try to be a little introspective and you'll see that you're being evasive.

Perhaps a bit lazy, but not evasive. Um, I would suggest you not urge others to introspection when you appear to avoid it so much yourself. Did you carefully consider the explanation I gave you via the link?

Selah.

 

[cerette]

It is the ultimate measure to determine the existence of something which possesses two fundamentally conflicting characteristics.

Here's a good example:
If your God simultaneously loves everyone and also doesn't love everyone.

That is a god that has two fundamentally conflicting characteristics and therefore cannot exist.

Likewise, if you posit a god that loves everyone, can do anything and knows everything, that god also cannot exist - unless you redefine "love", "anything" and "everything".

I understand your argument (but don't agree with it) but I am still wondering How can you be sure that logic is the ultimate measure to tell whether or not God exists?