Guide on the Theistic argument

[MarsCoban]

Originally Posted by Rust

1. For example: You can believe I'm wearing a top-hat right now, even though I haven't shown one to you.

2. I don't doubt the ability of believers to be convinced of things without that thing being shown of them. They are quite adept at that.



3. Most of them refuse to accept the possibility of a god? Where did you get this gem from? If it's anecdotal evidence then I have my own to offer: the vast majority of atheists I know are weak atheists. They are willing to accept the possibility of a god.




4. Great, then my point is made:

theists apparently interpret ["evidence"] to mean something that cannot be shown to anyone else, making the word "evidence" lose its meaning.




5. Then I'm left wandering why you didn't explicitly say you were wrong but instead offered "ok, just because you never said there absolutely is no God doesn't mean that you and BP don't seem to take every opportunity to claim a God isnt there." which is more of a counter-allegations than an admittance of being wrong.




6. Where have I said he wasn't there? I said I have no reason to believe he is. I don't know if one is there or not, therefore I don't go around asserting "God isn't there".

"I don't believe in God, because I find no satisfactory evidence to support his existence" is not the same thing as claiming "God isn't there"

1. But what if you are wearing a top hat, and I'm only unable to perceive it? You can "show" it to me all you want, but I will probably be unable to perceive it unless I can physically handle it. If God existed, could one physically handle him? Doubtfully. If a man is blind and denies that light exists, that colors exist, do the light & colors cease to exist? I would say no, because I perceive them, but can it ever be proven to this man otherwise? For him they do not exist because he is unable to perceive them, from my point of view. Or is it that I am unable to see what he isn't seeing?
Like the old question: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

2. I'd say I agree but I think that statement is a little condescending. If they were so easy to convince, we might all be atheists by now, right? Now, I understand that they don't just *poof*, believe, but many educated people choose to believe in a God without the help of it being driven into them like a nail.

3. The definition of "atheist" that dictionary.com offers is this: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Now, I don't know how accurate this is, but it seems fairly accurate to me. I shouldn't have added "deny the possible existence of"...as this may be my "personal" interpretation. And some atheists are as I described, but you're right, a large number of them have weaker beliefs. Perhaps they need to invent a new word for those whose beliefs are more solid, or I need to discover it.

4. The definition, again, offered by dictionary.com for "evidence": that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. This isn't exactly what I would call a "solid" definition. In fact, it's pretty damn loose in my opinion. If you can provide me a "better" definition I'd be happy to look at it. But as far as this one goes, it doesn't help much to support your claims of "not being able to show"...
Ok, let's say a man(1) says to another man(2) "if you prove to me that at least one trillion stars exist, I will accept that some form of God exists"...and man 2 proceeds to show man 1 that, in fact, at least 1 trillion stars exist and man 1 then accepts the existence of some form of God. Has man 2 not provided solid enough evidence to prove to man 1 that some form of God exists? I'm not saying the evidence would be solid enough for "anyone" but it was solid enough for that one man, therefore your use of the word "anyone" in the context in which you are using it is unjustified.

5. Again, I feel that I made a mistake, not that I was entirely wrong. To clear this up, I do not wish to put words in your mouth and I do wish to understand your beliefs. I feel that getting you to reveal them has been akin to pulling teeth. You haven't exactly been crystal clear with them, but neither have I. I feel that it's likely that we mostly agree, or at least I feel I mostly agree with you, and the bickering is due to other factors. My main problem was never with you, and now that you've been clearing things up for me, it definitely isn't with you. You seem to be a reasonable enough person to me.

6. An exact quote from you: I claim "god isn't there" in that I point out natural explantions for the phenomenon we observe. I do not claim a god doesn't exist.
"In that I point out natural explanations for the phenomenom we observe"...can you give me a solid, unequivocal definition of "natural"? And can you prove that God is not responsible for these natural explanations?

Think of me as a judge being presented with a case. One man claims there is a God, the other claims there absolutely is not a God. They both present me with little, if no evidence that ultimately adds up to crap and their arguements consist of their extremely limited knowledge of the universe, or whatever is "out there." One tries to explain why it works, the other tries to explain how it works and they don't seem to be able to reconcile the two. Where am I supposed to go? Mistrial, every time. In all honesty I'm liable not to believe either of them! But one of the answers must be wrong and one must be right, right? I don't know... and, again, NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE. That's been my point throughout this thread.