Are there ANY valid pro-theistic arguments?

[plumjam]

in relation to using arguments for/against the existence of God.. my main thrust would be that this is logically the only possible occasion when argumentation attempts to explain the whole.
As argument uses words and concepts it is using parts of the whole to explain the whole. To adequately explain the whole you would necessarily have to use ALL the parts. An explanation that did not do this would be leaving something out. An argument to explain the whole would therefore have to be infinite.

In our normal modes of argumentation we use parts and their interrelation to explain parts, never the whole.

So, to sum up, theistic argument, although it can be interesting, is ultimately doomed. This, of course, does not necessitate the conclusion that God does not exist. Rather, as in my earlier post, reality is not dependent on argument.

 

[Dumbledore]

in relation to using arguments for/against the existence of God.. my main thrust would be that this is logically the only possible occasion when argumentation attempts to explain the whole.
As argument uses words and concepts it is using parts of the whole to explain the whole. To adequately explain the whole you would necessarily have to use ALL the parts. An explanation that did not do this would be leaving something out. An argument to explain the whole would therefore have to be infinite.

In our normal modes of argumentation we use parts and their interrelation to explain parts, never the whole.

So, to sum up, theistic argument, although it can be interesting, is ultimately doomed. This, of course, does not necessitate the conclusion that God does not exist. Rather, as in my earlier post, reality is not dependent on argument.

I have to agree with you, how do you convey the existence of an infinite being with limited words!

 

[theBigShagboski]

I'm currently embroiled in what I call the "God Battle" between a Catholic friend and myself. They have almost exclusively revolved around logical arguments (her one attempt at real evidence, the miracle of Fatima, was "a scientifically documented miracle," even if there were scientific theories as to a giant spinning sun, clearly that people's clothes dried quickly was enough... that one didn't last long, nor did her argument that religious people do more good in the world than atheists, missing the whole point of "the God Delusion," which prompted it). Since she is a law student, this has been tough.

But how do you argue against these? According to her, the only way to prove and understand god is via Pure Reason, which is why Aristotle and Plato were so incredibly accurate about the "divine" (non-Christian) God. She's now going to throw Anselm and Descartes at me in Round Three.

Am I just fighting a never-ending battle? It seems to me that logic can prove nearly anything you want it to if you don't base it on observable evidence - which then makes me ask: how does Pure Reason, which can prove just about anything, undeniably show the existence of God?

(By the way, one of my arguments against Anselm's Ontology, which was written in the OP:

1. To exist, a being must occupy space, whether in this universe or without.
2. To occupy space, there must be a set of laws governing the state of existence.
3. For existence to be governed by laws in order to exist in space, it is limited.
3. God exists (assumed for the argument)
4. If God is that which is greater than we can concieve, he is infinite and limitless, since our perception is limited by our imagination.
5. Therefore, God is not limitless, therefore God does not exist.)

 

[Dumbledore]

I'm currently embroiled in what I call the "God Battle" between a Catholic friend and myself. They have almost exclusively revolved around logical arguments (her one attempt at real evidence, the miracle of Fatima, was "a scientifically documented miracle," even if there were scientific theories as to a giant spinning sun, clearly that people's clothes dried quickly was enough... that one didn't last long, nor did her argument that religious people do more good in the world than atheists, missing the whole point of "the God Delusion," which prompted it). Since she is a law student, this has been tough.

But how do you argue against these? According to her, the only way to prove and understand god is via Pure Reason, which is why Aristotle and Plato were so incredibly accurate about the "divine" (non-Christian) God. She's now going to throw Anselm and Descartes at me in Round Three.

Am I just fighting a never-ending battle? It seems to me that logic can prove nearly anything you want it to if you don't base it on observable evidence - which then makes me ask: how does Pure Reason, which can prove just about anything, undeniably show the existence of God?

(By the way, one of my arguments against Anselm's Ontology, which was written in the OP:

1. To exist, a being must occupy space, whether in this universe or without.
2. To occupy space, there must be a set of laws governing the state of existence.
3. For existence to be governed by laws in order to exist in space, it is limited.
3. God exists (assumed for the argument)
4. If God is that which is greater than we can concieve, he is infinite and limitless, since our perception is limited by our imagination.
5. Therefore, God is not limitless, therefore God does not exist.)

I don't think you can win this argument against a true believer. You are quite correct, logic can be used to justify just about anything.

 

[Bri]

1. To exist, a being must occupy space, whether in this universe or without.
2. To occupy space, there must be a set of laws governing the state of existence.
3. For existence to be governed by laws in order to exist in space, it is limited.
3. God exists (assumed for the argument)
4. If God is that which is greater than we can concieve, he is infinite and limitless, since our perception is limited by our imagination.
5. Therefore, God is not limitless, therefore God does not exist.)

I'm not sure that (1) is a premise that most Christians would agree with (also, what does it mean to occupy space outside of this universe?). Assuming that space is a subset of God rather than the other way around, statement (2) doesn't pertain to God (he isn't limited by space).

I don't think your friend can prove God via logic, nor do I think you can disprove God via logic. It's a matter of whether you choose to believe something based on faith, or whether you choose only to believe something based on evidence. A fairly decent argument is to point out that your friend doesn't believe in other gods (or invisible unicorns) for the same reason you don't believe in their God -- because of the lack of evidence.

-Bri

 

[theBigShagboski]

I have done so, however this leads to the argument that all we are left with is pure reason to determine God. Her belief is that pure reason leads to the undeniable need for God (she also throws the "First Cause" argument at me, answering the "Why is God First Cause" with "because there needs to be a first cause, so that is God" circular argument).

It is a fun argument to have, because it just goes back and forth with (what I think to be) thought-out points, but I just wonder where Dawkins gets the energy to do it over and over and over wth more bizarre arguments than this.

On my argument: I understand the criticism, thank you. Christians would probably throw it out. I use the term "space" for lack of a better term. But if God is "there," then he has to be "somewhere." And if he is "somewhere," there has to be some "where" for him to be. It doesn't have to be in our universe, but if there is no "where" for him to be, he is "nowhere" and doesn't exist. But if God is "somewhere," in that "where" there must a means to measure or define existence by virtue of knowing that it exists. If that is the case, the measurement of existence limits the existing, disproving the infinite God. (I find this logically follows, but am still up for suggestions)

I know it's a fool's errand, but it's fun to try ;-)

 

[Bri]

I have done so, however this leads to the argument that all we are left with is pure reason to determine God.

In my opinion, it leads to the fact that we cannot determine God (or lack thereof) using pure reason or anything else.

Her belief is that pure reason leads to the undeniable need for God (she also throws the "First Cause" argument at me, answering the "Why is God First Cause" with "because there needs to be a first cause, so that is God" circular argument).

Even if there must be a "first cause" (and it's not clear that there must) there is no evidence by which one would assume it to be God. "We don't know what caused the universe" isn't the same as "God caused the universe."

It is a fun argument to have, because it just goes back and forth with (what I think to be) thought-out points, but I just wonder where Dawkins gets the energy to do it over and over and over wth more bizarre arguments than this.

I just don't think that God can be proved or disproved, so although it's certainly an interesting discussion, go into it realizing that there have been no definitive answers in the last several thousands of years and you won't likely stumble upon one during the course of the discussion.

On my argument: I understand the criticism, thank you. Christians would probably throw it out. I use the term "space" for lack of a better term. But if God is "there," then he has to be "somewhere." And if he is "somewhere," there has to be some "where" for him to be. It doesn't have to be in our universe, but if there is no "where" for him to be, he is "nowhere" and doesn't exist. But if God is "somewhere," in that "where" there must a means to measure or define existence by virtue of knowing that it exists. If that is the case, the measurement of existence limits the existing, disproving the infinite God. (I find this logically follows, but am still up for suggestions)

I think I understand your argument, but I think that logically God must exist outside of the universe in order to have created it. It seems that "somewhere" as you describe it must be inside the universe.

I'm not certain I understand what you mean by "there must a means to measure or define existence by virtue of knowing that it exists." In fact, we don't know that God exists (even if he does), therefore I'm not certain that there must be a way of measuring or defining his existence (even if he does exist).

I know it's a fool's errand, but it's fun to try ;-)

In my opinion, you seem to be approaching it with the correct attitude! Good luck!

-Bri

 

[theBigShagboski]

In my opinion, it leads to the fact that we cannot determine God (or lack thereof) using pure reason or anything else.

Absolutely right. This is the sticking point in the God Battle, I think. I have said this before, but my opponent insists that Reason leads to proof of his existence (precisely because the universe itself doesn't show God - though she didn't answer my question: "If God created the science we now discover, why did he make it so astoundingly difficult to find proof of Him in that science?")

Even if there must be a "first cause" (and it's not clear that there must) there is no evidence by which one would assume it to be God. "We don't know what caused the universe" isn't the same as "God caused the universe."

My issue with the "First Cause" argument is: where do you decide that the thing which caused our universe is the First Cause? Why not the thing that caused the thing which caused our universe? Or the thing which caused the thing which caused our universe? And once you have determined that, which one of that string of creators is God? Is God that which created us, or that which created the creator of the creator?

Also, in reading the God Delusion (which my opponent is doing now), she seems to be taking the opinion that Dawkins is trying to say "God is unprovable," not that God is unobserved to the "there is zero evidence that he exists." And though I have reiterated that, it seems to not being understood. Why is the big misunderstanding by most people the concept that Atheism is a "faith" with all the answers of denying God, when Atheism is quite obviously the state of waiting for the answers? I'm sure there are those who believe without doubt that God doesn't exist, but everyone on this forum, and all the main atheists in the world don't deny him, merely say "We don't see any reasonable evidence that he is there and the universe gets along fine without him."

I just don't think that God can be proved or disproved, so although it's certainly an interesting discussion, go into it realizing that there have been no definitive answers in the last several thousands of years and you won't likely stumble upon one during the course of the discussion.

Have you noticed that most arguments tend to use answers from thousands of years ago, though? I'm sure there are plenty of atheistic examples, but I notice that the names which come up frequently are Plato, Aristotle, the Bible, and more recently Descartes, Anselm, etc. Is it telilng that "pure reason" which proves God comes from before an extended knowledge of the universe? Shouldn't reason incorporate the changing knowledge?

I think I understand your argument, but I think that logically God must exist outside of the universe in order to have created it. It seems that "somewhere" as you describe it must be inside the universe.

Maybe it is my limited 3-dimensional mindset, but assuming God exists outside the universe, then creating the universe created that universe "somewhere." I'd say that that could be argued for God-less existence, too, but at least making the assumption that God existed to create the universe, then there was something (God) existing somewhere to create a new something (the universe) where the first something (God) was. Even if the universe was a subset of God, as you say, there had to be God somewhere for the universe to be a subset of.

I'm not certain I understand what you mean by "there must a means to measure or define existence by virtue of knowing that it exists."

Sorry... I'll try to clarify:

Also, just to point out that from my actual reasoning earlier, I'm assuming that God exists to show that the contradiction that he can't. I take the definition from Anselm's argument, and make a response to it.

In our universe, Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces define its existence. Without those forces, matter would not have any coherence at all. I don't know quantum mechanics well enough to say that if matter had no coherence, it doesn't exist entirely, but our universe is defined, and we can exist in it because of those forces, and the three dimensions (plus time). I wonder if the Big Bang would have happened without all of those things operating in some form on the matter in the singularity (but I'm a history student, not a physicist )

Extending that, if God exists "somewhere," then there must be something which defines how that somewhere exists or operates, otherwise nothing could exist there. It doesn't have to be our fundamental laws or dimensions, but to have space for a thing such as God to exist in requires some establishment that it is there in the first place. Does that make more sense, of have I even confused myself?

In fact, we don't know that God exists (even if he does), therefore I'm not certain that there must be a way of measuring or defining his existence (even if he does exist).

Just to refer to above, for the purpose of my original reasoning, I assumed God existed. Otherwise, hell if I know if he's there

In my opinion, you seem to be approaching it with the correct attitude! Good luck!

-Bri

Thank you, and after lurking for like four months, I knew that if I could get constructive discussion on arguments, this would be the place to go I hope I haven't hijacked the original thread too much.

 

[Robin]

Choice comes in in the weighing of the evidence for its sufficiency. The evaluation of the evidence involves choices - as in, do you choose to accept the veracity of any particular piece of evidence? What meaning do you choose to ascribe to it? How much weight do you give various pieces of evidence?

This does not really help your case much. If a belief were chosen based on a bunch of other choices then it makes it seem less sincere than ever.

After all if you were on trial and the jury could not determine the veracity of a particular piece of evidence against you, but simply chose to accept it then how happy would that make you?

If evidence might have more than one meaning, and the jury chose to ascribe a particular meaning of it, rather than attempt to determine the true meaning of it, would you consider it a fair verdict?

If the jury simply chose to give weight to different pieces of evidence, rather than determining what weight they really should have, would you consider it a fair verdict?

In short would you be happy if a jury, rather than attemping to determine your guilt beyond reasonable doubt, simply chose to believe you were guilty?

You make it seem like the sufficiency of evidence is determined outside of your own decision making process, as if by magic.

On the contrary, you make it seem like the sufficiency of evidence is determined entirely by your own decision making process.

At what point do you decide that something is more likely than not?

As I say, I never decide that something is more likely than not.

 

[Bri]

Absolutely right. This is the sticking point in the God Battle, I think. I have said this before, but my opponent insists that Reason leads to proof of his existence (precisely because the universe itself doesn't show God - though she didn't answer my question: "If God created the science we now discover, why did he make it so astoundingly difficult to find proof of Him in that science?")

I'm quite sure I don't understand this "proof." God exists because there is no evidence of God? The universe doesn't show invisible unicorns either, so does that mean that they must exist?

My issue with the "First Cause" argument is: where do you decide that the thing which caused our universe is the First Cause? Why not the thing that caused the thing which caused our universe? Or the thing which caused the thing which caused our universe? And once you have determined that, which one of that string of creators is God? Is God that which created us, or that which created the creator of the creator?

Her argument will be that there must be an uncaused cause at the beginning of it. Of course, that's not entirely clear. Even if it is true, there is no reason to assume that the uncaused cause was God.

Also, in reading the God Delusion (which my opponent is doing now), she seems to be taking the opinion that Dawkins is trying to say "God is unprovable," not that God is unobserved to the "there is zero evidence that he exists." And though I have reiterated that, it seems to not being understood.

If God exists and is omnipotent, he could potentially reveal himself to us and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists. Short of that, even if God is unprovable by us, I'm not sure how that advances her argument that God must exist. Invisible unicorns are also unprovable by us, but that doesn't mean they exist.

Why is the big misunderstanding by most people the concept that Atheism is a "faith" with all the answers of denying God, when Atheism is quite obviously the state of waiting for the answers?

I think the misunderstanding stems from the fact that there are multiple categories of atheism. Atheism simply means not having a belief in God, which could mean that you have a belief that there are no Gods (strong atheism) or it could mean that you have no belief one way or the other (weak atheism).

I'm sure there are those who believe without doubt that God doesn't exist, but everyone on this forum, and all the main atheists in the world don't deny him, merely say "We don't see any reasonable evidence that he is there and the universe gets along fine without him."

I think there are some on this forum who are strong atheists, and hold a positive belief that God does not exist. Some weak atheists would agree with your friend that belief that God doesn't exist is based on faith rather than evidence. That doesn't change the fact that her belief that God exists is based on faith rather than evidence.

Additionally, most strong atheists don't claim to know for a fact that God doesn't exist, but rather claim that the (lack of) evidence seems to point that direction. It's possible that some strong atheists may contend that any definition of God is inherently contradictory or that various attributes of God cannot logically exist at the same time.

Your friend seems to be overstating her claim about the existence of God by stating that it is a logical fact rather than a belief based on faith.

Have you noticed that most arguments tend to use answers from thousands of years ago, though? I'm sure there are plenty of atheistic examples, but I notice that the names which come up frequently are Plato, Aristotle, the Bible, and more recently Descartes, Anselm, etc. Is it telilng that "pure reason" which proves God comes from before an extended knowledge of the universe? Shouldn't reason incorporate the changing knowledge?

To be honest, most of the arguments both for and against the existence of God are thousands of years old. Unfortunately, in all that time, nobody has come up with anything that would definitively prove prove of disprove the existence of God. That ought to tell you something!

Maybe it is my limited 3-dimensional mindset, but assuming God exists outside the universe, then creating the universe created that universe "somewhere." I'd say that that could be argued for God-less existence, too, but at least making the assumption that God existed to create the universe, then there was something (God) existing somewhere to create a new something (the universe) where the first something (God) was. Even if the universe was a subset of God, as you say, there had to be God somewhere for the universe to be a subset of.

Outside of the universe, I'm not sure "somewhere" makes any sense. Yes, in order for God to have created the universe, he must have existed. But if he exists outside of the universe (which he must if he created the universe) then I'm not sure what we can really know about the nature of that existence. For example, I don't think we could know that God must occupy space.

Does that make more sense, of have I even confused myself?

It may very well make sense, but you've definitely confused me! Perhaps someone else can comment on your argument. Meanwhile, I'll read it over again and get back to you!

Just to refer to above, for the purpose of my original reasoning, I assumed God existed. Otherwise, hell if I know if he's there

I understand that you assume that he does exist in order to try to prove a logical contradiction (thus proving that he doesn't exist). However, you said "there must a means to measure or define existence by virtue of knowing that it exists" which I took to mean that if we knew that God existed, then there must be a way to measure it (otherwise we wouldn't know). True enough, but the reality is that we DON'T know. Therefore, he may exist or he may not, and there may be a way for us to measure it and there may not.

Thank you, and after lurking for like four months, I knew that if I could get constructive discussion on arguments, this would be the place to go I hope I haven't hijacked the original thread too much.

I kind of entered into this thread in the middle too, so I can't speak for those who were here from the start. Unfortunately, I don't think I can ultimately be much help to you because I don't think you can prove that God doesn't exist. But nor do I believe that your friend can prove that God does exist, so I may be of more help there.

-Bri

 

[plumjam]

if it were left up to argument then there wouldn't have been much genuine religion. history shows that the real movers and shakers in religion are those who have claimed direct experience of the divine. for further enlightenment on this i would thoroughly recommend William James 'Varieties of Religious Experience', and Evelyn Underhill's 'Mysticism' - both classics in their field.

 

[theBigShagboski]

I'm quite sure I don't understand this "proof." God exists because there is no evidence of God? The universe doesn't show invisible unicorns either, so does that mean that they must exist?

I don't get it, either I think the approach from her perspective is this: When reasoned logically about the nature of existance, it is seen through he deductive reasoning that existence requires a higher intelligence to exist itself.

Nothing put forth has done anything of the sort, instead presented arbitrary decisions that say "We need this to make it work, so I will state it is so." I have yet to argue it properly, using Einstein's Cosmological Constant as example of "what not to do." (apparently a constant is considered more necessary now, but when he did it he was acting under assumptions of a static universe)

Her argument will be that there must be an uncaused cause at the beginning of it. Of course, that's not entirely clear. Even if it is true, there is no reason to assume that the uncaused cause was God.

Precisely, or that there must be an uncaused cause... I'm sure we could argue that in a void of no-time (where God exists, which is why he is the uncaused cause, I believe), there is no temporal chronology in which to determine that said Uncaused Cause could cause something to happen. ;-)

If God exists and is omnipotent, he could potentially reveal himself to us and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists. Short of that, even if God is unprovable by us, I'm not sure how that advances her argument that God must exist. Invisible unicorns are also unprovable by us, but that doesn't mean they exist.

And that, I think, is where reason comes in. Because as I say, if God created the universe, then he was a scientist, of sorts. He'd understand how the universe reveals itself through science, and would totally leave us a figurative fruit basket in chemistry or something. It doesn't stand to reason why he would use a malfunctioning, ambiguous system as the only way of revealing the omnipotent all-powerful creator of the universe.

I think there are some on this forum who are strong atheists, and hold a positive belief that God does not exist.

<snippage to save space>

Additionally, most strong atheists don't claim to know for a fact that God doesn't exist, but rather claim that the (lack of) evidence seems to point that direction.

Which is why I say that Atheism (and indeed, science) is waiting for answers. If the proverbial fruit basket WAS waiting at the chemical doorstep with a note that says "Enjoy the apples, luv God!" The strong atheists might just change their mind. I find the strong atheist philosophy is still not exclusively faith-based, because there are reams of numbers, observations, and reproduceable evidence that withstand a peer review to support at least the thought which leads to strong atheism. The most the Christian has is a book with dubious historical accuracy (though that didn't stop my friend from saying that the "eyewitness accounts" of the Bible written at least 200 years after the events took place is enough evidence for her... great law student ;-p)

Your friend seems to be overstating her claim about the existence of God by stating that it is a logical fact rather than a belief based on faith.

I think you're right.

But if he exists outside of the universe (which he must if he created the universe) then I'm not sure what we can really know about the nature of that existence. For example, I don't think we could know that God must occupy space.

I see what you're saying - the best we can hope for is a guess as to what lies outside of our universe, and even then we are biased with limited imaginations. Point taken!

It may very well make sense, but you've definitely confused me! Perhaps someone else can comment on your argument. Meanwhile, I'll read it over again and get back to you!

I'd love to hear back from anyone, really. I've enjoyed reading the forums over the months, so I signed up and took the opportunity. My arguing skills are sorely lacking so really appreciate the nitpicking over languge and clarifying the reasoning that you folks do over here.

I understand that you assume that he does exist in order to try to prove a logical contradiction (thus proving that he doesn't exist). However, you said "there must a means to measure or define existence by virtue of knowing that it exists" which I took to mean that if we knew that God existed, then there must be a way to measure it (otherwise we wouldn't know). True enough, but the reality is that we DON'T know. Therefore, he may exist or he may not, and there may be a way for us to measure it and there may not.

OH! I see. My mistake in word choice. I meant that under the assumption that he exists (in the argument), his existence itself defines and limits him, since there is a specific nature to the place he occupies.

I kind of entered into this thread in the middle too, so I can't speak for those who were here from the start. Unfortunately, I don't think I can ultimately be much help to you because I don't think you can prove that God doesn't exist.

I can't, and she can't - you're totally right about that. All I can hope is that I can open her eyes to different ways of approaching the matter, just as you are doing now. So thank you nonetheless!

 

[Robin]

This is where choice comes in, evidence itself does not compel you to believe one thing or another, nor does evaluating that evidence.

Well let me ask you After evaluating the evidence that the Earth orbits the Sun, would it be possible to choose to believe that the Sun orbits the Earth?

Ahh, you choice to believe that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God. Now you may argue that I have no hard scientific evidence for the existence of God, and this is true, but that does not mean there is not enough evidence for the existence of God. When I was discussing evidence before, I was assuming that evidence would be limited to scientific evidence that could not be refuted, but actual evidence is not just limited to scientific evidence.

And I never suggested that it was. For example I believe I love my children, although there could not be scientific evidence for this.

What evidence are you using? What evidence do you believe, what evidence do you not believe in?

I am still waiting for someone to supply the evidence. I know of no evidence for the existence of God. Perhaps you can suggest some.

Most people choose to believe in certain types of evidence and not others. In making an absolute statement that there is not enough evidence for the existence of God you must qualify what evidence and what type of evidence you are talking about.

What I said was, the evidence was not good. Most religions cite the Scriptures, but do I need to explain why the scriptures are not good evidence? Some people cite personal experience. But unfortunately most are rather vague about what that personal experience is.

I do not buy the Argument from Design, from first cause or Pascal's Wager, or the various Ontological arguments. I do not buy Lewis's "either Christianity is true or Jesus was mad or a liar so Christianity must be true". I do not buy Lewis's "if there is a moral law then there must be a lawgiver" argument either. I do not buy Plantinga's "if materialism were true then we would have a monkey mind and what does a monkey know" argument.

I do not buy the fine-tuned universe argument.

So there, I have specified the types of arguments I have heard to support the existence of God. Do you want me to go into exactly why these arguments do not convince me?

Many religious people would disagree with you, there is plenty of "evidence" for the existence of God.

Such as?

However this most likely is not evidence that you yourself would choose to believe in.

Try me.

Finally I believe, that is I am choosing to believe, that we will have to agree to disagree. If my posts up till now have not convinced you of what I am saying, I doubt this current or future posts will.

But would you say that you have presented any evidence in any sense for the existence of God?

 

[Bri]

I don't get it, either I think the approach from her perspective is this: When reasoned logically about the nature of existance, it is seen through he deductive reasoning that existence requires a higher intelligence to exist itself.

Sorry, but that's wishful thinking rather than logic as far as I can tell. And if true, then God would require a higher intelligence than God to exist.

Precisely, or that there must be an uncaused cause... I'm sure we could argue that in a void of no-time (where God exists, which is why he is the uncaused cause, I believe), there is no temporal chronology in which to determine that said Uncaused Cause could cause something to happen. ;-)

There is the argument that the concept of "uncaused cause" is meaningless because there was no time before t=0. There is also the theory that it "just happened by chance." The bottom line is that we don't know. However, not knowing does not lead to the logical conclusion that it must have been God.

And that, I think, is where reason comes in. Because as I say, if God created the universe, then he was a scientist, of sorts. He'd understand how the universe reveals itself through science, and would totally leave us a figurative fruit basket in chemistry or something. It doesn't stand to reason why he would use a malfunctioning, ambiguous system as the only way of revealing the omnipotent all-powerful creator of the universe.

One thing is very clear: if an omnipotent God exists and wants us to know of his existence, we would know of his existence. Therefore, it can be concluded that if God exists he doesn't want us to know of his existence.

Which is why I say that Atheism (and indeed, science) is waiting for answers.

Absolutely. The difference between science and faith is that without evidence for either "A" or "B" science says "we don't know" whereas faith says "it must be C!"

If the proverbial fruit basket WAS waiting at the chemical doorstep with a note that says "Enjoy the apples, luv God!" The strong atheists might just change their mind.

It would take some pretty definitive evidence I would think (probably more than a basket of apples) but your point is well-taken. That said, I think it's a minority of theists who are so solidified in their beliefs that they wouldn't look at similarly obvious evidence that there is no God.

I find the strong atheist philosophy is still not exclusively faith-based, because there are reams of numbers, observations, and reproduceable evidence that withstand a peer review to support at least the thought which leads to strong atheism.

I'm not certain which "reams of numbers, observations, and reproduceable evidence" you've seen that disprove the existence of either invisible unicorns or God. It would be difficult indeed to produce evidence to prove the nonexistence of anything.

In my opinion, when the evidence doesn't clearly point to either direction but your belief points to one or the other, it's a faith-based belief by definition. The problem is that "clearly" is a subjective term. How clear does it have to be to hold a belief? I think we all hold beliefs without clear evidence all the time -- we generally call them "opinions." I think it's valid for a theist to hold an opinion about God just as it's valid for an atheist to hold an opinion about God, as long as they admit that it's just an opinion.

The most the Christian has is a book with dubious historical accuracy (though that didn't stop my friend from saying that the "eyewitness accounts" of the Bible written at least 200 years after the events took place is enough evidence for her... great law student ;-p)

Here I will completely agree with you as to how solid the evidence for the existence of God is.

I see what you're saying - the best we can hope for is a guess as to what lies outside of our universe, and even then we are biased with limited imaginations. Point taken!

Yes, exactly.

I'd love to hear back from anyone, really. I've enjoyed reading the forums over the months, so I signed up and took the opportunity. My arguing skills are sorely lacking so really appreciate the nitpicking over languge and clarifying the reasoning that you folks do over here.

If you want to take another stab at clarifying your argument, I'd be happy to nitpick. I'm sure others would as well.

OH! I see. My mistake in word choice. I meant that under the assumption that he exists (in the argument), his existence itself defines and limits him, since there is a specific nature to the place he occupies.

OK, I see. I don't buy it, but I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure we can know anything at all about the nature of anything outside of our universe.

I can't, and she can't - you're totally right about that. All I can hope is that I can open her eyes to different ways of approaching the matter, just as you are doing now. So thank you nonetheless!

Perhaps you can at least convince her that her belief that God exists is only an opinion. If she can get that far, she should at least be able to see things from your point of view, even if she disagrees with you.

-Bri