Atheists: How would you respond to the end of this short debate?

Question

This short dialogue deals with evidence for God's existence. Though the discussion didn't really examine any proofs for God, it dealt more with Dan's presuppositions and what evidence he would accept as sufficient to show that God exists.

It was brought to my attention that some atheists think this dialogue was contrived, that it is a lie from me to make atheists look bad. The truth is that it is a real dialogue. I did not make it up. if the atheists have to resort to defamation to hold their position, then they have no position worth defending.



Matt: Why is it that you do not believe in God?
Dan: Because there is no evidence that he exists.
Matt: You cant say that because you have not looked at all evidence in the world. That isn't possible.
Dan: Lets just say I don't see sufficient evidence for gods existence.
Matt: But, if a person asked you what kind of things you'd accept, within reason, as evidence for God, what would you say? If you have nothing to offer, then you haven't thought your position through... and if you haven't done that, then can you honestly lay claim to the title atheist?
Dan: Come up with a way that you would believe in unicorns, and Ill show you a way to fake it. You come up with an air tight way to believe in unicorns, then get back to me about the illogic of my position.
Matt: The way to believe in unicorns is to find one, or have pictures of one, or a fossil of one, or a bunch of people who said they saw one, and they all described, basically the same thing: a unicorn. That would be a way.
Dan: Well, how about, if he [God] could do something that was clearly illogical, like make a square circle, and show it to me. Then I would believe.
Matt: A square circle is a non-sequitur. It is self contradictory by definition. God cannot violate his own nature. Besides how would you comprehend such a contradictory thing if it somehow were able to be done? You wouldn't know it and your proof would be useless since you couldn't understand it. Besides, it cant be done anyway.
Dan: Why not?
Matt: Can you violate your own nature? Can you will yourself to be bigger than the sun?
Dan: No, but if there is a god, Id expect him to exist outside of logic.
Matt: Perhaps, but not against logic since He created it.
Dan: If he created logic, why cant He do things that run against it?
Matt: If God created the universe and everything in it, then he created it out of his own nature. The design and natural laws had to originate in His mind. Therefore, it will have His characteristics woven into it: logic, physics, etc. These are all reflections of Gods awesome creative character. Also, since God is self-sufficient, He cannot be self contradictory. Otherwise, He could not sustain Himself. Therefore, He cannot violate His own nature.
Dan: So? Is he limited to the things he built into the universe? Isn't he omnipotent?
Matt: Yes....
Dan: Why cant he act against His own universe?
Matt: He could. He could destroy the entire universe. But He chooses not to.
Dan: What a crock. Just like I could stomp the earth and crush all armies with a wave of my hand. I just choose not to. Your argument isn't valid.
Matt: Why? Just because God doesn't choose to do something He has the power to do, it does not mean He does not exist. After all, does it prove that you do not exist if you choose not to do something you could do? If you choose not to clap your hands right now, does that mean you do not exist? Of course not.
Dan: [no response]
Matt: Think about this. God choosing to not exercise His will in something is the same as you choosing not to exercise belief in a god. You could, you just don't. Both are a lack of action. So, how can you complain against God for not moving according to your criteria, when you choose to not move at all in believe in Him?


At this point, the conversation ended.....

I believe that Dan was incapable of finding God because he had a false method of verifying evidence for God. He seemed to require evidence that was naturally impossible. I attempted to show him the error in his logic.

Source: www.carm.org

Answer 1

None of these "arguments for god"in any way,shape,or form,describe or argue for the CHRISTIAN god.Why is that?tip:Never bluff with a jack high,you will lose

Answer 2

Dan won his argument with the unicorn.... doing the activities of the unicorn which we know did no produce a real unicorn just how humans can make a god seem real... like the unicorn example.. humans did that with god.. we know that unicorns do not exist... Dan just didn't recognize when he won the argument.... any further debate can only lead to the illogical.. which it did... he should have quit while he was ahead... Isn't it exactly how the conversations or debates about god work... really the atheists win the debate but don't know the exact point of which they do it.... take evolution.. evolution wins the debate until someone says evolution can't exist till you can prove the origins of the universe.. that is not what proving evolution means... through plant life and insects.. which are much smaller than the universe are something we can see touch and observe... their cycles are going on every day... they evolve... any further discussion on the matter is insane.. so why keep taking it there.

Answer 3

As soon as Dan said: "Well, how about, if he [God] could do something that was clearly illogical, like make a square circle, and show it to me. Then I would believe.", I knew that Matt had the advantage in that argument, because honestly, that was terrible on Dan's part.

Dan set himself up for Matt to contradict what he said. He should have said something along the lines of, "I would accept something as evidence for god if it were objective, undeniable, and reasonable, such as the return of Jesus Christ, or some kind of astounding miracle that could not be explained in any other way--things that people believe god is able to do, even today."

Anyways, I think I know who you're talking about (Matt), and I've seen him on TV once or twice. He is probably one of the most intellecutal and reasonable Christians I've ever seen.

"rt66lt" above me also makes a very good point. Matt has gone on the presupposition that one already believes in god, which causes confliction in the arguements, since atheists obviously don't go on "I already believe in god."

Answer 4

Right so try this, If we assume that God is to be taken by faith, there is no reason to assume that anything he said that he did would not leave evidence.

Creation as described in the Bible is clearly false, there is no evidence for it and alternatives like "It's a metaphor" have theological impacts.
The Flood as described in the Bible is clearly false. There is no evidence of a world wide flood, and there are many problems with the story as related.

I just realized that I was discounting the stuff that we should be asking for evidence of. So trying again, evidence for things that God said he did.
1. A layer of global silt dated to the same time
2. Polar ice caps dated to the same time as above or evidence of a flood disturbing them at that time.
3. Remains of the tower of babel - it was a really large structure and it's unlikely that it was totally scavenged.
4. Records of Joseph and his descendants in Egypt or any evidence that they left Egypt and traveled to Israel. Hieroglyphs for Moses would be nice, even if they had been removed.
5. Every existing civilization of the time would have noticed if the sun stopped or moved backwards, accounts from around the world dating to the same time would be good.
6. The star of Bethlehem should have been observed by many civilizations and recorded.
7. The temple curtain should have been recorded as being ripped.
8. Eyewitness/contemporary accounts of Jesus doing miracles.
9. A positive correlation between prayer and getting better as opposed to the opposite.

These are the pieces of evidence that I would consider, along with others.

Contrary to what you asserted, one does not need to know all the evidence in the world to determine that Santa, Unicorns or any of the gods don't exist.

Answer 5

yeah I'm in i am an atheist it is more reasonable to be atheist since no one knows what god is has any evidence to back any of their definitions or evidence that god is real. it is not up to me to prove that god doesn't exists but up to you that god does exist. I ask you all if god is omnipotent then can god create a universe where there would be no reason to believe god is real? is that the universe we are in? and if not why not? no one has really paid any attention to my propositions!!!!!! Nick d are you speaking to me then please state that you are . English is my 3rd language thus i am sorry if i seem retarded. but at least i have sense enough not to use words that are intrinsically paradoxical. like the word god unless i am pointing out a logical flaw or some such thing in using the word. Christianity is the belief that god is a zombie who got tortured by a human in order to stop people from behaving badly (like satisfying their biological drives) people behaved badly because a snake spoke to a woman and told her to eat an apple. Where is the rational in believing this paragraph as having any historical truth? I will gladly debate with anyone. princesses yum yum how about showing some humility in that you don't know anything about anything esp about god. your claim that you have met jesus doesn't prove anything I have met a few people called jesus and one man called allah. in a psychology summer school. But just because someone has a name that can be found in a work of fiction it doesn't prove anything.

Answer 6

I didn't' read all of this, it's pointless. It's the same old back and forth bickering that goes on.

The last paragraph (Matt's) is pointless and flawed. It goes back to the notion that Dan must believe first before finding God. This is a Catch-22 and false. We can go through the same entire argument and wind up with why doesn't Matt believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster: Matt needs to believe in the FSM before finding Him. It's kind of silly, really.

Oh, and by the way, I DO believe in God and I still find this argument fruitless.

Answer 7

Anyone that doesn't believe now has a false method of verying god? I believe there's an invisible tiger in the back of my car, everytime I turn around he disappears into thin air. If you don't believe the same it is because your method of verification is incorrect. There is still not one shred of evidence for any kind of god. Not one. There is plenty of evidence of humans believing in nonsense and superstition however. Also death is a pretty grim thought so it also seems far more likely man made something up to try to eradicate this.

Answer 8

May I ask what the source of the dialogue was? Although you may not have made it up, it has all the earmarks of someone having done so.

Your not originally citing the source of the dialogue (which I see you've since corrected )raises some interesting questions, don't you think?

I submit that if one begins with an a priori conviction that God exists, one has abandoned logic. Please have a look at A. J. Ayer's "Language, Truth and Logic."

Answer 9

Dan was barking up the wrong tree here. He could have called attention to the general lifelessness of the universe and the randomness of the world in general, and cited that God is only used to explain things we do not understand (such as the origins of life) and used to be cited for a whole lot of other things that we now do understand (like thunder and lightning), and pointed out that one day in the future the origins of life will be well understood and that God will only be used to explain things we haven't even heard of yet.

Answer 10

first problem with the argument.
"The way to believe in unicorns is to find one, or have pictures of one, or a fossil of one, or a bunch of people who said they saw one, and they all described, basically the same thing: a unicorn. That would be a way."
apparently the arguer thinks eye-witness testimony is enought to show evidence. there are hundreds of eye-witness claims of ufo's. until i see one with my own eyes i won't believe any aliens have come to earth. even if i saw one, i'd have to confer with others that, that is indeed what i saw? perhaps it was just my imagination. imagination has been known to fool people from time to time. there's a lengthy process of believing from simply seeing. what can i say? i don't believe in magic tricks either.
well, i could go on, but this response will likely get ignored... oh well...

Answer 11

The entire conversation is just trying to get to a mutually accepted definition of "deity". I don't believe that anyone has ever come up with a definition of that word that satisfies believers and is not self contradictory. When you do, let me know. Until then, this entire question is premature.