I want to take a few minutes to address the question of whether it is the purpose of this website to prove God exists.
Generally, in a discussion, if two people have opposing views on any topic it is assumed that at the start the balance is roughly 50/50 and, as the arguments are presented, the balance will end up leaning more towards one side or the other.
When it comes to the conversation between theists and atheists however that is seldom the case. In most instances the atheist comes to the discussion with the conviction that both logic and science have already sufficiently shown that the possibility of god is extremely, extremely small. So much so that for anyone to think otherwise implies the person is either seriously brainwashed, severely uneducated or just plain dumb. (Yes, theists at times have the same attitude toward atheists, but for different reasons)
Under these circumstances it would be a complete waste of time for me to start talking about my reasons for believing a god exists. There is nothing I could say during the timespan of a common discussion that will not be perceived by the atheist as utterly insufficient to counteract the mountain of evidence in his favor. Rather, if logic and science suggest that the possibility for god is so extremely small, we should begin with an explanation of HOW the atheist arrived at that conclusion.
In a debate, if one side makes an attempt to poison the well, it becomes necessary to pause the current discussion and address THAT claim first. Otherwise, further arguments in support of the original position will become severely weakened. In the same way, the atheist cannot frame a discussion as already leaning strongly in his favor even before it starts and then expect that the theist will just accept this humongous burden of proof without some justification. Therefore, before engaging in a conversation about whether God exists, the atheist needs to first explain how he arrived at the conclusion that this possibility is so small.
Interestingly enough, although atheists are so good at convincing themselves and their audiences that debates should be framed under the assumption that science and reason already lean strongly in their favor, it has been my experience that when asked to explain just why, they’ve got nothing. Rather, for the most part what they have is:
a) Flawed or circular reasoning
b) A poor understanding of science and how it works
c) Misunderstandings about theism or Christianity (or at least an understanding of only certain groups of theists whose position is also considered irrational by the other theists)
d) Or worse, when pressed it turns out there is no logical or scientific reason at all but simply a purely faith-based belief that things are so. Or, similar to this, one person believes it because they have surrounded themselves with a community of people that also believe it. And they believe this community is smarter than the average population and therefore more likely to be right. And, this community is smarter BECAUSE it believes that which is more likely to be right. (I’m always amused when atheists call themselves the free-thought community and set up conferences with names like Reason Rally)
In any case, if that got you a bit rattled up, here’s the thing:
1) If you want to talk with me we either agree to start with a completely blank slate where we know nothing at the start and then begin to present arguments for one side and then the other
2) If you feel that things really are leaning that much in your favor and you cannot pretend like the possibility of God is 50/50 at the start of the debate, you then need to demonstrate how you arrived at that conclusion first.
As far as the articles I have already written and continue to write on here, they will almost always be a response to claims made by atheists rather than claims I am making myself. Making any claims in favor of theism at this point is just premature.Share