Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis?

[Thought Criminal]

Many theists will tell you that their belief in God is based on faith, or on something equally nonrational or irrational, such as a special feeling they have, or their unshakable trust in their parents, or an ineffable experience.

Fine, but none of this carries any weight for me because, as a secular humanist, I have a commitment to believe only what is rationally justified, what a logical analysis of the evidence compels me to believe. It's possible that I might miss out on some truths this way, but I do avoid many, many falsehoods. Of course, I do want to believe whatever's true, so I'm always open to evidence.

Anyhow, this leads me to the obvious question: Can a belief in God be justified on a rational basis? If so, how?

TC

[LittlePig]

My intent was only to establish that there is a plane or mode of "existence" that is neither physical nor objective, and I think I did that. The nature of the God-encounter is for another thread.

+

I see your point, but does interacting with the subjective human mind constitute interacting with material, concrete reality? I doubt that it does; the mind may then impact reality as a result of one's thoughts, but that is a separate transaction, so to speak.

Even if interaction with the human mind does constitute interaction with concrete reality, does that mean that God Himself is part of that material reality? I don't see how that follows. Dreams, for instance, have an effect in the mind, but I doubt that anyone would say they are part of the material Universe. Perhaps I am wrong.

Is human thought part of concrete, material reality? It's hard to see how it could be, by the terms presented to me on this thread.

There seems to be a bit of 'if a tree falls in a forest, but nobody hears it, does it make a sound' idea here. I agree that the pictures/thoughts/abstractions seen in one's head are subjective experiences, much like experiencing a tree falling in a forest all by yourself. Does it only make a sound for you? Do the vibrations affect other things in the system besides your ears, things that could be objectively measured were anyone around to do so? If you are stuck in a cave and no one can see the pretty rock formations but you, do they exist in this material reality, or do they exist on a plane or mode of "existence" that is neither physical nor objective? That may sound silly, but whether we are in the forest, the cave, or our own skulls, being the only audience member to a show doesn't make the show exist on another plane of reality. It's just a private show.

If the brain and its thoughts are made up of physical things like neurons and chemicals and electrical charges, I don't see where this plane or mode of "existence" that is neither physical nor objective comes into play. What those currents on the brain feel like to you will only be available to you, but it seems to be very much a material process verifiable (from a certain POV) by all who care to apply electrodes to your exposed brain.

So thoughts are physically real, dreams are physically real, love is physically real, etc., but they look different backstage than they do in the mosh pit.

The reason that I say that God's interaction with a material, concrete reality would seem to make God a part of that reality is that they must have something in common in order to interact. There must be some overlap, some interface, some common properties, some relationship to interact. If 'spirit' (or whatever other reality is postulated) can and does push molecules and transfer energy in our material universe (in our brains), then it seems to be part of the same system. This may be unidirectional in that only our material universe is affected by this other reality, or vice versa. But if one experiences the other, there must be some point of juncture. And if there are enough points of juncture, one could theoretically form a picture of that which is hidden by the response of the affected reality. Like clothing draped over a human figure, one can make out all the details from where the body pushes against the fabric. And this brings God into our reality.

Neither pantheism nor panentheism is an appropriate category. God is not identical with the Universe, as in pantheism; neither is the Universe part of God or an aspect of God, as in panentheism. God is, rather, an aspect of the Universe that is only present in the mind; subjective real, but not objectively so.

The imperfect analogy of mathematics might be helpful again here. If one picks up a stone, one does not "experience" mathematics; but if one picks up a stone and thinks, "One stone," one does. The experience is in the mind, not in the stone.

An aspect of the physical universe in a physical mind but itself not physically or objectively real? This sounds like an interesting philosophical discussion. Personally I don't think math is something that exists distinct from the universe. Mathematical relationships (IMO) come from observing the interaction of discrete quantities of the same thing. The human mind forms neural pattens (abstractions) that are expressed with symbols to describe these observed relationships. All of this happens in the physical universe, but some parts start as a private show and evolve into an inside joke via shared abstractions.

Saying that God is an attribute or aspect of the universe almost sounds like God is a side effect of the universe, something dependant on the universe itself.

[JoeyKnothead]

What a debate, one minute I'm an atheist, the next I'm reaching for my good book. I'm sorry to spam your table, and I will be taking my leave. In an effort to try to add to the debate, I will say there's a lot of folks who need to hear what's going on in here. I've forgotten what I came in here for. I'll be around.

[cnorman18]

There seems to be a bit of 'if a tree falls in a forest, but nobody hears it, does it make a sound' idea here. I agree that the pictures/thoughts/abstractions seen in one's head are subjective experiences, much like experiencing a tree falling in a forest all by yourself. Does it only make a sound for you? Do the vibrations affect other things in the system besides your ears, things that could be objectively measured were anyone around to do so? If you are stuck in a cave and no one can see the pretty rock formations but you, do they exist in this material reality, or do they exist on a plane or mode of "existence" that is neither physical nor objective? That may sound silly, but whether we are in the forest, the cave, or our own skulls, being the only audience member to a show doesn't make the show exist on another plane of reality. It's just a private show.

Well, in the case of the tree and the cave, the fact that one is alone doesn't alter the fact that those phenomena are physical and real. They are verifiable; one could show another person the fallen tree or the rock formations. One cannot show one's thoughts to another directly, though, absent a Vulcan Mind Meld. Nevertheless, I see your point. There is more, though:

If the brain and its thoughts are made up of physical things like neurons and chemicals and electrical charges, I don't see where this plane or mode of "existence" that is neither physical nor objective comes into play. What those currents on the brain feel like to you will only be available to you, but it seems to be very much a material process verifiable (from a certain POV) by all who care to apply electrodes to your exposed brain.

But the point I am making is this; as you said, "What those currents on the brain feel like to you will only be available to you." The conundrum remains; is the subjective thought, as it is experienced, "real," or is it only the electrical impulses? Is there not a distinction?

Are the currents in the brain identical with the thought? Are they the same thing?

If they are, what distinguishes a true thought from a false one? How can one set of electrical impulses have any more "validity" than another? How can they be said to have any cognitive content at all?

Do you see what I mean? The physical nature of a thought isn't its reality. That lies in its subjective perception. The electrical impulses in the brain can no more define or explain the nature of thought than one can define or explain the uniqueness of a Leonardo by analyzing the chemical composition of the paint. It's a physical fact, but at bottom still irrelevant to the reality of it, which is subjective.

Further, which causes which? Are subjective thoughts determined by brain activity, or is it the other way around? It seems to me that identifying thought with electrochemical brain activity doesn't resolve the problem, but only takes it back a step. The question of objective reality vs. subjective remains.

So thoughts are physically real, dreams are physically real, love is physically real, etc., but they look different backstage than they do in the mosh pit.

But that difference, it seems to me, is the point. Brain and Mind don't have identical meanings in common speech, and they aren't identical in fact, either.

The reason that I say that God's interaction with a material, concrete reality would seem to make God a part of that reality is that they must have something in common in order to interact. There must be some overlap, some interface, some common properties, some relationship to interact..

Of course. And in my, er, thought, that interface is in the realm of the subjective. In the mind, not the brain:

If 'spirit' (or whatever other reality is postulated) can and does push molecules and transfer energy in our material universe (in our brains), then it seems to be part of the same system.

Wait. Can that be how it works? If you tell me something, are you pushing molecules and transferring energy in my brain? Well, of course; my ear picks up the sound waves and my brain translates them into meaningful patterns. But if I read the same thing, we have a whole new set of neural pathways at work. It's clearly the cognitive content of that message that inspires the thought, not some kind of physical direct action.

This may be unidirectional in that only our material universe is affected by this other reality, or vice versa.

Well, that would take us back to Martin Buber again, For now, leave it.

But if one experiences the other, there must be some point of juncture.

In my understanding, that juncture is in subjective thought.

And if there are enough points of juncture, one could theoretically form a picture of that which is hidden by the response of the affected reality. Like clothing draped over a human figure, one can make out all the details from where the body pushes against the fabric. And this brings God into our reality.

If you're following my reasoning here, that would bring us to the point where we can discuss, imperfectly, a partially sensed and dimly understood, and only subjectively real, God. Which is pretty much where my theology is. God is a part of our reality, but only in the subjective aspect of it; real, but not concrete.

Neither pantheism nor panentheism is an appropriate category. God is not identical with the Universe, as in pantheism; neither is the Universe part of God or an aspect of God, as in panentheism. God is, rather, an aspect of the Universe that is only present in the mind; subjective real, but not objectively so.

The imperfect analogy of mathematics might be helpful again here. If one picks up a stone, one does not "experience" mathematics; but if one picks up a stone and thinks, "One stone," one does. The experience is in the mind, not in the stone.

An aspect of the physical universe in a physical mind but itself not physically or objectively real? This sounds like an interesting philosophical discussion.

It clearly already is.

Personally I don't think math is something that exists distinct from the universe.

That's what I said! It is an aspect of the Universe, but not a separate and concrete part of it!

Mathematical relationships (IMO) come from observing the interaction of discrete quantities of the same thing. The human mind forms neural pattens (abstractions) that are expressed with symbols to describe these observed relationships. All of this happens in the physical universe, but some parts start as a private show and evolve into an inside joke via shared abstractions.

What's the difference? The mathematical idea is only defined and expressed within the mind. The immanent presence of Number is indeed a part of the physical Universe, but it is only manifest when humans think about it. That strikes me as an alternate way of expressing my own thoughts on the matter.

Saying that God is an attribute or aspect of the universe almost sounds like God is a side effect of the universe, something dependant on the universe itself.

Well, I haven't ruled that out. Considering the pattern of my thinking, though, He would seem to be more dependent on the existence of human minds. The present puzzle for me would be, where was God before humans came along? Perhaps He remained immanent, but not manifest, until humans could interact with Him subjectively.

It's a work in progress. As far as I know, Jewish tradition never found its way into these particular thickets.

Thanks for your posts. It's refreshing to talk with someone who at least takes these ideas seriously (as opposed to just consigning them to the dumpster out of hand), even if we don't agree.

[Cathar1950]

I can't help but see your point being somewhat of a panentheist myself.
I am forced to disagree with Cnorman's statement even if I can say some do think that way.

Corrected, as noted in my reply to LittlePig.

Atheist live in a world of meaning, concepts and culture and much of it does not fit within his conception of materialism. As a non-dualist I appreciate reality being grounded in out experiences of the universe but as limited finite humans we can be wrong about ultimate reality.

I quite agree. I have always said that I am not absolutely, objectively certain that God exists; I don't see how anyone can be. I have been described as an "agnostic theist," and as I said, I thought that description a fair one.

I have just finished reading Schellenberg's "The Wisdom of Doubt " and I am about to reread it. One of the things we need to keep in mind is the need for healthy doubt about ultimate reality both as presented by the religious and the irreligious.

Indeed. Such doubt is, in fact, the Jewish way. We are more famous for questioning and arguing than for agreeing--about much of anything.

I suspect that Cnorman might be still looking at materialism from a 19th century model and the world is slowly changing.
Many atheists as well as theist suffer from the same.

I know nothing of 19th century materialism. I was responding to the statements which were addressed to me, and nothing more.

I can sympathize with what you are saying and I wasn't sure you had a 19th Century view of materialism but it is usually what those are accused of when they assume matter is just dead junk.
I tend to see any reasonable idea of God as being the universe and not something separate or above and beyond it. Kind of an in-folding or entanglement but that could be because Whitehead and Hartshorne have been an influence.
One of the things I appreciate about Hebrew thinking was the nerve to question even God. I can hardly imagine my children growing up and not questioning me.
I suppose I am a agnostic panentheist of sorts but I find it hard to find a appropriate label.

[daedalus 2.0]

Actually, this discussion is about your answer to the topic question, in which you claimed that there is a rational basis that justifies a belief in God. It should be quite clear that your claim has the burden of proof. You don't get to play burden tennis or you-tooism. If you must, just pretend I'm agnostic, then go on and prove your claim.

I did claim that, but I did not claim that I have absolute proof. Moreover, I did not claim that, even if I did, I would be able to convince you with it (which is what you seem to be demanding).
More to this particular point, establishing the initial debate question does not free you from any burden of proof. I may be answering the question, but any failure to do so adequately on my part does not logically infer atheism. Simply put, you would have no burden of proof if you had simply asked the question. This is not the case, however, you have, as I, offered an answer to the question (atheism). To that end, you have a burden of proof as well.

Jester you seem to miss the point of a debate - it is to argue a position so as to make it convincing. Not that everyone goes home and thinks "wow, there sure were a lot of words spoken today!"

What is happening is that you are being roundly schooled. "Pwned", I believe is the term.

See:

If you wish me to operate under the hypothetical assumption that you are agnostic, I would (reluctantly) agree to that, though it would mean that you refrain from asserting anything in debate that is not consistent with agnosticism.

It is not a wish. It is the nature of debate. You claimed something. If someone comes back and asks you to defend it, then it doesn't matter if they are atheist, theist, rastafarian, nazi, dead, a squirrel or a pickle: YOU made the claim and by doing so you assume the responsibility of defending it - at least to yourself in an honest manner.

Consider this. All of these questions are for YOUR benefit. They are the questions you should be asking yourself.

That is the nature of discovery and philosophy: to have people prod you into thinking about things that you might not consider.

Think of us as helping you through your thought processes. You made a claim. Support it to the best of your ability so that you can live with yourself knowing that you looked at all angles - not lived as a pawn in the dogmatic ideas of other people.

[Zzyzx]

.

Your question was, can a belief in God be justified by a rational basis. The one thing that always keeps my belief rational to me is that humans are kind of in the dark about what happened before the Big Bang.

There might be two general stances one could take. You could either believe that the energy or matter of the universe simply always existed, or you could believe that a higher power aka "God" created the universe and the energy and matter that goes along with it.

A far more reasonable and rational position, in my opinion, is – It does not make one whit of difference in my life HOW the universe originated. My relationship to other people and to my environment is intact without that knowledge. I am at no disadvantage in not knowing “the origin of the universe�.

I am VERY interested in learning about things that DO influence and affect my life, the lives of people around me, and our environment. There is a great deal to learn about such things without speculating on “the unknown� (or the unknowable).

People who speculate about “the origin� are usually NOT those who actually study the matter but rather are those who promote religion and claim that their favorite “gods� are responsible for everything. They typically do NOT understand the physics involved (beyond elementary level), which makes their “arguments� more comical than serious.

NO religion can demonstrate that claims that their “god did it� are any more valid than claims that the next “god� did it.

[Jester]

Jester you seem to miss the point of a debate - it is to argue a position so as to make it convincing. Not that everyone goes home and thinks "wow, there sure were a lot of words spoken today!"

I agree that arguments should be convincing. I also believe that, to be convincing, they must be logically sound. This is why I consider it important to address what I consider to be a logical fallacy.

What is happening is that you are being roundly schooled. "Pwned", I believe is the term.

Any debate that teaches us something is a good one.

If you wish me to operate under the hypothetical assumption that you are agnostic, I would (reluctantly) agree to that, though it would mean that you refrain from asserting anything in debate that is not consistent with agnosticism.

It is not a wish. It is the nature of debate. You claimed something. If someone comes back and asks you to defend it, then it doesn't matter if they are atheist, theist, rastafarian, nazi, dead, a squirrel or a pickle: YOU made the claim and by doing so you assume the responsibility of defending it - at least to yourself in an honest manner.

I agree with this as well. My reason for the comment above was that both ThoughtCriminal and I were making claims. I accept that I should be expected to defend mine, but was simply pointing out that the same applies to his.

Consider this. All of these questions are for YOUR benefit. They are the questions you should be asking yourself.

I ask myself these questions every day. I certainly believe that they are here to benefit each of us. Hopefully, we’ll all walk away having learned something.

That is the nature of discovery and philosophy: to have people prod you into thinking about things that you might not consider.

Which is what ThoughtCriminal and I are doing to one another, I agree. I have no objection to this. It is why I am here.

Think of us as helping you through your thought processes. You made a claim. Support it to the best of your ability so that you can live with yourself knowing that you looked at all angles - not lived as a pawn in the dogmatic ideas of other people.

This is a bit of a sweeping judgment of my theological history. I’m not sure you really have enough information to claim such things about me just yet.
That aside, however, I’ll agree that we all have much to learn. Hopefully, we all can be seeking to learn as this debate goes on.

[Zzyzx]

.

That aside, however, I’ll agree that we all have much to learn. Hopefully, we all can be seeking to learn as this debate goes on.

Jester,

I am developing a healthy respect for the positions you present. Perhaps that is an indication that one or both of us are learning. Could it be that your presentation has changed over the past year or so OR that my perception of what you say has changed -- or both?

At any rate, it is good to see a Christian presenting arguments that are reasoned and rational (even though I disagree with supernaturalism). What you say is much more worthy of respect, in my opinion, than the rabid fundamentalism that is so often promoted in these threads.

Thank you for being the voice of reason “on your side of the aisle� – thought we probably shouldn’t think of ourselves as on separate “sides� just because we have different opinions regarding theology.

[Thought Criminal]

All alternatives, for purposes of debate are considered equal until established otherwise.

No matter how you slice this, it doesn't help you any.

First, the topic question is whether you can justify a belief in God on a rational basis, so arguing that (for the purposes of debate, only) theism is no worse than atheism just doesn't get you anywhere. In fact, if you argued that the lack of disproof constitutes a proof, you would then be guilty of the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy that you mistakenly accuse me of.

It doesn't help that I've put forth an as yet undisputed argument which establishes that the burden resides with the positive claim of God's existence, both on general arguments from probability and from the unique scope and size of the claim.

I suppose you could say that I’ve done exactly that. I’ve put forth the proposition that an atheistic position, unless it is also nihilistic, is inherently irrational and must be removed from our list of rational possibilities.

You haven't yet, but you seem to be trying to now. The problem is that, even if atheists must be nihilists or irrational or child molesters, that still doesn't translate to a rational justification for a belief in God. It's just poisoning the well, combined with both types of tu quoque. As it turns out, atheism does not entail any of these disagreeable states, and you've done little to support the accusations you've made to the contrary.

I agree with this statement, but disagree with the idea that it applies to this topic. Specifically, evidence has been submitted on this and many other threads. Thus far, it has been simply dismissed. This is not equivalent to it not existing, therefore the issue of onus probandi is irrelevant to our situation.

There's an episode of the Simpsons in which incompetent lawyer Lionel Hutz, voiced by the late Phil Hartman, is asked by the judge whether he has any evidence at all, and his answer is: "Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence."

People have offered what they believe to be evidence but none of it has held up to even basic scrutiny, so it's been rejected.

The issue of onus probandi remains relevant because, so long as that burden is not shouldered, no belief in God can be justified on a rational basis.

Well, pardon then. I do agree that the New Testament is roughly two thousand years old, and is an historical resource. I had meant to be more inclusive than that, of course, and thus needed clarification regarding the specific piece of information.

Sorry, more inclusive how? You specifically mentioned the New Testament.

Nor do I believe the Bible to be literally true from cover to cover; I don’t consider it to be literal in intent in every place. Also, I agree that “The Bible says so� would be completely irrelevant in this debate. This is largely why I never brought the Bible up in the first place.

Uhm, actually, you did. In particular, you brought up the NT, though not the OT. Remember?

The problem with admitting that the Bible isn't literally true is that you take on the burden of offering a principled basis upon which to decide just which parts are true literally, figuratively or not at all.

Personally, I see no more reasonable explanation for the claims of the New Testament than that they are true. As long as we are discussing the Bible, I will assert that the non-Christian explanations of the New Testament are lacking. I’ve yet to hear a valid reason why this could be purely fabricated information.
This is not the whole of my reasons, of course, but it’s a start.

The more reasonable explanation is that it is a combination of history, legend and outright fantasy, just like all the other holy books. Even if the NT were generally reliable, which it's not, I don't see how that would support the extraordinary claim that God exists. This is a dead end, not a start.

I agree. My issue is that we haven’t dealt with any of the evidence I’ve mentioned in this thread except to dismiss it.

Refute and reject, not merely dismiss. If you want to list the evidence, new or old, that you think can survive scrutiny, feel free.

It is a rational argument, and seems to be and is relevant to the topic in that it limits the scope of reasonable options. Such an elimination of red herrings is a useful part of reaching a logical conclusion in a complex manner. This line of reasoning eliminates all forms of atheism save nihilism, making it a valid point.

Again, even if atheism entails nihilism, this does not in any sense provide a rational basis that justifies believing God. It's just tu quoque and well-poisoning again.

No, quite specifically, I am not simply trying to offer you reasons to believe in Christianity. This seems to be a point on which we have miscommunicated. On this particular point, I was trying to refute the implication that anyone professing faith is inherently irrational.

Someone professing faith might be generally rational, but that's not the issue: they are irrational with regard to the belief they base on faith. This is because, by definition, faith is irrational belief. That's why I asked for a rational basis upon which to justify a belief in God. Otherwise, I'd choke on endless, pointless fideism.

Oh, and just to remind you, while it's fine for you to try to prove Christian God, I'm certainly not requiring that. Any non-trivial God will do.

I have actually done just that with my references to psychology (unless we’re expecting a purely rational person – which, of course, does not exist).

If I understand correctly, you seem to be saying that, since we're not perfectly rational, we should erroneously accept fideism. Is that the gist?

Theism remains true or untrue; it is merely our perception of it that can be rational or irrational.

It's logically possible for a belief to be true even if no rational basis is currently available for it. Nonetheless, as rational people, our obligation would be to reject that belief until and unless such a basis is found.

If I have been slow to present specific data, then I apologize. It has mostly been because I am more interested in discussing the relative rationality of the two groups you mention than the data itself (the subject being too broad for me to feel that we can cover it in a thread).

Unfortunately, the relative rationality is not the topic.

One thing you might do, however, in order to accelerate the process is to give me specific reasons why you disagree with the claims I do make. That would allow me to answer more quickly and specifically.

I disagree with any claim that is unsupported, due to the lack of necessary support.

I think a slight correction of the semantics here will clear up my position:
For something to be non-rational, it would have to be outside the domain of rationality, which is what we know to be objective truth.
There is enough uncertainty about such an issue that this change is a significant factor.

That's not a correction, it's an attempt to sneak in an error. When there is no rational basis for a belief, we are obligated to reject it. We don't get a free pass to believe something just because it hasn't been completely and totally disproven yet.

Consider unicorns. There is, I think we all agree, no rational basis for a belief in their existence. Then again, there is no active disproof, just the passive one based on the absence of evidence and the subsequent failure to meet the burden of proof. Does this mean it's nonrational to believe in unicorns or is it just irrational?

As it happens, I have no faith-based ethical beliefs, nor is empiricism based on faith.

Are you a nihilist, then?

This false dilemma is something you claimed but never supported. As it turns out, I can reject all faith without being a nihilist. Nonetheless, this is irrelevant as it does not provide a rational basis upon which to justify a belief in God. It's just an attempt to drag everyone down to the same level, as per tu quoque. To put it another way, if atheism necessitates nihilism, so be it.

While I’ll admit to deviating somewhat, and misunderstanding your original intent, your premise definitely left me with the impression that you were more interested in the relative rationality of theists and atheists, rather than in direct apologetics. Given this, I’ll attempt a somewhat different argument, but don’t feel that such issues are irrelevant at all. Specifically, you seem to be taking a stance in which I am expected to convince you outright in the course of a thread. I maintain that this topic is far to big, and your disposition to antagonistic for this to be possible in so short a space. Given that, I am somewhat reluctant to try for this new topic. I’ll mention a few things, but my major stance will remain that the logical contradictions in atheism forcing me away from it as a conclusion are entirely relevant to the issue of apologetics.

It sounds like you're trying for presuppositionalism, when the topic is clearly evidentialist. I suppose nothing stops you from starting a presuppositionalist topic, but I assure you that my antagonism towards it far exceeds any I might have towards the evidentialist approaches. Evidentialism is at least an honest failure, not just a slimy trick.

The theories of Carl Jung are widely accepted among modern psychologists. That is to say that he is a highly respected expert in the field. If we cannot expect his research and conclusions to deserve at least a rebuttal before dismissal, we are not having a rational debate.

No, they're widely rejected by psychologists and only accepted by one type of psychiatrist. Nonetheless, they offer no rational basis upon which to justify a belief in God.

I wasn’t referencing them to show the rational justification for a belief in God. I was using them to refute the implication that theists are less rational than non-theists. And, yes, I believe that this was shown.

Actually, my only point is that theism itself is irrational. Theists may well be generally rational, with the notable exception of this particular belief. Having said that, it is not uncommon for the irrationality of theism to spread into other forms of irrationality. In other words, we can't pretend it's safe to be selectively irrational.

The point stands that his findings establish atheism as a position that ignores objective truth regarding the psychology of human beings. As we are considering the rationality of Christianity versus that of atheism, this is perfectly relevant to the debate.

I think you're confusing atheism per se with particular atheistic worldviews. Atheism, as such, is merely a lack of belief in God. It entails nothing more than that. Atheism can be on any basis at all, not just a rational one. For example, some people are atheists solely because they accept the authoritarian pronouncements of the Communist Party, which is highly irrational. Others are atheists because they never even heard of the idea of God, which is either rational or nonrational. And so on.

Your explanation has been noted (thank you for the specifics). I only argue that, since evidence has been submitted, with regard to the fact that the historical documents we have point to the truth of the claims of the New Testament, specifically, there is not enough time between the events and the writing of the New Testament for the kind of corruption that atheism would require to take place.

I've explained why extraordinary claims require more than anonymous stories, so I don't think it'd be productive to address these claims right now. Even in principle, the Bible can't provide a rational basis upon which to justify a belief in God.

I did claim that, but I did not claim that I have absolute proof. Moreover, I did not claim that, even if I did, I would be able to convince you with it (which is what you seem to be demanding).

If it's not proof, then of course it's not going to convince me. Why should I lower the bar for you?

More to this particular point, establishing the initial debate question does not free you from any burden of proof. I may be answering the question, but any failure to do so adequately on my part does not logically infer atheism. Simply put, you would have no burden of proof if you had simply asked the question. This is not the case, however, you have, as I, offered an answer to the question (atheism). To that end, you have a burden of proof as well.

I've explained why you have the burden already.

If you wish me to operate under the hypothetical assumption that you are agnostic, I would (reluctantly) agree to that, though it would mean that you refrain from asserting anything in debate that is not consistent with agnosticism.

If that's what it takes to keep you from getting off topic, fine.

TC

[Thought Criminal]

Tell me, can you show that 'truth' is objective? I would like to see objective evidence that 'truth' is objective.

Goat, this is not the time or place to fool around.

TC

Who is fooling around. I want to know what definition of 'truth' you use that makes it 'objective'. The word 'truth' seems to have many definitions. Is a 'fact' a 'truth'? Is truth a 'moral pronouncement'? I have seen it declared that 'abortion is murder' is a 'truth'.

Sometimes this is easier to answer than others. I still assert that demonstrability should be utilized to establish what is truth and what is knowledge. As far as the abortion issue goes, it comes down to the definition of "murder" which is an illegal killing. So if an abortion is performed where such a practice is legal, it's not murder.

BUt, how about the 'truth' it is immoral?

One man's truth is another mans tyranny

Fascinating, but it seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the topic, so how about we move it to some place more appropriate, shall we?

TC