Does Romans 1:18-20 create doubt for atheists?

[AgnosticBoy]

Many Christians interpret Romans 1:18 to mean that deep down we all know that God exists.

Romans 1:19-20

19 because that which is known about God is evident [n]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21

In my view, the apostle Paul goes too far in claiming that non-believers know that the Christian God exists. However, if I'm to look for any validity in his statement, I find that I do have this feeling and/or need for something transcendent. That certainly is not enough to point to anything as specific as the God of the Bible, but it does point to spirituality, in general. One book that touches on this idea is The God Gene by Dean Hamer. Here's one review:

In Hamer's argument, spiritual experiences and religion are nearly universal human attributes. Hamer measures spirituality on a scale of 'self-transcendence', or the ability to see beyond oneself, a concept first introduced by psychologist Robert Cloninger. He draws a sharp distinction between spirituality, which is a personality trait that some of us have to a greater or lesser extent than others, and religion or belief in a particular god, which is a culturally transmitted expression of spirituality.

Hamer admits in his introduction that the volume is misnamed; he isn't talking about genes for being a god, but rather about those that predispose us to religion-neutral spiritual beliefs, experiences and interpretations. Spirituality is not controlled by the product of a single gene but is complex, involving many genes, each making a small contribution to the phenotype, combined with a very strong environmental influence.

I really want to know the following:
1. Did this feeling or sense or need for something greater play any role in leading you to religion or spirituality?
2. For the non-believer or atheist, are you aware of this feeling? Does it lead you to doubt atheism? (in my case, my doubt does not lead me to believe, but instead it drives me to search even more).

[brunumb]

The Kalam argument says absolutely nothing about God.

3. (Conclusion) Therefore, the universe has a cause (God).

Looks to me like it does.

Plopping the word "God" at the end is a leap of faith. If the universe has a cause you have yet to demonstrate that the cause is some magical being.

One has to use sleight of hand and careful wordplay to get to "therefore God".

Careful wordplay? More like; it logically follows (therefore God).

Not logic. Wishful thinking. See above.

Is "not all things can have a cause" even a verifiable, valid claim?

Um, the argument is not that "all things can have a cause". Nice scarecrow, though (strawman).

Take that up with Davidtheapologist. Originally his words, not mine.

Do you know? I'm guessing that "deriving the Divine Attributes" is equivalent to inventing stuff that somehow supports the idea that there is only one uncaused thing and that thing must be God.

"...there is only one uncaused thing and that thing must be God".

Yeah, pretty much. That's what I got out of it.

Great leap of faith there. Now all you have to do is demonstrate the truth of it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Plopping the word "God" at the end is a leap of faith. If the universe has a cause you have yet to demonstrate that the cause is some magical being.

Yeah, yeah, yeah..

"Leap of faith"

"No magical being".

"Unproven claims"

Any variation of the three is about all I expect to get out of you.

No substance whatsoever.

Anyways, moving along.

Not logic. Wishful thinking. See above.

Yup. Never fails.

Take that up with Davidtheapologist. Originally his words, not mine.

The person who quoted the scarecrow is just as guilty as the one who originally made the claim.

Great leap of faith there. Now all you have to do is demonstrate the truth of it.

Again, no substance. Never fails.

[TRANSPONDER]

The Kalam argument relies on the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Other versions of the cosmological argument identify different factors, but the basic notion is the same - some things are of such a nature that they require a cause, not all things can have a cause, therefore something is uncaused. Getting to God requires deriving the Divine Attributes from the fact that the uncaused thing is of a different nature from the caused things.

The Kalam argument says absolutely nothing about God. One has to use sleight of hand and careful wordplay to get to "therefore God". Is "not all things can have a cause" even a verifiable, valid claim? Do you know? I'm guessing that "deriving the Divine Attributes" is equivalent to inventing stuff that somehow supports the idea that there is only one uncaused thing and that thing must be God.

It's a funny thing that (on a former board) the apologist argued that Kalam did not mention God (because I was arguing that Kalam only workes as an argument for a god if you began with a god) and here another theist seems to recognise that it does of course imply an intelligent creator, otherwise (so I gather is the argument) the initiative start of Everything cannot be accounted for.

Since it's the topic, the biggest and best gap for God (or a god), and is often debated and equally often misunderstood by Christian apologists, I can say that I found the Kalam argument heavy going, but I gathered it was just First cause dressed up in verbiage. I can't recall now whether the BB was the point, or the origins of the Stuff the BB event compiled from was the point. The BB event does not need a god, but the origins of Cosmic stuff does require some explaining. Again, I can't be sure about Kalam, but the state of the First cause argument is that something from nothing (or en eternal something) seems counter intuitive. But a god (even before we get to 'which god?') with no origin is even more counter - intuitive and I can only suppose the idea of a complex creative being without origin being fine, fine find, is only because Religion has been peddling this idea of an uncreated eternal divine being for centuries. But in fact logically it is Less likely than an eternal and infinite nothing that can act like something. You have less logical entities that you have to create to get to particle energy than to an intelligent creator.

Just sayin', as it isn't important to the religion - debate anyway, as (and Creationism knows this well enough) an intelligent Creator (or god) could be Allah or Shiva as much as Yahweh. Even conceded a First Cause Cosmic Mind, Religion still has it all to do. It is part of the false thinking of Religion (name your own) that it assumes that the 'One God' (Creator) has of course to be the one of Their religion. This is why I say that Kalam, First Cause and the Cosmic Origins debate is (like evolution) essentially irrelevant (and really only related to Genesis -literalism, not to Christianity itself) and the REAL debate is about the Holy Book, and in the case of Christianity, the NT (since Jesus invalidated the old law) and specifically, the One Claim - the resurrection. If that goes down, Christianity collapses, even if Kalam was valid.

[David the apologist]

The Kalam argument relies on the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Other versions of the cosmological argument identify different factors, but the basic notion is the same - some things are of such a nature that they require a cause, not all things can have a cause, therefore something is uncaused. Getting to God requires deriving the Divine Attributes from the fact that the uncaused thing is of a different nature from the caused things.

The Kalam argument says absolutely nothing about God.

It gets us to a transcendent, personal cause of the universe. Et hoc dicimus Deum.

One has to use sleight of hand and careful wordplay to get to "therefore God".

That's an interesting way to say "basic logic and careful reasoning."

Is "not all things can have a cause" even a verifiable, valid claim? Do you know?

Verifiable how? Are you expecting me to deduce it from the latest run of the LHC, or is basic logic going to be good enough?

I'm guessing that "deriving the Divine Attributes" is equivalent to inventing stuff that somehow supports the idea that there is only one uncaused thing and that thing must be God.

Not "inventing," just more application of basic logic and some knowledge of what it would take for a thing to be uncaused.

[Purple Knight]

Well, 99.9% true is still logically false, but I still think he's onto something.

Say what now? A universal claim which isn't universally true is false.

Correct, but one can still be onto a very strong correlation, which isn't worthless.

[David the apologist]

Can't believe I missed this from the Knothead.

So you deny that such things as explanatory power, explanatory scope, a priori plausibility, etc. give us an objective metric by which one could declare one explanation better to another?

My position is that in the paucity of confirmatory data for an explanation, "better" will be in the mind of the beholder.

Define "confirmatory data." What, exactly, do you need the theist to present?

I merely note that it's reasonable to conclude there's stuff, and reasonable to conclude that stuff acts according to its properties. I make no claims beyond that in this matter.

Great. We agree on that. What does it have to do with any of the lines of evidence I have listed?

I see you drawing faulty conclusions from data, and little evidence in support thereof.

Which of my conclusions do you contend are faulty, and why?

Have you ever seen something that was capable of "causing" space and time themselves?

No.

How about something capable of "tinkering with the laws of physics," in the words of Fred Hoyle?

I make no claims regarding that which I don't claim.

Seems like you resort to not making claims in order to avoid someone like me showing that alternatives to the claim I'm making are always full of holes.

I know, I know, "'seems like' ain't 'is.'"

Because abstract objects, tractable universal order, fine tuning, the beginning of the universe, consciousness, and objective moral values/duties seem to demand an explanation in terms of something more than matter in motion. The only things we experience that any philosopher of repute has considered to be "more than matter" are minds. The inference appears justified. Though, I can go into more detail for each line of evidence as to why this is the case.

To "seem" is not to be.

Would you deny that any of the above require an explanation in terms of something more than matter in motion?

Not if the explanation is faulty, no.

How, exactly, is God (defined as "a mind-like Something that transcends both the universe and our conceptual categories") "faulty" as an explanation?

In that regard, it's my contention religious belief is built on attempts to explain the unexplainable.

"I don't like the only answer to the Big Questions that's forthcoming, therefore I'm going to pretend that the questions are unanswerable."

That's what your position (insofar as there's more to it than a hodgepodge of skeptical cliches) amounts to.

As I note scientific study can explain a bunch of stuff pretty good.

As I've pointed out, "scientific study" can only explain the world to the extent that we ignore certain salient features of it. Those features point to dualism, which in turn points to God.

I don't believe a god exists to stuff into anything but the imagination.

You're dodging the question.

That you don't like an answer is scant evidence of one dodging a question.

That would be relevant if you had answered it.

Mayhaps you'd ask for clarification when you become confused.

I've been trying to.

Unfortunately, your "clarification" itself is confused - or purposefully disingenuous, but I'd rather not think about that.

If God existed, would you expect to be able to subject Him to scientific scrutiny?

Beats me.

What's the properties of this "if" god? Is one of those properties "entirely dependent on the human imagination?

No.

Since you appear to be under the delusion that "God" means "imaginary invisible busybody who lives in the stratosphere," let me rephrase the question.

If a mind-like Something that transcends space, time, and everything else, existed, would you expect to find scientific evidence for It?

Note that the question is a hypothetical so saying anything about "absence of evidence" or "God being imaginary" is a red herring fallacy.

And in your hypothetical, you want me to "play along" without first offering any properties by which we might consider your "if" god.

"If God's real, well there we go" is not a compelling argument.

I have no idea what you're going on about.

My argument proceeds as follows:

1. If God exists, we wouldn't expect to have direct scientific confirmation of His existence the way that, eg, we have direct confirmation of the existence of the Higgs field.

2. If the absence of a certain kind of evidence is entailed by a thesis, then the absence of that kind of evidence cannot count as evidence against the thesis.

3. Therefore, being unable to scientifically confirm God's existence the way that we confirmed, eg, the existence of the Higgs field cannot count as evidence against God's existence.

Do you think that the argument is invalid or unsound?

If so, what part of it do you dispute?

If not, why do you keep insisting on "confirmation" of God's existence before we can infer that He is the best explanation? What kind of "confirmation" do you mean if not direct scientific confirmation?

Because no intellectually serious theist...

That reads like a bit of an ad him [sic] on some folks, and an oxymoron to others.

If you think that theists can't be intellectually serious, then not only are you ignorant, you're not in a position to be able to complain about other people being subjected to ad hominem attacks.

Good googly moogly, by declaring "intellectually honest theists" there's the implication some of em ain't. That's the ad hom to which I refer. I prefer to think folks're doing the best they can with what they've got.

A person can be intellectually honest without being intellectually serious. I believe that most of my fellow Evangelicals are intellectually honest, but not intellectually serious.

Whether you are either has yet to be proven.

As to ignorant, I ain't the one claiming there's a god I can't show exists,

Again, you have to explain what it would take for someone to "show" that God exists before you can run around making assertions like that.

only to hafta resort to the most facile hypotheticalizations in order to do it.

Me: *uses a hypothetical to prove that a certain kind of evidence is irrelevant to determining whether or not God exists*

You: " 'If GoD eXiStS tHeN gOd ExIsTs' Is A bAd ArGuMeNt!"

Non sequitur much?

...of the past 2500 years would have predicted that such would be possible. How, then, does the confirmation of the prediction (nothing we can put in a test tube, etc. corresponds to God) raise the burden of proof on the people who have been insisting on it all along?

Beats me. I merely pointed out nobody can show a god exists (please refer back to defintions I so graciously supplied above).

You mean the stupid one for "God" and the vague one for "show"?

Now that you mention it, yes, I think your god concept is,

No, we're talking about your God-concept. Don't go around changing the referents of my statements.

Nowhere in my comments have a stated, or even implied science eliminated any need to invoke god.

Then why are you so intent on denying that the features of the world I have mentioned constitute evidence for God's existence?

Cause I don't see your argument compelling,

Haven't actually made an argument yet. There'd either be numbered premises or a wall of text as long as your arm if I was presenting an argument. So far, the main thing I'm interested is knowing what the burden of proof actually is.

Skeptics tend to like talking about the burden of proof more than they like talking about the actual arguments anyways, based on the actual content of the posts of most of the skeptics I've interacted with (yourself included), so why not oblige them?

and that what 'evidence' you provide in support thereof doesn't support your conclusions.

What you really mean is that you like the idea of being ignorant more than you like the idea of having to commit to one of the explanations actually on the table.

[alexxcJRO]

The Kalam argument relies on the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Other versions of the cosmological argument identify different factors, but the basic notion is the same - some things are of such a nature that they require a cause, not all things can have a cause, therefore something is uncaused. Getting to God requires deriving the Divine Attributes from the fact that the uncaused thing is of a different nature from the caused things.

The Kalam argument says absolutely nothing about God.

It gets us to a transcendent, personal cause of the universe. Et hoc dicimus Deum.

There are multiple fallacies and problems with the KALAM. This has been pointed out ad nauseam on this forum.


Firstly,

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause".
There is some uncertainty to whether the radioactive decay of an atom or virtual particles have any causes for their beginning. They may be exceptions. Freedom of will conform the religious is real and therefore has uncaused components. Therefore the first premise is bogus.


Secondly,

Our understanding of causality is based on recombination of pre-existing stuff, entities and properties (material cause), which does not apply for divine creation. Therefore there is an equivocation fallacy here as well.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Here he refers to material cause recombination of pre-existing stuff.
"The universe has a cause." Here he refers to divine creation-ex nihilo.

Thirdly,

The fallacy of composition.
If things inside the universe(multiverse or whatever) begin to exist or have a cause for their existence does not mean the universe(multiverse or whatever) itself began to exists or have a cause for it's existence.
The fabric of Space-Time is probably finite and necessarily has a beginning state of minimum entropy(Singularity) and possibly an end state of maximum entropy(Heat Death).
The fabric of Space-time may be just a thing inside the universe(multiverse or whatever).

Fourthly,

We have also the fallacy of single cause.
The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy,[1] is a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an
outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

There may be that the fabric of Space-Time(this thing inside universe(multiverse or whatever) or the universe(multiverse or whatever) itself was caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Fifthly,
Scientists don't know what happened before plank time.
So all this talk is irrelevant and highly speculative.
The reality there is a gap in our knowledge.
Using this gap to make an argument for God just makes one guilty of the fallacy: argument from ignorance and plays right into the God of the Gaps.

Here an interesting read from Sean Carroll (the physicist):

"From the perspective of modern science, events don't have purposes or causes; they simply conform to the laws of nature. In particular, there is no need to invoke any mechanism to sustain a physical system or to keep it going; it would require an
additional layer of complexity for a system to cease following its patterns than for it to simply continue to do so. Believing otherwise is a relic of a certain metaphysical way of thinking; these notions are useful in an informal way for human beings,
but are not a part of the rigorous scientific description of the world. Of course scientists do talk about causality, but this is a description of the relationship between patterns and boundary conditions; it is a derived concept, not a fundamental one.
If we know the state of a system at one time, and the laws governing its dynamics, we can calculate the state of the system at some later time. You might be tempted to say that the particular state at the first time caused the state to be what it was at
the second time; but it would be just as correct to say that the second state caused the first. According to the materialist worldview, then, structures and patterns are all there are” we don't need any ancillary notions."

[TRANSPONDER]

That's an excellent summary, even though I'm not convinced by the 'time did not exist before' argument as, in an infinite universe of nothing that can act like something (which is on the edge of being an alternative hypothesis to God'), events happen, therefore quasi passage of time.

That said, the perception is that Lane -Craig is trying to force an Intentional Event (Read 'a god' (1) conclusion (First Cause) on the question when it is actually 'nobody knows'.

(1) which is the leap of Faith to Biblegod, which Lane - Craig thinks he can justify with 'The disciples would not doe for a lie, so Jesus must have resurrected'.:

[JoeyKnothead]

Can't believe I missed this from the Knothead.

I can't figure me out a way to respond to this lying sack of dog knuckles.

My post history shows I'm pretty good about answering questions put to me - wrong or right.

It's just I ain't got me any tools to try to respectfully respond to this lying bag of "if".

[TRANSPONDER]

Can't believe I missed this from the Knothead.

I can't figure me out a way to respond to this lying sack of dog knuckles.

My post history shows I'm pretty good about answering questions put to me - wrong or right.

It's just I ain't got me any tools to try to respectfully respond to this lying bag of "if".

I sympathise with the sinking feeling when a mile long filibuster is posted. So let me see if I can do anything.

Can't believe I missed this from the Knothead.

So you deny that such things as explanatory power, explanatory scope, a priori plausibility, etc. give us an objective metric by which one could declare one explanation better to another?

My position is that in the paucity of confirmatory data for an explanation, "better" will be in the mind of the beholder.

Define "confirmatory data." What, exactly, do you need the theist to present?

I merely note that it's reasonable to conclude there's stuff, and reasonable to conclude that stuff acts according to its properties. I make no claims beyond that in this matter.

Great. We agree on that. What does it have to do with any of the lines of evidence I have listed?

I see you drawing faulty conclusions from data, and little evidence in support thereof.

Which of my conclusions do you contend are faulty, and why?

Have you ever seen something that was capable of "causing" space and time themselves?

No.

How about something capable of "tinkering with the laws of physics," in the words of Fred Hoyle?

I make no claims regarding that which I don't claim.

Seems like you resort to not making claims in order to avoid someone like me showing that alternatives to the claim I'm making are always full of holes.

I know, I know, "'seems like' ain't 'is.'"

Because abstract objects, tractable universal order, fine tuning, the beginning of the universe, consciousness, and objective moral values/duties seem to demand an explanation in terms of something more than matter in motion. The only things we experience that any philosopher of repute has considered to be "more than matter" are minds. The inference appears justified. Though, I can go into more detail for each line of evidence as to why this is the case.

To "seem" is not to be.

Would you deny that any of the above require an explanation in terms of something more than matter in motion?

Not if the explanation is faulty, no.

How, exactly, is God (defined as "a mind-like Something that transcends both the universe and our conceptual categories") "faulty" as an explanation?

In that regard, it's my contention religious belief is built on attempts to explain the unexplainable.

"I don't like the only answer to the Big Questions that's forthcoming, therefore I'm going to pretend that the questions are unanswerable."

That's what your position (insofar as there's more to it than a hodgepodge of skeptical cliches) amounts to.

As I note scientific study can explain a bunch of stuff pretty good.

As I've pointed out, "scientific study" can only explain the world to the extent that we ignore certain salient features of it. Those features point to dualism, which in turn points to God.

I don't believe a god exists to stuff into anything but the imagination.

You're dodging the question.

That you don't like an answer is scant evidence of one dodging a question.

That would be relevant if you had answered it.

Mayhaps you'd ask for clarification when you become confused.

I've been trying to.

Unfortunately, your "clarification" itself is confused - or purposefully disingenuous, but I'd rather not think about that.

If God existed, would you expect to be able to subject Him to scientific scrutiny?

Beats me.

What's the properties of this "if" god? Is one of those properties "entirely dependent on the human imagination?

No.

Since you appear to be under the delusion that "God" means "imaginary invisible busybody who lives in the stratosphere," let me rephrase the question.

If a mind-like Something that transcends space, time, and everything else, existed, would you expect to find scientific evidence for It?

Note that the question is a hypothetical so saying anything about "absence of evidence" or "God being imaginary" is a red herring fallacy.

And in your hypothetical, you want me to "play along" without first offering any properties by which we might consider your "if" god.

"If God's real, well there we go" is not a compelling argument.

I have no idea what you're going on about.

My argument proceeds as follows:

1. If God exists, we wouldn't expect to have direct scientific confirmation of His existence the way that, eg, we have direct confirmation of the existence of the Higgs field.

2. If the absence of a certain kind of evidence is entailed by a thesis, then the absence of that kind of evidence cannot count as evidence against the thesis.

3. Therefore, being unable to scientifically confirm God's existence the way that we confirmed, eg, the existence of the Higgs field cannot count as evidence against God's existence.

Do you think that the argument is invalid or unsound?

If so, what part of it do you dispute?

If not, why do you keep insisting on "confirmation" of God's existence before we can infer that He is the best explanation? What kind of "confirmation" do you mean if not direct scientific confirmation?

Because no intellectually serious theist...

That reads like a bit of an ad him [sic] on some folks, and an oxymoron to others.

If you think that theists can't be intellectually serious, then not only are you ignorant, you're not in a position to be able to complain about other people being subjected to ad hominem attacks.

Good googly moogly, by declaring "intellectually honest theists" there's the implication some of em ain't. That's the ad hom to which I refer. I prefer to think folks're doing the best they can with what they've got.

A person can be intellectually honest without being intellectually serious. I believe that most of my fellow Evangelicals are intellectually honest, but not intellectually serious.

Whether you are either has yet to be proven.

As to ignorant, I ain't the one claiming there's a god I can't show exists,

Again, you have to explain what it would take for someone to "show" that God exists before you can run around making assertions like that.

only to hafta resort to the most facile hypotheticalizations in order to do it.

Me: *uses a hypothetical to prove that a certain kind of evidence is irrelevant to determining whether or not God exists*

You: " 'If GoD eXiStS tHeN gOd ExIsTs' Is A bAd ArGuMeNt!"

Non sequitur much?

...of the past 2500 years would have predicted that such would be possible. How, then, does the confirmation of the prediction (nothing we can put in a test tube, etc. corresponds to God) raise the burden of proof on the people who have been insisting on it all along?

Beats me. I merely pointed out nobody can show a god exists (please refer back to defintions I so graciously supplied above).

You mean the stupid one for "God" and the vague one for "show"?

Now that you mention it, yes, I think your god concept is,

No, we're talking about your God-concept. Don't go around changing the referents of my statements.

Nowhere in my comments have a stated, or even implied science eliminated any need to invoke god.

Then why are you so intent on denying that the features of the world I have mentioned constitute evidence for God's existence?

Cause I don't see your argument compelling,

Haven't actually made an argument yet. There'd either be numbered premises or a wall of text as long as your arm if I was presenting an argument. So far, the main thing I'm interested is knowing what the burden of proof actually is.

Skeptics tend to like talking about the burden of proof more than they like talking about the actual arguments anyways, based on the actual content of the posts of most of the skeptics I've interacted with (yourself included), so why not oblige them?

and that what 'evidence' you provide in support thereof doesn't support your conclusions.

What you really mean is that you like the idea of being ignorant more than you like the idea of having to commit to one of the explanations actually on the table.

The theist has to present some convincing evidence for a First cause. A hypothesis where there is no real evidence is only as good as it is possible. It is not the duty of the atheist to suggest what evidence should be presented. The lack of anything other than 'how do you explain this other than First cause?' pretty much says they have no real evidence.

I couldn't see who was claiming what but even if skepticism can't present a feasible mechanism for how the cosmic 'stuff' started , that only leaves us with 'don't know' and not 'must be an act of some initiating will', much as theism would like it.

Yes, there does seem a need to explain more than 'matter in motion'. But all that atheism requires is 'nobody knows'. It is Theism that makes the claim of 'something started it'. They make the claim, they have the burden of proof. They may not like it that atheism doesn't have the burden of proof, but even if we had an adequately worked out mechanism (like abiogenesis) that wouldn't stop creationism poking holes in it, just as they do with the validated theory of evolution, so your point about 'atheists don't like to propose a theory that can have holes poked in it' is futile. Whether or not, the bottom line is 'nobody knows' and Kalam doesn't do it.

quote How, exactly, is God (defined as "a mind-like Something that transcends both the universe and our conceptual categories") "faulty" as an explanation?" It is a faith -claim without a shred of decent evidence for it. Over to you.

Dualism is, I think, logically invalid. It appears (and I had a LONG debate with a philosopher about it) to make the fundamental logical error that theism makes: 'unexplained just now doesn't mean unexplained always'. I know that theism sneers at the IOU drawn on the bank of science, but science has paid the IOU's again and again, while the cheques issued on the Bank of Theism have bounced. Dualism no more proves God than Kalam does, and even if it did, it wouldn't matter, as any religion would have to validate whichever god was its' tribal God.

There was a lot of dodging then : "If not, why do you keep insisting on "confirmation" of God's existence before we can infer that He is the best explanation? What kind of "confirmation" do you mean if not direct scientific confirmation?"

Whatever Joey said, the 'best explanation' doesn't depend on 'confirmation' though (e.g abiogenesis) confirmatory evidence indicates the best hypothesis. The fact is that 'God' (name your own) is not the best explanation. Something from nothing Is a better because it lacks one less logical entity - it doesn't have to explain where the prime mover came from.

A lot of exchanges, but essentially, you don't like it that you logically bear the burden of proof, you have no decent evidence and First cause arguments aren't good enough, so you want to sneer at the burden of proof, pretend that a lack of evidence is valid evidence and demand that atheists say what evidence for God the Theists should have - which is dependent on what the Theists means by God, anyway. Bottom line - Theists make the claim, Theists do the work.

There is no shame in saying 'we don't know', less shame that claiming 'we do know' when they don't.