Sanmario
Active Member
That is why it is so confusing, it requires that posters play as in a movie: good guys playing bad guys' role and bad guys playing good guys' role.
That is why it is a silly thread, it belongs in movieland.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Challenge to the Theist and Atheist
- Thread starter Segev Moran
- Start date
That is why it is so confusing, it requires that posters play as in a movie: good guys playing bad guys' role and bad guys playing good guys' role.
That is why it is a silly thread, it belongs in movieland.
Sanmario
Active Member
Dear Segev, you are barking up the wrong tree when you take on God as in the Old Testament, God as a tribal deity into everything unjust to favor His own tribe or His chosen people.
But the Old Testament still in the core gets the concept of God correctly, as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, read this first statement of the Old Testament:
"In the beginning God made heaven and earth."
You are an Old Testament atheist, not a philosophical atheist, a philosophical atheist is in concept first and foremost a denier of God existing as creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
And the Christian atheist is the reciprocal opposite of the Old Testament atheist or what I might call the Jew atheist.
From my part, I am into God purely from reason and observation and thus intelligent conclusion, namely, God from me is understood as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
I think for being an ethnic Jew you belong to the Jewish race which invented the idea and practiced it literally that God has chosen the Jews to be His own people, so in the Old Testament Jews went about into genocidal murder of peoples whose lands they wanted to grab, and justify that with their declaration that God gave them the right to grab lands and everything else from everyone else not a Jew.
So, dear Segev, you are barking up the wrong tree, you are into barking up the Jewish religious God.
I propose for this thread from yourself you portray yourself as an atheist grounded purely on reason and observation and thus logical conclusion, that there is no God, not one in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
That is the God of critical thinkers like yours truly, taking God to be in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
I am into God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, that is my philosophy of God’s existence in term of epistemology.
Now, for my religion, I choose Christianity because that is the religion I find myself in: and wherefore it is the most comfortable religion for me to adopt, in which I got born in, of course – and I will add that I am a liberal Christian.
Now, dear Segev, Christianity first and foremost maintains that God is in concept the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, in accordance with the first statement of the Old Testament, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth.”
But it goes into similarly as with the Old Testament Jews, with this peculiar twist of Christians, that in the latest times, God sent His Son to become a man, called Jesus, to save mankind from sin, etc., thus in the latest times Christians are the chosen people of God.
Remember, Christianity is a religion, of course Christians believe it to be the only true religion – that requires Christians to explain what they mean by true religion.
So, dear Segev, please focus on God not as the God portrayed in the Old Testament Who has chosen a people for His own, and has showered on them all kinds of favors and privileges.
I propose you go into the God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
Annex
But the Old Testament still in the core gets the concept of God correctly, as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, read this first statement of the Old Testament:
"In the beginning God made heaven and earth."
You are an Old Testament atheist, not a philosophical atheist, a philosophical atheist is in concept first and foremost a denier of God existing as creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
And the Christian atheist is the reciprocal opposite of the Old Testament atheist or what I might call the Jew atheist.
From my part, I am into God purely from reason and observation and thus intelligent conclusion, namely, God from me is understood as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
I think for being an ethnic Jew you belong to the Jewish race which invented the idea and practiced it literally that God has chosen the Jews to be His own people, so in the Old Testament Jews went about into genocidal murder of peoples whose lands they wanted to grab, and justify that with their declaration that God gave them the right to grab lands and everything else from everyone else not a Jew.
So, dear Segev, you are barking up the wrong tree, you are into barking up the Jewish religious God.
I propose for this thread from yourself you portray yourself as an atheist grounded purely on reason and observation and thus logical conclusion, that there is no God, not one in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
That is the God of critical thinkers like yours truly, taking God to be in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
I am into God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, that is my philosophy of God’s existence in term of epistemology.
Now, for my religion, I choose Christianity because that is the religion I find myself in: and wherefore it is the most comfortable religion for me to adopt, in which I got born in, of course – and I will add that I am a liberal Christian.
Now, dear Segev, Christianity first and foremost maintains that God is in concept the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning, in accordance with the first statement of the Old Testament, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth.”
But it goes into similarly as with the Old Testament Jews, with this peculiar twist of Christians, that in the latest times, God sent His Son to become a man, called Jesus, to save mankind from sin, etc., thus in the latest times Christians are the chosen people of God.
Remember, Christianity is a religion, of course Christians believe it to be the only true religion – that requires Christians to explain what they mean by true religion.
So, dear Segev, please focus on God not as the God portrayed in the Old Testament Who has chosen a people for His own, and has showered on them all kinds of favors and privileges.
I propose you go into the God in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.
Annex
Segev Moran said: ↑
Many times, Theist blame me for not understanding God.
I would love having a challenge.
Lets switch roles!
I will debate pro God, and you will debate Against.
I Assume one of two will be then clear:
1. Either I really am ignorant for anything relates to spirituality (Thus I will not be able to make my case)
2. I will successfully make my case and at least show that some atheist, know the spiritual "realm" better than you think.
I will however, probably be leaning more towards the Jewish God, as this is the Religion I was born into.
Cheers
Many times, Theist blame me for not understanding God.
I would love having a challenge.
Lets switch roles!
I will debate pro God, and you will debate Against.
I Assume one of two will be then clear:
1. Either I really am ignorant for anything relates to spirituality (Thus I will not be able to make my case)
2. I will successfully make my case and at least show that some atheist, know the spiritual "realm" better than you think.
I will however, probably be leaning more towards the Jewish God, as this is the Religion I was born into.
Cheers
When you define God as the creator and operator of the Universe and all that exists, you make a coherent definition. That is true.
But, you still need to show there *is* a creator of the universe, and that there is only one creator of the universe (I.e, that the universe wasn't created by committee), and that the creator of the universe is still in existence and is now operating the universe. You also need to show that everything that began to exist was created by this same entity and is still being operated by this entity.
OK, I am mostly an atheist (although often an apatheist or an ignostic).
For an argument *for* the existence of a deity: I would first start by asking if it is meaningful to say that something exists if there is no possibility of empirical demonstration of that existence. I would then proceed to claim that it *is* meaningful, so that the lack of empirical evidence is irrelevant to the question of the existence of a deity. I would then argue that the changes in the lives of people who believe in a deity (including better mental health and more positive attitude towards adversity) are signs that a belief in a deity is a good thing. Finally, I would claim that this benefit would only arise if there were, in fact, a deity.
But, you still need to show there *is* a creator of the universe, and that there is only one creator of the universe (I.e, that the universe wasn't created by committee), and that the creator of the universe is still in existence and is now operating the universe. You also need to show that everything that began to exist was created by this same entity and is still being operated by this entity.
OK, I am mostly an atheist (although often an apatheist or an ignostic).
For an argument *for* the existence of a deity: I would first start by asking if it is meaningful to say that something exists if there is no possibility of empirical demonstration of that existence. I would then proceed to claim that it *is* meaningful, so that the lack of empirical evidence is irrelevant to the question of the existence of a deity. I would then argue that the changes in the lives of people who believe in a deity (including better mental health and more positive attitude towards adversity) are signs that a belief in a deity is a good thing. Finally, I would claim that this benefit would only arise if there were, in fact, a deity.
Sanmario
Active Member
Dear Polymath257:
Yes, I concur with you on the need for evidence on the issue of God exists or not.
As you bring up the word evidence, what do you say, will you do me the favor of presenting your concept of what is evidence, in re God exists or not?
I will be happy to oblige when you instead prefer that I present my concept of evidence, then we will work as to concur on a mutually agreed on concept, and from that point onward work to concur step by step until both sides come to the certainty of God existing, or we concur that we have reached an impasse?
Yes, I concur with you on the need for evidence on the issue of God exists or not.
As you bring up the word evidence, what do you say, will you do me the favor of presenting your concept of what is evidence, in re God exists or not?
I will be happy to oblige when you instead prefer that I present my concept of evidence, then we will work as to concur on a mutually agreed on concept, and from that point onward work to concur step by step until both sides come to the certainty of God existing, or we concur that we have reached an impasse?
Handyman355a
New Member
In the creation story, God gives instructions to Adam to name everything according to it's kind. In the Garden Of Eden, Adam and Eve chose to partake of the fruit of Good and Bad, the forbidden fruit. By doing this their God became a God of there own creation by altering their own perception of God. In Exodus God identifies himself as I Am That I Am, in other words, existence. With this in mind, How can a person be for or against any position since positioning is the forbidden fruit creating a God of one's own measure?Many times, Theist blame me for not understanding God.
I would love having a challenge.
Lets switch roles!
I will debate pro God, and you will debate Against.
I Assume one of two will be then clear:
1. Either I really am ignorant for anything relates to spirituality (Thus I will not be able to make my case)
2. I will successfully make my case and at least show that some atheist, know the spiritual "realm" better than you think.
I will however, probably be leaning more towards the Jewish God, as this is the Religion I was born into.
Cheers
Well, evidence is information that distinguishes one possibility from others. In particular, it has to be observable and serve to show alternate explanations are wrong. Simple consistency when also consistent with all alternatives is NOT evidence.
If existence itself is God, then how does existence have consciousness? Through us?
Sanmario
Active Member
Good, Polymath257, let us talk about evidence, and thanks for your idea of what is evidence:
"Well, evidence is information that distinguishes one possibility from others. In particular, it has to be observable and serve to show alternate explanations are wrong. Simple consistency when also consistent with all alternatives is NOT evidence."
You limit the reach of evidence to only the possibility of something existing, but no need that the thing pointed to by evidence is actually existing.
Suppose you give some examples of evidence, say four.
Then explain how they are evidence, namely, that they point to the possibility of something existing - what about the actuality of the thing in fact existing?
"Well, evidence is information that distinguishes one possibility from others. In particular, it has to be observable and serve to show alternate explanations are wrong. Simple consistency when also consistent with all alternatives is NOT evidence."
You limit the reach of evidence to only the possibility of something existing, but no need that the thing pointed to by evidence is actually existing.
Suppose you give some examples of evidence, say four.
Then explain how they are evidence, namely, that they point to the possibility of something existing - what about the actuality of the thing in fact existing?
Well, the evidence is used to attempt to *show* the thing pointed to actually exists. Whether it is conclusive or not is a further step.
1. The fact that light is a wave phenomenon was evidence for the existence of a luminous ether. In fact, there is no luminous ether, so the evidence wasn't conclusive. it did serve to eliminate the old particle theories of light.
2. The way certain stars move is evidence that they have planets. In some (but not all) cases, this evidence is conclusive. In the cases where it is not, the question is typically whether there is a brown dwarf orbiting instead. The motion does serve to eliminate the case where nothing is orbiting at all.
3. Weak currents were evidence that W and Z particles exist, but was not conclusive since there were alternative explanations consistent with the observations. Conclusive evidence came later.
4. The way that heat flows was evidence for phlogiston. It served to eliminate other ideas about heat. But phlogiston was later shown to NOT exist because it was counter to other, later, observations.
So, evidence is something that can eliminate some alternative explanations, but it need not be conclusive. Evidence that something exists is not enough to say that the thing actually exists.
1. The fact that light is a wave phenomenon was evidence for the existence of a luminous ether. In fact, there is no luminous ether, so the evidence wasn't conclusive. it did serve to eliminate the old particle theories of light.
2. The way certain stars move is evidence that they have planets. In some (but not all) cases, this evidence is conclusive. In the cases where it is not, the question is typically whether there is a brown dwarf orbiting instead. The motion does serve to eliminate the case where nothing is orbiting at all.
3. Weak currents were evidence that W and Z particles exist, but was not conclusive since there were alternative explanations consistent with the observations. Conclusive evidence came later.
4. The way that heat flows was evidence for phlogiston. It served to eliminate other ideas about heat. But phlogiston was later shown to NOT exist because it was counter to other, later, observations.
So, evidence is something that can eliminate some alternative explanations, but it need not be conclusive. Evidence that something exists is not enough to say that the thing actually exists.
Well, absence of evidence isn't *always* evidence of absence, but it often is.
For example, the absence of evidence that there is an elephant in my room *is* evidence of the absence of elephants in my room.
Another: the absence of evidence for a luminous ether *was* evidence of the absence of the luminous ether.
So the question then becomes *when* does the absence of evidence become evidence of absence?
And the answer is quite simple: if the phenomenon at issue *should* give evidence of existence, then the absence of such evidence *is*, in fact, evidence of absence.
In particular, when there is a thorough search, using many different modalities and over an extended period of time when observation is *expected* to show evidence of existence, *then* the absence of evidence is very good evidence of absence.
Such is the case for deities.
Sanmario
Active Member
Dear Polymath257, let us start a new thread on what is evidence, we will work as to concur on a mutually agreed on concept of evidence, in particular in re God existing.
What do you say?
Do you notice at all that posters here most of them or all of them that I have sought to exchange thoughts with on anything at all, they simply don't care at all to work first as to concur on definitions of terms.
So in effect there is no joining of the issue at all, and I think that is grossly illogical with people who have and practice that kind of an attitude.
And frankly, I see this kind of an awful attitude most in particular with atheists; for example, they keep on and on and on denying God existing, but completely refusing to work as to concur on what is their concept of God.
In one thread on the probability of God existing, the author says that it is up to the other party to define his concept of God, but he is not concerned himself with the concept of God, because [the way I understand him] he does not accept the existence of God anyway, whatever god propounded by the other party.
So, dear Polymath257, what do you say, let us start a thread just to work as to concur on what is evidence broadly and in particular in re God existing?
Will you be the one or I?
Honestly, I can't accept this kind of an attitude, refusing to work as to concur on concepts or definitions of terms, it is totally contrary to productive dialog, even to viable communication.
To Brian, I can't get what you are driving at.
As you are keen on the debate between Russell and Copleston, I propose you start a new thread on who was more sensible in that debate, Russell or Copleston.
I will join you there most gladly.
What do you say?
Do you notice at all that posters here most of them or all of them that I have sought to exchange thoughts with on anything at all, they simply don't care at all to work first as to concur on definitions of terms.
So in effect there is no joining of the issue at all, and I think that is grossly illogical with people who have and practice that kind of an attitude.
And frankly, I see this kind of an awful attitude most in particular with atheists; for example, they keep on and on and on denying God existing, but completely refusing to work as to concur on what is their concept of God.
In one thread on the probability of God existing, the author says that it is up to the other party to define his concept of God, but he is not concerned himself with the concept of God, because [the way I understand him] he does not accept the existence of God anyway, whatever god propounded by the other party.
So, dear Polymath257, what do you say, let us start a thread just to work as to concur on what is evidence broadly and in particular in re God existing?
Will you be the one or I?
Honestly, I can't accept this kind of an attitude, refusing to work as to concur on concepts or definitions of terms, it is totally contrary to productive dialog, even to viable communication.
To Brian, I can't get what you are driving at.
As you are keen on the debate between Russell and Copleston, I propose you start a new thread on who was more sensible in that debate, Russell or Copleston.
I will join you there most gladly.
I am willing to work with any coherent definition of the word 'deity' or 'God' you prefer. For example, the choice of definition above as the creator and operator of the universe.
Since I am new here, I'll let you start the thread. Just give directions for me to get there.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Can you please explain what it is that you mean when you say : God in truth in me?
Indivisible wouldn't be the term i would use.
You are an individual.. and in a way, we are all divided from God... but this is only an illusion of separation.
Our consciousness, whether electrical, chemical or spiritual, gives you the "feeling" that you are a being who is apart from others ( beings or objects ).
But at the foundation level, you are a sum of billions of separated entities who together construct a different form of being.
The only difference between you and other things ( non animated things ), is your awareness to those connections.
The same as billions of things together construct our earth, and billions of stars and whatever astrological objects are out there construct our universe... I can't see a reason to think it works differently in different levels of existence.
(Hope I understood your question correctly)
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
First of all, Thank you for your effort...It's brave of you and I am sure it is very uncomfortable for you to make claims "against" a god.
Even though you wont continue playing the game, I will answer your post.
Gravity is a natural law, Indeed... Yet no one yet knows what gravity really is.
Einstein said you couldn't tell if you are being pulled down or pushed up...
We know Gravity governs the universe, yet we discover dark matter that acts as sort of a repelling force causing the universe to expand instead of allowing gravity take its course... So maybe gravity isn't really such a "strict" law...
As for evidence, proving God is the sum of it all... Will one agree that there is something that is the SUM of everything? of course.. it cannot work the other way around. Asking an evidence to prove that we are a smaller part of something bigger would be the universe it self...
Indeed there is none. But would you accept a possibility of another dimension? why?
If you lived 1500 yrs ago, and i would have told you that Time is a fiction! it is actual another dimension.. will you accept that ? probably not.. but today we know better... We know Time is an illusion.. I can't see anyone asking for evidence for Time...
Find the proof of time, there you will probably find the proof for other dimensions.
It could.. indeed..
It could happen that in an era of Pegan beliefs, a time where no one knew nothing about the reality of our universe, a man, decided to write a mysterious book, containing knowledge that only today we encounter and can validate.
Genesis story, is one of the most misunderstood books!!!
Around 1500 years ago, a collection of explanations were gathered from the entire Jewish scholars. this collection presents a much deeper and more detailed understanding of Genesis.
Every word!!! each and every word in the Genesis book, has several meanings in the ancient Hebrew biblical language. The beauty of it, is that All meanings are true!
The word "בראשית"... the first word in the bible is very different in its meaning than what you think...
Try reading the Hebrew bible with the instructions how to pronounce each word... you'll discover a whole different story.
A small example can be:
"בראשית ברא אלוהים את השמיים והארץ "
This sentence, when being red incorrectly, will present the following:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." ( Sounds familiar ? )
The correct meaning of it is:
"When God created the heavens and the earth"...
This changes the entire understanding of the verse.
This was not "invented" a few years ago, or even a a hundred years ago. This was explained more than a thousand!!! years ago..
And if red correctly, The genesis book reveals AMAZING information about our universe.
And again, I really respect your attempt to do so.
Even though you wont continue playing the game, I will answer your post.
Gravity is a natural law, Indeed... Yet no one yet knows what gravity really is.
Einstein said you couldn't tell if you are being pulled down or pushed up...
We know Gravity governs the universe, yet we discover dark matter that acts as sort of a repelling force causing the universe to expand instead of allowing gravity take its course... So maybe gravity isn't really such a "strict" law...
As for evidence, proving God is the sum of it all... Will one agree that there is something that is the SUM of everything? of course.. it cannot work the other way around. Asking an evidence to prove that we are a smaller part of something bigger would be the universe it self...
Indeed... And i can only assume it will continue to be so for thousands of years (Unless we somehow destroy ourselves and our entire species)
Indeed there is none. But would you accept a possibility of another dimension? why?
If you lived 1500 yrs ago, and i would have told you that Time is a fiction! it is actual another dimension.. will you accept that ? probably not.. but today we know better... We know Time is an illusion.. I can't see anyone asking for evidence for Time...
Find the proof of time, there you will probably find the proof for other dimensions.
It could.. indeed..
It could happen that in an era of Pegan beliefs, a time where no one knew nothing about the reality of our universe, a man, decided to write a mysterious book, containing knowledge that only today we encounter and can validate.
Genesis story, is one of the most misunderstood books!!!
Around 1500 years ago, a collection of explanations were gathered from the entire Jewish scholars. this collection presents a much deeper and more detailed understanding of Genesis.
Every word!!! each and every word in the Genesis book, has several meanings in the ancient Hebrew biblical language. The beauty of it, is that All meanings are true!
The word "בראשית"... the first word in the bible is very different in its meaning than what you think...
Try reading the Hebrew bible with the instructions how to pronounce each word... you'll discover a whole different story.
A small example can be:
"בראשית ברא אלוהים את השמיים והארץ "
This sentence, when being red incorrectly, will present the following:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." ( Sounds familiar
? )The correct meaning of it is:
"When God created the heavens and the earth"...
This changes the entire understanding of the verse.
This was not "invented" a few years ago, or even a a hundred years ago. This was explained more than a thousand!!! years ago..
And if red correctly, The genesis book reveals AMAZING information about our universe.
And again, I really respect your attempt to do so.
I do.. I do so in all my other posts
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Lol... Nope, Thank you, I'm quite comfortable with my d$@k, don't really care much about yours ( Even if you'll probably win the contest
)I really do think that people should learn before making claims.
I debate quite a lot.. every day, almost every where. Usually, I am not the initiator of the debate. In Israel, When someone hears you are an atheist, never will it be accepted without many many (many many many) questions.
And at times I encounter people who present me with amazing arguments. so i could of course come up with something our of my sleeve, trying my chance.. but I'de rather study the argument, learn its sources, measure its validity... only then I will feel comfortable enough to claim against it.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
( Speaking out side of the game for a moment.. as an atheist )
I Can understand Deism. I can understand Theism.
I Cannot understand Agnosticism...
You either believe something, or not.
Being an agnostic, means you are an atheist... but not just..
Can't really see how it is a different thing.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Thanks... Yet clearly you've missed the point here.
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
You are the perfect example of why I've done this post!
Thank!!!
Clearly you show a great ignorance.
You need to read and learn before you present your arguments.
Do me (And your self actually) a favor and learn a bit about the Jewish God .
dont mind if I do...
Let's, Just for the sake of this discussion, assume you are right. Indeed... GOD is the most evil force existing...
So F what? Its God..
Lol 2 u 2
Oh.. Indeed I do.
But lets see if you can handle really understanding what it is that you are claiming.
If you say you read the "Tanakh", I assume you can read Hebrew.
If not, then clearly your all talk.
If so, Please try and read some רש"י
Then, Come back and debate this issue like a civilized human being.
Don't use your ignorance to try and present yourself as a brilliant mind.
Your mere state of a secret Agenda in the bible, could have been said in a much wiser way (And then maybe I would've agreed with you)
But you are an illiterate person when it comes to תנ"ך
To prevent you from hours of being lost in the רש"י explanations, Lets only focus on one thing:
עץ הדעת טוב ורע...
Shoot... Show me your amazing knowledge of the Tora
The fact you claim this, shows how little you know of anything.
NOTHING is impossible... ( Actually, not even that
)Oh.. wait.. and The Mission is impossible... ( Forgot about that )
Your turn
Segev Moran
Well-Known Member
Interesting view, Yet I disagree.
I Wish a debate like this was going on every person struggling between Faith and Reality.
My kids, BTW, know that Santa is Fake.. Yet we celebrate Christmas (They asked me to
no.. I am not christian).A Debate of this nature (hopefully) make people who genuinely participate in it, see things from another POV.
I for one, Experienced both POVs, I wasn't always an atheist. (Can't say I was ever religious also, But had my share of "spirituality").
Try to look at it as it says, A challenge.
The challenge is not to invent stuff up. The challenge is to put yourself outside your comfort zone and think like the "other side" of the debate.
"Know your enemy!" It doesn't mean know how they act.. it means know how they think!
I Really think that many times, an argument can be easily settled when you try and think how the other side understand things.
I Always try to think of things from the other perspective before debating them.
This post was a try ( at times successful, and at times not) to open people up to such an experience.
I Have no "inner dilemma".
I am completely sure and know where I stand.
I Am an Atheist who finds people ( from both sides of the coin ) give absurd arguments regarding things they have no understanding about.
Theists who speak about Evolution,
Atheists who speak about Evil God,
Both presenting arguments of ignorance.
Based on your statements, I assume you are an Atheist. I Dare you take the stand as a theist and try and defend God.
Learn as much as you can and only then present your argument.
Nevertheless, Thanks for your input. Cheers