My Challenge to you: Prove there is a God!

[Tawn]

I'm sorry, but it appeared to me that you were doing precisely that.

I was trying to speak in general terms.. not specifically regarding the Naturalism Vs Theism.. Im sorry I wasnt clearer.. we were using the analogy of string theory and really the relevance of the 'way' I said it was more applicable to that.

 

[jewscout]

you are they grey i am the grey....we are all grey putting people on differnt sides is what creats conflict.

yes we should all try to force others to think like we do!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was trying to speak in general terms.. not specifically regarding the Naturalism Vs Theism..

What you said was ...

If you accept one belief without evidence then you have to accept all of them. Non-belief is simply the default (and rational) assumption one must make in the light of no evidence.​

The first statement has no logical entailment and the second has weight only in the context of metaphysical naturalism. Why 'must' non-belief be the default assumption? What is irrational about the deism of the likes of Martin Gardner or E.O. Wilson?

 

[Tawn]

Non-belief is not naturalism, since that is a belief system of its own. Believing in something without anything is folly. However, let me be clear, I am not stating that any current belief systems are based on nothing. They may be based on literature, logic, intuition and circumstance. Though I would question the value of relying heavily on intuition.

 

[Tawn]

It is upto the individual to decide whether those things can be used as 'evidence' however.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Believing in something without anything is folly.

It's also quite likely impossible. Do you seriously believe that the serious theist or deists believes "without anything"? Be it delusion, intuition, or revelation, it is something, and to dismiss it as nothing is simply self-serving bias.

 

[Ordination of Aaron]

Proving the existence of god, or at least the Christian god, would be a detriment to the world.

 

[lilithu]

Fair points, though a tad pedantic I think.

One person's "serious point" is another person's pedantry.

I would hope that you like me are searching for the truth. That therefore is the criteria. You 'should' (in my opinion) think like this to be closest to the truth.

You assume that there is a "the truth" to be searching after - a truth that is true for everyone. (And what proof do you have of this?) I, otoh, am an existentialist. It may be the case that there is "the truth" out there - I'd like to think there is - but I don't believe that it is knowable by us, certainly not thru reason (and therefore, it doesn't really matter if there is a "the truth" or not). I search for my truth; I choose what gives meaning to my life. (And for gawd's sake, I am not talking about 2+2=4 or e=mc2.)

Some people may think it strange that I am a theist who doesn't believe in a "the truth" that is knowable. I, otoh, think it very strange to be an atheist who believes in such absolutist ideas as "the truth." Heck, there are people who have defined God as "the Truth."