Came across a theistic evolution blog and he had a nice summary of his debate with atheists or rather a list of q's that really got to the heart of their arguments. The bolded questions below are really the key q's to the debate if you ask me. Do you think there will ever be an answer to these questions? Or will it always be faith versus fact? Is it truly objective versus subjective? http://theisticev.informe.com/blog/2007/11/ How do atheists come to the conclusion that God doesnât exist based solely on the fact that they have not themselves objectively seen Him? Why do they believe that God is simply a made-up notion in light of their lack of reasons to believe? In order for the above questions to be answered, this question, which is central to this thread, must be answered: how do we determine if something exists or not? <--the hot question. Still, in order for the hot question to be answered, we must also consider what is reality, and whether there is a difference between subjective and objective reality, or if subjective and objective realities are the same. Indeed, some may contend that objective reality is that which you and I can observe; however, as the aforementioned poster pointed out, this leaves a problem for such things as emotions. This would suggest that emotions (and internal thoughts) are, essentially, not a part of objective reality. I envision some of you saying now âwell, I can observe your emotionsâ. This, however, is a weak answer, and still doesnât place emotions in objective reality as defined above, as display of emotions may be false; what we see is not necessarily the true emotions, but rather a display of emotions that is impossible to distinguish from true feelings. One might contend that one âknowsâ the person; however, truth to be told, one really canât fully know someone insofar as one cannot tell their thoughts. So the question of what is reality, in a way, may be viewed as the fire that heats the hot question. ...... So the question still stands: what is reality? And in answering that question, we curse ourselves with the hot question: how do we determine if something exists or not? And ultimately this leads into the question of Godâs existence, and whether it is indeed best to assume the strictly negative position.
The two big questions in mathematics are existence and uniqueness. Maybe you can consult a mathematician.
And there's another interesting question: are the Secrets of the Universe locked up in mathematical formulae? Is the formulae determinate? Can science and mathematics really answer the ultimate questions of reality? Seriously, those are actually valid q's.
Wait a minute. You're telling me that all this debating on et is strictly an exercise in futility? Dang! I'm sticking with trading and sports then...
I think that's right with these type of things. Futile. This is pretty old stuff. The qâs have been repeated the a's have been submitted over and over . The theist's response is not to try understand the a's, but ask the same q's over or muddy the water with more disconnected q's and additional assertion . Take the above. No answer to that q is really being sought. The blog dude asserts it can't really be answered until other q's on reality, along with subjective and objective, are answered. But of course they never will be to his satisfaction, anymore than the first q he posed. Should any rational objectivity be attempted , the theist blogger will go right back to ask the same q's over and over again or keep muddying the water with more disconnects and assertions and q's. right back full circle.
Yes, but it's more complicated than that. In my mind, it's also more a question of what evidence do you allow in the courtroom? From our perspective, you throw out the only evidence that can really prove or disprove - and I use the word "prove" in the courtroom sense - the debate which is why there is no debate... Science has some answers and generally fun stuff. But consider this: evolution was once the bread and better of the atheist. After Francis Collins the tide has turned: theists are using evolution as proof of God's handiwork. You can really only get so far with science, although I would argue the debate is enjoyable for the ride...
The only evidence made available has been found inadmissible on the grounds there is none. Moreover, the accused has never been identified nor ever known to exist . You will find more substantial evidence for Robin Hood and his Merry Men. BTW Merry Christmas Shoe. There you go, see? Same old stuff. Evolution has never dealt with origin of life. Origin of species yes. origin of life, no. Theists have always fitted God wherever science does not give proof ,. God will even sit where substantial scientific evidence exists for an alternative answer, but He's only put there on controversy, not on His own evidence and never on counter scientific evidence.. and a Happy New Year (sincerely )
Hey, let's try it sometime: I'll argue the atheist position and you the theist and let's see who wins. I'll whupp yo! Btw, have you looked around on other boards? Same debates for the most part - just different players... Have a good holiday yourself!