Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

As is normal for me, I sparked a discussion about religion at work today. Usually, theist's arguments are weak and easy to address. Today it veered off in a different direction, and I was completely confused as to how to respond to it.

My co-worker's question began as a simple "Where did the universe come from?" to which I responded, I don't know, no one knows for sure, but just because no one can answer it with certainty, it doesn't justify a divine creator. He then asks, "Well, with so much beauty and complexity in the world, are you saying that that came from nothing?" I reply, "The beauty that you see is merely the result of the interaction of mathematics and matter. Mathematics is the underlying language of the universe, and it makes things beautiful." Then he says, mathematics is only a human invention. Numbers do not exist without humans and that numbers are only our way of interpreting the universe. I asked him if 1+1=2 without us, and he says that the concept of "1" doesn't exist without us.

I had no idea what to say. The people listening looked at me like I had lost the argument. How do I respond? And, what's a better answer for the "how is there so much beauty in the world" question?

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

You have to pin them on the knowledge argument.

Evolution is a way of understanding and describing change in the universe.

'goddidit' is not.

If at any time they are using god-talk, you should ask them to define what they mean. You have to put them up to scientific standards. If they don't do that then they are not interested in understanding reality.


More here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...F546E2613114CB
(esp the first two)

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
As is normal for me, I sparked a discussion about religion at work today. Usually, theist's arguments are weak and easy to address. Today it veered off in a different direction, and I was completely confused as to how to respond to it.

My co-worker's question began as a simple "Where did the universe come from?" to which I responded, I don't know, no one knows for sure, but just because no one can answer it with certainty, it doesn't justify a divine creator. He then asks, "Well, with so much beauty and complexity in the world, are you saying that that came from nothing?" I reply, "The beauty that you see is merely the result of the interaction of mathematics and matter. Mathematics is the underlying language of the universe, and it makes things beautiful." Then he says, mathematics is only a human invention. Numbers do not exist without humans and that numbers are only our way of interpreting the universe. I asked him if 1+1=2 without us, and he says that the concept of "1" doesn't exist without us.

I had no idea what to say. The people listening looked at me like I had lost the argument. How do I respond? And, what's a better answer for the "how is there so much beauty in the world" question?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Coco the talking gorilla knows what 'one' means. I could be wrong though.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

Oh, and btw, logic exists independent of humans. Logic is something that can be discovered.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

Well, he is right - mathematics is not the underlying language of the universe. It is a beautiful science full of elegance which can be applied on top of an incredible array of explanatory models and all kudos to it - but it is no more the 'language' of the universe than swahili is. The normal numerical system (ok, there are more than that but bear with me) has a base of ten because humans have ten fingers, not vice versa.

And beauty is as the old saying goes, in the eye of the beholder. You don't need god to explain beauty - only humans and our perception/brains/bodies.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

Nielsio, I'll be watching those videos momentarily.

[ QUOTE ]
but [mathematics] is no more the 'language' of the universe than swahili is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you can say this. Doesn't mathematics govern every interaction in the universe?

[ QUOTE ]
And beauty is as the old saying goes, in the eye of the beholder.

[/ QUOTE ]

He may have been talking about beautiful like a rainbow is beautiful, but I was talking about beautiful as in how the Fibonacci sequences is beautiful, or how the complexity of the world is governed by simpler laws of nature.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
My co-worker's question began as a simple "Where did the universe come from?" to which I responded, I don't know, no one knows for sure, but just because no one can answer it with certainty, it doesn't justify a divine creator. He then asks, "Well, with so much beauty and complexity in the world, are you saying that that came from nothing?" "yes, are you saying that it came from a magic man in the sky?"

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't understand his logic trail. the concept of 1 is not only a human concept, anything could come along and have a concept of it, and what does it matter if its a human invention anyway.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]


I don't see how you can say this. Doesn't mathematics govern every interaction in the universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be more correct to say that you put those interaction into a mathematical model by abstraction and then treating them in some manner that gives a usable output.

It isn't too different from putting them into language and talking about them, except mathematics is more 'solid' and based on much, much purer logic. Mathematics per se doesn't exist beyond our idea of numbers as a measure of things we see/observe/theorize.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]

i don't understand his logic trail. the concept of 1 is not only a human concept, anything could come along and have a concept of it, and what does it matter if its a human invention anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said that I "believe 1+1=2" just as he "believes in God". I say that doesn't make sense, of course 1+1=2 without us. No, he says. In his mind, if math is our creation, its not a valid basis for my argument. So, it was up to me to explain to him why math exists independent of us.

Nielsio,

I watched your first video. I enjoyed it a lot and it gave me some things to think about. I especially liked "If I tell you x is true, but don't tell you what x is, we're in the field of religion." I never thought about demanding that a theist define the terms they are using. I doubt many can. "[These words] mean nothing at all." Good quote.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't mathematics govern every interaction in the universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mathematics describes every interaction in the universe. It governs nothing. Human mathematics is just our way of representing relationships. There's a difference between a pattern and our conception of a pattern.

Of course, it's rational to accept that the patterns we observe in nature are "real" patterns, that they represent some kind of underlying reality, but what that reality "is" we will never know.

In terms of the theist and his argument, it's something of a red herring. After all, he never explained why beauty in the world implies the existence of any sort of supernatural being. Even if it did, he would have a long way to go in order to establish that being as the God he believes in. He's relying on an appeal to emotion combined with fuzzy terminology and assumptions.

We see the universe as beautiful - does that mean it "is" beautiful? We see the natural world as beautiful, but that's the world in which the human species evolved - if we have the capacity to sense beauty, of course we're going to sense it in our natural environment. Simple rules can result in complex and intricate systems - look at emergence, or fractals. Creation doesn't imply theism at all. Even an inherent meaning in the universe doesn't imply theism. And theism doesn't imply any specific religion. Much of the universe is barren and empty - only a tiny part of it is "beautiful" in the traditional sense. Humans can create order out of randomness, and beauty out of chaos, in their own minds. We know only a very tiny bit about how our universe works and even how big it is - we aren't justified in suggesting any conclusions about its ultimate nature. If the universe is "too beautiful not to have been created," then is God ugly? If God is also beautiful, then he must have been created too - assuming that beauty must, indeed, be created.

And so on. You can adapt refutations of similarly spurious arguments, attack the absence of logic directly, or offer alternative explanations. Just don't let him get you on the defensive - his argument doesn't affect your position at all, you can shrug it off if need be. Treat his words as what they are, empty rhetoric, and don't take it upon yourself to answer the questions of the universe - he's the one who claims to have all the answers, you can say "I don't know" all you please without undermining your position.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't see how you can say this. Doesn't mathematics govern every interaction in the universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be more correct to say that you put those interaction into a mathematical model by abstraction and then treating them in some manner that gives a usable output.

It isn't too different from putting them into language and talking about them, except mathematics is more 'solid' and based on much, much purer logic. Mathematics per se doesn't exist beyond our idea of numbers as a measure of things we see/observe/theorize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain the first paragraph here?

The second part is along the lines of what he was saying. I suppose logic is more fundamental than mathematics. How would you define mathematics?

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
He said that I "believe 1+1=2" just as he "believes in God". I say that doesn't make sense, of course 1+1=2 without us. No, he says. In his mind, if math is our creation, its not a valid basis for my argument. So, it was up to me to explain to him why math exists independent of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's at this point that I would have responded by punching him in the throat.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I asked him if 1+1=2 without us, and he says that the concept of "1" doesn't exist without us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even animals can count and understand the difference between feeding one baby or feeding two.

Numbers are simply a human representation of amounts, just like the word earth is a representation of a planet. Earth still exists without the term, just as the fact that there is one earth still exists without the number one.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nielsio,

I watched your first video. I enjoyed it a lot and it gave me some things to think about. I especially liked "If I tell you x is true, but don't tell you what x is, we're in the field of religion." I never thought about demanding that a theist define the terms they are using. I doubt many can. "[These words] mean nothing at all." Good quote.

[/ QUOTE ]


[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

madnak, great post.

Let me see if I understand this. You're saying reality is what actually happens, beyond our perception of the world. We may perceive a relationship and call it reality, but we don't really know whether it actually is reality. In the same way, mathematics is just our way of interpreting relationships.

You make a lot of other good points too.

Thinking back on it, this is what seems to have happened. He starts asking me questions that I do not know the answer to, such as where the universe came from. When I reply "I do not know" it makes my ideas seem incomplete. People listen to him, and his idea's answer that question: "God created the universe." Observers think "Athiest 0, Thiest 1".

What went wrong? I can say, "Who created God?" They can answer "God has always existed." Then what? "What is God?" "God is the creator of the universe." "Oh." "Oh."

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even animals can count and understand the difference between feeding one baby or feeding two.

Numbers are simply a human representation of amounts, just like the word earth is a representation of a planet. Earth still exists without the term, just as the fact that there is one earth still exists without the number one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Justin, eloquently put.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

Well read this math major maybe he has some interesting insights into your question. He specifically mentions the 1+1 concept.

http://www.math.sfu.ca/~jrg/scripts/godandmath_1.pdf

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let me see if I understand this. You're saying reality is what actually happens, beyond our perception of the world. We may perceive a relationship and call it reality, but we don't really know whether it actually is reality. In the same way, mathematics is just our way of interpreting relationships.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, yeah. It's fine to say we "know" something is reality, but detach yourself from that if someone gets very philosophical on you. We have reason to believe, based on the observations we've made and the information we have, that this is reality, etc. It's all very academic, but it can be important - math isn't "true" so much as it's consistent. Of course, any sentient beings in the universe probably use systems of mathematics very similar to our own - it's just, remember that a diagram of the solar system isn't really the solar system. (That hardly means the solar system doesn't exist, though.)

If your goal is to convince the audience, or even to impress them or just appear credible, it's important to be in control of the discussion. Never let the theist take the reins - if he knows what he's doing, then he'll make things difficult for you, and if he doesn't he'll take you in circles. If you get stuck, sometimes asking questions is the best response - the person asking the questions is often perceived as being the one in control. If the theist demands to monopolize the conversation, give him enough rope to hang himself with. If you're out of your depth rhetorically, stick to logic.

And remember, you aren't making the claim that there is no God - he's making the claim that there is. This puts you in an advantageous position. There are dozens of mutually exclusive religious belief systems out there, and his agenda is to support his own system and only his own system. His arguments will reflect that. If he starts to get very general, making broad points that almost everyone agrees with, tighten things up and get more specific - show everyone that he's being vague.

Always remember, you don't have to defend your worldview - you aren't asking everyone to agree with every little thing you believe. But the theist is often doing exactly that, so all you have to do is expose him.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
As is normal for me, I sparked a discussion about religion at work today. Usually, theist's arguments are weak and easy to address. Today it veered off in a different direction, and I was completely confused as to how to respond to it.

My co-worker's question began as a simple "Where did the universe come from?" to which I responded, I don't know, no one knows for sure, but just because no one can answer it with certainty, it doesn't justify a divine creator. He then asks, "Well, with so much beauty and complexity in the world, are you saying that that came from nothing?" I reply, "The beauty that you see is merely the result of the interaction of mathematics and matter. Mathematics is the underlying language of the universe, and it makes things beautiful." Then he says, mathematics is only a human invention. Numbers do not exist without humans and that numbers are only our way of interpreting the universe. I asked him if 1+1=2 without us, and he says that the concept of "1" doesn't exist without us.

I had no idea what to say. The people listening looked at me like I had lost the argument. How do I respond? And, what's a better answer for the "how is there so much beauty in the world" question?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you could just ask him if a dog would find Jessica Alba to be beautiful and then ask him if he gets your point? Its not really an answer to his question, but it will at least force him to phrase it in the correct way. He isn't asking you about beauty, because thats trivially easy to refute (we are beauty-finding machines so its no surprise we find beauty everywhere) but instead he is asking about order. Thats a much tougher discussion.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me see if I understand this. You're saying reality is what actually happens, beyond our perception of the world. We may perceive a relationship and call it reality, but we don't really know whether it actually is reality. In the same way, mathematics is just our way of interpreting relationships.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, yeah. It's fine to say we "know" something is reality, but detach yourself from that if someone gets very philosophical on you. We have reason to believe, based on the observations we've made and the information we have, that this is reality, etc. It's all very academic, but it can be important - math isn't "true" so much as it's consistent. Of course, any sentient beings in the universe probably use systems of mathematics very similar to our own - it's just, remember that a diagram of the solar system isn't really the solar system. (That hardly means the solar system doesn't exist, though.)

If your goal is to convince the audience, or even to impress them or just appear credible, it's important to be in control of the discussion. Never let the theist take the reins - if he knows what he's doing, then he'll make things difficult for you, and if he doesn't he'll take you in circles. If you get stuck, sometimes asking questions is the best response - the person asking the questions is often perceived as being the one in control. If the theist demands to monopolize the conversation, give him enough rope to hang himself with. If you're out of your depth rhetorically, stick to logic.

And remember, you aren't making the claim that there is no God - he's making the claim that there is. This puts you in an advantageous position. There are dozens of mutually exclusive religious belief systems out there, and his agenda is to support his own system and only his own system. His arguments will reflect that. If he starts to get very general, making broad points that almost everyone agrees with, tighten things up and get more specific - show everyone that he's being vague.

Always remember, you don't have to defend your worldview - you aren't asking everyone to agree with every little thing you believe. But the theist is often doing exactly that, so all you have to do is expose him.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between a map and the territory, man!

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

Why spend time trying to refute theists?

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

Btw, here's the link to the math paper guy's credentials.

http://www.math.sfu.ca/~jrg/

This is a very important question by the op...I hope everyone is seeking truth with a truly open mind not just getting caught up in winning an argument.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why spend time trying to refute theists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a lot of fun and interesting and educational? Why spend time trying to refute Packers fans?

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Btw, here's the link to the math paper guy's credentials.

http://www.math.sfu.ca/~jrg/

This is a very important question by the op...I hope everyone is seeking truth with a truly open mind not just getting caught up in winning an argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you have honest tactics, doing everything you can to win an argument is a pretty decent approach to education and learning. I've learned many challenging and important things because I spent hours and hours trying to refute them and realized I could not. The "honest tactics" caveat is very important, however, and I try my best.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

what is 'god' to a person who does not believe that '1' exists without humans?

if there were no human beings would that mean that there was no god or that there were many?

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

Implicit in this guy's view seems to be the belief that God couldnt do arithmetic until we arrived to show him how.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

If there are no humans then these questions are irrelevant.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

To the OP:

Debating with theists shouldn't be about winning or losing, and also - 'winning' a debate against theist who knows how to debate is impossible.

Actually there is a fun exercise you can do, next time you meet a diehard atheist you can debate with him like you were a liberal theist. And I promise you - there is absolutely no way you can lose that discussion, I've done this on occasion just for fun and it is greatly recommended to anyone simply because of the extreme hilarity that ensues.

I can almost guarantee you this outcome: Your simple, yet absolute, standpoint will infuriate the atheist to a feeding-frenzy, and since you ofcourse take the liberal standpoint any attacks on scriptures can be easily explained, anything science-related you can agree with and then you can return to the big absolutes. If you appreciare debate, it will be the best half hour of your debating life.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
To the OP:

Debating with theists shouldn't be about winning or losing, and also - 'winning' a debate against theist who knows how to debate is impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]

This obviously isn't true. You might mean that 'winning' is impossible against a debater, or with an audience, that considers blind contradiction a valid tool.

Or unless you wouldn't consider it an atheist 'win' to push the theist's position into an acceptance that he believes in premises that make no material case suitable for intelligent debate.

Both are clearly 'atheist wins' to intelligent observers.

(edit - or unless to win you require undeniable 100% certain proof of position - again not required by intelligent pragmatic observers.)

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I reply, "The beauty that you see is merely the result of the interaction of mathematics and matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

The beauty that we see has nothing to do with math or matter interacting and it derails the analysis to go into that topic. We see beauty because we have evolved to react to certain visual settings as good and others as bad. The fact we can easily screw up what we're looking at ( such as thinking a poisoned lake is good(beautiful) does not detract enough from what this beauty/ugly has contributed to our reaching this point in our evolution.

The beauty you see is because of our ability/tendency to view things in terms of beauty/indifferent/notbeauty. It's not a property of the setting we are viewing, which is the implication that needs to be avoided in the phrasing.

luckyme

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If there are no humans then these questions are irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about Koko!! She understands teh maths.

http://edcommunity.apple.com/ali/gal...cab_4Signs.jpg

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

Here you go:

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot,
or he can but does not want to,
or he cannot and does not want to,
or lastly he can and wants to.

If he wants to remove evil, and cannot,
he is not omnipotent;
If he can, but does not want to,
he is not benevolent;
If he neither can nor wants to,
he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent;

But if God can abolish evil and wants to,
and if evil still exists
Then God must not be God.
God does not exist.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

Intereting... I believe the concept of 1 exists with or without us. The name "1" is man made, but the existence of 1 is not.

Think of the numeral 1 as the sun or a tree. These things would exist with or without man. They just wouldn't be named or placed with any theory.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To the OP:

Debating with theists shouldn't be about winning or losing, and also - 'winning' a debate against theist who knows how to debate is impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]

This obviously isn't true. You might mean that 'winning' is impossible against a debater, or with an audience, that considers blind contradiction a valid tool.

Or unless you wouldn't consider it an atheist 'win' to push the theist's position into an acceptance that he believes in premises that make no material case suitable for intelligent debate.

Both are clearly 'atheist wins' to intelligent observers.

(edit - or unless to win you require undeniable 100% certain proof of position - again not required by intelligent pragmatic observers.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Try it out at home if you like, imagine yourself as a liberal theist (one who does not interpret theist works literally) and any outcome of the debate is impossible, you don't even have to deny/oppose any of the things an atheist debates against you, the only thing you have to claim is that 'you believe in god' - and you don't even have to prove anyone wrong.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To the OP:

Debating with theists shouldn't be about winning or losing, and also - 'winning' a debate against theist who knows how to debate is impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]

This obviously isn't true. You might mean that 'winning' is impossible against a debater, or with an audience, that considers blind contradiction a valid tool.

Or unless you wouldn't consider it an atheist 'win' to push the theist's position into an acceptance that he believes in premises that make no material case suitable for intelligent debate.

Both are clearly 'atheist wins' to intelligent observers.

(edit - or unless to win you require undeniable 100% certain proof of position - again not required by intelligent pragmatic observers.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Try it out at home if you like, imagine yourself as a liberal theist (one who does not interpret theist works literally) and any outcome of the debate is impossible, you don't even have to deny/oppose any of the things an atheist debates against you, the only thing you have to claim is that 'you believe in god' - and you don't even have to prove anyone wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel like I could crush 99% of the atheists in the world if I were to take the liberal theist position here, in front of a random crowd. Heck, I'd take my chances on a crowd full of young, relatively educated, wealthy Westerners (to stack the deck in the atheists favor). I'd have a hard time even coming up with a single atheist I think could handily defeat me, although there are a few (both on this board and in the real world) that I know of that could probably stalemate me.

It honestly amazes me when guys like Hitchens and Harris and Dawkins go into these types of debate and do not get absolutely slaughtered. Its such a ludicrous format that is hopeless lopsided in favor of the status quo.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

Well, when a debate ensues most theists claim they believe in God for reasons a, b, and c. Most do not say "I believe for no reason" and if they did, it would be impossible to argue with. But, if you can disprove a, b, and c, you take away his reasons for believing, and leave him uttering "I have faith." In my mind, if you can get a theist into this corner, you have been won the argument.

Can someone address this, por favor:

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking back on it, this is what seems to have happened. He starts asking me questions that I do not know the answer to, such as where the universe came from. When I reply "I do not know" it makes my ideas seem incomplete. People listen to him, and his idea's answer that question: "God created the universe." Observers think "Athiest 0, Thiest 1".

What went wrong? I can say, "Who created God?" They can answer "God has always existed." Then what? "What is God?" "God is the creator of the universe." "Oh." "Oh."

[/ QUOTE ]

How can I respond to "God has always existed"?

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To the OP:

Debating with theists shouldn't be about winning or losing, and also - 'winning' a debate against theist who knows how to debate is impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]

This obviously isn't true. You might mean that 'winning' is impossible against a debater, or with an audience, that considers blind contradiction a valid tool.

Or unless you wouldn't consider it an atheist 'win' to push the theist's position into an acceptance that he believes in premises that make no material case suitable for intelligent debate.

Both are clearly 'atheist wins' to intelligent observers.

(edit - or unless to win you require undeniable 100% certain proof of position - again not required by intelligent pragmatic observers.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Try it out at home if you like, imagine yourself as a liberal theist (one who does not interpret theist works literally) and any outcome of the debate is impossible, you don't even have to deny/oppose any of the things an atheist debates against you, the only thing you have to claim is that 'you believe in god' - and you don't even have to prove anyone wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel like I could crush 99% of the atheists in the world if I were to take the liberal theist position here, in front of a random crowd. Heck, I'd take my chances on a crowd full of young, relatively educated, wealthy Westerners (to stack the deck in the atheists favor). I'd have a hard time even coming up with a single atheist I think could handily defeat me, although there are a few (both on this board and in the real world) that I know of that could probably stalemate me.

It honestly amazes me when guys like Hitchens and Harris and Dawkins go into these types of debate and do not get absolutely slaughtered. Its such a ludicrous format that is hopeless lopsided in favor of the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

For what it is worth Vhawk, I think you could also. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]

How can I respond to "God has always existed"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Options:

1. Yes
X. No
2. Maybe

And some fuzzy sidetracked stuff about what god is, and what always is.

But to explain further, my 'hypothetical' was with a theist who is liberal and a skilled debater - it is impossible to win that debate, at best you can stalemate it.

The base premise will boil down the question you asked above, and there really is no way of genuinely falsifying any of the answers (yet). You can go into the whole big bang stuff, but it wouldn't really change anything (since obviously all the theist has to say is god made the big bang happen - or in case of the truly liberal ones that 'if the big bang happened then god was made together with it').

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
math isn't "true" so much as it's consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't consistency the underpinning of truth? What 'truth' is can be debated ad absurdum but it's clear to me that without consistency truth may not exist. We can't say an apple is red if there is no consistency to what red means. Truth is a highly idealized concept that doesn't have a binary test. The best we can do is take a measurement of truth, and that measurement is consistency. The longer a statement goes without being contradicted the greater the likelihood of it being a truth.

The beauty of math is very simple. It is the least ambiguous way to interpret the universe. What is so fascinating to me is that we have evolved to understand these concepts (math, logic) on such a level because it is useful. And only with the help of these faculties are we able to make predictions about the world around us with any consistency.

Re: Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, when a debate ensues most theists claim they believe in God for reasons a, b, and c. Most do not say "I believe for no reason" and if they did, it would be impossible to argue with. But, if you can disprove a, b, and c, you take away his reasons for believing, and leave him uttering "I have faith." In my mind, if you can get a theist into this corner, you have been won the argument.

Can someone address this, por favor:

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking back on it, this is what seems to have happened. He starts asking me questions that I do not know the answer to, such as where the universe came from. When I reply "I do not know" it makes my ideas seem incomplete. People listen to him, and his idea's answer that question: "God created the universe." Observers think "Athiest 0, Thiest 1".

What went wrong? I can say, "Who created God?" They can answer "God has always existed." Then what? "What is God?" "God is the creator of the universe." "Oh." "Oh."

[/ QUOTE ]

How can I respond to "God has always existed"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd never be able to disprove my reasons a, b and c, or at least it would take you so long, so many words, and so many suppositions, that I would still win the debate.