Wow, Chris333, good to see you back and full of zest! I really enjoyed reading Parts 1-3! Well worth the wait!

Hume (Part 1),

Sorry about the delay. The vacation was nice but I am glad to be home.

You said (to seedplanter),

"Atheists aren't trying to take credit for the development of modern science; what matters is that it works,(regardless of belief/unbelief)"

True, however this doesn't mean that belief or unbelief is superior (if that is what you were implying).

(To Adam)

"What kind of proof would convince you that God does not exist?"

I believe that Adam was asking you for the proof, that you have found convincing, that God does not exist. I too would be interested to see your argument for atheism, I spend too much time trying to defend my viewpoints.

"Have a good vacation, but remember to bring me back lots of objective evidence, or I won't believe you ever left!;-) "

Thanks, and trust me the vacation happened (haha)! So objective evidence? I think I said this below, but I rather prefer Craig's five point argument for the existence of God.

Hume (Part 2)

1)Cosmological- All evidence shows that the universe did begin with a "Big Bang", and there are many other reasons to believe that the universe did have a beginning. Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Since the universe had a beginning it must have had a cause. (Now in order to avoid a never ending chain of causes, which is logically impossible, or go completely against science, we would need an uncaused, immensely powerful, and "eternal" being. God fits the description)

Note: I have yet to hear a good alternative from atheists, the most common objection is that "God must have a cause" But that is not the case. God is by definition, uncaused (no beginning no end). Atheist counter theories range from multiple universes (very very bad science, and entirely unbelievable), to an oscillating universe (multiple "bangs" and "crunches", but this one doesn't workout either, as each "new" universe would get smaller and smaller until it becomes a singularity, and if it had been happening forever, then it should have reached a singluarity by now), to simply an eternal universe (against modern science). Without a stronger atheist argument, and with good reason to believe it is God, I believe this argument is pretty strong.

2)Teleological- At the "conception" of the universe at the Big Bang, many natural laws were formed, including gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, etc. The ratio of these natural laws formed independently of one another, and according to no set pattern (as far as modern scholarship tells us). What is more, if any were changed even slightly, then life would be impossible. The window is so small for life as we know it, that I believe one science philosopher likened it to pointing at a 1 inch target across the universe, and hitting it perfectly. The chances are so astronomical that any rational person would believe it had been "set up". Well, if it was set up, then by who? Again God seems to be the best answer (unless you can provide better?)

Hume (Part 3)

3)Morality- It seems obvious that objective morals exist, and most people do believe that objective morals exist. Atheism fails miserably in defining any kind of objective moral standard, and theism explains morals very nicely (as argued below). This leaves us with two options, 1) reject objective morals and accept (shudders) relative morals (cringes) or 2) believe in God.

Note: I have yet to hear an argument from atheists for objective morals that was even vaguely satisfactory. The best is that they "just are" like 1+1=2. But this is not true, 1+1=2 is not equivalent to morality, and therefore the comparison cannot be made. And, even if morals "just are" then that still is not a proof, it is just saying something. I can say, "I am the greatest man on earth" but this statement is literally valueless unless I could prove it in some way (I cannot, because I am not).

4) The historical evidence for the Resurrection- William Lane Craig gives a very simple and straightforward argument for this. Nearly all biblical scholars agree that certain events described in the Bible are indeed accurate. 1) That Jesus did probably die on a cross, 2) That Jesus was buried in a tomb (owned by a member of the Sanhedrin), 3) That there was an empty tomb (witnessed first by women), and 4) that the followers of Jesus did have some kind of experiences of Jesus after He died.

Now if we accept these as true (again, most biblical historical scholars accept them as true, even the secular ones), then it seems that the Resurrection is the best fit to answering these events. Other theories presented (swoon theory, stolen body, Judas died on the cross, etc.) all come up short and just do not explain the facts. In the debate between Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig, Craig did an excellent job of defending his position, and it seemed that Ehrman was just left saying "Well supernatural events just do not happen!" As if that proves something.

5) Experiential- This is what we have been discussing, and though it is not exactly "objective" in the sense that you would like, without good reason why I should doubt my experience with God, I see no reason why I should reject them.

So that is the very simple, basic explanation of 5 separate, but connected arguments. There is a lot more, but I am doing all this off the top of my head, and it is very late where I am, so it might not be as coherent as it usually might be. I await your response.

Seedplanter,

"Chris, have a great vacation! As much time as you spend on here debating skeptics, she is probably quite anxious to get outta town"

Haha, yeah... I have been trying to cut back a little here so I can spend more time with her, I have 2 other cites I am posting on too, and it gets a little time consuming. No worries though, I am sure I spend enough time with her. Thanks for the consideration!

ifeelfine,

"Enjoy your vacation."

Thanks, I did!

"the onus is on us to prove God's existance."

No, this is a myth, a very sad myth, but a myth nonetheless. The burden of proof is equally on both the atheist and theist. Both are asserting a certain worldview, which must be accounted for. What is more, theism has always been (and still is) the predominant view, therefore the newer, or less acclaimed view almost always should present their argument first. (i.e. if in metaphysics one were to claim that electrons do NOT exist, then the burden of proof would follow heavily on such a person. Even though they are asserting a negative, it goes against evidence, experience, and accepted theory)

"Obviously Hume doesn't feel God in his / her life "

Possibly, or Hume has ignored it or convinced himself that it cannot be God.

"its not like your wife where you can see her - she's there (you can engage your senses and prove it)."

But my seeing her doesn't make her anymore real, even if she were 3000 miles away I would still believe she existed and was real. I might only be able to write letters to her, or talk on the phone, but I would still believe she was real. I have experienced God in my life, and I do have a relationship with Him. I do not have to "see" Him in order to believe in Him.

"you cannot prove God's existance - that is why it requires faith."

True, but you cannot even prove that you are really a person, you could be a brain being tested in scientific experiments made to believe that this is all real. It requires some faith to do virtually anything, even if we don't realize it. The faith may be of a different kind with God, but I do not believe it is any weaker.

"Those things are real and certainly enough evidence for some to have faith! :)"

You are correct, but Hume doesn't want that, nor should he be satisfied with it. My experiences have some weight in a veridical sense, but my goal here is to show Hume that sensory perception is not the only means by which we can know something to be true.

Good to hear from you again ifeelfine.

sbs: That was deep, man.

Adam: What kind of proof would convince you that God does not exist?

So many arguments. So many premises. So many words. In the end, too many of us who define ourselves as Christians are Scripturely illiterate and prayer free. We apply human trappings to Jesus like unbelievers, and thus cannot state the truth of who He was and is. Truly tragic for the Christian faith and the world.

Hume, help me understand you. You come on this chat and harp on christians to provide conclusive evidence that God exists, yet you hold to an atheistical worldview despite having no conlusive evidence that what YOU believe is true.

That's why these fancy conversations bore me. Because no one ever says what is REALLY going on. You operate from a premise that you only believe what you have evidence for, yet you CLEARLY hold to an atheistical worldview without a shread of conclusive evidence. You say christians have blind faith, but you have no conclusive evidence that God does not exist, yet you choose to believe that. Why should I take you seriously as a genuine truth-seeker? You know what you want to be true, and that's the end of it.

You have no conclusive proof of what you believe. I would rather you be honest that you are just really offended by the idea of a God who will judge your life than try to sell yourself as a legitimate truth-seeker.

Gen1_28: I get what you're saying and I think I agree with it but we might be talking about two different things. If someone doesn't believe, doesn't open their heart to believe, we have to do what we can to show them evidence for God in our lives. Obviously it cannot be proven - I've said that many times myself. It comes down to faith! :)

Chris333: Have a good vacation, but remember to bring me back lots of objective evidence, or I won't believe you ever left!;-) I've got a big post ready, but I am going to wait for you to get back to put it up.

seedplanter: What does the beginning of modern science in a Christian-dominated culture 400-odd years ago have to do with the credibility of Christianity in 2008? Atheists aren't trying to take credit for the development of modern science; what matters is that it works, and it works whether the person doing it personally believes in gods or not.

Chris, have a great vacation! As much time as you spend on here debating skeptics, she is probably quite anxious to get outta town.

"...it is a matter of God being the standard for good."

Chris this seems to be a constant misinterpretation among atheists and skeptics.

One of the problems that I see among the many militant atheists on CP and elsewhere is that they expect Christian theists to bow down to their epistemology of empiricism, regardless of its limitations. Of course they assume the position that they are invincible to presuppositions, while it is Christians who are brainwashed idiots. They pretend to have science in their pocket as if science is something of a religious relic of atheism. While atheists may dominate the hard sciences, it certainly did not give rise to modern science. The religious belief of atheism hardly contributes to anything save pessimism.

ifeelfine72,

I must disagree. It is not up to us to prove God's existence. It is up to the Christian to be obedient to God. This means living our lives by bringing every area into obedience to God and his word.

Furthermore, it would be impossible for any man to prove or disprove God. To prove something means you must be judge over it to decide if it is or is not. Man is not over God and cannot judge God. As much as we might like that (remember Adam in the Garden-) it is not our place. As scripture tells us, the evidence for God is proclaimed by God throughout all creation. We, God's creation, are to proclaim God. It is not up to us to prove God.

We see evidence for God the same way we see evidence for the wind (either that or the bush outside my window is coming after me!) Again - the evidence for God is obvious as Chris333 has pointed out. And as you said, it takes faith.

Maybe Hume will never "see God" - but that is not our problem. Our duty is to be obedient to God and his commands. I think every one here has tried to clearly show the evidence for God in nature, in personal convictions, and in philosophical rhetoric. I just hope we all continue to strive to live out God's commands in our own life.

Hume- It was educational to read your opinions. Keep up the questions.

Chris: Junebug is right, the onus is on us to prove God's existance. Obviously Hume doesn't feel God in his / her life and because its not like your wife where you can see her - she's there (you can engage your senses and prove it). Here is the issue though, you cannot prove God's existance - that is why it requires faith. If there were proof, faith would not be necessary - everyone would just see Him and say "yup, there's God." It doesn't work that way, faith is required.

But you can describe your experiences with God. And show how He is real in your life and talk about what He's done for you. Those things are real and certainly enough evidence for some to have faith! :)

Enjoy your vacation.

Junebug,

Keep up the good work, apologetics is a rough field and it is constantly changing and growing, but it is also exciting. I don't base my belief on my defenses, rather I base my defenses on what has been manifested in my life time and again, and that is important to keep in mind. I am going on a vaction for a week with my wife and her family, so I won't be commenting for a while, but I am sure you will do fine without me.

Hume,

Sorry if you don't believe that I and my wife are going on a vacation, I am not too concerned with proving it (haha). In any case, go over my arguments and give it good thought, as I am sure you will do. I will check the post when I get back, but I am afraid you will have forgotten about it in a week, (that is how these things go). In any case, take care and it has been fun debating with you.

Hume (continued)

"If you’ve got objective, physical evidence you should present it"

This is not the debate we are in, we are debating whether God can exist apart from sensory perception. In any case, I take a similar tract as William Lane Craig, he presents five arguments for the existence of God, (1) Cosmological argument, (2) Teleological argument, (3) Morality argument, (4) Historical evidence in the Resurrection, and (5) Experential argument.

If you want to see a good debate between him and Anthony Flew (who takes a line of reasoning largely based upon Hume's works) then you can buy the book. I don't want to go into detail with them. Suffice it to say that they still stand, and the best atheist philosophers have not taken them down.

"No marriage certificate, no wedding ring, no joint bank accounts, no joint tax return..."

But I could show you all these "evidences" just like I can show you all the prayers in my own life answered, and the arguments presented above. Sure we don't have a "picture" of God, but we do have Him coming to earth in the form of Christ, and many reasons why our faith is at least reasonable. Even still, even if you did feel justified in not believing I am married to my wife, that shouldn't matter to me, I know what I have, whether you accept it or not.

Now the burden of proof is on you to disprove my relationship with God, so far you have just said, "It cannot be" or "It is not likely" this gives me about as much reason to doubt my beliefs as it would to doubt my relationship with my wife.

Hume,

"you’ve had experiences you are subjectively interpreting as god."

How do you know? I suppose you would say the experiences with my wife are subjective as well? You must be God to know so much about what I have experienced and what is genuine and what is not. Again I would not take you seriously if you said my experiences with my wife are not real, why should I take you seriously regarding my relationship with God?

Your position on God just "blocking" immoral actions is not freewill. For instance, what if I told you that you can do whatever you want, and then you say, "Oh great!" And you decide to go to Mc Donalds to get a hamburger, but before you leave I poke holes in your tires. Then you say, "What? You said I could do anything you want!" And then I say, "Yeah that is right" So then you decide to walk to Mc Donalds, but I steal your shoes and burn them. Then you decide to walk there barefoot, but I put spikes on the ground... and then, well you get the point. We do not call this freedom, how much more if God constantly does it? You have provided a perfect example of not free will.

"If god is the source of morals, then god would be “good” no matter what he did, because god can define good in any way he likes."

Missed again, no the idea is that "God is good" therefore it is not a matter of God "changing Himself" and making bad good, it is a matter of God being the standard for good. Sure God could have created a world where rape was good and love was bad, but that would have been against who God is. Christians also believe that God is not contradictory. Also, we could say that a yard is the new meter, but that would not change the standard meter bar. You are making God into a big person, but you forget that God is holy, thus He is the standard. Holy cannot do what is unholy, your point is refuted.

Oops! I meant "one stance" for the religion and science scholars!