Existence of God

[Homerun]

I am a Roman Catholic convert from New Age Protestantism and have immense faith in God. In school, however, we are constantly bombarded with evolutionary theory and empirical methodology. The modern world, particularly in my generation, is left with no room for faith. Because of my conversion and my visible religious beliefs, I have become a figure on whom to rely for theological questions (and objections). Seeing as I am being challenged at school by my peers, I have several questions which I need help with.

1. What philosophical logic do we have to prove God, and why is this more reliable than science?
2. Assuming there is one god, why is the Christian faith in general preferable to other religions? Why is Christianity correct and other religions false mythological stories?
3. Any other advice for dealing with agnostics or atheists? I was speaking with an atheist teacher. I argued Aquinas’ uncaused cause theory: that since all matter must be created from other matter, there physically must be a god to create the original particles of matter. He replied that this logic is infinitely regressive, because if all things must have a creator, then God must be created. Second, he said that he would rather assume that the universe always existed rather than a higher being that simply always “was.”

 

[reggieM]

I argued Aquinas’ uncaused cause theory: that since all matter must be created from other matter, there physically must be a god to create the original particles of matter. He replied that this logic is infinitely regressive, because if all things must have a creator, then God must be created. Second, he said that he would rather assume that the universe always existed rather than a higher being that simply always “was.”

Your teacher would rather believe unfounded speculations which are supported with zero evidence, than the solid logic of the ontological argument.

An infinite regression is not an explanation. Plus, an actual infinite linear string has no beginning and thus could never arrive at the present.

 

[buffgbob]

Your teacher would rather believe unfounded speculations which are supported with zero evidence, than the solid logic of the ontological argument.

An infinite regression is not an explanation. Plus, an actual infinite linear string has no beginning and thus could never arrive at the present.

I agree, except that the ontological argument is not solid logic. (Aquinas rejected himself rejected it).

The latter part of your quote is much more substantial in why God must be rather than time. Let me rephrase your solid argumentation of your latter point. To say that time is infinitely [negative] can be proven obviously false. It is to say that there once was a “now” which our present is in the infinite future. However, will any future point really reach infinity? Of course not, our future may be infinite, but we may never reach its infinitude.

 

[James_S_Saint]

1. “Do you know what a god actually is?” What kind of Science concludes that something doesn’t exist when it doesn’t even know what it is?

Define God properly and the proof will come. But you must be humble to Truth for that to happen.

1. The same is generally true of the “Christian God” especially as it relates to a “Son of God” - what does it really mean to be a son of a god? Most likely not what you thought.
2. “Do you believe in Reality? Yes? Oh good, then you believe in God too, just have yet to understand him.”

 

[James_S_Saint]

My favorite argument for an Atheist;

Atheist; I can’t believe in God
Saint; Do you believe in Reality?
Atheist; Yeah, but not one with a God in it.
Saint; If instead of calling it Reality, I called it God, would you believe in God then?
Atheist, That’s stupid. I am talking about the God of the Bible.
Saint; Funny, so am I. Maybe you have just misunderstood the ancient 3000 year old scripture written for other people in a completely different culture in their language for their children in their way of expressing themselves for their sake to preserve their offspring in such a manner that their offspring could understand it added to several generations of people mouthing off about something they never bothered to really study. …Or maybe they just didn’t have a convenient English Science dictionary way back then. But good to see that we worship the same God.

 

[hatsoff]

I am a Roman Catholic convert from New Age Protestantism and have immense faith in God. In school, however, we are constantly bombarded with evolutionary theory and empirical methodology. The modern world, particularly in my generation, is left with no room for faith. Because of my conversion and my visible religious beliefs, I have become a figure on whom to rely for theological questions (and objections). Seeing as I am being challenged at school by my peers, I have several questions which I need help with.

1. What philosophical logic do we have to prove God, and why is this more reliable than science?

None.

1. Assuming there is one god, why is the Christian faith in general preferable to other religions? Why is Christianity correct and other religions false mythological stories?

Perhaps it isn’t. At first glance it does appear that if one religion is true, it’s most likely to be Christianity. However, that could just be my cultural heritage talking.

1. Any other advice for dealing with agnostics or atheists? I was speaking with an atheist teacher. I argued Aquinas’ uncaused cause theory: that since all matter must be created from other matter, there physically must be a god to create the original particles of matter. He replied that this logic is infinitely regressive, because if all things must have a creator, then God must be created. Second, he said that he would rather assume that the universe always existed rather than a higher being that simply always “was.”

Aquinas’ arguments are not sound in any form I have encountered them.

The only way I can figure to know that God exists is to have some kind of personal experience to that effect. To date, nobody has been able to publicly show that God exists.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I am a Roman Catholic convert from New Age Protestantism and have immense faith in God. In school, however, we are constantly bombarded with evolutionary theory and empirical methodology. The modern world, particularly in my generation, is left with no room for faith. Because of my conversion and my visible religious beliefs, I have become a figure on whom to rely for theological questions (and objections). Seeing as I am being challenged at school by my peers, I have several questions which I need help with.

welcome to the forums, you landed in the right place. let me try to provide you with some ammunition.

1. What philosophical logic do we have to prove God, and why is this more reliable than science?

scientism simply asserts that all of reality can be described by the empirically observable. science is great at describing physical things, but not so much on the questions of ultimate meaning. there are many things scientism cannot answer, free will, the existence of the universe, causality, etc.

as for the various proofs of G-d, i prefer contingency. though there are the ideas of Aquinas, Anselfm, plantinga, and others.

this is well discussed here, check out the self defeating argument of scientism at the 4:00 minute mark. it drives 'em nuts

youtube.com/watch?v=p8YTre3xqXg&feature=channel_page

1. Assuming there is one god, why is the Christian faith in general preferable to other religions? Why is Christianity correct and other religions false mythological stories?

Messianic Prophecy, absolute, undeniable mathematical proof of the Christain G-d.

godonthe.net/jewish/odds.html

there are 2 common responses.

1. the prophecies arent specific.

many are very specific, yet even those that are not are fulfilled in Christ. finding Christ in the Prophecies is much like the postman finding someone by an address. anyone on the planet can be found, apart from the billions of other people on by the information in an address

1. name
2. house number
3. street
4. state
5. zipcode

so it takes about 5 pieces of information to separate and find you from billions of other people on the planet. Jesus fulfilled a great many prophecies. the mathematics of it lights Christ up like a beacon on a hill. it is simply undeniable.

1. it was all written later, or its a conspiracy theory

to which i reply that there is no evidence of any such thing. indeed the Jews have kept the records for millenia. if they push the conspiracy idea, i ask them to prove that the moonlanding, the gettysburg address, or the constitution is not simply a conspiracy theory. when they deny it, it raises an oppurtunity to point out that an atheist really has 2 standards of evidence, 1 for what he hopes is not true and another for what he hopes is true.

1. Any other advice for dealing with agnostics or atheists? I was speaking with an atheist teacher. I argued Aquinas’ uncaused cause theory: that since all matter must be created from other matter, there physically must be a god to create the original particles of matter. He replied that this logic is infinitely regressive, because if all things must have a creator, then God must be created.

i hope he isnt teaching anything important.

1. an infinite regression then reaches no necessary being, hence it reaches no point at which it can be created. ergo, it wouldnt exist.
2. even if the universe were just another in an infinite chain of universes, so to speak, the entire chain still doesnt explain its own existence. the alternative is that this infinite chain of universes, contingent beings, simply Poofed! into existence, for no reason. that violates the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the very basis of the scientific method. making it no different than G-ddidit!
3. G-d need not be created, G-d is the pure act of existing, the maximal state of being, the ground state of existence. there need be no creation of G-d in that to not exist is to be nothing. yet nothing doesnt exist.

think about it this way, 'why is there something, rather than nothing"

there is something, (G-d) rather than nothing because there is no such thing as nothing! nothing has no shape, no form, no substance. it is literally nothing, even a ‘void’ or ‘empty space’ is still something. but ‘nothing’ refers to a state of affairs that does not exist, and cannot exist. so simply put, there is something rather than nothing because nothing doesnt exist as anything but an artifact of language.

not an easy concept, but then nothing concerning metaphysics is as easy as it sounds.

Second, he said that he would rather assume that the universe always existed rather than a higher being that simply always “was.”

why? we know that this universe didnt always exist. after all the Big Bang proves that.

i hope this is like your gym teacher or something.

what he is really trying to say is that this universe is necessary, yet the universe might not have been and is therefore contingent, not necessary. after all the universe is nothing more than the sum of its contingent parts, just like the human race is nothing more than the sum of its parts. if there are no people there is no human race, if there are no beings, there is no universe. (beings refers to all things from particles to the void, not people)

hope that helps

 

[Trust_in_God]

Hi Homerun,

Welcome to Catholicism!

While I am an amateur at best, I have studied with a philosophy course with Br. Francis Maluf M.I.C.M. on tapes from store.catholicism.org.
Anyway, I remember listening to Br. Francis say that one of the basic problems with people today, is that they don’t know how to think correctly!
When I heard that, I thought, bah! what phooey. How can a thought be correct or incorrect… it’s a thought. Well, to my amazement, it is true. It isn’t so much the thought as being correct or incorrect, but where that thought will lead you, kind of the chain affect. We base this thought on the last thought which in turn had been a conclusion or a judgement based on something.

So, in response to your dilemma, you must start at the very beginning.
Going back to the basics of Logic.
Establish proper definitions between you and your listener. Too often even our basic understanding of certain words are distorted and we start off on different pages.

He said before any serious discussion we should establish three things

1. Fact of Knowledge - we know that we can know.
2. My own existence
3. Principle of opposition - (a very important fundamental of good thought)
   A thing cannot be and not be at the same time. If the listener refutes this, don’t even bother to discuss things with them. They are wasting your time.

Hope this helps.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Anyway, I remember listening to Br. Francis say that one of the basic problems with people today, is that they don’t know how to think correctly!

Ha… when I first read that, I thought, “didn’t they declare “think correctly” to be an oxymoron??” But then I read this;

When I heard that, I thought, bah! what phooey. How can a thought be correct or incorrect… it’s a thought.

Haha… yeah, I guess they had.

Going back to the basics of Logic.
Establish proper definitions between you and your listener. Too often even our basic understanding of certain words are distorted and we start off on different pages.

Man, you can say that again.

He said before any serious discussion we should establish three things

1. Fact of Knowledge - we know that we can know. True, but how do you convince anyone?
2. My own existence
3. Principle of opposition - (a very important fundamental of good thought)
   A thing cannot be and not be at the same time. If the listener refutes this, don’t even bother to discuss things with them. They are wasting your time.

Haha… yep.

But despite my agreement, I don’t see how that resolves his “dilemma”.

 

[wanstronian]

welcome to the forums, you landed in the right place. let me try to provide you with some ammunition.

scientism simply asserts that all of reality can be described by the empirically observable. science is great at describing physical things, but not so much on the questions of ultimate meaning. there are many things scientism cannot answer, free will, the existence of the universe, causality, etc.

as for the various proofs of G-d, i prefer contingency. though there are the ideas of Aquinas, Anselfm, plantinga, and others.

this is well discussed here, check out the self defeating argument of scientism at the 4:00 minute mark. it drives 'em nuts

youtube.com/watch?v=p8YTre3xqXg&feature=channel_page

Messianic Prophecy, absolute, undeniable mathematical proof of the Christain G-d.

godonthe.net/jewish/odds.html

there are 2 common responses.

1. the prophecies arent specific.

many are very specific, yet even those that are not are fulfilled in Christ. finding Christ in the Prophecies is much like the postman finding someone by an address. anyone on the planet can be found, apart from the billions of other people on by the information in an address

1. name
2. house number
3. street
4. state
5. zipcode

so it takes about 5 pieces of information to separate and find you from billions of other people on the planet. Jesus fulfilled a great many prophecies. the mathematics of it lights Christ up like a beacon on a hill. it is simply undeniable.

1. it was all written later, or its a conspiracy theory

to which i reply that there is no evidence of any such thing. indeed the Jews have kept the records for millenia. if they push the conspiracy idea, i ask them to prove that the moonlanding, the gettysburg address, or the constitution is not simply a conspiracy theory. when they deny it, it raises an oppurtunity to point out that an atheist really has 2 standards of evidence, 1 for what he hopes is not true and another for what he hopes is true.

i hope he isnt teaching anything important.

1. an infinite regression then reaches no necessary being, hence it reaches no point at which it can be created. ergo, it wouldnt exist.
2. even if the universe were just another in an infinite chain of universes, so to speak, the entire chain still doesnt explain its own existence. the alternative is that this infinite chain of universes, contingent beings, simply Poofed! into existence, for no reason. that violates the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the very basis of the scientific method. making it no different than G-ddidit!
3. G-d need not be created, G-d is the pure act of existing, the maximal state of being, the ground state of existence. there need be no creation of G-d in that to not exist is to be nothing. yet nothing doesnt exist.

think about it this way, 'why is there something, rather than nothing"

there is something, (G-d) rather than nothing because there is no such thing as nothing! nothing has no shape, no form, no substance. it is literally nothing, even a ‘void’ or ‘empty space’ is still something. but ‘nothing’ refers to a state of affairs that does not exist, and cannot exist. so simply put, there is something rather than nothing because nothing doesnt exist as anything but an artifact of language.

not an easy concept, but then nothing concerning metaphysics is as easy as it sounds.

why? we know that this universe didnt always exist. after all the Big Bang proves that.

i hope this is like your gym teacher or something.

what he is really trying to say is that this universe is necessary, yet the universe might not have been and is therefore contingent, not necessary. after all the universe is nothing more than the sum of its contingent parts, just like the human race is nothing more than the sum of its parts. if there are no people there is no human race, if there are no beings, there is no universe. (beings refers to all things from particles to the void, not people)

hope that helps

Of course, if you choose to present Pete’s arguments, you run the risk of your peers dismantling them in the same way that they have been dismantled on these forums.

Ultimately there is only one way to ‘deal’ with atheists - accept that their position is spotlessly logical and impregnable, and that the only way to change their minds is to provide evidence of the existence of God. Such evidence has never been provided. Ontological and contingency arguments are just too full of holes and rely on assertions to fill the gaps.

Alternatively you can do the sensible thing and not try to prove something that can’t be proved. Your faith is, by definition, just that - faith. Why not just leave it at that?

But I will concur with some previous posters on one thing - your teacher doesn’t seem too bright in this particular area.

 

[reggieM]

Ultimately there is only one way to ‘deal’ with atheists - accept that their position is spotlessly logical and impregnable …

There is quite enough evidence to show that atheistic logic is far from spotlessly logical. It’s built on speculations and assumptions that most atheists don’t recognize or admit.

 

[liquidpele]

There is quite enough evidence to show that atheistic logic is far from spotlessly logical. It’s built on speculations and assumptions that most atheists don’t recognize or admit.

I’m not saying I completely disagree, but perhaps you can give examples?

 

[tonyrey]

A few ideas for you:

Intelligent Design is the most powerful, comprehensive and fertile explanation of the immensely complex universe, the exquisite richness and variety of nature, the origin and infinite value of life, the progressive development of living organisms, the existence of rational beings with their power of self-determination, their transcendence of their environment, their ability to distinguish good and evil, and their capacity for love and self-sacrifice. The success of science demonstrates the superiority of intelligence over blind forces like random mutations and natural selection.

Design explains the order and intelligibility of the universe - for which no other explanation has been given. It accounts for all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, beauty, justice, love, the right to life and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. Belief in Design is a glorious vision of reality which is in accord with the deepest yearnings and the highest aspirations of the human spirit. It interprets evolution not as the descent of man but as the ascent to God. It is verified by the power and ultimate responsibility of each individual for his or her destiny. To reject Design implies that rational, free, conscious, moral persons have been produced by the blind interplay of irrational, determined, unconscious and amoral forces. To deny the primacy of intelligence is to undermine the validity of reason - the logical consequence of which is total scepticism and nihilism.

Even if we knew nothing about the Designer there is no evidence whatsoever that Design can exist without a Designer. Evidence for design is evidence for a designer. We know that from our direct experience of both. Design is the result of conscious, rational, purposeful activity and not due to unconscious, irrational, purposeless events. We also know that the Designer of this vast and magnificent universe must have immense insight, power and creativity. We associate insight, power and creativity not with the brain but with the mind. Physicalists believe the mind cannot exist without the brain but there is no rational basis for this assumption. There is no evidence that the brain is conscious of itself, has insight into its own activity, has free will or the power to control itself. That is why human beings have always distinguished the mind from the brain.

Our primary data are our thoughts, feelings and sensations. We infer that the body exists from the evidence of our senses but the fundamental reality is our intangible stream of thoughts, emotions and decisions. The power of the mind and the intangible nature of all that we consider most precious - truth, goodness, freedom and love - imply that a Designer is the only adequate explanation of the Design in the universe. The pursuit of the truth in both philosophy and science presupposes the existence of purpose, the power of intelligence and the intelligibility of the universe:

"The highest formal unity, which is based on concepts of reason alone, is the systematical and purposeful unity of things, and it is the speculative interest of reason which makes it necessary to regard all order in the world as if it had originated in the purpose of a supreme wisdom. Such a principle opens to our reason in the field of experience quite new views, how to connect the things of the world according to teleological laws and thus to arrive at their greatest systematic unity…

For the purely speculative use of reason, therefore, the Supreme Being, remains, no doubt, an ideal only but an ideal without a flaw, a concept which finishes and crowns the whole of human knowledge and the objective reality of which, though it cannot be proved can neither be disproved in that way." (Immanuel Kant)

Kant is not referring to the empirical evidence for Design.but to the metaphysical concept of the Supreme Being - which remains the most powerful, elegant, adequate, economical, fertile and inspiring explanation of our existence.

1.Design is a metaphysical explanation which is partly scientific It is certainly not a “God of the gaps” argument because it explains the entire universe and its inhabitants. The rules of nature are descriptions of its regularities which require explanation. The universe need not be orderly. It could be chaotic. It could also be orderly in an immense number of ways unfavourable to life. So the fact that there is life is evidence for Design.
2. You will find the text of a book on THE DIRECTIVENESS OF ORGANIC ACTIVITIES at
archive.org/stream/direct…49mbp_djvu.txt
3. Despite regressions there has been an overall progression in evolution from molecules to rational beings. Competition is an inadequate explanation of our existence because our powers greatly exceed our biological needs.
4. Like all physical mechanisms DNA is defective in some respects but consider the amazing results that it has achieved, culminating in the human brain which is probably the most complex structure in the solar system. The richness, complexity and beauty of nature far exceeds any human invention or design.
5. The survival of life for billions of years on this planet against all the odds despite at least five mass extinctions, one of which reduced the population to 5%, is further evidence of Design when taken in conjunction with the other evidence.
6. To regard human beings as no more than physical organisms does not do justice to our intellectual power, moral and spiritual awareness, scientific and artistic creativity, imagination, versatility, self-awareness, self-control and self-determination.

If you need explanation of any particular points do not hesitate to ask!

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m not saying I completely disagree, but perhaps you can give examples?

Here we go again…

 

[reggieM]

I’m not saying I completely disagree, but perhaps you can give examples?

Examples of atheists who cannot recognize the logical flaws in their arguments after, say, 1000 posts on the topic?

Here’s an idea, why not support the request that the young man who opened this thread offered? He was looking for arguments against atheism. Give your best arguments against atheism and leave it at that. If you don’t have any, then you can’t contribute to the topic.

Once again, a young Catholic seeks information on the Catholic perspective against atheism, and the atheists think that is an invitation for them to engage in their useless debates about why they can’t recognize that God exists.

It may be true that atheism cannot be cured by logical arguments alone because it’s more akin to a mental disorder and needs other kinds of remedies.

We can now expect the CAF atheists to try to dominate this thread again – thus proving their crassness and arrogance to any unbiased observer.

What more evidence does one need against atheism? Just look at them in action.

 

[wanstronian]

A few ideas for you:

Intelligent Design is the most powerful, comprehensive and fertile explanation of the immensely complex universe, the exquisite richness and variety of nature, the origin and infinite value of life, the progressive development of living organisms, the existence of rational beings with their power of self-determination, their transcendence of their environment, their ability to distinguish good and evil, and their capacity for love and self-sacrifice. The success of science demonstrates the superiority of intelligence over blind forces like random mutations and natural selection.

Design explains the order and intelligibility of the universe - for which no other explanation has been given. It accounts for all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, beauty, justice, love, the right to life and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. Belief in Design is a glorious vision of reality which is in accord with the deepest yearnings and the highest aspirations of the human spirit. It interprets evolution not as the descent of man but as the ascent to God. It is verified by the power and ultimate responsibility of each individual for his or her destiny. To reject Design implies that rational, free, conscious, moral persons have been produced by the blind interplay of irrational, determined, unconscious and amoral forces. To deny the primacy of intelligence is to undermine the validity of reason - the logical consequence of which is total scepticism and nihilism.

Even if we knew nothing about the Designer there is no evidence whatsoever that Design can exist without a Designer. Evidence for design is evidence for a designer. We know that from our direct experience of both. Design is the result of conscious, rational, purposeful activity and not due to unconscious, irrational, purposeless events. We also know that the Designer of this vast and magnificent universe must have immense insight, power and creativity. We associate insight, power and creativity not with the brain but with the mind. Physicalists believe the mind cannot exist without the brain but there is no rational basis for this assumption. There is no evidence that the brain is conscious of itself, has insight into its own activity, has free will or the power to control itself. That is why human beings have always distinguished the mind from the brain.

Our primary data are our thoughts, feelings and sensations. We infer that the body exists from the evidence of our senses but the fundamental reality is our intangible stream of thoughts, emotions and decisions. The power of the mind and the intangible nature of all that we consider most precious - truth, goodness, freedom and love - imply that a Designer is the only adequate explanation of the Design in the universe. The pursuit of the truth in both philosophy and science presupposes the existence of purpose, the power of intelligence and the intelligibility of the universe:

"The highest formal unity, which is based on concepts of reason alone, is the systematical and purposeful unity of things, and it is the speculative interest of reason which makes it necessary to regard all order in the world as if it had originated in the purpose of a supreme wisdom. Such a principle opens to our reason in the field of experience quite new views, how to connect the things of the world according to teleological laws and thus to arrive at their greatest systematic unity…

For the purely speculative use of reason, therefore, the Supreme Being, remains, no doubt, an ideal only but an ideal without a flaw, a concept which finishes and crowns the whole of human knowledge and the objective reality of which, though it cannot be proved can neither be disproved in that way." (Immanuel Kant)

Kant is not referring to the empirical evidence for Design.but to the metaphysical concept of the Supreme Being - which remains the most powerful, elegant, adequate, economical, fertile and inspiring explanation of our existence.

1.Design is a metaphysical explanation which is partly scientific It is certainly not a “God of the gaps” argument because it explains the entire universe and its inhabitants. The rules of nature are descriptions of its regularities which require explanation. The universe need not be orderly. It could be chaotic. It could also be orderly in an immense number of ways unfavourable to life. So the fact that there is life is evidence for Design.
2. You will find the text of a book on THE DIRECTIVENESS OF ORGANIC ACTIVITIES at
archive.org/stream/direct…49mbp_djvu.txt
3. Despite regressions there has been an overall progression in evolution from molecules to rational beings. Competition is an inadequate explanation of our existence because our powers greatly exceed our biological needs.
4. Like all physical mechanisms DNA is defective in some respects but consider the amazing results that it has achieved, culminating in the human brain which is probably the most complex structure in the solar system. The richness, complexity and beauty of nature far exceeds any human invention or design.
5. The survival of life for billions of years on this planet against all the odds despite at least five mass extinctions, one of which reduced the population to 5%, is further evidence of Design when taken in conjunction with the other evidence.
6. To regard human beings as no more than physical organisms does not do justice to our intellectual power, moral and spiritual awareness, scientific and artistic creativity, imagination, versatility, self-awareness, self-control and self-determination.

If you need explanation of any particular points do not hesitate to ask!

Sounds Great!!! But hang on… who designed the designer…?

 

[wanstronian]

There is quite enough evidence to show that atheistic logic is far from spotlessly logical. It’s built on speculations and assumptions that most atheists don’t recognize or admit.

I’m not sure what part of “requiring evidence for the existence of God” is illogical?

Individual atheists’ arguments during theological discussions may contain logical inconsistencies (and I don’t discount myself!), but the basic atheist position - that of not believing in God due to the absence of evidence - is entirely logical.

 

[tonyrey]

Sounds Great!!! But hang on… who designed the designer…?

Do you prefer an infinite regress of irrational, purposeless processes?

 

[wanstronian]

Do you prefer an infinite regress of irrational, purposeless processes?

My beliefs are not the issue here, I willingly admit to not knowing the unknown. But I might point out that firstly there is no evidence of a backstop to the regress. Secondly, although there might logically be such a backstop, there is no evidence to suggest it’s your Creator God.

 

[reggieM]

I’m not sure what part of “requiring evidence for the existence of God” is illogical?

Perhaps I can help you here.
We’ll start with your previous claim:

Ultimately there is only one way to ‘deal’ with atheists - accept that their position is spotlessly logical and impregnable,

This is an absolute – that one must accept that atheists’ position (of whatever variety) are “spotlessly logical”. Here we have a breakdown in logic already since there are contradictory atheistic positions – some materialist, some which posit “non-natural” essences, others which could posit alien or “advanced” beings acting in god-like ways (but are not gods).

Secondly, I can notice that when challenged, you did not return to your original view but you changed the topic. Now you ask:

I’m not sure what part of “requiring evidence for the existence of God” is illogical?

So, you’re saying you’re “not sure” about this new approach to the topic, while completely dropping the prior absolute statement. Now you claim it’s only about “requiring evidence”, and this is the “spotless logic” of atheism.

But without definitions of what evidence you will consider as valid, then this is meaningless also.

Individual atheists’ arguments during theological discussions may contain logical inconsistencies (and I don’t discount myself!),

This refutes the primary statement that “the only way to deal with atheists is to accept their ‘spotless logic’”. Now you admit that atheists do not have spotless logic – therefore, your point is refuted. This is proven because I am using a different method to “deal with an atheist” and that is to show the lack of logical consistency in the argument.

So, this proves to me that a very good way to “deal with atheists” could be to try to show them that they are illogical and they base their reasoning on assumptions. They make exaggerated claims also – just as you did (“the only way” … etc).

but the basic atheist position - that of not believing in God due to the absence of evidence - is entirely logical.

This is arguing by seeking to control the definition of terms. You claim that there is one, basic atheist position which is merely “that of not believing in God due to absence of evidence”. That is an assertion that is offered without proof.

In the most strict, materialist-atheistic position – reason itself is a product of blind, unintelligent, physical laws. The claim that rationality and logic are positive qualities of the atheistic mindset is contradictory. There can be no need or value in the illusion of rational or logical thought in the atheistic-materialist system. Thoughts are entirely determined by physical processes and no human being can freely decide on what thoughts to have.

In the materialist view, human intelligence itself is the product of blind, unintelligent, unconscious forces acting on physical matter.