Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Mr. Coffee]

I wish our "Does God Exist?" debate could be framed the way Karl Rahner presented it. He begins with our experience of transcendence: whatever we say, we raise more questions. This is a "permanent existential," i.e., the way we are, and we did not and cannot choose to be this way. And in transcending whatever we think of as our outermost horizon, we have to deal with mystery, and encounter God.

But I suppose we'll just rehash the Thomistic proofs.

[Mr. Coffee]

Originally posted by Zakath
Guinness, laddie, Guinness!

Nectar of the Irish...

Heretic! Harp is the true king of beers.

[Zakath]

Atheists aren't heretics, they don't espouse any particular religious doctrine!

Though technically, some people wouldn't classify stouts as "beer", more like a food group all by themselves.

[Yorzhik]

computers don't go out for a beer

Guinness. Sigh. I miss those days... perhaps they will be again sometime.

[Zakath]

Sorry Yorzhik.

What type of beer do hedgehogs favor these days...

[Scrimshaw]

One of the most important issue in these debates is defining "evidence". Evidence is an extremely subjective word because everybody has different standards of evidence that they will accept. Many times, the loftiness of those standards will correlate to the level of prejudice the individual already possesses against the idea he disbelieves. In other words, the higher the prejudice, the higher the standard of evidence they will require.

I once talked to an atheist that said the only form of evidence he would accept is - God appearing before him saying - "Hey, I'm God and I'm real", and then blinding him for 3 days so he would have physical evidence that he didn't hallucinate. That was the only standard of evidence that atheist would accept. Other atheists may have a more reasonable standard of evidence; but it's important for the theist to ascertain what that standard is, otherwise the theist ends up spending a lot of time spinning his wheels by providing all kinds of evidence that wouldn't be acceptable to the atheist in the first place.

I usually ask the atheist what he thinks acceptable/sufficient "evidence" for God would be in the first place. Since the atheist makes the positive affirmation that no such evidence exists, they obviously have an idea of what they think the evidence would be....or else they wouldn't be so certain they haven't already seen it.

Thus, its actually the atheist's responsibility to define what HE would personally accept as "sufficient" evidence for a god, and from there, the theist is required to analyze that standard of evidence to see if:

a) it is a reasonable and/or logically necessary standard
b) can be provided

I find that this approach saves A LOT of time because it cuts straight to the heart of the matter and eliminates all the rhetoric on both sides.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
Nah, I'n not a real evangelist. I don't take up a love offering...

I forgot you just demand people to pay excessive amounts of money to hear your psycho-babble.

[AROTO]

quote: why not just supply the simply answer to the simple question?

He can't simply answer the question, or Zakath's argument will totally unravel.

[Zakath]

The issue remains, will he answer the questions I've posed or will he duck them and try to avoid the main debate question altogether?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
I forgot you just demand people to pay excessive amounts of money ...

That's interesting, my clients never complained about my fees being excessive...

Do the people you work with complain frequently?

[RogerB]

Thus, its actually the atheist's responsibility to define what HE would personally accept as "sufficient" evidence for a god, and from there, the theist is required to analyze that standard of evidence to see if:

a) it is a reasonable and/or logically necessary standard
b) can be provided

I find that this approach saves A LOT of time because it cuts straight to the heart of the matter and eliminates all the rhetoric on both sides.

Yes, but getting an atheist or a to actually respond to such a request is quite another matter.

[RogerB]

That's interesting, my clients never complained about my fees being excessive...

It's not so much the nickel as it is the resulting hot air....

[Prisca]

Hi Zak,

You said, "My screen name, Zakath, is a character found in a couple of books by David Eddings. Zakath happens to be the emperor of Mallorea (an empire on another world in Edding's novels) and an atheist who is married to an oracle (one who hears from deities). The situation reminded me a bit of my wife and me, hence the name...

So, does this mean your wife believes in some form of a god? I realize you keep your private life very private, so if you don't want to be specific I understand. Just curious.

Thanks,
Becky

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
Yes, but getting an atheist or a to actually respond to such a request is quite another matter.

Perhaps if you asked nicely...

... or perhaps not.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Becky
Hi Zak,
So, does this mean your wife believes in some form of a god?

Nope. Merely an oracle, a mouthpiece for a deity.

Well, she is my little goddess... but that's different...

And she used to treat me like a deity when we were first married, you know, the burnt offerings for dinner and all that...