Andrew the Atheist wants more dragons!!

Gee, Tim, you’re moving awful fast.  I never got a chance to say why I think belief in itself is a detriment to society and not beneficial.  Nor did we fully explore your “faith=trust” baloney.  You want me to disprove god.  You’ve never addressed the dragon in my pants.  You just dismiss my evidence for “some reason”.  Now you want to go through all the apologetics I hoped to cover in the first post?  Slow down.  We’ve all the time in the world.

Hmmm..  Perhaps I can do a little magic here…..

Is it a red herring, or a dragon?

How’s this, Tim?  I’ve asserted there is a dragon in my pants.  I have just realized that I never explained how amazing this dragon is.  Did you know the dragon has a father?  Indeed, the dragon in my pants has an all-powerful, all-knowing, creator of the universe father.  He is the Super Mega Awesome Dragon, or SMAD, for short.  Further, Godzilla is also a major player here.  Invisible, yet green, Godzilla completes the trinity of dragons that rule the universe.  So if you insist on playing apologetics, here’s my rebuttal to them all:

1. The cosmological argument: There must have been a “first cause” or “prime mover” and this first cause we identify as SMAD.

2. The teleological argument: essentially this is the intelligent design argument. The world we live in is complex. Because it is so complex, it stands to reason that here must have been a creator. This creator was SMAD.

3. The argument from experience (includes the arguments from beauty, love, and religious experience): some experiences are best explained by the existence of SMAD.

4. The argument from morality: any objective morality depends on the existence of SMAD.

5. The ontological argument: SMAD is a "being greater than which cannot be conceived"; therefore, there must be SMAD.

6. The transcendental argument: logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of SMAD. Adraconic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

7. The will to believe doctrine: belief in a SMAD “works”, thus there must be a SMAD.

8. The argument from reason: Reason is not the result of physical phenomena. If naturalism were true, there would be no way to know it. There must, therefore, be a SMAD.


Now, if you insist that I must disprove your god to be an atheist, please disprove SMAD, Godzilla, and the dragon in my pants.  Then, I’ll use your method.

And yes, you missed many.  Look here:  http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

The Top Arguments For The Existence Of God

In an attempt to define this debate better, below is a list of what I believe are the best arguments for the existence of God. I propose two things. First, I propose that you, the atheist, provide your top arguments for the non-existence of God.  As I have said before I do not think this is possible because atheists, rather than having reasons for their belief are defined merely by their attempt to poke holes in what theists believe.  Prove me wrong.

Second, I propose that I will begin a series of posts where I talk about each of the below arguments for the existence of God.  You can then present your argument against each “proof.”  I would ask that rather than simply dismissing the arguments out of hand or old hat, that you actually provide reasons for why you do not believe each argument.

If we are in agreement, then below is the list of what I believe the top arguments for the existence of God:

1. The cosmological argument: There must have been a “first cause” or “prime mover” and this first cause we identify as God.

2. The teleological argument: essentially this is the intelligent design argument.  The world we live in is complex. Because it is so complex, it stand to reason that here must have been a creator. This creator was God. 

3. The argument from experience (includes the arguments from beauty, love, and religious experience): some experiences are best explained by the existence of God.

4.  The argument from morality: any objective morality depends on the existence of God.

5. The ontological argument: God is a "being greater than which cannot be conceived"; therefore, there must be a God.

6. The transcendental argument: logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of God. Atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.

7. The will to believe doctrine: belief in a God “works”, thus there must be a God. 

8.  The argument from reason: Reason is not the result of physical phenomena.  If naturalism were true, there would be no way to know it.  There must, therefore, be a God.

Have I correctly briefly summarized each of the above arguments? Do you agree to this plan to address each in turn?  Are there any major arguments that I am missing?

Tim, The Christian, Responds: Faith Is About Trust. Why Will You Not Trust?

Morton Kelsey, in his book, Set Your Heart on the Greatest Gift, tells a story of a man who came to the edge of a cliff.   As he stood there, wondering what to do next, he was amazed to discover a tightrope stretched across the abyss.  Slowly, surely, across the rope came an acrobat pushing before him a wheelbarrow with another performer in it.  When they finally reached the safety of solid ground, the acrobat smiled at the man’s amazement.  “Do you think I can do it again?” he asked.  The man replied, “Why yes, I certainly believe you can.”  The acrobat put his question to the man again, and when the answer was the same, he pointed to the wheelbarrow and said, “Good, then get in.”

Andrew, my friend, this is a great analogy to the definition of faith. I do not know why you are adamant about holding on to the definition that you are using.  Both faith sources and secular sources define faith differently than you, yet you refuse to accept either.  For the last time, it is completely unfair to say that faith means believing without evidence.  The above analogy is a perfect example.  The man had every reason to believe the acrobat could do it again.  He had just witnessed the acrobat achieving it.  Yet, the question is whether the man will trust the acrobat. Faith is more about trust than anything else.  We do not trust things for which we have no evidence. 

In your last post, you said that Christians do have reasons for their faith, it is just that they are irrational reasons.  That very statement, however, is contradictory.  By definition irrationality means, “without reason.”  Yet, you admit that Christians have reasons for their beliefs.  You are unfairly attempting to have your cake and eat it too. 

The issue is not rationality. Rather it is a test of will whether you will believe.  Belief is not irrational; there are plenty of good reasons for accepting the belief in a God; the only real issue is why you continually reject good evidence for the existence of God.

You attempt to analogize the belief in God with the presence of a dragon in your pants.  You like to talk about red herrings, yet that analogy is prime example of a red herring.  There is absolutely no evidence to believe that there is a dragon in your pants.  There is plenty of evidence that God exists.


Why do you refuse to believe?  Instead of taking pot shots at a belief in God, will you provide positive reasons for why you are an atheist?  I have asked repeatedly for you to do so.  I do not think there are any positive reasons for atheism. In other words, your belief in atheism is defined by what you think we cannot prove, rather than by what you can prove.  Accordingly, once again, theism is more rational. At least we can provide reasons for what we believe.

Andrew the Atheist says, "Paging Mr. Thurman. Mr. Thurman, you have a telephone call at the front desk."

Pee Wee:  I know you are but what am I?
Francis:  I know YOU are but what am I?
both: I know YOU are but what am I?
         NO
        Stop
        Cut it out
        Shut up
Pee Wee:  Why don't you make me?
Francis:  Why don't YOU make ME?
Pee Wee:  Because I don't make monkeys.  I just train them!
Francis:  Pee Wee, listen to reason.
               PEE WEE!
Pee Wee:  SHHhhh!  I'm listening to reason.


So we've decided to go for the red herring.  Now why did I say this is a red herring?  Because this is a distraction from the real issue.  Faith requires no evidence.  That is to say, if you have evidence, there is no need for faith.  Further, I stand by my definition of the term as it relates to belief and evidence.

Faith is not hope.  Hope is hope.  You can hope for something and have no evidence for it.  For example, I might hope to win the lottery.  There is no evidence that I will win the lottery.  There is good reason to believe I will NOT win the lottery.  I can hope, nonetheless.

I never said that believers believe for no reason.  I said believers do not have a RATIONAL reason for belief.  Believers believe on faith, not evidence, and therefore, the belief is not rational.  This is not unfair.  This is reality.  There was a commenter once who posted that if I asked 100 people why they believed, I'd get at least 100 different answers.  I'd agree.  I'd also assert that none of those reasons would be based on evidence.  They would be based on illogical thinking, irrational conclusions, or personal experiences or anecdotes that are unscientific or arguments from ignorance.  In other words, they would be based on faith.

I make no distinction between what you call "blind faith" and faith.  They are the same.  Like "no duh" and "duh".  All faith is blind.  There is none that is not.  All faith is irrational.

Now, the atheist has no requirement to prove gods do not exist.  Remember what happened when I asserted I have a dragon in my pants?  What happened?  No one believed me.  People demanded real evidence and did not accept my anecdote.  So should it be with gods, and I think gods should be HARDER to prove than a dragon in my pants.

My dragon is invisible.  It exists outside of our perception of time and space.  You cannot prove the dragon does not exist.  It manifests itself though my experience and through my life.  You can experience it too if you open your heart and nostrils at the right time and place.  Until you think it is more rational to believe there IS a dragon in my pants than to believe there is NOT, atheism is more rational than theism.  Deal with it.

Tim, The Christian Responds: Using Your Definition, It Is Atheism That Is Irrational, Not Theism

Andrew, unfortunately it appears that we are going to have to have a conversation about the definition of faith because you are right – if we use your definition, faith would be irrational.

The Bible defines faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”  (Hebrews 11:1).  Note that it says nothing about “blind” faith, that is, believing something without evidence. Frankly, a person would be a fool to believe something without any evidence.  Rather, the Biblical definition talks about having confidence in things that we hope for.  We hope in things only when we have evidence for those things.

Perhaps, I was wrong to have started off with the Biblical definition. The definition in Webster’s, however, supports the Biblical definition:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

So, as you can see, your definition of faith is the second definition.  The first definition of faith is the same as the Biblical definition, namely it means to “trust” or a “confident belief.”  It is unfair and dishonest to accuse Christians of being irrational.  We definitely have reasons for why we believe in God. There is plenty of evidence of the existence of God, it is just that the atheist, for whatever reason, chooses to reject that evidence.  Indeed, as a Christian, I would not ask you to put your faith in something that is irrational or without evidence.

By the way, if we used your definition of faith, then belief in atheism is irrational. In other words, there is no evidence of atheism.  Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of God.  You would have to prove the non-existence of God, and an atheist cannot do that.  Therefore, using your definition of faith, it is atheism that is irrational, not theism.

Andrew the Atheist answers: Faith is not reasonable. Faith is delusional.

I'd say, Tim, we've come full circle.  I think the issue of faith is actually where we started, but you didn't want to acknowledge it.  You first asked, "Is science the only way to know what is real?"  While we both agreed science is indeed a fantastic tool to determine what is real, you never specified what alternative method could also be used to do the same.  I think you meant faith.  I think faith is delusion.

Before I go too far, let's establish a few terms.  By faith, I mean "to believe something without evidence."  This is to say that the phrase, "I have faith in myself," does NOT fit the defintion of faith I am using here.  This phrase should be re-worded to say, "I have CONFIDENCE in myself (based on evidence)." 

Now I realize I am limiting the defintion of a word.  But for this discussion, I think this is legitimate.  You may disagree if you like, but in the context of this discussion, one that is suited to address the topic of religion, words like "faith" need a clear definition.  So if we need to have a conversation about the semantics of the word faith, that's fine, but I think that is a red herring.

Now, since faith is believing without evidence, it is clearly irrational.  You claim there is evidence for your leap.  You cannot possess this.  You admit you do not possess this.  You cannot both have this evidence, and not have it, at the same time.  You need to make up your mind.

If you have evidence, what need have you of faith?  If faith is a way of knowing things, why is it ONLY employed when evidence is lacking?  For example, take the claim the sun is a star.  You have evidence that this is true.  Do you believe is based on faith?  Say you met a person who didn't know the sun was a star, and you assert the fact.  The person doesn't believe you.  Do you ask the person to take a leap of faith, or do you present evidence?  Say you present your evidence does not convice the person.  Do you THEN ask the person to take a leap of faith, or do you discover why the person is not convinced, and show further evidence?  When is faith needed?  When evidence is lacking.

Say your new friend is still not convicned after all the evidence you present.  The person tells you that they "know" the sun is actually the god Horus, because an ancient book of wisdom explains that Horus travels across the sky every day.  Suppose your friend has faith that Horus is real, and is not really considering your evidence because it contradicts what is already held on faith.

This is what I mean by faith is delusion.  It really does not matter that one person believes in Horus and another believes in allah and another believes in jesus.  None of these beliefs are based on evidence.  If they were, they would not be based on faith.  Faith and evidence are mutually exclusive.

If you happened to live at a time when germs had not yet beed discovered, and people thought that ailments were demonic possesions, and you asserted that germs were real, what would happen?  Say you had no evidence.  None exists.  The discovery has not been made.  Even though you are correct, there is no rational reason for anyone to believe you.  Rational belief is based on evidence.  If you have none, there is no rational reason to believe a claim is true.  This is why science adjusts it's views when new evidence is presented, and faith resists evidence so belief prevails.

We've discussed your evidence for thinking the leap of faith is rational.  It is not.  You have presented arguments from ignorace.  You want me to explain why atheists have morals without gods.  You suppose that if I cannot provide an explanation, god must be the explanation.  This is a fallacy.  Further, I provided you with the way morals evolve.

You've claimed the universe is too ordered to have come from nothing, and therefore, if I cannot explain why the universe is ordered, the answer should be that god made the universe.  Again, this commits the same logical fallacy.  Even if I could not explain it, that does not mean the explanation is supernatural.  And cosmology is a real science, with real answers based on real evidence.  And in no way does it point to a creator, much less a specific creator.

Now for the sake of further posts, I'll not address the question of the benefits of faith.  First, I want to estblish my position that faith is not rational, illogical, and delusional.  Faith exists only in the absence of evidence.  Why use faith if you have evidence?  You don't.  No one does.

Tim, The Christian Asks The Atheists: Why Are You Unwilling To Take The Leap Of Faith?

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance, the only thing it cannot be is moderately important." C.S. Lewis

I finally feel like we might have come to the crux of the matter in our last two posts. Namely, I admitted that there is not absolute scientific proof of the existence of God and that a person must take a leap of faith, and you responded that atheists are unwilling to take that leap of faith.  Now my question is, “Why not?”  The leap of faith is not a blind leap. There is plentiful evidence that the leap is rational and logical.  What I do not understand is why an atheist does not understand or accept that.

Also, the benefits of making the leap far outweigh the alleged benefit of not making the leap. Yes, Christianity has its problems. Yes, evil is committed by people who claim to be Christians.  Nevertheless, on the whole, the Christian life is better for the person who believes and is better for society.

For the sake of the argument, if Christianity is false, what harm is there if you have believed it and were wrong?  You will only benefit yourself and society by believing.  On the other hand, if Christianity is true and you choose not to believe it, then the consequences are severe.

What part of what I have written above do you not agree with?:

1. Do you disagree that there is evidence that makes the leap of faith rational?

2. Why are you unwilling to take the leap of faith?

3. Do you disagree that the Christian life is actually more beneficial than the unbelieving life, both for the person and for society?

I hope that this will shape our discussion for the next few posts.

Andrew the Atheist answers, "You answered your own question, Tim."

Ordinarily, this is where I'd make some statement.  I don't think there is a need here, because Tim answered his own question right after he asked it. 

"You say that we Christians have no "proof" that there is a God. In a sense, that is true. Scientific "proof" for the existence of God may not exist (I think that is debatable, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume that it is true), at least not to your satisfaction."

Yup.  Seems you understand the answer very well.  You even drive it home with this:

" I do think that a belief in God requires "a leap of faith.""

Well, it seems my work here is done.  The atheist simply does not take the leap of faith you do.  The atheist prefers to stand on the ground of reason and logic, which is on the other side of the leap you take to believe. 

Oh, what the heck.  That post is too short.  Here goes.
You are trying to shift the burden of proof to the atheist.  You cannot.  Atheism is the default position.  No one is born believing in a god.  We are all born atheists.  It takes instruction, or indoctrination, to believe in a god.  You make the positive claim that god exists.  The burden is on you to show this god is real.  Without the evidence you admit you do not have, there is no rational reason to believe a god exists.

For example:  let's say I claimed to have a dragon in my pants.  (Did you read my posts like this on EA?)  I can hear it roar.  It has smelly breath.  I can let you listen to the roar and you can sniff the stink.  Have I proved to you I have a dragon in my pants?  The roar and smell are observable scientifically.  Why don't you think the dragon is real?

Further, let's say I claim all the things you attribute to god are in fact the products of goblins.  Goblins tell you what is right and wrong.  Goblins put the matter in the universe.  Goblins cause pain and love.  Prove there are no goblins. 

The atheist dismisses your god, and all other gods, deities, and supernatural things, as easily as you dismiss my dragon and the goblins.

Tim, The Christian Asks The Atheists: What Is Your Best Argument That God Does Not Exist?

OK, you atheists. Here is my challenge to you.  

You say that we Christians have no "proof" that there is a God.  In a sense, that is true.  Scientific "proof" for the existence of God may not exist (I think that is debatable, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume that it is true), at least not to your satisfaction. Yet, I would say to you that you do not have proof that God doesn't exist either.  And I would say to you that it is more rational to believe in the existence of God with the caveat that even though it is more rational, I do think that a belief in God requires "a leap of faith."

Why do I think it is more rational to believe in a God?  There are too many things for which atheists have no real explanation which a belief in God does explain:

I do not believe that atheists have any valid basis for ethics or morality.

I do not believe that atheists can really explain the origin of the world.  How does something come from nothing?  If you believe in the primordial soup, where did the primordial soup come from?  If you believe in the Big Bang, where did the matter come from that went bang?

I do not believe that atheists can explain the origin of the sensation pain. Or for that matter, I do not believe that an atheist can explain the origin of love. How can the sensations of pain or love be derived via natural selection?  

Atheists challenge Christians to prove that God exists. Well, I would ask you to put the shoe on the other foot. My challenge to you is, "What is your best argument that God does not exist?"  Or put another way, "Why do you believe it to be more rational to be an atheist?"