Quote from Malestrom:
As a christian, I fully admit that the existence of God can't be proven. It's impossible.
Many if not most christians would disagree with you. Jesus is supposed to have proven God's existence. Bearing witness (whatever that is supposed to mean) to jesus is usually absolute proof - to those who call themselves genuinely christian - that God exists.
Many christians would say you are not a christian when you say God can't be proven.
But that's not because God doesn't exist, but because the vantage point that logic and science afford us isn't broad enough to encompass all the available data.
What else is then?
God exists because she cannot be proven to exist?
And that is where the atheist philosophy cheats itself: in its attempt to use a system by which truth can be established, it only establishes that the truth remains hidden due to the limitations in that system. Then, atheists claim this limitation (lack of evidence) actually constitutes a proof.
It does no such thing. Your description of an 'atheist philosophy' is misconceived.
You first state there is a system by which truth can be established, then you go on to say that this system, due to limitations, lacks the ability to find truth.
From that you conclude
atheists claim proof due to lack of evidence ?? As far as I am aware the atheists claim (if there is one) is simply of a severe lack of any evidence, therefore there is no reason to believe God exists.
Such a severe lack of evidence strongly suggests no God, but I have not seen the 'atheist philosophy' go on to say it 'actually constitutes a proof' of no God, any more than such lack of evidence 'actually constitutes a proof' of no Tooth Fairies.
However , what this does if anything, is to put God in the same realm of truth as Tooth Fairies.
But I am apprehensive to accept your definition of 'atheist philosophy' when your concept of christian philosophy does not concur with the majority of christians.
Then lack of evidence is proof.
So then elves exist. Tooth fairies exist. Santa Claus exists. My Invisible Friend Gilbert exists.
Lack of evidence suggests no proof.
Lack of evidence in tooth Fairies suggests no proof of Tooth Fairies. Not proof that Tooth Fairies don't exist.
Lack of evidence in God suggests no proof of God. Not proof that God doesn't exist.
Lack of evidence of My Invisible Friend Gilbert suggests Gilbert exists. Period.
My fourth statement therefore constitutes a proof, true due to the 'theist philosophy' does it?
t's like a man with tunnel vision running around telling the rest of the world that peripheral vision is a delusion.
I would say that is a very good description....
Of religion!
Like I said, I am a christian. But I'm also a man of reason and logic. So I see the futility in expecting my 'testimony' to have any significant impact on a skeptic.
It might if your 'testimony' was ever reasonable or logical. So far the 'christian testimony' or any other for that matter appear to lack both a worthy reason and logic itself.
I might as well be trying to convince him that Vanilla icecream is better than chocolate just because that's been my personal experiance.
Why shouldn't a skeptic assume a notion of God is nothing more than a personal notion of God.?
That is all christianity does.... try to convince just because some people say they had a personal experience.
A personal thing. Not a thing that would be better than a notion of no God. Any more than a notion of vanilla is better than strawberry.
At least the skeptic can use more of his senses with ice cream to establish preference, than he can simply by a personal idea of a thing. More useful and meaningful is the overwhelming evidence of ice cream.
Therefore, I use reason and inference in discussing these matters. With that being said, I find a number of flaws in the atheist system that render it illogical at best.
With respect, so far I see only inference and little reasoning.
