I have been reading the posts on the forum and here is my over-all view of them. On a scale of 1 – 10, ten being the highest, this is the score I’ve bestowed upon them.
Christians - 0 Atheists – 9
These are my reasons. I’ll start with the Christians.
1. The words of their holy book are used to prove that those same words are truth.
Not evidence. I could tell a story on my website and without documented incontestable proof, there is no way I could back it up. I might believe it, or I might be lying. You have no way of knowing if there is no actual evidence.
2. The use anecdotes to back up their claims of God’s existence
Not evidence. Same reason as #1
3. They refuse to accept evidence which is right under their noses.
Evolution is a proven fact. It can be studied and documented. When Christians are faced with such incontrovertible fact they use weasel words and twisted logic to avoid facing facts.
4. When their unproven arguments don’t convince anyone except other Christians, they descend to insults and name-calling.
When you descend to that level, you’ve already lost the debate.
Now It’s the Atheists’ turn.
Atheists, I gave you a nine. You’ve asked good questions and you’ve done an excellent job proving your points and making your case. However, you haven’t proven there is no God.
Wait a minute, before you start yelling at me that you can’t prove a negative and that the burden of proof is not on you, let me explain.
I am not asking you to prove anything. I’m just making a point and trying to explain why I can’t quite accept your reasoning. We have proof of evolution and that can be used to infer that God doesn’t exist. Inference is not proof.
You can infer something from the facts and nine times out of ten, you’ll be right. But that tenth time, maybe not so right.
Say I’m sitting in a room and you come in, put ten pieces of candy on the table and walk out. A little while later you return and now there are only nine pieces. The logical inference is, I stole a piece of candy. Maybe I did. But maybe a piece rolled off the table and under the couch. Maybe someone entered the room while you were absent, took a piece of candy and left again. In that case your logical inference would be wrong.
To find out if the piece of candy rolled away, you can look for it. If you find it, then you know the truth. That’s evidence.
You could ask me who took the candy. I may or may not answer truthfully but no matter what I say, unless there is a nannycam in the room, it’s hearsay and therefore, it is not evidence.
Neither is inference. With inference, all you have is a maybe and that’s not good enough. That’s why you got a nine instead of a ten.
Frankly, until God comes out from behind his/her curtain and stops playing the role of the Wizard, I don’t see this argument ever being resolved. Let’s just say that for now, you’ve almost convinced me.