oh my. It’s always great when a theist makes yet *another* claim about a supposed question that atheists can’t answer. Poor Trent, so sure that his Christianity version (Catholicism) is the right one, and he can’t even convince other Christians, much less an atheist.
Now, out of all of this talking, it *seems* that the speaker’s question is “what would prove god exists”. It’s hard to know for sure. He goes on… and on… about why the responses by atheists aren’t evidently good enough for him, and argues that those events offered by atheists could happen because of “undiscovered or unknown natural explanation”. He even admits that he himself and other christains wouldn’t believe that the events were caused by some god.
Which causes a problem since Christianity is based on the evidently unbelievable claims in the bible. JC, per the bible, says that those unbelievable events are the only thing that supports his claims. So, if those can’t be trusted, even by believers, what use where they?
The god of the gaps argument is not quite what the speaker says. It is an argument, offered by theists, that if we do not currently know something, then their god must have been the cause. And atheists have noted that the gaps close constantly since we keep discovering new things. The “god of the gaps” argument is dependent on the demand that we cease thinking and looking for information.
Yep, Christians shouldn’t act like fellow Christian Bill O’Reilly in his nonsense about tides, but they do and their religion is built on the presupposition that their god must exist.
Our speaker doesn’t have to worry at all about atheists leaning “too much” into the god of the gaps argument at all. Your lack of evidence is what supports our conclusion that your god doesn’t exist. You offer an unfalsifiable god in your excuses for why no one can find this god.
The answers given to the question “what would prove god exists” are based on the claims of Christians and their bible. This god is nicely defined in the bible and there are quite the set of promises made there. So, there is no reason why this god shouldn’t be able to heal amputees, burn victims, etc, via the methods described in the bible. There should be no reason why it can’t move the stars, them being only lights on a surface per the bible, and not enormous spheres of hydrogen undergoing fusion billions of miles away from us. There should be no reason that it can’t use DNA to send a message, or write on a wall or cause the offering on a soaked altar to catch fire.
This is the answer to “why would these particular things convince you god exists”. It’s because your bible says so, and you do say it is right, don’t you? It is not the reasoning that we don’t know what would cause a limb to be healed, etc. If your god was the cause, we could see that, couldn’t we? It wouldn’t be mistakable for anything else, would it? If it could be, then the theist has the problem, not the atheist. If they can’t show that their god is anything more than physics or slight of hand, then this god isn’t what they worship.
Yes, there could be another unknown reason that such events happened, but the bible says that this god would be the reason, and thus we can assume that such an event would be evidence for this particular god.
It’s more telling that our speaker is upset that his philosophical arguments aren’t considered true by an atheist. It’s rather notable that he knows that his god can’t do anything like it is shown to in the bible at all. All of those arguments can be posed for any god, not just Trent’s, and that is why I, and other atheists, just laugh at them when they are claimed as “real evidence”, since they all depend on a presupposition that a god must exist and that has not been shown to be the case at all. “Classical arguments” aren’t true just because someone whines that they are “classical”. That’s just the logical fallacy of the argument from tradition.
As for the universe coming into existence from nothing being evidence for this god, well, we have a perfectly fine explanation on how that can happen without a god. There’s also the problem again with “which god?” It seems that Trent wants to claim yet again that since we don’t know exactly how the universe came about, it was his god, aka the god of the gaps argument. We know how a limb would regrow, seeing it in other animals, so if god gets busy, we’ll know how it did it. Now, the Christian will claim “But but this is just expecting this god to be within natural occurrences”. Yep, that’s what Christians claim until they find that it doesn’t work. They claim that this god is what tis behind material effects and forces, but when science doesn’t agree with that claim, then they must claim “nonoverlapping magisterial”. God magically becomes only findable with baseless claims, aka philosophy.
Oh, and Trent, the existence of minds is easy, since not one can be shown to exist without a brain. If these minds are free floating, but can interact with a electrochemical organ, then we should be able to sense them with other electrochemical devices. But i’m sure you’ll try the “dragon in my garage” arguments. As for moral truths, funny how Christians can’t even agree on them.
And, as for the claims of this god knowing what would convince an atheist, yep, it’s a valid argument *if* your god really does want everyone to follow it. So are you saying it isn’t true about your god? I can get behind that since your god, per the bible, intentionally keeps some people from accepting it, destroying free will.
No, a person can’t rationally believe in a being that has no evidence for it. Can a person rationally believe in fairies? If you say no, you have a problem, and your philosophical arguments that fairies must exist are just like this:“so you’re never going to get a hundred percent consensus on these philosophical questions” Yep, since they are no more than baseless opinion.
Oh, here’s another question for us atheists “what is the best argument for the existence of god and what’s wrong with it or what is the least problematic argument for god and what’s specifically wrong with it”
so, the idea of “best” is subjective, and then the theist will whine it really isn’t the “best”. And you must define what “God” is since even Christians can’t agree. But if we should go with Catholic Christianity, I would say that the best argument is “first cause” and then it fails since nothing can show that the particular god claimed exists. At best you have a vague “force”. And don’t waste your time with Blackwell, or Swinburn or Aquinas, et al since they offer nothing more than has been offered here. All Trent is doing is using a logical fallacy of appeal to authority; authorities no one cares about but him and his fellow Catholics. Alas, there’s an army of other TrueChristians(tm) that claim he’s wrong.
Such a bunch of frauds.
Unsurprisingly, an atheist can again answer the question that a theist is ever so sure can’t be answered. At best, Trent has an argument for some vague god. That’s not what he worships.