All debate on the existence of God is a debate on epistemology. Belief in God is one of an irrational belief. It is a belief that, if one were consistent in his approach to knowledge, such a proposed belief is one in which neither the senses nor rationality can reach. (There have been attempts to prove God rationally, but I will discuss that later.)
And without designating the nature of the epistemologies at work, there are three essential views: 1.
Theism in all its forms in which belief in God is allowed, 2.
Agnosticism, in which one has concluded that it is difficult or impossible to know for sure that God exists, 3.
Atheism, in which one has concluded that proposed belief in God ought be rejected.
So here is the challenge to any of the three: Can you show how yours is superior to others given knowledge of what follows: A presentation of the epistemological shortcomings common among all three. It will require an advancement of what is presented.
This next section concludes with the following: If you believe in God, you hold a conflicting epistemology that cannot stand; if you don't believe in God, you likely are doing so for false reasons.
Theist: God exists.
Atheist: God does not exist.
Theist: He does, you just don’t want to believe it because you have been deceived.
Atheist: No, He does not. I do not believe in God because you have not shown me how he does. The burden of proof is always on the one who makes the assertion.
Theist: God’s existence cannot be demonstrated in a worldly way, I cannot produce evidence and I cannot show you through reasoning how to derive God’s existence. God cannot be proved like a physics theory. God’s existence might be shown in other ways you are not used to. And by your own standards, you must provide a proof of God’s existence. You are also making an assertion—that he does not exist.
Atheist: So you cannot back up your claim that God exists.
Theist: I can, there are several things I take as clues that He exists—existence as we know it can be seen as a clue. Existence is structured and logical—there is a magnificent chance that it could not have been so logical.
Atheist: Your argument is “The world is logical, only God provides logic, therefore God provided the world”—but I think the premise that God provides logic is a baseless assumption that neither of us can accept. You accept it only because you are irrational, therefore you are wrong and God does not exist.
Theist: I am irrational. But that wouldn’t mean God doesn’t exist or that I’m wrong. I might not have a perfect cause to believe God exists, but He does, so I would be right. Ad hominem will not work.
Atheist: Are there any other of these “reasons” why one should believe in God? Because for each one you show me, I can show you how they are flawed and cannot form a basis for rational belief.”
Theist: Show how rationality should be the basis for all knowledge.
Atheist: It is an important understanding to have, without it we wouldn’t know anything in science or mathematics. Those are grand structures of knowledge, you must admit.
Theist: I do admit that. But I am asking why rationality is the exclusive domain of all knowledge.
Atheist: Let us assume it for now. If it were true, proposing belief in God would be irrational and thus not knowable.
Theist: Isn’t that a baseless assumption? But assuming it were true, then proposing belief in God would not make God unreal—just unknowable. Rationality is a limit to knowledge in that case, isn’t it?
Atheist: If the world is logically ordered, as you said before, then rationality would not be a limit—we would know the entire world with it.
Theist: But nothing beyond it…. Like I said before, it is a baseless assumption that you have chosen. Your assertion that rationality accounts for all of reality is, by its own definition, irrational at the present time. Can you show how it is rational? Can you show how it is rational to be rational? Can you prove your assumption?
Atheist: Not at this time. But then let’s assume the opposite: Irrationality grants us knowledge. It is also a baseless assumption at this point, right?
Theist: Right.
Atheist: I believe there are fairies, unicorns, and seventy Gods who live in five different heavens because my religious text says so. You believe in one God, right?
Theist: Right. I am a Christian to be exact.
Atheist: Then there is a contradiction here. Either those things exist and you are wrong or I am wrong and you are right. Which is it?
Theist: Another appeal to reason? The idea that contradictions cannot hold in a rational universe?
Atheist: Yes.
Theist: As we’ve shown, that is a baseless assumption. We took up the assumption instead that reality could be known irrationally—let’s further assume that not all of reality is rational. If this is so, then contradictions are allowed. If those are your beliefs, I am willing to accept that you believe them. I do not. To me, my beliefs are the truth and yours are not.
Atheist: Then to me your beliefs are wrong.
Theist: So what? To me, mine are correct.
Atheist: So our reality is relative? Morality is relative?
Theist: No, only a few parts of reality are irrational, the rest is rational.
Atheist: Can you prove that?
Theist: Not rationally. That would be a baseless assumption. Now let’s analyze you, can you prove that God does not exist? It is an assertion requiring evidence and argument to support.
Atheist: No, it is impossible to prove something doesn’t exist.
Theist: But you say that you rationally believe God doesn’t exist, right?
Atheist: Right.
Theist: Then you must have a proof that God doesn’t exist or else you have no reason to rule it out.
Atheist: The burden of proof was on you to prove that God exists. If you could not rationally prove it, then I have no cause to believe that God exists.
Theist: Choosing not to believe in God is not the same as saying he does not exist, though.
Atheist: Correct. I just don’t believe in God, I cannot prove something doesn’t exist, however.
Theist: So according to you, it is possible that God may exist?
Atheist: Only if it is possible that fairies and unicorns and seventy Gods and five heavens exist.
Theist: Those are your religious beliefs remember? And they are on par with my God in terms of rationality. They might exist as well. So to you, seventy Gods, five heavens, unicorns, and fairies are all possibilities?
Atheist: Sure. But possibility is not the same as concluding that God must exist.
Theist: And it isn’t the same as rationally concluding that God does not exist.
Atheist: Ok.
Theist: So your belief that God does not exist is irrational? Assuming you still belief in rationality for all.
Atheist: The rational conclusion must be that I have to be agnostic. God might exist. But unless I decide that even a tiny chance is the same as absolutely no chance, a leap of faith in its own, I cannot be atheist. But neither can you be a theist.
Theist: How?
Atheist: Rationality doesn’t play well with others. Rationality cannot stand alongside irrationality. Reality cannot be both irrational and rational—assuming any part of it is rational. It is self evident that reality is rational. It all has to be rational or none of it. Contradictions hold in reality—either my seventy Gods or your one. That is how it is. You too must conclude that, given irrationality, only one irrational possibility exists in our rational reality, there is no reason (reasonable or unreasonable) for belief in one God. Or in any God at all. We both must conclude to not know either way.
Theist: Unless I choose to remain irrational on all things, even about believing in rationality. If am irrational to the core—faith is what matters to me. I can still technically believe in God. But if I were rational, I would have to be agnostic. Unfortunately, I choose to be rational.
Atheist: We both have to be agnostic unless either you can prove that God(s) exist or until I can show that that minute chance means no chance. I am sure there are other solutions too. What are they? Which ones work?
The conversation above shows what I consider to be the ultimate debate about theism-atheism--
ultimate because it is about the essential, underlying debate among all atheists and theists. It is a battle over epistemology: What do we know? how do we know it? Irrationality versus rationality. Faith versus reason. Religious versus science. Creationism versus evolution. Abstinence versus sex education. All of these and other clashes ultimately rely on this underlying debate.
I stopped the debate at a stalemate because this is how I often see it happen in reality. I presented what I consider to be the most powerful of both sides and most essential to the underlying debate. I personally have solutions to it in favor of the atheist which I believe stand (I am an Objectivist)--but I won't be sharing. I think discussion is required about this underlying debate. A solution to the stalemate would require creativity and it would be interesting. It requires focus on epsitemology first and this is most important for many reasons.
Hopefully any readers willing to contribute and give it a shot.
