: : : You've challenged us to prove the existence of God apart from belief. I'll reverse the challenge to you or to anyone else: Without using faith or testimony, prove that atoms exist.: : What do you constitute as 'proof', Gotch?
: : As I've said before, there is no ultimate proof of anything; only falsifiability; you can prove A =/= !A in a logical framework, but you cannot prove that A == B.
: : If you are prepared to accept the standard scientific evidence as 'proof', then I can show you any number of images taken from scanning tunnelling microscopes; which will resolve distances small enough to show atomic lattices.
: : If you won't accept the standard scientific definition of 'proof', then what are your exact criteria?
: Merely demonstrating a point. No, as you said, we can't "prove" anything ultimately. Neither can we "prove" the existence of God.
No. However, we can *falsify* theories that deal solely with the physical world. We can *show* that gold isn't a liquid at room temperature and pressure; we haven't proved that it is a solid; but we have proved that it isn't a liquid, a gas or a plasma.
By the process of elimination, we can reject the provably false and thus come close to the truth; or a working model of the truth.
You can never do this with God; since God is ultimately unprovable and unfalsifiable.
I can say that God is a three-headed kangaroo; and you can never prove otherwise.
If you say that the sky is green, I can prove it not to be the case.
This is the fundamental difference between faith and science.
: However, as you also said, if we accept the weight of evidence, then we believe in the existence of atoms -- or at least of something there that acts like what we call atoms.
No!
It is not a question of belief!
The atomic theory is the simplest one that explains the observed data adequately; the observed data being the picture I showed you above (and thousands of previous experiments).
We think that atoms exist because there exist things which follow the atomic theory. If a better theory came along, then the atomic theory would be retired; the way that Victorian 'classical' electromagnetics were superseded by quantum mechanics and relativity.
It is not a 'belief' per se because the theory is merely a convenient way of describing the behaviour of the physical data. It works even if you don't believe in it.
Would a refusal to 'believe' in atomic chemistry prevent you from being shot with a gun? Of course not. Atomic theory deals solely with the measurable and observable; it is thus falsifiable.
: Those of us who believe that God exists also believe that the weight of "evidence" of His existence is so overwhelming that there is no other choice.
But you have precisely zero evidence that doesn't ultimately invoke something you can never prove.
The fundamental standing point of faith is belief in the intangible; something you can never prove the existence of. No matter how hard you try and rationalise it, the believer's statement ultimately boils down to 'God exists because I believe God exists'.
All the 'evidence' you speak of only weighs as evidence if you accept as true the thing you're trying to prove to be true; this is a big logical hole.
The Bible is only a holy book if you take the words written there as the Ultimate Truth; but the only thing you can use to determine the ultimate truth of the Bible is the Bible itself; this is inherently faulty reasoning; and thus there can never be 'evidence' for God.
Either you believe, or you don't.
I've said this before, Gotch, didn't you read it last time?
: The personal question is will you choose to believe or will you not? If yes, then we attend to His Word and determine what the result of that choice to believe entails.
: If not, then there is no choice but to believe that evolution, etc., must be true.
Quite wrong; God and evolution are not either/or opposites; most Christians are perfectly happy to accept evolution as descriptive of the physical world.
And that 'etc.' is hopelessly vague, Gotch; if you want to debate, you should make it clear exactly what you think 'not-God' is.
: I choose God.
No; you chose your idea of God; since you can never provide any verifiable proof or evidence that your idea approaches reality, then you have no way of knowing that God isn't, in fact, a three-headed kangaroo.
You have still failed to provide any criteria of 'proof' that would stand up under scrutiny; I have provided some physical evidence of atoms; the ball is most definitely in your court.
Gideon.
None.
