Pub debate

philosophised at 12:40 AM

Last night I had a really long talk with Father Peter during the drink reception for the Debating Society debate on whether patients have a right to die. Naturally the entire conversation revolved around whether God exists, and what is the source of moral value if God doesn't exist.

The interesting thing is that I was with the president of the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist society, so it was quite a huge clash of worldview. One thing I realised about this kind of discussion is that almost always it will end in an impasse, with neither side willing to change their opinion. Both sides hinge on different sets of assumptions, and the most important one being the view that most atheists hold, that everything that exists must be natural, hence bounded by the space-time continuum and obeying the law of nature described by physics, whereas monotheists hold that a 'supernatural' entity exists. Everything else is irrelevant, in my opinion, because once you start from the proposition that a 'supernatural' entity exists, one which logic and physical laws don't apply, then Christians are free to throw out any argument they wish, because no matter how absurd these arguments sound, they can always fall back to the proposition that logic and physical laws don't apply to God. 'God exists' is an unfalsifiable claim. I regret not posting the question to the Father to ask him if there's any argument that will falsify the claim that God exists. I could not think of any such 'silver bullet' to make a Christian un-believe.

On the other side, atheists are committing exactly the same sort of intellectual flaw. Instead of starting from the proposition that there exists a 'supernatural' entity — an unreasonable claim, and by that I mean there's no way a believer can reason a non-believer into believing — atheists believe that all that exists must be natural or physical (i.e. energy and matter) — yet another unreasonable claim. That forms the basis for all their arguments. God could not possibly exist because it is illogical or contradictory (the rationalist argument) and there is no reliable observable evidence (the empiricist argument). Christians will then argue that rationalism and empiricism don't apply to God, and from this point onwards, really, there's nothing to argue about. Maybe thinking about it, Christians do have a 'silver bullet' against atheism — God is above logic. Argument ending.

So really after the two hours of debate, I am still firmly rooted in my original stand — open agnostic atheism. I can't know for sure that God does exist or God doesn't exist, and I'm tending very much towards the atheist side of the spectrum, but I do believe that it is plausible that some people could have gotten some form of 'spiritual revelation' (whatever that is), that it is plausible that an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God, who is personal, and who has sent Jesus to atone for our sin exists, and that it takes a leap of faith to believe in such a God. I do not however believe one can reason their way to reach a conclusion that God exists.