Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I was recently asked this question again by a young athiest. He was beaming with confidence when he asked the question and I had to take the wind out
of his sail.
The question pressuposes that I believe in a God that was created. It makes no sense to debate a created god that I don't believe in.
You have the atheist defining god when they claim they don't believe in God and then they are asking you to debate a created god that you don't
believe in.
I think the atheist needs to come up with a new line of questioning.
The look on his face when I explained this to him went from pride to confusion.
This atheist kid just came up to you out of the blue and asked you who created your god, without knowing if you even believed in one? I would say that
he was not only rude, but ignorant as well.
Being an atheist, the situation usually plays out very differently. Somehow they start talking about religion to me and I say that I don't follow any
religion. They say that I should believe because yadda yadda yadda.
I say that is good for them but I have no proof that a god exists. They then start talking about who created the trees, the birds, and myself. I then
ask who, hypothetically, created their god. They say no one and he does not need a creator. I say..using the same logic, neither do I. It cannot be
proven either way.
So perhaps if some theists come up with a better argument and stop using circular logic, we would not have to keep telling them the same thing.
I honestly believe that no new argument should be introduced until the one on the table is settled. If that means leaving the conversation at "
Either your god and I both have a creator or neither of us do". After that is setttled, we will move on to the next bullet point.
I must say, most theists cannot get past this point without rebuking me or trying to switch to another argument.
I think it is a pretty valid point.