In defense of God

[trigeek08]

I have been having many discussions recently with my roommates. All of us are Christians and my two roommates have a problem understanding why people are atheists, esp. those who are very intelligent. I have been trying to explain to them that those who base their lives in logic and reason cannot reconcile the idea of believing in something that is, for the most part, 100% faith based, and whose existance cannot be fully proven

I have been trying to come up with a counter to this justification for atheism and I think I have found it:

In our society, when a person is arested and put on trial for commiting a crime, we, as a society, are to have faith in said persons innocence until the prosecution can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendent is quilty. The defendent is not charged with proving their innocence. I would liken God to a defendent. Why are we forced to prove His existance/innocence before we can believe in Him? Why do we not look at it as beliving in Him because we cannot prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that He is gulity/does not exist?

Just throwing it out there.

You have it backwards. In your trial comparison, the default position is "he didn't do it" and it must be proven he did. Now you want the default position for God to be "he did do it" (create the universe and operate it) and the rest of us to prove he didn't. It's almost impossible to prove a negative (which is why we presume innocence rather than guilt), thus such a position is nonsensical.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are we forced to prove His existance/innocence before we can believe in Him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you are right. Proof is not required for belief.

The quarrel is usually with those who claim that no faith is required and they can prove that their belief is correct.

chez

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been having many discussions recently with my roommates. All of us are Christians and my two roommates have a problem understanding why people are atheists, esp. those who are very intelligent. I have been trying to explain to them that those who base their lives in logic and reason cannot reconcile the idea of believing in something that is, for the most part, 100% faith based, and whose existance cannot be fully proven



[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting fact - many scientific studies done on the relationship of intelligence vs. belief in God have shown that as the IQ level increases the percentage who believe in God decreases. This doesn't mean that some smart people don't believe in God or that some less intelligent ones can't be atheists. Below is an excerpt from one study.

Polling Scientists on Beliefs

According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer."


The survey, by Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia, was intended to replicate one conducted in 1914, and the results were virtually unchanged. In both cases, participants were drawn from a directory of American scientists.


Others play down those results. They note that when Dr. Larson put part of the same survey to " leading scientists " - in this case, members of the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the nation's most eminent scientific organization - fewer than 10 percent professed belief in a personal God or human immortality.

[KeysrSoze]

1. The basis of our jury system is not to prove guilt "beyond a shadow of a doubt", it's "beyond a reasonable doubt".

2. We could also put the Flying Spaghetti Monster on trial for his existence. Is it beyond a shadow of a doubt that he exists? No. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes.

[jester710]

Also, the burden of proof is on the prosecution because they are the ones making an allegation. Personally, I believe that in a discussion about the (non)existence of God, I think the burden of proof is on whoever brought it up in the first place.

[trigeek08]

[ QUOTE ]
The basis of our jury system is not to prove guilt "beyond a shadow of a doubt", it's "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I thought about that, but I guess that that is just the bias in all of us. I was just taking a shot at it. Keep up the friendly and intellectual discourse.

[masse75]

A valiant effort, but I'm pretty sure God doesn't need us to defend him. It isn't a debate where the most skilled debator is correct.

People believe, or they choose not to believe.