by Matt Slick
This short dialogue deals with evidence for God's existence. Though the discussion didn't really examine any proofs for God, it dealt more with Dan's presuppositions and what evidence he would accept as sufficient to show that God exists.
It was brought to my attention that some atheists think this dialogue was contrived--that it is a lie from me to make atheists look bad. The truth is that it is a real dialogue. I did not make it up. If the atheists have to resort to defamation to hold their position, then they have no position worth defending.
Matt: Why is it that you do not believe in God?
Dan: Because there is no evidence that he exists.
Matt: You can't say that because you have not looked at all evidence in the world. That isn't possible.
Dan: Let's just say I don't see sufficient evidence for gods existence.
Matt: But, if a person asked you what kind of things you'd accept, within reason, as evidence for God, what would you say? If you have nothing to offer, then you haven't thought your position through . . . and if you haven't done that, then can you honestly lay claim to the title atheist?
Dan: Come up with a way that you would believe in unicorns, and Ill show you a way to fake it. You come up with an air tight way to believe in unicorns, then get back to me about the illogic of my position.
Matt: The way to believe in unicorns is to find one or have pictures of one or a fossil of one or a bunch of people who said they saw one; and they all described, basically, the same thing: a unicorn. That would be a way.
Dan: Well, how about, if he [God] could do something that was clearly illogical, like make a square circle, and show it to me. Then I would believe.
Matt: A square circle is a non-sequitur. It is self-contradictory by definition. God cannot violate his own nature. Besides, how would you comprehend such a contradictory thing if it somehow were able to be done? You wouldn't know it, and your proof would be useless since you couldn't understand it. Besides, it can't be done anyway.
Dan: Why not?
Matt: Can you violate your own nature? Can you will yourself to be bigger than the sun?
Dan: No, but if there is a god, I'd expect him to exist outside of logic.
Matt: Perhaps, but not against logic since He created it.
Dan: If he created logic, why can't He do things that run against it?
Matt: If God created the universe and everything in it, then he created it out of his own nature. The design and natural laws had to originate in His mind. Therefore, it will have His characteristics woven into it: logic, physics, etc. These are all reflections of God's awesome creative character. Also, since God is self-sufficient, He cannot be self-contradictory. Otherwise, He could not sustain Himself. Therefore, He cannot violate His own nature.
Dan: So? Is he limited to the things he built into the universe? Isn't he omnipotent?
Matt: Yes . . .
Dan: Why can't he act against His own universe?
Matt: He could. He could destroy the entire universe. But He chooses not to.
Dan: What a crock. Just like I could stomp the earth and crush all armies with a wave of my hand. I just choose not to. Your argument isn't valid.
Matt: Why? Just because God doesn't choose to do something He has the power to do, it does not mean He does not exist. After all, does it prove that you do not exist if you choose not to do something you could do? If you choose not to clap your hands right now, does that mean you do not exist? Of course not.
Dan: [no response]
Matt: Think about this. God choosing to not exercise His will in something is the same as you choosing not to exercise belief in a god. You could, but you just don't. Both are a lack of action. So, how can you complain against God for not moving according to your criteria when you choose to not move at all in believe in Him?
At this point, the conversation ended . . .
I believe that Dan was incapable of finding God because he had a false method of verifying evidence for God. He seemed to require evidence that was naturally impossible. I attempted to show him the error in his logic.