Something regarding atheism vs religion - not sure yet

Yes I'm a Christian, yes I believe the Christian God exists and yes I do have good reasons for believing this. But, as far as I am concerned, talking about the Christian God with an atheist is only a distraction from flaws in the atheist's reasoning that are much more fundamental. If I was talking to someone who felt that God-belief WAS rational, just not belief in the Christian God, then a conversation about the Christian God would be appropriate. But if in the process I became convinced that the Christian God didn't exist, I would adopt some other version of God or some generic Higher Power belief and still disagree with atheists. When talking to atheists my concern is with far more basic concepts: 1) Developing a working definition of the supernatural and the generic God. (A) 2) Developing a sound framework for how the problem should be approached. (B) 3) Identifying the role and limitations of science etc. (C) A. You say that the natural/supernatural dichotomy isn't useful but only a get-out-of-justification-free card. But what then are we talking about here? If you don't like the terminology or the common definition, fix it. Since otherwise, there is nothing to discuss. In my experience, atheists are only confused about these definitions when it is convenient. If talking about the success of science and materialism over other types of claims they seem to know exactly what the terms mean. You stated that you completely agree with the contents of Boudry's paper so I assumed that you were in agreement with the section on definitions as well. Please go back and read section 4.1 again since you either disagree with that section or you're getting something totally different from it than I am. We can base further discussion about the definition of the supernatural on that section. Once that is sorted out we can define the generic God as a supernatural entity that has will and intelligence, (not necessarily all-powerful) who: 1) Played a crucial role in bringing our universe into existence (the attributes of the deist god - I always insist on discussing this first). 2) Has an interest in human affairs and intervenes occasionally (the generic theist God who has the same attributes as the deist God + involvement). B) You spent quite a bit of time explaining to me what it would take to convince you that I have a friend named Bob, but apparently you missed point #1 of my opening statement where I explained that I have no interest in convincing you of anything. I see my role in any such conversation as purely defensive. And this not because of personal preference but of necessity. In any situation where person A considers the position held by person B as outside the boundaries of acceptable/rational competing positions, a prerequisite conversation HAS to take place. 'Is the position held by person B rational' has to be discussed before determining which position is better. So normally, if at the end of a conversation the available evidence is insufficient to move beyond 'we don't know,' the atheist could say that the theist has failed to convince him a god exists. But atheists today have portrayed theists as not just wrong but as completely unreasonable. And this has to mean that they have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the probability of God's existence is well below 50%. I don't follow American football but let's say the Giants and the Patriots made it to the Super Bowl. In scenario 1 let's say that both teams are pretty well matched so the game could go either way. In this case, the reasonable answer to the question, 'who is more likely to win,' is, 'we don't know.' And, if we don't know, you might believe the Giants will win while I the Patriots and we might both place bets on our respective teams, and, neither would be more irrational than the other for doing so. In scenario 2 however, the Giants are at the top of their game while the only reason the Patriots made it to the Super Bowl was because any good team they had previously played against had key players missing due to injuries. In this case, it would not be rational for me to bet on the Patriots. So if when using reason and science alone the only thing we can conclude about the existence of the generic God is, 'we don't know,' I am just as reasonable in believing He exists as you are in believing He doesn't. Unlike my football example where I could choose not to place a bet on either team, in life, whether I want to or not, I have to live according to one paradigm or the other. And, given that both options are equally likely, going with either option is equally rational. I am not admitting here that I have no additional reason for believing in God, just that I am under no obligation to provide it since, in a 50/50 situation, both choices are equally reasonable. So even if my only reason is my testimony and the testimony of others (i.e. hearsay) it doesn't matter since I need no additional reason (unless I am trying to convert YOU to theism, which I am not.) Basically, in claiming that theism is unreasonable, atheists have assumed the responsibility to show that the evidence moves us well beyond 'we don't know.' Now there are several ways atheists get themselves confused here: 1) They say things like, "using that type reasoning you could justify believing in unicorns." Basically, because atheists cannot produce sufficient scientific evidence to show that the probability unicorns exist is below 50%, a person is rational in believing they exist. - Except that unicorns are not generally presented as one possible explanation for the existence of the universe. If unicorns don't exist, that doesn't require an alternative explanation for how the universe was produced. 2) "Well, what about the Muslim god and the Hindu gods and the flying spaghetti monster? This could apply to an infinite number of potential god-types not just your God." - Sure. Except here we're talking about the generic God which would include any of these, even the unicorn in #1 if necessary. 3) "The burden is not on the atheist to demonstrate that God doesn't exist." - No, the burden is to show that an alternative to the creator hypothesis is more likely. 4) "Naturalism is the default position." - This one is especially frustrating to deal with since most atheists cannot even fathom a scenario where naturalism wouldn't be true (granted this problem usually stems from poor definitions). The reality however is that naturalism is nothing more than a hypothesis which requires supporting evidence like any other hypothesis: a) The starting question is, where did the universe come from? b) The hypothesis is, 'it is the natural result of preexisting physical laws and fundamental forces acting upon matter/energy.' c) This hypothesis would need to explain the conditions before the big bang, what caused the big bang, the resulting formation and behavior of stars, planets, etc., abiogenesis and so on. d) Before evidence is produced for all these elements, believing that the hypothesis is correct is done on faith. The only thing we can rationally conclude based on insufficient evidence is, 'we don't know if this hypothesis is correct or not.' The main alternative hypothesis (there could be other alternatives) to naturalism/materialism is that the universe was created/designed/engineered. But, without evidence for or against, all we can conclude again is, 'we don't know.' And, if the best conclusion we can come to is, 'we don't know,' then it is just as reasonable to believe in God as it is not to believe. C. Regarding science, let me address your comment about the 'best imaginable track record.' There are two things that we need to look at: 1) People considered many aspects of nature to be supernatural all of which turned out to be natural after all, and, 2) People attributed to the supernatural the creation of many aspects of nature which we can now show have developed naturally. Let's say we built a car that ran on solar energy and could essentially go for months without stopping. And, let's say we dropped this car in a jungle where it was discovered by a tribe that had never been in contact with civilization. At first, they thought it was some kind of monster. When they got closer and started to figure out how to drive it they decided it must be magical. But, as time went on, they discovered that more and more aspects of the car that they thought were magical actually had a logical explanation. What you are saying is that the incredible track record of things they thought were magical but turned out not to be significantly decreases the likelihood that the car had a maker. Throughout recorded history, people have made thousands of supernatural claims: God causes lightning and earthquakes, the immaterial soul produces our thoughts and personality, a statute of Mary is bleeding human blood etc. etc. And, science has debunked most of these claims. But, the inclination of uninformed people to make premature supernatural claims just isn't a good basis for a reliable track record. But you might say that the car in my example was completely built by man while we have discovered that many aspects of nature developed naturally. If I needed to move a large boulder over several hills I would only need to push it up the hills since gravity would do the job for me on the way down. If a God first put in place the laws of nature, these laws would do part of the work and God wouldn't need to do everything Himself. For example, if after the big bang gravity and centrifugal force were sufficient to shape the planets, then that is one less job God had to do Himself. So if the universe was created this doesn't mean that God had to be involved in every minor task. Essentially, debunking tens of thousands of unreasonable supernatural claims is not a convincing argument for naturalism/materialism.