Conversation With An Atheist (Part Two)

Who is God?

Atheist: You have raised some points that appealed to historicity. But to avoid dissipating energy and for the purpose of beneficial discussion, let’s start this way:
Who is God?

LA: That’s a good question. Who do YOU think God is?

Atheist: You are the one who claimed to know about God. I simply asked you the very idea you’re pushing. Who’s God? Decent discussion entails intellectual honesty, and I do hope that you give that a consideration in your reply.

LA: That was a well-intended question designed to focus our discussion but I see you’re trying to avoid answering. I can see your paradox. If God doesn’t exist then you can’t ascribe moral responsibility to him. You can’t ascribe responsibility to a non-existent being. If you do, then you’re not really an atheist. But if you acknowledge God exists then we can zero in on the real issue which is the fact you have a problem with God. If that is the case we can then have a focused discussion and not one flying in different directions. So the onus of intellectual honesty lies on you. Again I ask, who do YOU think God is? Forget all those opinions of the unlearned, who do YOU think God is?

Atheist: Now get my drift. I had taken you up on your quote, not because I begrudge your God. I put up all those comments to lead you to the subject of God idea. As it is with you Christians, you make assumptions that are founded on illusionary doctrines of your religion. You think that if I make critical enquiry about your God, then I must have been disillusioned or just angry at God. What a nauseating and childish way of thinking! You’re the one who claimed in your quote that there exists something called God and that this thing has foreknowledge. My question to you is – who is God? You introduced God. The onus is on you to prove his existence. Who do I think God is? I haven’t thought about God! So tell me, who is God?

LA: Forget what “you Christians” would have said since I never said those things. I never called you delusional did I? Neither did I say you were angry. Let’s keep a focus. It’s however not true that you haven’t thought about God or you wouldn’t have said all you said. You remember you asserted he’s not omnipotent or omniscient and he’s of no value to mankind. So you have thought about God. What any third party will read from your response is that you really don’t know anything about this God! Then arises the question: If you don’t know him how can you know about his attributes? How can you assert what you’re not even familiarised with?

But let’s avoid dragging issues unnecessarily. I’d say God is a potentate – a very powerful political figure with deterministic capacities.

Atheist: What’s your reference for this definition?

LA: Oh! my reference? I thought you knew. It is 66 books written by 35 authors over a period of 4000 years. I could list all the authors. The historical King David was one. His son Solomon was another. There’s also that lawyer called Paul. What’s your bibliographical reference for denying the existence of God and when was it written?

Proof of God’s existence

Atheist: I haven’t denied anything yet. You have just defined a personal entity – (monarch with deterministic capacities) – God. Again, you just said that the Bible (written by primitive and grossly ignorant men) informed you so. Now that you claim the existence of a monarch, let’s go a step further. Can you prove (with empirical/substantial evidence) the existence of this God?

LA: There you go again ducking a simple question and contradicting what is right here on this page that anyone can access. If historical Solomon was a grossly ignorant man, then we must redefine ignorance. If Paul was a grossly primitive and ignorant man then modern secular universities that study his writing cannot be clever. Unfortunately, many do!

But here lies the intellectual limitation of the materialist – the untenable belief that everything must be material and based on empiricism or it does not exist. Can you give me the material basis of consciousness? Or supply the empiricism of morality? While you’re at it, don’t forget to give us the bibliographical reference for your beliefs or lack thereof, and when it was written.

Atheist: Don’t be in a hurry. We’re not yet done with the God idea and the proof of its existence. Since you found no trepidation in appealing to historicity, I shall then ask you this:
According to the Yoruba cosmological narration, which was orally passed down (just like the Torah) but now in book form (just like the bible) it is claimed that Obatala (deity) was the creative agent of Olorun (God). These two entities are said to be the origin of life. Do you believe this?

LA: When you answer the simple questions I posed, I will continue with this discussion.

Atheist: Answering your question on consciousness will derail the crux of this discussion. We can always come to this, when we’re done with the God idea.

LA: No. Answer. Unless of course you have no answer. What is the empirical basis of consciousness? What is the bibliographical reference for your beliefs or lack thereof, who are the authors, when was it written? This is a question you posed earlier. Please answer.

Atheist: Just a jab on your logical slant: Is Yoruba mythology on Ogun, Sango, Oya etc not being studied in secular universities today? Does that now give you sufficient reason to believe those stories? Whatever any Ifa priest wrote as the origin of life is coming from both a primitive and ignorant mind. This is because such stories are mere assumptions that are not testable.

LA: There you go trying to duck again and create red herrings. Please answer the questions you raised. What is the empirical basis of consciousness? What is the bibliographical reference for your beliefs or lack thereof? State the authors and when was it written.

Atheist: You see when I am engaging on a topic like this, I take the lengthy road, not because of my opponent but the audience. They are reading in between the lines that you may be dishonest with. Derailing the focus from your God idea, just revealed that you can’t prove the existence of God, in the rational and intelligent way. Consciousness is a neurophysiological (the normal functioning of the brain and its electrochemical components) phenomenon. In the neuro-scientific lab, the empirical basis of conscious and subconscious phenomenon have been established. In this same lab, dreams, trances and the likes have been stimulated.

LA: There is something called argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity). You just attempted it.

Please give us that empirical reference for consciousness you spoke about, as well as for morality. It should be easy since you remember the experiment so well. While at it, don’t forget to give us the bibliographical reference for your beliefs or lack thereof, who the authors are and when was it written. Why is this so hard for you? I gave you my references as you requested. You must be able to abide by the standards you set for others.

The not so pleasant conclusion

Atheist: I’m a scientist and I assume you’re a lawyer. But one major factor that defines an intelligent mind is intellectual honesty. Any other attempt at intellectual discourse without honesty is crass idiocy. I will leave you to your rat-hole romance, as long as you want to cowardly refuse to dwell on the question that I asked you. You claimed God exists because your Bible said so and I asked you to prove the existence of this your God with empirical evidence. You can consider this discussion closed as long as you want to continue asking questions outside the subject matter.

LA: What a pity! There is also a fallacy in logic called argumentum ad hominem (attacking people’s character). It’s not something you should engage in.

Atheist: How do these irrelevant and misplaced descriptives help your crass assumptions (about the God idea) now?

LA:  I’m sorry but I’d rather not further any discussion with you under the circumstances. There is that thing called civility in civil discourse. But I do wish you the best.

Atheist: *Crass assumptions – unintelligent assumptions
*Rat-hole romance – fondness for derailment
*Coward – not bold enough to bear the pain of daring.
Civility is subjective and I crave no patronizing wish. Nice meeting you.

LA: Res ipsa loquitur (The thing speaks for itself).

© #Illuminare Leke Alder |

If God doesn't exist then you can't ascribe moral responsibility to him. Click To Tweet