Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

Any of them, Stat. Any argument for which science has said "we haven't sufficient evidence for this" or "we have found evidence falsifying this claim" which believers continue to tout. God. Homeopathy. Ant-vax bullshittery.

I believe you are confounding your terms here, science only deals with induction, and the vast majority of the arguments for God’s existence are deductive arguments, so science cannot prove or disprove their merit. It never ceases to amaze me just how much atheists exalt science, it borders upon being straight up scientism. I love science, it’s what I studied and it’s what I chose and love to do as a profession but it certainly has its limitations and can never be appropriately used to justify a person’s atheism.

---

Hehehe, Chad, Statler doesn't mind elaborating upon all the physical evidence he "has". IIRC he's a YEC (that's right, isn't it Stat, YEC not OEC, or is it the other way round - been awhile). Statlers "point" is actually an excuse for not being able to competently present the evidence he claims is overwhelming. Perhaps he simply doesn't understand the meaning of the word "overwhelming"?

This has nothing to do with whether I understand what the term overwhelming means or not and everything to do with you not understanding the nature of evidence. Evidence requires a conceptual scheme in order to be interpreted, and the fact of the matter is that God must exist in order for a person to possess a logically coherent and defensible conceptual scheme. The entire notion and concept of “evidence” assumes that the God of scripture does in fact exist, so the debate was over before we even got to tossing around “evidences”. The evidence for God’s existence is overwhelming, but you’ll never accept it because you’re naturalistic conceptual scheme rules out the possibility of there being such evidences a priori.