Are theists at a disadvantage in that they cannot "prove" the existence
of God (and thus Christianity) using formal logic and empirical
Actually, that question presumes there might be a christian god
who is hiding (kinda-sorta, as it must not be hiding if it's into
worship and prayer and salvation and miracles and actually interacting
with people in a revealing way in this dimension ... otherwise,
it all comes across like "make believe"). What, after all, is the
difference between gods that don't exist and gods that hide?
god who is not hiding could be quite present and tangible. That
begs the question, why would god hide? The discussion at that point
then shifts to either there is no god or god is hiding for reason.
Then, for the theists, it becomes a matter of either justifying
god's hiding (today), explaining god's supposed "not hiding" (to
various peoples in various ways at various times) in the past, and
accounting for the claims of god intervention that have been reported
throughout history (and which continue to be reported).
are true, which are false, and how does one go about selecting which
ones to believe and which ones to doubt and which ones to disbelieve?
It appears that most theists believe the version that mates to their
particular society / culture / language / upbringing, with a minority
believing in disparate versions and an even smaller minority claiming
substantive actualized contact with a god in the current day.
(most) disbelieve in non-actualized contacts, and therefore are
relieved of the burden of having to determine which non-actualized
contacts are true and which are false. Some atheists are agnostic-like
in disbelief, preferring to address supernatural claims from the
standpoint of personal disassociation. Some atheists even profess
admiration at times for those who believe in ways considered to
be non-threatening and morally reputable, rather than addressing
said claims with confident refutation.
often address the problem of irreconcilable claimed god contacts
by attributing it to god working in mysterious ways, yet that still
does not relieve them of the burden of having to justify accepting
god stories they like (god stories in tune with their society /
culture / upbringing / language / religion) and dismissing or being
disinterested in the god stories apart from their personal exposure.
many christian theists, for example, are interested in the details
regarding Mohammed's supposed god (allah) contacts or the multitude
of god stories from cultures and civilizations long ago and far
removed from the cultures of the modern day?
It's not part of most christian theists' society / culture / language
/ upbringing, and as such, it's of little interest and is disregarded
as only being relevant for "other tribes".
can be understood and explained naturalistically by simply understanding
social bonding and the advantages that accrue to a group having
similar interests / customs / practices.
the christian god is the icon of admiration / fear for christianized
tribes (i.e., western culture), there is little to no interest in
stirring the pot of doubt by comparing the christian god to the
arab / islam / muhammed god (allah).
for the vast majority in arab / islamic cultures, there is little
to no interest in stirring the pot of doubt by comparing the arab
/ islamic god (allah) to the christian god.
when confronted with the dispute, many monotheists assert that there
are different paths to the one and only "True (tm)" god ... the
so-called ecumenical "god of all".
minority (like Franklin Graham, bin Laden, Iranian mullahs, etc.)
publically own up to the fact that their interpretation of the supposed
supreme be-all end-all of all is irreconcilable with other interpretations,
a minority, that is, when far removed from religious ritual, for
when religious ritual is at play, most followers cling tightly to
the notion that their interpretation of the supposed supreme be-all
end-all of all is *the* one "True (tm)" version to be worshipped
/ feared / followed in the supposed "right" way ...
phrases having various degrees of potency / receptivity / rejection
based on the particular so-called monotheistic society / culture
/ language / upbringing / religion one is exposed to in the modern
Akhbar" (God is Great)
God We Trust"
(if God wills it)
nation under God"
(Thanks be to God)
shalt have no other gods before me"
is no God but Allah, and Muhammed is His prophet"
God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son"