Presuppose This.

Theist: I believe in god X.

Atheist: On what do you base that belief?

Theist: I can't tell you.

Atheist: Why not?

Theist: Your presupposition is that there is no god X; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show his existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no god.

Atheist: Um, no. My "presupposition" is that you cannot make a claim that you cannot provide evidenciary support for.

Theist: If I were to have a video tape of god X coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect.  If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.  If I had prophecies from a really old book fulfilled in a book not as old, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies.

Atheist:  Do you have a video tape of god X coming down from heaven?

Theist: Well...umm..no.

Atheist: And these thousand eye-witnesses, got any names?

Theist: Well...umm...no. But they were there and saw it,  because this really old book that was written back then says so.

Atheist: Great! That must mean that there exists some sort of corroborating evidence to confirm it.  Maybe something not written by the authors of that book?

Theist: Well.....not..exactly.

Atheist: Oh. Well....OK...Well these prophecies...are they specific and precise to the date and time and exact names of the people involved?  Are they all internally consistent and free of contradictions?

Theist: Well....no.

Athiest: So a lot of them are vague and could be interpreted a number of ways.

Theist: Bingo!

Atheist: And did the authors of this not as old book...did they have access to these prophecies? Because if they did, there is a chance they could have written the narrative to suit the prophecies which would call into question how much of these prophecies were accurate predictions.

Theist: Ummm.....well, they sort of did.

Atheist: Well, do we know who the authors of these texts were?

Theist: Not exactly.

Atheist: Yikes! That's problematic.  It's not looking good for your claim.

Theist:  See? I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it.  It is limited.

Atheist: How do you figure *my* presupposition is the problem?

Theist:  Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine god X's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of his existence.  Don't you see?  If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.

Atheist: Do you have incontrovertible proof?

Theist: No.

Atheist: What do you have?

Theist: What kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence?  I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.

Atheist: Show me a god.  Any one will do. Or just give me one logically consistent reason to believe that one exists or can exist.  Then give me one shred of evidence that can establish that not only does a god exist, but this god is your particular god X.  How do claims about god X fundamentally differ from the thousands of other claims about the thousands of other gods that might also exist when all these claims are based on the untestable claims of people who have claimed some sort of interaction with a divine agent that could may as well be a figment of that person's imagination?

Theist: Ummmm......I don't exactly have any of that stuff.

Atheist:  Well....what do you have?

Theist: A list of "escape hatch" questions! Does absolute truth exist?

Atheist: I find it very dangerous to deal in absolutes and I try to avoid positing them.

Theist: Does absolute truth exist?

Atheist: Dude, I just answered you....

Theist: Does absolute truth exist?

Atheist: I have no fracking idea.

Theist: Is it absolutely true that you don't know if absolute truth exists?

Atheist: I have no fracking idea.

Theist: C'mon! You have to say "Yes" or "No!"

Atheist: Either one would be a dishonest answer.

Theist: But you have to pick one.

Atheist: Why?

Theist: Because.

Atheist: That's a stupid response.

Theist: And once again the angry atheist resorts to name-calling!

Atheist: If I say "yes," I would be contradicting myself and that is dishonest. If I say "no," I am also contradicting myself because if I don't know whether or not absolute truth exists, then it follows that I can't know whether or not I know that for certain.

Theist: Do you know something is true?

Atheist: I assume truth. I assume that things are what they appear to be.  We couldn't get through life without doing that.

Theist: Does logic exist?

Atheist: The concept of logic exists as much as the concept of anything else does. Like math, it is a demonstrable concept....unlike gods, for instance.

Theist: Does logic change?

Atheist: It would require a fundamental shift in our perception of reality to do so.

Theist: Is logic universal?

Atheist: As far as we know.

Theist: So, if logic is universal, immaterial, unchanging...then it follows that god X exists, because god X is also universal, immaterial and unchanging.

Atheist: The *concept* of logic is also demonstrable.  Is god X demonstrable?

Theist: Well....ummm....no. 

Atheist: So basically, you are saying that something exists as long as the *concept* or it does?

Theist: Yes.

Atheist: So you are telling me that unicorns, dragons, sugarplum fairies, Jedi Knights and wizards all exist simply because the concept of them does?

Theist: Those things are imaginary! They're not real! God X is real!

Atheist:  How do you know that?

Theist:  You can't prove anything without god X, you proved logic exists, therefore god X exists.

Atheist: So.....what you are telling me is: proving the existence of anything at all proves the existence of your favorite particular immaterial, universal and static entity because the existence of everything is predicated upon the existence of your favorite particular immaterial, universal and static entity's existence?

Theist: Yep, that's about it.

Atheist: But how do you know that?

Theist: I simply declare "I believe god X exists" as my starting point and base everything I think say do and feel as though that were true....because it is.

Atheist: But how do you know that it is?

Theist: How do you know that it isn't?

Atheist: I am not claiming that it isn't, but I have no reason to believe that it is and I would like to know why you do.

Theist: I can't tell you.

Atheist: Why not?

Theist:  Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine god X's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of his existence.  Don't you see?  If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.

Atheist: Do you have incontrovertible proof?

Theist: No.

Atheist: Then shut the hell up!