Who defines the terms of the argument wins the argument

Theism: belief in the existence of God

Monotheism: belief in the existence of only one God.

Polytheism: belief in the existence of many gods.

Atheism: belief that there is no God.

Agnosticism: belief that there may, or may not, be a God either because the evidence is inconclusive or unpersuasive, or because the process of making the determination requires too much effort to be considered worthwhile.

It is fundamental to the debate process that a conclusion may only be reached when the presumptions (assertions, premises) will lead logically to that end. Until the proponents agree on two or more premises (one premise alone is insufficient too allow an inference to be drawn), an argument cannot go forward.

When the proponent of atheism asserts that God does NOT exist (for such is the definition of atheism) he is placing on the opponent the burden of presenting sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption. There are two prongs to this burden: first, that the evidence be sufficient in quantity and, second, that it be conclusive in weight. This is the "scientific" standard used by engineers, mathematicians, biologists, chemists, and the like to "prove" a condition.

Conversely, the Theist (the believer in God) begins his reasoning by positing that God DOES exist. His assertion is also a presumption that may be overcome by the weight and volume of evidence. However, the standard of proof is vastly different and the debate will never successfully launch, let alone come to any reasonable conclusion, because the two sides are using completely different criteria. The Theist is using the "legal" standard of evidence which allows the inference of a fact based upon probabilities. The highest legal standard in a court of criminal law is that the evidence be "beyond reasonable doubt" a standard much higher than the "preponderance of the evidence" allowed in civil trials.

The debate as to whether or not God exists may not be " presumed" as an assertion by either side for that is a fundamental violation of the rules of logic. One may not assert, as truth, the very question which is to be proven by the process. Thus, when an Atheist begins by asking the Theist to overcome his presumption and then allows only the "scientific" standard of evidence, he has "begged" the question. This is akin to "rigging" a gaming device so that the players will never win (so violative of principles of justice that rigging is illegal according tothe criminal code)

Scientific methodology is quite adequate for accomplishing its intended purpose. It is useful for proving a condition where all known variables are controlled, unknown variables can be corrected for, and the process is both repeatable and observable. Historical events are neither observable nor repeatable, and they can not be controlled. Further, they cannot be tested against a control group or weighted for unknown variables. Useful as it may for its intended purpose, the scientific method is less than effective at "proving" any historical event. Scientific methodology is likewise of little help in proving the existence of something that can be neither seen nor experienced as " natural" phenomena. When the Atheist insists on using scientific methodology to prove the truth of his assertion, he is being illogical and intellectually dishonest.

The starting point of any serious debate must be with the definition of the key terms. Without agreement on the meaning, scope, and application of the terms, the dialogue is stillborn. Secondly, the parameters must be established: what is the standard of evidence and what will the conduct of the parties (procedural and administrative business). With ground rules thus laid, an issue may be hotly debated without loss of decorum or friendship. The purpose is probably not to convince each other, or persuade the other to change his point of view , but rather, to stimulate and illuminate so that the issue is fully explored.

It is wise (although difficult) to avoid emotional entanglement with one's position. Emotion, like the scientific method of analysis, is a useful tool when properly applied. Emotions are the mechanism least likely to permit the party to reach a "right" decision. The use of reason and logic, supplemented with experience (directly or vicariously) is invariably more reliable as a decision-making tool than emotion.

John A. Sterling

Virginia Beach