I stated that there is a God who created the universe out of nothing. One line of discussion centres on whether I can prove this statement. Atheism has a more difficult challenge – it is impossible to conclusively disprove my statement. The only way that you can do so is if you knew everything about the whole universe; from before its creation, to after its end and could show that there was no external divine intervention – if you could do this, you would be God.
It’s a pointless line of enquiry, which is why it would be far simpler to discuss the inappropriateness of referring to ‘before’ the origin of the universe in my previous sentence. It takes the pressure off having to acknowledge that agnosticism is a more intellectually honest perspective than a sect of atheism like naturalistic materialism.
It amuses me that unfalsifiable claims are overlooked if they confirm the bias of the person making them – and yet are seen as unpardonable sins if they support an alternative viewpoint. To declare that there are an infinite number of universes, and we just happen to inhabit the one where the dice all rolled the right way is as intellectually sound as to declare ‘god did it’ without inviting any further investigation.
Then again, this is why I’m not happy with the idea of a ‘god of the gaps’ – a god who is only active in ways that cannot be experienced or observed does not sound very much like a God worthy of our worship. To me the concept of a Creator was initially axiomatic – to me, a more important question was, “What type of Creator?” However, I will deal with this later.