Although religion is such a big target to attack due to the many positive propositions it makes, many of which are empirically verifiable, religion debates actually favour religions.
The reason is because the nature of religion debates dictates that when a religious proposition is attacked, the religious merely has to prove that the proposition is logically conceivable.
However, something being logically conceivable doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe. Unicorns are logically conceivable, but it isn't reasonable to believe in them.
Take for example the argument from evil, which is basically the question of why a supposedly good God allows (and in the case of the Bible invokes) suffering.
Theists have come up with defences such as the free will defence, or the argument that God is beyond our conception of morality, and that we have no right to question his behaviour.
But really, all this shows is that it is logically conceivable that a good god exists despite all the evil and suffering. The thing is, to many people, it doesn't appear that way.
Many neutral people would look at the world, and not infer that it was the work of a loving God, especially one who designed the universe for us.
The theist needs to not only show that it is logically conceivable, but that it's actually reasonable to believe it.
Basically, the theist has to show that it's unreasonable for the neutral to believe that the universe was the result of a loving God, and in some cases that the universe was designed for us.
The argument from evil is just one example, but I hope you guys see my point. This is basically to bait out the Christians and see what they think.
The reason is because the nature of religion debates dictates that when a religious proposition is attacked, the religious merely has to prove that the proposition is logically conceivable.
However, something being logically conceivable doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe. Unicorns are logically conceivable, but it isn't reasonable to believe in them.
Take for example the argument from evil, which is basically the question of why a supposedly good God allows (and in the case of the Bible invokes) suffering.
Theists have come up with defences such as the free will defence, or the argument that God is beyond our conception of morality, and that we have no right to question his behaviour.
But really, all this shows is that it is logically conceivable that a good god exists despite all the evil and suffering. The thing is, to many people, it doesn't appear that way.
Many neutral people would look at the world, and not infer that it was the work of a loving God, especially one who designed the universe for us.
The theist needs to not only show that it is logically conceivable, but that it's actually reasonable to believe it.
Basically, the theist has to show that it's unreasonable for the neutral to believe that the universe was the result of a loving God, and in some cases that the universe was designed for us.
The argument from evil is just one example, but I hope you guys see my point. This is basically to bait out the Christians and see what they think.