An atheist and a Christian at Disney World

Ralph: That was fun!

Sally: I don’t know — it was too much of a kids’ ride for me.

Ralph: The little purple dragon character was cute.

Sally: What are you going on about it so much for? The whole theme of the thing was "imagination," and I thought you were an atheist.

Ralph: Atheists have imagination.

Sally: Imagination proves that God exists. You couldn’t imagine God if God didn’t exist.

Ralph: That’s ridiculous. I can imagine the purple dragon flying around but purple dragons don’t exist.

Sally: All the elements of the purple dragon do exist, though. Lizards, bat wings, the color purple — those are all real things, so you can imagine them. But you can’t imagine a white thing that’s all black or an ant that’s so short that it’s taller than you because those things don’t exist.

Ralph: I can’t imagine those things because they are logically impossible.

Sally: That’s good enough for me. We can imagine God, so that proves that God is logically possible.

Ralph: It might, if you could actually imagine God, but I don’t think you can.

Sally: Sure I can! I can see Him in my mind right now.

Ralph: What does he look like?

Sally: I don’t know. What do you mean?

Ralph: I mean that if you’re imagining some old bearded guy, then you’re just imagining an old bearded guy named God. You’re not imagining a real God any more than I’m imagining a real dragon.

Sally: It’s not like that. I don’t imagine that God looks like anything, except for Jesus.

Ralph: Then what are you imagining when you imagine God?

Sally: You know — God. The creator of the universe.

Ralph: You’re imagining the creator of the universe.

Sally: I just said that.

Ralph: Fine. How does it work? How does God create universes?

Sally: I don’t know. With infinite power.

Ralph: If you don’t know, then how do you know that you’re really imagining the creator of the universe? Maybe you’re just imagining incorrectly labeling something "creator of the universe." The same goes for infinite power. I don’t think you can imagine any such thing.

Sally: I certainly can. I can imagine God doing anything.

Ralph: How? How does God do things?

Sally: By willing them, and then they happen.

Ralph: You can imagine willing things and you can imagine things happening, but I bet you can’t imagine the part that comes between those two, and that part’s the part that you need to prove that God exists.

Sally: Actually, you’re right. I can’t imagine how God works, but I don’t think that matters.

Ralph: It matters if your argument is that imagining something proves that it exists. You can’t really imagine the things that distinguish God from a material being, so you can’t prove anything with your imagination.

Sally: Well, shoot. Thinking about it that way — you may actually be right.

Ralph: Glad to hear it. I think the Mexico ride’s the next thing on our list.

Sally: Good. There shouldn’t be anything there for us to argue about.

Ralph: I can’t imagine.

If you have a conversation that you’d like me to consider publishing on this blog or in an upcoming book, please see the conversation guidelines.

Proofs of God’s Existence

• “Einstein visited the father of the renowned violinist Yehudi Menuhin, who was then a 7-year-old child, though already a concert artist. In a debate with the father, Einstein contested the existence of God. The child intervened: ‘Mr. Einstein, I will prove His existence.’ Amused, the great scientist looked at the lad and said, ‘All right, I will listen to you.’ Yehudi took out his violin and played in his unique, masterly way. When he finished, Einstein said: ‘There is a God. If not, how could this child play in such a manner?’”
• “Stalin, an admirer of Darwin, drew the following logical conclusion from his book: Man is the result of a fierce battle for survival against other species.”
• “The bones of a large man weigh approximately 160 pounds, fulfilling the structural needs of the human body. Steel bars of comparable size would weigh 20 times as much.”
• “How is it that the collection of living cells called the ‘eye’ can see as well as the most expensive camera?”
• “If the universe had existed from all eternity instead of being created, or if it had existed for billions upon billions of years, all radioactive elements would long since have become lead.”
• “Swallowing every beam of light, the black holes constitute invisible matter. Good for the vulgar atheist who says he believes only what he can see.”
• “Never has anyone been eloquent for atheism. Never could one paint, write a hymn or create a poem for it.”
• “Farmers who live in close communion with nature know it best. They are not atheists because they know it can only be understood as the creation of God.”
• “Animal abilities are without explanation except for a God who thinks for them.”
• “If there were no Supreme Judge to reward good and punish evil, it would make no sense to be moral.”

A theist and an atheist carpooling to work.

Quint: I was reading an article this morning that said that information theory provides our best evidence yet that God exists.

Raj: How does that work?

Quint: In a nutshell, it says that the only places you find information are places where it was put there by an intelligent being, like books and computer programs.

Raj: What do you mean by "information?"

Quint: Specified, encoded instructions or data that’s intended to be read or decoded. The point is that DNA is a code that describes how a living thing is built, and since information is always created by an intelligence, DNA is evidence for God.

Raj: I’ve read a couple articles myself, and I don’t think DNA meets your definition of information. It’s messy, inexact, and full of meaningless garbage.

Quint: It might look that way to us now, but as we learn more and more about DNA, we learn that every bit of it is important in one way or another. Eventually, we’ll see that the whole thing is important.

Raj: Even if that’s true, how can you say that information is always created by an intelligence? There’s all sorts of DNA in the world, and if it arose naturally, then it’s a huge example of naturally arising information.

Quint: But it couldn’t have arisen naturally, that’s the point. Every other example we have of information was created by an intelligence, so the information in DNA must have been also.

Raj: Isn’t that like saying that every example we have of nuclear fusion is caused by an intelligent being so nuclear fusion is evidence that God exists?

Quint: No, because your premise isn’t true. There’s nuclear fusion in stars and it is just part of nature.

Raj: But the point of the argument is to prove that the nuclear fusion in stars is evidence of intelligence, so you can’t use it as an example of fusion in nature.

Quint: Of course I can. It’s right there.

Raj: Then I can point to DNA as an example of information in nature. It’s "right there," too.

Quint: It’s not the same thing, though. DNA is clearly the result of intelligence, but nuclear fusion isn’t.

Raj: Then your statement that we only find information in places where it was put by an intelligent being is only true if we assume that DNA was created by God, and you can’t assume what you’re trying to prove.

Quint: You’re completely misunderstanding me. I’m saying that DNA is obviously the work of an intelligent being in the same way that a pocket watch is obviously the work of an intelligent being. If you found a pocket watch on the beach you’d assume it was made by a human, not a natural process.

Raj: That’s because I’m familiar with the process of making watches and that process always involves people. DNA isn’t like anything that humans create.

Quint: It’s like a computer program.

Raj: DNA is like a computer program in the same way that a stream is like an aqueduct. There is a similarity in function, but the way it achieves that function is incredibly different, and the natural process is messy, inexact, and full of randomness.

Quint: I already told you that DNA isn’t messy or inexact.

Raj: You asserted that we’d discover that some day. You didn’t give me any evidence for it.

Quint: But there’s nothing else in nature that even comes close to having the kind of information storage and retrieval that DNA does.

Raj: And there’s nothing else in nature that comes close to fusing hydrogen to create energy the way stars do. It’s the same argument. Besides, there are plenty of things in nature that sort of mirror things people do — like streams sorting pebbles by size, digestive systems using chemistry to split proteins, and bees building hives. We don’t say any of these are evidence of intelligence.

Quint: Maybe we should. Don’t you think it’s impossible for bees to know how to build hives unless they were given instructions by God?

Raj: I can see how evolution could lead to their building hives without anyone giving anything instructions.

Quint: But that’s impossible! Nature can’t create information. Random processes can’t lead to meaningful data.

Raj: Nature isn’t completely random; it obeys rules. Tree rings can encode hundreds of years of climate data, for example, without any intelligent direction.

Quint: That’s not meaningful in the same way that DNA is meaningful. Only an intelligent being can read tree rings.

Raj: Then what about bees that do dances to indicate to other bees where food is? That’s creating data that something in nature reads.

Quint: Those dances are programmed into their DNA, though. They’re not natural things; they’re part of the creator’s programming.

Raj: You’re assuming what you’re trying to prove again. You can only say that bee behavior is evidence of intelligent design if you assume that DNA isn’t the result of a natural process.

Quint: It’s just obvious, though! DNA is so different from anything else that there’s just no way it wasn’t designed.

Raj: All you’re saying is that you can’t imagine DNA evolving, therefore it couldn’t have evolved. That’s not reasonable, particularly since there are plenty of people who say that they can work out how DNA might have evolved.

Quint: Doesn’t the difficulty you have imagining DNA occurring randomly at least make you doubt that the so-called experts know what they’re talking about?

Raj: I can’t imagine how the electronics in a computer work, but that doesn’t mean that I doubt computer engineers and feel the need to look for a supernatural explanation.

Quint: But computers were designed by intelligent creatures.

Raj: You’re missing my point.

Quint: I think we both are.

Raj: Fair enough. So, what else have you been reading?

If you have a conversation that you’d like me to consider publishing on this blog or in an upcoming book, please see the conversation guidelines.

Proofs of God’s Existence

Proponents of the Big Bang theory (of the earth’s origin) have noted that, looking back, the length of the day diminishes by 0.002 seconds every century, which means it decreases by 1 second every 50,000 years. By counting back to a day of zero length, they claim to have discovered the age of the earth: four-and-a-half billion years.

Is it just me, or does this make no sense? How exactly can a day have zero length? Wouldn’t the planet have to be rotating with infinite speed in order to go around once every no seconds?

I’m more of a philosophy person than a physics person, so I’d appreciate input from someone with more information.

A Christian and an atheist on a date.

Olivia: Wow — the stars are really coming out in force.

Pam: Yeah, away from the city and with the new moon, there’s nothing to get in the way.

Olivia: See, there’s your problem right there.

Pam: What do you mean?

Olivia: Well, I know you’re into science and you don’t believe in God, right?

Pam: So?

Olivia: You don’t have to get defensive. I don’t mean anything bad. But when I look up into the sky, I kind of lose myself in its beauty. I can imagine becoming one with the universe, and can kind of feel my place and my connectedness to it all. But when you look at the stars, it’s all about light pollution and nuclear physics. I’d hate to lose my ability to just enjoy beauty.

Pam: What are you talking about? I think the night sky is gorgeous! Knowing how it works doesn’t take anything away from that. In fact, I feel like I have two ways to be amazed by it — I can be dazzled by its beauty, and I can wonder at the immense awesomeness of balls of fire thousands of times bigger than this planet looking like shimmering pinpricks.

Olivia: It’s just not the same. You can’t appreciate the simplicity of beauty anymore.

Pam: I can still appreciate beauty as a thing on its own, if that’s what you mean.

Olivia: But you can’t feel that you’re connected in the same way I can. I feel blessed and humbled knowing that in a sense all this was created for me.

Pam: You’re right that I don’t feel that, but I do feel a connection to the stars because I know that every atom in my body was at one time in the heart of a star just like the ones above us now.

Olivia: Seriously? I thought atheists didn’t have fairy tales.

Pam: It’s not a fairy tale; it’s science.

Olivia: Whatever. But come on, look at the stars. Really look at them. How can you think that such glory just happened by chance because a bunch of atoms bounced around at random? Could it really be a coincidence that there is so much beauty all around with only humanity here to appreciate it? For example, did you know that scientists have proven that green is the most pleasant and calming color? It can’t be a coincidence that the natural world is dominated by the color that’s most beneficial to humanity. It’s evidence upon evidence that the world was created for humanity by a loving God.

Pam: It’s just evidence that we evolved on a planet that has lots of green on it.

Olivia: Then how do you explain constellations? Every culture in the world independently noticed that there are pictures in the heavens. How could the stars possibly be arranged into pictures without a divine hand to move them about? And how could it be that we just happen to be on the one planet in the entire universe from which you can see those pictures?

Pam: I don’t know how many cultures see constellations, but I do know that not all cultures see the same pictures. They might see some of the same groupings, but that’s just because there are some bright stars that happen to be together. Not every culture sees the same people and animals, because the pictures are barely hinted at by the stars. They aren’t exactly dot-to-dot drawings, and I don’t see why the Christian God would put a bunch of pictures from Greek mythology in the sky.

Olivia: See, that’s exactly what I was saying. You have to pick everything apart and try to figure out how it works. You can’t just enjoy the beauty around you.

Pam: Sometimes beauty can be disappointing when you really get to know it. I’ll give you that.

If you have a conversation that you’d like me to consider publishing on this blog or in an upcoming book, please see the conversation guidelines.

A Christian and an atheist discussing whether evolution should be taught in public school.

Kurt: I’d say it’s important that kids get a good, well-rounded science education.

Levi: I thought you wanted to allow discussion of God in science classes?

Kurt: I do, because science itself proves that God must exist.

Levi: How’s that?

Kurt: Science admits that the universe began in a big bang. Anything that comes into being must have had a cause, and that cause must be uncaused otherwise it would need a cause of its own.

Levi: That doesn’t mean that the cause of the universe had to be God. It could be a natural process.

Kurt: No, it couldn’t. There is no possible natural process that’s sufficient to explain the universe. Only a personal god would be a sufficient cause.

Levi: You’ve completely lost me there. How do you figure that a personal God is needed? And what do you even mean by "personal god?"

Kurt: A personal god is a god that has self awareness, morality, and thought. The creator of the universe must be personal because any effect must resemble its cause. An unthinking, impersonal creator couldn’t create a universe that has thinking, moral beings in it.

Levi: What do you mean an effect must resemble its cause? How do you get that as a universal rule?

Kurt: It’s just obvious. If a cue ball hits an 8 ball, it can give motion to the 8 ball, but only because it already has motion in it. A cause can’t cause anything that’s not already part of it.

Levi: What if I hit a flint 8 ball with a steel cue ball and they make a spark that sets the table on fire? Does that mean that the cue ball had fire in it because it was the cause of a fire?

Kurt: No, but the two balls had the makings of fire within them, and when they got together they caused the fire.

Levi: Then couldn’t the various elements of the universe have the makings of humanity in them and just have gotten together naturally?

Kurt: No. There is no combination of material thing than can make life or morality.

Levi: What if a scientist built a human being from scratch out of non-living parts?

Kurt: That’s not possible, but even if it was, the creator of the monster would still be a living man so the effect wouldn’t have anything the cause didn’t have in it.

Levi: But the scientist would not in any way be transferring some of his life to the creature in the way a ball transfers momentum to another ball.

Kurt: Yes he would. The creature would be a creation of the mind, which cannot exist without life. Not that it matters, because it’s impossible for a human to build something that’s alive.

Levi: I still don’t buy the rule about effects having to resemble a cause. If a rock hits a wheel it can make the wheel turn, even though the rock didn’t have the property of rotation.

Kurt: But it did have the property of motion, and rotation is just a kind of motion.

Levi: Living things are just a series of chemical reactions, and those chemical reactions don’t have anything in them that isn’t in what caused them.

Kurt: You’re ignoring the spark of life.

Levi: That’s because I don’t think there is one. Let’s put that aside since we’re not going to agree on it. Going back to the original question, if God created the universe and an effect must resemble its cause, then either the universe is immaterial or God has the property of being material, right?

Kurt: No. God is completely immaterial, but has the power to create material things.

Levi: How can He make material things without being material if the effect must resemble the cause?

Kurt: Material things are less than immaterial things, and an effect can be less than its cause. For example, a fast-moving ball can hit something just enough to make it move slowly.

Levi: That’s really hard for me to buy. Material and immaterial things aren’t part of some continuum. They’re entirely distinct. How can you say that material is a lesser form of immaterial?

Kurt: Immaterial things are clearly superior to material things.

Levi: Even if they are superior, that doesn’t prove that they’re related in any way. A diamond is more valuable than a chicken, but diamonds aren’t higher forms of chickens.

Kurt: That’s a false analogy.

Levi: The rules you’re working with sound so arbitrary to me that I can’t tell if it was a false analogy or not. I don’t see how you could prove to me that these rules are true, and I suspect that you wouldn’t be citing them if they didn’t support a conclusion that you already prefer. This is exactly why I don’t want this kind of thinking in our schools.

If you have a conversation that you’d like me to consider publishing on this blog or in an upcoming book, please see the conversation guidelines.

An atheist and a Christian speaking across a card table on which the Christian is displaying various pamphlets.

Jacques: You’re sure going to a lot of trouble to try and get people to believe in God.

Isaac: Choosing to believe in God is the most important decision you can make in your life.

Jacques: Why? What’s the point?

Isaac: Look at it this way: You can believe in God or not. If you believe and you’re right, you get an eternity of bliss, but if you believe and are wrong, then you just die and nothing happens. It just makes sense to believe. You don’t risk anything, and if it turns out you’re right, you get a massive reward.

Jacques: Are you saying that I should consider the benefits of believing something instead of considering whether something is true or not?

Isaac: Of course it’s important to look for the truth. But in this case, since you don’t think there’s any way to prove whether or not God exists, this is a pragmatic solution.

Jacques: So that I can put this in some context, what religion are you?

Isaac: I’m evangelical, but it doesn’t make a difference for the argument.

Jacques: That’s interesting. As a Protestant, you believe that if you accept Jesus as your personal savior then after you die you’ll get to live out eternity in Heaven, right?

Isaac: Right.

Jacques: Did you know that if you’re a Mormon and die, then you not only get to live out eternity in bliss but you also get your own planet to command? It sounds to me like you get a bigger reward if you bet on Mormonism and are right than if you bet on Protestantism. Mormons still accept Jesus — you’re covered there. Are you going to be switching to Mormonism since it’s the better bet?

Isaac: But it’s not a better bet. Mormonism is a false religion, so I’d be damned if I converted.

Jacques: Then it isn’t a choice between believing and not believing, is it? I not only have to believe, I also have to choose the right religion to believe in. How do I choose?

Isaac: Christianity is the one, true religion. You just have to look at the evidence.

Jacques: If there’s evidence for me to examine, then what’s the point of me taking this bet that you described? Shouldn’t I just follow the evidence?

Isaac: The point is that you should choose belief instead of disbelief. If you don’t believe, you have no chance, but if you believe, at least there’s a chance you chose the right religion.

Jacques: A few months ago there was a man who predicted that the rapture was at hand. Did you make preparations in case he was right.

Isaac: I’m always prepared for the rapture.

Jacques: I’m sure your spiritual house is in order, but what I mean is did you settle your debts, fulfil all your obligations to other people, and things like that so that you could leave the world with all your moral responsibilities taken care of?

Isaac: No, but why should I have? Nobody knows when the end will come.

Jacques: But what if he had been right? If you’d prepared for the rapture, you would have been morally in the clear if he was right, and if he was wrong, at worst you would have paid off your debts and met your responsibilities. That’s hardly a bad thing. So why didn’t you prepare if the bet was so lopsided?

Isaac: Because the bet wasn’t lopsided. It would have been a big financial hardship to pay off my debts all at once. I don’t know if I could even do it. Add to that the fact that I knew there was essentially no chance the prediction was true, and it made no sense for me to go to the trouble.

Jacques: I feel the same way about the bet you proposed. I would have to massively change the way that I think and feel about the world to believe that God exists. I’d have to change the way that I sort fact from fiction, and if I became a Christian I’d be obligating myself to all sorts of things that would interfere with the kind of life I want to live.

Isaac: There is nothing wrong with being a Christian.

Jacques: I’m not saying there is. What I’m saying is that there is a cost in time, effort, and integrity of thought to being a Christian. Choosing to believe is not anywhere as costless as you’re implying. Maybe even worse, I’d be placing my faith and hope in something that I think is likely never to happen, and that could change my behavior for the rest of my life.

Isaac: But if you were a Christian, you wouldn’t think it was likely to never happen.

Jacques: So you’re saying that I need to believe God exists, and I need to also believe it’s likely I’ll go to Heaven when I die. I also need to believe that God doesn’t mind it when people decide to believe in Him for purely selfish reasons. That’s asking me to believe three things without evidence, and to me that’s a big deal.

Isaac: Not compare to the benefit if you are right.

Jacques: You’re wrong. What if I gave you a sealed envelope right now and told you that in it was a special lottery ticket that was guaranteed to win $100 million right after you die. It would be enough to support your family for generations after you’re gone, but if anyone looks in the envelope before you die, then the ticket will lose. After I gave you that envelope, would you agree to believe it really has a special lottery ticket in it and live your life accordingly? Remember, if you’re right your family wins $100 million, but if you’re wrong, you’ll be dead so it doesn’t make any difference to you.

Isaac: There’s no such thing as magical lottery tickets.

Jacques: Exactly. Have a nice day.

If you have a conversation that you’d like me to consider publishing on this blog or in an upcoming book, please see the conversation guidelines.

Two Christians having lunch.

Fran: My brother’s really causing me problems. He’s decided that he doesn’t think God exists, and he says there’s no way to prove that He does. I don’t know what to do.

Edward: Prove to him that God exists.

Fran: How? He’s incredibly stubborn.

Edward: Does he consider himself to have intellectual integrity?

Fran: Definitely. To an annoying extent, actually.

Edward: Good; then you can try this argument. God is perfect, right?

Fran: Sure.

Edward: Would you agree that something is flawed if it doesn’t exist?

Fran: I don’t think that something that doesn’t exist can be flawed.

Edward: What I mean is, would you agree that something that exists is better than something that doesn’t exist?

Fran: If it’s a disease, for example, it would be better if it didn’t exist.

Edward: That’s not what I mean. I mean, isn’t something beneficial less good if it doesn’t exist.

Fran: Obviously. If it doesn’t exist, it isn’t being beneficial.

Edward: So a God that doesn’t exist would be flawed because He couldn’t do anything, right?

Fran: Well — yes.

Edward: Right. So since God is perfect, He can’t be flawed. If he can’t be flawed, then he can’t not exist because that would be a flaw. Therefore a perfect God must exist. Therefore God exists.

Fran: I don’t think you can argue that way. Wouldn’t the conclusion be that either God exists or God isn’t perfect?

Edward: But we know that God is perfect.

Fran: Well, yeah, but I still don’t think you can argue that way. If you could, then you could argue that the perfect planet must exist because if it didn’t it wouldn’t be perfect.

Edward: Earth was created perfect. It was just corrupted.

Fran: If it was corruptible, then it wasn’t perfect. There must be another perfect planet. Or you could argue that unicorns are the most wonderful thing imaginable, and they wouldn’t be wonderful if they didn’t exist, so unicorns exist.

Edward: You’re twisting the whole thing. You can’t just use the argument for anything you want.

Fran: I don’t think I’m twisting it, I just think it’s got problems. We could argue that the universe is the most amazing thing ever created, and that it would be more amazing if it happened through natural processes than if an intelligent being created it, so therefore God didn’t create the universe.

Edward: No, you can’t argue that way. It only works for God because it only works for things that exist necessarily. The universe doesn’t exist necessarily. It’s something God chose to do.

Fran: If it’s only for things that exist necessarily, then you’re saying the argument only works for things that we already know exist. So if we already know God exists, what’s the point of the argument?

Edward: I guess that’s true. I just thought it was neat.

Fran: Neat isn’t going to do it for my brother.

If you have a conversation that you’d like me to consider publishing on this blog or in an upcoming book, please see the conversation guidelines.

A theist and an atheist in an airport waiting for a plane.

Alex: Excuse me — what are you reading there?

Ben: The God Delusion.

Alex: Oh. You don’t believe in God?

Ben: I’m not religious.

Alex: Really. Did you know that there’s a lot of evidence that God exists? For example —

Ben: Just a second. Do you really have an argument that proves God exists?

Alex: Yes.

Ben: Okay. Before you even tell me what it is, tell me this: is it the argument that convinced you that God exists?

Alex: No. I don’t need an argument.

Ben: Then why would you try to convince me with an argument if you don’t feel like one is necessary in the first place?

Alex: I mean that I don’t need one because to me the evidence is so clear. I already believe in God.

Ben: What evidence?

Alex: What do you mean?

Ben: I mean, what evidence is so clear that it makes you believe in God? Why give me some argument if there’s compelling evidence? Why not just give me the evidence?

Alex: The evidence is in my heart. I believe in God because I can feel Him working in me and through me, but I doubt you’d just take my word for it, so I have to show you that it’s only reasonable to believe in God for other reasons.

Ben: That’s fine, but let me ask you a question first: do you believe that your argument absolutely, positively proves that God exists?

Alex: Yes.

Ben: Okay, then if you tell me your argument and I can refute it, would you agree that would be evidence that God does not exist?

Alex: No, of course not. God exists.

Ben: Then let’s go the other way — if I can offer you an argument that proves God doesn’t exist and you can’t refute it, would you agree that God doesn’t exist?

Alex: No. Not that it matters because there is no such argument.

Ben: Then you wouldn’t change your mind if your argument was wrong, and you wouldn’t change your mind if my argument was right. What makes you think I’ll change my mind after hearing your argument?

Alex: If you don’t want to hear what I have to say you can just say so. There’s no reason to get so defensive. It looks to me like you’re afraid to hear evidence that your atheism is wrong.

Ben: I’m not afraid at all. I’m just not seeing why you would want to use an argument that you personally have no need for and that wouldn’t give you any doubts about your own beliefs if it was wrong. I also think its kind of unfair that you are asking me to put my worldview on the line here but are unwilling to do the same with your own worldview.

Alex: There’s no reason for me to question my beliefs. You need to question yours because your eternal soul is on the line.

Ben: Neither of us is without risk in a conversation like this. Both your and my intellectual integrity is on the line. But fine — I’ll listen to your argument if you’ll promise that it’s the best, most compelling argument you have and you don’t have a better one waiting in reserve.

Alex: You’re still being very defensive, which makes me think you don’t really want to hear it. I’ll agree that it’s the best argument if that will get you to listen to me.

Ben: Okay then, let’s hear it.

Alex: Well then, have you ever considered that Jesus Christ was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord?

Ben: Yes, I’ve read C. S. Lewis. His argument fails because it’s a false dilemma. Did you want to go into that in detail?

Alex: No, but that doesn’t matter. Think of it this way, anything that comes into being has to have a cause, right?

Ben: That sounds like the cosmological argument. I thought you wanted to talk about Lewis?

Alex: Just hear me out. Nothing comes from nothing, right?

Ben: Why are you changing the subject? If Lewis’ argument is the best argument for the existence of God, then why are you going on about the origin of the universe? Are you agreeing that Lewis was wrong?

Alex: No.

Ben: Then let’s finish that conversation. Don’t you want to hear my explanation of why your argument is wrong?

Alex: I don’t see the point. You’re obviously not going to listen.

Ben: But I am listening. If you want to go through Lewis’ argument I’ll wait while you do it, but I’ve read it myself and I’m familiar with it. I’m also familiar with at least two refutations of it. My knowing that the argument is wrong doesn’t mean I’m not listening, it just means I think you’re wrong. You’re the one who sounds like he won’t listen, because you changed the subject as soon as it was clear I wasn’t going to be wowed by your argument.

Alex: If you think Lewis was wrong, then why not listen to what I’m trying to say about the universe?

Ben: Because you agreed that you were going to give me your best argument first, and now that I know what you consider the best argument, I don’t feel a need to sit here while you fish through your lesser arguments for one I haven’t heard before. If you want to, though, we can talk about why the cosmological argument is just as wrong as the Lewis argument.

Alex: If you’re not interested in talking, I don’t see the point. Thank you for your time.

If you have a conversation that you’d like me to consider publishing on this blog or in an upcoming book, please see the conversation guidelines.

The conversations are generally between two characters, but they are not Socratic because I do not intend one of the characters’ opinions to be correct while the other’s is incorrect. True, often one of the characters will have an opinion I agree with, but there are conversations where I disagree with both parties, agree with both parties, or think that both people are correct about some things but wrong about others.

So what’s the point then?

I have three goals in mind. First and foremost, I would like people to use these conversations to aid in their personal philosophical and rhetorical development. When reading them, you can forget about what my point of view might be, and instead concentrate on what you think of the conversation. Do you agree? Do you disagree? Do you agree with the point but think it is being poorly explained? Would you have argued differently? By mentally putting yourself in the conversations, you can explore and build on your own philosophy.

My second goal is to record many of the lines of argument I have come across in my many decades of seeking out discussion about religion, philosophy, and politics. Although the situations, names, and particular word choices in these conversations are all products of my imagination, every single argument and method of discussion is one I have personally encountered. Every point made — no matter how brilliant, no matter how foolish — is one that a real person has actually made. I am not building straw men here — these are real arguments used by real people.

Finally, I am hoping I can convince my readers to share conversations they have had that others might find interesting or amusing. If you have one, match the formatting I’m using for my conversations and send it to me. If I think your conversation fits my mission, I’ll anonymize it, maybe edit it a bit, and post it on the site (and, perhaps, in a book some day), giving you credit.

Before I start posting these conversations, I’d like to run over a few other points that will, I think, answer some of the questions that may come to mind as you read:

• Most of the arguments in these conversations are not original with me. In most cases, I have no way of knowing who first made those arguments that are not my own, and I can’t guarantee that my personal arguments have never been used before. For that reason, I don’t even attempt to credit a source for any line of argument, and I don’t point out which arguments are my own.
• Although the arguments are real, the situations are completely fictionalized. In reality, a massive percentage of these discussions have their roots in dorm rooms, with street preachers, and online, but attempting to capture the original conversations precisely would be boring (and, frankly, add nothing but tedium).
• In many of these conversations I combine arguments that, in the real world, I encountered separately. This allows me to explore multiple angles of a topic without having to repeatedly start new conversations.
• The names of the characters in the conversations were assigned semi-randomly from a list of popular 20th century baby names. In most cases, the speakers’ genders were also assigned randomly based on the names.
• It is true that the Christian point of view will be represented more than other religious points of view. That’s simply because I’ve encountered and conversed with far more Christians than I have with Buddhists, Muslims, etc.
• Finally, I want to emphasize that I do not think that every argument in these conversations is a good or a productive argument. In fact, many of them are terrible. And even though I am personally an atheist, not every atheist point of view presented will be — in my opinion — correct. You will have to decide for yourself who is right and who is wrong.

My plan is to put out two or three conversations a week for the summer, and then see how they are being received. I would greatly appreciate your pointing others to this blog so that we can get some comments on the conversations.