A fellow on discord sent me a debate between a Christian and an Atheist. The purpose of this document is to catalog the Atheist's points – no offense to the Christian, but I'm trying to remain focused here. Perhaps another time I can go back and examine the Christian argument.

A's first point is that the C's argument is essentially Thomas Aquinas' first mover argument, “with a dash of the kolomb cosmological argument thrown in”. His characterization of this argument is that “unfortunately, (this argument) disregards empiricism entirely,” and that “both David Hume's and Immanuel Kant's arguments are thrown out the window in favor of an un-falsifiable hypothesis.”

Question; Do Hume and/or Kant's arguments counter Aquinas' arguments? Is it necessary to address them? What are the classic answers to Hume and Kant's arguments? What are the 2nd order responses? (None of these are addressed by A.)

In short, Hume and Kant's arguments should have been presented by the A – merely dismissing his argument by mentioning their names in passing is probably not as convincing as it should be.

• There are hundreds of hypothesis (what makes one hypothesis better or worse?) Does the existence of many hypothesis really mean that there is no answer?
• “If physics were going to prove any god, it would have done so by now” – physics never appeals to magic but asserts “we don't know, but we're working on it” (this counters the initial claim over proving God or not)

• No empirical evidence that suggests that there is a God
  • God hides in the places where science has not yet explored
  • We cannot experience “brute facts” – we can only arrive at theories or hypothesis

• A. argues that any definition of a God can be argued self-contradictory, (essentially due to) the “irrational, ignorant, inconsistent and irreconcilable nature of the bible….”

This is the C's argument, but he flubs it – I would explain this via the wheeler-dewitt equation and associated – but it is really a side issue and I do not think it shows there is a “God” as described in the bible, only that there is something we yet do not understand.

In received transmission theology, God created all creation and he exists on one side and all creation exists on the other and never the twain shall meet. As an “incomprehensible singularity”, there is no “part” of God which can be discovered to exist, no “trace evidence” of God will exist other than that which he has created. And God is not his creation – this is the position of the received theology – which regards any form of emanation as a heresy.

Therefore, there will never be any empirical evidence of a God.

The A. may complain this is a convenient exclusion. It may be pointed out this was baked into the pie thousands of years ago long before the formation of science or philosophy as we know it in any capacity today.

There is in fact represented here a great failure of A in demanding empirical evidence. There are in fact many forms of evidence which while not directly scientific, are nonetheless extremely strong.

Direct evidence is evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without interference or presumption. Direct evidence is sometimes referred to as testimonial evidence. It is the testimony directly asserting the facts in issue. In this present context, direct evidence means the evidence of the fact in issue in a trial.

In a murder trial, the evidence of a witness who saw the accused person killing the deceased is direct evidence. Where direct evidence of an incident is not available, the law allows the court to infer from the proven facts the existence of other facts that may be logically inferred.

Circumstantial evidence is defined as evidence based on interference and not on personal knowledge or observation. Circumstantial evidence has also been defined as evidence of some collateral facts from which the existence or non-existence of some facts in question may be inferred as a probable consequence.

According to Aguada, Circumstantial evidence must alway be narrowly examined, if only because, this types of evidence, may be more easily fabricated to cast suspicion on innocent persons. In other to support a conviction based on Circumstantial evidence, the evidence must not only be cogent and compelling, but must also lead to the irresistible conclusion that is was the accused and no one else that committed the offense.

Contrary to popular belief, circumstantial evidence is in fact admissible in court and has alone/solely led to convictions on a regular basis.

Generally, Hearsay Evidence is inadmissible in court. For instance, “A” is not allowed to give evidence in court to the effect that “B” told him that he saw “X” stealing a Goat. According to Wigmore, the hearsay rule has been over enforced and abuse, the spoiled child of the family. That is has become a nuisance and obstruction to speedy and efficient trials.

There is primary and secondary evidence; the law of best evidence says that the best evidence of a document is the document itself; following this are copies (or translations) made of the document.

Real evidence is material evidence or essentially empirical evidence in this sense.

Evidence in the form of (ex.) a book, or an (expert) opinion.

A. asks Q: How can you tell the difference between an undetectable un-observable natural process and a God? C. flubs again, but the correct answer should be in the characterization of God in the question itself. A natural process was by definition created by God and therefore cannot be God. The RT conception of God does not “hide” in out lack of understanding of physical or natural forces; nor in any component or process of the physical universe. In fact the point is well-made that that can never show or explain the nature of God (ex. Deu 4:15).

A. does not have a firm grasp of science; “Energy is infinite…” this is not to say the C. has a better grasp,