As soon as the theist makes assertions about faith and religious experience, she enters the realm of rational discourse and reasoned discussion. She may not have an entirely clear idea about what attributes her god has and/or she may have difficulty describing them, but the fact remains that her faith in her god rests upon beliefs about her god — and those beliefs are open to rational evaluation. They have become assertions which deserve to be critiqued and defended.
This is closely related to the important fact that when theists claim the existence of some sort of god, they assume (initially, at least) a burden of proof.The concept of a “burden of proof” is important in debates because whoever has a burden of proof is obligated to “prove” their claims in some fashion. If someone doesn’t have a burden of proof, then their job is much easier: all that is required is to either accept the claims or point out where they are inadequately supported.
It is thus no surprise that many debates, including those between atheists and theists, involve secondary discussions over who has the burden of proof and why. When people are unable to reach some sort of agreement on that issue, it can be very difficult for the rest of the debate to accomplish much. Therefore, it is often a good idea to try to define in advance who has the burden of proof.
The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase “burden of proof” is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof.
In order to do that, however, they obviously need to make it clear what they are “proving” in the first place — or, to phrase it in a bit more appropriates, the theists need to make it clear what sort of god they are trying to show exists. It isn’t possible for others to evaluate whether the theist has done a good job in supporting their claim that some god exists if it isn’t clear what they mean by “god.”
This is why it is so crucial for theists to explain what attributes their god does and does not have. Unless we have some idea about this god’s characteristics, we’ll never know if the theist’s arguments are getting anywhere. Unfortunately, one of the chief problems in the theist’s case has always been putting together a set of attributes that, when taken together, a coherent, sensible, and not self-contradictory.
The attributes found in philosophical theism don’t always seem to make sense and don’t always mesh well with each other in large part because they don’t all stem from the same source. Philosophical or classical theism has essentially two parents: the theological and philosophical ideas developed in ancient Athens by philosophers like Plato, and the religious ideas developed among the ancient Jews. These two strands came together and were worked upon over the course of Christian history, with Augustine and Aquinas being important figures in this process.
Because some of the characteristics are derived from the esoteric discussions in ancient Greek philosophy (like absolute perfection) while others are derived from the personal religious experiences of the ancient Jews (like God being a person), those characteristics have a tendency to conflict. Nevertheless, Christian theologians and Western philosophers have engaged in great efforts to find ways to make them compatible. Serious discussions about the existence of God and the value of a religion based upon belief in God really should take those characteristics and the attempts to harmonize them into account. Believers need to be aware of the ways in which they are weak while nonbelievers should be aware of the best arguments used as support.
