A Friendly Dialogue: Does God Exist?

Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 09.01.2006 /

Another example of a Christian and atheist in friendly dialog:

One is a former spokesman for China’s Cabinet, the other, an American evangelist known for his elaborate, two-day Christian festivals. The question they are both asking: Does God exist?

While atheist Zhao Qizheng wants proof, preacher Luis Palau’s answer is a resounding “Yes!”

The two men have met privately on three occasions over the past 18 months to debate religion and exchange ideas. The result is a book in English and Chinese versions to be launched Wednesday in Beijing titled “Riverside Talks: A Friendly Dialogue Between an Atheist and a Christian.”

Read the rest of this article here: A Friendly Dialogue: Does God Exist?

I found out about this story from the following entry on the Keep Believing Ministries blog: The Evangelist and the Atheist

4 Responses to "A Friendly Dialogue: Does God Exist?"

  • Comment by: David S

    1 09/1/06 10:50 PM | Comment Link |

    Does a god exist? Does the invisible pink unicorn exist? Does the flying spaghetti monster exist? Does an undetectable dragon in my garage exist? Why are all these questions unanswerable? Does the question of the existence of a god have to be unanswerable? If a god existed couldn’t he be clearly apparent? If a god didn’t exist wouldn’t he not be clearly apparent? What then might it mean that we live in a world where no god is clearly apparent?

  • Comment by: Ir

    2 09/2/06 4:02 AM | Comment Link |

    This is what the atheist said, from the article:

    For Zhao, the conversations showed “both of us have questions we can’t answer at this time.”

    “I asked Palau to conduct a lab experiment to show that God exists. But he told me to have a lab test to show that God doesn’t exist,” he said. “Neither of us could do it.”

    On the whole it’s not so much that questions are unanswerable, as, we aren’t going to agree on the answers.

    I think friendly dialogue is worthwhile because it enables us to find out what we do agree on, which helps us see how we might work together to make the world a better place.

    If the parties reach agreement along the way, then, fine. But often they don’t and so I think it’s unrealistic to make ‘coming to the same answer’ a goal we have to achieve before trying to do anything else together.

  • Comment by: Jim Henderson

    3 09/2/06 5:10 PM | Comment Link |

    I think it’s unrealistic to make ‘coming to the same answer’ a goal we have to achieve before trying to do anything else together.

    I agree Helen (it would be nice to hear what Hemant or Matt have to say about this as well)

    There are many other goals we could establish like

    Can I learn to call you by a name you prefer instead of something that denigrates you

    Can I learn to say back to you what you have just said to me

    Can I tell you which sections I do agree with

    Can I offer you arguments you might not have yet thought of that would make it even harder for me to defend my rationale

  • Comment by: Mike O

    4 09/5/06 12:40 PM | Comment Link |

    David S said: What then might it mean that we live in a world where no god is clearly apparent?

    It doesn’t take a great leap of logic to say that just because you haven’t seen something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. EXAMPLE: Does the fact that we’ve never seen life on other planets, or any evidence that there could be life on other planets, mean there is no life on other planets? Of course not. Don’t get me wrong … I don’t think there is life on other planets, but the fact that we have never seen it doesn’t mean anything.

    In your opinion, what would it look like if God did exist? How would it be different?