This would probably be better posted in the forums but, I know there are some brilliant minds on here that could help me work though this puzzle. My in-laws are challenging my husband on his lack of belief, and I struggle to understand what they're saying, let alone where they're coming from, and therefore I cannot deconstruct what they are trying to argue. They've started discussing it on his Facebook (great idea, since most of our friends don't know about his lack of belief) and I don't really have a lot of time before all our other religious friends (we attended a bible college) jump in and make a huge mess of things.
It's from a website, http://www.christcenter.net/
This is the part my FIL posted: "And what kind of proof is required? The answer of course is physical, empirical proof. The evidence must fit the unbeliever’s own specifications in order to meet a certain criteria for belief. In other words, the unbeliever tries to set the rules of inquiry and demands that God follow them. Making himself sovereign, the secularist proceeds to dictate the boundaries of acceptable information. Instead of considering the existing evidence, he insists on having other information as a precondition for personal faith."
If there's a section on the forum that already covers this, please feel free to direct me there!