“No theist can prove the existence of God,” asserts the atheist. But the atheist’s own philosophy doesn’t fare any better: no atheist can prove that God does not exist. When an atheist points out logical inconsistencies, fallacies, faulty arguments, etc., in the theistic approach (and may or may not be correct in so doing), he has still not moved the ball down field one bit toward the goal of proving the non-existence of God. The trouble is, the same criteria demanded of the theist by the atheist must also be demanded by the atheist himself. If it is indeed true that some theistic arguments are unconvincing, one may say only that they are not convinced, not that the point of the arguments have been settled by their lack of success. A person can have a correct position on a subject without being able to correctly argue that position. The truth of the matter stands whether or not it is argued well.
So, for example, the arguments of theodicy against theism are irrelevant (that is, if God exists, why is there evil? Evil exists, therefore there is no God; to put it too briefly). Arguing against an unpleasant deity are not arguments against that deity’s existence. That is to say, one may be angry with God, but in matters of existence it is irrelevant.
The atheist will never allow an argument to prevail, nor evidence to convince. He must, as a precondition to his atheism, deny God’s existence:
Romans 1:18–23 (ESV)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
The theist and the atheist both must start with God: the theist presupposes God as the only possible explanation of anything, and the atheist in a presupposed denial. The Christian theist sees this; the atheist is blind to it. It should be remembered, however, that both the theist and the atheist know there is a God.
The same arguments can be used for the existence of Huitzilopochtli, Lord Xenu, or Joseph Smith’s fantasy. If you use the term “god”, please don’t be fuzzy…I realize that you capitalize it and that we are not discussing the Deist god but rather the Trinitarian-incarnational-atoning-resurrecting-ascending-soon-to-be-returning-God who sacrificed Himself to Himself through a wacky process that involved the livestock insemination of a “virgin” with Himself. The descriptors are very important, otherwise you are being dishonest. How the hell do you distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary?
My goodness, aren’t you clever? Now that you’ve spit out all that bile, do you feel better? I find it amusing how twisted in knots you get, just because some people believe in God.
“How the hell do you distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary?”
You, as an atheist, can’t. In an irrational (atheist) worldview, you have no way of knowing anything. You have to start somewhere, but atheism has no place.
Only in surrender to the triune God of Scripture can you truly know anything. The Christian theist does not assume a knowable universe, it assumes a God who makes the universe knowable. When God is removed, knowability is too.
Irrational atheist worldveiw? Seriously?
Jesucristo, no seas tonto!
Rationalize this:
Rationalize this:
Rationalize this:
You’ve demonstrated the point I made. Your argument is something like this: “Your bible says your god does things that are odd, unpleasant, and wrong.”
That has nothing to do with the existence of God. It simply means you find the God of the Bible somehow unpalatable, and conclude from that aesthetic that He doesn’t exist.
You refuse to believe in a god who is brutal, judgemental, and just plain weird; who would dare command his followers to exterminate humans?
Problem is, God’s judgement is harsh and severe. It is white-hot and unrelenting. God’s hatred of sin is total, and will be satisfied and atoned for by nothing or no-one, save One.
This may seem certainly weird to those who don’t acknowledge Him. While we would tolerate no such behaviour from a fellow-human, God is not a fellow-human.
Your understand of God is that He has no right to take a life, much less the lives of entire nations, from the eldest to the youngest. I don’t believe in that God either.
The God of the Bible is the Creator, Lawgiver, and Judge. We are, by virtue of creation, obligated to know Him and to serve Him. When we break the Law, we usurp His rightful authority and make ourselves gods. We deny His rightful judgement, yet each day we live we are drawn closer to it.
The Bible describe the unbeliever as an enemy of God, a hater of God, as a person who is dead in sin. The only future an unbeliever has is a fearful prospect of judgement.
We are all, by virtue of creation, covenant keepers or covenant breakers. As covenant breakers, we deserve everything that is coming to us. The only salvation we have is the sacrifice of Christ that propitiates (satisfies) God’s demand of death for sin.
God is holy and just, and that spells doom for us, except for the man Jesus Christ, who satisfies God’s righteous judgement on our behalf, while at the same time demonstrating God’s love for His elect.
It is not your task to prove God and then obey Him. Any god you can prove isn’t worth following. The task of the creature (you and me) is to call upon Him for salvation.
If you are called, you will seek Him. If not, you won’t. It’s that simple, and possibly, that horrible.
“Unpalatable” is not how I would characterize murdering children, or the rest.
Are you pro-choice?
What is murder for a created being is not murder for the uncreated, eternal God. All creation, aware of it or not, is subject to and answerable to Him. No one, including a child, can stand before Him and say she was treated unjustly by Him.
But this must be where we start–if we start as humanists, we will judge God as human and this is an error.
You ask my position on abortion because you believe you know who I am. You know not of me.
You profess that murder is not wrong because you approved?
Sick. Just like those who created your god.
You ask my position on abortion because you believe you know who I am. You know not of me.
You profess that murder is not wrong because you approved?
Sick. Just like those who created your god.
Unless the Lord opens your eyes, you must perish in blindness. I am sorry, I really am. Everything you speak is against what your heart knows to be true.
Apology accepted. You’re beyond foolish if you believe you know what’s in my heart.
As an atheist, I admit to not being able to disprove god. To say that atheists must somehow disprove god is an unintelligible request. Can you disprove the existence of fairies, or unicorns? The best that you can do is to point to the -lack- of evidence in favor of their existence.
As Richard Dawkins put it, even Christians are atheists with regard to Zeus, Apollo, Thor, etc. We atheists simply take it one God further.
This is the goal. To observe the evidence presented, and come to the most reasonable conclusion possible.
-AB
Atheists make an assertion: there is no God. The demand from a theist to an atheist to disprove God’s existence is no more unintelligible than the atheists’ demand for the theists to prove His existence.
The Christian theist does not need to disprove the existence of mythological creatures, because they the categories of real and mythical can occur in Christian theism, and one can be certain of the non-reality of the mythological. Atheism has no means of certain knowledge.
What counts as evidence? How does one know that the evidence is not merely a contingent reliability, simply false in other circumstances?