20 arguments for the existence of God

[hamashiachagape]

Atheism has become a position of mysticism, also self refuting and ad hoc. We'll show why. Zecharias continues. "They just want to be able to stigmatize others without attaching a name (a.k.a. identity) to themselves. They shun categorization of anything to which hold (though they comfortably categorize others, including God). The reason is this; it does not hold. They look for a universal solvent to dissolve the notion of God. With predictable result, they end up only dissolving their own worldview." So Zecharias hits the nail on the head here. Atheists dissolve their own worldview from a logical perspective, and hence it can not be thought of as logical. In the world of Philosophy, we term the position being described by Zecharias as being "ad hoc."

Continuing, "I find it interesting that this group of people who don't want to be categorized held a September 2007 conference at which Sam Harris was one of the speakers- and the conference theme was 'Crystal Clear Atheism.' If Harris and others do not believe that Atheism should be a Philosophical category, the choice of the theme is puzzling."

Thereby finishing off Atheism by showing it to be an untenable position.

 

[hamashiachagape]

A quick glance on a tentative description of Kant's philosophy on Wikipedia reveals that he believes the mind's categories are applicable to reality in that they organize it, but not that they are the same as the reality we perceive outside our mind and organize by that mind's schema.

Thats self refuting. They are the same, but they're not. Someone here is reading into Kant's Philosophy something that is simply not there too.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Now I want to slam a homerun out of this discussion because the Atheist "lack of position" then wanting to evaluate other positions, is illogical. It seems to have applied to those in the past who are illogical. Existentialists don't like to be classifed, neither do postmodernists, and now it appears the same for Atheists.

As the three main proponents of the modern ideology behind Atheism are concerned that adhere to a "Lack" of position (an absurdity from a logical standpoint BTW), Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens all fall flat on their faces. Dr. Ravi Zecharias demonstrates why in his book "The End of Reason." He states on pgs 49-50 "Sam Harris does not believe that Atheism should be a philosophical category. He notes that one does not describe himself or herself as a 'non-alchemist' or 'non-astrologer'. But if in a discussion about your future, someone looks at your hand and asks for yoru date of birth so that he can study the planetary alignment that day, it might be to your advantage to know whether he is in fact an astrologer or a pizza maker who reads palms as an avocation. If you are facing serious health issues and a stranger gives you a potion to drink, iot would be of interest to know whether this is an alchemist or a pharmacist or a witch doctor you are dealing with. When you are debating every definition of life ranging from origin to destiny, it makes sense to know whether you hold to an atheistic worldview or to something else." (Pg 49).

Here we see Ravi Zecharias SUCCESSFULLY demonstrate the absurdity, putting the "Nonposition" in the same reductio ad absurdum's as Existentialism and postmodernism.

We'll continue with a further post to totally show how the position is untenable.

People have already clarified that description of things can be contingent on lack of beliefs in other things. Existentialism doesn't claim to be a non position to my knowledge (I'd appreciate you to clarify how it claims that exactly) and atheism is a descriptor by basic negation in the same way a nondualist clarifies they aren't a dualist. Would you prefer all atheists call themselves nontheists for linguistic accuracy?

 

[hamashiachagape]

People have already clarified that description of things can be contingent on lack of beliefs in other things. Existentialism doesn't claim to be a non position to my knowledge (I'd appreciate you to clarify how it claims that exactly) and atheism is a descriptor by basic negation in the same way a nondualist clarifies they aren't a dualist. Would you prefer all atheists call themselves nontheists for linguistic accuracy?

Any kind of nonposition proposition is silly, is in fact EPISTEMIC and demonstraties an inability to hold a consistent logical structure. Existentialism is a sea of relativism by its definition when taken consistently, and hence does have many instances in which people conclude that it is a non position because it does not hold. With Existentialism being a "nonposition" they don't have any room to further their position. Its ad hoc to continue from here.

 

[hamashiachagape]

What most Atheists don't know because they don't do enough research is that Atheism is a Greek word. It would be properly translated as "There is no God."

 

[hamashiachagape]

Atheism will still be there when ALL religions are long gone, why? because it shows allegiance to none of them.

Prove there is no God.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Atheism is a religion....so don't hold allegiance to yourself.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Phlipper are you conceding that Atheism has a belief?

 

[hamashiachagape]

Atheism is the beginning and Atheism is the end, religions come and go but Atheism stays the same.

Sounds like Atheism is a religion after all.

When you trace back Atheism, its beginning to can be found in the Greek culture, with Pythagoras's foundational understanding being totally derailed by Socrates.

It has become popular again since the 1800s. Its a belief that seems to fade away over time, and then come back. Not consistent with your understanding it would seem.

 

[KIYX]

We can refute unicorns, but you can't refute God .

There's the same amount of evidence for both. There is absolutely zero evidence to believe in either.

 

[KIYX]

Am I? Can you refute the being who made you?

You've now made a positive claim.

Prove it.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Why does only 9% of the population adhere to the position of Atheism?

 

[hamashiachagape]

There's the same amount of evidence for both. There is absolutely zero evidence to believe in either.

You are evaluating them the wrong way. One is a posteriori, the other is A Priori.

 

[hamashiachagape]

You've now made a positive claim.

Prove it.

No thanks, I've just refuted Atheism. No need to. Theism is the Philosophically default position.

 

[Delphiki]

Atheism will still be there when ALL religions are long gone

That's quite a redundant statement, don't you think?

 

[hamashiachagape]

I'm anticipating a lot of kicking and screaming after this proof.

 

[hamashiachagape]

You have just refuted Atheism because you told yourself that you had, that's the way to do it, everytime a winner, religion wins because you say it does and that's all that matters to you, once a nut always a nut.

Thanks for ad hominem attack.

Maybe you should try being intellectually honest and seek out the existing God I am speaking of instead of attacking those who believe in him.

 

[Delphiki]

No thanks, I've just refuted Atheism. No need to. Theism is the Philosophically default position.

So the moment we have a conscious, we believe there is a God, and even have full knowledge of the Christian bible? Would you like me to lower the straws so they are within reach?

 

[KIYX]

Prove there is no God.

Your the one making the claim that there is a god so you get to prove it.

Most children know you can't prove a negative. Unless you are able to prove that Odin doesn't exist..

The Supreme Court has already ruled that Atheism is a religion....so don't hold allegiance to yourself.

Then the supreme court is just as ignorant as others who claim atheism is a religion.

 

[hamashiachagape]

You will get none from me because your religion makes you happy and who am I to deny you happiness?

Maybe its not just about being happy, but about the truth of the matter. Thats where Christian Apologists have been centering their trust in for many years.

I can recommend a good starter book for you if you'd like. Josh McDowell's book "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" is a good one for starting out.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Your the one making the claim that there is a god so you get to prove it.

Most children know you can't prove a negative. Unless you are able to prove that Odin doesn't exist..



Then the supreme court is just as ignorant as others who claim atheism is a religion.

So attack the supreme court. Sorry you can't hold up your own position, and that it collapses itself. I understand how hard it is to give up a belief system.