The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[Archaeopteryx]

You two are under the impression that I have to demonstrate to you that God exists in order for you to acknowledge His existence.

No one demonstrated His existence to me. I went to God in humility and brokenness of spirit and asked Him to forgive me of my sins.

So did I, when I was a Christian.

God's existence is self evident to me the same way it is self evident to me that I am a human and not a robot.

I can appreciate that it is self-evident to you, but your purpose here is to make it evident to everyone else, is it not? Personal testimony, no matter how sincere, won't make it self-evident to everyone else.

God is not apprehended via pure reason alone. If that is what you are hoping for, I must tell you, you can stop hoping.

God is apprehended by them that have been drawn by Him.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. God being God....cannot restrict Himself only to those who are really smart or who are intellectuals. He does not confine Himself to a mere argument or something that can be examined under a microscope.

God is bigger than that.

This reads to me as an admission of the fact that you believe in God by faith. Admitting that you believe by faith is not a bad thing, it's intellectually honest. But it is at odds with your overall approach here, which is to give people reasons for believing in God. If you believe that "God is bigger than that", then you should ask yourself what could possibly be gained by trying to confine him into WLC-style arguments?

 

[Freodin]

God being God....cannot restrict Himself only to those who are really smart or who are intellectuals. He does not confine Himself to a mere argument or something that can be examined under a microscope.

God is bigger than that.

No one is asking that he should "confine" himself. But why not offer it as an alternative?

Why do you argue that "God cannot restrict himself"... by placing another restriction on him.

Is God not bigger than that?

 

[quatona]

You're not paying attention. I said there is NO EVIDENCE OF ALIEN LIFE. Or, call it life on other planets if it suits you. You seem to be missing what I'm saying. I'm not saying there's no possibility of life on other planets. This whole thing started because of trying to point out that SOME atheists will say " I believe there is evidence for life on other planets due to mathmatical probability" (NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE) Since there is ZERO evidence of life on a planet other than earth one cannot say that is sufficient evidence. The fact there is life here on earth says nothing of the conditions for life on other planets.

Personally, I do not make the statement that there´s life on other planets.
Yet, I see problems with your analogy.
We have evidence that life is possible in this universe. I don´t see any reason to assume that earth is the only place with conditions that allow for life.

At this point it doesn't matter that there is no empirical evidence for God. The point is if one is going to say "life on earth is enough for me to claim "justified belief" of life on other planets" but turn around and say " there is no empirical evidence for God therefore no reason to think He exists" is somewhat of a contradiction. Mind you, I'm not talking about whether or not God actually exists but some atheists tend to claim there is no evidence for God (just as there is no evidence of life ON OTHER PLANETS) so it's silly to believe in a God but then have no problem believing life exists on other planets no matter how improbable that might be.

I have never been to Australia, and I don´t recall ever having read or heard anything about it, but I believe that there are apple trees growing in Australia. Do you think that this belief - particularly in light of the fact that I have no information regarding the issue - is unjustified?

 

[KCfromNC]

Exactly!!!!! That has been my whole point!

Your shrugging, your apathy, your lack of desire to know God is why you don't know Him!

Really? Your god is so powerless that a persons' lack of desire means it can't have the relationship with us that it desires? That's pretty weak.

 

[KCfromNC]

That tells me enough to be able to make the decision that presenting evidence for the existence of God to you at this time would not be expedient.

At least you're up front in admitting that the "evidence" you have for god is even weaker than that for a historical Jesus. That's a refreshing change.

 

[Elioenai26]

No one is asking that he should "confine" himself. But why not offer it as an alternative?

Why do you argue that "God cannot restrict himself"... by placing another restriction on him.

Is God not bigger than that?

God does not deal with "alternatives". He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. The means by which He has made His existence known to man is sufficient as to make alternatives unnecessary.

If you want to think i place a restriction on God by saying He does not restrict Himself to an argument or a test tube then that is fine.

I will be the first to admit that there are many things God cannot do.

 

[Elioenai26]

At least you're up front in admitting that the "evidence" you have for god is even weaker than that for a historical Jesus. That's a refreshing change.

I admitted that?

That is news to me!

 

[Elioenai26]

Really? Your god is so powerless that a persons' lack of desire means it can't have the relationship with us that it desires? That's pretty weak.

Uhh...

Maybe your idea of a relationship is different than mine.

I always thought a relatinship required two people....

Am I wrong?

 

[Elioenai26]

I can appreciate that it is self-evident to you, but your purpose here is to make it evident to everyone else, is it not? Personal testimony, no matter how sincere, won't make it self-evident to everyone else.

No. My purpose here is not to make anything "self-evident" to you.

My purpose here is not even to make anything evident to you.

My purpose here is to serve, to help, to learn, to love, to teach, and to help unbelievers understand the misconceptions they have about Christianity are just that....misconceptions..

This reads to me as an admission of the fact that you believe in God by faith. Admitting that you believe by faith is not a bad thing, it's intellectually honest. But it is at odds with your overall approach here, which is to give people reasons for believing in God. If you believe that "God is bigger than that", then you should ask yourself what could possibly be gained by trying to confine him into WLC-style arguments?

My testimony was not an argument. It was my testimony.

My faith in God is a reasonable faith. I am a reasonable man. My faith is not a blind faith but rather a simple trusting in God.

Nor is my faith at odds with my approach. Just because I trust God does not mean I cannot present you with an argument for His existence. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. God has used arguments, findings from science and a whole bunch of other rational means to help people believe that faith in Him is reasonable rational and justifiable.



No scientist, philosopher or intellectual who is a follower of Christ would say that their faith and reason are mutually exclusive either. They compliment each other like a man compliments his wife and a wife her husband.

Misconceptions like these need to be corrected. That is one reason why I am here.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No. My purpose here is not to make anything "self-evident" to you.

My purpose here is not even to make anything evident to you.

My purpose here is to serve, to help, to learn, to love, to teach, and to help unbelievers understand the misconceptions they have about Christianity are just that....misconceptions..

By propagating misconceptions about atheists?

My testimony was not an argument. It was my testimony.

You were asked about how you came by the knowledge you claim to possess. You responded with a personal testimony.

My faith in God is a reasonable faith. I am a reasonable man. My faith is not a blind faith but rather a simple trusting in God.

Nor is my faith at odds with my approach. Just because I trust God does not mean I cannot present you with an argument for His existence. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. God has used arguments, findings from science and a whole bunch of other rational means to help people believe that faith in Him is reasonable rational and justifiable.

That's the thing though: if it's reasonable and justifiable, then you no longer need to believe it by faith because you have a good reason to believe it. The notion of "reasonable faith" is a strange one because believing by faith becomes unnecessary if one has a justifiable reason for believing. Saying that your faith is "reasonable faith" suggests to me that your faith is shaky and that you are looking for some justifiable reason to bolster it.

 

[Freodin]

God does not deal with "alternatives". He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. The means by which He has made His existence known to man is sufficient as to make alternatives unnecessary.

If you want to think i place a restriction on God by saying He does not restrict Himself to an argument or a test tube then that is fine.

I will be the first to admit that there are many things God cannot do.

It is quite strange that the things that God cannot do are always the things that his followers cannot do. Just as he loves and hates the same things his followers do.

You could almost come to the conclusion that this God is just an extension of their own thoughts.

And when these thoughts get trounced... hey presto... God changes his mind!

What you said first:
"God being God....cannot restrict Himself only to those who are really smart or who are intellectuals."
So here we have a God who is so nice that he offers a non-intellectual way to him, so that even the dummies can get it.

And now...
"God does not deal with 'alternatives'"
...we have a God who is incapable of offering an intellectual way to him, so that even the sceptics can get it.

Isn't God greater than that?

No, your God isn't. He is just as limited as you are.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is quite strange that the things that God cannot do are always the things that his followers cannot do. Just as he loves and hates the same things his followers do.

You could almost come to the conclusion that this God is just an extension of their own thoughts.

And when these thoughts get trounced... hey presto... God changes his mind!

What you said first:
"God being God....cannot restrict Himself only to those who are really smart or who are intellectuals."
So here we have a God who is so nice that he offers a non-intellectual way to him, so that even the dummies can get it.

And now...
"God does not deal with 'alternatives'"
...we have a God who is incapable of offering an intellectual way to him, so that even the sceptics can get it.

Isn't God greater than that?

No, your God isn't. He is just as limited as you are.

It's a strange way to look at things. Why is the non-intellectual route preferred by God? Surely he could have devised a means of knowing him that was satisfactory for everyone? That would mean everyone had an equal chance of knowing him.

And what's with the presumption that some people just aren't smart enough so they need faith instead? Isn't that basically an underhanded insult?

 

[Elioenai26]

It is quite strange that the things that God cannot do are always the things that his followers cannot do. Just as he loves and hates the same things his followers do.

You could almost come to the conclusion that this God is just an extension of their own thoughts.

And when these thoughts get trounced... hey presto... God changes his mind!

What you said first:
"God being God....cannot restrict Himself only to those who are really smart or who are intellectuals."
So here we have a God who is so nice that he offers a non-intellectual way to him, so that even the dummies can get it.

And now...
"God does not deal with 'alternatives'"
...we have a God who is incapable of offering an intellectual way to him, so that even the sceptics can get it.

Isn't God greater than that?

No, your God isn't. He is just as limited as you are.

Have you ever read the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthian Christians?

I am a skeptic by the way. So be assured, God loves them too!!!

 

[Elioenai26]

It's a strange way to look at things. Why is the non-intellectual route preferred by God? Surely he could have devised a means of knowing him that was satisfactory for everyone? That would mean everyone had an equal chance of knowing him.

And what's with the presumption that some people just aren't smart enough so they need faith instead? Isn't that basically an underhanded insult?

Have you ever read the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

God has used arguments, findings from science and a whole bunch of other rational means to help people believe that faith in Him is reasonable rational and justifiable..

No he hasn't. People who purport to speak on his behalf have attempted to do that for centuries, and have failed miserably.

 

[Elioenai26]

No he hasn't. People who purport to speak on his behalf have attempted to do that for centuries, and have failed miserably.

Thank you for your contribution to this religious discussion. Your comments and opinions are always welcome here.

 

[Freodin]

Thank you for your contribution to this religious discussion. Your comments and opinions are always welcome here.

This now definitly counts as an argument, finding from science and a whole bunch of rational means, and it certainly helps people believe that faith in God is totally reasonable, rational and justified.

Because nothing presents an argument as well as "Thanks for your contribution... it will be filed in our premium dustbin."

Oh, and BTW... Paul failed to present a rational argument as well... but he was just as good as you in finding excuses for why he could not.

 

[Elioenai26]

This now definitly counts as an argument, finding from science and a whole bunch of rational means, and it certainly helps people believe that faith in God is totally reasonable, rational and justified.

Because nothing presents an argument as well as "Thanks for your contribution... it will be filed in our premium dustbin."

Oh, and BTW... Paul failed to present a rational argument as well... but he was just as good as you in finding excuses for why he could not.

Have you ever read his epistle to the Corinthians?

 

[Freodin]

Have you ever read his epistle to the Corinthians?

Yes, I have. And it does nothing but present the same excuses.

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, I have. And it does nothing but present the same excuses.

Are you familiar with the first chapter?