The flip side of point number one is that an atheist can use a similar argument against a Christian who knows there is a God.

For me, I know from my own experience and knowing Jesus Christ that He is real, but for a non-believer that is not a good answer because they don’t get it.

This is an area that I am not prepared to argue with most people on because I am not knowledgeable enough, in the areas that they use to argue against the existence of God, to argue on their terms.

But what I do know is that Atheism, evolutionism (macro-evolutionists), big-bang theory and any creed that by its nature denies the existence of a Creator, is a religion in of itself and most atheistic arguments shoot themselves in the foot when their own standard and logic is applied to them.  Tommy

I agree with you on the fact that the same argument of point #1 can be presented to a Theist… but I am not merely a Theist, I am a Christian.
I think the only possible way for a person to know for sure that there is a God, is for that God to condescend and reveal Himself to a person. Any other claimed knowledge of God is a self defeating argument.
So, I also agree with you on the rest of your comment (above)… that to truly know God exists is to know Jesus Christ. Otherwise you are merely a Theist who is claiming to possess the infinite knowledge necessary to ascertain that there is a God.

John  jhardin

I would like to add this. God has revealed Himself to everyone to some extent through creation.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

So for a person to ascertain from evidences in creation that God exists wouldn’t necessarily be an attempt to claim godhood, but would merely be an acceptance of God’s revelation of His existence to us through His creation.

Of course, to know God exists… and to actually know God personally are two different things, and for this purpose is why Jesus gave His life for us, and rose again. If anyone reading this would like to know how you can “know” God personally you can click here.
John  jhardin

Hi John,

Like many believers, you completely mischaracterize the beliefs of the atheist in order to create a straw man that’s easily knocked down. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any gods. Do you believe in unicorns? No? Then you’re an aunicornist. Atheists don’t believe in your god for the same reason you don’t believe in unicorns: there’s simply insufficient evidence. So, the atheist doesn’t say “There is no god”, but rather, “There is insufficient evidence to claim that god(s) exists.”

But allow me to paraphrase your own argument to show the illogic of your own belief:

“For a person to state that there is [a] God, must first arrive at the conclusion that they have sufficient knowledge which would allow them to arrive to the conclusion that there is [a] God. Of course, the amount of knowledge required to make such an arrogant statement would be infinite. A [t]heist basically must convince themselves that they have infinite knowledge concerning the universe, and by stating that he is a [t]heist has essentially stated that they possess that infinite knowledge.”

Finally, do you believe we can have a “personal relationship” with God/Jesus?  Robert

Robert,

First of all, my argument is not a straw man at all, and you proved it by your weak rebuttal. You said..

“the atheist doesn’t say “There is no god”, but rather, “There is insufficient evidence to claim that god(s) exists.””

And by your defense that an atheist believes there is not enough evidence to claim that God (or gods) exist… the atheist has essentially asserted that they have ALL KNOWLEDGE necessary to make that assertion…. which you do not, because the amount of knowledge necessary to make that assertion would be infinite.

You also paraphrased my argument by replacing the word “Atheist” with the word “Theist”…

“A [t]heist basically must convince themselves that they have infinite knowledge concerning the universe, and by stating that he is a [t]heist has essentially stated that they possess that infinite knowledge.””

You are exactly right. But I am not claiming to be a mere Theist. A Theist would be one who claims to have deduced that God exists based on information he has collected… and to make that deduction one would have to possess infinite knowledge.

The only way a person can positively deduce that God exists is for God to condescend to, and reveal Himself to a person, which is exactly what He has done…

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Through the things that God made, He has proven His existence, so that those who chose not to believe will be without excuse. And furthermore, God calls those who reject that evidence, fools who have arrogantly professed themselves to be wise…

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

John  jhardin

Hi John, glad for your response. You said,

And by your defense that an atheist believes there is not enough evidence to claim that God (or gods) exist… the atheist has essentially asserted that they have ALL KNOWLEDGE necessary to make that assertion…. which you do not, because the amount of knowledge necessary to make that assertion would be infinite.

You ignored my question whether you believe in unicorns. And it’s no wonder. If you say no, you’ll be caught in your own argument; how can you say you don’t believe in unicorns? Wouldn’t that require “ALL KNOWLEDGE”? But if you say yes, then we can rightly ask, what’s your evidence?

It doesn’t require “all knowledge” to say “there’s insufficient evidence to believe your claim”. If I say I can read your mind, do you automatically believe it? According to your argument, you should.

With all due to respect to the writer of Romans, his claim that his god is evident in creation is simply an exercise in question begging. He’s assumed the existence of his deity first, then interprets any evidence in conformity with that assumption. We could replace “God” with “Allah”, “Zeus” or even the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” and the argument would still be the same.

I noticed that you didn’t answer my question whether we you believe we can have a “personal relationship” with God/Jesus. Poking around your site a bit, I noticed this is indeed something you believe. I would be interested in your thoughts on this Christian apologist’s view that “The bottom line for us here is that the ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ model is an anachronistic product of our own times, a remaking of God and Jesus in our own image.”  Robert

Robert,

You said… “With all due to respect to the writer of Romans, his claim that his god is evident in creation is simply an exercise in question begging. He’s assumed the existence of his deity first, then interprets any evidence in conformity with that assumption.”
|
Actually, you are right to a certain degree. But, as an Atheist you have done the same thing. You have first assumed that God doesn’t exist, then you have justified your position with sufficient proof to satisfy yourself.
|
So, if I set out to rationally prove whether unicorns exist without infinite knowledge of the universe, I would never succeed. But, if I set out to prove whether unicorns exist by first believing that they exist… when the sufficient evidence is found their existence would be apparent.
|
The flip side of this, if I first believed that unicorn did NOT exist… then rationally set out to prove that, I wouldn’t put forth the effort to prove their (non-existence).
|
This is essentially what Atheists have done… and this is what the writer of Romans (the Apostle Paul) is saying. The evidence is there, but it must be approached with faith. To approach the evidence without faith, the Atheist has prohibited themselves from recognizing the evidence as God has presented it through creation.
|
In summary…
1. A man seeks the truth through the unaided effort of reason and is disappointed.
2. It is offered to him by faith and he accepts.
3. And, having accepted, he finds it satisfies his reason.
|
The Apostle Paul alludes to the previous 3 points in 1 Corinthians 1:20-25

John  jhardin

Robert,

You also said… “I noticed that you didn’t answer my question whether we you believe we can have a “personal relationship” with God/Jesus. Poking around your site a bit, I noticed this is indeed something you believe. I would be interested in your thoughts on this Christian apologist’s view that “The bottom line for us here is that the ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ model is an anachronistic product of our own times, a remaking of God and Jesus in our own image.””
|
Yes, I do believe we can have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. What does this have to do with our debate?  jhardin

Hi John, as always, thank you for your reply. You said,

But, as an Atheist you have done the same thing. You have first assumed that God doesn’t exist, then you have justified your position with sufficient proof to satisfy yourself.

Not really. No such assumption is actually made. How can it? Anything can exist, but the person making the positive assertion about the existence of something must provide some evidence in support. Atheists believe that, with respect to god(s), no such evidence has been provided.
|
I can excuse the author of Romans for believing something supernatural lies behind the universe, writing in a stone-age era when science was barely a blip. But as it has progressed, the more we find natural causes and processes behind much was formerly believed to be the province of a deity.
|
And notice I said deity. The author or Romans, as well as yourself, provides not one shred of evidence that “creation” is the product of YOUR god. It could just as well be the product of Allah, or Zeus, or a super-intelligent race–something else entirely, or simply the result of natural causes we don’t fully understand yet.
|
You mention faith as the way in which your god is discovered, but faith is the way in which the practitioner of almost every religion “finds” their god. It seems to be a highly personal–and highly subjective–means for ascertaining the actual existence of something.
|
Let me conclude by saying that people are fully satisfied with seeking truth via reason. More and more of them, in fact. It’s finding truth through faith that appears to be falling out of favor.  Robert

Yes, I do believe we can have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. What does this have to do with our debate?

I know this is a common belief among Christians, so I was surprised to find a Christian who ridiculed the idea. Since you appear dedicated to exposing “false teachers”, I thought you might be interested in being aware of another one, and hearing your comments as to why his reasoning is false (you can always go directly to that site and post on their forums).  Robert

Robert,

Thank you for your reply. Your position seems to hinge on the assumption that we humans actually have the ability to explore a truth on the efforts of reason alone. And my position is that is impossible.
|
No matter how hard a person tries to reason with perfect objectivity, they will inevitably be guided by faith… and that faith is either given by God, or is built upon past experiences.
|
I would like to ask you a question now. Does the computer screen you are looking at exist? Is our conversation real? If you say yes, you have made an assessment based not on perfect objective reason, but you have made that assessment by faith. You are no more qualified to state that this conversation is real than the rock in your driveway, because you don’t have infinite knowledge of the universe.
|
The same defense can be used against Atheism. You are not qualified to state that God doesn’t exist. The ONLY way you can possibly state that God doesn’t exist is that you have accepted that notion by faith… then you subjectively explore the evidence to justify your faith.
|
The REAL debate between Atheism and Theism is in the proof… and no Atheist has yet been able provide sufficient proof to disprove Christian Theism.
|
John  jhardin

Hello again John, it seems we’re going round in circles a bit here. But first, let me say a few quick words about your notion that faith underlies all knowledge, and it is given by your god. Even assuming I agreed with you (which I don’t), then one rightly asks, “which faith”? The one held by the Muslim? Mormon? Scientologist? Christian? And even if faith is given by a god, how do you know it comes from YOUR god? Can you give me any evidence besides mere declaration?

The ONLY way you can possibly state that God doesn’t exist is that you have accepted that notion by faith…

I’ve never stated that, and for reasons I wrote about earlier. You, however, do positively assert God exists, and are thus subject to the criticism which you levy at atheists.

The REAL debate between Atheism and Theism is in the proof… and no Atheist has yet been able provide sufficient proof to disprove Christian Theism.

It’s not the responsibility of the atheist to “disprove” Christian theism, which is an impossible task. Can you “disprove” Mormonism? Islam? If not, then are practitioners of those religions just as justified in their beliefs as you in yours? No, the burden is on the Christian to provide positive evidence for their claims, otherwise, we are justified in rejecting them.  Robert

Hi Robert,

Sorry for the delay in responding… I was out of town for the past week.
You said…

“Even assuming I agreed with you (which I don’t), then one rightly asks, which faith? The one held by the Muslim? Mormon? Scientologist? Christian? And even if faith is given by a god, how do you know it comes from YOUR god? Can you give me any evidence besides mere declaration?”

Faith in God is given by God. Faith in anything else is acquired by rejecting that faith in God and trusting one’s own intuition.
No evidence that an Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, or Satanist accepts as truth is gained from simple reason alone… because as I have shown, that is impossible without infinite knowledge.
As far as evidence goes… no Atheist, Muslim or other can ever come to a realization of the truth apart from acceptance of God given faith.
I would be happy to debate the evidences of creation with you… and I am more that capable of doing so on any level you wish to discuss them, but the truth is… this has been over and over again, and very rarely will an Atheist concede by the Theist merely providing physical evidence for the existence of God.
God has created the universe in such a complex way, that when a person voluntarily becomes a reprobate and rejects the truth presented to them by faith, the evidence will then be easily found to justify their reprobate position.
If you are prepared to debate the evidences, I am willing to entertain you… but only if you are serious about the truth. Where would you like to start?… Astrophysics, geology, quantum physics, physiology, biology, or Theology.

  jhardin

Hello John,
I understand you see truth as something given by your god through faith. The problem, of course, is that so does the adherent of every other religion. To illustrate, let me slightly reword something you wrote:

“Faith in Allah is given by Allah. Faith in anything else is acquired by rejecting that faith in Allah and trusting one’s own intuition.”

Can you give me any reason or evidence why your original statement should be accepted, rather than the above one? You make many declarations, but provide little of substance to support them.  Robert

It seems you are looking to discuss theological evidences for Christianity.
|
First of all, let me clarify this. Faith is faith… no matter what is being trusted. I could have faith in a doorknob, and subsequently act on that faith, but of course we know that a doorknob could never be God. So the simple fact that a Muslim has faith in Allah doesn’t prove anything.
|
Many people throughout history have made the same mistake you are making, by believing that what makes a god, a god… is that someone have faith in it. Nothing could be further from the truth. People throughout history have worshiped all types of inanimate objects a gods.
|
The Christian God is the “Living God”, and the evidence for this claim is overwhelming.
|
1. There has never been any substantial evidence that anything recorded in the Bible is false.
|
2. There have been volumes of evidence unearthed that much of the recorded history of the Bible is in fact legitimate and accurate. It can therefore be safely assumed that recorded Biblical history that has not yet been proven to be accurate… can be regarded as accurate until dis-proven.
|
3. Prophecies of the Bible have come true over and over again… and are actually coming true right now. (Other religions cannot claim this, they only claim future prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled.)
|
4. Since the above points are true… credibility must be given to the other teachings of the Bible as also having credence… this would also include the statements made that God is the author of the Bible by inspiration, and that God is real and a Living God.
|
5. There also remains the evidence of witnesses of the reality of the Living God. Christians who have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ testify of the reality of God, and the truth of scripture. For these people (like me), the overwhelming evidence of scripture lies in the personal experience of salvation, and through that personal experience we know without a doubt that God exists and that His word is true.
|
If you reject the above points, you are rejecting overwhelming evidence for the truth that is presented to you, and are in effect pulling the blinders over your eyes in an effort to continue trusting a lie.
|
John  jhardin

I could have faith in a doorknob, and subsequently act on that faith, but of course we know that a doorknob could never be God.

You would need “infinite knowledge” to make this claim with certitude.

So the simple fact that a Muslim has faith in Allah doesn’t prove anything.

Neither does a Christian’s faith in God.

1. There has never been any substantial evidence that anything recorded in the Bible is false.

I’m afraid you’re either willfully ignorant of the vast amounts of evidence, or simply choose not to acknowledge it. For starters, we’ve known for a long time that the creation account in Genesis is false. The Great Flood? Didn’t happen (and it’s simply a rip-off of the Gilgamesh Epic, anyway). The Exodus? No evidence there, either. As renowned archaeologist William G. Dever writes, “Now let us turn to biblical data. If we look at the biblical texts describing the origins of Israel, we see at once that the traditional account contained in Genesis through Joshua simply cannot be reconciled with the picture derived…from archaeological investigation. The whole “Exodus-Conquest” cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term “myth”: perhaps “historical fiction,” but tales told primarily to validate religious beliefs. – What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? p.121
|
I can go on. The Bible is rife with obviously mythical stories for which no basis in fact have been found. In fact, some accounts, particularly in the New Testament, contradict each other, such as when Jesus was born.
|
Your view that since some things in the Bible are historically accurate, we should therefore assume the rest of it true displays faulty logic. By that standard, many other books become “true” as well. Take for example the Book of Mormon. It contains historically verifiable elements. Are you willing, therefore, to grant it credibility?

3. Prophecies of the Bible have come true over and over again… and are actually coming true right now.

I invite you to describe which prophecies have come true, and which are coming true. Be prepared to explain the false prophecies as well.

5. There also remains the evidence of witnesses of the reality of the Living God.

Again, the adherent of every religion claims this as evidence. Since most religions make mutually exclusive claims, it seems to be very unreliable evidence.

If you reject the above points, you are rejecting overwhelming evidence for the truth that is presented to you, and are in effect pulling the blinders over your eyes in an effort to continue trusting a lie.

Yes, well…since I believe the evidence easily demonstrates your holy book to be a fully man-made creation, your quote applies to you   Robert

Robert, Thanks for your reply.
|
You are correct, I would need infinite knowledge to certainly make that claim. You would also need infinite knowledge to claim that Allah is a genuine living god… that was my point, apparently you missed it. The fact that one has faith is irrelevant when one is considering whether that god is genuine.

“The Great Flood? Didn’t happen (and it’s simply a rip-off of the Gilgamesh Epic, anyway).”

Not really, and since you simply made that claim without the need for evidence you are identifying yourself as a fideist… you are trusting your position by faith rather than the evidence at hand. I will, on the other hand present some geological evidence for the deluge. 1. The great flood presents an explanation for the massive numbers of fish fossils present in the great plains. The ice age theory couldn’t account for this. 2. While the erosion from ice age glaciers could account for the formation of the Royal Gorge, a quick recession of water from the upper midwest would be a more likely explanation while not taking the fish fossils out of context. 3. Sedimentary rock formations throughout the United States would account for a gradual recession of water in most areas; the current theory that sedimentary rock layering is caused by organic accumulation doesn’t account for the periodic layering. If the current theory was right, we should see a fluid progression of sedimentary rock as organic matter decayed and compacted. We rather see obvious layering (just drive down the highway and you can see this). This layering is much like the layering in the ocean floor. 4. Not to mention the population data that has been figured to prove that the current population of approximately 6.5 billion people would have originated with 8 people at the time of the deluge (not 15 million years ago )
|
There is much more we can go into… this is just a hint of the evidence that you can see for yourself by looking at a map or driving through a “cut-out” that was blasted by highway crews.

“The Exodus? No evidence there, either. As renowned archaeologist William G. Dever writes,”

You gave no indication that the Exodus was falsified in the historical text… you simply made a statement, a weak attempt at a ruse at best. In fact, there is evidence that the Biblical account of the Exodus is accurate. 1. First of all, we have the topographical evidence that the accounts recorded in Exodus are viable. 2. Exodus 42:16 gives an account of Moses on Mt. Sinai. In that region there is a Mt. Sinai, where researchers have found evidence of extreme heat… in fact, the mountain rock is still darkly burned to this day.

“The Bible is rife with obviously mythical stories for which no basis in fact have been found. In fact, some accounts, particularly in the New Testament, contradict each other”

One simple article, taking information out of context hardly amounts to a refutation of the entire New Testament. Like I said, anyone who has faith in “Atheism” can find their own evidence to justify their claims. I don’t have time to refute Carriers article as it is being used as a straw man here anyway.
|
I have presented evidence to defend the Biblical historical accounts of the Deluge and the Exodus. I invite you to present evidence also rather than referencing articles by links. If you have a strong position you won’t need others to do your arguing for you.
|
John  jhardin

Hello, sorry for the delay in responding, but a vacation intruded

You wrote,

You would also need infinite knowledge to claim that Allah is a genuine living god… that was my point, apparently you missed it. The fact that one has faith is irrelevant when one is considering whether that god is genuine.

Oh I agree. But see, I make no such claims about any deities. You, however, do. You make the claim that God is a genuine living god. This is a claim, according to your own argument, that you need “infinite knowledge” to make. This is what I’ve been saying all along. Your own argument applies to your claim, defeating it. Thus, the best you can say is, “There may be a genuine living god called God.” To say otherwise is to run counter to your own argument.

Not really, and since you simply made that claim without the need for evidence you are identifying yourself as a fideist… you are trusting your position by faith rather than the evidence at hand.

Oh, I can back it up with evidence. Quoting from TalkOrigins “For example, the Loess Plateau in China has a layer of loess more than 300 m thick. Loess is wind-blown sediment that would not occur during a global flood. The Loess Plateau occurs around the downwind edges of the Ordos Desert, its source of sediments, and the grain size of the loess decreases the further one gets from the desert (Vandenberghe et al. 1997).
|
You make several claims with regards to geology, but what are your credentials, or the credentials of those who have made these claims? As far as I am aware, there has been no peer-reviewed article supporting the claim of global flood as depicted in the Bible, but mountains of literature showing that no such event ever occurred.

Not to mention the population data that has been figured to prove that the current population of approximately 6.5 billion people would have originated with 8 people at the time of the deluge (not 15 million years ago )

Please name the individual who “proved” this.

You gave no indication that the Exodus was falsified in the historical text… you simply made a statement, a weak attempt at a ruse at best.

It’s not our task to falsify the Biblical claim. It’s your task to support the claim. And I supported my statement by citing an expert. You, however, have cited no experts in any claim you’ve made.

One simple article, taking information out of context hardly amounts to a refutation of the entire New Testament. Like I said, anyone who has faith in “Atheism” can find their own evidence to justify their claims. I don’t have time to refute Carriers article as it is being used as a straw man here anyway.

Feel free to indicate where Carrier’s article is “taking information out of context”. And how is it a straw man anyway? Your statement that it “hardly amounts to a refutation of the entire New Testament” is the straw man; I made no such claim that the article intended to do that. I only cited it in support of my claim that the Bible contains contradictions.

I have presented evidence to defend the Biblical historical accounts of the Deluge and the Exodus. I invite you to present evidence also rather than referencing articles by links.

You’ve only made statements, which anyone can do. Did you personally verify those statements through your own research? Why should anyone believe them?
|
By way of example, suppose I said, “UFOs are evidence of intelligent alien life.” Do you accept my statement and thus believe that intelligent alien life exists? Of course not. You’d want more support than merely my word.
|
This is why I quote and link to persons who are far more credible than you or I in the areas we are discussing. If you were having a debate with someone about the consequences of the Big Bang, and that person cited Stephen Hawkings to rebut your claims, who do you think would win the debate?  Robert

Hi Robert, Thanks for the reply.

In the beginning of your reply you stated that the burden of proof was on me (or another Christian) to prove that God (or gods) exist. But to contradict that statement, my entire rebuttal of the Atheistic position rests on the fact that no amount of data or information can ever absolutely prove the existence of God to a finite mind.
|
If it seems that I am defending the Agnostic position… I am to a certain degree. On the basis of rationalism, the Agnostics are right. We cannot absolutely know whether God (or gods) exist, because we being of finite minds are incapable of comparing the infinite data required to make such a claim.
|
For a Theist to make the claim that they know God exists based on the data available is a ridiculous statement. A person can only come to the conclusion that God exists by faith. It is likewise just as ridiculous for the Atheist to say that they know God does NOT exist based on the evidence available, or the lack of evidence… because it would take an infinite mind to comprehend and compare all the data necessary to make that assertion.
|
I realize you would like to steer the argument into an endless dialog of proofs and data to verify each of our positions, but my article was intended to strip the debate of the need for data and proofs to prove the Theistic position.
|
Faith is required to assert a belief in God. Likewise, faith is required to assert a disbelief in God (or gods). So the faith you criticize Christians of for believing in such an archaic thing as “God, is the same faith you have to believe in the absence of Him.
|
Whatever position you accept by faith (the Theistic, or the Atheistic) is the position you will justify by the data AFTER your acceptance of it by faith.
|
I accused you of putting up a straw man by linking Carriers article because data and proofs are irrelevant in this case. If you accept the Atheistic position by faith you will only interpret the data you are given in an Atheistic manner. And any attempt by me to present an equally boring amount of data or substantiation will only serve to further the inevitable circular argument.
|
John
|
PS. As a warning. Be careful supplying too many links in a post on this blog because the anti-spamware will interpret the post as spam and automatically delete it.  jhardin

Hi John, thank you for your most recent reply. I’ve been enjoying our exchange. You wrote,

In the beginning of your reply you stated that the burden of proof was on me (or another Christian) to prove that God (or gods) exist.

I don’t think I actually said this. What I said was that you needed to provide positive evidence for the existence of your god.
|

It is likewise just as ridiculous for the Atheist to say that they know God does NOT exist based on the evidence available, or the lack of evidence… because it would take an infinite mind to comprehend and compare all the data necessary to make that assertion.

I don’t think many atheists say this. I personally believe, however, that the Problem of Evil makes the likelihood of your god existing pretty small.
|

Faith is required to assert a belief in God. Likewise, faith is required to assert a disbelief in God (or gods). So the faith you criticize Christians of for believing in such an archaic thing as “God, is the same faith you have to believe in the absence of Him.

A couple points here:
|
1. I’m not sure how faith is required to assert a disbelief in god(s). Is faith required to assert a disbelief in unicorns? Cthulhu? Thor? Or thousands of other supernatural beings? Is it faith that causes you to profess a disbelief in Allah? Like your stance with regards to unicorns or Allah, the atheist doesn’t believe in god(s) because the evidence doesn’t support their existence. Faith doesn’t even enter the picture.
|
2. You said earlier, “Faith in God is given by God. Faith in anything else is acquired by rejecting that faith in God and trusting one’s own intuition.” If faith in your god is given by your god, then from where comes the faith in anything else?
|
3. As I’m sure you’re aware, the adherent of every religion sincerely claims that they know their deity by faith. Since these deities are mutually exclusive, how can one tell which faith is “true” and which is “false”?

I accused you of putting up a straw man by linking Carriers article because data and proofs are irrelevant in this case. If you accept the Atheistic position by faith you will only interpret the data you are given in an Atheistic manner.

That, in itself, is the straw man Christians make certain historical claims which can be evaluated against evidence, reason, and logic. If it is your position that faith requires suspension of those, then I agree. But then you can’t maintain that disbelief in god(s) is an act of faith. The atheist arrives at her position in a scientific manner, not through faith. This perhaps explains why the overwhelming majority of scientists are agnostic or atheist.  Robert

Hi Robert, I have also been enjoying this exchange
|

I don’t think I actually said this. What I said was that you needed to provide positive evidence for the existence of your god.

|
You did in your post from August 3rd, you said “It’s not our task to falsify the Biblical claim. It’s your task to support the claim.”
|

I personally believe, however, that the Problem of Evil makes the likelihood of your god existing pretty small.

|
The problem of evil is not a problem at all. Evil is easily overcome by forgiveness, with no need to succumb to the original evil itself.
|

1. I’m not sure how faith is required to assert a disbelief in god(s). Is faith required to assert a disbelief in unicorns? Cthulhu? Thor? Or thousands of other supernatural beings? Is it faith that causes you to profess a disbelief in Allah? Like your stance with regards to unicorns or Allah, the atheist doesn’t believe in god(s) because the evidence doesn’t support their existence. Faith doesn’t even enter the picture.

|
Yes, faith is required to assert a disbelief in God, unicorns, Cthulhu, Thor, or the boogie man… why? Because without infinite knowledge of the universe, and without an infinite mind, you cannot absolutely make an assertion that something does not exist.
|
For a person to believe in anything, or to disbelieve anything requires faith. This is an obvious conclusion because it is universally accepted that human beings do not have an infinite capacity for knowledge… Therefore, faith picks up where our lack of capacity for knowledge leaves off.
|

2. You said earlier, “Faith in God is given by God. Faith in anything else is acquired by rejecting that faith in God and trusting one’s own intuition.” If faith in your god is given by your god, then from where comes the faith in anything else?

|
Experience in some cases, such as whether or not the chair you sit down in will hold you up. As in the case of the Atheist though, faith in things like Darwinism, the big bang theory, macro-evolution are presumed because the faith in God as presented by God has been rejected.
|
Let me ask you this. Can you explain to me the nature of wave-particle duality? Now, particle physics is the basis of all matter. If you can’t explain the nature of wave-particle duality, how can you ever hope to say for certain that anything physical exists? You believe it by faith.
|

3. As I’m sure you’re aware, the adherent of every religion sincerely claims that they know their deity by faith. Since these deities are mutually exclusive, how can one tell which faith is “true” and which is “false”?

|
First of all, NO other religion besides Christianity claims to “know” their god. They all claim to know things about their god(s)… but Christianity is the only religion that claims a personal relationship with their God.
|
Now for your question. Like I said, faith in God is given by God. The Bible states that no man comes to the Father except the Father draws him. Since the Christian God wills that all men come to know Him, it stands to reason that at some point ALL men are drawn to God. The difference is that some people have not been “drawn” by God yet, and others have rejected God and the faith He gave them, and have grasped alternative ideas… by faith.
|

That, in itself, is the straw man Christians make certain historical claims which can be evaluated against evidence, reason, and logic. If it is your position that faith requires suspension of those, then I agree. But then you can’t maintain that disbelief in god(s) is an act of faith. The atheist arrives at her position in a scientific manner, not through faith. This perhaps explains why the overwhelming majority of scientists are agnostic or atheist.

|
I agree in your presumption about scientists. But my statement was not a straw man… it is the crux of my argument.
|
I don’t believe that faith requires suspension of reason and logic, but exactly the opposite. Faith is a prerequisite for logic. Our finite minds don’t have the capacity to formulate physical laws based on reason alone, we formulate physical laws based on the fact that a theory has proven itself over and over again… so in effect, we formulate physical laws by faith.
|
Probably the greatest thinker of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, formulated his “General Theory of Relativity” by what’s called “reverse logic”. He saw the effects of what was happening in the physical world… then he postulated the physical law by faith… then set out to prove his theory.
|
This is the same method the Christian recognizes the justification of their belief. They have faith that God is the creator of the universe, then the evidence reveals itself. The Atheist justifies his belief in the exact same manner.  jhardin

You did in your post from August 3rd, you said “It’s not our task to falsify the Biblical claim. It’s your task to support the claim.”

Exactly Providing evidence is not proving. I think you erroneously conflate the two. I have not spoken at all about proofs, but evidence.

The problem of evil is not a problem at all. Evil is easily overcome by forgiveness, with no need to succumb to the original evil itself.

Hmm..I don’t think you quite understand what the Problem of Evil is.

Yes, faith is required to assert a disbelief in God, unicorns, Cthulhu, Thor, or the boogie man… why? Because without infinite knowledge of the universe, and without an infinite mind, you cannot absolutely make an assertion that something does not exist.

But see, here is where your argument falls down. Those who profess a disbelief in a thing are not making an absolute assertion that the thing does not exist. As I noted before, they are simply saying, “I have insufficient evidence to have a justifiable belief in your claim (about the thing’s existence).” The belief could change upon the introduction of evidence. This happens all the time. For many centuries, people believed the world was flat. As the evidence accumulated that the world is round, beliefs changed.
|
Try as I might, I could find little in support of your notion of faith–either from Christian or non-Christian sources–and lots to contradict it. If you would, please provide some reference so that I can become better acquainted.

As in the case of the Atheist though, faith in things like Darwinism, the big bang theory, macro-evolution are presumed because the faith in God as presented by God has been rejected.

There are plenty of theists who also profess a belief in those things. For example, Pope Benedict recently said, “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” How do you square a theist’s belief in evolution with your notion that it must arise from a rejection of faith in your god?

Let me ask you this. Can you explain to me the nature of wave-particle duality? Now, particle physics is the basis of all matter. If you can’t explain the nature of wave-particle duality, how can you ever hope to say for certain that anything physical exists? You believe it by faith.

I make no claims about saying anything “for certain”. Your question is thus a red herring. I will note that quantum mechanics appears to explain wave-particle duality, but some new theory may come along that better explains it. That’s the nature of knowledge.

Faith is a prerequisite for logic. Our finite minds don’t have the capacity to formulate physical laws based on reason alone, we formulate physical laws based on the fact that a theory has proven itself over and over again… so in effect, we formulate physical laws by faith.

I’m not sure your understanding of “physical laws” and “logic” is correct. If you can provide some reference in support, I would appreciate it.

They have faith that God is the creator of the universe, then the evidence reveals itself.

Then why do you suppose Christians cannot agree on such matters as how the universe began, the age of the earth, how man came to be, etc.?  Robert

Hmm..I don’t think you quite understand what the Problem of Evil is.

|
Yes, I do… I don’t think you understood my reason behind mentioning forgiveness. God doesn’t need to abolish evil, evil is overcome by forgiveness. There is no need for evil to consume anyone; either by them hating evil and therefore becoming an evil person by hatred, and there is no need for a person to love evil and thereby becoming evil. This whole paradox has been eliminated by the act of forgiveness.
|

But see, here is where your argument falls down. Those who profess a disbelief in a thing are not making an absolute assertion that the thing does not exist. As I noted before, they are simply saying, “I have insufficient evidence to have a justifiable belief in your claim (about the thing’s existence).” The belief could change upon the introduction of evidence. This happens all the time. For many centuries, people believed the world was flat. As the evidence accumulated that the world is round, beliefs changed.

|
The beliefs changed because they accepted another scenario by faith.
|
You also said… “Those who profess a disbelief in a thing are not making an absolute assertion that the thing does not exist.”
|
How can you make such a ridiculous statement? By professing disbelief in a thing, you are essentially stating IT DOESN’T EXIST. If you state that you don’t have enough evidence to make a claim that a thing exists, then you are not asserting that it doesn’t exist.
|

There are plenty of theists who also profess a belief in those things.

|
Which means nothing, and adds nothing to this debate.
|

I make no claims about saying anything “for certain”. Your question is thus a red herring. I will note that quantum mechanics appears to explain wave-particle duality, but some new theory may come along that better explains it. That’s the nature of knowledge.

|
If you don’t make any claims about anything “for certain”… then why do you call yourself an Atheist? An Atheist, as the label implies, is someone who doesn’t believe God exists.
|
If your telling the truth now, you are no longer an Atheist, but you have conceded to the truth that I have asserted in my article, and you have assumed the Agnostic position; which states that we cannot know whether God exists.  jhardin

Yes, I do… I don’t think you understood my reason behind mentioning forgiveness. God doesn’t need to abolish evil, evil is overcome by forgiveness.

No. The Problem of Evil is concerned with the very existence of evil and the claimed existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god. Who or what is there to “forgive” when, for example, a baby is born anencepahlic (characterized by absence of all or part of the skull and scalp, and malformation of the brain).

How can you make such a ridiculous statement? By professing disbelief in a thing, you are essentially stating IT DOESN’T EXIST. If you state that you don’t have enough evidence to make a claim that a thing exists, then you are not asserting that it doesn’t exist.

Again, no. When the theory of the Big Bang was first proposed, scientists who weren’t convinced didn’t say, “The Big Bang never happened!” This wasn’t even implied by their non-belief in the theory. Rather, they simply said, “The Big Bang could have happened, but the evidence is not there to say with any degree of certainty that it did.” This is exactly how the atheist approaches the claim of your god’s existence, e.g., “Such a being could exist, but the presented evidence is insufficient to support a belief at this time.”
|
This seems to be a fundamental disagreement, but if you could present any support that statements of disbelief are equivalent to assertions, then I would certainly enjoy referencing them.

Which means nothing, and adds nothing to this debate.

Au contraire! You said that “faith” in the Big Bang theory, evolution, etc., are acquired by rejecting faith from your god. This assertion, however, seems fatally undermined by the existence of theists, who do possess a faith in your god, and who believe in such things. I’d be interested in how you explain such belief among theists. Are they closet atheists, then?

If you don’t make any claims about anything “for certain”… then why do you call yourself an Atheist? An Atheist, as the label implies, is someone who doesn’t believe God exists.

Let me refer you to the difference between “weak” and “strong” atheism. I consider myself a “weak” atheist.  Robert

Robert,
|
What you are citing as a “Problem of Evil” is Pierre Bayle’s Dilemma for Theism.
|
Bayle’s dilemma says that an “all-powerful” God could destroy evil, and an “all-good” God certainly would destroy all evil. And since an all-good God would desire the extinction of evil… and evil has not yet been extinguished… it stands to reason that the existence of the infinitely good and powerful God of traditional Theism must be ruled out.
|
But, Bayle’s conclusion can easily be challenged on two premises. 1) First, Bayle assumes that nothing has been done to challenge or defeat evil as of yet. This is wrong, as Christ’s death on the cross has essentially defeated evil for anyone who would accept it. 2) Second, Bayle’s argument assumes that nothing ever WILL be done to defeat evil. Again, this wrong. Revelation 20:1-15 gives a future account of the judgment of evil and those who do iniquity.
|
As a finite being… as you (and Bayle) are, you have no place deciding how an infinite God should go about doing His job. It could very well be that allowing evil to run it’s course is the wisest method to disproving the validity of it.
|

This is exactly how the atheist approaches the claim of your god’s existence, e.g., “Such a being could exist, but the presented evidence is insufficient to support a belief at this time.”

|
And by your own testimony, you as a finite being do not have… nor will you ever have the capacity to comprehend all the data necessary to make such a claim. In fact, without comprehensive data of the universe, no scientist could ever state with surety that the Big Bang happened. That is why it is called the Big Bang “Theory”. There are scientists though that believe the Big Bang actually happened, and base all subsequent test on that assumption. Hubbel’s findings of the red-shift are a prime example of that.
|
Now, someone who doesn’t believe that the Big Bang theory is valid would look at Hubbel’s findings of the red-shift of galaxies and understand it not as a Doppler effect, but a cosmological effect of light traveling through the vacuum of space… which happens to be the predominant evaluation by scientists today… and is more congruent with Einstein’s curved space-time.
|

I’d be interested in how you explain such belief among theists. Are they closet atheists, then?

Obviously they have rejected faith in the God of the Bible, who gives a detailed account of creation (Genesis 1). Theistic Evolution is a man-invented idea (or theory) of the existence of things. The same assessment can be made of their theory as we can make of Friedmann’s Big Bang theory… they have rejected faith in God’s account of creation, and have based their studies and tests on another theory by faith.
|

Let me refer you to the difference between “weak” and “strong” atheism. I consider myself a “weak” atheist.

The fact that you call yourself a “weak Atheist” doesn’t negate the fact that you are still making knowledge claims regarding the existence of God (or gods). You’re most recent testimony regarding knowledge proves that you are not capable of denying the existence of God, nor are you in a position to claim a disbelief in God. You are incapable of making such claims.
|
John  jhardin

John,

What you are citing as a “Problem of Evil” is Pierre Bayle’s Dilemma for Theism.

Well, not really. The problem was first articulated by Epicuras, long before Bayle.

Christ’s death on the cross has essentially defeated evil for anyone who would accept it.

Doesn’t explain the continuing existence of evil. And even if true, how does the newborn who has died of hunger or war “accept Christ’s death”? Was there no evil before Christ’s alleged death?

Bayle’s argument assumes that nothing ever WILL be done to defeat evil. Again, this wrong. Revelation 20:1-15 gives a future account of the judgment of evil and those who do iniquity.

During the recent earthquake in Peru, a church collapsed, killing all the worshipers inside. Who worked “iniquity” there?

As a finite being… as you (and Bayle) are, you have no place deciding how an infinite God should go about doing His job.

No such “decision” is being made. Rather, it’s the observation that the existence of evil (man-made or natural) precludes the existence of an omnipoten, omni-benevolent god.

And by your own testimony, you as a finite being do not have… nor will you ever have the capacity to comprehend all the data necessary to make such a claim.

No claim is being made. Rather, it’s a statement of belief.
|
Let me recap your argument in one last attempt to show it’s invalidity.
|
You make a claim.
I express disbelief in your claim.
You respond by rejecting my disbelief on the grounds that I would need “infinite knowledge” to do so.
|
Sorry, it’s clearly a facetious argument.

In fact, without comprehensive data of the universe, no scientist could ever state with surety that the Big Bang happened.

No scientists makes such a claim “with surety”. Rather, they make the claim “with probability”.

Obviously they have rejected faith in the God of the Bible…

It would appear that you’ve shrunk the number of theists dramatically. I’m sure individuals like the Pope will be surprised to learn they are essentially atheists.

You’re most recent testimony regarding knowledge proves that you are not capable of denying the existence of God, nor are you in a position to claim a disbelief in God. You are incapable of making such claims.

How silly is your argument? I’ll illustrate by slightly modifying your own words:
You’re most recent testimony regarding knowledge proves that you are not capable of asserting the existence of God, nor are you in a position to claim a belief in God. You are incapable of making such claims.
|
Thank you for this conversation, John! I appreciated it. I believe we have stated our cases and will make no further reply.  Robert

Robert,

“Christ’s death on the cross has essentially defeated evil for anyone who would accept it.”

Doesn’t explain the continuing existence of evil. And even if true, how does the newborn who has died of hunger or war “accept Christ’s death”? Was there no evil before Christ’s alleged death?

By your response I am going to assume that you believe that evil is not good… and you understand that to chose evil would be an inferior choice. This is exactly my point. For God to allow evil to exist, He has essentially proven the invalidity of it by allowing it to run it’s course.
|
It seems you’re problem though is that you believe that evil is more powerful than good… and it is in your particular situation. By abhorring evil, as you do, you have learned to hate… therefore succumbing to evil, and becoming evil. If you knew to forgive, you would understand what God has done to defeat evil.
|

No claim is being made. Rather, it’s a statement of belief.
|
Let me recap your argument in one last attempt to show it’s invalidity.
|
You make a claim.
I express disbelief in your claim.
You respond by rejecting my disbelief on the grounds that I would need “infinite knowledge” to do so.
|
Sorry, it’s clearly a facetious argument.

A statement of belief IS a claim for knowledge Robert… that is if you are basing your claim upon accumulated data, which is exactly what you have been asserting.
|
If, on the other hand you stated a belief in something without acknowledging the data… you are believing by faith.
|
So, which is it? Are you claiming knowledge, or are you believing by faith?
|

You’re most recent testimony regarding knowledge proves that you are not capable of denying the existence of God, nor are you in a position to claim a disbelief in God. You are incapable of making such claims.

How silly is your argument? I’ll illustrate by slightly modifying your own words:
You’re most recent testimony regarding knowledge proves that you are not capable of asserting the existence of God, nor are you in a position to claim a belief in God. You are incapable of making such claims.

You are exactly right. In fact, I have made that assertion many times throughout this debate and in previous comments. I also made the same assertion in the article itself. A claim for knowledge is a fallacious claim for the Atheist and the Theist alike.
|
So, for anyone to make a claim… that person makes that claim by faith. The Atheistic position is no more substantiated than the Christian position… and is believed the same way.
|

Thank you for this conversation, John! I appreciated it. I believe we have stated our cases and will make no further reply.

Thank you also Robert. I have enjoyed our discussion.
|
I hope you will consider what you have learned here and use it to reconsider your faith in the absence of God.
|
If you ever want to know more about my faith… I will always be glad to share it with you.  jhardin

Here are some videos related to this discussion. I’ve enjoyed them and I think they can bless those who watch them.
|
Walter Veith: What do the rocks reveal?
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7630324449531011801
|
|
Walter Veith: The fossil record speaks.
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5751334720524652729
|
|
Walter Veith: More fossil secrets unveiled.
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8125356705195694723
|
|
Walter Veith: Origin of variety.
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9071672012355164709
|
|
Walter Veith: The spade unearths the truth.
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8393981847395755998
|
|
Walter Veith: A day to remember.
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2325203804217803233
|
|
Walter Veith: Atheist and Evolutionist to Christian and Creationist – Testimony
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7344579008764102192
|
|
|
There’s more from Walter Veith to do with subjects beyond just Big Bang, Evolution, Flood, The Problem of Evil, etc., but I can’t find them all now. I think there’s also much more in this series to do with the subjects I linked to. Walter Veith covers a lot. Just search for “Walter Veith” and/or “Total Onslaught” and/or “Amazing Discoveries” at Google Video to find more. These are full length videos free to watch. “Kent Hovind” is another who also covers this subject, among others.  Tommy

Arv Edgeworth is another Creation Scientist who has a wealth of information. I think he was actually a student of Kent Hovind. I met Arv and spoke with him extensively about Creation Theory. Although he does have some strange beliefs, once you get to talking to him he does present good evidence for what he believes.  jhardin

An Atheist can quite easily assert that he believes the evidence for God is so poor that he he is of the opinion thatGod doesn’t exist. Hence, his Atheism isn’t an arrogant statement at all, it’s a statement based on the evidence, or lack of it, for God.

By the way, you can turn your argument against Atheism into an argument against God’s existence.  John D

An Atheist cannot make that assertion from a lack of evidence. The very fact that evidence lacks implies that there is not enough evidence to make such a claim. And yes, I agree, the same argument applies to Theism. My point is that no-one can claim God exists or does not exist based on tangible evidence alone… because the evidence required is incomprehensible.  John Hardin