Atheists
state they'd be believers if only God would give them some
evidence that He exists.
And
I wonder, What more could God have done and still leave room for the
choice to either look for Him, or to look away, to pursue Him or to
ignore Him?
God
created a mathematically precise, life supporting, moral universe.
He
made us creatures who are able to comprehend this universe so we could discover His existence..
Atheists
say, “No He didn't.”
Because
there could not have been a material cause for the beginning of the existence of matter, the universe is like a banner perpetually
floating before our eyes saying – HERE I AM.
Atheists
say, “Not it isn't.”
God
created a universe with exquisitely finely tuned constants and
quantities.
He
did it in such a way that they could be discovered and studied by us so we could discover His existence.
Atheists say, “No He didn't.”
Atheists say, “No He didn't.”
He
created laws of logic, mathematics, physical laws and moral laws that
could be discovered by us so we could discover His existence.
Atheists
say, “No He didn't.”
God
placed 3 billion bits of coded, formulated, specified information in
the first replicating cell.
He
made us capable of discovering this fact so we could discover His existence.
Atheists
say, “No He didn't.”
God
created the kind of world, free from pain and suffering that atheists
demand a “good” God would have created.
He
gave us a written record of this event so we could discover His existence.
Atheists
say, “No He didn't.”
God
has worked among His creatures, from the beginning until this very
moment bringing about radical changes in the character of those who
pursue Him, so we could discover His existence.
Atheists
say, “No He didn't.”
God
predicted world events that came true thousands of years in the
future. For example, three thousand years in advance, God predicted
that the nation of Israel would disappear and its people would be
scattered around the world. AND He predicted that 2,000 years later
Israel would be reinstated as a nation and it's people brought back
in such numbers that there wouldn't be room for them all. Even though
this is precisely what happened,
Atheists
say, “No He didn't.”
God
came to live among us so that we could know what He is like.
He
left a written testimony so we could know the truth of His
activities, so we could discover His existence.
Atheists
say, “No He didn't.”
He
performed acts of manipulating nature and the laws of physics (which
He created in the first place) showing that He was indeed Creator
God, so we could discover His existence.
Atheists
say, “No He didn't.”
He
predicted that He would be murdered, who would kill Him, how they
would kill Him and that He would rise again from the dead. He rose
from the dead, something that no human can do by natural means. All that so we could discover His existence.
Atheists
say, “No He didn't.”
When
you ask an atheist, “What evidence would it take for you to believe
that Creator God exists?” the honest ones say, “Nothing would
convince me that Creator God exists.” The rest give some variation
of the evidence that has already been given and which they rapidly
deny.
And
so I wonder, what more could He do?
Creator
God said, “If you diligently search for Me, I will be found by
you.”
What
kind of person would ignore an offer like that?
God created a mathematically precise...
ReplyDeleteGod created a universe with exquisitely finely tuned constants and quantities...
physical laws...
It's fascinating how you are really not able to understand why this is wrong. You
God placed 3 billion bits of coded, formulated, specified information in the first replicating cell.
It's fascinating how you don't give a shite about what biology is. 3 billion bits in the FIRST replicating cell? You are not even trying to sound accurate anymore.
That's just some science bits... The worst part though is that you really sound as if you hate atheist. You are as bitter as someone can be. You show the completely opposite of love and respect. You talk about other human beings as if they were the worst scum ever. They are stupid regarding everything you can think of... because they don't agree that we have reasons to believe in a god.
Errr, that was cut...
ReplyDeleteIt's fascinating how you are really not able to understand why this is wrong. You are exactly like someone living in the medieval ages pretending that the Earth is fine-tuned because gravity is exactly 9.81m/s^2. You really don't get it.
So saying, "Hugo says, "No He didn't" is a sign of not being loving or respectful?
ReplyDeleteDedicating a significant portion of your life to bashing a group of people is not loving nor respectful. Saying that their entire worldview is crap is not respectful. Repeating the same lies about them is not respectful. Misrepresenting their opinion is not respectful.
ReplyDelete"Bashing" a world-view without including its adherents is very difficult - for me at least. I mean, who is stupider, the one who invents and absurd and incoherent world-view or the ones who follow it?
ReplyDeleteA slightly different example. When I was a kid I used to think that men were the stupidest of the sexes. Men drank and smoked and screwed around and broke up their marriages and neglected their children by putting their jobs first. Men fought and thought possessing "things" would make them have greater value and worth. As a kid I could see this was a stupid way to live.
Women on the other hand were nurturing, they took care of their bodies, they took care of their children, they didn't fight, they didn't put things ahead of people etc. etc. As a kid I thought women were smarter than men.
That was 50 years ago.
Then beginning maybe 20-30 years ago, women decided that becoming just like men was the way to go. They had observed men's absurd, self-destructive behaviours and said, 'that kind of life is for me.' So today we have women dying almost at the same rate as men, and for almost the same reasons. Women are screwing around just as much as men, destroying marriages at the same rate as men, neglecting their children for the same reasons as men, drinking and smoking and looking for value and worth in being busy and collecting things just like men.
And so I ask, "Who is stupider? The ones who marched to the beat of an illogical drummer? Or those who copied those idiots? I say the latter.
You call it disrespectful? I call it a fact.
If atheism was not frightfully dangerous to one's eternity, you'd not hear a peep from me.
It's because I care about others that I want to warn those sitting on the fence, to plead with them, to show them that the current fashion of atheism is a trap of enormous proportion. There is nothing cool or intelligent about atheism. Its anti logical, anti science, absurd and incoherent.
OK, I'll take your bait about atheism (and save challenging your anti-feminist rant for later). Here are my questions:
ReplyDelete1) What is your evidence that we have the potential of existing in eternity?
2) If God is such a wonderful creator, why do I have sciatica, asthma, and need glasses?
3) If God is omnipotent, and cares about his/her creation, why does s/he not fix all the evil in the world?
(I predict your answer will involve original sin, freewill, and the inscrutability of God's purpose.)
1) What is your evidence that we have the potential of existing in eternity?
ReplyDeleteWell, nothing that you would accept, but for me Jesus rising from the dead is good enough.
=====
2) If God is such a wonderful creator, why do I have sciatica, asthma, and need glasses?
Sin. Sickness and death, violence, suffering and corruption is a consequence of living in a fallen world.
=====
3) If God is omnipotent, and cares about his/her creation, why does s/he not fix all the evil in the world?
I suggest that when atheists see pain and suffering and say that God is powerless or not loving enough to stop pain and suffering, they speak too soon.
If we were at the end of history and things remained as they are, I would tend to agree that it appears the presence of evil must mean that God either can't or won't do something about it. However we are not at the end of history. God tells us that until that time His plan is to use the reality of evil agents (that's all He has to work with) for His own plan and purpose. He's still mixing the cake batter.
It's important to remember, God has not just created a universe. God has created a certain type of universe and He uses it to raise up a certain type of being: an intelligent, rational, moral, free thinking being who is able to exist – more than that – who is being groomed to exist within a mutually loving relationship with h/her Creator, for eternity.
In reality the problem Epicurus created for himself (as it is for all atheists), need not have been a problem at all. Without an anti-God bias, this could have been seen quite clearly.
Because God is all powerful, He CAN rid the universe of evil.
Because God is all good, He WILL rid the universe of evil.
Yes, there is still evil present in the universe. Nevertheless – at the end of history,
God CAN and WILL rid the universe of evil, and all those who side with evil against their Creator will be banished for eternity.
He promised to do that and He showed us His bloodied corpse as a deposit and guarantee that He will fulfil that promise.
=====
(I predict your answer will involve original sin, freewill, and the inscrutability of God's purpose.)
Close enough.
I have been a Christian. I have been presented with similar questions and responded with pretty much the same answers that you did. As an atheist, I do not have an anti-God bias, I simply lack sufficient evidence for the risen Christ (who was once the foundation of my faith).
DeleteThe solution to the Epicurean problem requires that we have a "soul" or "spirit" which can exist apart from our physical bodies. I see no evidence for that whatsoever, and, in fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary.
As well, it's not an "anti-feminist" rant. It could have just as easily been the other way around with men copying the behaviours of women. The rant, such as it is, is about one group of people purposely coping the behaviours of another group of people; a group who are behaving in an idiotic manner.
ReplyDeleteTo me, that makes the copiers, who have had a chance to observe these idiotic behaviours for thousands of years even more idiotic than the first group.
But that's just my opinion.
I'm guessing you are a man. From your timeline, it looks like you are just a bit older than me. I find your statement "Women on the other hand were nurturing, they took care of their bodies, they took care of their children, they didn't fight, they didn't put things ahead of people etc. etc." indicates that either you were living on a different planet, or had a very small non-representative sample size.
DeleteSo, here I am, an atheist feminist. I do not smoke, and drink in moderation (1-2 glasses of beer or wine per week). My (atheist) spouse and I have been married for 32 years, and together we have raised 2 sons who are now productive members of society (well, strictly speaking one of them is working, but the other is still in school)
I'm an electrical engineer. My father also is an electrical engineer, so I guess you could accuse me of copying his behaviour, though I certainly would not want to call it idiotic.
I thought that it was obvious that I was speaking "generally" as well as focusing on those who were copying the worst behaviours.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that my information is wrong that women are now dying at nearly the same rates as men and for almost exactly the same reasons - drinking, smoking, violence, that the rates of crime and incarceration for women is far higher than say 30 years ago, that addictions for women is higher today than 30 years ago? The violence instigated by women is higher than 30 years ago? Are you saying that's incorrect?
I'm talking about trends, not exceptions. If you're not part of this trend, then good for you. Surely though you aren't suggesting that because you've been in a stable marriage that means there hasn't been a dramatic increase in divorce over the last few decades and that women are now as likely to cheat on their husbands as opposed to husbands "traditionally" being the unfaithful ones say, 50 years ago?
I too am a feminist. Women used to have far fewer options than they do today and that is a good thing. But not all options are life enhancing. Do you disagree?
There are many areas where women have been and still are kept from being equal partners in society, business and so on. This is not acceptable and needs to change.
I am also a marriage and family counsellor and I now see women coming for help for issues -listed above - that used to be reserved almost exclusively for men. To the extent that women have copied behaviours that are destructive to self and others, and especially since these behaviours have been proven destructive since forever, I consider it idiotic to copy these behaviours. Another example is smoking or getting sunburns. Back when I was a kid (I'm 62 years old) the harmful effects of these two behaviours weren't well known. To take part in these behaviours now is, I think, idiotic precisely because we know their self-destructive nature. I guess you disagree? Or maybe you think that being a feminist means defending adultery, or drug abuse?
"Bashing" a world-view without including its adherents is very difficult - for me at least. I mean, who is stupider, the one who invents and absurd and incoherent world-view or the ones who follow it?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, bashing a world-view usually means bashing certain ideas. That is very easy to make without attacking the people who believe these ideas. I agree though that some people do have issues with that because they feel attacked when you tell them you don't believe the same thing. It's so real for them that the mere suggestion that it could be false is unbearable.
Ironically, you just wrote as if you are on the side of the offender, but you are not. You are the one who is offended. You are the one who does not understand that you are not under attack. Your entire world-view is not attacked by people who are Atheist. They just don't believe in God... Very ironic of you to turn this around and think that I am offended by what you write. How could you offend someone whose ideas you don't understand?
Second, Atheism is not a world-view. Hence your attack on Atheism as a worldview is what is annoying for Atheists like me who have tried to make you understand this 100 times. You say that it's difficult to attack a world-view without including its adherents precisely because all you do is attack the adherents, in that case. You don't attack the ideas; you attack the people because they are atheists. You put words in their mouth, mine quote, refuse to discuss certain ideas, change topics when it gets too complciated for you, and as I noted above, you don't even seem to try to be scientifically accurate anymore.
In other words, the problem is that you mix atheism with almost everything (at least that you talk about on your blog) because you see God vs No-God issues everywhere. It is not the case. In reality, when people stop believing in God, it's usually because they realized that where they were putting God before, there is something else. As I often say, Atheism is thus the consequence of many many other beliefs. No one gets to that point exactly the same way and no one has the same background.
The rest of your post shows exactly what I mean. Every single sentence you wrote. Every single idea and opinion could be discussed wihtout invoking God. But you don't care. As soon as somone dares do something that goes against your idea of God-like, then it's wrong, anti-God, anti-Jesus and caused by Atheism, directly or not. There is no reasoning to talk about, no arguments to discuss, because everything has an Atheist bias attached to it. It's thus impossible to show you something you get wrong.
"I see no evidence for that whatsoever, and, in fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary."
ReplyDeleteAnd what is that evidence that no soul exists?
And what is that evidence that no soul exists?
ReplyDeleteEverything we learn about the brain points to the physical properties of the brain to be the caused of all of human experience. There is no reason to think that this conscious experience will continue once the physical brain ceases to exist.
Some recent and fascinating examples are evidence that impulses are affected by the physical brain.
Example 1: A man killed his parents and committed suicide.In the note he left, he explained that his own behavior has been changing over the past few months. He did not recognize himself. He asked for an autopsy. They found a brain tumor.
Example 2: A man started to have pedophilia impulses, which he never experienced in his life. It got so bad that he could not control himself and tried to touch one of his grand-daughter. Doctors found a tumor in his brain, removed it, and he got cured. The impulses went away. Some time after, he started to feel impulses again. He did not wait to consult, doctors did find a tumor coming back, he got operated, and is fine again.
It's not 100% proof that consciousness is 100% caused by the brain; but the balance is surely moving more that way than the other.
I should try to find the sources by the way. I heard a neuro-surgeon on the radio talked about these examples.
Switch "No he didn't" with "There's no actual evidence that he did, so I don't believe that he did" and you'll have a marginally accurate description of the atheist position. Until then, you're arguing with a strawman...or hilariously flailing against your more reasonable commenters.
ReplyDeleteYour statement of support on my blog, appreciated as it is, sounds less than sincere in this context.
Hugo: I'd be interested in hearing about your second example. Any Paedophile that I've worked with has had those impulses, desires since forever. They never been attracted to anyone but children.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I've never said nor do I believe that the brain is the seat of the soul nor IS the soul. The brain is an organ that on atheism (determinism) is the source of our thoughts, and behaviours.
Alexander: I think your "switch" is inaccurate. I think there is evidence that points directly to a Creator. But that's something that we'll just have to disagree on.
ReplyDeleteMy comment on your blog - "That's sad - to feel so isolated. I'm glad that you're finally comfortable to be honest with others. Good luck on your journey." stands as stated.
I think that atheists in North America DO have a difficult time. That shouldn't be.
They are isolated. That's shouldn't be.
They are not trusted as morally acceptable people. That's wrong. It shouldn't happen.
However, if you think that I'm going to pat you on the head and give atheism and its followers a free ride on what they are trying to pawn off as rational thinking without a challenge, think again.
You and I disagree fundamentally. Should you be marginalised because of that? Absolutely not. Nor will I marginalise you. As I told Hugo a long time ago. If for some reason being an atheist became a capital offence, I would hide you. I would protect you. I would still disagree with your beliefs, but I certainly wouldn't discriminate against you because of your atheism. I've hired people knowing they were atheists. Not because they were atheists but because they were good counsellors.
On the other hand, atheism remains, in my opinion and anti-intellectual, anti-science, absurd and incoherent world-view - a world-view Hugo because anything that we believe effects every other aspect of our life. Sometimes it's trivial > our behaviours may be identical but our motives world's apart, and sometimes the effect is eternal.
Alexander: Maybe you'd be a good person to answer the question, "What more could He have done?"
ReplyDeleteAtheists say, "Give me evidence." What evidence would you accept?
"Surely though you aren't suggesting that because you've been in a stable marriage that means there hasn't been a dramatic increase in divorce over the last few decades and that women are now as likely to cheat on their husbands as opposed to husbands "traditionally" being the unfaithful ones say, 50 years ago?"
ReplyDeleteNo, of course I am not suggesting that. From reading your other comments, I appreciate that it appears that you are not among those who vilify atheists and assert that we cannot be moral people. (You may yourself have seen Christians assert that the only reason people become atheists is so that they don't need to obey the moral code handed down by God.)
So, what of the increase in divorce rate? Well, part of it is because women today have a lot more options than they did in the past. In many cases, women had the choice of staying in a loveless (or even abusive) marriage or being penniless. For the sake of themselves and their children, many women decided that enduring the marriage was the lesser of the 2 evils. Now, a woman is more likely to be able to survive on her own - divorce is no longer an untenable choice. (From personal experience (based on my parents' divorce), I can attest that divorce is not always a negative experience in the long run.)
And what of the increase of drug abuse and violence by women? I would have to say that this is an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of giving people (ie women) more choices - sometimes they will choose poorly. But the alternative of constraining women's lives to remove these options is unacceptable.
"So, what of the increase in divorce rate?"
ReplyDeleteI'm a marriage counsellor. My view may be skewed just a bit. Other than that, I agree with what you wrote.
Thesauros: Evidence that any event related to Jesus in the Bible actually happened would be a good start, since at present there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bible is more than a collection of quasi-historical fiction, and the closest thing to such an account (Josephus) is clearly a post-hoc interpolation.
ReplyDeleteAnother useful thing would be a precise definition of the deity-hypothesis you propose, so that you can't change its definition mid-sentence whenever you've been argued into a corner.
I'll wait.
Or in other words "No it didn't," 'No He didn't," etc. etc. etc.
ReplyDelete=====
"I'll wait."
Don't waste your time. We both have better things to do. I've covered all this years ago in my Makarios blog. I suppose it's possible that you don't have anything better to do. In that case, you could start with:
http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.ca/2009/08/can-you-trust-luke.html
http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.ca/2009/08/gimme-proof.html
http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.ca/2009/08/not-again.html
http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.ca/2009/08/big-fraud.html
http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.ca/2009/08/in-my-last-letter-theophilus.html
There are probably 80 to 90 more along the same topic throughout the blog.
My prediction? You'll end with, "No He didn't." "No it doesn't." etc. etc. etc.
After visiting your older blog, I can see that your preferred technique of speaking is repeated visits to the tried and true Gish Gallop. Others have already refuted your nonsense at length; you'll ignore any additions I might make just as you ignored theirs. The "Trolling for Atheists" ad up top is well earned. You're not worth my time.
ReplyDeleteOh yes, I forgot. At some point, when "No He didn't," or "No it doesn't," gets tired, atheists say, "There's so much evidence that none of it can be true.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, I'm not worth your time.
Good luck on your journey.