- HubPages»
- Religion and Philosophy»
- Atheism & Agnosticism
Questions for Atheists
Question 1 - Why Don't atheists 'Live' Like atheists?
According to atheistic beliefs, humans, through macroevolution are the most highly evolved animals on the planet. Conversely, the bible says we are created in the image of God and therefore assumes that we have a consciousness of what is right and wrong. An instinctive, if you will, understanding of moral laws, such as murder, theft and adultery (although somewhat perverted through sin). The problem is that animal kingdom does not live by moral law. That is to say, there are no concepts of right and wrong, adultery or murder. Atheism suggests that the highest ideal is the survival of the fittest, or 'natural selection.'
However, if we are to be true to the precepts of macroevolution, we should be exterminating any human who is born deformed or crippled. If we are no more than evolved animals, then why have ideals such as stealing, murder, compassion and fairness or simple right and wrong? All of these concepts are religious, or come from religious philosophies. If a person claims to be atheist, then let them live as if they are just products of evolution, otherwise they live as hypocrites.
Furthermore, if we insist that humans are the most highly evolved animals then how do we explain that we are the most violent of all other species, killing and murdering each other for reasons that no other animal could possibly conceive? Animals kill for survival or mating rituals, yet the human animal kills for envy, power jealousy and just about any other reason under the sun. this is evolved? The argument is thus - why would evolution gradually evolve beings which are not only more violent and destructive than previous ones, but are basically capable of and working towards making themselves extinct? Seems like a contradiction to the idea of evolving towards a more certain survival.
Friends, Nietzsche tried to live not as a hypocrite. He understood that true atheism was to live like an animal and therefore tried to live as if there was no God. The result was that he spent the last 11 years of his life in a mental institution. He lost his mind when he saw a person mistreating a horse.He ran and put his arms around the horse's head and then burst into tears. After a careful examination of his works, it's not hard to see that he cried because he realized that this simple act of compassion, destroyed atheism. No atheistic product of evolution could ever feel compassion for a horse and by having these feelings Nietzsche realized he was acting as a person with religious beliefs. This contradiction drove him insane because he could not escape the fact that he couldn't live as a true atheist.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14
Question 2 - Why Are There Beings Which Are Not Required?
Food for thought - Of all the animals in the world, humans are not necessary. On the contrary, the global environment would would be better off without us because it is us humans who are destroying the balance of nature. Evolution is about changes for the better, rather than change that leads to destruction. The only answer to this must of necessity be God and the reason be much more than mere survival.
According to the Bible, the Earth was created in perfection but has gone awry due to sin. Quite the opposite of Darwin's presumption of a chaotic world heading towards perfection. Human beings certainly contradict the evolutionary scheme of things.
Again, what about the source of moral ideas like nobility, truth and such? What causes humans to have these values, when none of them are found in any stage of the evolutionary process? Take a look at the supposed next-step down the chain - chimpanzees. There we find no moral concepts at all - not even a 'hint' of philosophical thinking.
The answer is simple. These values must be a reflection of a moral Creator, who has planted them within His creation, specifically in the only 'animals' created in His own image.
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:20
Question 3 - How Does Evolution Explain the Following Examples of Design?
Here's just a sampling of designs that defy evolution...
1 The structure of DNA
2 The exact tilt of the Earth which determines our seasons
3 The exact location of the Earth - just right to sustain life as we know it. A few miles closer or further from the Sun and guess what? No life on Earth.
4 The exact location of our moon - again, just a few miles closer or further from Earth and guess what? No life on Earth.
5 The intricate structure of a simple blade of grass
Friends, even atheist scientists have what seems like an impossible task to try to prove these are the results of random chance. Remember, when theories of evolution first started, they did not have the technology to discover what we now know today. As just one example, the science of micro-biology, in recent years, has recognized that there is such complexity in the simplest life-forms, that more than 60% of scientists working in this field now believe that intelligent design must be responsible for the creation of life.
Please consider, scientists have discovered that although there is a finite number of types of atoms, no two atoms are the same. The same observation has been made regarding the 'parts' that make up atoms as well. This means it is impossible for any two objects to be the same in the entire universe! Not unlike snowflakes - no two atoms are alike, therefore no two snowflakes have ever been the same. Infinity is God's trademark. In the same way, every human being is completely different, with unique fingerprints, eye retina imagery and DNA. This is a strong argument which evolution can not sufficiently explain.
"And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed." John 3:19-20
Question 4 - Why Do atheists Continue to Believe a Dead Theory?
For more than four decades now, macroevolution has been defeated as an answer to existence. Most scientists, however, refuse to admit this even though modern studies of micro-biology, quantum physics, cosmology and bio-chemistry have found evidence of intelligent design that evolution can not explain.
Any molecular biologist will tell you that the simplest life form is the single cell. They would explain that certain proteins are required to to create a cell and that these proteins are not found anywhere in the natural world, but rather, are only created from another cell. Therefore, it is impossible to create the first cell because there would be none of these proteins existing. Evolution can not find an answer to where the first cell came from and typically avoids the question. As stated previously, when theories of evolution first started, they did not know what we know today. They thought that a cell was a "homogeneous globule of protoplasm." However, it is now known that the single cell is more complex than the world's most complex factories, to put it lightly.
Friends, evolution has overwhelming problems in explaining the simplest life forms. Some such examples are the coagulation cascade, the defense system of the Bombardier beetle, , the complexity of a bacterial flagellum, the movement of a cilium, the immune system and the mind boggling complexity of vesicular transport. These are all what scientists term as irreducibly complex systems, meaning that to reduce its complexity in the slightest would result in the system not functioning at all. Note, this means they would not work at all, not that they would work less effectively. Scientists have noted that these systems did not evolve gradually, but are the creation of a master designer. Evolution can not explain them.
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18
In Conclusion - Ignorance 'Is' Bliss
The word 'atheist' is used by, or refers to people who claim to not believe in a God or higher power. However, this word comes from the Greek word 'atheos' and its original meaning is "to not know God." From that definition we can see that there are millions of true atheists and many of them being religious. Many Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses and others claim that it is impossible to know God.
Others choose to reject the idea of a God because of pride - they want total control over how they live their lives and don't want to submit to God's authority. That and because they don't want to be accountable for their choices and actions.
In any event, it is not up to the Christian to waste their time in pointless debates about whether or not there is a God. It is our role, rather, to point people to ways that they can allow God to reveal Himself to them. With this in mind, I challenge all non-believers to sincerely ask God, challenge Him if you will, to prove His existence to you. The trick is that you must be sincere - you must truly 'want' God to reveal Himself and He will do exactly that, through circumstances which He chooses that are very personal and specific to you. Keep in mind, once proof has been established in your mind, you will be faced with the responsibility of how to respond as ignorance will no longer be an option.
Comments
“The problem is that animal kingdom does not live by moral law”
Only someone entirely ignorant of animal behavior could ever say something so utterly wrong. Of course animals have morality, an instinctive social code of conduct. There morals may not be as nuanced or thought out as those human societies espouse but they are most certainly there and it takes a great deal of ignorance or dishonesty to suggest otherwise.
When was the last time you saw roving packs of wolves murdering with impunity, you don't see too many anthills or beehives where individuals just go around killing each other do you? All social animals have evolved a sort of morality. Is it a moral LAW? No. But empathy, compassion, and an instinctive drive to protect your kin are not isolated to human beings.
“Atheism suggests that the highest ideal is the survival of the fittest, or 'natural selection.' “
Atheism is the rejection of the theistic claim that one or more gods exist. It has NO suggestions of its own.
“if we are to be true to the precepts of macroevolution, we should be exterminating any human who is born deformed or crippled.”
Evolution is a natural process and while in many social animals it has produced a form of morality we should not expect that a natural process itself possesses morality. You may as well be calling asteroids that strike the Earth evil. They have no “precepts” outside the natural “laws” and boundaries of reality. Natural selection is not some code to be adhered to, its simple logic, any organism fit enough to pass on its genes is more likely to do so, and therefore the species survives and traits are passed on. You're turning an observation of how things work naturally into a moral obligation, you may as well be saying, “Volcanic lava causes things to melt, therefore we should melt things in lava”. You're getting a moral OUGHT from an observational “IS”.
“killing and murdering each other for reasons that no other animal could possibly conceive?”
Actually both dolphins and chimpanzees commit murder (meaning kill others of their species for non-survival reasons) though it is rare. Chimps have actually been seen to do battle with rival “tribes” even fashioning crude spears to go to “war”. It would appear that greater intelligence allows for more nuanced behavioral choices. Of course murder makes NO sense if there is a perfect, loving and benevolent creator, since imperfection wouldn't logically exist in a perfect Universe made by a perfect God.
“No atheistic product of evolution could ever feel compassion for a horse and by having these feelings Nietzsche realized he was acting as a person with religious beliefs.”
So evolution cannot produce a natural kinship with other animals? People are social animals, we survive in groups, alone as individuals we are weak and have less of a chance of survival. So traits that help us live together and work together are favored while behaviors that endanger the group are generally shunned. Animal husbandry has been around probably longer than modern humans have, in some form or another. To suggest that evolution cannot produce compassion or emotional depth of any kind is absurd.
“Evolution is about changes for the better”
I don't think you know jack-shit about evolution and this statement proves it. Once again, evolution is a PROCESS OBSERVED TO TAKE PLACE. It has no goals. Organisms do have a goal, and that is to reproduce. An organism fit enough to make it to breeding age and pass on its genes is the basic reality of natural selection. Those species who are not fit enough to pass on their genes/traits don't do so and therefore die out. There are no NECESSARY or UNNECESSARY animals.
“There we find no moral concepts at all - not even a 'hint' of philosophical thinking.”
You've never even watched a nature documentary have you? In fact it sounds like you've never even seen a chimpanzee.
“These values must be a reflection of a moral Creator, who has planted them within His creation, specifically in the only 'animals' created in His own image.”
Okay, I'm going to use your own logic to defeat your argument. What kind of an asshole creator only gives ONE species on his new planet morality and denies it to the others? You've claimed that animals have absolutely NO form of morality whatsoever. So why aren't animals raping and pillaging? Why is there an order to nature? By your logic all animals should be lone individuals ruthlessly looking to mate and than murder anyone who gets in their way. Yet that isn't what we see when we observe nature, especially in social animals like dolphins, whales, humans, ants, bees, fish, etc.
Also, if we are the only animals made in God's image than why are we almost identical to chimpanzees? The physical similarities are impossible to deny and the genetic similarities even more so. Was God just lazy? Or were chimps his first attempt at creating something in his image an he forgot to sprinkle in a tiny extra pinch of intelligence?
And if our morality is from a God than why does it seem ALMOST as imperfect as the morality of the animal kingdom? Why do our moral senses fail us? Why do MORAL DILEMMAS exist? And gray areas? Slavery was once considered moral, the God of the Bible himself condones it, and yet as we learned more and as we set aside prejudice and began to see those we had enslaved as part of the group, and not APART from it, we learned how wrong we were about slavery and racism and prejudice. Our morality IMPROVED on that of many ancient gods we once believed in.
I'm sorry but NONE of what you're saying has any merit at all.
“2 The exact tilt of the Earth which determines our seasons”
How exactly does evolution relate to the axial tilt of the Earth? Pretty sure Newtonian mechanics and the formation of the planet have NOTHING to do with evolution.
“3 The exact location of the Earth - just right to sustain life as we know it. A few miles closer or further from the Sun and guess what? No life on Earth.”
This is known as the Goldilocks zone and several exoplanets beyond our solar system have been found in this zone, meaning Earth is not unique in that sense and rendering your question worthless.
“4 The exact location of our moon - again, just a few miles closer or further from Earth and guess what? No life on Earth.”
Various hypotheses on the formation of the moon have been put forward, none of which have shit to do with evolution.
My answers to questions number 5 and number 1 are that you should contact an actual scientist. Also, you have NO explanation for any of these questions either, other than “God just made it that way” and that's not an answer. Saying that it was done by magic or supernatural means is NOT an explanation.
“that approximately 90% of scientists working in this field now believe that intelligent design must be responsible for the creation of life.”
Prove it. Go on. Prove that 90% of scientists in micro-biology are believers in intelligent design. And I don't mean find me one, or one hundred, I mean find me 90%. You can't, cause you're 100% full of shit.
“Furthermore, God and Jesus both claim to be infinity ("I am" and "Alpha and Omega").”
Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek Alphabet. A finite alphabet with a set number of letters, not infinity.
“Question 4 - Why Do atheists Continue to Believe a Dead Theory?”
Evolution is the fundamental theory of all life science, its the reason thousands more don't die of the flu every year, because as the flu virus evolves the scientists making the vaccines are able to keep up. Also there are PLENTY of THEISTS who accept evolution, so your question isn't valid.
“With this in mind, I challenge all non-believers to sincerely ask God, challenge Him if you will, to prove His existence to you.”
I did this, from the time I was a small child until 2009 when I realized I was an atheist. I spent ages 8-18 as a Christian and spent much of my time after that prostrated before an empty sky, waiting for something, anything, to answer me, be it Zeus, Yahweh, aliens or the Starship Enterprise. Maybe something like that really is out there somewhere, but don't fool yourself into thinking that fuzzy feelings or tra
"Religion is a neurosis people develop because they cannot deal with reality as it is"Sigmund Freud.
Neurotics build castles in the sky; psychotics live in them...your choice.
- Author
Titen-Sxull: I said that "the animal kingdom does not live by moral law" You then go on to call me ignorant, yet you yourself admit, "All social animals have evolved a sort of morality. Is it a moral LAW? No." So all of that rant, just to agree with what I said? Really?? Then you contradict yourself by admitting that Dolphins and Chimps commit murder for non-survival reasons - where are the morals there? What about orcas playing/toying abusively with a seal cub before killing it?
You smugly ask, "So evolution cannot produce a natural kinship with other animals?" You are assuming that evolution is responsible for this sort of altruism; it could instead be a result of social conditioning. It's not an unreasonable assumption, I believe, because not all species that are capable of learning can be conditioned to show compassion. Turtles, fish, paramecium can all be trained, but do not show the same proclivity for compassion as do primates. Hence there is some inborn (God-given) ability within humans and other social animals to be compassionate. Other evidence exists as well. For example, primates raised in highly traumatizing circumstances are never able to show normal compassion. You might argue that this shows that compassion is learned, but it really shows that there is a critical period in brain growth for the development of the ability in question. The existence of a "critical period" shows that the ability is not a result of generic learning, it is a "specialized function." If compassion was based on mere "conditioning", then it could be learned at any time, which is not the case.
You say, "I don't think you know jack-shit about evolution..." Perhaps, but I do know that the basis for evolution is survival of the fittest/strongest - It may be that in the interest of the species for individuals to sacrifice themselves for the good of all, but if they sacrifice themselves before they breed, their genetics won't enter the gene pool. Individuals are LESS likely to breed if they have compassion. Maybe that's not true today, but it is true before compassion was a common trait. Don't confuse compassion for love. Once they have bred, they are more likely to save those they love than they are to save strangers. Then compassion doesn't exist for them, in a broad sense, which is what evolution works on. That's not to say that they won't have the compassion gene (if there is such a thing). And maybe that's the answer. Those with compassion didn't necessarily die. Compassion isn't necessarily a weakness trait, one that ensures that they die. But it does give the individual and his genes a disadvantage. And THAT is what counts in evolution
You say, "You've never even watched a nature documentary have you? In fact it sounds like you've never even seen a chimpanzee." One can have various doubts about the moral quality of chimpanzee cooperative behavior. Do the chimps know, for example, what they are doing when they help a conspecific? Are they in the relevant way aware of their good deeds? Doesn’t their friendliness come too easily, at too little cost? Are their motives in order, don’t they really cooperate or help to collect some future gain later on?
Such points are voiced by De Waal’s critics at his Tanner Lectures, most notably by Korsgaard (2006) and Kitcher (2006).
You ask, "How exactly does evolution relate to the axial tilt of the Earth?" A pre-requisite, so to speak, for evolution, is the 'big-bang theory' which can not explain the tilt of the Earth. Also, if the big-bang were true, then all planets would be rotating in the same direct, based on the first law of physics, yet there are at least two in our solar system alone that spin varied to the rest. For the record, your "goldilocks zone" has been debunked numerous times - who really is the ignorant one?
You say, "Various hypotheses on the formation of the moon have been put forward, none of which have shit to do with evolution." What do hypotheses have to do with facts?
You say, "Also there are PLENTY of THEISTS who accept evolution, so your question isn't valid" However, there are many MORE evolutionists who have become creationists - so now what? anyway, the point of that section was the fact that evolution has been proven false, yet many still believe in it - I asked why. :) Have a wonderful day
- Author
cheaptrick: The theories Freud propagates in his works on the subject are not less than outrageous. Not only is his criticism of religious beliefs and institutions severe and insensitive; the speculations he conjures regarding religion’s origins are also, scientifically examined, preposterous. The scientific untenability of Freud’s theories of religion owes mainly to the fact that in looking for theoretical support ―archaeological, anthropological, and exegetical― Freud relies on some very precarious hypotheses. And if most of this can only be appreciated with the benefit of hindsight, there was one important theoretical presupposition Freud held onto that was the most dubious and unfounded of all; namely, the assumption of an ‘archaic heritage’ ― that there are unconscious memory traces of events in the history of a group, which are inherited and active in a collective mind as in the individual psychology.
You say, "Neurotics build castles in the sky; psychotics live in them...your choice." I ask, what is 'your' choice?
- Author
Titen-Sxull: Your argument for compassion/morals based on evolution seems to be limited to the 'social animals', which you admit. But if it is possible through evolution, what about the other animals that are not social?
You say, "Atheism is the rejection of the theistic claim that one or more gods exist. It has NO suggestions of its own." Yes, I should have been more clear - atheist believe that there is no God, therefore they must believe in evolution, and 'evolution' suggests that the highest ideal is the survival of the fittest, or 'natural selection.'... which atheists must believe.
You say, "So why aren't animals raping and pillaging? Why is there an order to nature? By your logic all animals should be lone individuals ruthlessly looking to mate and than murder anyone who gets in their way." Just as a small example, see my comment about orcas toying with seal cubs before killing them (akin to pillaging), noting that there are other animals that display this type of behavior. You admit there is an order to nature, which defies the 'chaos' that big-bang evolutionists agree on - unless you are saying that order came out of chaos? As for "looking only to mate and murdering all who get in there way, " is there not competition in the animal world for mating rights? They may not murder, in most cases, but do they not fight, some violently, to see who gets to mate? Do they not do the same over food and sometimes shelter? Are they not territorial? Again, you seem to depend only on the 'social' animals to defend your points, but you can't pick and choose when it comes to evolution, that is to say, some evolved certain traits and others didn't.
You say, "Evolution is a natural process and while in many social animals it has produced a form of morality we should not expect that a natural process itself possesses morality." I did not say that the process should possess morality - do you understand the precepts of macroevolution?
You say, "Also, if we are the only animals made in God's image than why are we almost identical to chimpanzees?" On the contrary, the similarities amongst differing species is evidence of a single designer - however, it would take an open mind to understand this.
You say, "And if our morality is from a God than why does it seem ALMOST as imperfect as the morality of the animal kingdom? Why do our moral senses fail us? Why do MORAL DILEMMAS exist? And gray areas?" Man, and his mind, were created perfectly. It is through the corruption of sin, and 2000 years of it, that we have troubles with morals.
You say, "Slavery was once considered moral, the God of the Bible himself condones it.." It was only considered moral by corrupt man. God never condoned it, He 'allowed' it, and He also set rules for how slaves should be treated, something that man ignored in the latter stages.
You say, "Also, you have NO explanation for any of these questions either, other than “God just made it that way” and that's not an answer." When the answer is either God or evolution, it takes less faith to believe in an all-powerful God, than it does to believe something was created, somewhat supernaturally, as you say God is, out of nothing. Something as intricate as the universe, solar system, animals and the human body, no less. Especially, when evolution has been proven false since the mid-60's.
You see, atheists believe all they have to do is say they do not believe in God in order to call themselves atheists. They do not seem to consider what it means that they 'do' believe. Nietzsche knew this - perhaps you should read some of his works?
I do Not choose to believe there's an old bearded man in the sky who watches everything we do...and does things for you if you pray hard enough.
Do you really believe the human mind is capable of understanding God if god exists? An ant would have a better chance of understanding humans than humans do of understanding God.
You write an insulting and inaccurate piece about atheists and think no one will challenge it? Titen Sxull makes more sense. How religiously arrogant to assume you are able to discredit two of the greatest thinkers in history. Prove your God empirically rather than using misinformation and exaggeration.
Explain how the horrific amount of killing religion has caused through out history benefits man kind.
You have misaligned what appears to be an excellent intellectual mind with the travesty of archaic unenlightened myth. Why not apply that intellect to enlightening people rather than keeping them in the dark. Take responsibility for your life rather than passing it on to a God who must be incompetent at best and down right evil at worst; the evidence is all around you...all you have to do is open your eyes..
- Author
cheaptrick: 1. I do not know of any Christians who believe in an "old bearded man" But your ignorance is welcome :)
2. I never said that we can fully comprehend God, on the contrary, I specifically mentioned that we can not in one of my Hubs. However, we can know all that he has revealed to us
3. I did not say anything about challenging my Hub, in fact it asks questions, which means it's looking for replies - but I guess I shouldn't expect you to realize that.
4. I did not "assume I am able to discredit" anyone. I merely stated what has been researched. I acatually do not think I discredited Nietzsche himself. And as for Freud, I just tried to show that having letters behind your name does not mean you are right about everything. Do some research and see for yourself - again, not sure if I can expect such from you.
5. It is not the intention of this Hub to "prove my God" in any way, again, I just asked some questions. Although, the complexity of simple cells that are mentioned in this Hub seem to indicate an intelligent design, but I guess you missed that part :)
5. You mention, "horrific amount of killing religion has caused" but as would be expected, you are misinformed... http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism-kills-more...
6. You tell me to take responsibility for my life, yet you do not even know me. From your statement I can guess that you would assume that all religious folk say God is responsible for everything - again exposing your ignorance. 'I' choose whether I want to worship God or not, and therefore 'I' am responsible for all consequences of any actions I take, be they good or bad.
7. You say my eyes are closed - yet you seem to ignore the fact that evolution has been disproved since the 1960's - :)
- Author
Capsule didn't update all of my previous comment...
Added to #2 - I wonder if not being able to fully understand God is what makes people reject the idea? I myself, with a finite mind, would not expect to fully understand an infinite God. I wouldn't want a God that I can fully understand, or else what kind of god would he be?
Added to #7 either way, I will always praise God for all that comes into my life :)
There's something about the fanatic religious virus that infects the minds of intellectuals which makes them the most dangerous of all. You cherry pick, distort, and slip away from reality and nothing gets through to you. You have my sympathy and hope that you find your way out of this delusion soon. Good day
- Author
cheaptric: Now you resort to calling me a 'fanatic' - one who will not change his mind. Once again, you assume to know me. You would rather I believe in something that has been disproved? They also have a name for believing something that is just not true, creating your own reality, as it were. It's called insane :) I'll change my mind, when the evidence leads to such.
In any event, you have responded to my Hub 3 times and not once were you able to comment on the 'Hub' itself, or answer any of the questions it asks. All your intellect allowed you to do is attempt to insult those who believe, which you did poorly by the way. At least the Titen-Sxull was able to post some relevant questions and answers, albeit using language typical of frustration. Nonetheless - thanks for coming out ;) My prayers are with you, my friend.
Since the Bible says man sinned when he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it is unbiblical to say that such knowledge is something we were created with in the image of God. How can someone have a conscience if they have no knowledge of good and evil?
- Author
Hi Rhonda :) You do not appear to have any answers that this Hub asks, however, I will try to provide some answers to 'your' question...
First of all, a quick, simple answer - The Bible does not teach that Adam & Eve had 'no' knowledge before the fall, just that they had no knowledge of bad (evil). Everything they knew was good. They didn't need to know good from evil. All they needed to know was right from wrong. Which do you teach your kids first - good & evil or right from wrong?
More specifically, They had life, which was good. Everything about their life was good. Every need was satisfied. Their consciences were crystal clear. God walked and talked with them in the Garden. They knew God in a one-to-one relationship. God was not just someone they had heard about. They had absolutely everything going for them, and they knew it. That is why they were told not to try to find out about good and evil. They had no idea as to what 'evil' was. For example - a person raised in a extremely 'sheltered' environment, with no television, radio or contact with the outside world, see's only nature. Then one day he witnesses a murder - how shocking and traumatic is this? This person only knew good up until this incident, and now this person knows evil :)
In any event, When Satan tempted them to disobey God, he did it by offering them something that appeared to be good - becoming like God. That was an evil enticement, first, because it was wrong (they would only become sinners and lose their relationship with God) and second because it would bring death and a guilty conscience into their experience. God knew that the perfect protection from evil was simple obedience to his command. If they had obeyed, they could then have eaten the fruit of the Tree of Life. People who have absolutely zero knowledge or experience of evil need to be protected from it - like little babies. Parents cannot explain evil to babies and toddlers! But they do everything possible to protect them, including instructions about obedience to their parents. For the record, one can see that this is not being 'harsh' but rather, it is pure love ;)
Thank-you for your question :)
Andy, your hub, and your subsequent comments, demonstrate an appalling ignorance regarding atheism. You title your hub "Questions for Atheists," then proceed to discuss evolutionary theory -- at least your sorry, pathetic misunderstanding of it.
In the end, despite your hub's title, you fail to actually ask a single question that actually relates directly to atheism -- that is, the lack of belief in God. Then again, I see you believe that ignorance is bliss. So there you go.
If you publish a hub that sincerely asks a question regarding atheism, I'll be happy to offer an answer. Otherwise, I've just wasted five minutes replying to you. Voted down.
- Author
Lol... this jas already been adressed up above, but just for you Paladin, I'll try this again :) Yes, I do indeed understand that Atheism is a denial of a creator God. I get that. Now, if you could just take the next logical step - if there is no creator God, then how did man appear?? Get it? If there is no creator God, then by default, it must then be evolution. Or do atheists not think that far ahead? Or perhaps atheism teaches some other magical appearance of man that I'm not aware of? You call me pathetic, in fact all three responses were very good at trying to put people down, calling names and such. Really says alot about he intelligence we're dealing with here. At least the Titen-Sxull showed signs of intelligence. Either way, thanks for coming out ;)
Just to make clear, I didn't call you pathetic. I called your utter lack of understanding of evolutionary theory (and science) pathetic.
And, given your most recent comments, you clearly DO NOT understand what atheism is. When you're ready to actually find out about it, and not just argue about evolution, you know what to do. Until then, I'm done wasting time with you.
- Author
Paladin: Denial much? Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
I know enough about atheism to know it is incorrect, false and untrue. That's about all I am required to know, rather than waste 'my' time travelling down the rabbit hole :)
It's funny how atheists, when cornered, right away play the "wasting my time" card - quite amusing. They don't think it's wasting their time when they are expressing their false views (supported no less by false 'scientific' data no less) only when their views are challenged. They refer to my type as fanatics, but we tend to go where the evidence leads - what about atheists? Who are the real fanatics here? I know - the typical response is "prove your God," however, it's a matter of deduction. Between the choices of atheism and a creator God, one of these choices has actually been disproved. When they can disprove a creator God, things might change.
You certainly are a confused young man, aren't you, Andy? You title your hub "Questions For Atheists," then procede to ask questions that have nothing to do with atheism, then in response to me you declare that you already know "all I am required to know" about atheism. Then why pretend to ask questions about it?
Still, I see you've corrected your definition of atheism from "denial" to "rejection," which is more accurate. Now we're getting somewhere. "Denial" suggests a refusal to accept something that is true, while "rejection" doesn't imply such a presumption.
However, I would add that a better definition of atheism is a CONSIDERED rejection of belief in deities, for I believe that genuine atheism requires a careful and objective examination of the subject. In any case, congratulations, grasshopper. You've taken your first step toward the truth.
Unfortunately, you've once again demonstrated a problem with comprehension. I didn't say you were "wasting my time." I only warned you that I wouldn't waste any more time if you insisted on debating evolution, instead of asking about atheism -- as the title of your hub suggests. If you truly have "Questions For Atheists" that actually have something to do with atheism, I'm willing to indulge you further.
For example, you claimed in your most recent comments that "we" (believers) "tend to go where the evidence leads." That's a pretty unequivocal statement. Could you please provide some examples of this? Or even one?
Please explain for us the careful process of examination and consideration of this evidence that led you to your belief in God. If it's a simple "matter of deduction," then it should be rather easy for you to convince us.
- Author
Following the evidence has been answered in my Hubs "Can the Bible Be Trusted" and "Does God Exist." Here's a question for you, one that you've been dancing around - since atheists reject the idea of a creator God, how do they explain man being here on Earth? Do enlighten me :)
Andy,
Just wanted to thank you for your intelligent, articulate article. I am at a loss as to why the above responders are so angry/defensive. I heard it said that once the name calling comes out the argument has been lost. Which mean if you can't prove the debate through facts then you have no debate, regardless of how many insults and bullying tactics you throw out. I'm seeing a lot of that coming from the responders which instantly discredits them from other readers as seeing them as calm, clear, rational thinkers. I find if I don't agree with something, I allow the individual their right to believe it and simply move on. It's what God teaches.
- Author
Hi Peggy - thanks for reading and thank you for your kind words and encouragement. Very insightful and revealing. I certainly agree. Someone once told me that atheists aren't bad people, in general. I said, yeah, until you challenge their views or until they find out you're a believer ;)
Actually, Andy, I haven't been dancing around your question at all. I was merely waiting for you to propose it in the proper context. Now that you appear to no longer equate atheism and evolution -- at least for the moment -- I'm happy to answer your question. I happen to believe that modern man arrived here through the process of evolution: specifically, natural selection. It is the theory that is most supported by the predominance of empirical evidence.
As for your "going where the evidence leads," I took a few moments to examine your other hubs, which you offered as examples. One of them ("Does God Exist?") actually presents only one supposed bit of "evidence" -- an anecdotal story of the supposed "misery" of secular countries (which is actually contradicted by statistics). The rest is composed exclusively of philosophical arguments in support of God's existence.
Such arguments certainly have their proper place -- especially with regard to the question of God's existence. But in this case, with the exception of Pascal's Wager, they all appear to be your own composition. It's difficult to accept that you were somehow objectively convinced by your own arguments, completely independent of your own presumptions. So that hub doesn't really answer my question.
Your other hub ("Can The Bible Be Trusted?") does at least go through the motions of "examining "evidence" -- namely, the Bible. However, it is full of claims that simply aren't true, including predictions that didn't happen, scientific observations that aren't scientific, health suggestions that are merely common sense (or simply wrong), and appraisals of the Bible's literary quality that are demonstrably misguided.
I actually composed a more specific list examining your hubs in greater detail, but my comments were becoming so lengthy, I declined to add them here. I was tempted to publish them in their respective hubs but, frankly, both hubs are quite bad -- even worse than this one -- and I'm loathe to add whatever promotional value my comments would give them. Since I'm already fairly committed here, perhaps I'll post them in subsequent comments in this hub (no doubt in response to your own).
At this point, given the questionable examples you've offered thus far, it suggests to me that -- contary to your claims -- you DID NOT "go where where the evidence leads." Rather, it appears you first formulated your conclusion (that God exists), then selected whatever bits and pieces of anecdotal and philosophical "evidence" you could collect to support that conclusion. Otherwise, the evidence and arguments cited would be much stonger, and more convincing.
Eventually, I would like to begin examining your conclusions regarding the supposed "falsity" of atheism, but I believe we have much more discussion in store regarding the current topic (the supposed evidence for your belief in God) before we can reach that point.
- Author
Goodness. You truly are a unique individual. First, let me say this from the get go... I'm not going to turn the comments section into a 'prove your God' discussion. There's enough of that in the forums. One of my upcoming comments, or Hubs will show why we are not obligated to prove God. That being said, you guys are sincerely hilarious. Like something right out of a comic book. You repeatedly attempt to tell me that atheism has nothing to do with evolution... only to tell me that you believe that's how man got here. Tis to laugh indeed. In any event thanks for confirming my Hub, which btw reminds us that evolution has been disproved. Atheists always ask us to prove God, yet they can't seem to 'disprove' Him. As for your opinions of my Hubs mentioned, let me give just one example of why they are irrelavant. You say some of the things mentioned are common sense, yet we with our much more evolved sense, still couldn't figure it out until many centuries later (ie - charles atlas, burying the dead and human waste, and a simple thing like the washing of hands just to name a few). Instead of reading my Hubs, of which you hold such low opinion, why don't you try something more challenging. Perhaps The Illogical Athiest.. just for starters. Ha ha, more to come my friend.
Hmmm. Your most recent comments sound eerily familiar to something I read recently. Let's see if I can paraphrase:
"It's funny how [obnoxious believers], when cornered, right away play the ["we're not obligated to prove God"] card - quite amusing.
Quite amusing, indeed.
- Author
What's amusing is how you avoid the complications of your own belief, by attempting to turn the tables around. Once again, this Hub is not about proving God, it's about atheism - do try to stick to the topic. Is it because, after adamantly telling me that there is no connection between atheism and evolution, you have admitted to believing in evolution? Or is it because you know evolution has been disproved? Who really is cornered here? In any event, as I mentioned already, I will be posting another Hub, soon, which not only has even more tough questions for atheists, but will also show why we do not need to prove God. Btw, taking a look around, I see no answers for the questions in this Hub, as expected. The next one should be even more entertaining. Stay tuned. Ha ha - FTW
- Author
P.S: "Now that you appear to no longer equate atheism and evolution -- at least for the moment -- I'm happy to answer your question. I happen to believe that modern man arrived here through the process of evolution:..."
This makes sense to you? You do not see the contradiction in your very own words? In any event, you 'falsely' state, "It is the theory that is most supported by the predominance of empirical evidence." I will say it one more time... Evolution has been 'scientifically' disproved, since the mid 1960's, no less. Now what are you going to do?
Andy, the title of your hub is "Questions For Atheists." Reasonable people would expect that the questions would therefore be about atheism. And, as you appeared to agree earlier, the question of atheism is whether or not God exists. Period. Answering that question doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I accept evolutionary theory.
Yes, my atheism is a result of an objective examination of reality, which is also why I accept evolution. But it's also the reason I accept the theories of gravity and electromagnetism. Are you going to ask me about them, too?
Despite the title of your hub, ATHEISM is the one topic you seem resolutely determined to avoid -- no doubt because you realize you'll eventually be forced to defend your own opposing viewpoint. Based on what I read in those other hubs, you're incapable of doing so convincingly.
For example, in your hub, "Can The Bible Be Trusted?" you claim that "the order of the events told [in the Bible] and the dates of their occurances agree with secular history." I could just as easily argue that the order of events in "War And Peace" agree with secular history. It doesn't mean everything in the novel is true.
Another claim is that "everything that the Bible predicted would happen, thus far – has happened. " Of course, this is utterly false -- and quite easily demonstrable, with examples if you wish.
Another is your claim that the Bible supposedly has scientific veracity. One of your ludicrous examples is that Isaiah told us that the world is round -- "long before man found out." But he didn't. He only referred to the "CIRCLE of the Earth." But the world isn't a circle, is it? It isn't even a sphere. It's a spheroid -- a sphere that bulges slightly in the middle.
Isaiah also declared that the Lord will "gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Is this "evidence" that the Bible foresaw that the world is a flat square? This is a perfect example of your NOT following where the evidence leads, but rather cherry-picking bits and pieces from what you call "evidence" that seem to support your preconceptions (while ignoring others that contradict them).
With each new examination of your so-called "evidence" and your supposed "deductive" reasoning, it becomes clearer and clearer why you refuse to actually discuss atheism, and why you keep retreating to your cave, poking your little "evolution" flag through the hole as if it were some protective talisman (believe me, it isn't).
I'm staying tuned...
- Author
Goodness Paladin - seriously?? I am seeing just how fanatical 'atheism' really is. You just don't get it, and that's fine. I am getting an insight into the atheistic mind. For the last time, I know atheism is a rejection of a creator God, but that by 'default' leads to a belief in evolution. Do you not see this? Really?? Anyway, the point being, if there is no evolution then there can not, logically, be any so-called atheism. Do you not see this? You may accuse me of not discussing atheism all you want, all you are doing is demonstrating the fact that you have no answers. Also, you say I am the one retreating to my cave, but at least my cave is built upon solid ground my friend. For instance, my last comment to you a specific question - you believe in evolution, yet evolution has been proven scientifically false, since the 1960's, now what? Your reply was yet again another attempt to turn things around and bring God and the Bible into the discussion. so who really is 'retreating'? If we strictly stick to atheism, specifically, all it becomes is a there is a God, no there isn't debate. I'm looking to question the beliefs of Atheism, one of which is evolution. The very first question asks, why don't atheists live like atheists? that seems related to atheism, no? You can try to insult me all you wish, using words like 'incapable' and 'ludicrous' and such. However, all 'I' have to do is let you rant, and my job becomes easier :)
War & Peace is a novel written after the fact, whereas the bible was written as things happened. The fact that the bible predictions have come to pass is actually quite 'easily' demonstrable, using secular history books. See http://peace-of-mind.net/prediction.htm just for a 'small' sample. You say the word 'circle' is arguable, however, there is no Hebrew word for 'sphere'. And you avoid the fact that the Bible told us there was no 'Charles Atlas' Holding up the world, long before we decided to recognize it ;) the term 'four corners of the world' is a term that is 'still' used in contemporary writings.
Denial much? Oh yeah, any comments about evolution being disproved??
Andy, you stated in a recent comment that "this hub is not about proving God, it's about atheism." (note to others -- pause on that for a moment, and try not to laugh). Do you not see the irony here? Since you appear to have great difficulty grasping a simple concept, I'll try to lay it out for you in bullet points:
-- You title your hub "Questions For Atheists"
-- You reaffirm that this is hub is "about atheism"
-- You agree (repeatedly!) that atheism is the rejection of the idea of God's existence
-- An atheist replies, trying to discuss the idea of God's existence
-- You tell the atheist to "stick to the topic"
If I accomplish anything here, at the very least I hope your comments present a distinct demonstration of the power of the impenetrable wall of denial, delusion and illogic that believers must necessarily build around themselves to maintain their belief.
Incidentally, it appears that you don't even know much about your own Bible. It was decidedly NOT written as things happened. Everything was written AFTER the fact. Even the New Testament was written decades after Jesus supposedly died. Then again, for someone who seems to believe that evolution was disproved in the 1960s, it's not surprising that your lack of knowledge would extend even to your own religious text.
p.s. You probably don't realize it, but in your list of Amazon referrals, you're actually promoting an atheist book. "God No!" is by Penn Jilette, an outspoken atheist.
- Author
Paladin: Yet another attempt to discredit me, without addressing the topic at hand. Yet AGAIN, this Hub is not about proving God. The title of the Hub is NOT "Evidence For a God". In fact, the Hub is not even about atheism, as you seem to try to twist it to be. It is, quite simply, titled "Questions For Atheists" which leaves it quite open, intentionally. With such a title, I could have asked questions totally unrelated to atheism in general - not sure if you get that. For the record, you have posted quite a few lengthy posts here, yet NONE of them address the questions presented. You have said that you would answer the questions when they relate to atheism, so why keep posting? Yet, you end up admitting that you believe in evolution, which some of the questions DO address, yet you are unable to answer, again. Typical atheist tactic - when you can't provide the answers, attempt to discredit the author :)
You are correct when you say the Bible was written after the fact, and I should have worded that comment better indeed. However, it was not written very long after the fact, such that people were still around who could verify what was written. In any event, people wrote down what they saw and what they heard.
Once again, you say I am wrong about the date of evolution being disproved, yet you do not address the fact that it has been disproved, another typical tactic of atheists. Nonetheless, your attempt to discredit what I said about evolution being disproved is pointless, as most people can check it out in their favorite search engine - do you own one?
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.p...
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Sci...
http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html
http://in6days.tripod.com/id1.html
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9694.0
http://www.ehow.com/how_5271222_disprove-evolution...
*yawns*
Now we're converging on the heart of the matter, aren't we? Despite your hub's title -- and your previous claim that it is "about atheism" -- you're at least beginning to acknowledge that it might not be. You now admit that it "leaves it quite open," and that you "could have asked questions totally unrelated to atheism in general."
That's a beginning, at least. Perhaps if I were to engage you long enough, you'd eventually admit that atheism and evolution aren't the same thing, but I honestly don't know if I'm willing to expend that much time and energy trying to coax one person on one specific point. You've come at least this far, which is something.
You're correct that I haven't answered any of the questions originally posed in your hub, and there's a reason for that. I have no problem discussing evolution. I've done so countless times, and will likely discuss it again in the future. But to do so in this case would be to concede a monumental falsehood on your part (that atheism=evolution), and I simply can't do that.
In that regard, your hub offered me a unique opportunity, which I suspect I've indulged about as far as I can. As you may have discerned by now, this isn't the first time I've debated believers and creationists, and I always have a preconceived objective in mind. Usually, it is to put at least a small crack in the wall of delusion that surrounds believers, in the hope that, someday, enough cracks will appear that they'll eventually free themselves. Experience suggests this is the most effective method.
However, in this particular case, you refuse to even discuss your own belief, and the wall can't even be approached. So, instead, I've indulged in a secondary objective, directed partially at you but primarily at those who follow -- particularly other atheists who may not yet have the necessary knowledge and experience to engage in this war of ideas.
I wanted to demonstrate for them that they don't have to automatically accept the definitions offered by believers -- such as trying to define atheism as a "denial" of God's existence, instead of a "rejection" of it. Nor must they accept the arbitrary parameters established by believers -- such as when you title your hub "Questions For Atheists" then insist upon discussion evolution, as if it were the same thing. I believe I've accomplished both pretty convincingly, but I'll leave that for them to judge.
As for you and I, I don't know what else there is to discuss, unless you offer some hint that you're actually willing to discuss ATHEISM and not evolution. So I suppose I'll wait on your reply.
- Author
Twist it all you want. Any logical thinking reader can see. I did not equate atheism with evolution, I simply stated that atheism, by default, must believe in evolution. Disprove evolution and atheism makes no sense. Dodge and duck, ask questions to avoid answering all you want. Logic and truth can not be denied.
- Author
PS: There is no need for me to accept that the Hub is not about atheism. It's in the Title "Questions For Atheists" The Hub is about 'atheists', not 'atheism.' Specifically, it asks reasons for their belief - it does not ask them to prove there is no existence of God, and that's why I do not have to use this vehicle to prove my God. But then again, ask any atheist a question about why they believe it and the first card they play is the 'prove God' card. Another tactic of atheists is one of semantics - that of splitting hairs. For example, you rant on me for using the word denial of God, rather than rejection of God. True there are technically differing meaning, but the end result is the same. Whether you deny a belief in God, or reject the idea of a God, either way you do not believe in Him. But, I digress, go on and keep using whatever tactics it requires to help you sleep at night - to make you feel that you come out on top. It is still a form of denial ;)
Sure, Andy. Whatever you say. ;-)
- Author
Paladin: Do you believe in 'absolute truth?"
If you say 'no', I would ask if that is absolutely true? If you say yes...
"Knowledge: Unless one knows everything, or has revelation from someone (God) who does, something we don't know could contradict what we think we know.
Truth: If our thoughts are the mere by-products of the electrochemical processes in our evolved brains, you would not get "truth" you would get "brain-fizz." Chemicals do not produce "truth" they just react. As Doug Wilson said, it would be like shaking up a can of Mountain Dew, and a can of Dr. Pepper, opening them, and watching them fizz. Neither fizz is "true," they just are. For truth you need someone (God) who transcends the natural realm.
Universal, immaterial, unchanging logic: For universal, immaterial, unchanging logic, you need someone (God) who is universal (Psalm 90:2), not made of matter (John 4:24) and unchanging (Malachi 3:6). Without God, who has universal knowledge, we could not know anything to be universally true. Without God, who is Spirit (not made of matter), we could not make sense of immaterial things. Without God who is unchanging (and logic is a reflection of the way He thinks), we would have no basis for expecting logic not to change."
Selah
That's an interesting question, Andy, and one that I've been pondering for years. To begin such discussions, I feel it's best to begin with a definition of what it is that's actually being discussed.
I propose that an "absolute" truth is one that is true in all instances and regardless of circumstance. I'll proceed with the assumption that you concur with this definition (if I'm wrong, you'll have to correct me later).
Yes, I do believe there are absolute truths. As anyone can tell you, one plus one will ALWAYS equal two. Even if we arbitrarily change what numbers or symbols represent those quantities, one of them plus one more of them will always equal two of them.
Similarly, there are absolute logical truths. For example, something cannot be both true and not true simultaneously. More specifically, with regard to the question of God's existence, it is either true or not true. It cannot simultaneously be both true and not true. That, itself, is an absolute truth.
Proceeding to your argument, you make some interesting comments, particularly with regard to knowledge. You observe that unless we know everything, "something we don't know could contradict what we think we know." I tend to agree with this premise, though I disagree with the conclusion you draw from it (more on that in a moment).
Next, you claim that, because thoughts are mere "by-products of the electrochemical processes" in the brain, they cannot "get" truth. I'm assuming that by "get" you mean "perceive" or "comprehend." In either case, you haven't established that such a claim is factually correct (with all due respect to Douglas Adams, a quote from him doesn't do it for me).
You then insist that God is necessary for "universal, immaterial, unchanging logic." With this claim I must also disagree. If anything, I've literally demonstrated above that "universal, immaterial [and] unchanging logic" is available to anyone. By merely tapping into the "by-products" of my brain's "electrochemical processes," I've managed to access something you claim is accessible only through God.
In the end, your argument appears to be that, unless we know EVERYTHING, it is impossible for us to know ANYTHING (because anything we DO "know" (or think we know) can be contradicted by something we don't yet know). Therefore, true knowledge is accessible only through an external source -- namely, God.
I disagree with your conclusion because I disagree with the premise that it's impossible for us to "know" anything (but that requires a definition of "knowing" for which I simply don't have space here).
And, of course, I disagree with your second premise that God is the only viable source of knowledge, for I have yet to be convinced that God actually exists. Still, let's consider the implications of your argument.
To begin, how do you "know" that your own premises, conclusions and arguments are correct, if humans can't "know" anything by themselves? If you reply that such knowledge comes from God, we're inevitably returned to the original question: How do you know that God exists in the first place, to give you such knowledge?
Even if you presume that THAT knowledge came from God, the question merely moves back one step: How do you know THAT knowledge is genuine, without first concluding that God exists (to give it to you)?
We could similarly go on in nearly infinite regression, but somewhere, at the very beginning, you had to make the independent assumption that the "knowledge" you're supposedly receiving comes from a genuine "external" source, and that the source is God.
It is at precisely that point that your argument crumbles in upon itself. If everything you accept about God revealing knowledge to you is unavoidably founded upon an initial human assumption of knowledge, and if humans like you and me are incapable of "knowing" anything, it follows that you can't really know God exists, because something you might not yet know could eventually contradict that initial "knowledge."
I apologize to everyone for the length of my comments. I've practically written my own hub here. But this is fascinating stuff, and, unfortunately, brevity doesn't always serve a thorough examination of questions like these.
- Author
Hi Paladin - thanks for your well-thought and educated answer. There is much to be considered there. In the meantime, I have noted the following, and perhaps you could explain further...
You agree that "something we don't know could contradict what we think we know." Yet, you disagree with it's logical conclusion
" In either case, you haven't established that such a claim is factually correct" - "Today, most scientists have adopted a traditionally monist view of the mind-brain problem, arguing that the human mind, consciousness, and self are no more than by-products of electrochemical activity within the brain," (http://www.nourfoundation.com/events/Beyond-the-Mi... It's like, if our thoughts were like that fizz, then your brain simply ‘fizzed atheism is true,’ and my brain fizzed ‘Christianity is true,’ and that arguing as to which fizz was ‘right’ would be senseless as we could no more change our thoughts than the pop could its fizz.
You say that you have "literally demonstrated above that "universal, immaterial [and] unchanging logic" is available to anyone" By merely tapping into the "by-products" of my brain's "electrochemical processes," I've managed to access something you claim is accessible only through God. - This does not negate God. Just because you reject the idea of God, does not mean He will deny you access to what is accessible only through Him.
My argument was not "that we could not know anything", it was said that unless we know 'everything', we could not know "anything to be universally true."
You say, "how do you "know" that your own premises, conclusions and arguments are correct, if humans can't "know" anything by themselves? Again, see above. Also, I did not imply that humans are mindless zombies, but rather stating the idea that 'because' we can know things is evidence of God - otherwise it's all just fizz.
You ask, "How do you know that God exists in the first place, to give you such knowledge?" Again, it's not that idea that God exists in the first place to give knowledge, it's the idea that such knowledge is evidence of a God, or else it's just fizz - electrochemical by-products.
You ask, "How do you know THAT knowledge is genuine, without first concluding that God exists (to give it to you)?" Knowledge becomes genuine using the God-given gift of reasoning coupled with evidence and deduction.
And you state that, "you had to make the independent assumption that the "knowledge" you're supposedly receiving comes from a genuine "external" source, and that the source is God." Again, it's not an 'assumption' when one uses reasoning and what science/biology tells us about our thought processes.
Again you insist that I've said, "and if humans like you and me are incapable of "knowing" anything," When I really said that we cannot know anything as being universally true without God who has universal knowledge. Therefore, because I do know that somethings are indeed universally true, this is evidence of a universal God.
Unless I have misunderstood what you have said.
No need to apologize for the lengthy comments. I'm sure any readers, and myself as well, do appreciate the the time you have taken to provide such a studious response.
Thanks for the kind words, Andy. It seems we initially got off on the "wrong foot" (as we say here in the U.S.), but we may yet salvage a proper philosophical discussion from the ruins!
It seems I misunderstood your argument regarding what it's possible to know. If I now understand it correctly, your arguments apply exclusively to ABSOLUTE knowledge, not all knowledge (though I propose this doesn't alter the essence of my argument). Many of your questions and comments arose from my previous misunderstanding, so I'll now address only the more currently relevant issues.
To answer your first question -- I disagreed with your conclusion because it arose from premises with which I disagree. I agreed with ONE of the premises, but disagreed with the others (identified in my previous comments). Therefore, I cannot accept the conclusion as valid.
I tried to follow your link to the Nour Foundation, but it appears to have been cut short in your typing. With a search of the site, I did manage to find the sessions you quote. Unfortunately, there's no transcript and, combined, the videos are more than five hours long.
Still, there is a summary of both sessions, and there doesn't appear to be anything in them -- nor in the quote you provided -- that suggests that the human brain isn't capable of grasping absolute knowledge without the help of God. Even if they DID suggest such a thing, I would require more research to be convinced, given that human cognition of absolute knowledge seems so self-evident.
Which returns me to my previous demonstration that the human mind CAN grasp absolute truths -- at least those that are mathematical and logical. And it's really not all that amazing. That's not to say that the human brain isn't an astounding and complex biological instrument. But, in the end, selecting "absolute" truths is little more than performing simple true/false analyses of myriad individual possibilities until one comes up "true" under every consideration (which is EXACTLY what I did!). Even the simplest computers can perform such a function if given sufficient data.
To explain my demonstration, you suggested that God granted me "access" to this truth. But, again, we're left with the same pardoxical question as before. How do you know this is true, absolutely? How do you discern whether this demonstration is a result of absolute knowledge, granted by God, or just those electrochemical processes in your brain telling you that? (Indeed, I propose that's exactly the case!)
You've elaborated on this by stating that "knowledge becomes genuine using the God-given gift of reasoning coupled with evidence and deduction." However, this stretches the original qualification that "absolute truth" (or knowledge) must come directly from God. Now you're allowing that it can also come from using gifts that God gave us, without his direct participation.
But by doing so, you only open the door wider to the possibility that ALL knowledge -- both common and "absolute" -- can originate in the biological functions of our brains. This makes it even more difficult to differentiate between knowledge that is unreliable and that which is "absolute" (at least within the context of your argument).
Further -- and more importantly with regard to this discussion -- it also makes it more difficult to insist that "absolute knowledge is evidence of God," given that even "absolute" knowledge can be the product of mere human brain functions. Attributing it to "God-given" gifts of reason now seems almost an afterthought.
- Author
Hi Paladin. Thanks again for an excellent response. I think the essence of the discussion about absolute truth is not whether we can know it, but rather what makes it absolute (universal). For example, what is the refence point? Similar to the question of morals. A person may have reasons for murder, another may say it's absolutely wrong. The same goes for theft, and so on. What makes it right or wrong? The quote I used about knowledge, wisdom and logic was taken from a wesite that I would like you to play around with and provide your opinion, at your leisure of course. .. proofthatgodexists.org
In the meantime, I have been working on a follow up Hub, as mentioned. Been busy and might have it up by this weekend. Again, thanks for your time.
No problemo. I've been quite busy myself, so I understand completely.
Still, I'll try to check out your other hub when it's published. I only wish I could manage to finish another of my own...
- Author
I hear ya. Thanks man... er.. person ;)
I found no questions, just smug preaching.
- Author
Nune22 - thanks for your comment. However there are far too many errors and assumptions for me to warrant it worthy of a detailed reply. ..
In your first paragraph you seem to imply that you have proven there is no God.
Then you say science explains things, but you leave out the fact that science postulates based on presuppositions.
Then you say Christianity is only 2013 years old, when the God of creation has been worshipped for closer to 7000 years.
You see my friend, I do not call atheists ignorant, most of them reveal it for themselves. Just take a look at the comment below yours...
Justin - thanks for reading. I am sorry that you did not see the questions :( I thought putting them in bold and numbering them 1-4 would help. Perhaps try reading again 'without' the blinders on?
Blessings to you both :)
I loved the debate! I'm going to shade on the side of Paladin_, but Andy Ramjohn did a very respectable job of stating and defending his points. Of course, he did have the advantage of laying down the debate. Anyway, hats off to both of you!
- Author
Thanks for reading and commenting Kevin! Yes Paladin is indeed sharper than your average atheist. I appreciated his comments as well
I cannot believe how outmatched, intellectually and numerically, you are in the comments. You have a few fair points, I will admit, but you tend to keep yourself in a shroud of ignorance only meant for the sheep. Be something more. I don't mind religion, I only mind when people use it to hurt other people. Otherwise it is a great way to keep up a positive attitude and bring together a nation.
- Author
Krytonsmith - your comments are appreciated and noted. However, yet again I do not see you offering any answers to the questions or points made. As I would expect. Nonetheless, I have a Hub coming up that will address the alleged empirical evidences most atheists would use. Perhaps you'll have a more intellectual comment at that time.
Thanks for coming out :)
This drivel is so full of scientific errors that it would take a year just to answer all of your misconceptions about how evolution works. I would honestly suggest that you go get a book about evolution, even one directed at children. Then you will begin to understand how completely silly this whole article is. The funniest part is where you talk about ignorance! I do love irony.
I agree Matthew, I think Andy should just try and speak to Neil deGrasse Tyson about this and let him set him straight on all the points he tries to make in this article. It wouldn't hurt to try right? ;)
- Author
I might as well talk to someone since none of you can provide any of the answers, right? Lol. You want to talk about blind faith? In any event, I will be writing a Hub which adresses the alleged 'emperical' evidences that atheism holds to. We'll see how you boys do with that one. In the meantime, thanks for coming out :)
Hmm, I should have guessed this was christ-bait and not worth the space it occupies on the web. Who would expect a serious article on the topic of differing points of view from someone who is clearly bible biased.
This is laughable, and I stopped reading after seeing these 'evolution' based questions:
"Question 3 - How Does Evolution Explain the Following Examples of Design?
Here's just a sampling of designs that defy evolution...
1 The structure of DNA
2 The exact tilt of the Earth which determines our seasons
3 The exact location of the Earth - just right to sustain life as we know it. A few miles closer or further from the Sun and guess what? No life on Earth.
4 The exact location of our moon - again, just a few miles closer or further from Earth and guess what? No life on Earth.
5 The intricate structure of a simple blade of grass"
You do not know what the word evolution means. I don't have to ask because this question shows your ignorance.
Answer to questions 2/3/4 - not evolution based, fail.
Answer to questions 1/5 - irreducible complexity does not imply design.
You really need to learn more about the topics you are trying to 'refute with religion'.
- Author
Another atheist wanna-be comes out to attempt to look smart. "Irreducible complexity does not imply design" - you must be brighter than actual biologists who seem to have a different opinion. You guys come out here and make statements as if they were facts, most likely hoping to strengthen the faith of the rest of the sheep. Look, you guys can attempt to argue evolution all you want. When you're done, head over to a Hub called Atheisms Logic and take a look at what REAL atheists say about atheism, ok? I'm not talking about some big winded wannabe's, I'm referencing true, studied dyed-in-the-wool atheists. Go ahead... I'd really like to see how you'd argue with them. Lol... no wonder there's been no comments there. You my friend really need to learn more about what you try to defend. :)
My friend, I'm afraid you've made some errors in your analysis.
"Atheism suggests that the highest ideal is the survival of the fittest, or 'natural selection.' "
Only a libertarian atheist would say such a thing. Even if you argue atheism requires a subjective morality, the majority of atheists do not adhere to a subjective morality based on survival of the fittest. Evolution is a not a normative judgment about the way things should be, but about the way nature usually works. I've seen this misconception over and over and over, and I couldn't help but try and clarify it for you.
As I read more and more, I determined this hub should've been about evolution, not questions for atheists. There are Christians who believe in evolution, and atheists who don't (though they are a small minority).
I expected questions like, "how could something come from nothing?" or, "How do you objectively judge any action to be immoral?". I was terribly disappointed by the misleading title.
But since all your questions are simply misunderstandings of the theory of evolution, I suggest you read this link. I think it will help you answer any questions you have. http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f...
I'm sorry if I am repeating anyone has already said.
- Author
Hi Sooner28. Thank you for your interest and comment. I did not know that there are atheists who do not believe in evolution. Curious indeed. I would certainly enjoy getting their take on how we got here shall research accordingly. This Hub, obviously, was written from the perspective that atheists must believe evolution and therefore presents questions as to why that is.
As for "how does something come from nothing," I did not ask because that is something that is scientifically impossible and is addressed un my Hub titled Atheisms Logic. As is the issue of morality. Thanks for commenting and providing the Link for further information. I shall be checking it out.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/antievolution...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic... That's the article the first one cites.
I don't know why the atheists don't believe evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, but they do exist!
- Author
Thanks again Sooner28. Looking forward to reading these.
55