Should Christians waste their time debating with unbelievers?
Beautifully put! I could never write a better expose of who you are even if I was exempt from being banned!
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
0 - Rookie70posted 9 years ago0
- Rare Jewelposted 8 years ago0
I ASK YOU TO TRY AND NEGATE THIS ARGUMENT SIR
______________________________________________________
The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Frederick Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.
Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.
To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”
In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:
1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.
So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.
Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.
Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:
• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?
To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.
Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.
Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:
• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”
But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).
One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.
Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.
This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”
So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).- It was too much to hope for an original thought on the subject I guess.
Yes, some have, but more have sprung up to take their places. Of course, they repeat the same tired arguments.
So many people assume that God was (somehow) created.
He is without beginning and without end.
He is Eternal.
I know it's a terribly difficult concept for some, but not any more difficult that trying to imagine absolute "nothing-ness", from which came something/everything.
So, WhatsTheDeal's argument is NOT negated at all!
Hi ernest. I would agree that religion should never be pushed on someone not interested in the topic; but a religious forum appears to me, by name, to be in place to discuss religion.
I would never say an atheist should not be here. I happen to be fascinated with the atheist view; but when that view includes the idea that people should not discuss religion, in a religious forum (as I have been told rather bluntly at times) I have to scratch my head and laugh.
Yep, it should be easy enough to believe that an invisible, no show god made himself from nothing, came back as his own son and killed himself for us. He did this because the people HE made were faulty therefore had to be murdered en-masse, tortured and fried alive because they did not "believe" in it.
Sure, that makes heaps of sense!
I do not believe in Santa either.It's not about it being easy...it's about it making sense and being shown in a way that "intellectuals" can understand it. You have not tried to disprove the argument showed above that uses science and philosophy (things you consider the only sound way of proving a point) to prove that believing in a creator is in fact an intellectually sound belief. The fact that you can't even acknowledge that, shows just how lost and delusional you really are. It's not rocket science, and if other atheists (who are STILL atheists btw) can acknowledge that it makes sense I don't see why you just refuse to believe it when the evidence is clearly pointed out...moreover, the fact that there's a verse in the bible about people like you who refuse to believe despite the evidence is almost mind-boggling, and weirdly prophetic since you believe all of it is rubbish and written by people who you think are total idiots...food for thought.
The scientific evidence presented above is what I'm referring to. You know, that really long passage about how the universe had to have been created by an eternal creator and why? You have not tried to disprove it. Since you rely on logic, I've challenged you to present with logic and philosophical or scientific evidence that there is NO WAY AT ALL that the universe had to have been created by an eternal creator....I presented the evidence, now it's your turn to prove it wrong. Otherwise, you're just moving your mouth and saying nothing. Go ahead, take a stab at it.....I encourage you to at least try.
Your idea of scientific evidence had me splitting my sides!
I wrote a hub about your "scientific evidence" based on two years of bible study in 3 languages when I was a "born again christian."
Have you even read the book?
Read my hub if you want to know. I strongly suspect you could not change your mind in the face of evidence, and won't read it.
I am prepared to change my beliefs in the light of better information in a heartbeat. My bet is that you are indoctrinated and have no will to learn anything else.
Indoctrination at an early age is the only way a person could "believe" the god story.You did not read my hub, you have presented no evidence, "all scientists" do not believe the myth, and what you accept as proof is laughable to me.
No proof of any type is presented in your arguments for me to address.
It is you who are moving your mouth and saying nothing.Again I challenge you.....quote any 1 of the 4 points about reality that was presented.. quote it and explain to me why it doesn't make sense, not just because you don't think it does, but because you have proof that science says it's not possible...you have yet to do so...i'm waiting. Copy and paste if you have to.
You clearly need a definition of the word Atheist....
a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist]
–noun
.a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Do you or do you not deny the existence of a supreme being or beings?...I rest my case.
YOU ARE AN ATHEIST..again refusing to believe it despite the evidence.
What piece of evidence points to the cause being eternal?
The cause/creator/initiator of the big bang had to be eternal, it had to already be there in order for the bang to have happened.. Since by scientific logic you cannot create someone out of nothing...it's simple really.
No matter how you try and spin it, the fact remains that something was created and it had to have had a creator. Every effect has a cause.Perhaps you are confusing a creator with a catalyst? The big bang is doubtless not unique in terms of it being the first. It may expand and contract countless times without any deity being responsible. Just because you cannot fathom this occurring doesn't mean some god, or group of gods are responsible.
In fact, there is absolutely no evidence of any entity being involved in the process. Ever heard of antimatter?
- i wonder how many agents does god have and how many truths does those agents have...
Incredibly well said, Victor. I wish we Christians were quicker to either A) Discuss with the intent of actually understanding and B) Keep our mouths shut when we should.
It simply isn't the goal of every Christian (nor should it be) to convert an atheist/agnostic! I think if fewer of our atheist/agnostic AND Christian friends believed that, we might actually be able to discuss. Nor is it the JOB of every Christian to PROVE that God exists. As you said, Christians are believers. Some of us are scientists, some are not. And, not all of us are Christians just because we're too dumb to understand the universe any other way. I know that'll come as a shocker!
I do, however, believe that it is the goal of every Christian to answer any question when asked and to answer it honestly. More importantly, it's the goal and the responsibility of the Christian to act, walk, talk, think, and behave as Jesus did. Insults, name-calling, condescension, and argumentative insinuation weren't things He took part in. Therefore, the Christian ought not take part in them either. Just my take.
And I've said this before, in a hub definitely, I'm not sure about the forums - but Christians do not hold the monopoly on hypocrisy. Hypocrisy sadly is a part of the HUMAN condition.
Again, very well stated!
Victor with an attitude like that you would have no trouble communicating with this non-believer.
I am an ex catholic/ ex C of E ex born again christian with a different outlook to you, but always willing to have a conversation with anyone who presents a moderate argument.The devil loves it?
Well that cleared up any confusion about your post for me.
"Pearls to swine"
Yeah I get what your saying.
Funny thing is, that is the advice I would give any non believer, just be yourself and live your normal moral life.
I don't think I would call the opposition fools though.Hi Earnest, just passing through....
" I don't think I would call the opposition fools though. "
It's a scripture quote!
Psalm 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God...
So in effect you would be correct, there would be no point in calling a believer in God a fool.Regardless of my beliefs about religionists, they need no help from me to show their intent. It is on every page of these threads.
As is yours, mine and everyone else's. I thought that is why we post. Did I miss something?.
Maybe you did.
The morals.
I propose that my motives are honest in opposing anything that seeks to control and restrict free thought and the right to disbelieve any myth or story that is without evidence.
When others seeks with manic fervor to make people less than them I object on moral grounds.
Quoting megalomanic verses from said myth as truth that I must follow to avoid being a victim of their particular belief is where I draw the line.K.. I'm out of this thread though. It's very testy. And I think I may be contributing to the conflict, because I'm in agreement with you and you seem grumpy about it.
- zampanoposted 8 years ago0
"religious" debates are to HP what football is to the Brazilians.
It looks like that doesn't it.
The thing is, if you pulled the equivalent number of players as a soccer team off these posts, there would be very few threads to reply to left.and the game would proceed much like it does here.
Where can I get a whole box of red cards?
Related Discussions
- 217
Does "religion" often get in the way of a relationship with Jesus
Does the way people view religion often get in the way of a relationship with Jesus??
- 59
With the "liberal" movement in the U.S., should Christians feel persecuted or op
With the "liberal" movement in the U.S., should Christians feel persecuted or oppressed?Many of the decisions coming from the Supreme Court seem contrary to Christian beliefs.Many of the laws being passed in Washington, D.C. seem to be an affront specifically to Christians.If you're a...
- 4
Who came up with the idea of Christianity?
Who came up with the idea of Christianity?I have searched the scriptures and nowhere does it say it came from Jesus! However, it seems to have been made up by the Romans, to help them find the Christians so as to punish them. This type of labelling method is common. It's a method police use today...
- 47
Is the Obama Presidency advancing Islam?
As the President of the United States continues to refuse to identify on going acts of Islamic terrorism with Islam; is his refusal to do so a direct or tacit approval or support for the religion of Islam and Sharia law over the Constitution?The president of the United States has on several...
- 12
How Christians and Non-Christians Should Interact
http://good-report.com/3997/texas-chris … -protestorI don't really have much to add. This is how it should be. Period.
- 5
Should Christians Go To Church?
Should Christians Go To Church?