panelarrow

Atheist Tuesday: Damning Proof

| 113 Comments

I cannot prove the existence of God.

There. I said it.

But let me be clear: I can point to evidence that suggests a Creator.

With that said, I’ve given up trying to convince unbelievers that God exists for one main reason: They will never believe because they’ve made up their minds that there is no God. They cannot believe because their belief system does not allow them to.

Oh, I’ve tried, gosh, how I’ve tried…all to no avail.

I’ve tried observational evidence: “Look at the sky on a black, starry, Hill Country night away from the Austin light pollution. Can you really say that there is no God?”

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Hear the smirking?

I’ve tried evidence from creation: “Did this whole universe just pop into existence by random chance over time? If I set a Coke can on the ground, will it somehow evolve into a car given enough years?”

See the folded arms and rolling eyes?

I’ve tried The Builder Argument: “Every building has a builder, every painting has a painter; so, too, creation has a Creator!”

They’re laughing at me….

I’ve tried the classic Watchmaker Argument: “Since the complex inner workings of a watch necessitate a watchmaker, the complex design of the world we live in necessitates a Designer.”

Dodge those rotten eggs.

What, then, what would be considered a good argument worthy of all these all-too-smart-atheists?

Believe it or not, no argument at all.

yoda

I had an epiphany, an AHA! moment. Call it a revelation, the lightbulb going off over my head thing: Why do I even need to prove God’s existence at all?

If I actually proved the existence of God, a beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, conclusive, here-He-is-in-the-flesh type of proof, it would be very, very unfortunate for the unbeliever. Horrible. Awful.

Why?

Because the Bible clearly says, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

I would be doing my refuse-to-believe friends a great disservice—it might be a sin—if I were to prove God’s existence.

Why?

If they believed in God because of my proof, they would still be dead in their sins and disobedience—damned!—even though they believed, because their belief didn’t come by faith.

If they refuse to see the evidence, why would I want to condemn them with proof?

Damning proof.

113 Comments

  1. Hi Thomas

    A few points

    1) Yes Habermas may be lying, or mistaken or suffering from what is known as “Confirmation Bias”. Essentially that is when you believe in a particular answer so much that you deliberately look for evidence which confirms your opinion and dismiss or ignore evidence which does not.

    2) You argued that either Jesus is risen or we’re all going to die & that’s it. Nope! Sorry. What about the other religious views? What about Zoroastrianism? What about Buddhism? It’s not like either Jesus is right or materialism is. There are a few more than just two views available.

    Now let’s get to you assertion that everyone is a liar & see where that gets us.
    Everyone lies. Therefore everyone is a liar. But we don’t trust liars because they lie.
    Now if everyone lies that MUST include the gospel writers. Therefore we can’t trust them because they are liars. They must be because you’ve admitted that everyone lies.

    Now you might reply “Oh, that’s different. The Gospel writers were inspired by God.” Who says? The liars who wrote the Gospels? But we can’t trust them because they lie. You just said so. Everyone lies. Remember? That must include the Gospel writers.

    What I’m getting at is that statements like “everyone is a liar” are self-defeating. Get the idea?

  2. Hi Thomas

    In your post script you mention all the things that Jesus accomplished by dying. Did you ever ask yourself how?

    Let me put it this way. Jesus died. Ok. And by dying he paid for our sins. Exactly how did he do this? After all people die all the time & no one claims their death has paid for anyone’s sins. So how EXACTLY did Jesus’ death pay for our sins?

    There have been four views. Let’s see if any of them make sense.

    View one: Believed by the early Christians.
    In this view when Adam & Eve sinned humanity became the property of the devil. By His death Jesus was paying our ransom. In effect buying us back from the devil.

    Problem: If this view is correct then when Jesus rose he took the ransom back, essentially cheating the devil of his ransom. Now cheating someone, even someone evil is itself an evil act. Which would mean that Jesus sinned. That answer undercuts Christianity right there so let’s forget about this view.

    View two: God CHOSE to accept Jesus’ death as payment for our sins. [This was popular in the Middle Ages].
    In this view God freely chose to accept the death of Jesus in payment for our sins which are an affront to God & His righteousness.

    Problem: If this view is correct & God freely chose to accept the death of Jesus as payment for our sins then He could have chosen anything as payment. So why didn’t God choose the death of a flower? The destruction of a poem? If you reply that it HAD to be the death of God’s Son then God wasn’t free to choose. Which would mean that, in this particular area God didn’t have free will. This view doesn’t make sense either. I’m sure you agree.

    Third view: That Jesus’ death was an example of God’s love for us.
    [First put forward by the theologian Abelard].
    The trouble is if God felt that this example of His love was so important for us [and let’s face it, if God was prepared to die just to show His love for us then it had to be important then shouldn’t He have waited until we had invented film? After all if Jesus died as an example of love it would make a lot of difference to actually see the example than just hear about it. Once again we’ll have to reluctantly dismiss this answer.

    That leaves us with the last view.

    The fourth view: [First put forward by Martin Luther] states that our sins are crimes against God which demand punishment. Now God can’t just forgive us because He is just as well as loving. So He takes the punishment for our sins Himself.

    Problem: The problem with this view is it isn’t just. It’s the same as a judge saying “look someone has to pay the penalty so you’ll do.” That’s not justice that’s revenge. Therefore, according to this view, in order to satisfy His justice God does something which is unjust. That’s unthinkable.

    So essentially none of these views make any sense. Either:
    God does something sinful [view one], God chooses His own Son to die even though a flower would have been good enough [view two], God sent Jesus down from heaven too soon [view three], or God tries to satisfy His own sense of justice by doing something which is unjust [view four].

    All the talk about God doing these things out of love doesn’t make them make more sense.

    I hasten to add that I do not believe God is sinful, unjust or acts without forethought but those seem to be the only explanations for how Jesus’ death pays for our sins.

    • Chris one thing about the ” other Religions ” that you mentioned. There is a Big difference between them who lived and died, Jesus Christ is the only one who lived, died, and lived again, was seen in public, and then ascended into Heaven. No other Religion has that type of atonement.

  3. The Bible says (And I’m sure you have heard this one before.)

    John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, [fn] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ”

    But here’s a verse that gets overlooked by a lot of folks…yes sad to say even Christians:

    John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

    Notice the words in this verse “stands condemned already”, this proves that God is patient with you and that he’s is waiting on you to repent of your foolishness. Don’t wait. As many have warned God has many ways to take people into hell. There will be a day of justice. Don’t try to out think God. Submit to him. Call upon the Savior. Humble yourself. Confess your sins. Trust in the precious blood that was spent for you.

    Brother Richard

  4. @ Richard

    You didn’t really address Chris’ statement about the 4 reasons for the sacrifice of Jesus and how there is a certain level of cognitive dissonance in all four. He’s not alone Christian scholars HAVE debated this issue over the centuries and in the end its open to interpretation. When you say things like ‘Trust in the precious blood that was spent for you.’ he was trying to understand why the blood was spent in the first place and under those four criteria it doesn’t make any sense. Now there may be more options than what he just posted but the options are fairly interesting dilemmas. The bottom line is that you have to have faith or rather confidence that what these words in this book are true. The problem as it ALWAYS is, is why this book requires us to suspend rationality in favor of belief in these that result in confusion, cognitive dissonance and the suspension of disbelief in the first place. If God makes the rules and wants everyone to come to him, and he’s all powerful than why not give revelation to everyone in natural ways? To use an analogy, its like trying to prove a court case with special pleading and feelings… Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury I know that these things are true… I can prove it with observations in reality and physical evidence… but I have a book here that says these things are true, and the book contains things that are incorrect and force you to suspend what you know about the natural world, but I feel its correct, and you should to.

    This is essentially the argument… and you wonder why there are disbelievers and doubters in the world? Its not that they WANT to doubt these things, its that they’re just not convinced based on the evidence available and an all powerful God would KNOW that and if he, she, or it actually LOVED those people like a parent loves their child they would present the evidence to them in a way they could understand and thus could be capable of believing in.

    • Thanks for reading my comment. Yeah, I did stray from the topic. Thanks again. My understanding is that without God you can’t know anything and the Atheist has to borrow from the Christian world view in order to make sense about anything.

      Again, you suppress the truth. I have a basis for my understanding. The unbeliever is on sinking sand.

  5. Eh grammar errors…
    ‘Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury I know that these things are true… I can’t prove it with observations in reality and physical evidence… but I have a book here that says these things are true, and the book contains things that are incorrect and force you to suspend what you know about the natural world, but I feel its correct, and you should to.’

  6. Richard – you said in another post that you fear atheists. Those atheists you fear? They’re make-believe. You erect these false ideas (We have to borrow from the Christian world-view, we suppress the truth, etc) and look at them rather than the actual people (us atheists). Sure, it feels better to think those things about us – it fits neatly into what you want to believe – but that doesn’t mean those things are true.

    • To Perdita,

      Thanks for reading my post. How can I in my power get you to understand that I cannot change your heart. Only God can change your heart of hearts.

      Atheist have no basis for truth. I do.

      Brother Richard

  7. Hi,thanks for your post and luckly to comment in your site!The specific semicircular type belonging to the specific body Fake Oakleys , together with heavy edges may fixture any sort of find framework, as well as the colours have a tendency for being your personal to select. A pair of wicked Oakleys will make you look like a rockstar. Answer: Get some Oakleys with a light brown frame and black or dark brown lenses. This interchangeability enables versatility with the wearer oakleys for cheap , creating just one pair usable below several climate and lumination conditions. But it is just not feasible for everyone to have a pair.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.