panelarrow

Atheist Tuesday: ProofThatGodExists.org

| 61 Comments

A few weeks back I explained very clearly why I can’t prove that God exists, and even if I were able to, an atheist would still die in his sins because his belief would not come by faith. (Please read the article “Damning Proof” here).

Well, now there’s a man who says he can actually prove God’s existence. His name is Sye Ten Bruggencate, and he heads Sinner Ministries, which features a great website called ProofThatGodExists.org (but you probably already guessed that). Here’s his claim:

You have likely heard that it is impossible to prove that God exists. You have heard wrong. Not only can the existence of God be proven, denying the proof undermines rational thought. It is true that God does not need anyone, let alone this website, to prove His existence. The Bible teaches that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for denying Him. No one needs proof that God exists, I simply offer these 8 steps to the logical proof of God’s existence in addition to what you already know (and may be suppressing).

There’s a catch to getting into his site, though. You must answer all his questions correctly first. Answer wrongly, and you get a free visit to the happiest place on earth.

Most atheists, I assume, will give up trying to get into the site, instead, settling for a ride located somewhere in Fantasyland. Click here for the site.

(My apologies for not having the article written that explains the atheist’s real reasons for trying to convince us that their viewpoint is correct. God-willing, I’ll have it ready by next Tuesday. Look for the article, “Awaiting the Millstone.”)

61 Comments

  1. We play with Sye quite often on our forums. He’s quick to take his ball and go home, however.

  2. I think a tract should be created for this site…

    Doug

  3. Interesting if not amusing little game, but I find it rather insulting that he uses the argument of absolutes a few too many times, and also very offensive that he says denying the existence of God undermines rational thought. As a Rationalist, his little game ultimately doesn’t prove the existence of God, it merely states that if you believe in the Bible God exists because without him you couldn’t prove anything. It makes the jump from acknowledging, Scientific, Mathematical, and moral laws are absolute (And their not, and the reasons to deny they are not absolute are silly, of course pedophilia is wrong because our society deems it is, but we don’t cut off people’s hands for stealing either like we used to do either, to say they’re absolute is incorrect, just like the laws of science can be manipulated. Ever seen an atomic explosion in footage, its what happens when you break the previously stable nucleus of an atom, something that wouldn’t happen typically in nature) to the quoting from the Bible about the existence of God. All that is ‘proven’ is that if you’ve read the Bible and someone has told you about God then he exists if you believe in him. Still of little help to those South American Amazonian tribes who’ve never heard of Jesus, God or the Bible.

    Steve’s note: Make sure you capitalize God next time, or I will delete the comment. I corrected it for you this time. Thanks.

  4. “I would be doing my atheist friends a great dis-service—it would almost 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 trespasses—damned!—even though they believed, because it didn’t come by faith.

    If they can’t see the evidence, why would I want to stumble them with proof?

    Damning proof.” Steve, Damning Proof, 8-17-10

    Have you let Sye know that he is -almost- sinning by trying to prove God? Isn’t he doing us a great dis-service with his site? Why does Sye want to stumble us with proof?

    (For the record, Sye doesn’t have evidence. He has word games – and not very good ones.)

  5. (headdesk) Steve, is there a way to preview on this site? I didn’t mean to have the funky bolding.

    • Perdita,

      My article was tongue-in-cheek… and truthful! You decide which one works best for you.

      I wish I had a way for you to preview. Unfortunately, no, there is no way for now. Thanks.

  6. Everyone wave to Sye, he no doubt will be here any minute.

    This is of course is not proof of God. It’s just the latest of many word games. It’s as meaningful as The Good Person Test.

    “God has revealed to me in such a way that I know it’s True, that he exists. Oh and I assert that you need to believe in God before you can use Logic, Nyah!”

    And we go around and around on a never ending loop where Sye basically parrots ‘are you sure, while never actually proving anything’ until everyone gets bored (or more likely annoyed).

  7. Wow. How many websites has Say had his “proof” handed back to him? Let’s see. I can give at least two, right off the bat. The first link is to philosopher Stephen Law’s blog, which has a whole series of posts dealing with Sye:
    http://tinyurl.com/6363yr

    http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2010/08/critique-of-sye-ten-bruggencates.html

  8. Oh geez, Steve. Sye, of all people? Really?

    Guh.

    And I agree with perdita. It is a little strange that you had this whole “we shouldn’t prove God’s existence!” thing going on, and now you bring in Sye and his… ugh… “proof”. That seems a bit contradictory.

    As others have mentioned, Sye only has games, not proof or evidence. His games are most easily handled by either (1) not playing them his way or (2) asking him how he can be sure that God, in His glory, isn’t lying to Sye.

    It’s a game that he plays, Steve, and I hope you’re not planning on joining in. Because it’s garbage and embarrassing.

  9. Steve said: “My article was tongue-in-cheek… “

    Back at ya.

    “and truthful! You decide which one works best for you.”

    So it’s not absolutely truthful, only conditionally and subjectively truthful.

    I wish I had a way for you to preview. Unfortunately, no, there is no way for now. Thanks.

    I’ll just have to learn to proof 🙂

  10. The laws of logic are not absolute. How can I know this?

    The law of non-contradiction breaks down at the quantum level. That’s right: physics. An electron behaves as if it’s both “Here” and “Not Here”, simultaneously. Particles at the sub-atomic scale do not adhere to the rules Mr TenBruggencate uses to “prove” the existence of his God. Logical laws apply only to limited situations, and as such can not be universal.

    In any case, Steve, if you’re unaware of how Sye’s argument has been debunked, I’ll give you the simplest explanation, one that doesn’t require research or an understanding of science. Sye claims that God has revealed His existence in such a way that we can be certain of its truth; if you question this, he’ll point out that an omnipotent being could easily communicate truthful ideas to us, and that we can be absolutely certain of that truth.

    Could such a being communicate false ideas to us such that we can be absolutely sure they’re truthful? Of course.

    And thus, Sye can no more discern between truth and fiction than anyone else.

  11. In logic, we can say that the law of non-contradiction (P does not equal not P) or any law thereof holds true for the same reason we can say all lionesses are female. It’s true by definition, not authority. As stated above, the laws of logic don’t hold true for areas outside of logic and mathematics such as the physical laws of the Universe or morality.

    Also, the presup argument is an exercise of the absurd. Do you not see how circular proving God exists is by presupposing or assuming God exists?

  12. So did you decide that we weren’t worth saving now? Is that why you posted damning proof?

  13. I know you’re a busy guy, Steve, but it seems clear that this brand of Christian apologism has been systematically dismantled. Your failure to even respond to this thread implicitly supports that conclusion.

    Remember: this discussion is NOT about whether God exists or not. It’s about a form of apologism that does not come from scripture (ie. it’s human). If in the future you decide to post something supporting presupositionalism, you’re going to have a difficult time showing that your position is based on more than just pride.

    Unless, of course, you wish to respond here…

  14. Whateverman: You know what I (we) stand on as Christians. Nothing to defend. The bold explains it all from our perspective, that’s why Sye, nor I, will ever budge. We know the truth. It does not matter if it makes sense to you or not. It doesn’t matter if I can defend it or not. It doesn’t matter if Sye “plays word games” and his arguments are foolish.This is God’s Word and on this we stand. Forever.

    Here it is from Roman 1:

    The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For 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 men are without excuse.

    21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

    24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

  15. Hi Steve,

    You totally ignored the subject of your own post (Christian presupposition) and didn’t answer my question at all. Thanks.

  16. Steve, why is proof suddenly okay to post? Is it possible that you had no proof and that whole spiel about proof damning us was just a smokescreen?

  17. No, you didn’t.

    When asked specifically about Christian presupposition, you merely said “We know we’re right and nothing can change our minds”. I didn’t ask about whether God exists or whether the Bible is truth or anything about sin, Jesus, salvation – or anything fundamental to your faith as a Christian.

    I asked about presupposition.

    Care to try again?

  18. Whateverman,

    Presupposition defined: to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance.

    I assume, presuppositional Christians believe, that you already know there’s a God but that you (and other unbelievers)”suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For 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 men are without excuse.

    I don’t see how I can make this any clearer, unless I’m misunderstanding your question.

    Thanks!

  19. Steve wrote “I assume, presuppositional Christians believe, that you already know there’s a God but that you (and other unbelievers)”suppress the truth by their wickedness…”

    So everyone is lying about what they believe except you and people who believe the same things as you do.

    Can you not see how arrogant that is? I am a zoroastrian. Yet according to you I really, truely believe in Jesus but won’t admit it because I am wicked.

    Yet if I said that you know, in your heart, that Ahura Mazda is the truth and you just deny this because of your wickedness you would say that I was closed minded [such a presupposition merely coses the mind down to alternate views] and arrogant to claim that I know your mind better than you do.

    You’re doing exactly the same thing.

  20. It’s clear, for one, that you know very little about presuppositional apologetics. You support it, yet you don’t seem to understand its arguments (ie. that logic stems from God’s nature, that the “laws of logic” are universal, immaterial and absolute, that the impossibility of the contrary constitutes proof of God’s existence, etc).

    You’re also happy to jump on the bandwagon despite the fact that presuppositional apologetics can not be found anywhere in scripture. It is a product of the human mind (regardless of whether it’s true or not), and you adhere to it as if it were Biblical.

    You also ignore when people tell you that Sye’s rhetoric is hollow. Rather than discuss it specifically, you retreat to a defense of scripture.

    At best, you’re ignorant of what you’re advocating. At worst, you’re being dishonest.

    • Whateverman,

      I gave the brief version. The bottom line, according to Scripture, the authority I adhere to and believe in, is that you already know that there is a God, yet you suppress the truth by your wickedness. Now I know that you don’t believe you’re wicked and I’m sure that you can come up with another thousand reasons not to repent and believe. Fine. Still, I’m not being dishonest, and I’m okay with being ignorant. You see, we are both playing on the same field.

      Chris,

      No. We’re talking about belief in One God. You have to listen to an evangelist to understand why you need Jesus.

  21. Steve

    You wrote “No. We’re talking about belief in One God. You have to listen to an evangelist to understand why you need Jesus.”

    Can’t you see how contradictory that is? I have to be persuaded that your religion is correct because I can hold an alternate view. But atheists & agnostics must be holding to their view out of wickedness.

    Let me make it clear. I hold to a viewpoint. They hold to another. It makes no sense at all to say I am just mistaken while they are wicked.
    They’re just two differing viewpoints. Nothing else.

    Secondly to suggest that you know an atheist’s mind better than he or she does is still arrogance.

    Finally you should know that WEM is a Deist and NOT an atheist.

    • No, Chris; you fall into the same category as all of them. You, too, are a sinner in need of forgiveness, no matter what you believe. You aren’t in a different situation; unfortunately, you are in the same sinking boat. Of course, you can continue in your belief system; you’ll just die in your sins.

      And I know that WEM is a deist. Same rules apply.

  22. So you agree that you are arrogant. Tell me Steve is arrogance a side effect of becomming a true Christian?

    Do you think God approves of arrogance? Or is it that on the day of judgement, when you face an angry God who is demanding to know by what right you were so arrogant You’ll just scream out “blood of Jesus. Now You can’t touch me God!”

    Is that what you think will really happen? That God will just be forced to accept your arrogance and put up with it?

    • Chris,

      When Jesus say that he’s the way, and the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through him, is that arrogance? When Paul writes that there is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved is that arrogance? Or truth?

  23. Steve wrote “The bottom line, according to Scripture, the authority I adhere to and believe in, is that you already know that there is a God, yet you suppress the truth by your wickedness. Now I know that you don’t believe you’re wicked…”

    So WEM knows that there is a God and is suppressing the truth because he is wicked. But WEM is also a Deist so he already believes in God. And even if he didn’t he couldn’t both be suppressing the truth & believe he was correct.

    If someone is suppressing something they are engaging in a conscious act. He can’t knowingly suppress an idea he knows to be true AND believe differently. That is an impossibility. You do know that right?

  24. If you don’t want to talk about presuppositional apologetics, why create a thread about it, Steve?

  25. Steve,

    I’m curious if you’ve ever looked into any peer reviewed science article. You categorically denounce and dismiss the theory of evolution and put absolute faith in the Bible but yet you benefit from the wonders of the modern age. I know Ray seems to believe every article of the Bible is absolute truth but do you? Even the stuff that can not exist in the real world, like a flat Earth or the Earth being the center of the universe, or Noah putting 2 of every kind of animal on one boat?

  26. Steve wrote “When Jesus say that he’s the way, and the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through him, is that arrogance? When Paul writes that there is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved is that arrogance? Or truth?”

    First this “answer” has NOTHING to do with the points I previously raised Steve. Is it that you’re not answering my points because you can’t?

    What I was talking about was someone claiming that they knew my mind better than I did. But let’s take you’re points shall we?

    Can you be wrong about what the bible means Steve? What’s that you can’t? Then that means that you are infallible [at least in regards to the bible] and since only God can be infallible that means that you Steve are God. 🙂

    Or are you going to reply that yes you could be wrong in your interpretation of scripture? Then why give me more of your interpretations of scripture to back up your first interpretation? Is it any wonder that you would agree with yourself? In addition if your interpretation is just your opinion of what scripture says then you don’t “KNOW what scripture means, it’s just your opinion.

    I’ll apply the good person test to scripture in my next post

  27. Good Person Test & Scripture.

    Now if we tell a lie then we are liars correct? But wait a minute. We don’t trust liars do we? After all how can you trust someone who is a liar? They might be telling lies.

    Ah but everyone has told at least a white lie, correct? Therefore everyone is a liar! Since everyone is a liar that must include the people who wrote the bible.

    “Ah [you might say], that’s different. God inspired the writing of the bible.” Who says? The people who wrote the bible? But their liars. After all everyone lies, right? And we can’t trust liars, correct? Therefore it follows that we can’t trust the people who wrote the bible even when they claim they were inspired.

    Now you might tell me that the Holy Spirit has confirmed for you what the bible says. But why should I believe you? After all, everyone lies [that must include you] and we can’t trust liars, correct?

    My point: Just quoting the bible convinces no one who doesn’t already believe because the writers may well have been wrong, [or even untruthful :-)].

    Does that include Jesus? After all Jesus was sinless. But we don’t know what Jesus said, ony what someone said Jesus said. What the law calls “hearsay”. Hearsay isn’t trusted in law because it is considered unreliable.

    But if we shouldn’t trust hearsay in so small a matter as the mortal law why should we trust it in something as important as our eternal destinies?
    After all the reports of what Jesus said could be unreliable as well. We don’t know.

  28. Hey Steve,

    Thanks for posting this, it showed up in my site tracker. Indeed I have dealt with many of the people who have posted here. I’m not real interested in re-addressing their tired arguments, but if you have any questions feel free to post them.

    Proof is not a foreign concept to Scripture (Acts 9:22, Acts 17:2). Proof does not equal persuasion, however, it merely exposes those who deny it.

    Sye

  29. “When Jesus say that he’s the way, and the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through him, is that arrogance?”

    A person claiming divinity? Yes, it could be called arrogance. It could also be delusion. Specifically regarding Jesus, it could also be myth. Your claim that you know the truth, that you are one of the few with the correct interpretation (although you can’t back up your claims for God’s existence and the divinity of Jesus) can also be called arrogance.

    “We know the truth. It does not matter if it makes sense to you or not. It doesn’t matter if I can defend it or not. It doesn’t matter if Sye “plays word games” and his arguments are foolish.This is God’s Word and on this we stand. Forever.”

    While word games and foolish arguments may be enough to sustain your belief, just because you really, really believe something is true, does not actually make it true.

  30. Sye,

    Those two passages are extremely vague, Saul grew more powerful the more he talked about Jesus, I have no doubt that the father of Christianity grew powerful the more he spread his new religion around the Mediterranean, and that he was able to convert a few Jews to his way of thinking its not proof of anything. He merely won over followers, the same could be said for David Kuresh and Jim Jones.

  31. lol I call shenanigans Steve. You don’t understand anything about the Sye’s argument hence your refusal to even approach anything about it.

  32. It’s a good thing, too, otherwise we’d be damned by this proof.

    You should be glad we’re not buying into it, Steve!

    • Guys, guys….

      This is an evangelism blog. I don’t have the time to answer all of you with your multitudes of questions, nor would it prove fruitful. The best use of my time is to post items, let you guys tell me how I’m wrong, mistaken , ill-informed or ignorant, and let the Christians (who have the Holy Spirit) determine truth from error.

      I’m just amazed that you guys find a Christian blog ( an evangelistic one at that!) so fascinating that you devote precious minutes and seconds of your day to contribute.

      You ought to start your own site and share with one another how silly we believers all are.

      I am honored, though, that you would consider me a worthy nemesis. 🙂

  33. Eh I’m just here for the debate really, and maybe, hopefully, convert a few people to rationalism. Hopefully if enough fact or convincing arguments get heard it will wake up a few minds to see the natural world a little more clearly. I also find young earth creationism fascinating, I want to know why people believe this and how they came to believe it.

  34. Steve wrote “Jesus loves me this I believe, for the Bible, in my opinion, tells me so….”

    Fixed it for ya Steve

  35. Oh and thanks Steve for ignoring every single point I’ve made. I really appreciate it.

  36. This is the part of the post where Steve gets backed into a corner and runs away proclaiming he suddenly has no time to post. Bye, Steve!

  37. Steve wrote “You ought to start your own site and share with one another how silly we believers all are.”

    Here you ignore people. Refuse to engage them. Treat their opinions as worthless. Inform us that you know what is going on in our minds better than we do.

    In every single way possible you show us that, to you, we are of no account. Just like Jesus did with his audience…wait a minute…no he didn’t! He actually showed he cared. He listened to what people said. He interacted with people – even those who didn’t share his point of view.
    But what would Jesus know about evangelism or how to deal with people hey?

    Better by far to show arrogance, and disrespect. That’s the way to show that you truely care about unbelievers. 🙂

    You then wrote “I am honored, though, that you would consider me a worthy nemesis.”

    Ah Steve. You do know the difference between a nemesis & someone you merely disagree with don’t you? You’re the second one.

  38. This is an Evangelism blog. I don’t have time to convince you that I have the first clue about anything I say!

    Just Believe!

  39. Steve wrote “The best use of my time is to post items, ignore what you guys write, and let the Christians (who believe exactly what I do [after all everyone who doesn’t share my opinions isn’t a ‘true’ Christian]) decide who’s correct [Me! Surprise, surprise] and who’s incorrect [You! Who would have guessed?].

    Fixed it for ya Steve.

  40. As for myself since you’ve seen fit to ignore everything I’ve written it’s pointless in my opinion to hang round. Bye all. I’d say goodbye to Steve as well but he’d probably ignore that too.

  41. What did you tell her when you deleted my URL to our site? Which followed your suggestion and didn’t violate any rules?

    I’m with Chris, unfortunately. There’s point in trying to dialogue with someone who is uninterested in listening.

    You’re a pathetic man, Steve, and I can only hope your daughter doesn’t follow in your cowardly, dishonest footsteps.

  42. And when she commented on your complete failure to convert any did you say “I don’t have time for that”.

  43. Chris wrote the following (to Steve): Oh and thanks Steve for ignoring every single point I’ve made. I really appreciate it.

    I feel your pain…

    Steve, I post here because the more I read what you write, the more convinced I become that you lie both to yourself and your readers. Few of those lies are “malicious”, in that I don’t think you realize you’re doing it. You preach, and the exact words that flow from your keyboard really aren’t that important.

    The thing is this: you’re deceptive, and that really doesn’t seem to be the kind of behavior anyone would expect from a faithful Christian. You might think you’re poking fun at us, or that we take you too seriously, but this too is deception: you KNOW you intentionally egg us on, but pretend we’re too uptight about it when questioned about it.

    That’s why I post here.

    You’re probably a nice guy in real life. Personally, I’m sure you mean well. However, its clear that you’re desperate to avoid thinking about your actions too closely.

    If Christianity ends up being true, and sin is a very real threat, you’re going to look back at the conversations taking place on your blog and be horrified that you didn’t listen to your critics more closely.

    • Deceptive? No,I assure you that I’m not being deceptive. Why would you say that? Now, egging you guys on? Maybe just a little… for a redemptive purpose. Seriously. To be explained later.

      As for the URL, I’m not ready to post that yet. Not without a disclaimer.

  44. Steve, for the record, I am not the poster going by “Chris”.

  45. Furthermore, I have never made a comment on your blog under any name but “Nohm”.

    As for all of this “you believe in God even though you say you don’t silliness”, you and I have been through that discussion before and I don’t see any reason for me to discuss it further; I think you know my opinion on it.

    If not, it’s this: It’s incredibly silly, to me, to say that you know what I think better than I do, regardless as to where you’re getting your information.

    I do not believe in God, regardless of what Paul said, Steve. I do not “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” because… well… that would be incredibly stupid of me. Consider Paul’s audience when he wrote that epistle.

    Anyways, I just wanted to clear up any confusion if you thought that I was the commenter named “Chris”. I’m “Nohm”, and only “Nohm”.

    • Nohm, I understand your perspective; you understand mind. We both think each other’s position is silly. Finally, we agree on something.

      P.S. Sorry for assuming that Chris was Nohm.. My mistake. You both articulate your points well, punctuating them with, at times, Smileys. Thanks for the clarification.

  46. Hi Steve,

    I’m curious… what do you find silly about my perspective? I don’t *think* I’ve ever tried to read your mind.

  47. Well, if you ever get a chance, I would be very interested to know what you find silly about my perspective, Steve.

    It’s not that I can’t imagine anything silly about it; it’s that I’m curious what you view as silly.

    For the record, I don’t believe that “nothing created everything” or any of those other common straw men.

  48. I don’t think Steve really finds your position silly, Nohm.

  49. wow! what a fail thread this turned out to be Steve Sanchez. haha. no answers for anything, how embarrassing that it still remains for us in the future to read. peace.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.