Wow. This site is amazing. This site is amazingly amazing. How did they manage to fit so much illogic into one webpage?
Quote:
A philosophy class held a discussion about God's existence. The professor presented the following logic: "Has anyone in this class heard God?" Nobody spoke. "Has anyone in this class touched God?" Again, nobody spoke. "Has anyone in this class seen God?" When nobody spoke for the third time, he simply stated, "Then there is no God."
One student thought for a second, and then asked for permission to reply. Curious to hear this bold student's response, the professor granted it, and the student stood up and asked the following questions of his classmates: "Has anyone in this class heard our professor's brain?" Silence. "Has anyone in this class touched our professor's brain?" Absolute silence. "Has anyone in this class seen our professor's brain?" When nobody in the class dared to speak, the student concluded, "Then, according to our professor's logic, it must be true that our professor has no brain!"
|
At which point the professor pulled out from under his desk a human brain and said "Try again."
Quote:
|
No one is born an atheist. People choose to become atheists as much as they choose to become Christians. And no matter how strenuously some may try to deny it, atheism is a belief system. It requires faith that God does not exist.
|
No one is born an aunicornist. People choose to become aunicornists as surely as they choose to beome Christians. And no matter how strenuously they try to deny it, aunicornism is a belief system. It requires faith that unicorns do not exist.
Quote:
|
When dialoguing with atheists, it is helpful to point out the logical problems inherent in their belief system. If you succeed in showing an atheist the natural outcome of some of his (or her) main claims and arguments, you are in a much better position to share the gospel with him. Let us consider two prime examples here
|
Unfortunately, there are no logical problems inherent to a lack of belief in the absense of evidence. Or would you like to discuss the logical problems inherent in your aleprechaunism?
Quote:
|
"There is no God." Some atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same time -- with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe -- can make such a statement based on the facts. To put it another way, a person would have to be God in order to say there is no God.
|
This is also true of every oher mythical being that has ever existed in history. For example, how can you say there is no Zeus when you have not searched every corner of the universe for him? How can you say that Sailor Moon is a fiction when you are not omniscient and omnipresent? Only someone with a full knowledge of all that is in the universe (and the negaverse) can make such a statement based on the facts.
Hmm... could that be why the burden of proof is on the person making the
positive existential claim?
Quote:
|
This point can be forcefully emphasized by asking the atheist if he has ever visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. Mention that the library presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Also point out that hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in the various academic fields. Then ask the following question: "What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience?" The atheist will likely respond, "I don't know. I guess a fraction of one percent." You can then ask: "Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?" Even if the atheist refuses to admit the possibility, you have made your point and he knows it
|
Actually, a smart atheist will beat you to it and ask "Do you think that it is logically possible that a proof for the inexistence of God may exist in the 99% that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?"
Quote:
|
I don't believe in God because there is so much evil in the world." Many atheists consider the problem of evil an airtight proof that God does not exist. They often say something like: "I know there is no God because if He existed, He never would have let Hitler murder six million Jews."
|
Oh sure, make a strawman out of the atheist argument why don't you. The argument is IF God is supposed to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, then why is there evil in the world. It doesn't rule out the possibility of evil, apathetic, or limited gods. Thus this argument rules out the Christian god, but not the Biblical god (which is evil). (The latter is ruled out by inconsistencies in the bible.)
Quote:
|
A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this effect: "Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other things not to be evil? By what process do you distinguish evil from good?" The atheist may hedge and say: "I just know that some things are evil. It's obvious." Don't accept such an evasive answer. Insist that he tell you how he knows that some things are evil. He must be forced to face the illogical foundation of his belief system.
|
Actually, an atheist will reply in any manner except the one you have described. Remember: statistically, the atheist is likely to be
smarter, not dumber, than you are.
For instance, the atheist might reply: "I don't have to prove it. It is a nessecary premise to Christianity that evil exists, otherwise there is no need for a savior. Therefore, if evil doesn't exist, Christianity is illogical, and if evil does exist, then the Christian God is a logical impossibility, and Christianity is illogical. You're screwed either way."
Or the atheist might refer you to their own personal moral code, which probably is based on some application of the golden rule. The Christian will have a very difficult time refuting that standard without making himself look like an idiot.
Or the atheist might bring up the problem of suffering rather than the problem of evil. This forces the Christian to either argue that causing unnessecary suffering is not evil (in which case, the atheist may unnessecarily break the theist's arm and claim that that was not an evil act), or admitting that God could and should have done better.
Quote:
|
After he struggles with this a few moments, point out to him that it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good. Otherwise one is like a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass (i.e., there would be no way to distinguish north from south without the absolute reference point of the compass needle.
|
Actually, the compass is NOT an absolute reference. It is but a sensor for the NON-absolute reference of the magnetic North pole (which has the annoying property of not coinciding with the true North pole). Yet, you can still navigate (albiet imprecisely) with a compass. Thus, that analogy refutes the very point the theist is trying to make.
Also, one might ask what the hell use an absolute reference is if one has no way of sensing it. For instance, one cannot use the stars (which are close to fixed, at least on the timescales we're talking aobut) if one cannot see them. So, if the theist uses God to navigate, then unless the theist can see god, he's working blind. (And if the theist can see god, then ask him when was the last time he had a CAT scan.)
Quote:
|
The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the definition of "absolutely good." If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes by which one has the right to judge something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of Hitler. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually requires the existence of God, rather than disproving it.
|
At this point the atheist will educate the theist on the fact that a frame of reference need not be anything physical. For instance, the frame of reference that we use for testing the mathematical accuracy of computer processors (the value of Pi) is not a physical value - it is not based on any actual object. Similarly, you can make absolute judgements on good and evil from an abstract reference point: there need not be any person who lives up to these standards.
Quote:
|
At this point, the atheist may raise the objection that if God does in fact exist, then why hasn't He dealt with the problem of evil in the world. You can disarm this objection by pointing out that God is dealing with the problem of evil, but in a progressive way. The false assumption on the part of the atheist is that God's only choice is to deal with evil all at once in a single act. God, however, is dealing with the problem of evil throughout all human history. One day in the future, Christ will return, strip power away from the wicked, and hold all men and women accountable for the things they did during their time on earth. Justice will ultimately prevail. Those who enter eternity without having trusted in Christ for salvation will understand just how effectively God has dealt with the problem of evil
|
They will indeed. They will understand that in return for evil, God has given them an infinity of torture. In other words, God returns evil for evil. Also: the theist believes that at some point in the future, God will deal with the problem of evil with a single act (the return of Christ), yet has just criticized atheists for making the same assumption (which they do not. They assume that the PoE should never have existed in the first place). One wonders what this guy was smoking to miss such an obvious contradiction.
Quote:
|
If the atheist responds that it shouldn't take all of human history for an omnipotent God to solve the problem of evil, you might respond by saying: "Ok. Let's do it your way. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that at this very moment, God declared that all evil in the world will now simply cease to exist. Every human being on the planet -- present company included -- would simply vanish into oblivion. Would this solution be preferable to you?"
|
Actually, nothing would happen, since God can declare things without actually causing them to happen. Nor, if God actually caused all evil in the world to cease to exist, would it result in the destruction of all humans. It would only reault in humans ceasing to kill, rape, lie, and steal, presumably because they all spontaneously realize that they have better things to do than infringe on the rights of others.
Quote:
|
The atheist may argue that a better solution must surely be available. He may even suggest that God could have created man in such a way that man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether. This idea can be countered by pointing out that such a scenario would mean that man is no longer man. He would no longer have the capacity to make choices. This scenario would require that God create robots who act only in programmed ways.
|
Hahaha. Tell me, does not having the ability to fly without mechanical aid turn humans into robots? No. Would being unable to inflict harm on one another turn humans into robots? No. Of course, good luck describing this to the theist. The problem with the Christian worldview is that it assumes that on the morality scale, the highest possible value is 0 and everything short of perfection is immoral. The concept of a morality scale where
amorality is at 0, and good is a positive value, never occurs to them.
Quote:
|
If the atheist persists and says there must be a better solution to the problem of evil, suggest a simple test. Give him about five minutes to formulate a solution to the problem of evil that (1) does not destroy human freedom, or (2) cause God to violate His nature (e.g., His attributes of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in some way. After five minutes, ask him what he came up with. Don't expect much of an answer.
|
Five seconds will do: simply make humans physically unable to hurt each other. Now, all conflicts will be resolved through peaceful means, given that violence becomes completely futile. Very little evil, and free will is maintained.
Quote:
|
Your goal, of course, is not simply to tear down the atheist's belief system. After demonstrating some of the logical impossibilities of his claims, share with him some of the logical evidence for redemption in Jesus Christ, and the infinite benefits that it brings. Perhaps through your witness and prayers his faith in atheism will be overturned by a newfound faith in Christ.
|
Many Christians ask: "how can atheists have faith in nothing?" It never occurs to them that we simply don't have any faith at all. Oh, and what logical evidence for Jesus?
05-18-2003, 01:25 AM
