That’s the cry of many atheists. “Your God made me someone who requires proof before I can believe anything."
I’ve never found the need to use this term before but I certainly will now. That is utter rubbish.
These people don’t need proof before they believe every little thing. Day after day after day, examples can be found whereby we know a little bit about this or about that and then we accept the rest on faith.
Belief is a choice - Period. Belief in God is a choice. As is the belief that He doesn't exist. The next time an atheist tells you that s/he can’t help not believing in God, don’t you believe it. Yes it requires some faith to accept that Creator God exists, but many aspects of atheism require the exercise of faith a well.
That sure doesn’t stop atheists from denying God’s existence.
You can’t help it? Bull!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Consider inductive reasoning. In that method, you look at specific cases and use them to draw a general conclusion. For example, you hold an object up, let go, and it falls to the ground. Think of how many bazillion times this has been done and how the object has fallen to the ground each time this has been done before. Now, pick up an object and hold it out over the ground. Does the fact that the object hass fallen all of the previous times this has been done before guarantee, with absolute 100% certainty, that this will happen next time? No. It is entirely consistent with previous experience for the next dropped object to float in the air.
As I just showed, nothing is "proven" through inductive reason, although we often accept the conclusions of inductive arguments, even though they aren't "proven". If mean faith as accepting something that has not been "proven", well then all inductive conclusions are accepted on faith. This includes most of science outside of mathematics. To me, this is stretching usage of the word faith a bit too much.
Why then do we accept inductive conclusions? Because they are cogent. What does it mean for an inductive argument to be cogent? An inductive argument is cogent when its premises (such as the individual cases in the example above) provide a rational justification for accepting its conclusion. Cogency is a matter of degree; hence, the more cogent an argument is, the stronger the justification for accepting its conclusion. This is why we can rationally accept that the next dropped object will fall to the ground. If you still reject this, you're welcome to drop a lead brick on your foot!
Hence, for the inductive arguments in favour of the existence of God, atheists see them as having insufficient cogency and hence insufficient justification for rationally accepting their conclusion. Agnostics like me basically see the same in inductive arguments against the existence of God.
"Agnostics like me basically see the same in inductive arguments against the existence of God."
Hmm, interesting. I'm afraid my ignorance has caught up to me. Could you give me a few of those arguments against the existence of God? The top three or four would be fine.
The section titled Existence of God in this Wikipedia template provides links to a bunch of arguments for and against the existence of God or some aspect of it.
To clarify the previous a bit more, many of the premises in these arguments may in turn be supported through inductive means.
I would offer them two arguments.
1. Yes, God did create you to want evidence. And He gave you ample evidence. You are just suppressing it in unrighteousness:
Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
2. And your beloved Darwinian evolution must be the cause for my Christian faith and my conversion from atheism. It makes me "think" I see evidence for he existence of God and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Maybe once you evolve some more you'll see it, too.
Hey Rob, I checked out that Wiki site, thanks - I think I got it:
.I don’t understand Scripture - Therefore God does not exist
.Bad things happen - Therefore God does not exist
.I could have done it better - Therefore God does not exist
.I don’t believe in Him - Therefore God does not exist
.I can think of more than one reason that I got drunk -
Therefore God does not exist
.You go first - Therefore God does not exist
.I don’t understand the whole eternal Being thing - Therefore God does not exist
.You can’t answer a logically incoherent question - Therefore God does not exist
.I don`t understand how He works - Therefore God does not exist
.I don`t like hell very much - Therefore God does not exist
.I don`t get the whole free will thing - Therefore I choose to believe that God does not exist
.I still don`t understand the eternal Being thing - Therefore God does not exist
.I don`t understand how something that thinks can`t have a body - Therefore God does not exist
.I can`t figure out why God would make me - Therefore God does not exist
.Because some answers are wrong, all of them are wrong - Therefore God does not exist
.My dad died when I was a kid;
.I beat the Christian kids in track and field
.I prayed for something and didn`t get it
- Therefore God does not exist
Rot. Complete rot.
Is this some kind of troll site?
You seem desperate to say something stupid enough to make people comment.
Okay, you win. You've said something dumb enough to receive a comment.
And you can't "choose to believe" something.
Youre right Mak. So many of their arguements boil down to "God doesnt fit my particular worldview, thus, He does not exist!"
Makarios hit the nail on the head. belief is a choice
So I choose not to believe in things that leave me unconvinced.
My dad drilled this into my head since I was a child. The only thing you can EVER believe is that people lie.
"My dad drilled this into my head since I was a child. The only thing you can EVER believe is that people lie."
Wow!
Try and believe that the Loch Ness Monster is real, despite everything making you intuitively think the contrary.
Et Voila.
That is how atheists feel about god. There is no more choice in the non-belief of god than your non-belief in the Loch Ness Monster.
I've posed this to you before on a couple of occasions but i get fuck all in response.
Probably because i've been short-changed in the intellect department...
I can't imagine what you'd want me to say.
That is how atheists feel about god. There is no more choice in the non-belief of god than your non-belief in the Loch Ness Monster
What kind of archeological evidence has been left behind by Nessie? Do his (or her) foundational documents contain near the rich histories and verifible facts that the Bible does? (Cue up your nest Odin reference here)
Loch Ness exists. And it's right where the stories said it was!
Animals like the Plesiosaur existed.
A "rich history" exists. (For 15 hundred years at least stories of a "Kelpie" (Giant water horse) have been told about the loch.)
Oh noes! Maybe Nessie does exist!
Mak, i want you to just admit that we can't choose what to and what not to believe when it comes to things like this. That is all.
There are thousans of eye-witnesses who claim they have seen Nessie, JD. Thousands.
Post a Comment