Since God cannot be proven, when there's a discussion or debate on
the God of the bible, for the sake of discussion, it is done under
the presupposition that he exists. Otherwise the discussion is moot.
It doesn't mean that an atheist is admitting God exists, but is
debating as though he did. Admittedly, atheists can bring forth good
arguments such as possible bible contradictions and God being unjust,
but that is not what I want to talk about here. I want to address
something I've never understood that atheists just refuse to accept.
And that is:
1 - If an eternally existing God is real (this is the presupposition of
the argument)
2 - Has the power to create the universe
3 - Knows the future before it happens
4 - And is infinite in wisdom and understanding;
Then why is it that they refuse to accept that we as sinful finite
beings in wisdom and understanding(the presupposition of discussion), have no right to judge and accuse
God? And if these presuppositions about God are true, which is what
Christians are living by, then it's completely logical to trust God. An
atheist might reply, but what if God isn't those things? That's a red
herring. It's possible that could be true, but Christians are not living
under that premise, and when we say that we trust God, it's a
manifestation of our faith in what we believe to be true about God.
Don't confuse this with proof, which is what atheists mistakenly try to
assume. The point I'm trying to get atheists to comprehend is that when
this particular point is brought up by Christians in a debate, it's not
logical to attack us on this. I understand saying that you
don't believe this God exists, but in the context of the argument I am
speaking of, it's not logical to think that we are wiser than God. It
would be like thinking that a 3 year old is smarter than Einstein, but
even many times more extreme than that. A lot of atheists I have spoken
with seem very intelligent, but I just shake my head every time they
stumble on this one point. And what baffles me even more is because
atheists don't have an answer or just flat out refuse to acknowledge
this, they cry that it's a cop-out. That's only because they're not
allowing themselves to logically think it through from the Christian
world-view. It's a cop-out for them to say it's a cop-out. Now remember
what I'm speaking about here and don't attempt to apply this to a
different argument. It's one thing for atheists to say that they don't
believe God exists and have that debate, but that's a completely different argument.
Honestly, the only reason I can think of that atheists refuse to
concede this point I'm speaking of, is their sinful nature, ego, and
pride. It just doesn't make sense for atheists to not comprehend what
Christians are saying when they explain this to atheists. Again, this
is not in any way proclaiming proof for God but just an attempt to
maybe get atheists to understand this the next time a Christian
explains why they trust God.
Atheists: What is your explanation?
Christians: Have you encountered this?
Comments (181)
I found the book: "Always Ready" by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen and ed. by Robert R. Booth to be very helpful in explaining presuppositions and prove for the existence of God.
((Larry)), so great to read you again, my friend!!!
I've encountered this, Larry. With them, at least in my experiences, our Christian/Atheist debates have never really made it past the front door, from the time they say "prove it." as obviously as they cannot touch Him or see Him, I believe they feel anything else we might say is useless from that point on. Their minds are simply set on "proving" He exists and because of that, I, at least, have never really gotten past that initial statement in debating with them. Might as well say to me, "you live in a make-believe world so what important thing could you have to say from this point on, lol?
But past that, Larry, I don't believe they concede to our beliefs or thoughts in a debate because honestly, in their world, they deal in words like "logic, reasoning, science," words I believe God does not deal in. And to them, miracles we have witnessed are discounted as "luck, chance, coincidence, or accident." And, as I said above, they feel we could not substantiate a valid point because we Christians, in their view it seems, live in fairyland. And WHO, my friend, wants to waste time with people like us who they view live in fairlyand? I mean think about it. That would be like a serial killer IMing me and saying "I slew 13 people, wanna talk?" You get my point, right? My mind could NOT imagine that nor want to hear his next statement, lol.
I hope I answered based on what I understood of your post! You made a fantastic point, but as well, not trying to defend the Atheists, but in being fair, I have seen many times a Christian do them just as you described above, because they cannot understand an Atheist's view or take on their beliefs, attack them!
Hello Larry! Glad you are back! Just wanted you to know that you have been missed my friend! Hope you have a Great Monday!......In Christ's Love.......Monic
Hey Larry I've seen your comments elsewhere and I am happy you are posting again ! I understand where you are coming from and you are right pride does keep them from looking through our worldview eyes . Another problem is that to truly see through our world view of understanding their spirit must be quickened and this would mean they would have received Christ to receive this spirit of understanding and give up the false religion they now have. For me to step out from under the knowledge of the living person of Jesus my Christ would be impossible since I can not unknow the reality of a person I met and joined with as a new creature. The athiest who got to close to this by trying to find the real truth got sucked up into the light and the darkness of unbelief left them as the light of everlasting life entered .
Blessings for all who visit your site is my prayer!
Barry
Yes as a Christian ( coming from a Sikh background) , i have encountered similar questions, from Atheists, and mainly people of other faiths...sikh, hindus etc. Some of their queries :
If (Your) God is all powerful, why does He allow suffering, sin?
If God (that you are talking about, ie Christ) is all knowing, then couldn't he have foreseen Adam & Eve's betrayal? Why create them in first place? Why not let this world be a better, a peaceful place?
Why is God allowing satan to work in today's world, you mean to say God is less powerful or helpless against satan?
These are just some of the questions. Some of them may not be related to your post. Some of these questions are asked in ignorance, but more in pride, ego & self esteem. People want to question God for everything. They want to rely on their own intelligence and i feel such people are closer to Atheists.
@JUSTAVAPORHERE - You have it. The Atheists can not be argued with because they don't really argue at all. They have no basis for argument. They just reject the whole concept of a God, and then reject you. Their science is flawed, and so they pick on the fact that Deists have no science. It all comes down to the fact that neither position can be proven, so both positions have to be taken on faith. Yes, you heard right - Atheists take their position on FAITH! That's all they really have, the same as the Deists. All of my attempts at arguing with Atheists have ended in frustration because they simply refuse to see the point you are trying to make. If they accept your point, they have to move out of their comfort zone. My attempts at arguing with them have also ended in broken friendships, so you are better off not going there.
Larry: Great post! I'm looking forward to reading more.
Oh, and btw, read the book "The Shack." I just finished it on the eve of Pentecost, which was particularly appropriate. I highly recommend it!!
Frank
Hm, personally, I couldn't trust God until I knew His plans for me were created with a great love for me--rather than just to glorify Himself or seem powerful. (that seemed vain) So I wonder if it's mostly a lack of understanding of who God really is. Like what groovydjsunny's ?'s seem to have in common. If satan can make people believe lies about who God is, that's a horrible, but working strategy.
But yeah I've ran across people who just want proof with everything, lol.
And yes, if there was absolute proof, what would be the point of faith? Would there really be a choice? If there was, it'd be more like, agree with the fact, or you're an idiot. lol, and I think it brings God so much joy in finding Him and trusting when proof lacks. It makes it that much more special, kind of like when Jesus was talking to dear doubting Thomas. :] Thanks for inviting me to join the conversation. :b Good post.
@bibiker - Love The Shack. :D I want to reread it, lol.
@SUPAHeARt - I plan to reread it, too, but I am going to digest it for awhile first. Some of the stuff is deep if you really think about it and meditate on it. Then I will get a lot more out of it the second time.
In your situation if I were to suppose God is real, then I could not argue back as you are asking how we say God is not wise - however, in your presumptions on this arguement you clearly state he is full of wisdom. That is surely saying something along the lines of 'Is this cat a cat or a dog?' in it's most basic form.
You are asking someone to make their point or opinion based on a 'what if'. I cannot answer the question directly as you have answered it for me. It is logical to follow someone who is all loving, all caring, all powerful and of infinate wisdom. And if you assume they know what is best for you personally and know you on a deep scale then why would you not trust them? The point is, someone who doesn't believe in a God cannot think this way because they cannot imagine it in such a way that would produce an arguement equal to that of one who is agureing their entire faith and life choices against. My Dad is a Christian and up until the age of 9 I tried my hardest to believe in God and everything that went with it, I gave up. You cannot fool someone into thinking of a 'what if' unless the 'what if' actually happens, just like no matter how hard I tried I could not believe in what he believed in.
And you say that Atheists are sinful of nature, egotistical and proud. If you are generalising Atheists who cannot answer this question (which I personally think is unanswerable) then surely non-Christians are allowed to generalise and pick out that many Christians sin and think of themselves, and they are very proud of their faith and religion. Both types of pride are generally the same, the only minor difference being one is for and the other against. Both support their team, just like a game of football.
So, no, I can't answer your question, and yes I do think it is a cop-out - sorry.
Zee.
@zeeron - You are asking someone to make their point or opinion based on a 'what if'.
That's right. Let's suppose that I was having a discussion with an atheist and he gave me a presupposition that it was proven that Jesus didn't rise from the dead and then asked me if I would still be a Christian. I would understand the presupposition and answer it accordingly. What you're failing to see is the point I made about logic. Let's suppose another discussion. I am talking with a Muslim and the Muslim says that if Mohamed is really God's prophet, then we should listen to what he says. And my response would be that he is right.
The point is, someone who doesn't believe in
a God cannot think this way because they cannot imagine it in such a
way that would produce an argument equal to that of one who is
arguing their entire faith and life choices against.
I disagree as I stated above. I have told atheists that I understand what they're saying even though I don't agree with them.
And you say that Atheists are sinful of nature, egotistical and proud.
I'm just trying to rationalize why they're not capable of comprehending the logic I am speaking about.
So, no, I can't answer your question, and yes I do think it is a cop-out - sorry.
That's ok. I appreciate your input.
@JUSTAVAPORHERE - @Barrygw - @bibiker - Thanks for your comments. You might want to read my comment above to zeeron to understand a little more of what I'm saying.
@LSP1 - It makes perfect sense to me what you've said, Larry, :).
@groovy_djsunny - As a Sikh, how did you become a Christian?
It's really the fight between those who insist on logic with the strictest empirical restrictions as the only standard for evaluation of existential questions and those who insist that Faith is the essential component to explain causal relationships.
Like two titans wrestling in the heavens. The thunder is the sound of their battle.
most of the debates I have had they fill the room with {smoke} arguments a barrage if you will to steer the topic away and try to turn it back on us because of their beliefs being so hard to defend..The old red herring if you will..and it is hard to get them back on topic and when you do the debate turns to hate... great post by the way
I understand Larry . There are many ways to the heart to prepare it for Holy Spirit's work . Some is through the mind , others is through loss but many (most) will love their sin and want the darkness to cover them as they worship and cling to it that they do not want the light of truth to shine on it to show how ugly it and their life is. Many are called few are chosen . We know the person named Truth and it is hard for us to see others to continue to reject His love gift! They will not see if they will not look ! They will not hear if they do not listen ! Yet we continue to try in His name.
God bless you brother!
Barry
Well thought out post.
@dirtbubble - Those are 2 different things you are speaking of. I'm speaking specifically of this one point as mentioned in the post.
@str8tguy69 - Thanks for your comment.
@oeshpdog2 - Thank you.
@Barrygw - I agree Barry although I'm not speaking about salvation in this post. I'm talking about the simple logic of understanding a presupposition.
@LSP1 - I think I nailed it, then.
@LSP1 - I never met a athiest that could bring themself to allow for the simple logic of understanding that presupposition without becoming agnostic and no longer athiest.. I do think this is a good post and hope the Athiest prove me wrong.
Thanks for your comment Larry.
Barry
This is a variation on anselm's argument. He said that if we can imagine a perfect thing, then that thing must exist because not existing would be an imperfection. This is a very strange kind of logic and just like your argument is easily shown to be false because it can be applied to all manner of things, not just gods.
What if we assume for a minute that there is an all powerful alien that is a thousand times smarter and more evolved than us, and who has giant purple tentacles and wants you to eat peoples nostrils and has a yellow space ship.
Who are we with our puny human brains to question this being we just fabricated out of thin air? This imaginary being is soo much smarter than we are, it would be arrogant and sinful to question it's supremely hypothetical understanding of things, right?
No, this is a totally warped kind of reasoning. Any logical argument that requires that you first assume it's conclusion is correct is bent, it's like saying 4 + 2 = 2 instead of 2 + 2 = 4. You don't assume your conclusion is correct before you've made an argument, the conclusion comes at the end, not the beginning.
And even if we did assume that there was a creator, why assume it's your creator? Why assume that that creator had a son named jesus or had anything to do with the bible or the koran or any other text?
@agnophilo - This is a variation on anselm's argument.
He said that if we can imagine a perfect thing, then that thing must
exist because not existing would be an imperfection.
I don't see the connection. I'm merely speaking of understanding the presupposition of an opposing view. I'm not talking about whether it really exists or not.
This is a very strange kind of logic and
just like your argument is easily shown to be false because it can be
applied to all manner of things, not just gods.
That's right, it can be applied to other things.
[What if we assume for a minute that there is an all powerful alien that is a thousand times smarter and more evolved than us, and who has giant purple tentacles and wants you to eat peoples nostrils and has a yellow space ship.
Who are we with our puny human brains to question this being we just fabricated out of thin air?]
If you're going to use that analogy and we had a discussion on it, it would be under the presupposition that this is true. You don't say in this analogy whether God also exists. Then we would have a choice of following God or the alien. If God doesn't exist and I knew this being was 1000 times smarter and more evolved, then I would take heed to what it said.
This imaginary being is soo much smarter
than we are, it would be arrogant and sinful to question it's supremely
hypothetical understanding of things, right?
In the presupposition with God, sin is defined and is a reality. So, in your analogy, if that is the case, then I agree.
No, this is a totally warped kind of
reasoning. Any logical argument that requires that you first assume
it's conclusion is correct is bent
I'm not saying you have to agree with the conclusion in real life. I'm saying you need to understand the presupposition that is being made. The conclusion as I've pointed out isn't necessarily true in reality. I'm merely speaking of understanding the presupposition from the other point of view. Atheists have said to me that even if what I'm saying about God is true, they still don't understand trusting him, and to me, that is not logical given everything that's been said.
it's like saying 4 + 2 = 2 instead of 2 + 2 = 4.
I don't see that analogy at all. How is that if God truly exists, that what I'm saying is wrong?
You don't assume your conclusion is correct before you've made an argument, the conclusion comes at the end, not the beginning.
Again as I said in the post, I'm not saying that it means you are concluding and admitting God exists.
And even if we did assume that there was a creator, why assume it's your creator?
haha - That has nothing to do with what I've said. My opening statement in the post is that God cannot be proven. It's not about proving it's my creator.
Why assume that that creator had a son named jesus or had anything to do with the bible or the koran or any other text?
Because that is what I believe to be true. Now we're talking about 2 different things if we're:
1 - Trying to prove Jesus is God's son.
2 - Talking about if he is God's son and what that would mean and entail.