proof for god

You can’t win with apologists. First, they had logical proofs for the existence of god(s). Once it was shown that while the arguments could be sound and valid, that was just one hurdle. It’s one thing to have an argument and another to come from that argument to reality.

The author of this post argues that the proof for god cannot be arrived at through logic but

offer an ostensive argument: Open your mind and reach out to the transcendent. You’ll find something supremely good. Call it what you like. But call it. It will answer your call.

and how do you arrive at this?

Through prayer or meditation, we can try to open our minds to a reality beyond our ordinary experience. And most of us find something there, a feeling of transcendence.

And I hope among the things we can point to include a bird trapped in a forest fire without a chance of escape, or a zebra dying of asphyxiation having been attacked by a lion or people trapped in a hurricane. But we all know this is not what they mean. They want us to think about butterflies, roses and a beautiful scenery.

The moral argument for the existence of god

In his book, The Arguments for god, John Hick writes

Let us consider the case-the admittedly extreme case – of the humanist who knowingly sacrifices his life for the sake of humanity as a whole. We are thus thinking of self-sacrifice on moral principle….
And the question I wish to pose is how such conscientious self sacrifice can be defended in humanist terms as rational or reasonable act?

And I will offer to argue that no such person exists, either among theists or non theists. I further suggest that the word self-sacrifice is a word that has no place in the dictionary. Additionally if a person wants to use this as an argument for the existence of a god, they should think again.

Theists misusing philosophy

Friends, let us be honest, almost everyone who is religious, became so following either reading scripture[few actually do read], being taught by their parents or pastors and very few if any through reading the philosophical arguments for the existence of god. All the apologists almost to a man, starting from Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine to present day Alvin Platinga and Craig have been religious and have called on philosophy to make their irrational beliefs look rational. This, I call an abuse of philosophy. It detracts real philosophers from dealing with more serious issues such as how to create a humanist morality, questions of good life and death and so on for we have to spend time to show the problems with their arguments. Those sophisticated theologians and apologists, who think that by studying Aquinas or Anselm or Platinga, their beliefs transform once and for all to be rational, no, they are still irrational albeit with sophistication.

Having said that, I believe strongly, that it is to abuse philosophy to support a religion or theological position. Maybe am presumptuous, but please tell me, how can engaging in philosophy help in supporting the resurrection story or walking on water, or feeding the hungry or cursing a fig tree out of season. Or better still, how does philosophy aid one in supporting a claim that Mo, if he lived, went to heaven on a winged horse, or that Moses by the use of a rod split the Red Sea and that men and women walked on the floor of the sea! And while at it, was the sea bed dry or muddy? Am patient, am waiting for a philosophy that is going to rescue such beliefs from irrationality!

Some theist may come here and tell me that oh, this argument is proof for god! What nonsense! I am not going to stop anyone from engaging in speculative reason, what we must always remember, is, it is speculative. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been able during the ages to formulate sound and logical arguments that one has to accept the conclusion from the premises. Some of these formulations though logically follow each other, have false premises in their structure and are this invalid and this is the fate of all the arguments for god.

The next problem one encounters in engaging these sophisticated theologians and apologists, is a problem of definitions. The character god is never defined, you can’t tell what god, if any, the theist is defending. The theist then accuses the atheist of attacking a caricature of his god, a Strawman of a god, a god which is so flexible, one is never sure what it means. I think, then, it is only fair for the theist to be forthright to declare which particular god he wants to defend, whether it is the god of scripture or the god of philosophers, a god that doesn’t have to exist and if it does, exists only in the minds of those philosophising! I ask further that this god, has to be internally coherent and not open to contradictions within  its definition. While at it, please remember saying that a god exists doesn’t make it so, two that existence doesn’t tell us anything about the nature of the said thing.

In conclusion, I contend here, that the likes of Platinga, Craig and their followers perverse philosophy when they hide behind it claiming it supports their beliefs, which at the core, are based on scripture and are irrational to say the least and delusional at best.

                                                                                                                             

Related articles

Another doubtful anti-theist modus-tollens

The religious perversion of philosophy

Philosophical discussions

Prayson has posted a quote from the writings of Hume on his blog, a post that has elicited quite a bit of comment but which I think do not respond directly to what he[Hume] was alluding to and it is my intention to try to address the question here briefly and invite further comments.

A little philosophy, says lord BACON, makes men atheistsA great deal reconciles them to religion. For men, being taught, by superstitious prejudices, to lay the stress on a wrong place; when that fails them, and they discover, by a little reflection, that the course of nature is regular and uniform, their whole faith totters, and falls to ruin. But being taught, by more reflection, that this very regularity and uniformity is the strongest proof of design and of a supreme intelligence, they return to that belief, which they had deserted; and they are now able to establish it on a firmer and more durable foundation.

– David Hume, (NHR 4:329, Hume’s emphasis)

Cited: Natural History of Religion, in The Philosophical Works,ed. T .H. Green and T. H. Grose, 4 vols. (Dannstadt, 1964)

This quote here alludes to the design argument for the proof for the existence of god. Unlike other arguments that attempt to show the existence of god can be proved with the aid of pure reason alone, such as the Ontological argument, this argument starts with alluding to experience, that is, that we observe in the world of experience things that display regularity, uniformity and an appearance of design and then shifts to the ontological argument in its conclusion that there must exist a supreme intelligence. This conclusion, however, doesn’t follow from the premises. All that can be granted to the proponent of this argument is that there could exist an architect for the order in the universe but as an argument for the existence of god it is insufficient.

As a general comment, I need to add that if the existence of god were provable, only one argument would have been sufficient. The fact that there exists so many arguments attempting to prove that a god exists goes to show that they have all been insufficient in the course they set for themselves.

***********************************************

One of the comments on the post is irrelevant to say the least and commits a logical fallacy. He writes

You are on the loosing side. Atheists comprised an estimated 2.01% of the world population, according to The World Factbook in 2010. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

The Christian share of the world’s population has stood at around 33% for the last hundred years, which says that one in three persons on earth are Christians.

Christianity, in one form or another, is the sole state religion of the following nations: Costa Rica (Roman Catholic), Denmark (Evangelical Lutheran), El Salvador (Roman Catholic), England (Anglican), Finland (Evangelical Lutheran & Orthodox), Georgia (Georgian Orthodox), Greece (Greek Orthodox), Iceland (Evangelical Lutheran), Liechtenstein (Roman Catholic), Malta (Roman Catholic), Monaco (Roman Catholic), and Vatican City (Roman Catholic). There are numerous other countries, such as Cyprus, which although do not have an established church, still give official recognition to a specific Christian denomination.

Western culture, throughout most of its history, has been nearly equivalent to Christian culture, and many of the population of the Western hemisphere could broadly be described as cultural Christians. Though Western culture contained several polytheistic religions during its early years under the Greek and Roman empires, as the centralized Roman power waned, the dominance of the Catholic Church was the only consistent force in Europe. Until the Age of Enlightenment, Christian culture was the predominant force in western civilization, guiding the course of philosophy, art, and science. Christian disciplines of the respective arts have subsequently developed into Christian philosophy, Christian art, etc..

I want to point out that we are not in competition with christianity or any world religion for numbers. It is the religious who need numbers in their congregations for various reasons, atheism only calls for you to be rational and whether you chose to do so is your business. It has been noted that rationality is not for everyone since there are people around the world whose only concern is how they will get the next meal and as such do not have the luxury to spend their time thinking about philosophy.

The second problem with this argument is that the author isn’t concerned with whether the claims of christianity are true but rather with the number of the adherents of his particular sect. I would like to tell him that a false belief doesn’t become true because it is held by many people. The only thing that the numbers show, is that a significant part of the human population have bought into the story of some Hebrew goat herders set in the Middle East. Nothing more.

*************************************************************

The same fellow lists two [he claims] there are ten facts that show that evolution is false.  Yours truly is not a biologist and as such will invite comments by those who are well versed on this subject. He writes

Scientific Fact No. 1 – Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother’s womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

I honestly don’t get what he is saying.

Scientific Fact No. 2 – Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

If I understand what he is saying, it appears to me, he believes he evolved from a monkey which I don’t think is what is taught in evolution. Last I checked the theory of evolution posits that we share a common ancestor with other primates. I would be interested in knowing if he means by scientifically impossible that it is not possible in nature over long period of time for changes to occur?

******************************

Related articles

Hume on religion

Theists, listen up!

Can one honestly say that he is convinced of the existence of a being whose nature is not known, who remains inaccessible to all our senses, and of whose qualities we are constantly assured that they are incomprehensible to us? In order to persuade me that a being exists, or can exist, he must begin by telling me what this being is; in order to make me believe the existence or the possibility of such a being, he must tell me things about him which are not contradictory, and which do not destroy one another; finally, in order to convince me fully of the existence of this being, he must tell me things about him which I can comprehend, and prove to me that it is
impossible that the being to whom he attributes these qualities does not exist.

A thing is impossible when it is composed of two ideas so antagonistic, that we can not think of them at the same time. Evidence can be relied on only when confirmed by the constant testimony of our senses, which alone give birth to ideas, and enable us to judge of their conformity or of their incompatibility. That which exists necessarily, is that of which the non−existence would imply contradiction. These principles, universally recognized, are at fault when the question of the existence of God is considered; what has been said of Him is either unintelligible or perfectly contradictory; and for this reason must appear impossible to every man of common sense.

Jean Meslier

What is evidence?

It has not occurred to me that the meaning of evidence was ever in contention until a few days ago. The great antagonizer has asked this question on his blog.  Debilis, who we have already met and Mark Hamilton have also written articles on the same and the two of them ask what do we want as evidence for god.

I know this post will not deal completely and exhaustively with this question but will attempt to answer some of the questions the three bloggers have raised and hopefully help us in moving the conversation forward.

To deal with this problem, I am going to start by giving definitions then proceed to point out where I think they are wrong.

Definition from Merriam Webster

1 a : an outward sign : indication

b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically :something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

: one who bears witness; especially: one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
From oxforddictionaries.com
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
and from dictionary.reference.com

noun

1.that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

verb (used with object)

4.to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5.to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
First, we look at Debilis’ claims
When the statement is made, it would seem to mean that there is no scientific evidence that God exists. Whether or not that is true, the idea that there is no physical evidence for the non-physical is hardly mind-blowing. Rather, it is a simple category error. It has no more weight than saying that there is no mathematical proof that Winston Churchill was the Prime minister of Great Britain, or that there is no grammatical evidence of cosmic expansion.
There are historical records, photographic records and video reels that confirm a Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of Great Britain. These information can be corroborated independently from newspaper articles, magazines and books on British or World History. The same can’t be said of Debilis’ god. No one is asking for physical evidence, that would be a bonus though, all we ask is for any evidence. You must be all aware of a study done a few years back to study the efficacy of intercessory prayer, whether this can be proof for god is for you to decide. What non-physical has the theist offered as proof that their god exist? I think there are many reasons to believe we live in an atheistic universe than a world managed by an all-powerful benevolent master. The presence of any form of natural evil is evidence against the existence of a god that is absolutely benevolent!
He[I hope am correct on this] goes on to say
But, taken more broadly, the claim is simply false. That is, if the claim is taken broadly enough to be relevant to metaphysical issues such as God’s existence, then the metaphysical arguments for God’s existence is such evidence.
This statement makes no sense. The use of metaphysical here is to make the arguments look more than just arguments which they are. The metaphysical arguments, I believe this are the logical arguments for the existence of god, have been refuted and any one keen on apologetics would know this unless they present new arguments and we will be waiting to refute them. The theist has not defined god coherently so that to prove that such a thing can exist is even problematic. The discussion collapses even before it can lift its ass off the ground.
We can debate whether or not the evidence is sufficient, but the bold declaration that there is no evidence for God’s existence is simply out of touch with the facts.
What facts could these be? Is it that atheists have chosen to be blind to these facts. Why then do we still have apologists? In fact, why would we need apologists to defend god, an all-powerful and all-knowing being/non being [I don’t know the one theists prefer]? Don’t any of you think that if this god is what is claimed of it, we would have at least have had an appearance to answer the doubting Thomases once every so often. Any theist claiming this would not be good for us has not read Genesis where god visits with Abe for BBQ and clean up but find nothing wrong with it. If it was fine then, it must be more than urgent now!
Mark on his part starts by asking a question
Can you prove that I have a liver?
Yes, all mammals have been found to have livers so we don’t need to operate on you to confirm this and should you be found to not have one, it would be a serious birth defect and everything will be done to get you one. So this is what the Buddha would call a useless question.
He continues to argue
For many people this is the kind of evidence they want when asking “Is there a God?” They want something they can see and smell and experiment on.
This is simply not true. I can’t experiment on Cicero but I have sufficient reason/evidence to believe he existed. Empirical evidence is just one type of evidence. Looking at the definitions of evidence I gave at the beginning of this post, is there any where the theist has passed the test? Maybe I missed this evidence, whoever has it could be kind enough to share 😀
Mark proceeds to tell us
And it’s true, I do take it on faith that God exists. I don’t have empirical evidence for God. I also don’t have empirical evidence for the existence of my liver.
Then am accused of hypocrisy when I point out that faith requires belief even when one has no evidence. He would be dead if he didn’t have a liver. So to compare the two is to commit a fallacy of false analogy.
From here, our apologist jumps to the cosmological arguments for god and argues as William Lane Craig that an infinite regress of creators is logically impossible and then presents the statement of his argument thus

1. All things that come into existence have a creator.

2. Things exist.

3. Therefore, something must exist that has always existed.

After saying this he proceeds immediately to tell us

Now this does not prove the existence of God. But it does show that somewhere there must be an eternal and uncreated Something that everything else is based on.

Even if this were true, it does not answer whether it was one god, a bazillion gods and whether such gods are still alive today.

Nobody has ever observed, weighed, measured, or tested something that by necessity has always existed. It would be impossible to observe something to have always existed unless the observer has also always existed as well.

I don’t know, but how does this statement support his cause? He claims to have evidence for god, has he [Mark] always existed or how did he come by this evidence?

He ends his piece thus

 However we still can reasonably believe in it’s existence despite the impossibility of ever finding empirical evidence for it. I have faith in God’s existence the same way I have faith in my liver’s existence: confidently and reasonably without need of empirical evidence.

I definitely need help here. What is reasonable here, I must have missed it somewhere so friends please help. No your having faith in having liver is supported by many things, for example that you can take a piss, that you are not dead and more specifically because you have seen that all mammals have liver, you don’t have comparable evidence for god and so again you commit a fallacy.

I apologize for the long length of the post but I hope that I have been able to answer some of the questions concerning evidence, and specifically evidence for god.

Who is blind?

 

You met our friend Caroline a few days ago and she has continued to impress.

We have a new bible translation thanks to Caroline. As you have seen on her blog, our friend claims to love science and in this post her main job is to denigrate science and philosophy.

Atheists have a lot of objections to what is claimed about God in the Bible. But as I dialogue with them, it’s often unclear to me whether they believe their objections amount to evidence that he doesn’t exist, or that he is unworthy of worship. And I wonder sometimes if they’ve ever considered that maligning his character and condemning his deeds while disregarding evidence of the miraculous, both in the Bible and in creation, does not go very far in persuading against his existence, only in painting God as one to whom we ought owe no allegiance. But if he exists he is totally sovereign, meaning we owe him allegiance whether we like it, or him, or not.

Our objections answer to the two positions. The bible god is too contradictory to exist and two is beyond cruel and is as such unworthy of worship even if it were to exist. We don’t believe in the miraculous, as long as miraculous means anything that involves the suspension of the invariable laws of nature. Either you show evidence for the miracles. Creation doesn’t imply the existence of a god more so the christian god. Can any theist show that life needed a deity to create it? If not then this statement is classified in the same group as wishful thinking. And even if you were to show he or they exist we owe them no allegiance  I didn’t ask to be created neither did they consult me for that matter. All I can be expected to do is to acknowledge they exist then they must give a reason to be worshiped. A child can’t be expected to owe any allegiance to an irresponsible and abusive parent unless you believe in slavery by any means!

As I studied John Chapter 9 in preparation for my last post, I saw a lot of similarities there to the spiritual climate of today, in the way God is being judged for what we as finite human beings see as immoral, and his power and goodness ignored in the effort to cast doubt on his existence. So I rewrote it to have it speak of those who deny him today.

Are you implying that we see as immoral could be moral to god because he has infinite knowledge? If it is moral at another level where we have no conception, we don’t need it. It is useless to us and anyone claiming that a thing maybe immoral to us while moral to god is being pretentious!

Here is John 9 (CSV – Caroline Smith Version)

This makes to 800+ known translations.

As Jesus passed throughout the world he saw a man spiritually blind from birth. The angels asked him, “Lord, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. He was born a child of Adam, as all are, unable in their own power to see me, but I have provided a way for all to be healed of their blindness. I am the light of the world.”

If this is the reason for a man’s blindness, god must be so foolish. Why make a man blind just to show you are powerful! Who made Adam with sin? If Adam didn’t make himself, god will always be responsible. Good thing, however, is there was no Adam and there can have been no first sin. In fact, if a god were to exist, being born blind would be an evil. Why should a loving god allow a child to be born blind? This child has done nothing wrong, if anyone is to be made blind, is anyone purporting to speak for god spreading falsehood about him that he will punish people in hell for saying he has left no evidence for his existence.

Having said these things, he revealed to the man’s heart the reality of his blindness and the ugliness of his sin. And Jesus said to him, “Go, wash in the blood of the Lamb.” So he went and washed and came back seeing.

Where was this blood. If Jeebus had not been crucified at this time, where does this person get the blood? Is there any sense in this statement apart from poor logic! Besides, if the reason for his blindness was so that god’s power can be shown, it is specious to say he sin was ugly! You can’t have it both ways, either god is so childish and want to show he has the biggest toy or the guy is sinful.

The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a lost sinner were saying, “ Isn’t this the man who used to ridicule Christians and had nothing good to say about God?” Some said, “That’s him.” Others said, “No, he just looks like him.” But he kept saying, “Yes, I’m the one.”

There totally is no sense here. Sinner and lost, what the hell! If he is a sinner he must believe in god. Sin to the extent that it is anything that violates the relationship between man and god presumes the existence of god. If the man thought himself a sinner, he also must have believed in god. And why does Caroline think, christianity is so special?

So they said to him, “Then how is it that now you’re going to church and reading the Bible?”

He answered, “I finally saw what a mess my life was and I hated it. I was always doing things I knew I shouldn’t be hurting people I loved and hating people who disagreed with me. And when I honestly looked at what I believed, I realized it just left me with more questions than answers. So I took a chance and prayed. I said, ‘God, if you’re real, show yourself to me.’ And now I see.”

I don’t hate you Caroline because we disagree. In fact I have fun showing you are wrong. Believing in god has many questions than it answers that is why I believe the world is natural and there is nothing supernatural in it. I believe the metaverse just is. Well, this man had a myopic mind. If he thinks his life was messed up because he didn’t believe in god, then I can safely say he didn’t know why he didn’t have that belief and could not then justify his non belief.

But his neighbors took him before the philosophers and scientists and they asked him how it is that he turned his back on reason. “God is real,” the man replied, “and he opened my eyes to see the truth. I submitted to him in faith, and now I can see.”

Well I like this part. Caroline admits implicitly that the man turned his back on reason and chose faith. Need I say more?

Some of the philosophers said, “There is no God. If there is, he’s not good, or he’s not all-powerful. If he were, you wouldn’t have been born blind.”

I like the philosophers! Please tell me you do 😀

Some of the scientists said, “There is no God. We can’t see or feel him. If he existed he wouldn’t be so  mysterious. He would make himself obvious and testable so there would be no doubt. Besides, scientific theories can explain how the universe came into being without him. We don’t need God.”

And the scientists have been right since Laplace said he saw no need for the god hypothesis in a response to the Emperor Napoleon. And while we are here, my friend John has a nice post on why god is invisible. One should also read Atheism Explained that I mentioned a few days ago to look at the arguments against god’s invisibility.

But others said, “How can anything exist without a cause? And how does something that exhibits obvious design and intelligence arise from non-intelligence and chance?” So they were divided.

Well, here Caroline who claims to love science shows she understands zilch. This is the first cause argument that philosophers on both sides of the debate, if any religious philosopher can be called so, to be fallacious. For Caroline to taunt is a proof in beyond me. Scientists or philosophers are not divided on this matter unless they are in they are friends of William L. Craig who is deeply religious.

Finally they turned again to the man born blind, “What do you have to say about it? How is it that you are now preaching the faith you once tried to destroy?”

The easiest answer is he adopted credulity as his way of life but let us hear what Caroline is giving us in manner of explanation

The man replied, “My life was meaningless and filled with sin. I humbled myself and asked God to reveal himself to me, and he did.”

Being blind, I can understand this a bit. But I have seen many blind men whose lives are full of meaning, well since you create meaning it is only expected some will be unsuccessful in trying to give their lives meaning and some will be very successful. Meaningful or meaningless life does nothing to prove that a god exists. It only shows that life is complex for most people and absurd for the very intelligent ones.

The learned ones still did not believe that he had rejected man’s wisdom for religious faith, until they sent for his parents. “Is this your son?” they asked. “Is this the one you sent to the finest schools to be taught that God is an illusion and religion is a neurosis? How is it that now he believes in God?”

Here I don’t accept Caroline’s translation for two reasons. The bible people if they existed have been shown to be ignorant to claim there was a fine university she is lying. The Greeks and Romans before them had philosophical schools, the Hebrews who story we are reading in the bible, nay! Two here Caroline is again lying. I don’t know of a place where people are taught god is an illusion unless she means seminaries where they study god and make no conclusions. If you don’t trust me, then you haven’t listened to William Craig debate.

“We know he is our son,” the parents answered, “and we know he has rejected the notion of God since he’s been at university. But how he came to believe in God, we don’t know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself.” His parents said this because they were afraid of the scientists and philosophers, for they had decided that anyone who acknowledged God would be put out of the scientific and societal circles.

You are lying through your teeth Caroline. There are religious scientists in the Royal Society and even in the American Academy of Sciences. I haven’t read anywhere they have been sidelined. Give the proof of this or I can safely say you make baseless claims about scientists. Why would the parents be afraid anyway? Caroline hasn’t shown they were scientists and so there is no way they could have been sidelined from the science circles.

A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. “Don’t be a fool, man,” they said. “We know God is just an imaginary being created by men who don’t want to take care of themselves.”

The scientists have always been right, at least, they haven’t been shown to be wrong to date especially on the god hypothesis. I advice that our friend Caroline should read more science and philosophy [ please not Platinga] books to learn about the natural world. I recommend she starts with Auguste Comte on Positivism.

He replied, “Exactly what you or others think him to be, I don’t know. One thing I do know, I was blind but now I see.”

Yes, he now has faith. It happens to everyone who uses faith.

Then they asked him, “Why do you say that there is a God? What happened to you?”

He answered, “I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to believe in him too?”

Of course, I don’t want to live on faith. I want to live with what I know and only with that!

Then they hurled insults at him and said, “We are scholars and scientists who know enough to only believe in what we can see and measure. You are a deluded imbecile believing in fairy tales. As for God, we have no proof that he exists.”

I don’t consider saying Caroline is deluded an insult. I have shown cause why she is deluded so all she must show is that my reasoning is fallacious. And it is true that as for gods we have no evidence that he or they exist. I will be generous to Caroline and ask her for the proof that her god exist.

The man answered, “Now, that is remarkable! You have no proof he exists, yet the universe and everything in it exist, and something can’t come from nothing. Without God, none of you would even be here, much less be able to reason him away.”

Nope, I have already said that our existence does not offer proof for the existence of god. Our existence only shows we are here and nothing more. She also must show us that the universe can’t be eternal and always existing.

To this they replied, “You are an uneducated, mindless sheep; how dare you lecture us!” And they threw him out.

They couldn’t have done that. I listen to many theists everyday and there is no time I have thrown them out. That is also why we debate with you. All we do is show you are wrong and stop there. We have no need for the stake. We ask you to be your own king and priest and to apply your reason to where it takes and not to think the stories in the bible infallible and inerrant.

Jesus saw that the man was cast out, and coming to him said, “Do you believe in God the Son as your Savior and Lord?”

Where was Jesus all this time? Why didn’t he sit with the scientists and philosophers? Did he already know the claims he was making were ridiculous?

He answered, “And who is he that I may believe in him?

Caroline please, what do you take us for? You said when you started your story that Jesus gave this man his site. It would be credulous to ask us to take this question seriously!

Jesus said to him, “I am he, the one who became a man like you in order to reveal the Father and give his life as a ransom for all who will believe.”

How many of you believe this story? I don’t.

Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.

Good for him!

Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

Jesus really was an idiot. If he is god why didn’t he even bother to leave behind his recipe for wine making? This guy if he existed was a failure if he was a god. The best thing he did was curse a tree out of season and call some people brood of vipers so much for god!

Then some of the scientists and philosophers got together to ridicule the man who was blind, saying, “He was blind and now he can see?! It’s the other way around – he used to see and now he is blind. He must think we’re blind if he expects us to believe in such nonsense.”

A high-five for the scientists!

And Jesus said of them, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”

I mean after telling us all this nonsense, Caroline tells us Jesus had no good news for the loser! Seriously if this guy loved philosophy and science as Caroline claims, he should have remained thus!

That is my submission!

Atheism explained: From folly to philosophy

by David Ramsay Steele

I enjoyed reading this book. The arguments the author makes for Atheism are sound and shows the weaknesses with the arguments theists make to defend their belief in god[s].

He looks at the arguments for god’s existence, those he considers strong, and then in simple and precise arguments show how they are flawed.

I will lift just one quote from the book to show the clarity of his arguments and hope that this book will be read by Atheists and theists alike.

If belief in God’s existence makes you believe in eternal punishment for wrongdoing and thus gives you an incentive to behave better, and that means you can’t be properly tested for your moral rectitude, then thos e who do now believe in God’s existence can’t be properly tested for their moral rectitude . The good behavior of those who believe in
God must be devalued compared with the good behavior of those who disbelieve in God (with presumably those who
merely suspect there might be a God given an intermediate rating) . This means that the good behavior of atheists is
worth more than the good behavior of theists , which would be gratifying.