Posts Tagged ‘atheism’

A superb revelation of the weaknesses of Atheist’s arguments. Great training for teens to recognize and respond to the fallacious arguments they will be assaulted with in college.

First video clip.

Second video clip.

Third video clip.



Fourth video clip.

Fifth video clip.

Sixth video clip.

Advertisements

Is it possible that God exists?

When confronted with this essential question many Atheists/Humanists do a delicate dance of dodging the question, and with good reason. There are three possible answers: yes, no, or maybe. But only one is intellectually honest. There are tremendous repercussions associated with the answer and the “dodgers” recognize that. Yes, I am talking to you, Hitchens. It is a coping mechanism: better to not answer than to have to face the crushing reality of their unreasonable worldview. It takes great faith to be an Atheist, unreasonable faith.

To be fair, let’s explore the options. Any die-hard Atheist will want to answer “no” to this irritating question. But to remain consistent with this claim requires a denial of anything immaterial in this life, including the existence of one’s own soul, free will, love or the possibility of miracles. A consistent belief in an exclusive material reality requires a denial of any objective standard of truth which is self-defeating. To affirm the impossibility of a spiritual reality also requires omniscient knowledge. People in our culture who consider themselves to be omniscient end up modeling strait jackets in padded rooms. If one’s worldview must deny so much of what we know to be true and it is apparently inconsistent with reality, then there exists a very real possibility that one’s worldview is false; hence, the dodging dance.

So you may think the safe option is to answer “maybe.” Not so fast. Agnosticism is a deceiving alternative. Blissful ignorance embraces the Agnostic view that says, “We cannot know if God exists.” Really? How do you know that? To claim I cannot know about a thing presupposes knowledge of the thing being denied. Agnosticism is a self-defeating claim that can never be true, but many people think it is a safe alternative to acknowledging God. Perhaps they think it buys them time or excuses them from seeking a viable alternative. We have incomplete knowledge as humans after all. A true statement to be sure, but it does not follow that we have no knowledge. Incomplete does not mean non-existent. We can know about God, even if we cannot understand Him fully.

So that leaves us with the possibility that God exists, but what is God? What is His nature? Is He many or one? We can neither create nor sustain our own existence, so we know that we are not He. But who is He? An overwhelming majority of the human population since the beginning recognizes the possibility of God. If God exists, then we can know about Him without any supernatural revelation even if we cannot know Him personally.

There are some acknowledgments about reality which correspond to the possibility of God, some directly some indirectly.
1. Truth is knowable.
2. Truth is objective.
3. Truth corresponds to reality.
4. Opposing claims cannot both be true.
5. Miracles are possible.

You might consider yourself a Seeker if you concede the possibility of God, but haven’t discovered yet whoever or whatever that may be. Seeking the truth in all things is a reasonable and worthy endeavor, don’t you think?

“You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart.” Jer. 29:13

“I permitted Myself to be sought by those who did not ask for Me; I permitted Myself to be found by those who did not seek Me. I said, ‘Here am I, here am I,’ to a nation which did not call on My name.” Is. 65:1

Hitchens cannot affirm his own belief in atheism. Priceless.

You have to hand it to Hitchens; at least he had the courage to attempt a debate with Bill Craig. Dawkins however is running scared.

What about those who never heard about Jesus; will they be saved?

One of the challenges that I face as a Mom is countering our culture’s belief that all faith systems are legitimate. My child’s belief system is assaulted by the media and the population at large, accusing the Christian worldview of intolerance even to the extreme of claiming Christian beliefs are hateful.  How do I teach my children that the belief that Jesus is the only way is a legitimate belief?

The basis for the attack is a belief that religion is all about choice. This is a free country; we are free to believe as we choose. Why would anyone choose a religion that insists that everyone who does not believe as you do will go to hell? On the surface this argument seems legitimate and justified. But if choosing a religion is about choosing what is true rather than choosing what appeals to us, the argument fails.

The reality is that we do not get to choose what happens to be true. I like to believe I have a million dollar balance in my checking account. Believing I am a millionaire appeals to me. Living according to my belief, I write checks all over town that upsets retailers who do not get the funds promised. When I act out of faith, I cannot live consistently with my belief because my faith does not correspond with reality. I can then conclude that my belief is false.

Is it possible to determine to the same degree of certainty that a religion is true or false? The answer is probably not since we are dealing with spiritual matters. Spiritual matters correspond to a realm outside of our material universe and cannot be measured with any degree of precision or even experienced according to our physical senses. Then how can any faith system claim to be true?

My Atheist/Humanist friends like to use a phrase to replace of the word “faith” when they speak of matters that cannot be or have not been proven. They like to say, “I have a conditional acceptance that it is true.” In the same manner we can apply that phrase to matters of faith. As fallible beings we must acknowledge that we hold an incomplete understanding of many things. For this reason many of our beliefs about reality require an element of faith, or conditional acceptance.

Paul recognized this principle when he wrote to the Corinthians approximately 20 years after Christ’s crucifixion.

“Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.” 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (NASB95)

Paul had a conditional acceptance in the Christian faith dependent upon the truth of the resurrection. If the resurrection is not true, Christianity is false and Paul knew it. He wanted the Corinthians to know it, too. Paul was writing at time when witnesses to the truth of the resurrection were still alive and could easily corroborate or deny his testimony. He believed as people have for over 2000 years that Christianity is true, reasonable and corresponds to reality. The miracle of the resurrection affirmed that what Jesus testified about himself was true.

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me.” John 14:6

Jesus said it. I believe it. And that settles it for me.