Why would an atheist demand proof at all? Proof assumes certain pre-conditions, such as logical constructions that are without contradiction. How does that comport with the reality of an atheistic worldview? Our world is a world made up of molecules in motion with no direction, banging against each other, without continuity, without purpose, without meaning, amoral, and chaotic. If that was the reality of our existence then…well we would not exist. But that is not the reality. We experience a world that is, molecules in motion with direction, banging against each other, with continuity, with purpose, with meaning, moral, and ordered. That type of world is necessary for existence AND the experience of reality. In order to make conclusions about propositions we assume that proof is needed, and when an atheist does…the discussion is over, the debate is over. Because the atheist demands proof, with inductive assumptions necessary for proof (I. E. logical constructions without contradiction that comport with reality), they borrow from a theistic Christian worldview and therefore they're not being consistent with an atheistic worldview. And if the atheist is not being consistent, then their worldview is invalid.
Therefore, in the atheist worldview there is no justification for assuming that a “proof” for anything means anything, nor do they have any rational reason for asking me for “proof”…and if they do...well the discussion is over.
That’s why “the fool has said in his heart there is no God”…not because the word “fool” is used as a pejorative but because his reasoning has become “foolish.” He denies the basis for reality (God) and is left without “reason” for his reasoning.
Now having said all of that I will entertain some objections.
Fist of all when I used the word “justification” I was speaking about the atheist's justification for his denial of the existence of a just and loving God. Just listing objections is not an argument, such as "a good and just God cannot exist because there is evil in this world." The only justification an atheist has for deciding what is evil is a presupposition borrowed from a just and loving God, the kind the atheists says doesn't exist, without which the atheist would not know what just and loving is…meaning there HAS to exist a just and loving God IN ORDER for the atheist, or the theist, to know what “just” and “loving” is. There is no justification for the atheist not believing in a just and loving God based on the problem of evil because the atheist also has a problem of evil (for the atheist has to answer the question of “What is evil?” for in an atheistic worldview there’s no such thing as “evil”, and the atheist has to answer the question of “What is good?” for in an atheistic worldview there’s no such thing as good…except an emotional response that coins two words to denote the difference between events).
Also, I think it silly for the atheist to demand that ONLY the believer has the burden of proof. EVERYBODY has the burden of proof when it comes to his/her own worldview. But in this instance the atheist not only has to prove that God doesn’t exist he has to prove that “proof” doesn’t exist, nor continuity, nor beauty, nor science, nor good, nor evil in order that his worldview is validated. But that’s not what he does, he states that all of these exist, except God, and that is foolish…not just because He’s the creator of all of these attributes of nature but also because He is the BASIS for these attributes. No the atheist sulks because his worldview cannot be substantiated, then settles in the warm confines of my worldview and claims that my worldview is in error while he uses the tools of my worldview.
Even when the atheist makes a ridiculous counter claim, such as he can fly or he has laser vision (two claims that were made to me), we all know that the atheist can’t fly and he doesn’t have laser vision…by the appeal to the real world…which means, once again, the atheist is assuming the pre-conditions of my worldview, People can’t fly and they don’t have laser vision...why? Because God exists and He has constructed a world where people don’t fly and they don’t have laser vision. So since the atheist knows he can’t fly, because the world is designed in such a way that he can’t, because, as the atheist and the theist would agree, of the law of gravity. However, I can account for the law of gravity (God ordered it and it’s continuity, thus assuring that the atheist will never fly) but the atheist can't account for the law of gravity (purposeless chaotic matter with no assurance that the equation might change someday and the atheist WILL float away).
But I'll give the atheist this...if the atheist ever starts to levitate, then God doesn’t exist
Also, there are different proofs for different propositions. Proving Abraham Lincoln existed is not the same as proving that Barak Obama exists, obviously. Different mediums for different propositions. I can’t dip my feet in Joe Pool Lake and come to the conclusion that there’s water on Saturn. So by wanting scientific, i.e. empirical, proof it’s an invalid question and an invalid pre-requisite placed upon a proposition that does not require the replicated experiment. But as I’ve already said, science IS evidence that God exists because in order to do science we assume the inductive principle. In a Christian worldview it fits well, because God is a God of order and continuity. In the atheist worldview science is inconsistent with it.
by Timothy Lewis Kegley
Therefore, in the atheist worldview there is no justification for assuming that a “proof” for anything means anything, nor do they have any rational reason for asking me for “proof”…and if they do...well the discussion is over.
That’s why “the fool has said in his heart there is no God”…not because the word “fool” is used as a pejorative but because his reasoning has become “foolish.” He denies the basis for reality (God) and is left without “reason” for his reasoning.
Now having said all of that I will entertain some objections.
Fist of all when I used the word “justification” I was speaking about the atheist's justification for his denial of the existence of a just and loving God. Just listing objections is not an argument, such as "a good and just God cannot exist because there is evil in this world." The only justification an atheist has for deciding what is evil is a presupposition borrowed from a just and loving God, the kind the atheists says doesn't exist, without which the atheist would not know what just and loving is…meaning there HAS to exist a just and loving God IN ORDER for the atheist, or the theist, to know what “just” and “loving” is. There is no justification for the atheist not believing in a just and loving God based on the problem of evil because the atheist also has a problem of evil (for the atheist has to answer the question of “What is evil?” for in an atheistic worldview there’s no such thing as “evil”, and the atheist has to answer the question of “What is good?” for in an atheistic worldview there’s no such thing as good…except an emotional response that coins two words to denote the difference between events).
Also, I think it silly for the atheist to demand that ONLY the believer has the burden of proof. EVERYBODY has the burden of proof when it comes to his/her own worldview. But in this instance the atheist not only has to prove that God doesn’t exist he has to prove that “proof” doesn’t exist, nor continuity, nor beauty, nor science, nor good, nor evil in order that his worldview is validated. But that’s not what he does, he states that all of these exist, except God, and that is foolish…not just because He’s the creator of all of these attributes of nature but also because He is the BASIS for these attributes. No the atheist sulks because his worldview cannot be substantiated, then settles in the warm confines of my worldview and claims that my worldview is in error while he uses the tools of my worldview.
Even when the atheist makes a ridiculous counter claim, such as he can fly or he has laser vision (two claims that were made to me), we all know that the atheist can’t fly and he doesn’t have laser vision…by the appeal to the real world…which means, once again, the atheist is assuming the pre-conditions of my worldview, People can’t fly and they don’t have laser vision...why? Because God exists and He has constructed a world where people don’t fly and they don’t have laser vision. So since the atheist knows he can’t fly, because the world is designed in such a way that he can’t, because, as the atheist and the theist would agree, of the law of gravity. However, I can account for the law of gravity (God ordered it and it’s continuity, thus assuring that the atheist will never fly) but the atheist can't account for the law of gravity (purposeless chaotic matter with no assurance that the equation might change someday and the atheist WILL float away).
But I'll give the atheist this...if the atheist ever starts to levitate, then God doesn’t exist
Also, there are different proofs for different propositions. Proving Abraham Lincoln existed is not the same as proving that Barak Obama exists, obviously. Different mediums for different propositions. I can’t dip my feet in Joe Pool Lake and come to the conclusion that there’s water on Saturn. So by wanting scientific, i.e. empirical, proof it’s an invalid question and an invalid pre-requisite placed upon a proposition that does not require the replicated experiment. But as I’ve already said, science IS evidence that God exists because in order to do science we assume the inductive principle. In a Christian worldview it fits well, because God is a God of order and continuity. In the atheist worldview science is inconsistent with it.
by Timothy Lewis Kegley
"I can’t dip my feet in Joe Pool Lake and come to the conclusion that there’s water on Saturn." LOL!
ReplyDeleteVery well written! (Not just the quote...) I dated a self-proclaimed athiest at one point in my life and had a terrible time debating with him...possibly because my own faith was being tested at the time. This would have blown his mind. lol. Thanks for sharing!