7 Arguments Atheists Can't Use by Eli Brayley

Good article. As Francis Shaefer used to say, the atheist is tragically irrational. He wants to erase God in hopes of declaring the supreme value of humanity. The problem is he has nothing to believe in, and so must borrow meaning, ethics, and sentiments from other belief systems that allow for purpose in order for his own humanity to have any value at all.

Mike

You have shamelessly distorted Atheist arguments from scientific rationalism and/or simply fail to understand.

Barring sufficient evidence, doubt is the proper default. This because for all that does exist, for each endless permutations are conceivable. The conceivable but nonexistent therefore vastly outnumbers the existent. Thus, all things being equal, the odds are against any particular conceivable phenomena existing are against. Indeed, that is the normal mode of thought about the color of the corner house on the next street over amongst all the possible colors of paint, likewise the amount of money in your bank account and the configuration of atomic particles, let alone the existence of Bigfoot, Santa Clause and God no less, barring special pleadings. It takes little effort of faith to believe that two and two is four or that London is in England. What is the effort of faith but willfully wishful thinking?

And Evolution does not rule out God, rather amongst competing hypotheses Evolution shows greater explanatory elegance. Appeal to God only removes all problems to another problem of even greater complexity and sheer supposition.

Whether the universe is of finite age is still in dispute. Indeed there are problems with Big Bang cosmology perhaps better explained by the Plasma Universe model. But more importantly, even if the universe has a beginning, that would still be a far cry from demonstrating God the Creator.

And religious crimes do not bring into doubt the existence of God, but far worse, the efficacy of religion in moral guidance and improvement of believers. It certainly doesn't seem much to be helping you to be honest or rational.

When I worked at NASA, I knew several highly respected scientists and engineers who had become Christians. One of them explained that the more she studied, the more she saw "creative oversight" to the laws of science and the patterns of the universe.

I appreciate the original articles here.

Aaron, I appreciate your honesty. However, as a former agnostic, it helps to realize that some individuals play armchair theologians (or anti-theocrats) about matters that they haven't considered thoroughly.

One thing that I would suggest: Even if you don't really believe in God (or if you are unsure of the existence of God), why not make an honest effort to pray anyway? I don't think that you would be so bold as to claim that you "know for sure" about the non-existence of God. Therefore, the possibility should exist in your mind. I wonder if you would be willing to speak to God?

Prayer, to Christians, is the highest level of communication that one could ever attain. It is the notion that a mere mortal can communicate with the Creator of all things...and actually have His attention.

Would you be willing, regardless of how ridiculous it might seem, to speak to God? You don't have to do it publicly. You don't even have to believe (fully) in what you are doing. I did this...and it led to a series of fortunate events where my views of this matter changed. I simply asked "God" that, if He were real, that He would reveal Himself or show Himself to me.

Regardless, you will be in my prayers. Feel free to PM me if you like.

Hi Aaron,
I think I have one thing in common with evolutionist Richard Dawkins that is that he believes christianity and evolution are totally incompatiable,as do I.
From my point of view for evolution to happen their would have to be a cycle of life,death,life,death,life,death over a period of billions of years with life continually improving .Eventually this would lead to Man coming into existance.Now if sin and death came into the world by Adam then Adam would have had to exist before the life,death cycle began which is not possible because he would have had to evolve.
The importance of Adam is that if we dont have an Adam bring death into the world then we dont need Christ redeeming the world.
So from a my and millions more of christians point of view any evolution has to be considered heresy.
So Richard Dawkins is right its one or the other,at least even though totally wrong his position is clear,
Yours Staff

Ccchhhrrriiisss, the advice you proffer, which I am sure that we have all heard many times before, simply disregards significant Epistemological disputes. Would anyone argue that one ought to at least give alcohol a chance in order to try for oneself if drunkenness will help restore the belief in pink elephants? I know that prayer is an effective technique for many in order to cultivate pleasing beliefs, but does that then make them so? I think that you are just jumping the gun. It also seems simply patronizing to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you simply hasn't given the matter much thought. But such is not the case. Indeed, if my question has never occurred to you, then you're hardly one to talk.

Now, while evolution like anything else might be framed within the will of God, you are correct nevertheless, staff, that compatibility with Theism at all, is distinct from Christianity. And it would take some creativity indeed, to reconcile the Fall from Grace with mere behavioral evolution of both selfishness and altruism. So, where does the evidence lead? How are the problems framed thereby? And what promising solutions at all present themselves? For one thing, apparently catharsis that is a feature of the quest for redemption in many faiths, seems to still work even on utterly secular terms.

AaronAgassi,
You may want to look at www.creation.com for scientific answers to many questions about the world, geology, the fossil record, etc. Just use the search engine to look up any topic you may be interested in. You will see that the evidence points to a Creator and the Biblical narrative.

Sincerely,
Renoncer

Hi Aaron...

Ccchhhrrriiisss, the advice you proffer, which I am sure that we have all heard many times before, simply disregards significant Epistemological disputes. Would anyone argue that one ought to at least give alcohol a chance in order to try for oneself if drunkenness will help restore the belief in pink elephants?

The advice that I have suggested certainly is outside typical philosophical apriorism. This is why it is considered a matter of faith. The difference, in this case, is that there are individuals (like me) who are, by human nature, doubters. Many of us aren't prone to just believing what we are told or taught. Yet, many of us came to a belief in God. This isn't "pink elephants" from drunken stupors that we are speaking about. My own journey from agnosticism to faith came only after long bouts of contemplation.

The "prayer" experiment isn't meant to invoke frustration on your part. After all, you ventured into this forum (rather than any of us venturing into, say, an atheist forum). You are the guestam simply telling you that you need to believe in "pink elephants" -- but HOW I came about believing in God.

Faith, according to Scripture, is the evidence of things NOT seen. If you are looking for tangible proof of God's existence through some physical means, you will never have enough to suffice any hypotheses. However, since God is Spirit, he must be reached via spiritual means. God has chosen the simple act of prayer as the means to speak with Him. I am not asking you to believe in God and pray. I am simply suggesting that you can attempt to speak with Him mingled with the remote possibility that you may be wrong about His very existence.

I don't believe in the Andromeda galaxy simply because a teacher or professor told me to. While I considered their words, I looked through my own telescope as a child and saw it...and looked upon it through the telescopes at my universities too. It was simply proving what I had been taught or heard. Likewise, I didn't come to believe in God by simply believing what others told me. In fact, I did NOT believe in God for a long time because of it. It was only after a period of time where I tested my own doubt...and was willing to speak to a God that I couldn't see or hear that I eventually came to such a faith.

The Bible actually ENCOURAGES such a test (I Thessalonians 5:21). Since God is spirit, then you will have to reach Him through spiritual means. It is certainly up to you. I would think that it isn't too wise to have arrived at such a concrete conclusion without having fully exhausted all avenues. For me, I asked God (prayer, in its simplest form, is just talking to God) to "reveal" himself to me. I even told Him that I didn't believe. This became a catalyst for my own journey into faith.

Anyway, I am not trying to "convince" you via some philosophical argument. Nor does it boast any ego to try and convince someone to find a reason to believe. But, in one of those strange coincidences about faith, I do care that you might believe. Of course, I know that you have probably thought long and hard about it before. But, perhaps, you may not have considered the things that I have mentioned.

First of all, I began simply by seeking to correct misrepresentation of Rationalist Atheist arguments, such as that I do feel qualified to do. And trust me, I am sure that we unbelievers have all indeed all been subject to precisely such exhortation to prayer on numerous occasions. But the religious test of doubt is entirely different from the systematic doubt essential to Scientific Rationalism. The religious test of faith is happy to find results at all consistent with and therefore conceivably supportive of a desired conclusion, regardless that the very same results might more easily fit entirely different conclusions.

As for example, the results of those ill conceived Quantum tunneling experiments, indeed consistent with Quantum tunneling, but also consistent with far more prosaic explanation. Scientifically, such ambiguous results are therefore deemed inconclusive. And as to the proposed prayer experiment, they appeal to special pleadings outright. Introspection and imagination as a rule, are simply not Empirical of external reality. Except, supposedly, where God is concerned. Why so?

In truth, the most dramatic results are still readily explainable by entire suggestion and wishful thinking without divine intervention whatsoever. Aha, but see for yourself, you'll reply. Why, to reproduce an entirely subjective experience? Even without becoming a test subject myself, I am already well aware of those who have, including those who had religious experiences and even where convinced by them. What of it? Indeed, what if the desired results never accrue for me? Will you accept that as refutation? Scientific experiments, after all, are defined by conceivable conditions of refutation.

The scientific quest for truth proceeds by process of elimination, narrowing the field of viable hypotheses that to be scientific, must include conditions of conceivable refutation. Theism simply has none. We know that scripture is the word of God, because scripture that is the word of God tells us so. Or substitute successful mystical experience of prayer for scripture. If it doesn't work keep trying until faith grows sufficient. Until then, there is always some excuse as to how Santa Clause as a magical being, might have again eluded detection. Indeed, religion seeks to overcome doubt embraced by science. To reiterate, you are still jumping the gun, because it is the very value of faith, particularly Epistemologically, Methodologically, that is in dispute.

Therefore the entire question of how you came to believe in God, only begs that question: Is faith actually evidence of anything? -Likewise whatever the results of prayer, one way or another. As it stands, your proposal simply is not serious, because it simply ignores all such begged question in the seeming embrace of wishful thinking. But Ontology is not just a matter of personal taste. Therefore, neither is Epistemology.

Hi Aaron,

Then, unfortunately, there is nothing that anyone can do for you. You see, faith is not only the "evidence of things not seen," but it requires a realization that no man is "all knowing" thus requiring an openness to the possibility of being wrong.

Yes, scientific quests for truth rely upon a six or seven step hypothesis tests. However, we are speaking of matters of faith...which, as pointed out, is the evidence of things unseen. Thus, faith cannot be measured or confined to a human argument. For Christians, faith is experienced by coming to God.

The Bible mentions that without faith, it is impossible to please God. Why? Because those who come to him must believe that he is...and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him (Hebrews 11:6). So, it is just impossible to find God without a degree of faith.

So how did I "find" God -- even as an agnostic young man?

It was an unlikely thing, to say the least. I didn't believe in Christianity...let alone the notion of God (or a god). I saw Christians as typically being weak-minded individuals who were willing to believe anything that they were taught. My own experiences with Christians caused me to view them as gullible people who blindly believed (as you said) a Santa Claus in the sky...and who mostly spent their time fighting and arguing amongst themselves over minuscule sectarian doctrinal issues. I saw religion as a crutch...or an attempt by the elite to exert control over the masses.

However, I was willing to acknowledge (at least, mentally) that there are things that I just don't know. I wasn't an "atheist" because I was fully aware that there was no way to prove that God (or a god) did not exist. I just didn't think that there was any way to prove it. So, I was content without a deity. But, I still had a bit of disbelief regarding, well, my own disbelief. I knew that I was quite sure that God didn't exist...but I was willing to admit that I wasn't completely sure.

Again, the Bible says that God has given each man a measure of faith (Romans 12:3). Now, for me, I think that this "measure of faith" was enough to make me realize my own limitations in regard to, borrowing from Doug Adams, "life, the universe and everything." Moreover, it gave me pause to consider such things and even question them publicly. I also had a fear of death. Not only did I fear just "ceasing to exist," but the "unknown" of it all.

This is when I was willing to fully explore faith. I actually tried "talking" to God (in a rudimentary but honest sort of way)...and told him explicitly that I wasn't even sure that he existed. I asked him to "prove" himself to me. Now, I never saw flashes of light...and I didn't even come to believe in God immediately. In fact, I continued as always. However, this was the beginning of a journey...or process...where I eventually came to believe. About a year later, something wonderful happened. I realized that God DOES exist...and I became a Christian while standing all alone in a field one night. I was overwhelmed by something that cannot be expressed by words.

The things that happened in that year in between were interesting to say the least. However, I won't include those things here. But, it is suffice to say that my disbelief in God gave way to a likelihood that he did exist. For me, there is no longer ANY doubt about the existence of God.

That was all I suggested here. I didn't meant to offend you by the very suggestion. However, you spoke of a scientific quest for truth. As I mentioned, faith is the evidence of things NOT seen. So, the ultimate quest for truth would have to include the consideration that those unseen things are feasible. Otherwise, it is impossible to properly test that aspect of faith (at least, on this side of life and death).

From the vantage point of biblical faith, it takes a willingness to be an actual participant in the quest for faith and spiritual truth rather than by standing on the "outside looking in" trying to measure something that is unseen. If someone isn't willing to do this, then there is nothing that we can do. It isn't a matter of "convincing" anyway. Such perspicacity and realization can only be experienced.

Hello,

Sorry to get in the middle, but I just wanted to let you know Aaron, that you will be in my prayers.

In Love,
Joe

Science too, is premised upon human fallibility. It is assertion of divine infallibility that is problematical, as is the support thereof, being faith, the Epistemological utility whereof remaining under contention. That's the elephant in the room: Whether participation in faith is evidence of anything, much less the unseen. And that would tend to moot whatever particulars of whatever process thereafter. And the notion that God makes Himself known by such irrationality, likewise remains somewhat circuitous. Moreover, whatever my writing style is thought to demonstrate about me, INDEED, must be dismissed as Ad Hominem.

Hi Aaron,

And that would tend to moot whatever particulars of whatever process thereafter. And the notion that God makes Himself known by such irrationality, likewise remains somewhat circuitous. Moreover, whatever my writing style is thought to demonstrate about me, INDEED, must be dismissed as Ad Hominem.

...and you will never know whether it really is "irrational" or "circuitous" if you fail to test it by experience and simply dismiss it as mere "argumentum ad hominem."

Like I said, faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen. It is literally believing in what is unseen.

What would it hurt if you were to voice your own disbelief to this unseen God and honestly ask him -- whether you perceive that he is there or not -- to reveal himself to you? Yes, it might give a certain degree of credence to the possibility of his existence...but so what? It is, after all, merely a possibility. If, as you suggest, he doesn't exist, then nothing will ever come of it. If, however, he does exist, then it could be the beginning of a remarkable journey of discovery.

As I said before, you will be in my prayers.

Science too, is premised upon human fallibility.

I think the problem with the Atheist 'scientific' approach is they want to interpret the universe throught prism of concepts and values they have already established, which prevents them from seeing, or accepting, anything that breaks their 'rules'. Even Einstein met with resistance to his then superior theories because they went against the scientific understanding of his day.

Another illustration is "Bees can't fly according to aerodynamic science". If you had never seen a bee fly, and only heard anecdotal evidence of bee flight would your "faith" be in the unproven anecdotal evidence or the aerodynamic "science" of that time? (I know science has since moved on and made peace with the bees).

Science needs to be prepared to recontruct all their concepts from the ground up if new contradicting information appears. As one quote says, "All scientific theories are wrong, some are useful". (Can't remember the author). Unfortunately I suspect not all scientists have this level of humility or honesty. Ssome corners of science appear to have become cults in their own right especially if you examine the cultish hatred of some towards those that present opposing view points. They remind me of some religious leaders who know which side their bread is buttered on rather than being as honest as they should be.

And yes, Religion also needs to be prepared to reconstruct. I have enough personal evidence to establish that God exists, and that which goes beyond the gap-filling of my wishful thinking, but I also know that my concept of God is incomplete, and will change over years.

I can't and don't expect you to adopt my experience as your own (especially as this is the Internet!) but I can tell you that I have seen bees fly and that God has proven his existence to me beyond what my premordial Dawkin-ish instincts can conjure.

I have no Boy Scout badges to earn by trying to convince you of what I believe. Neither you, nor anyone else on this forum, knows me personally (as far as I'm aware).

Peace.
"PassingThru"

AaronAgassi,

Please furnish me(us)with a detailed explanation of what you believe;

re:

1)the past
2)the present
3)the future

Pertaining to the past specifically, please answer such questions as who,what,when,why,where and how if able,and/or if such is relative in your mind.

Pertaining to the present specifically, as one who is a self-proclaimed a-theist, I'd ask you is there any purpose to human life in the universe,in your mind? If so, please explain.

Pertaining to the future specifically, do you have any hope for what lies after you or any lie down into our graves? Or is it a non-issue with you in your mind?

Thanks for reading this and considering answering it.
Whether you answer it on this forum or no, I'm certain it has reached your mind for consideration,at least.

Best individual long term future hope of survival, if I understand you savannah, seems to lie with radical life extension and the admitted long shot of Cryonics as a fallback. I don't understand your question about the past. And as to purpose, it will be easier to refer you to my personal website: http://www.FoolQuest.com

Else: To make a fine point, certainly faith can indeed be compared to pink elephants, as is evidenced by how I have actually raised particular apparent similarities. What remains to be seen, if such prima fascia similarities can be refuted, or more precisely, if there are also important differences that may be contrast, without recourse to circuitous reasoning or wounded indignation. As for proof, proof only exists in logic, and of validity, being internal logical consistence. Whereas, science deals in Empirical evidentiary support, again the burden whereof being upon the positive. The historicity of Jesus is indeed in dispute, but more importantly, the importance whereof to begin with. The mythological supernatural elements remain to faith for Jesus no less than for previous strikingly similar preceding figures, some likewise claiming historicity.
\t
Again, is the test of experience in any way reliable? And why would it be? Epistemology remains the proverbial elephant in the room. That is no Ad Hominem. That is honesty, if you have the courage. As for honestly asking God, is that possible without first believing in God, or at least first taking the possibility seriously? Because, honestly, I don't. You have built up straw men, and put distorted words into the mouth of Scientific Rationalism of Atheism. Therefore I would first rebuke you all to recant all such false witness. Science values honest controversy. So I put it to you, how would you honestly ask Santa Clause? Answer that in order better to define what you ask of me. Unless, of course, what you really want, is for me to participate in faith, with all of its unsupportable bias, not only to cultivate and become receptive to neurologically natural animistic thinking, but then to take it all at face value, that isn't even actually face value, but cultural interpretation. You ask me to accept not your experience but my own, only after that experience has been shaped by the very terms of the so-called experiment, in other words: by indoctrination. Frankly. I'd rather you remain the test subjects for me to observe more objectively.

The perfection and certitude even so often even somewhat scoundrelously promised by religion is both impossible and unnecessary. And any attempt to infuse religion or Theology with scientific skepticism, is inevitably constrained by faith and dogma by any other name. Though I offer no defense for cult-like bad science of scientific orthodoxies, indeed sometimes religiously inspired: Whereas scientific striving closer to truth, indeed: less wrong, certainly does seek to build upon previous work, and without striving to begin free from bias or else in certainly, rather striving only for honest objectivity by the ongoing detection and correction of error so inescapable to the human condition, by contrast religion and Theology pretend that mystical experience is primary and unbiased. But that is simply not so. Being that it is the mind that experiences, even the understanding of mystical experience is immediately shaped by context.

Otherwise, true overwhelming mystical experience may even take the form of a fugue state scarcely even retendered. Therefore, even though I accept the phenomena of all such experience, nevertheless none of that makes any sense, except by the classical notion of the unbeliever willfully and perniciously turning away from the true God. Which of course, firstly assumes the existence of God and His supernatural evidence to the soul. Which is not just circuitous reasoning, but even somewhat bigoted. For that matter, God is often condemned out of righteous indignation. For such anguish is a reoccurring motif of inner struggle. Not to digress however, as for the longing for God, actually, does everyone? And does wishing make it so? Perhaps the longing for God is better treated as metaphor for thirst for justice including honesty. The literal supernatural often strips the sentiment of actual appealing value that calls out at all.