I want to talk with a militant atheist on God exists or not.

[Beloved Daughter]

I have to take a recess, I will be back a bit later.

BELIEVE NO ONE WHO CALLS HIMSELF AN ATHEIST

If what Paul says is true, there is ultimately no such thing as an atheist. Anyone who calls himself one is wrong on at least three (3) fronts. First, someone who claims to be an atheist is suppressing the truth he knows. According to Romans 1, “What can be known about God is plain to them” (v. 19), and their denial is an expression of the fact that they are among those “men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (v. 18). Therefore, whatever they believe about themselves, the God who made them says otherwise, and we must believe God rather than man.

Second, anyone who claims to be an atheist is contradicting the God of truth. It is one thing for a person to wrong about himself. It is quite another thing for him to be in disagreement with what God says about him. God says every man knows. Therefore, anyone who says he does not know, is calling God a liar. It’s a bit like a man arguing with his mother about what day he was born. Only in this case, it’s not his mother, but his inerrant, infallible Creator.

Third, anyone who claims to be an atheist is ignoring his greatest need, and his only hope for its fulfillment. Man’s greatest and ultimate need is God. Apart from God, man is incomplete. Moreover, he is utterly incapable of achieving or attaining what he lacks. This is what drove Solomon to write, “Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and striving after wind and there was nothing to be gained under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 2:11) This is the state of every person apart from God.

REMIND PEOPLE OF WHAT THEY ALREADY KNOW

People know there is a God. As we have already seen, Paul makes it very clear that people know God exists. However, they suppress that truth in their unrighteousness. Nevertheless, the knowledge is within them.

Expository Apologetics Answering Objections with the Power of the Word

Voddie Baucham, D. Min, SWBTS



We see it various ways:

Most everyone knew where they were on September 11, 2001. We saw evil and there was no question about it.

Most remember when the Apollo 13 Astronauts were in peril. A world worried about them.

My mother was alive for the Cuban missile crisis, she remembers the fear. Nuclear conflagration was imminent. The entire world realized they were in real danger.

On May 2, 2011. U.S. Navy Seals captured and killed Osama Bin Laden. The world was relieved.

People know that the concepts of good and evil are, in fact, universal.

People know there is a God.

 

[Tetsugaku]

BELIEVE NO ONE WHO CALLS HIMSELF AN ATHEIST

Well, that's an incredibly biased position to start from. What if you're wrong?

If what Paul says is true, there is ultimately no such thing as an atheist.

Then Paul is wrong. If Romans1 were wrong, how would you be able to tell?

People know there is a God.

I don't, and I'm not sure you do either. Knowledge is justified true belief. What justification do you have for your theistic belief? Anything beyond blind faith in a particular religious text?

 

[yrger]

Dear Nouveau:

I have your definitions of beginning and of infinite regress, and also your request that I address your definitions before we proceed further.

From Nouveau:
There is a beginning to some object or condition p iff there is some time t where p holds, and no time prior to t where p holds.
An infinite causal regress is where every event is an effect caused by some prior cause, such that there is no beginning to the sequence.

From Nouveau:
I would like for you to address my definitions and answer my questions before we proceed any further.
Can you do that?

From Yrger:
First, do you concur with me that there is existence?

And you want me to explain:

From Nouveau:
Can you now explain why you think everything with a beginning must have been brought into existence?
And why you think an infinite causal regress can only exist in one's mind, and not in reality?

I have asked you whether you concur with me that there is existence, so please tell me, yes or no, that you concur with me there is existence.

Allow me to request that you also ask me to concur with you on something which you hold to be important for you to judge whether my coming explanations of these two items are acceptable to you or not:

From Nouveau:
1. Can you now explain why you think everything with a beginning must have been brought into existence?
2. And why you think an infinite causal regress can only exist in one's mind, and not in reality?

I submit that without continuous search for concurrences on our positions, after of course examining each other's submissions, there can be no productive outcome to our issue.

I have asked you to concur with or not concur with me, on there is existence.

Now, I am asking you to bring forth whatever you think to be important to you, that we must concur on - or not, so that you will accept my explanations:

From Nouveau:
1. Can you now explain why you think everything with a beginning must have been brought into existence?
2. And why you think an infinite causal regress can only exist in one's mind, and not in reality?

You see, dear Nouveau, in the process of working together to concur on things, we might and could and would also change our positions, so that at the end we reach agreement - even though of course with from our each one's original positions, some modifications.

That is to the mutual profit of our respective knowledge with honest, intelligent, and productive thinking.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Dear Nouveau:

I have your definitions of beginning and of infinite regress, and also your request that I address your definitions before we proceed further.

And you want me to explain:

I have asked you whether you concur with me that there is existence, so please tell me, yes or no, that you concur with me there is existence.

Allow me to request that you also ask me to concur with you on something which you hold to be important for you to judge whether my coming explanations of these two items are acceptable to you or not:

I submit that without continuous search for concurrences on our positions, after of course examining each other's submissions, there can be no productive outcome to our issue.

I have asked you to concur with or not concur with me, on there is existence.

Now, I am asking you to bring forth whatever you think to be important to you, that we must concur on - or not, so that you will accept my explanations:

You see, dear Nouveau, in the process of working together to concur on things, we might and could and would also change our positions, so that at the end we reach agreement - even though of course with from our each one's original positions, some modifications.

That is to the mutual profit of our respective knowledge with honest, intelligent, and productive thinking.

I already agreed with you that there is existence.

Can you please now indicate whether or not you accept the two definitions I gave?

Then please try to answer the two questions I asked.

 

[The Pixie]

BELIEVE NO ONE WHO CALLS HIMSELF AN ATHEIST

...

You make an excellent point that, I would say, summarises Christian arguments for Christianity.

 

[rossum]

I see that you are into infinite regress of causes, yes?

No need to go further in your mind with a caused b and b caused c and c caused d and d caused... we are already here, so there was a cause which is the one that started everything that has a beginning.

There may or may not be an infinite regress of causes. It is a possible option.

You are also forgetting the necessity of time. You talk about "beginning". That word is meaningless in the absence of time. Similarly cause and effect cannot be distinguished in the absence of time. The cause must exist before the effect, and in the absence of time neither 'before' nor 'after' can be distinguished.

There is also the mutually conditioning nature of both cause and effect. A cause cannot be a cause unless and until there is also an effect, and vice versa. A god cannot be the cause of the universe unless and until there is an actual universe. 20 billion years ago, before the Big Bang, there was no STEM universe, hence at that time there was no cause of the STEM universe. You cannot be a child unless you have parents; you cannot be a parent unless you have a child. Cause and effect are mutually conditioning.

 

[Whatsisface]

BELIEVE NO ONE WHO CALLS HIMSELF AN ATHEIST

If what Paul says is true, there is ultimately no such thing as an atheist. Anyone who calls himself one is wrong on at least three (3) fronts. First, someone who claims to be an atheist is suppressing the truth he knows. According to Romans 1, “What can be known about God is plain to them” (v. 19), and their denial is an expression of the fact that they are among those “men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (v. 18). Therefore, whatever they believe about themselves, the God who made them says otherwise, and we must believe God rather than man.

I take it as a Christian you are not suppressing the truth? Could you please detail what atheists are suppressing that you are not that would show God to exist.

 

[rossum]

BELIEVE NO ONE WHO CALLS HIMSELF AN ATHEIST

So when you say you are an atheist with respect to Vishnu, Amaterasu and Thor then we aren't to believe you.

Right. We understand.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I know where you are going to with your bringing in unicorn, just leave unicorn out of the thread, we are talking about God existing or not, not unicorn.

the problem is that both God, and Unicorn, are equally valid.

 

[Mr Laurier]

BELIEVE NO ONE WHO CALLS HIMSELF AN ATHEIST

If what Paul says is true, there is ultimately no such thing as an atheist. Anyone who calls himself one is wrong on at least three (3) fronts. First, someone who claims to be an atheist is suppressing the truth he knows. According to Romans 1, “What can be known about God is plain to them” (v. 19), and their denial is an expression of the fact that they are among those “men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth” (v. 18). Therefore, whatever they believe about themselves, the God who made them says otherwise, and we must believe God rather than man.

Second, anyone who claims to be an atheist is contradicting the God of truth. It is one thing for a person to wrong about himself. It is quite another thing for him to be in disagreement with what God says about him. God says every man knows. Therefore, anyone who says he does not know, is calling God a liar. It’s a bit like a man arguing with his mother about what day he was born. Only in this case, it’s not his mother, but his inerrant, infallible Creator.

Third, anyone who claims to be an atheist is ignoring his greatest need, and his only hope for its fulfillment. Man’s greatest and ultimate need is God. Apart from God, man is incomplete. Moreover, he is utterly incapable of achieving or attaining what he lacks. This is what drove Solomon to write, “Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and striving after wind and there was nothing to be gained under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 2:11) This is the state of every person apart from God.

REMIND PEOPLE OF WHAT THEY ALREADY KNOW

People know there is a God. As we have already seen, Paul makes it very clear that people know God exists. However, they suppress that truth in their unrighteousness. Nevertheless, the knowledge is within them.

Expository Apologetics Answering Objections with the Power of the Word

Voddie Baucham, D. Min, SWBTS



We see it various ways:

Most everyone knew where they were on September 11, 2001. We saw evil and there was no question about it.

Most remember when the Apollo 13 Astronauts were in peril. A world worried about them.

My mother was alive for the Cuban missile crisis, she remembers the fear. Nuclear conflagration was imminent. The entire world realized they were in real danger.

On May 2, 2011. U.S. Navy Seals captured and killed Osama Bin Laden. The world was relieved.

People know that the concepts of good and evil are, in fact, universal.

People know there is a God.

I do not know there is a God.
Obviously Paul is full of crap.

 

[5wize]

That's where you are wrong, with alleging that I am into the "logical reasoning for believing that nothing existed at one time."

I never ever said that I believe from my logical reasoning that there was at one time that nothing-ness existed at some kind of nothing status.

That is totally contrary to my irrefutable position that "existence is the default status or reality."

Or "reality is the default status of existence."

Yes, my bad.

So you believe in a disembodied sentient will or are you merely a pantheist?

 

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I use the name God, so let you also take notice that for me I am after the existence of God, and not god, okay?

Here is God according to my honest intelligent productive thinking:

God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

What do you understand by "everything with a beginning"?

 

[J regia]

I use the name God, so let you also take notice that for me I am after the existence of God, and not god, okay?

Here is God according to my honest intelligent productive thinking:

God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

In other words, the word "God" is just a word used to describe anything that science has not explained yet.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

I take it as a Christian you are not suppressing the truth? Could you please detail what atheists are suppressing that you are not that would show God to exist.

I get my information first hand from the infamous Dan Barker from the Freedom of Religion Foundation. He's my cousin.

 

[Whatsisface]

I get my information first hand from the infamous Dan Barker from the Freedom of Religion Foundation. He's my cousin.

You get your information about what you know atheists are supressing from Dan Barker? But being an atheist, he will have supressed said information.

 

[yrger]

From Nouveau

I already agreed with you that there is existence.
Can you please now indicate whether or not you accept the two definitions I gave?
Then please try to answer the two questions I asked.

------------------

There is a beginning to some object or condition p iff there is some time t where p holds, and no time prior to t where p holds.
An infinite causal regress is where every event is an effect caused by some prior cause, such that there is no beginning to the sequence.

Okay, dear Nouveau, we are concurred on that there is existence.

Now, I will work and I invite you also to work with me, on other things we are going to concur on.

From the fact of existence, will you and I concur that there are things in existence which have a beginning?


.........................
Off topic
I can't get the preview function to work, so I am going to send this post and then look at it, and see if I can call it back and edit it, then send it again - now with corrigenda corrected.

 

[yrger]

From Nouveau
I already agreed with you that there is existence.
Can you please now indicate whether or not you accept the two definitions I gave?
Then please try to answer the two questions I asked.

------------------

There is a beginning to some object or condition p iff there is some time t where p holds, and no time prior to t where p holds.
An infinite causal regress is where every event is an effect caused by some prior cause, such that there is no beginning to the sequence.

Okay, dear Nouveau, we are concurred on that there is existence.

Now, I will work and I invite you also to work with me, on other things we are going to concur on.

From the fact of existence, will you and I concur that there are things in existence which have a beginning?


.........................
Off topic
I can't get the preview function to work, so I am going to send this post and then look at it, and see if I can call it back and edit it, then send it again - now with corrigenda corrected.

........................
Off topic
Very good, no need of correcting corrigenda.


So, everyone, you have got to improvise, the previous carm.org forum was really much better in its mechanism, anyway I guess the guys in charge of the mechanics are getting feedbacks on snags and working to improve things.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Okay, dear Nouveau, we are concurred on that there is existence.

Now, I will work and I invite you also to work with me, on other things we are going to concur on.

From the fact of existence, will you and I concur that there are things in existence which have a beginning?

Yes, of course I agree there are things with beginnings.

Now can you please stop stalling and actually address my two definitions and two questions below.

There is a beginning to some object or condition p iff there is some time t where p holds, and no time prior to t where p holds.
An infinite causal regress is where every event is an effect caused by some prior cause, such that there is no beginning to the sequence.

1. Can you now explain why you think everything with a beginning must have been brought into existence?
2. And why you think an infinite causal regress can only exist in one's mind, and not in reality?

 

[yrger]

Yes, of course I agree there are things with beginnings.

Now can you please stop stalling and actually address my two definitions and two questions below.

There is a beginning to some object or condition p iff there is some time t where p holds, and no time prior to t where p holds.
An infinite causal regress is where every event is an effect caused by some prior cause, such that there is no beginning to the sequence.

1. Can you now explain why you think everything with a beginning must have been brought into existence?
2. And why you think an infinite causal regress can only exist in one's mind, and not in reality?

Thanks, dear Nouveau, for concurring with me that there are entities in existence with a beginning.

You can also ask me to concur with you on something that you in your honest intelligent productive thinking see to be most decisive in the resolution of the issue God exists or not.

Now, here is the next thing I like you to concur with me on, namely, do you concur with me that you and I we have a beginning to our existence.

 

[5wize]

Thanks, dear Nouveau, for concurring with me that there are entities in existence with a beginning.

You can also ask me to concur with you on something that you in your honest intelligent productive thinking see to be most decisive in the resolution of the issue God exists or not.

Now, here is the next thing I like you to concur with me on, namely, do you concur with me that you and I we have a beginning to our existence.

Given that you appreciate simplicity yrger, we can skip a long question by question attempt at logical syllogism, if you can answer the following question:

"Do you believe in a disembodied sentient will that commands things into creation that you call God or do you simply believe God is embodied in a causal nature with no will of its own?"

If you tell us that, then we can get down to the real discussion about whether the "nature" of the god you believe in has merit.