A poor response to an atheist

[Riven]

If this vast, complex, fine-tuned universe is not enough evidence for the existence of God, what can satisfy them?

Proof that it was indeed the Christian God who created this universe. I can just as easily say that this universe was created by another god, or no gods at all, without providing any evidence, and it's still just your word against mine.

In short, atheists need to see an author's signature for the cosmos.

 

[Matthias]

Find the evidence that they require in order to believe and present it to them.

I posted a short video yesterday concerning why evidence alone isn’t enough. (See post #14.)

What evidence have you presented to them?

P.S.

Romans 1:18-23. They know God exists.

 

[Mancunian]

God's followers shouldn't have to provide evidence for God, he/she it could do that very easily their self.

 

[Riven]

What evidence have you presented to them?

None.

Romans 1:18-23. They know God exists.

Then why ask me about evidence?

 

[Matthias]

None.

Why haven’t you?

Then why ask me about evidence?

Because you commented that we need to find it and present it to them. The apostle has diagnosed the real issue.

 

[Riven]

Why haven’t you?

Because I don't have it to give.

Because you commented that we need to find it and present it to them. The apostle has diagnosed the real issue.

If you have the evidence, sure. But if you don't, why dismiss the atheist position as wrong? The apostle side stepped the issue entirely by claiming everyone "just knows".

I think the most honest Christian position would be: there is no evidence, hence why faith is required. Why is this not enough for Christians?

 

[Matthias]

Because I don't have it to give.

Well, I didn’t have that on my BINGO card.

If you have the evidence, sure. But if you don't, why dismiss the atheist position as wrong? The apostle side stepped the issue entirely by claiming everyone "just knows".

The apostle didn’t sidestep the issue. The Bible doesn’t sidestep the issue. The evidence is all around us.

I think the most honest Christian position would be: there is no evidence, hence why faith is required.

I’ve recommended many fine books on the subject of evidence.

Why is this not enough for Christians?

It ignores the evidence and presents a blind faith.

 

[Matthias]

As this short video clip from a former atheist discusses, a poor response to an atheist is a blind faith argument.

 

[Riven]

Well, I didn’t have that on my BINGO card.

You would play Bingo.

The apostle didn’t sidestep the issue. The Bible doesn’t sidestep the issue. The evidence is all around us.

He completely sidestepped it. If everyone "just knows", there's no need for any further investigation.

It ignores the evidence and presents a blind faith.

All faith is blind to a certain degree. You have faith that your spouse won't cheat on you. Or maybe you did, and now you don't.

 

[Matthias]

You would play Bingo.

It’s an idiom.

He completely sidestepped it.

He addressed it directly.

If everyone "just knows", there's no need for any further investigation.

There is. That is what Paul was doing on Mars Hill.

All faith is blind to a certain degree. You have faith that your spouse won't cheat on you. Or maybe you did, and now you don't.

 

[Matthias]

Find the evidence that they require in order to believe and present it to them.

Have you looked for it?

 

[Matthias]

He completely sidestepped it.

Do you think Paul himself argued for faith without evidence?

 

[Mancunian]

Ask James.

 

[Riven]

Have you looked for it?

Yes.

Do you think Paul himself argued for faith without evidence?

I don't know Paul well enough to say one way or the other.

 

[Matthias]

Yes.

That leaves you in a vulnerable position. When things get really tough, a faith based on no evidence is susceptible to collapse.

I don't know Paul well enough to say one way or the other.

You need to become better acquainted with Paul. The way to do that is to read his letters.

@Mancunian has apostatized. You can / should read what Paul says about apostasy.

 

[Matthias]

Do you think Paul himself argued for faith without evidence?

He didn’t.

 

[Matthias]

Proof that it was indeed the Christian God who created this universe.

The Greeks weren’t atheists. Paul was trying to persuade them that the deity who created the universe is the God of Israel, not the pantheon of gods / idols they worshipped.

I can just as easily say that this universe was created by another god…

That’s precisely the situation the apostles faced when they preached the gospel to the pagan world.

 

[Matthias]

Find the evidence that they require in order to believe and present it to them.

Since you‘ve looked for but haven’t yet found the evidence yourself, you’re in no position to do what you said needs to be done. (What you said was right.)

Lacking evidence, how difficult would you say it would be for you to fall back into agnosticism, or even atheism?

 

[Riven]

That leaves you in a vulnerable position. When things get really tough, a faith based on no evidence is susceptible to collapse.

Indeed. But what takes it's place? Science?

You need to become better acquainted with Paul. The way to do that is to read his letters.

Yes, I agree.

That’s precisely the situation the apostles faced when they preached the gospel to the pagan world.

Yes, but the Christians ultimately won the argument as evidenced by the many pagan societies that converted to Christianity. This despite the fact that they had just as much evidence for the existence of God as the Vikings had for the existence of Odin.

Since you‘ve looked for but haven’t yet found the evidence yourself, you’re in no position to do what you said needs to be done. (What you said was right.)

Lacking evidence, how difficult would you say it would be for you to fall back into agnosticism, or even atheism?

I think it's incredibly easy to dismiss all religions as nonsense and base my beliefs on science alone. The trouble with that is, it also makes it very easy to fall into a nihilistic train of thought.

The purpose of life, from a secular perspective, is to reproduce. That's it. But even that, while admittedly sounding profound in it's simplicity, ultimately fails to avoid the trap of nihilism.

Reproduction is purpose > but everything dies anyway > there is no purpose > nihilism.

 

[Lambano]

You would play Bingo.

Only if I was Catholic.