Atheist's request for proof of God are incoherent and contradictory

[shnarkle]

The arguments against, and requests for proof by atheists, skeptics, etc. for the existence of the Christian god are incoherent and contradictory.

As some have admitted already, some of the core tenets of Christianity are that "God" is omniscient, omnipotent, transcendent as well as the origin or source of all that exists. These terms all point to one conclusion which is that the term "God" is synonymous with these terms, and therefore cannot exist(not the term "God", but what the term represents or refers to). There is no referent for the term, and there never can be.

Setting aside the notion that Christians don't seem to be aware of this fact, one still must wonder why anyone who takes pride in their critical thinking skills hasn't noticed this yet. Even more bewildering, is why would anyone ask for proof of what cannot logically exist in the first place?

Omniscience literally means "all-knowing", so by definition, omniscience cannot be known. Anything that can objectively be known, cannot be omniscient.

Omnipotence means all-potent, or completely potential(from "omnia + potense"). Omnipotence can never be exhausted. What is potent cannot be manifest without redefining the word.

Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 8:6 that God is the origin of all that exists while Christ is the means by which everything comes into existence. As source or origin of existence, the source or origin of existence cannot logically exist.

Transcendence or incomparability cannot be compared or likened to anything. Transcendence cannot be known, experienced, or imagined. The texts even provide a commandment forbidding the imaging of gods. Any god that can be imagined is false, and those who imagine them are idolaters if they worship them.

If transcendence doesn't transcend existence, then it can't be transcendent. There is no essential or effective difference between transcendence and non existence or nothing. By definition, nothing doesn't exist. To ask for proof of nothing,. non-existence or transcendence makes no sense. It is an incoherent and contradictory request.

 

[Enoch111]

It is an incoherent and contradictory request.

Just ignore it. Some things are meant to be ignored.

 

[Taken]

Atheist's request for proof of God are incoherent and contradictory <--- OP

PROOF ?

A PROOF REQUEST presents a challenge.
A CHALLENGE involves, TWO parties;

One party whose BELIEFS stand AGAINST God.
One party whose BELIEFS stand WITH God.

The CHALLENGE "BY" one AGAINST God,
Forward "TO" one WITH God...

IS in "effect" a CHALLENGE "pertaining TO", a mans "BELIEFS".

On a "LEVEL" playing field...
An Atheist, requesting PROOF of a mans BELIEF IN GOD....WOULD "ALSO" by DEFALT REQUIRE, the Atheists "DISBELIEF" in God to be presented WITH PROOF!

The FACTS ARE:
No one CAN "PROVE" Gods EXISTANCE,
And
No one CAN "DISPROVE" Gods EXISTANCE.

The FACT IS;
EVERY man HAS the LIBERTY to Freely CHOOSE what he BELIEVES.

The FACT IS;
No man, "AGAINST God or WITH" God, can PROVE his own Freely Chosen BELIEFS.

The POINT being:
An Atheist requesting PROOF of Gods Existance;
Should be answered IN THE SAME FASHION JESUS TAUGHT...

John 20:
[1] And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with the elders,
[2] And spake unto him, saying, Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?
[3] And he answered and said unto them, I will also ask you one thing; and answer me:
[4] The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?
[5] And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then believed ye him not?
[6] But and if we say, Of men; all the people will stone us: for they be persuaded that John was a prophet.
[7] And they answered, that they could not tell whence it was.
[8] And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

Thus when an Atheist "asks" for "PROOF" of Gods Existance....A turn about question to them; IS;
Are they ABLE to "PROVE" God DOES NOT EXIST?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Windmillcharge]

Yes factual proof for or against God is impossible. God is not part of this creation and so is not subject to any laws of science.

That said the atheist has many problems.
Why do the 'laws' of logic, science and morality exist and work?
How can they accouint for there ability to reason and to apriciate beauty etc.
How do they account for there being anything at all, they believe in the scientific evidence for the big bang.
What caused it?
Then there is the evidence for Jesus how do they account for him, or are they like Dawkins who denies he existed in direct contradiction of most historians conclusions.

 

[shnarkle]

Yes factual proof for or against God is impossible. God is not part of this creation and so is not subject to any laws of science.

God cannot even be subject to categorization. Monotheism doesn't allow God to be compared to anything, but given that God is no part of creation necessarily means that God cannot objectively exist as well. God cannot be objectively observed. That would allow God to be worshipped objectively. This creates a problem within Christianity as Christ is the "image of the invisible god". If Paul had said that Christ was "the idol of the invisible god", he would have been explicitly granting that Christ could and should be worshipped as God because Idols are worshipped as God. He used the word "eikon" from which we get the word "icon" which is a representation, and should never be worshipped because by definition it isn't what or who they represent. The fly in the ointment is that if God can be approached by any other means than Christ, then Christ is redundant. In other words, there is no other way to objectively worship God than to worship Christ.

Why do the 'laws' of logic, science and morality exist and work?

They don't necessarily work. Science discovered quite some time ago that the laws of logic are useless at conveying reality. They don't match up with scientific observation. Systems of morality or mores are relative. Some societies have no laws prohibiting rape because it doesn't exist in their culture in the first place.

How can they accouint for there ability to reason and to apriciate beauty etc.

They will suggest it is a survival trait. Things which are attractive are "beautiful", and promote reproduction, etc.

How do they account for there being anything at all,

Not that I'm taking their position, but logic suggests it must be a Given because if nothing existed, we have a blatant contradiction. By definition, nothing can't exist. Existence must be eternal with no beginning or end. Logic dictates that must be the case.

they believe in the scientific evidence for the big bang.
What caused it?

There are a number of theories, none of which require God. Of course it begs the question, and creates for them an infinite regression which in itself makes no sense.

Then there is the evidence for Jesus how do they account for him, or are they like Dawkins who denies he existed in direct contradiction of most historians conclusions.

Most atheists who I have encountered don't deny historical personages. They deny that the narratives about him are historical, e.g. walking on water, dead bodies resurrected, etc.