In Fear Of Making A Blog A Tweet…

I certainly don’t want to make a habit of posting “Tweet-like” posts, and will not make a habit of it but…” self-refuting the atheist says “there is no God” then I am in awe. Two statements; You must know everything about everything, and if you do then you must be God! Is this self-refuting”?

God Bless

Brian Mason

27 thoughts on “In Fear Of Making A Blog A Tweet…

  1. I agree with this point: science has nothing, and never will have anything, to say about a purely supernatural phenomenon. It is by definition the pursuit to understand the natural world that we live in through observation, measurement, testible models and experimentation.

    Before I go on, I just want to clarify that atheists/naturalists (I’ll shorten that to scientists) do not generally try to prove God. God as a model to explain the cosmos fails as there is nothing to support it. To prove God, you’d have presuppose God and find evidence to support your presupposition. Science doesn’t work like that. It works the other way. It creates models based on evaluated evidence, and then it looks for more evidence to support it, and–importantly–it tries to find evidence to the contrary. Successful models are the ones that withstand trying to be disproved. So no, scientists do not try to prove God; it’s the theist’s job to demonstrate their God if they want anyone to believe it.

    I don’t know what your beliefs are, but I’m assuming that you are Christian, a broad term I know. Based on this assumption, I will posit that you believe your God to be an intervening God. He is a God that answers prayer, heals people, talks to people, makes his presence known. He dictated the word of God. He became human and dwelt amongst us. He is the source of morality. He designed the universe, earth, life. He is, in other words, a supernatural being with natural consequences.

    Science cannot say anything about the supernatural, but it has a lot to say about the proclaimed influence of the supernatural on the natural. There is no category error. The available evidence leads to the conclusion that God, at least an intervening one, is unlikely.

    I care about my beliefs being based on something that is likely to be true. I am reasonably convinced you feel the same.

    So I’ll ask again, what convinces *you* that God is true?

  2. Goading does not work well with me. There is a question before you. My name does not matter to the truth of your belief. I’ve told you why I do not use my real name, why nobody should. You even agreed. Sad, you’re not seeming to get it.

  3. I have no idea what an angelic experience is supposed to be. I assume you believe you were visited by angels? “

    It was a very strong possibility. And if you had the same experience you too may feel the same way

    “If you believe that the god of the bible makes sense I am tempted to ask if you have read the bible completely through or spent anytime studying it to understand the whole story”?

    Yes I have.

    “Micro and macro evolution are not separate things.  “
    Huh? Are you questioning your own religion of Darwinian Evolution that has no proof whatsoever? And secondly you do no not know what micro-evolution is?
    Let’s start with that okay?

  4. I have no idea what an angelic experience is supposed to be. I assume you believe you were visited by angels?

    If you believe that the god of the bible makes sense I am tempted to ask if you have read the bible completely through or spent anytime studying it to understand the whole story?

    Micro and macro evolution are not separate things. There is only evolution working at different time scales. Your statement strongly indicates that you do not understand how evolution works nor the mechanisms of natural selection etc. You seem to be criticizing a well founded pillar of modern science for which your life relies on without knowing anything about it. Assuming that your picture indicates that you live in a western country, much of your life and the things you use depend on the FACTS of evolution.

    The wonderous universe that we live in formed to be as it is by the force of gravity. This has been discussed at length by Stephen Hawking. A universe from nothing is discussed at length by L.Krauss. Their explanations will be better than mine and are available online and in libraries. The origin of life is a question still being contemplated by science. Many of the necessary chemicals for life organize by themselves in conditions believed to be present on early Earth. Whether it was pan-spermia or abiogenesis, the evidence clearly points to a long continuous progression from single cell organisms all the way through to this very day.

    Science has advanced far enough that there is no need of a god to explain these things. We now have natural explanations that work, and are finding more and more evidence that this is what happened.

    Finally, no deity makes sense. They are all non-sensical and unnecessary to explain the universe that we find ourselves living in.

    I can’t speak to your angel stories but I’m going to guess that they are anectdotal… nothing anyone could test or share. Am I right?

  5. Well since you made it a personal question, I have had several Angelic experiences. I have never brought them up before other than my own testimony but they happened. Second the God of the Bible makes sense and no other pagan deity makes sense. How do you explain this amazing creation you see, including yourself? Macro evolution is the biggest fairytale ever put down the preverbial throats of the fertile minds of secular humanists.

  6. And I’ll bite, let’s see what you have. I also said that from how your god is described he should not need your help. So, if you’re going to be standing in for him, let’s see what you have for evidence. What convinces you that there is a god and that it is the one you think it is?

  7. The problem lies where the atheist/naturalist looks for proof. They will deal in the material world and ultimately boils down to a scientific conclusion which would be a category error. Material vs Immaterial.

  8. A good question to ask.

    You are correct to say that any person who makes the claim, “I believe God(s) does not exist”–and who wants to convince anyone else–carries a burden of proof.

    However, your assertion that said person must know everything about everything is incorrect. This assertion will only be correct for a person who makes the claim “I know–absolutely–God(s) does not exist.” I don’t know of any atheists, including Dawkins, who makes such a claim.

    Instead, we’re talking about belief, and the evidence available to justify said belief. I am of the opinion that our scientific knowledge is mature enough to stand as evidence that God, especially a personal one, is very unlikely. The absence of evidence for God also lends weight, as does many other things; some of which I list here: http://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/part-iii-on-why-i-remain-an-atheist-2/

    The burden of proof for strong atheism has been met in my opinion, but I can be proven wrong on that.

    For the most part, however, you can ignore everything I said above, because an atheist is not required to make the claim, “I believe God(s) does not exist”.

    The minimum that is required to be an atheist is to claim, “I do not believe the claims that God(s) exists”. In other words, my atheism stems from the fact that no one has sufficiently demonstrated, or offered evidence, that I find convincing enough to justify a belief in any God.

    What atheism is and is not, is a source of confusion, and people need to be educated. Here’s my attempt to explain atheism, theism, agnosticism and gnosticism: http://amrestorative.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/the-conversation-game-four-words-a-word/

    There is no burden of proof for weak atheism.

    Unfortunately, because you’re in the camp that makes the claim of belief (in something extraordinary), and you generally want other people to believe it, and you generally have political influence that affects social policies based on said belief, you carry an extraordinary burden of proof. And the proof is just not there.. as far as I can see.

    I hope this clears up the atheistic position. What are your thoughts?

    In my post linked above (On Why I Remain An Atheist), l give reasons and evidence for my disbelief of the claims of God (especially the Christian one), and for my belief that God does not, in fact, exist. I am interested, why are you a believer? What convinced *you* that you are correct?

    PS, I like tweet-like posts. Helps to focus the discussion 😉

  9. “The atheist concludes there is no god because there is no credible evidence. It is not a claim. There IS a difference”.? Huh?
    “There are lots of examples of what people would consider evidence”. Give me some. How much evidence would you require?
    “An omnipotent being who is omniscient has what it takes to make sure everyone understands and is convinced”. This is simply your opinion. In any case I agree, he would have what it takes to make sure certain that everyone understands and is convinced, but why would he have to? However I know he has already done that Psalms 19: 1…
    1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

    I had teachers try to teach Trig to me and I did not understand it, btw.
    If you conclude there is no proof for God’s existence, then you would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then say that there is no proof for God’s existence. But, since you can’t know all things, you can’t logically state there is no proof for God’s existence.

  10. The atheist concludes there is no god because there is no credible evidence. It is not a claim. There IS a difference.

    There are lots of examples of what people would consider evidence. An omnipotent being who is omniscient has what it takes to make sure everyone understands and is convinced. Clearly the god you claim either does not want to be found or does not exist.

    That is not playing word games. Your god already knows what I would consider evidence and if he exists,.. well, you get the idea. Suffice it to say that I doubt an omnipotent being needs you to represent him here on Earth or anywhere. I think it is a weakness of your god that he needs humans to spread his word. It’s as if he doesn’t exist at all.

  11. If the atheist claims there is no God, the burden of proof lies with the atheist. Because you say no credible existence, does that mean there is no God? What evidence would you consider credible?

Comments are closed.