Can you prove God exists?
Question:
I've been reading your website for days and now I decide I have to say something:
You mentioned in one of your letter to a reader that "a drunken atheist living on the streets of New York." Well, is that the impression from atheists to you? I can tell you that I'm not drunk, on the contrary, I'm super sober, sober enough to know everything is suspicious.
I don't know why you accept "God"'s existence unconditionally. Maybe If I ask you to give me some solid evidence to prove his existence, you'll ask me: "How do you know he doesn't exist?" True, I can't see or hear or feel doesn't mean he's not there. But to prove something's non-existence is impossible in logic - I don't need to prove his non-existence, you just need to prove his existence, then my theory is untenable. Just like the sum of a triangle's interior angle is 180, can you give me an opposite example to demonstrate it's not?
Religion is based on presumption, it's originally generated in late primitive society when human society started forming class society when transitioning from matriarchy to patriarchy. Different cultures have different religions so religion is the outcome of the environment. What religion fears the most are questions because all the answers were pre-defined and pre-given.
I'm a second generation only child, my father let me read all the books I want, from science magazines to Greek mythology. And you know what? After reading all this, I became an atheist naturally. Every nation has its own religion and legend, but none of them has evidence to prove they're right. If it wasn't for the Roman Empire's 400 years of extreme power and influence, Christianity would never spread this far, but then if it wasn't for Arabic businessmen and expansion, Islam would never have spread this far either. My father didn't think to let his daughter read all these stuff at a young age as bad; on the contrary, it made me understand what kind of this real world is and I'll never be confused.
Oh, and I think your curse to those who don't believe Christianity is harsh and venomous: What kind of black is the darkest? What kind of white is the brightest? Who has ever seen the darkest and the brightest? There's no perfect and evilest person in the world, absolute is illogical. There's a progress of gradual change from black to white, in the middle is called "gray." Humans are the same. How could you separate humans into two completely different conditions: "heaven and hell"? Do you think human beings are that simple? Don't you think you're simplifying things?
By the way, I'm an applied math major student, I'm planning to get a Master degree, I do respect elders, someone like you. I'm only 23, probably not even half of your age. But that doesn't mean elders are right at everything that doesn't mean they can abuse their power and authority.
I have a friend who majors in Egyptian history, he told me that natural disasters were frequent in Egypt. Droughts and floods were due to terrible geographic positioning. Ancient Egyptians were used to these, they were not "God's punishment". However, all Egyptians' first children dying over one night, that was "miracle."
The truth is this "huge incident" wasn't written in Egyptian history, not a single word. Other countries' histories don't mention it either. I think you know that Hebrew's civilization at that time was undeveloped, at least it couldn't be higher than Egyptian, so it's a myth. It lacks archaeological evidence to support it.
Until we find evidence, otherwise every theory is presumption.
Answer:
I am glad that an admitted atheist would take the time to read through the material on this website. Quite a daunting task considering that it contains over 2,300 pages of material at this moment in time. I did find it amusing that you took a phrase completely out of context to pretend offense. The statement was a contrast of hyperbole. It is not a statement that all atheists are drunkards, but a realization that such a person could exist. I was using this to demonstrate that her argument that her adulterous lover was a "Christian" did not change the fact that she broke the laws of God.
I see that you play fast and loose with many of your other arguments as well.
You are correct that atheism cannot prove the non-existence of God. I'm glad you made it over that small hurdle. But you are incorrect to assume there is no proof of the existence of God. The mistake that you are making is a denial of any evidence that you are unwilling to accept. That is something I cannot help you with. I could show you the best evidence in the world, but if you refuse to look at it or consider it, then it remains non-existent to you. I can't force you to see facts.
Oh, the facts do exist. The rising popularity of the Intelligent Design theory comes about from an admission by some in the scientific community that far too many things in this world are unexplainable via random events, no matter how much time you throw at the problem. Such has been long stated by Christians: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:18-20). The claim here by the Apostle Paul is that God will be just in judging the non-believers, such as atheists as yourself because they had sufficient evidence to realize not only that God exists but to even perceive some of His hidden characteristics through the physical world.
You manage to skip around one of the most powerful evidence for God and that is the Bible itself. Atheists in the past have tried to prove that it is nothing more than the work of men and have come away amazed at its quality. A few have been open-minded enough to admit their past errors and switch camps; C.S. Lewis is perhaps the most famous, but there are others. The Bible has passed bibliographical checks concerning the accuracy of our existing copies toward the original writings. It has been shown to be internally consistent with no provable internal contradiction standing against it. And, where external sources have been found, the Bible has shown itself to be absolutely accurate. As a historical document, it is of the highest quality and caliber.
Here is an example of your predisposition. You mention the tenth plague, the death of the firstborn, in Egypt and complain that you can find no historical record of it. Yet, your knowledge of the possibility of the event comes from a highly accurate historical document - the Bible. You moan that no other culture knew about the events, but the Hebrew's did. Not only that, but they mention that word of the events did reach the nations of Canaan. A prostitute in Jericho stated, "For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were on the other side of the Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed" (Judges 2:10). That the events weren't recorded in Egypt is not at all surprising. Historians have long noted that the Egyptians were so prideful that they purposely skipped over events that put them in a bad light. We even have found traces where records were removed (chiseled out of monuments) to eliminate the name of a Pharaoh who didn't bring glory to Egypt.
Unlike ancient documents that tend to only give favorable records, the Bible tells us both the good and the bad about the people God dealt with. Consider the scathing commentary on Israelite society found in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. These hard-hitting, uncomplimentary comments are left untouched by the very nation which preserved the writings because they knew them to be the truth.
Your arguments against a belief in God?
- There are a lot of religions in the world: Yes, mankind's imagination is boundless, but this doesn't constitute proof that a true religion isn't among them.
- That religion evolved: This is a product of evolutionary thinking that is based on assumption, not facts.
- That there are shades of truth: Only because you want this to be so. But your desire doesn't establish this as truth. (Can you make an absolute statement about shades of truth?)
- It's too simple: Why is such an argument against the existence of God or the correctness of Christianity?
- People abusing power: Yes, such people have always existed in all facets of the world. Because people abuse power in government, does that mean there should be no government? Actually, from your line of thought, you might end up arguing that there is no government.
- A lack of external confirmation about one event: The problem is that your argument ignores the wealth of external confirmation about many historical events. Where archeology has found information, it often agrees with the records in the Bible. If confirmation ever is found, I suspect you will do as other atheists have done in the past -- move on to another event and claim there is no confirmation.
"But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them" (II Corinthians 4:3-4).
Response:
(Unedited)
Hi, I'm that atheist who wrote a letter to you several days ago....and after reading your reply, I can tell you, I'm angry.
Of course I know your comment on "drunken athesit in New York city" is a analogy, but this analogy precisely revealed your subconscious: in your heart, atheist's image is this complete loser, homeless and cynical guy...am I right?...If not why you used a homeless loser as "atheist"? Have you ever heard a word "Stereotype"?
Drunk physically doesn't mean drunk mentally....It's just a way of living.
I can see that you're addicted to "The bible", you think it's accurate?...It's full of loopholes, do you want me name one at random?-------Now that "God" killed all the human beings except Noah's family, where did his daughter-in-laws come from?....Don't tell me his daughters married his sons, otherwise their offspring would have genetic disease.
Now that human were created by God's image, we have intestines, windpipes, stomaches and genital organs, "God" should have too, otherwise we're not like him.....But don't you think the concept that "God has genital organs" is hilarious?-----Genital organs are for procreation, if some being need to procreat to continue the species, doesn't mean that it could die?....Could this "omnipotent" God avoid his death?
Back to Eygptians, you said it was documented in the "Bible".....Bible again?...It's just Hebrews' statement of the only one of the parties, still, hasn't been proved-----People can lie, the evidence won't.....and book is written by "people"....You said ancient Eygptians were too shamed to document the incident, Ok, then why didn't other countries documented it?...a neuter?....
Back to "the flood". the last glacial epoch of the Quaternary Period ended about 8000~10000 years ago,which perfectly matches the timeline of th "flood" in the bible, actually many ancient civilization have some kind of the flood legend, the difference is many people died, the others survived, not only Noah's.
All in all, I won't live this exhausted like you, fearing somebody watches you every second from your behind....It doesn't matter how, when, and where I die, just live whatever you want to live unless you won't bother other people's life.
Answer:
"Professing to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22).
