Atheism: an irrational worldview

[RAdam]

That's an interesting point. Let me take it from the Atheist point of view. The world operates in such as way that there is numerical set of probabilities that some action or activity will occur which will affect your person. In the case of one person mistreating another person the probability that you will be mistreated as a result has increased. The more you do that the chances increase. This is based on multiple factors not the least being human behavior. It obviously is a safe saying because the more people you meet the eventuality that you will be mistreated will increase therefore "what goes around comes around" is a very good probability.

That doesn't really work. Someone will see one person mistreating another and, as a result of this mistreatment, will say something like "he'll get his one day." That thought isn't the result of the person working out probabilities on his/her head, in fact history proves that there is a high probability that a wicked person will prosper much in this life in terms of wordly things. The thought is illogical according to what an atheist claims to believe.

 

[Gup20]

I don't see how they believe in "two things at once" or two condratictory things. I believe that premise is flawed.

Atheists believe that all matter and energy had a natural cause. That natural cause is material (not supernatural). Before there was matter and energy, what material (matter and energy) cause is possible that could generate matter and energy? There cannot be a natural, material cause to matter and energy, because no material existed. Therefore the belief that all matter and energy had a natural cause is demonstrably false.

It is a vicious circle and blows itself up.

 

[matt wade]

Atheists believe that all matter and energy had a natural cause. That natural cause is material (not supernatural). Before there was matter and energy, what material (matter and energy) cause is possible that could generate matter and energy? There cannot be a natural, material cause to matter and energy, because no material existed. Therefore the belief that all matter and energy had a natural cause is demonstrably false.

It is a vicious circle and blows itself up.

And as an atheist, I would commonly engage Christians in this debate. The Christian would say, all this matter and energy had to come from somewhere, so there must be a God that created it. My rebuttal, as an atheist, was that if you assert that matter had to be created and it could not have just "always existed", then I assert that God could not have always existed. God must have been created by someone as well. Again, we get into a circle.

This is what is boils down to. You can't engage an atheist in a logical debate and try and prove the existence of God to them. It just won't work. The only method by which an atheist is going to be saved is through the work of the Holy Spirit. When I was saved (and other atheists that I know that were saved), no one argued us into salvation. We were simply presented the Gospel and the Holy Spirit moved within us. For me, it was literally like a light switch being flicked. One moment I completely disbelieved in God and the next I 100% knew there was a God in heaven.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Atheists believe that all matter and energy had a natural cause. That natural cause is material (not supernatural). Before there was matter and energy, what material (matter and energy) cause is possible that could generate matter and energy? There cannot be a natural, material cause to matter and energy, because no material existed. Therefore the belief that all matter and energy had a natural cause is demonstrably false.

It is a vicious circle and blows itself up.

According to Einstine theory of relativity Matter never disappears it is only transformed into energy. Likewise you provide enough energy you can obtain matter. There is nothing to say that matter and energy have not always been existant in one form or another. It just so happens that our current universe indcates that there was a starting point for the current state of affairs not that there wasn't a previous state of affairs. Theoretically there may have been multiple verses and multiple big bang events. You have not diffinatively proved that there was a point that matter and energy did not exist.

 

[RAdam]

According to Einstine theory of relativity Matter never disappears it is only transformed into energy. Likewise you provide enough energy you can obtain matter. There is nothing to say that matter and energy have not always been existant in one form or another. It just so happens that our current universe indcates that there was a starting point for the current state of affairs not that there wasn't a previous state of affairs. Theoretically there may have been multiple verses and multiple big bang events. You have not diffinatively proved that there was a point that matter and energy did not exist.

Actually there is proof, but one needs faith to see it. Hebrews 11 says, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." God made the world out of nothing. Matter came about by nothing. Now, this won't do you any good with an atheist because he doesn't have faith to understand this and doesn't believe the bible (at least not to this degree) anyway, but we do have proof that matter hasn't always existed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Actually there is proof, but one needs faith to see it. Hebrews 11 says, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." God made the world out of nothing. Matter came about by nothing. Now, this won't do you any good with an atheist because he doesn't have faith to understand this and doesn't believe the bible (at least not to this degree) anyway, but we do have proof that matter hasn't always existed.

An atheist might respond that your evidence relys on a belief that someone wrote for you 2,000 years ago? In which case how is this superior to a belief in polythesism because of Homer's Illiad and Oddessy? How logical is that?

 

[RAdam]

You'll notice that I said this proof wouldn't work on an atheist. I wasn't providing an argument to use on an atheist, just showing there is proof for those who have faith.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You'll notice that I said this proof wouldn't work on an atheist. I wasn't providing an argument to use on an atheist, just showing there is proof for those who have faith.

ok. Yes if you have faith it is the essense of the proof required of by believers.

 

[Gup20]

And as an atheist, I would commonly engage Christians in this debate. The Christian would say, all this matter and energy had to come from somewhere, so there must be a God that created it. My rebuttal, as an atheist, was that if you assert that matter had to be created and it could not have just "always existed", then I assert that God could not have always existed. God must have been created by someone as well. Again, we get into a circle.

You could assert that, but again, you would be inconsistent. You would inconsistently be applying that which you would have already assumed to be true - namely that "all things that exist are material". However, God is immaterial, and therefore requires no cause. Furthermore God created time, and therefore is not bound by time (he requires no "beginning"). That is like saying that the inventor of a remote control car is limited in his travel speed by the maximum velocity of the remote control car.

This is what is boils down to. You can't engage an atheist in a logical debate and try and prove the existence of God to them. It just won't work. The only method by which an atheist is going to be saved is through the work of the Holy Spirit. When I was saved (and other atheists that I know that were saved), no one argued us into salvation. We were simply presented the Gospel and the Holy Spirit moved within us. For me, it was literally like a light switch being flicked. One moment I completely disbelieved in God and the next I 100% knew there was a God in heaven.

You and I agree that it is the Holy Spirit that must change a heart. However, the scriptures state:

Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.


1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
​

Ours is not to be a blind faith, but a faith based on reason and reasons. Furthermore, the best arguments will not convince everyone, and often very bad arguments convince many. This doesn't justify not being willing or able to "give an answer to every man that asks a reason for my hope."

This particular argument by Dr. Jason Lisle (Phd astrophysics) is an irrefutable argument. It is meant to demonstrate that "evidence based" arguments are insufficient because our worldview inflicts itself upon our interpretation of the evidence. Therefore, since it is a worldview conflict, we must judge the worldviews (Christianity, atheism, evolution) based upon their own merit, and whether or not they make knowledge possible. When the worldviews are applied consistently, only the Christian worldview leads to knowledge, reason, and logic. But just because you present an irrefutable argument doesn't mean people are going to believe you.

The Bible says men are willingly ignorant of the truth:

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
​

 

[Gup20]

An atheist might respond that your evidence relys on a belief that someone wrote for you 2,000 years ago? In which case how is this superior to a belief in polythesism because of Homer's Illiad and Oddessy? How logical is that?

I would respond that it comes from a book (the Bible) that puts forth a worldview that actually makes logic and reason possible, whereas in an atheistic worldview (or for that matter a "Homeristic" worldview) does not make logic and reason possible. This is the basis whereby I reject interpreting the world with an atheistic or materialistic worldview, and adopt the Christian worldview to interpret the evidence.

 

[Gup20]

ok. Yes if you have faith it is the essense of the proof required of by believers.

1Cr 2:4 And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
​

Paul thought you should have a tangible reason for what you believe. Paul also wrote:

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
​

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I would respond that it comes from a book (the Bible) that puts forth a worldview that actually makes logic and reason possible, whereas in an atheistic worldview (or for that matter a "Homeristic" worldview) does not make logic and reason possible. This is the basis whereby I reject interpreting the world with an atheistic or materialistic worldview, and adopt the Christian worldview to interpret the evidence.

So your contention is that the bible makes logic and reason possible and nothing else does? How do you define logic or reason? Actually, if you look at it from a historical point of view Greece is the very birth place of systematic use of logic and reason. The bible on the other hand was writen in a culture of myths and superstition. It is from the Greeks that we get Algebra, Geometry, and a plethora of other systematic application of logic and reason such as critical thinking. What do we get from Canaan or Israel or the split North and Southern kingdoms of Israel or from Judea alone? Wars primarily with lots of inexplicable cliques going of into the desert to preserve mythological writings which often asserts contradictions. Ie wipe out the inhabitants of Canaan yet later we have Love your enemies do good to those who persecute you. how logical or reasonable is that. Seems schizophrenic to me. (As an atheist mind you. )

 

[matt wade]

You could assert that, but again, you would be inconsistent. You would inconsistently be applying that which you would have already assumed to be true - namely that "all things that exist are material".

That's what you don't get...atheists don't believe that are things that exist are material. An atheist is one that doesn't believe in God. Where does this "all things that exist are material" come from? As an atheist I certainly believed in the supernatural (ghosts, spirits, karma, mother earth, etc). I just didn't believe there was a God that created all these things.

 

[Gup20]

So your contention is that the bible makes logic and reason possible and nothing else does?

No, it is my belief that God makes knowledge and reason possible, and that the Bible is his revelation of that to us.

Col 2:3 In [Christ] are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
​

How do you define logic or reason? Actually, if you look at it from a historical point of view Greece is the very birth place of systematic use of logic and reason.

I probably define it very similarly to how an atheist defines it. For example, one law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. You can't have A and not A at the same time and in teh same relationship. This makes sense because the Bible says that God cannot deny himself.

The bible on the other hand was writen in a culture of myths and superstition. It is from the Greeks that we get Algebra, Geometry, and a plethora of other systematic application of logic and reason such as critical thinking. What do we get from Canaan or Israel or the split North and Southern kingdoms of Israel or from Judea alone? Wars primarily with lots of inexplicable cliques going of into the desert to preserve mythological writings which often asserts contradictions. Ie wipe out the inhabitants of Canaan yet later we have Love your enemies do good to those who persecute you. how logical or reasonable is that. Seems schizophrenic to me. (As an atheist mind you. )

From God we get a revelation of who we are, who he is, why were are here, and what the meaning of life is. We learn God's standard for thinking which is much higher than our own:

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
​

Where our logic fails, his does not. Where our reason falls short, his is complete.

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.
​

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, it is my belief that God makes knowledge and reason possible, and that the Bible is his revelation of that to us.

Col 2:3 In [Christ] are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
​

I probably define it very similarly to how an atheist defines it. For example, one law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. You can't have A and not A at the same time and in teh same relationship. This makes sense because the Bible says that God cannot deny himself.



From God we get a revelation of who we are, who he is, why were are here, and what the meaning of life is. We learn God's standard for thinking which is much higher than our own:

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
​

Where our logic fails, his does not. Where our reason falls short, his is complete.

Pro 1:7 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.
​

So you are saying at the same time that only God makes it possible for knowledge and reason and causes the rules of logic such as non contradiction yet when a contradiction is pointed out you say his logic is not our logic; his reason is not our reason? Basically, what you believe about God is that he can say what ever he wants even if it doesn't seem to follow our rules of logic? Sounds like a pretty good con.

 

[Gup20]

That's what you don't get...atheists don't believe that are things that exist are material. An atheist is one that doesn't believe in God. Where does this "all things that exist are material" come from? As an atheist I certainly believed in the supernatural (ghosts, spirits, karma, mother earth, etc). I just didn't believe there was a God that created all these things.

The atheist that doesn't believe that everything is material isn't an atheist... he is perhaps an agnostic. An atheist who doesn't believe that everything is material contradicts his own belief. If he allows for the immaterial, he has completely undermined his own position.

Psa 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.
​

Since the Bible takes a distinct position against atheism (no matter how you care to define it), it is safe to say that the atheist is at the very least not neutral as it pertains to the Bible. When asked, most atheists will say they adhere to a belief in evolution, materialism, naturalism, or empiricism (or a combination of these beliefs). All of these have the same basic problems that materialism has. They are self-refuting and do not make knowledge, laws of logic, and reason possible.

 

[Steven2006]

I have only just skimmed this thread, but one thought came to mind. When witnessing to others it usually isn't very effective to argue and insist about what they believe.

 

[Gup20]

So you are saying at the same time that only God makes it possible for knowledge and reason and causes the rules of logic such as non contradiction yet when a contradiction is pointed out you say his logic is not our logic; his reason is not our reason? Basically, what you believe about God is that he can say what ever he wants even if it doesn't seem to follow our rules of logic? Sounds like a pretty good con.

I have yet to see you point out a contradiction.

I pointed out that people will believe a bad argument because we are fallen and sinful, and that just because someone gives a good, sound, logical argument doesn't mean someone is going to be convinced by it.

I'm saying they are not "our rules of logic". They are God's rules of logic. We are the ones who sometimes don't act reasonably or logically.

If logic were the result of the human mind, everyone would have their own logic, and nothing would be universal about logic. But because God is universal, so are his laws of logic. Because God is everywhere, laws of logic work everywhere. Because God doesn't change, laws of logic are invariant. Everyone's brain is different, our brains aren't everywhere, and people change - therefore it does not follow that laws of logic are a result of the human brain.

 

[matt wade]

The atheist that doesn't believe that everything is material isn't an atheist... he is perhaps an agnostic. An atheist who doesn't believe that everything is material contradicts his own belief. If he allows for the immaterial, he has completely undermined his own position.

Psa 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.
​

Since the Bible takes a distinct position against atheism (no matter how you care to define it), it is safe to say that the atheist is at the very least not neutral as it pertains to the Bible. When asked, most atheists will say they adhere to a belief in evolution, materialism, naturalism, or empiricism (or a combination of these beliefs). All of these have the same basic problems that materialism has. They are self-refuting and do not make knowledge, laws of logic, and reason possible.

So now you are redefining what an atheist is in order to prove your point?

 

[Gup20]

I have only just skimmed this thread, but one thought came to mind. When witnessing to others it usually isn't very effective to argue and insist about what they believe.

What do you do when they tell you that they don't believe what you believe because of what they believe?

For example, what do you do when people say "Jesus? The guy from the bible? I don't believe the bible because science has proven the it wrong."

An informed Christian will have an answer for this questioning of the faith that is them. They will say "I don't accept your belief that the Bible has been proven wrong, and here is why."

As a matter of fact, this is the biggest attack against Christianity today - the attack on the authority of God's Word. If they can get you to question the authority of scripture, they can get to to believe anything - including denying Christ. After all, if you can't believe the Bible regarding the things that we can see (creation, the world), how can you believe it concerning the things we can't see (heaven, faith, resurrection).