Paul Derengowski, ThM
Last night I had a rather amusing, if not redundant, exchange with a group of atheists who love to parrot the usual nonsense they believe seals the deal when it comes to God’s existence.
The context involved an atheist group’s effort to prevent another High School football team, this time in Indiana, from praying for or with their coach after a football game.
It is illegal for public school athletic coaches to lead their teams in prayer, participate in student prayers, or otherwise promote religion to students.—Ryan Jayne, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Attorney
Of course, there is nothing new about that schtick, as the atheists have tried before to bully High School teams, coaches, and parents elsewhere to stop exercising their Constitutional and God-given right to practice their faith in whatever fashion they wish.
Provide the proof and I will believe, to paraphrase the atheist argument.
The problem with such a comment is that it provides too many loopholes for the atheist to weasel his way out the commitment.
What does the atheist mean by proof? What does the atheist mean by evidence? What does the atheist mean by confirmed claim?
They were questions I repeatedly asked, but to no avail. They simply could not come up with a definition or standard.
Now, some might ask, were you not being evasive in providing the proof that God exists? All I had to do was present this or that and the other and voila! Proof, right? Wrong.
Until terms of an argument are agreed upon by all parties, then the discussion cannot proceed.
Proof or evidence to a Christian is something wholly different than it is to an atheist.
Plus, that proof or evidence is interpreted differently by the two worldviews.
Finally, since I am not an evidentialist, then proof or evidence takes a back seat to what I believe all people presuppose about God, humanity, and the universe, whether they are believers or unbelievers.
So, unless I know what the atheist means by proof or evidence or confirmed claim, then I cannot provide an example that will fit his criteria.
I do not know what he is looking for, mainly because he does not either, which is why I never received a definition or standard.
Nevertheless, as I have written elsewhere, it is this loophole that the atheist regularly uses in his self-aggrandizing effort to discount God’s existence.
Because admittance of God’s existence is not about proof or evidence.
It is about faith; God-given faith; regenerate faith versus faith in oneself; faith in a person’s five senses; degenerate faith.
“And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6).
Of course, the atheists kept arguing that atheism was about non-belief, because of all of this “lack” of evidence.
But even non-belief is a belief and belief is simply another word for faith. They are synonymous terms.
As was typical, however, most of the atheists were reduced to name-calling and mocking, as well as the usual irrationalism that comes with the foolishness of claiming “there is no God” (Ps. 14:1).
Although the atheists thought that they had scored another victory in their long war against someone or something they presuppose does not exist, the fact remains they could not define their terms or their standard of validation.
They had not thought through what they claimed they believe.
But, they sure want to impose that thoughtlessness upon everyone else, from the faithful to the football player.
It is their Constitutional Right, don’t you know?