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.
Anyway, the conversation turned toward proving that God exists, as the atheist took offense over my Tweet.
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?
Moreover, what is the objective standard the atheist is using to validate the proof, evidence, or 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?
Well, Paul, one can’t argue with someone who operates from a position of faith. Faith is ,by definition, the acceptance of something without evidence. My question to you then, would be why do you have faith that there is a god, than faith that there is not? I have no faith in either proposition and many self described atheists would say the same. As an atheist I neither believe or disbelieve. I accept fact that can be proven through the scientific method as it stands now, as it seems to be the best method we have of obtaining and testing knowledge. Lack of a belief of a god or gods, is not faith. It is saying that we are open to proof of the existence of a god , or gods, that can be corroborated by repeated testing. Faith and belief isn’t relative. If I said I believed that there is no god, I would be wrong, as belief is not something that I even take into consideration. This does not prove that there is a god. Nor does it prove that atheism is a religion. Religion requires belief. I am without belief. Your emphasis here is on the wrong word. I am an atheist because I am without belief. Can you understand that? I don’t believe there is no god. I just haven’t seen any evidence of one.
First of all, your definition of faith is not true. You’re arguing right now and I’m taking into account what you have written. Besides, you do not operate or live your life purely on on a strictly empirical basis. That is impossible, regardless of the subject. So, you might want to rethink your definition of faith.
Second, you have not answered my initial question of what is proof or evidence to you. Moreover, who is the objective standard that makes anything you say or write universally true for everyone?
The rest of your questions and sermon will be dealt accordingly, when you answer my questions. Thanks for at least making an infinitesimal effort forward.
Paul, I meant to type relevant, when I wrote “relative” up there in my first message to you! Whoops!
Noted. Thanks for the update.
You’re being willfully obtuse and you know it. You’re playing games. You don’t seem to want a real discussion. I answered your question, to the best of my ability and in complete honesty. You just don’t like, of accept, my answer. Have a nice day.
Here is a classic example of what I wrote about in my article. Rather than answer the questions, Ruth decides to avoid them and then go into accusation mode. “I answered the question, to the best of my ability and in complete honesty.” Really? Where? Nothing has been edited out, so the reader can see for him- or herself. There is nothing that answers the questions, “What do you mean by proof/evidence?” or “What/who is the objective standard you are relying upon to validate your claim that the proof/evidence is universally true for everyone?” So, if anyone is being “willfully obtuse” or “playing games,” it is Ruth and the rest of the atheists. They “just don’t like” the fact that they don’t have a definition or an objective standard. They want everyone to simply open and swallow their misdirections and diversions, and then troop off onto a rabbit trail where “a real discussion” cannot take place. So, back at ya, Ruth. “Have a nice day.”