Why I'm not an athiest

[Summa]

There is so much wrong with that that I'm not even going to start. I'll leave it for bioture or someone else to handle if anyone feels charitable enough to address that.

Summa do you and Tigron get along well? I feel like you would.

Jk summa ily even though we disagree here. :wub:

I do not believe in God, but for far different reasons that tigron. I tend to think that mine make a lot more sense than his wargarble, but you can decide if you're convinced or not.

The nature of existence is such a murky field, and human existence is even worse. People bring religion and other such, often unsubstantiated, claims into a discussion that quite simply doesn't need them. There is a simple fundamental problem with both believing in God and not believing in God: the issue of creation or spontaneous coming to be.

On the side of believing in God you operate under the following assumption: God is. Whatever you believe after that is irrelevant. You believe that God exists. The human understanding of existence and creation dictates two things: #1) something cannot come about from nothing; #2) to exist is to be bound in some way. Now if you believe God exists, the 1st will immediately run you down the road of infinite regress (the most boring argument in philosophy), meaning that God had to be created, and what created God also had to be created, etc. Religion and other belief sets often attempt to deflect the infinite regress argument by claiming God's omnipotence or how "he is beyond our understanding" or even boundless. Well there you run amuck with #2. In order for God to exist as we understand existence "he" must be bound by time, space, something. Now here you can feel free to offer your dissent and state that "we puny humans cannot comprehend his perfection", and if you don't believe that human intellect is the highest form of intellect we know of...that there is some perfect intellect out there...well just keep sippin on that kool-aid and pray to whoever you pray to that you're correct about your beliefs and that everyone else will burn in hell.

All that said, not believing in God runs into the exact opposite problem but with the based on the same 2 principles (but mostly the 1st). #1) something cannot come about from nothing. There are big bang tracing theories that can quite accurately, according to scientists, pinpoint the cause of the big bang down to minute portions of an atom. It is all well documented, so I won't sit here explaining that theory, read up on it if you're unfamiliar. However, no matter how many times you divide a number by 2(except for 0), you're always going to come up with a number. They can trace and trace, but they will simply never arrive at 0. As long as you acknowledge our existence as substantive beings, then you acknowledge that somehow we got here, and since "something cannot come about from nothing", you in essence acknowledge random formation or creation. It's simply a matter of intent if you concede that fact.

In essence, simply acknowledge that all is infinite regress, all is 0, we don't actually exist, or just put a puzzled look on your face and move on. If you think blind faith is the answer, then you got a lot more balls than I do. As you can tell. I think in logical consequentials and rules...most of which are thrown out when it comes to faith.

I prefer not to waste too much time pondering the nature of existence because there is little I can do about existence other than perhaps end my own along w/ a few others...but even then my energy would likely cycle into the creation of even more existence...and thus I would fail. Instead I spend my time trying to be creative and also think of practical things....like shaping a political system in a way that gives inner city minority kids an education rather than a gun and some drugs.

I am sure Tigron will try to troll this. Mostly this was for the_paul <3 babi

Also, that Epicurus quote is baller. Dunno what you're talking about. That is one of the most famous quotes in history and many great minds have utterly failed to discredit its brilliant use of syllogism.

[Bioture]

so an apologist is someone who was an atheist but now found God and is apologizing???

No, the definition of apologetics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

[Bioture]

Tigron, the problem with that logic is that it's... logic.

You understand you're addressing a group of people who believe that 3 equals 1, correct?

[Jerome Scuggs]

WHY DO THEy CALL THE KMOON A HONEY WHEN THE MOON IS OBVIOSLY MADE OF CHEESE? because god

cheese has holes
the more cheese you have, the more holes there are
the more holes there are, the less cheese you have
therefore: more cheese = less cheese

I JUST BROKE LOGIC

[PH]

i'm right here, stop acting like i don't exist

[Xog]

Why does god hate amputees? - There has never been a case of a single amputee growing back an arm or a leg yet god (supposedly) sees fit to regularly cure cancer sufferers and the blind.

Biblical Law - In Matthew 5:17-18 it states that Jesus wants Christians to follow the old testament word for word. Why don't they? And why do they actively disregard the parts of the old testament which they don't agree with or which are socially unacceptable these day, Like child slavery?

Eye of a needle - If Jesus said it's difficult, Even impossible, For a rich man to get in to the kingdom of heaven why do so many rich people believe in Jesus? why is it the goal of nearly every single christian to become rich? And why do TV evangelists always want your money?

Did god create Cancer and aids - Did he? If so why? And why do good Christians also get them? Or was it a mistake? And if it was, Why not do something about it now?

Bible Revisions - The bible read by Christians of today differs by many chapters and thousand of paragraphs from the original. Which one is the word of god and why does man edit it?

Second Commandment - If the 2Nd Commandment is "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" why do Christians wear crosses, Have statues and make films with Jesus' graven image on them?

Jesus Loves? - If Jesus loves why did he say "I will kill her children. Then all the churches will know that I am the one who searches hearts and minds." in Revelation 2:23. Is Jesus really a child killer?

Allegory - The bible states that the Earth is between 6,000 and 8,000 years old, that it was created in 7 days, and that Man is made of dirt and Woman a piece of Man. The modern church says this is allegory. Where does it say in the bible that it is allegory?

Witch trials, Inquisitions and crusades - Historians estimate the total number of people executed in the name of Jesus is as high as 15 million (mostly Jews, "witches" and pagans). How does it feel knowing that Jesus is responsible for 3 times as many deaths as Hitler?

The only real SIN. - In Mark 3:29 it says "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin". Is it true that paedophiles and child killers can be forgiven and get in to heaven but disbelievers can't?

Anyone feel free to answer these? :turned:

[Bioture]

Why does god hate amputees? - There has never been a case of a single amputee growing back an arm or a leg yet god (supposedly) sees fit to regularly cure cancer sufferers and the blind.

Biblical Law - In Matthew 5:17-18 it states that Jesus wants Christians to follow the old testament word for word. Why don't they? And why do they actively disregard the parts of the old testament which they don't agree with or which are socially unacceptable these day, Like child slavery?

Eye of a needle - If Jesus said it's difficult, Even impossible, For a rich man to get in to the kingdom of heaven why do so many rich people believe in Jesus? why is it the goal of nearly every single christian to become rich? And why do TV evangelists always want your money?

Did god create Cancer and aids - Did he? If so why? And why do good Christians also get them? Or was it a mistake? And if it was, Why not do something about it now?

Bible Revisions - The bible read by Christians of today differs by many chapters and thousand of paragraphs from the original. Which one is the word of god and why does man edit it?

Second Commandment - If the 2Nd Commandment is "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" why do Christians wear crosses, Have statues and make films with Jesus' graven image on them?

Jesus Loves? - If Jesus loves why did he say "I will kill her children. Then all the churches will know that I am the one who searches hearts and minds." in Revelation 2:23. Is Jesus really a child killer?

Allegory - The bible states that the Earth is between 6,000 and 8,000 years old, that it was created in 7 days, and that Man is made of dirt and Woman a piece of Man. The modern church says this is allegory. Where does it say in the bible that it is allegory?

Witch trials, Inquisitions and crusades - Historians estimate the total number of people executed in the name of Jesus is as high as 15 million (mostly Jews, "witches" and pagans). How does it feel knowing that Jesus is responsible for 3 times as many deaths as Hitler?

The only real SIN. - In Mark 3:29 it says "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin". Is it true that paedophiles and child killers can be forgiven and get in to heaven but disbelievers can't?

Anyone feel free to answer these? :turned:

[Jason]

leave it to politicians to be so non-committal that they can't even put together a full force facepalm

[Squeezer]

cheese has holes
the more cheese you have, the more holes there are
the more holes there are, the less cheese you have
therefore: more cheese = less cheese

I JUST BROKE LOGIC

i am honey you're a jew
whatever you say sounds sweet to me
and smells like money to you

[Summa]

Why does god hate amputees? - There has never been a case of a single amputee growing back an arm or a leg yet god (supposedly) sees fit to regularly cure cancer sufferers and the blind.

1st off. Lulz?

2nd, God is actually doing the amputees a favor in some senses. The least amongst us will be the greatest in heaven. Those who suffer in their earthly life shall come to eternal bliss in the kingdom of God. This point is kinda dumb.

Biblical Law - In Matthew 5:17-18 it states that Jesus wants Christians to follow the old testament word for word. Why don't they? And why do they actively disregard the parts of the old testament which they don't agree with or which are socially unacceptable these day, Like child slavery?

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

On other occasions Jesus clearly states that the new Law, the Law of Love supersedes all that was stated in the old Testament. Also, I believe you contorted what was being said for your own agenda, hence why I posted the verse to let others decide.

The old Testament tells us the stories of great men and women who have, like all humans, sinned and wronged. It is not a perfect moral guide. It is an example of lives of people who did their best to be with God. Even the great King David failed on many accounts to live a moral life. You take what is said in the Old Testament as fact and we should live by every word, when it is simply put a series of mini-biographies that we are supposed to learn from. Find people's failings and be inspired by their faith. Not blindly follow everything that is said and enslave children.

Eye of a needle - If Jesus said it's difficult, Even impossible, For a rich man to get in to the kingdom of heaven why do so many rich people believe in Jesus? why is it the goal of nearly every single christian to become rich? And why do TV evangelists always want your money?

I cannot attest to the failings of humans. Some do it for social status and networking purposes, others for various other reasons. The tv evangelists probably want you money to help spread their church and message. Most non-catholic churches are fairly poor...and serving millions of people isn't cheap. All of this is irrelevant though, because these are individual flaws that have nothing to do with a greater failing in Christianity.

Did god create Cancer and aids - Did he? If so why? And why do good Christians also get them? Or was it a mistake? And if it was, Why not do something about it now?

He is a God of life and death. He is a God of bliss and suffering. Those who suffer and remain faithful shall be rewarded in the Kingdom of Heaven. This question and most of yours seem centered around 1 failed understanding. You seem to want to ask this: Why didn't God just make Earth perfect and exactly like Heaven? Well then what distinction would there be? What trials would be set before man to help us determine who is the least and the greatest among us? We fell due to original sin, and now we are separated from God. This is not Heaven, this world has disease, and we all must suffer.

Bible Revisions - The bible read by Christians of today differs by many chapters and thousand of paragraphs from the original. Which one is the word of god and why does man edit it?

Different translations over the years have seen portions lost, as it is probably pretty fuckin difficult to keep an original text in tact for 3000 or so years. The word of God is the word of God. Why does man edit it? Because he is selfish, short-sighted, and imperfect. He edits the word of God for his own egoistic aims and goals. The better question here is this: Is it right or justifiable that man edit the word of God? That one I don't know. However, one can rarely, if ever, claim infallibility based on divine inspiration. The cases are so utterly rare.

Second Commandment - If the 2Nd Commandment is "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" why do Christians wear crosses, Have statues and make films with Jesus' graven image on them?

This is more a direct reference to the story that follows/precedes the commandments regarding worshiping false idols (something about a golden calf). The word is not graven image, it is widely translated as idol which makes an enormous difference. Idolatry is far different than what you're referring to.

Jesus Loves? - If Jesus loves why did he say "I will kill her children. Then all the churches will know that I am the one who searches hearts and minds." in Revelation 2:23. Is Jesus really a child killer?

Revelations is an allegorical account of the apocalypse. Taking anything literally that is expressly announced as allegorical is a joke.

Allegory - The bible states that the Earth is between 6,000 and 8,000 years old, that it was created in 7 days, and that Man is made of dirt and Woman a piece of Man. The modern church says this is allegory. Where does it say in the bible that it is allegory?

In the King James bible I own it says something of this sort. Also the proper stance on the Old Testament and the creation story is located in the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church). I suggest reading it, it will answer a lot of these questions.

Witch trials, Inquisitions and crusades - Historians estimate the total number of people executed in the name of Jesus is as high as 15 million (mostly Jews, "witches" and pagans). How does it feel knowing that Jesus is responsible for 3 times as many deaths as Hitler?

People acting of their own free will and claiming it is in the name of God doesn't mean it is actually God's will. If religion is responsible for the actions of all individuals that subscribe to it and all of their insane actions, then all religion is unjust. God didn't do these things, people did. Hold the individuals accountable.

The only real SIN. - In Mark 3:29 it says "but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin". Is it true that paedophiles and child killers can be forgiven and get in to heaven but disbelievers can't?

Anyone feel free to answer these? :turned:

Yes the can be forgiven. And disbelievers cannot. They merely committed sins of the flesh, while blasphemers committed a far worse kind of sin.

I believe I have answered them all....and I am not a Christian nor do I believe in God.

[Jerome Scuggs]

what about consciousness? can that be objectively measured, observed, etc? is there a way to quantify my thoughts? can you even quantify a massive dungeon-gymnasium filled with underage, obedient asian anarchists?

i mean, you can look to the edges of the universe and not find god, but i like to think 'god' is what makes us clumps of atoms self-aware.

[the_paul]

Xog is a retard, thats what I've learned so far.

Summa I haven't read your thread because I can't focus atm but I'm pretty sure I'll have to shit soon so I will read it then when I can devote full concentration. Ty 4 this :wub:

[Bioture]

what about consciousness? can that be objectively measured, observed, etc? is there a way to quantify my thoughts? can you even quantify a massive dungeon-gymnasium filled with underage, obedient asian anarchists?

i mean, you can look to the edges of the universe and not find god, but i like to think 'god' is what makes us clumps of atoms self-aware.

I will take this as an honest question, and will offer an honest answer. Bear with me. I have to explain a few things before I explain the concept of life from life, and theistic viewpoints from atheistic environments.



Atheists often times enjoy seeing themselves as the intellectual elite. It is they who have seen the world through the cold hard eyes of reason, and in so doing have discovered that there is no God. The rest of us are mere intellectual peasants who rely on emotion and superstition to get us through our ignorant lives.



In fact, quite the opposite is true. It is atheism that is always an emotional belief. It is never based on reason. The easiest way for this to be shown is to ask the atheist how he knows there is no God.Since we are all ignorant of most of the knowledge available in the universe, much less any which may be available in the spiritual world, the atheist has no way of knowing whether or not part of his ignorance is actually the knowledge of God. It is possible to know that God exists, as he can choose to reveal himself to us, but since we are not omniscient it is impossible to know that he does not exist. Since there is no intellectual way to know that God does not exist, then all of atheism must be based on emotionalism.



To counter this, atheists today will say that they do not know absolutely that God does not exist; they simply see no evidence for his existence. They assure us that they would love to believe, and if we could just show them some evidence they would do so in a heartbeat.



On the one hand, atheism is a negative belief and therefore there can be no evidence for it. There cannot be positive evidence for a negative belief. On the other hand, a belief in God is a positive belief so there can be evidence for it. The only evidence that there can be is evidence for the positive and that is evidence for God. If the atheist were merely following the evidence, it would have to either take him to God, or at worst agnosticism. Since he has not come to God, and is not agnostic, then there must be other reasons other than a lack of evidence which causes him to turn to atheism.



Most of the atheists that I have known can be put into one of a number of categories. Some have experienced a tragedy in their life, such as the death of a loved one, which they could not reconcile with their understanding of a loving God. They usually get angry with God first, and then out of that anger turn away and deny him. Others grew up in the church, were very idealistic, and then at some point became aware of hypocrites within their church. They became so disillusioned that they in effect said, "If this is what Christianity is, then I do not want it" and turned away. This brand of atheist tends to be very cynical. Still others are very intelligent, and become prideful in their intellect. They are able to shoot down the arguments of most of their religious friends, and so begin to look down upon them and their religion as foolish. They tend to be arrogant and condescending, and are commonly found at universities. Finally there are the rebellious ones. Normally they have grown up in a home where there are strict rules without love or relationship. They end up rebelling against all authority. They especially rebel against God whom they view as an authoritarian figure just waiting to send them to Hell for the slightest infraction.



There may be other motivations that one could think of through which someone could become an atheist, but the one that underlies most, if not all of the others, is the desire to do anything one wishes in this life with no consequences in the next. Whatever an atheist's motivation ends up being, the one thing that can be counted on is that it will not be based on reason or logic as he claims.



Evidences for God's Existence from Human Nature



Since there are no evidences for the non-existence of God, we will now proceed to the evidences for his existence. The best of these proceed directly from human nature. The way man naturally thinks and acts consistently points to something akin to the Christian God. In what follows we will consider whether human nature, as it has always been, is more consistent with a world in which there is no God, or one in which there is a God consistent with Christianity.



Man has Always Believed



As far back as we have written records man has always believed in God, Gods, and/or the supernatural. There is no evidence that a belief in God has evolved. If it did, I think it is safe to say that it would take some time. One could very easily postulate that for many thousands of years there would be no evidence of God found in human society. After awhile we might discover some simple expressions of worship in isolated societies, and eventually more complex ones. Since religious beliefs seem to be conducive to human survival, they would eventually spread throughout all of humanity.



What we find though is complex religious belief and ritual in the earliest societies for which we have written records. This seems to be more consistent with a God who has created us with an innate understanding of him-and our expressing that understanding through worship-than it does of us evolving in a Godless world, and yet somehow still having an instinct to believe.



Most atheists will acknowledge that as far as written records are concerned man has always believed. They may say that man evolved such beliefs before he learned to write, and so we have no record of such an evolution, but it is impossible to discuss non-evidence. Others will claim that we can glean evidences of man's atheism from the remnants of pre-historic man, but such evidence is fragmentary and speculative at best, and so would also come under the category of non-evidence.



Another commonly heard claim is that when primitive man saw things he could not understand, such as, lightning, volcanic eruptions, eclipses, etc. that his easiest and simplest response would have been to claim that it was the work of a supernatural being. Yet it doesn't seem as if creating a God with particular characteristics, commandments to follow, and prescriptions for worship, would have been his simplest response. It seems that his easiest response would have been to declare his ignorance and fear of such phenomenon, and in the case of lightning run back into his cave for cover. If he did feel the need to explain these events, he could have chalked them up to natural forces, and then at some point begun the process of trying to understand them.



Even if primitive man did instinctively believe that God was behind these events, wouldn't this show that it was natural for him to believe? And wouldn't this actually be evidence for the existence of God, and our innate knowledge of him?



Objective Morality



Another evidence for God's existence is that it seems to be natural for us as humans to believe that at least some morals are absolute or objective in nature. In other words, we all hold certain actions to be right or wrong, not just for ourselves, which is subjective morality, but for everyone, which is objective morality. As soon as we hold any action to be wrong for everyone we are assuming an inviolable law to which all are accountable. As we shall see only God could author such a law.



A knowledgeable atheist will agree that in a godless world there are no objective morals, but he will claim that man evolved such an idea in order to best survive in the world. Why man would need to act as if there is a God in order to best survive in an atheistic world is a question for which I have never heard a satisfactory answer. In any case, there is no evidence that man evolved such an idea. As far back as we have written records,man has acted as if objective morals exist. For an atheist to counter this he has to once again go back to the non-evidence of pre-history.



When confronted with the idea that God is the only possible authority for objective morality some atheists will claim that society could be an alternative authority. The problem with this is that if one takes society as his moral authority, then he must be willing to submit to whatever morals his society adopts. If he does not, then morals go back to being subjective. When an atheist is asked whether, if he lived in Nazi Germany he would have accepted the slaughter of the Jews as being morally acceptable, or if he would have accepted the enslavement of black Africans in 19th century America, he invariably answers no to both. If this is the case, then society is not a violable option from which to obtain objective morality.



If the atheist is not willing to accept the moral authority of society, the only authority left is the individual, but if the individual is his own authority then there is no objective morality. Once again all morality becomes subjective.



Some atheist's contend that there is no such thing as objective morality because different societies have different morals, and there is no particular moral which is accepted by all peoples everywhere. Whether or not this is true is debatable but irrelevant to the present argument. When we are talking about objective morality, we are only speaking of man's seemingly natural propensity to declare something to be right or wrong, not only for himself, but also for others. For the sake of this argument the particular moral is irrelevant, as we are dealing with man's general tendency, not with his specific choice.



Man's belief in objective morality is very much consistent with Christianity which says that man was created by God who declares rights and wrongs for all of mankind. As a result we all have an intuitive sense that there are objective morals, but since we are fallen, estranged from God, and self-willed, we often times disagree as to what those morals should be. This is exactly what is seen in the world in which we live, and exactly what Christianity would predict that we should see.



Life Has Meaning



The historic record shows that man has always believed that life has meaning over and above merely meeting his biological needs. Whereas animals seem to be content to follow their instincts while fulfilling their biological needs, man acts as if life has meaning over and above these instinctual drives. This meaning can be anything from loving God, to helping others, to conquering the world etc. As with objective morals the specific meaning does not matter. We are simply concerned here with man's propensity to believe that life does have meaning.



Since meaning is a concept of the mind, life can only have meaning if an intelligent being gives it such. If there is no intelligent being at our origin, then there can be no inherent meaning to life. For the atheist, our origins would be the Big Bang or maybe the first cell, neither of which are intelligent beings capable of giving meaning to all of the life which would follow.



Man as an intelligent being can and does give meaning to his life, in fact, it seems natural for him to do so. The question an atheist must answer is why, if man's life is inherently meaningless, does he naturally find the need to give it meaning? Why is he not content to live a meaningless life in a meaningless world? The normal response to this question is that this trait evolved in man to help him survive in the world. Once again the question is, why does man need to act as if there is a God to best survive in a godless world?

If on the one hand, there is an intelligent God at man's origin, then life has inherent meaning and man would naturally act as such, and this is exactly what he does. On the other hand, if there is no God, man should be perfectly content to live a meaningless life in a meaningless world, and this is something that he has never been able to do.



Free Will



If there is no God, and we live in a solely materialistic world, then all interactions in the world would be controlled by the law of cause and effect that we see resident in nature. Therefore all of the thoughts of man would be produced by the interaction of the mind with the environment in a simple cause and effect manner. There would be no mechanism, such as an independent soul, to supersede this interaction and produce independent thoughts. All of our actions would be mapped out for us depending upon which thought produced by this interaction presented itself to the mind in the most favorable light. This would include our firmly held beliefs, which for the atheist would be his atheism, and the theist his theism. Therefore any discussion of these issues would be meaningless since we have all reached our conclusions as a result of our particular line of cause and effect.



The scientist would also find himself in this dilemma. If his conclusions are the result of his line of cause and effect, then he would have no idea whether or not those conclusions are correct. Some might say that the scientist can have confidence in his conclusions because his experiments repeatedly work. This may be true when he is merely observing the causes and effects of the material world. The problem comes when he is doing things like defining science, coming up with a theory of origins, or even trying to fit the evidence that he sees into his theory. Is he observing the evidence correctly, or just coming to the conclusions that his line of cause and effect has led him? The atheist has no way of knowing, because whatever he decides is just a result of his line of cause and effect. The problem is unending.



Despite virtually all human beings for all of history believing that we make independently free choices on a daily basis, and have freely come to our firmly held beliefs, the atheist must believe that this is all an illusion. He must believe that we are only deluded into thinking that we have free will. In reality we are merely the unwitting slaves of the cause and effect, mind/environment interaction. To some extent, in order to be an atheist, one must be able to look at the collective experience of all of mankind and deny it.



The Idea of God



As stated above, all thoughts in an atheistic world are produced by the cause and effect interaction of the mind with its environment. An interesting question therefore arises. How does the interaction of an atheistic mind with an atheistic environment produce theistic thoughts? One could easily imagine that if a godless mind is always interacting with a godless environment it will always produce godless thoughts.



An atheist will generally respond to this by stringing a few thoughts together to show how, by simply reasoning on the basis of what he sees around him, he can come up with the concept of God. The problem with such a counter argument is that he has not first shown that this is an atheistic world. Therefore he cannot show that his reasoning is the result of an atheistic mind interacting with an atheistic environment. It very well could be that this is a theistic world, and his ease in stringing together thoughts that lead to God is because God has created us to easily do so. This, in fact, seems to be the more logical conclusion.



What the atheist must do is come up with a mechanism in an imaginary atheistic world to free him from the natural cause and effect interaction of an atheistic mind interacting with an atheistic environment producing solely atheistic thoughts. If he cannot come up with such a mechanism, then isn't he saying that it is impossible for theistic thoughts to have arisen in an atheistic world?



Since theistic thoughts arise easily in the world in which we live, doesn't this point more to a world in which God exists and desires us to know it, then to one in which he does not exist? If so, then doesn't the atheist find himself once again looking at the world as it is and then promptly denying what he sees?



The Desire to Live Forever



If the world in which we live were an atheistic one, there would be no eternal life. All life would be mortal. If mortality were our natural state, one would think that we would be comfortable with it, but we are not. We see death as an unwelcome intrusion.



If this really were an atheistic world, and we were subjected to the law of cause and effect, our mortal beginnings should cause us to have mortality as our predominate, if not sole, world view. Seeing death as an unwelcome intrusion into a life that was supposed to continue forever seems to belie these mortal beginnings.



If man has always seen death as a foreign intruder, then doesn't Christianity, which says that we were created to live forever, but because of sin are subjected to corruption and death, make more sense? It not only explains why we have a strong desire to live forever, but also why we see death as such a tragedy. It certainly seems to make more sense than atheism which says that death is natural and normal, but to best get along in the world we have to act as if it is not natural or normal. Once again atheism must postulate that to best survive in a godless world man must act as if there is a God.



Conclusion to Arguments from Human Nature



Atheistic evolutionists tell us that those species that survive are those which develop traits that best help them adapt to the world in which we live. In light of this, if we were to ask an atheist why we developed all of the traits spoken of above, he would say because they helped us to survive. If queried further, the atheist would say that all of the traits we as humans have developed over the years have a corresponding reality in the world except those, such as, objective morality, meaning to life, etc. which involve God. Why is God, and those human traits that naturally flow from his existence, the only exceptions?



In response to this question the atheist will generally bring up our ability to imagine and fantasize. That which we imagine and fantasize about are often times not real, but they still help us to relax and rid ourselves of stress, which in turn is a help to our surviving and thriving in the world. This is true, but those of us who are mentally healthy, when we imagine and fantasize, are always aware that what we fantasize about is not real. Those who think their fantasies are real are generally hindered from functioning very well in the real world.



So why is it, even according to the atheists themselves, that believing in God is a help in our surviving and thriving in the world? If every other trait that has helped us to adapt has a corresponding reality in the world, then why are those traits which naturally flow from God's existence the only exceptions? If 99% of the traits that help us to adapt are real, and there is 1% that we cannot prove one way or the other, isn't the 99% enough evidence to show us that the 1% has a very good chance of also being real?



Atheists say that evolution cannot be fully proven, but enough can be to give them confidence in that which cannot. Should not the same benefit of the doubt be given is this case? If not, could the reason be, not that there is no evidence that points to God, but that the atheist closes his eyes to the evidence because he does not want to believe?



Arguments from Nature



In this section we will look at the evidences for God which come from how the world around us works.



Complexity, Order and Usefulness



As far as anyone has been able to observe, that which has complexity, order, and usefulness has been created by some manner of intelligent being. Whether it is a beaver dam, a bee's nest, or a skyscraper, if it has these qualities, and we have observed from where it came, it has always been created by a being with some level of intelligence. If we then proceed from what we have seen to what we have not seen, and ask where all of the complexity, order, and usefulness in the natural world came from; the logical answer is a being with intelligence. Once again the atheist is not allowed to make such a logical deduction. He must go against all that has ever been observed, and declare that the complexity, order, and usefulness that we see in nature came from a rather chaotic explosion of non-living matter/energy.



Life from Life



In the natural world life always comes from life. No-one has ever observed life coming from non-life. If life always comes from life, and we ask where the first life in the world came from, the logical answer would be some other life. This line of reasoning ultimately leads us to God, which is why the atheist cannot answer this question in a logical manner. Even if he says that an alien could have started life here, he still must answer where that alien life came from. Eventually, since you can't get something from nothing, you end up with a pre-existing life, and that would be God. The atheist agrees that we have only ever observed life coming from life, but he still maintains, against everything man has ever observed, that in the beginning life came from non-life. He must go against all of the collective observation of all of mankind, as well as basic logic, to maintain his atheism.



A similar argument can be made for intelligence and self-awareness. As far as we know no-one has ever observed intelligence coming from non-intelligence or self-awareness coming from non-self-awareness. So if we ask where the first intelligent, self-aware life on the planet came from, the logical response would be some other intelligent self-aware life. This also eventually gets us back to God. Realizing this, the atheist must once again deny all that has ever been observed, and illogically declare by faith that the first self-aware, intelligent life on the planet came from a non-intelligent, non-self-aware, non-life.



So in Conclusion...



In the preceding pages we have looked at human nature as man has always recorded it to be and nature as he has always found it. It seems to be clear that we as human beings act in our day-to-day lives, even if we are unaware of it, as if there is a God, and we thrive best in the world when we do so. It seems to also be clear that nature works in a way that points to a creator. All of this is consistent with Christianity and not with atheism.



The atheist finds himself in the unenviable position of trying to explain why man must act as if there is a God to best survive in a world in which there is no God. He must also observe aspects of nature, such as life always coming from life, and proclaim against all logic that the first life came from non-life. He does this all the while claiming that his atheism is based solely on drawing logical conclusions from the facts he encounters.



Contrary to popular opinion, knowledge does not begin with reason but with experience. Even the scientific method begins with observation. Reason follows closely on the heels of experience but does not precede it. The knowledge of God is no different. To know of God's existence one must have the experience of God. Reason alone cannot prove God's existence, but it can give us enough evidence to motivate us to seek for such an experience. Only the reader can decide whether or not this treatise has given enough evidence to warrant such a search.

[Jason]

if ever there was a time when the following internet shorthand should be used, this is fucking it:

tl;dr

[Ilya]

omg, bio