GameKnot: club forum - Why atheism makes no sense

« TAP TO LOG IN

Play online chess!

Why atheism makes no sense

« Back to club forum

From	Message
coram_deo 11-Nov-21, 09:21	Why atheism makes no sense Atheists are fond of saying (falsely) that no evidence exists for God and that Christians’ belief in God is based entirely on faith. This is obviously not true as abundant evidence exists for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (see here: m.gameknot.com) and for the Truth of the Holy Bible (see here: m.gameknot.com.) Atheists often ridicule the miracles performed by Jesus Christ (see here: m.gameknot.com) even though His miracles were witnessed and testified to by more than a few people. In fact, atheists are the ones whose beliefs are based entirely on faith - faith in miracles that no one witnessed. Atheists say they reject the impossible - but they believe the impossible in at least four ways. The following article identifies the four impossible miracles atheists have to believe: From reasonabletheology.org: Consider the following four miracles which must be accepted by the atheist in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary: • Getting Something from Nothing. There has never been an observed example where something was created from nothing. No person would attempt to build something without materials, and there is no theory outside Big Bang cosmology which reaches this conclusion without ridicule from the scientific community. • Getting Life from Non-Life. Even if naturalistic causes could have created the universe, it would still be necessary for non-living material to become living. This is also an unproven (and impossible) feat which must be accepted when denying the existence of God. • Getting Order from Chaos. Personal observation tells us that all things tend towards disorder, not order. Left to themselves buildings crumble, gardens are taken over by weeds, and living material decays. If unguided natural causes produced the universe (from nothing) and produced life (from non-life) these processes would necessarily go against observed scientific principles in order to produce the complexity, beauty, and order that we observe in the world around us. • Getting the Immaterial from Physical Matter. If nothing was able to produce everything, non-life was able to produce life, and chaos was able to produce order the atheistic worldview would still encounter an insurmountable obstacle. No matter how organized, it is impossible for physical material to produce the immaterial realities of human consciousness. Our morality, beliefs, desires and preferences all exist outside of mere physical matter. Each of these examples go against the natural order and could be labeled as miracles. Naturalistic worldviews such as atheism, evolution, and neo-Darwinism regard this evidence for God with what Dawkins would certainly consider an unscientific approach: each item must be taken on faith. With God it is very logical to conclude that He who created all things can work within His creation as He pleases. Scripture is replete with examples of such miraculous interactions and the Genesis account of creation certainly addresses the above four points. reasonabletheology.org
coram_deo 16-Nov-21, 09:27	For atheists to be logically consistent, they have to deny that a supernatural realm exists - that is, they have to either: • Deny all reports of paranormal activity ever happened. or • Explain them by naturalistic means. Think they can do that? They also have to state (or at least believe) that current science and the knowledge we’ve acquired from it so far is sufficient to explain the universe. Because what if science in the future reveals that another realm exists that only intermittently interacts with our realm? I think that’s already been established based on paranormal reports that are not explainable by naturalistic means. I’m reminded of Michio Kaku’s book, “Hyperspace” in which he contrasts a two-dimensional world and three-dimensional world. If my memory’s right, Kaku in the book says in a two-dimensional world, everyone is like a stick figure drawn on paper. All the stick figure knows is what’s on the paper. But if someone were to draw, say, a tree, the stick figure would see only the tip of the pencil because only the tip of the pencil is interacting with his two-dimensional world (the piece of paper.) The stick figure wouldn’t see the rest of the pencil or the hand that’s guiding it. And didn’t mathematicians propose that 11 dimensions actually exist? Do atheists know what’s in those other dimensions? I’m not a fan of publicizing reports of demonic activity, but I’d be interested in how an atheist refutes this video. youtu.be Here’s an article on it: newyork.cbslocal.com And this is just one of hundreds (if not thousands) of (apparently) legitimate and unexplainable paranormal events. Is everyone lying or hallucinating? Refute this one and you’ve got hundreds more to go…

From

Message

coram_deo
11-Nov-21, 09:21

Why atheism makes no sense

Atheists are fond of saying (falsely) that no evidence exists for God and that Christians’ belief in God is based entirely on faith. This is obviously not true as abundant evidence exists for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (see here: m.gameknot.com) and for the Truth of the Holy Bible (see here: m.gameknot.com.)

Atheists often ridicule the miracles performed by Jesus Christ (see here: m.gameknot.com) even though His miracles were witnessed and testified to by more than a few people.

In fact, atheists are the ones whose beliefs are based entirely on faith - faith in miracles that no one witnessed. Atheists say they reject the impossible - but they believe the impossible in at least four ways.

The following article identifies the four impossible miracles atheists have to believe:

From reasonabletheology.org:

Consider the following four miracles which must be accepted by the atheist in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary:

• Getting Something from Nothing. There has never been an observed example where something was created from nothing. No person would attempt to build something without materials, and there is no theory outside Big Bang cosmology which reaches this conclusion without ridicule from the scientific community.

• Getting Life from Non-Life. Even if naturalistic causes could have created the universe, it would still be necessary for non-living material to become living. This is also an unproven (and impossible) feat which must be accepted when denying the existence of God.

• Getting Order from Chaos. Personal observation tells us that all things tend towards disorder, not order. Left to themselves buildings crumble, gardens are taken over by weeds, and living material decays. If unguided natural causes produced the universe (from nothing) and produced life (from non-life) these processes would necessarily go against observed scientific principles in order to produce the complexity, beauty, and order that we observe in the world around us.

• Getting the Immaterial from Physical Matter. If nothing was able to produce everything, non-life was able to produce life, and chaos was able to produce order the atheistic worldview would still encounter an insurmountable obstacle. No matter how organized, it is impossible for physical material to produce the immaterial realities of human consciousness. Our morality, beliefs, desires and preferences all exist outside of mere physical matter.

Each of these examples go against the natural order and could be labeled as miracles. Naturalistic worldviews such as atheism, evolution, and neo-Darwinism regard this evidence for God with what Dawkins would certainly consider an unscientific approach: each item must be taken on faith.

With God it is very logical to conclude that He who created all things can work within His creation as He pleases. Scripture is replete with examples of such miraculous interactions and the Genesis account of creation certainly addresses the above four points.

reasonabletheology.org

coram_deo
16-Nov-21, 09:27

For atheists to be logically consistent, they have to deny that a supernatural realm exists - that is, they have to either:

• Deny all reports of paranormal activity ever happened.

or

• Explain them by naturalistic means.

Think they can do that?

They also have to state (or at least believe) that current science and the knowledge we’ve acquired from it so far is sufficient to explain the universe. Because what if science in the future reveals that another realm exists that only intermittently interacts with our realm? I think that’s already been established based on paranormal reports that are not explainable by naturalistic means.

I’m reminded of Michio Kaku’s book, “Hyperspace” in which he contrasts a two-dimensional world and three-dimensional world. If my memory’s right, Kaku in the book says in a two-dimensional world, everyone is like a stick figure drawn on paper. All the stick figure knows is what’s on the paper.

But if someone were to draw, say, a tree, the stick figure would see only the tip of the pencil because only the tip of the pencil is interacting with his two-dimensional world (the piece of paper.) The stick figure wouldn’t see the rest of the pencil or the hand that’s guiding it.

And didn’t mathematicians propose that 11 dimensions actually exist? Do atheists know what’s in those other dimensions?

I’m not a fan of publicizing reports of demonic activity, but I’d be interested in how an atheist refutes this video.

youtu.be

Here’s an article on it:

newyork.cbslocal.com

And this is just one of hundreds (if not thousands) of (apparently) legitimate and unexplainable paranormal events. Is everyone lying or hallucinating?

Refute this one and you’ve got hundreds more to go…

« Back to club forum

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.