God Does Not Believe in Atheists

[Anonymous]

Proof the Atheist does not exist: (taken from livingwaters.com)
~~~~~~~

The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge.

Here is another absolute statement: "There is no gold in China."

TEST FOUR
What do I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

B. Partial knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

C. Absolute knowledge of China.

___ YES ___ NO

"C" is the correct answer. For the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China, or the statement is incorrect. To say "There is no God," and to be correct in the statement, I must be omniscient.

I must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock...nothing is hidden from my eyes...I know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother. To make the absolute statement "There is no God." I must have absolute knowledge that there isn't one.

Let's say that this circle (insert from Premo - sorry didn't transfer into text) represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, and let's assume that you have an incredible 1% of all that knowledge. Is it possible, that in the knowledge you haven't yet come across, there is ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?

If you are reasonable, you will have to say, "Having the limited knowledge that I have at present, I believe that there is no God." In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an "atheist," you are what is commonly known as an "agnostic." You are like a man who looks at a building, and doesn't know if there was a builder.

TEST FIVE
The man who sees a building and doesn't know if there was a builder is:
___ A. Intelligent
___ B. A fool
___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

[Felgar]

My only comment is that you can make a statement with only partial knowledge and have it be true. You just cannot confirm it to be true until you have the abundance of knowledge.

For instance, someone 2000 years ago could state that the Earth was round, and they'd have been correct. Though, they couldn't have confirmed it until much later.

So I don't really like the argument...

[BavarianWheels]

The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge.

I'm sure if the well established Atheists that once frequented this forum read this, there would be plenty of answers in return.
.
.

[Anonymous]

My only comment is that you can make a statement with only partial knowledge and have it be true. You just cannot confirm it to be true until you have the abundance of knowledge.

For instance, someone 2000 years ago could state that the Earth was round, and they'd have been correct. Though, they couldn't have confirmed it until much later.

Interesting... You can also make a statement with only partial knowledge and have it be untrue. Like, someone 2000 years ago stating that the Earth was flat and held up by a very big elephant.

I guess the whole point of the exercise is to speak to self-righteous atheists who think they know everything. The truth is that we don't even know one millionth of one percent of anything (I think that's a quote from Thomas Edison). With the limited knowledge that we've been graciously given (by God) we're able to make our feeble assertions. I think the argument is pretty sound but I'm sure that in the limited knowledge I have regarding this assertion, possible loopholes could exist

[Felgar]

That's right Premo. In the end an atheist will be forced to say that they cannot 'know' for certain that there's no God. Like us, they are actually employing faith in the matter, choosing to believe that there is no God. But most atheists will actually admit that fairly readily...

[Anonymous]

Of course there was a builder. There was also a designer, a plumber, a builder's mate and half a dozen blokes who were working cash in hand and don't tell the taxman. Of course that was also many thousands of years ago and they are all dead now,, and we do not know their names...

Bad analogy. Watchmakers die - why not Universe makers?

At best it gets us an impersonal and non-interventionist God, not a Christian one.

[Kurieuo]

Interesting... You can also make a statement with only partial knowledge and have it be untrue. Like, someone 2000 years ago stating that the Earth was flat and held up by a very big elephant.

And beneath that elephant was another elephant. It was elephants all the way down I tell ya!

Kurieuo.

[Mastermind]

An atheist is somebody who does not BELIEVE in God. Just because they refuse to see the evidence against it does not make them any less atheist, as long as they truly believe that there is no god. Accepting the possibility that there MIGHT be a god doesn't mean anything as far as atheism is concerned.

[Anonymous]

My only comment is that you can make a statement with only partial knowledge and have it be true. You just cannot confirm it to be true until you have the abundance of knowledge.

What you are describing here is the problem of induction. The problem of induction is one of the reasons why atheists will never be able to prove the non-existence of God.

[Anonymous]

My only comment is that you can make a statement with only partial knowledge and have it be true. You just cannot confirm it to be true until you have the abundance of knowledge.

What you are describing here is the problem of induction. The problem of induction is one of the reasons why atheists will never be able to prove the non-existence of God.

It isn't a matter of trying to prove a negative, it's basing one's belief on the evidence seen so far: no direct evidence of God. And I'm at least 95% sure of that conclusion and that passes my test of belief so that is the assumption I make. It is by far the most llikely state of affairs (no God) so with that matter safely concluded, I move on to the rest of my life.

Will

[Kurieuo]

First, did you read the discussion guidelines?

Second, if I recall correctly... I believe Antony Flew who propagated the presumption of Atheism argument, at least last time, is no longer an Atheist. So even if one presumes Atheism from the start in the absense of evidence either way (which I beg to differ is the case), because there are remarkable reasons for a God belief (for Atheists referred to as the Bertrand Russel of our century do not simply convert to belief in God for no reason). In Flew's own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads." (http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm) This, I'd suggest, reveals that evidence weighs in on Theism, and so forces a burden of proof onto Atheists if they are to reject God. So even if one chooses to put their finger in their ears and close their eyes to the evidence, Atheism also carries a burden of proof.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

First, did you read the discussion guidelines?

I have now.

Yes, my mind is mostly made up on this matter. BUT, I do not claim perfect knowlege for myself (nor anyone else). All one can say is they believe in something with a certain probability or confidence. In no case however does (or should) that confidence reach either 0% or 100%. And that is the case for me. I'm always open to looking at the evidence - I couldn't claim to be a progressive thinker otherwise.

Second, if I recall correctly... I believe Antony Flew who propagated the presumption of Atheism argument, at least last time, is no longer an Atheist. So even if one presumes Atheism from the start in the absense of evidence either way (which I beg to differ is the case), because there are remarkable reasons for a God belief (for Atheists referred to as the Bertrand Russel of our century do not simply convert to belief in God for no reason). In Flew's own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads."

Flew's deathbed conversion at the end of his life does not seem particularly remakable - his faculties would have been failing at that age + he may have decided 'what the heck' he might as well convert 'just in case'.

This, I'd suggest, reveals that evidence weighs in on Theism, and so forces a burden of proof onto Atheists if they are to reject God. So even if one chooses to put their finger in their ears and close their eyes to the evidence, Atheism also carries a burden of proof.

As discussed earlier, proving a negative is ultimately impossible. I think the burden is on theists to prove (or even supply some) evidence of the positive: Existence of God.

As I said in the other thread I'm posting to: If you all truly don't want me posting here I won't, I will go away

Will

[Mastermind]

Flew is dead? At any rate, he converted to Deism, so using the excuse that he did it for "the hell of it" holds no water, as he still doesn't believe in an afterlife.

[Kurieuo]

Flew's deathbed conversion at the end of his life does not seem particularly remakable - his faculties would have been failing at that age + he may have decided 'what the heck' he might as well convert 'just in case'.
...
As discussed earlier, proving a negative is ultimately impossible. I think the burden is on theists to prove (or even supply some) evidence of the positive: Existence of God.

—proving anything with 100% certainty is ultimately impossible. And if the evidence is in the Theist's court, which it clearly seems to be, then the burden of proof is on Atheists. Now just because you may not see a way to prove Atheism (a positive position in the light of evidence for Theism), this is not my problem. There is a fallacy of depending on an appeal of ignorance to maintain a belief, and I believe you are committing it here. And given that such fallacious reasoning is even given the time of day, it would have to be one the weakest arguments possible for Atheism. It certainly would not make a belief in God irrational, which most Athiests would claim to be the case.

Additionally, Antony Flew (who is still alive mind you, and who has not converted to any religion!—especially not on his deathbed, seeing as he is alive and well as far as I'm aware), was "the" Atheist who made a case for no belief in God based on the absence of evidence and on the presumption of Atheism. I find it hard to believe any learned skeptic would not know who Flew was—most of your arguments here are likely in some way or another influnced by him either directly or indirectly. Yet, he followed the evidence, and now believes it weighs in favour of the existence of God.

As I said in the other thread I'm posting to: If you all truly don't want me posting here I won't, I will go away

If this were a board for debates such as these, I would love you to stay around. However, the purpose of this board seems to be incompatible with you seeing as your mind is generally already made up. I'm sure you won't have a hard time finding a forum dedicated to the Christian vs. non-Christian or Theist vs. Atheist debates. Something like the Infidel's forum would perhaps be more to your tastes.

Kurieuo.