...I can see a painting and know that there was a painter. I don't need to see the painter to know there is one. If I am hunting and see droppings in the woods, I know they were left by an animal. I know these things exist because of the evidence left behind. So when I look at human beings and creation, I know that there has to be a creator.Leading with this argument isn't a good start. Yes, we know that a painting needed to be painted because we know that paintings don't just suddenly pop into existence. Actually, the very definition of a painting necessitates it's creation by a painter. The same is true of animal droppings. The function of an animal's digestive system is required to yield animal droppings.
But you can't just assert that the Earth and everything on it is a creation that required a sentient guiding hand in it's creation. You can not just claim that the Earth is a creation, therefor it needs a creator, without first actually showing that it is a 'creation' at all. Add to that the scientific models and evidence that have shown that no divine authorship was needed, and the entire argument is shot. Next!
We believe in all kind of things we can't see. We believe in heat, but we can't see it. We can't see gravity. We believe in gravity because we have felt it. The same way the millions and billions have felt God.Technically you can see a representation of heat with a thermal camera, but lets get to the point of this. We can't see heat or gravity, but they are distinct from God in that they have been measured, tested and understood. Maybe we can not see them with out naked eye, but we can and have proven their existence. God? Not so much...
And so what if a lot of people believe in the Christian god? A lot of people believe the Hindu gods as well. Is Josh suggesting that they exist as well? A lot of people also once thought that the Sun orbited the Earth, and that the Earth was flat. If a billion people believe a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing. What I care about is what is provable.
And atheist doesn't poses the totality of truth, so how can they say that God doesn't exist?Most of us don't claim to know it all, or know for a fact that God doesn't exist. The majority of atheists (myself included) would rather say that they simply don't believe in God, or that his existence is highly unlikely. Not that we are 100% certain he doesn't exist.
My experiences are enough to prove to me that he does exist.And a Hindu's experiences are enough to prove to them that Krishna exists, and a Buddhist's experiences are enough to prove to them that the Buddha and Nirvana exist. Which part of this is supposed to apply to me though?
There's a billion people around the world that would agree with me that they've experienced his love, etc...Sorry, but an argumentum ad populum won't work on me. But you know what Josh, a billion people will also agree to have experienced the Hindu gods. Are they true as well?
Remember, believers in EVERY religion claim
the same sincerity and experiences. They can't all
be right, but they can all be wrong.
I challenge you to simply ask God to show himself to you. I promise that it will change your life the same way it changed mine.
Apparently Josh is unaware that most atheists were previously believers. I know I was. According to Josh, what I thought and thought I felt should have proved God to me beyond a shadow of a doubt. As a believer, I never felt something that was so obvious and life changing as Josh is stating. I did believe, and thought I had it figured out, but eventually lost belief anyway. But what the hell, in the interest of science, I will take his challenge and ask God to show himself to me...
...and here we are a few hours later, and nothing. Sorry, but Josh fails once more. He claims to prove
God in three minutes, and doesn't even come close. So much for that good old Christian honesty...
Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter