Retorting the Atheist’s Code of God’s Non-Existence

Read Comments Comments (19)

• James Appiah 10 years ago

  Thank you,Patrick.This is a very impressive and thought-provoking article.I hope everybody will have the opportunity to read it.

  Thank you,Patrick.This is a very impressive and thought-provoking article.I hope everybody will have the opportunity to read it.

  reply
• Bob 10 years ago

  It is very clear that you don't know the argument about atheism. In the first place, all atheists don't argue the same thing. You can't therefore go on as if they do.
  
  The theory of evolution says that organisms evolve ove ...
  read full comment

  It is very clear that you don't know the argument about atheism. In the first place, all atheists don't argue the same thing. You can't therefore go on as if they do.
  
  The theory of evolution says that organisms evolve over long periods and tries to trace that evolution. The theory doesn't talk about if or who created the first organisms or forms of life. Darwin never argued that he knew how the first life firm came about.
  
  Scientists are today still developing theories about how the first life forms may have evolved and how the universe may have come about. Scientists don't make any concrete claims about such things. They are still developing their theories and are ready to change their views when the evidence suggests so.
  
  It is wrong for you to argue here that atheists replace the existence of God with evolution. They don't say: instead of God, believe in evolution!
  
  It is believers in God who are making defintive claims about the existence of God and he/she being the creator of the universe. This is a claim that's not believed in by atheists. The onus has always been on those making a claim to provide evidence for their claim. It is not up to those who dispute the claim to prove anything. Most atheists don't seek to prove anything. They can only argue as to why the position of the believers cannot be right. And so far, the believers in God have NEVER been able to prove their case as is further shown by your argument here. Believers can only talk of faith in their belief or belief in their faith, not proofs!!!
  
  One big difference between Science and Religion is that science is always improving its knowledge and ever ready to discard previous knowledge in the face of new evidence. This is something Religion never does!!!

  reply
• James Appiah 10 years ago

  Scientists have stated emphatically that human beings came into existence through EVOLUTION and not CREATION but have failed to prove the source of EVOLUTION.WAKE UP!

  Scientists have stated emphatically that human beings came into existence through EVOLUTION and not CREATION but have failed to prove the source of EVOLUTION.WAKE UP!

  reply
• Bob 10 years ago

  Yes scientists have stated that human beings as we are now EVOLVED from lower organisms. We were NOT created in this state by any God or any divine being as Creationists claim.
  
  But scientists have not stated emphatically ...
  read full comment

  Yes scientists have stated that human beings as we are now EVOLVED from lower organisms. We were NOT created in this state by any God or any divine being as Creationists claim.
  
  But scientists have not stated emphatically what the first forms of life or the first organisms are.
  
  The argument is more complex than you're making here, James. Even creationists have different arguments. There are many believers in God who also believe in the theory of evolution - they only put the creation argument at the part of the first organism.
  
  The bottom line is that the account of creation given in the Bible is WRONG no matter how you interpret it. And even if scientists state something emphatically today, they are willing to change tomoro. Only believers in God and Jesus and Mohammed who are never ready to change their views.

  reply
• Ringo Star 10 years ago

  Bob, you probably have not been listing to your Bishop Professor Dawkins. He said because of science, there is no need for God, which in itself is statement of claim that science know's all and have all the answers. Again one ...
  read full comment

  Bob, you probably have not been listing to your Bishop Professor Dawkins. He said because of science, there is no need for God, which in itself is statement of claim that science know's all and have all the answers. Again one of the greatest minds of our age, Professor Hawkins who occupies Sir Issac Newtons chair has this to say "Because of gravity, the universe can create itself" These are great minds making such absurd statements. It is right for the writer to suggest atheists are replacing God with evolution. Atheists don,t seek to prove anything! Yea right'Listen to Dawkins debates and you would know what evolutionist are up to. Bob,you do not see the danger of science always sifting the goal post on the face of new evidence which could be discarded in the space of some few years with another so called evidence. In Christianity, the evidence of a creator does not change in the space of some few years like the theory of evolution which changes every now and then. l would rather believe in a creator than evolution.Bishop Dawkins calls you fellows the bright ones. well I would rather be a believer than be a bright one who would stand before The Lord one day only to say that why didn't you revealed yourself. Bob the evidence is all around you.

  reply
• Bob 10 years ago

  1. Dawkins is not a Bishop. Your calling him that shows you're more interested in being sarcastic than arguing the points on their merit.
  
  2. You write that Hawkins writes: "Because of gravity, the universe can create itsel ...
  read full comment

  1. Dawkins is not a Bishop. Your calling him that shows you're more interested in being sarcastic than arguing the points on their merit.
  
  2. You write that Hawkins writes: "Because of gravity, the universe can create itself." You call it an absurd statement without telling us in any objective sense how absurd that is. Because you are bent on one way of looking at things, you fail to see that Hawkins of a possibility "can create itself", which he will be ready to discard if new evidence says so.
  
  3. You say Science keeps shifting the goal posts. Which goal posts? Science examines its methods, its findings, its knowledge and the very process of coming to that knowledge. Science is questioning itself ceaselessly. That is not changing the rules.
  
  It is those who claim that they have the ULTIMATE TRUTH who do not examine their methods and findings.
  
  Yes, the evidence is around me. And as for me, I am willing to examine that evidence ceaselessly, to learn new things from it and will never accept that the evidence tells me all there is to know about the world.
  
  The question is: are you, Ringo Star, also ready to accept that your understanding and interpretation of the evidence around you CAN BE WRONG, or do you think you already know it all?

  reply
• Kululu 10 years ago

  It is wrong to comparatively argue about where two parallel lines meet. This world of physical existence where evidence has to do with the senses, is completely different in every way to the world of spirit, the domain of God ...
  read full comment

  It is wrong to comparatively argue about where two parallel lines meet. This world of physical existence where evidence has to do with the senses, is completely different in every way to the world of spirit, the domain of God where existence is not measured by senses, and where also existence equal to non-existence, meaning; anything is possible, rational or irrational. When we envisage the realm of spirit as equal to the physical world where senses apply, then we have a problem. This is why we make all sorts of arguments about evidence of Gods existence or non-existence. The atheist would never get what they want, that is, to see God physically as proof of His existence and they are free to think whatever they want. God already factored them into His 'free will' creation, perhaps so,that His glory and favor would be with those who are able to perceive His existence. science and faith are two worlds apart. Science helps us to understand our world and faith helps us to appreciate our existence. We should therefore embrace the two instead of pitching one against the other.

  reply
• Bob 10 years ago

  We don't need faith to appreciate the world. You don't have to believe in God to see how beautiful the world is. And we don't need a belief in a divine being to appreciate our own existence.
  
  It is our human weakness that ...
  read full comment

  We don't need faith to appreciate the world. You don't have to believe in God to see how beautiful the world is. And we don't need a belief in a divine being to appreciate our own existence.
  
  It is our human weakness that makes us think that we can appreciate our existence only by believing in a divine being that is above us.
  
  The world needs to be understood, not to be believed in.

  reply
• kululu 10 years ago

  Some people happen to need what you seem to take for granted. Wish then that everybody think the way you think and see things your way. Other people need this belief you talk about in order to make them accept themselves for ...
  read full comment

  Some people happen to need what you seem to take for granted. Wish then that everybody think the way you think and see things your way. Other people need this belief you talk about in order to make them accept themselves for what they are.

  reply
• Mike 10 years ago

  "This world of physical existence where evidence has to do with the senses, is completely different in every way to the world of spirit, the domain of God where existence is not measured by senses, and where also existence eq ...
  read full comment

  "This world of physical existence where evidence has to do with the senses, is completely different in every way to the world of spirit, the domain of God where existence is not measured by senses, and where also existence equal to non-existence, meaning; anything is possible, rational or irrational."
  
  Magical nonsense about things that don't exist!

  reply
• Ringo Star 10 years ago

  Bob, you think I was being sarcastic calling Dawkins a bishop? Well, I am not, given the rise of the new atheist movement, which is a religion based on blind faith. Dawkins admits one needs faith to believe in evolution, and ...
  read full comment

  Bob, you think I was being sarcastic calling Dawkins a bishop? Well, I am not, given the rise of the new atheist movement, which is a religion based on blind faith. Dawkins admits one needs faith to believe in evolution, and in the case of the new atheist movement of which the learned Dawkins is the founder among others like Hitchens, I think it is more appropriate to refer to him as a religious leader hence the title Bishop of the knew atheist movement, which you Bob is part of.

  reply
• Asiwome 10 years ago

  It is entirely possible that there is no God. It is just as you have said, one cannot prove to a blind person that there is colour. The only way to appropriate the existence of God is by revelation, be it natural or special r ...
  read full comment

  It is entirely possible that there is no God. It is just as you have said, one cannot prove to a blind person that there is colour. The only way to appropriate the existence of God is by revelation, be it natural or special revelation.

  reply
• Wisdom 10 years ago

  Nice debate! The mistake believers always make is rely on their scriptures as proof, but that is weakest proof so far. One can't make a claim about one's self and use one's own dairy as proof of the authenticity of the claim ...
  read full comment

  Nice debate! The mistake believers always make is rely on their scriptures as proof, but that is weakest proof so far. One can't make a claim about one's self and use one's own dairy as proof of the authenticity of the claim. That is crass nonsense. Very very childish. But that is how faith works. With faith everything is right.

  reply
• Ringo Star 10 years ago

  Wisdom, your assertion is wrong about believers relying on the scriptures only as proof of God's existence. Supposing that is the case, can you tell me on what your proof of the non existence of God is based? Maybe your evide ...
  read full comment

  Wisdom, your assertion is wrong about believers relying on the scriptures only as proof of God's existence. Supposing that is the case, can you tell me on what your proof of the non existence of God is based? Maybe your evidence is, Once upon a time there was nothing, and out of nothing all things were created for no apparent reason. If you ask me to point to a crass of nonsense and a childish notion, l would be pointing to your own blind faith which proves nothing at all. It would be wise to start with the weakest proof to build a stronger proof. Atheist lack this foundation. Maybe as Dawkins says" people who believe in God are afraid of the dark. I think professor Lennox was right to say atheist are afraid of the light.

  reply
• Kwapps 10 years ago

  ...it is a proven fact today! Darwin, in his day, theorised about evolution. Today, there are experiments that prove beyond doubt the theory. Let me give you a simple evolutionary change we all experience every day yet fail t ...
  read full comment

  ...it is a proven fact today! Darwin, in his day, theorised about evolution. Today, there are experiments that prove beyond doubt the theory. Let me give you a simple evolutionary change we all experience every day yet fail to make the connection. We hear about malaria parasites becoming drug resistant, have you ever pondered why this is so or have you just accepted it at it's face-value? The parasites undergo what evolution is all about, ability to survive in the face of adversity. Bacteria will change over time when exposed to harsh conditions; some die but others survive due to their ability to change. Those that change survive and continue to multiply. This new breed of offspring have now become resistant to the drugs that decimated it's peers. So now humans must come up with a new drug to kill this new resistant breed. This cycle could goes on indefinitely. Do you know the number of antimalarial drugs that have been produced over the years? We are dealing with evolution every day without stopping to think about it! In nature, when these cycles go on for millions or perhaps billions of years the resultant lifeforms created could be quite spectacular in appearance, like all the animals and plants we see today. There is currently an experiment going on in the States that has been running for decades and the results are mind boggling.
  
  This article is so biased it's not funny any more. Did you know that an earth day is quite different from say a Jupiter or Neptune day? So whereas an earth day is 24 hours, Jupiter's is 10 hours and Mercury's is 58 days, Venus' is 116 days! If God created the world in 7 days, which of the planet days did he use for his calculations?

  reply
• Prof Lungu 10 years ago

  Patrick Fynn,
  On this forum, some of us would say that your essay could have been a lot powerful if you had bothered to tell the reader what relevance your thesis has got to do with public policy.
  
  That, we submit, is the ...
  read full comment

  Patrick Fynn,
  On this forum, some of us would say that your essay could have been a lot powerful if you had bothered to tell the reader what relevance your thesis has got to do with public policy.
  
  That, we submit, is the essential question for the critical mind.
  
  Otherwise, everything else is merely "jelly", without form, to be left as a personal "artifact".
  
  And if we may ask, are all "blind" persons equally "blind"?
  
  And when you are talking about God, which tradition of God are you talking about?
  
  The God of Islam?
  The God of the Buddhists?
  The God of the Christian?
  The God of the Mormons?
  The God of your African Forebears?
  The God of the Hindus?
  Etc.
  
  So, pray, tell us some more, Mr. Patrick Fynn.
  
  That, repeat, is what we want to expect of a critical brain on this forum.
  
  Come again!

  reply
• kululu 10 years ago

  There is no God of this n that. There is one God of humanity. anything else is man made.

  There is no God of this n that. There is one God of humanity. anything else is man made.

  reply
• Prof Lungu 10 years ago

  kululu,
  Your's must be the only "humanity", or you are not using your critical faculties!

  kululu,
  Your's must be the only "humanity", or you are not using your critical faculties!

  reply
• Mike 10 years ago

  "the burden is not on Christians and theists to prove anything"
  
  That is the complete opposite of reality.

  "the burden is not on Christians and theists to prove anything"
  
  That is the complete opposite of reality.

  reply