Want Some Answers ???


Hi Jason

>>Hi Mark I was browsing around the net when I came across a webpage of yours and thought you might appreciate me trying to address some of your confusion regarding the atheist position. It appears that you have misunderstood the basic principles of rational reasoning by claiming that the atheist must prove that there is no god in order to justify their position. Atheism is not a ‘belief’ (and is definitely not a religion) – it is lack of belief in the proposed god hypothesis. It is in fact the only default position a rational person can take until they feel that belief in the god hypothesis has been sufficiently justified. Therefore as the atheist is not asserting something there is no onus of proof on them to defend their position.<<

My contention is that it takes greater faith to be an atheist than believe there is a God. One must accept the impossible, believe the ridiculous and trust the absurd. It is asking people to believe -
1. Matter is eternal.
2. Matter without life created life.
3. Matter without mind created mind.
4. Matter without intelligence created intelligence.
5. Matter without morals created morals.
6. Matter without conscience created conscience.
7. Matter without purpose created purpose and order.

So if you believe 'matter without life created life' that’s a belief. To believe in the beginning was nothing, and from nothing came everything is an insufficient belief hypothesis that excludes 'rational reasoning'. I base what I believe on what I know, not on what I don't know. I know the world and life has all the signs of been created, not happening by chance.

An all powerful God is a common sense explanation. Even the simplest life-forms are extremely complex. How could life develop itself? The fact is, life always comes from pre-existent life, never non-life. There's plenty of 'proof' and it's reasonable. But I suspect you believe what you want, regardless of evidence.

>>If we were to determine truth and knowledge using the logic that a doubter must disprove the suspect proposition in order for them to justify not believing in it, this would ultimately lead to intellectual bankruptcy. It would mean that we would have to automatically believe in any proposition, no matter how ludicrous, until it can be disproved. Magic fairies, hobbits, gremlins, The Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus,...God...(Indeed, I wonder if, in arriving at your Christian convictions, you have sufficiently disproven the existence of Zeus.)<<

I follow your logic, the evidence for "Magic fairies, hobbits, gremlins, The Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus" is suspect. We don't see millions worldwide, in thousands of churches, Mosques, synagogues, worshipping Santa Claus. But millions worldwide do insist God's existence is sufficiently proven, to them its not "intellectual bankruptcy ".

Men who ignore or reject God do so not because science or reason requires them to, but purely and simply because they want to. "They did not like to retain God in their knowledge" (Rom 1:28). For those who desire to know God , however, He has revealed Himself perfectly through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him " (Jn 1:18).

>>On the contrary, a person who asserts the existence of something must assume the burden of proof. If they fail, then a rational person will, at the very least suspend judgement (atheistic agnosticism, or weak atheism), and where a claim appears wholly unfounded, is justified in responding with explicit disbelief (atheism).<<

Yes I assert the existence of God. And my ' burden of proof ' is offered on my website, atheis1.htm which you have apparently not read yet. To insist there's 'no God' is an absolute non-provable statement by one who must know everything. No human has all knowledge. So as you admit, no one can dogmatically insist with any 'proof' that there is no God.

That’s why there is no proof for atheism. It is just simply impossible to disprove God. To say 'God does not exist' is a universal negative. It's impossible to prove a universal negative, so atheism is false and impossible to defend [unless you have complete knowledge of everything]. To say there is a God, can only be silenced by facts or evidence proving there isn't. Atheism can only exist and is only intelligible in a theistic context. It can only be seen as real where God has been seen as real.

>>It is irrational to begin reasoning from the position that there is a god - challenging others to prove you wrong. Not only that, it is unnatural. Like it or not, we are technically all born as atheists (‘a’ meaning ‘without’, ‘theism’ meaning ‘a belief in the existence of god(s)’) and it is generally our parents that baptise or circumcise us a Christian or a Jew, long before we can comprehend that we are even a human being. As children, we are then indoctrinated into our parents’ own religion while our minds are still developing and very suggestible.<<

I disagree, for three reasons. (1) Belief in God’s existence is in harmony with history, mans mental and moral nature, as well as the nature of the material universe. Its the most logically and feasible world view there is. Atheism solves no problems and answers no questions, whereas God's existence is like a magical key that fits the facts of Scripture, knowledge and science.

(2) Men know intuitively there’s a God. They are born with the knowledge, its part of their nature, a "religious instinct". It makes men worship something or someone. Men generally believe in a god or gods and if they don’t find or accept the true God, they make their own to worship, to satisfy their intuitive knowledge. Chesterton's dictum is right. 'When people stop believing in God, they do not believe in nothing they believe in anything'.

(3) There is information written on the DNA code. The existence of information is one of the strongest evidences of God's existence. Information is not matter, and matter or energy cannot generate information. Information is a non-material thing. There can be no information without a code. No information without a sender. No information without a will.

>>Although I have never met you, Mark, it would be a near-certain wager to say that you believe in the religion that your parents believed in when you were growing up, or the religion of your childhood culture.<<

Even those who come from non-religious homes will insist God exists. And those who have no 'religion' whatever. But I don't need parents, school, or the media to tell me God exists, I know that certainty myself. God has found me and I have come to know Him. He speaks, answers prayer and I have a living relationship with Him. I wonder at His creation, the beauty is awesome.

The reality of His existence began when I became a born-again Christian. I knew what the Bible said was true. I knew right from wrong. I knew I was a sinner who had rebelled from God. I knew the earth was cursed and suffering, evil, and death was because our first parents turned away from God. I didn't have all the answers, but when God's Spirit entered, my eyes were opened, and a "burden" was lifted from my shoulders. I would '
near-certain wager to say that you' have never had that happen. Without this spiritual birth, you can never understand God, spiritual realities or truth.

>>Would it be a coincidence that out of all of the thousands of religions you should agree with your parents as to which one is the Truth? Of course not. That’s the way it happens, almost without exception, all around the world and at all times. However, that doesn’t say much for the rational process that is undertaken to arrive at such convictions.<<

And you of course don't know what "the Truth" is. If there is no God, there’s no absolute truth. There’s no ultimate moral law. Nothings really right or wrong. Without an Absolute Moral Being, nothing’s absolutely wrong and nothing’s absolutely right. Yet all these exist around the world "without exception... and at all times".

Atheism desires intellectual suicide, the world becomes a mad-house, because billions on earth pursue absolutes and ultimate values everyday. You need absolutes, universals, something by which to judge. If you have no basis on which to judge then reality falls apart, fantasy is indistinguishable from reality (ie 'God' from 'fairies'). There's no value for the human individual and right and wrong have no meaning.

>>You may find the atheistic position frustrating, as it does not purport to offer a worldview to replace the one it is refuting. It is true that an honest atheist admits he does not know (yet) how the universe came into existence, but cautions that this is not a good reason to grasp at an answer, any answer, by believing in a god by default (a sort of god-of-the-gaps of human knowledge).<<

Yes the atheist doesn't know. He can't be certain about anything or offer anything. It's rightly said, "Atheism can benefit no class of people, --neither the unfortunate, whom it bereaves of hope, nor the prosperous, whose joys it renders insipid."

>>I hope this has been of some help to you in understanding the atheist position, Mark, and I wish you the very best of luck in your search for truth. Kind regards Jason<<

Thank you for taking the time to reveal you do 'not know' what the Truth is. The problem is you can't even be sure of what you say. The truth according atheism is unknowable or what-ever you want it to be. So are you interested in finding out what it is? You have written and can't be sure about God. I'm writing with confidence, to found what's true. Not by 'luck' or my 'search' rather, God found me.

Kind regards
Mark Purchase