Home » Posts tagged 'atheism'
Tag Archives: atheism
Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte by Richard Whately & Skepticism
Have you ever read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte by ? (view the book online for free here or here; a version you can cut and paste into a document so you can listen to it is here), or get a physical copy:
David Hume, the famous skeptic, employed a variety of skeptical arguments against the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ, and against the possibility of miracles and the rationality of believing in them in Section 10, “Of Miracles,” of Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Whately, an Anglican who believed in the Bible, in miracles, and in Christ and His resurrection, turned Hume’s skeptical arguments against themselves. Whately’s “satiric Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte (1819), … show[ed] that the same methods used to cast doubt on [Biblical] miracles would also leave the existence of Napoleon open to question.” Whately’s book is a short and humerous demonstration that Hume’s hyper-skepticism would not only “prove” that Christ did not do any miracles or rise from the dead, but that Napoleon, who was still alive at the time, did not exist or engage in the Napoleonic wars. Hume’s argument against miracles is still extremely influential–indeed, as the teaching sessions mentioned in my last Friday’s post indicated, the main argument today against the resurrection of Christ is not a specific alternative theory such as the stolen-body, hallucination, or swoon theory, but the argument that miracles are impossible, so, therefore, Christ did not rise–Hume’s argument lives on, although it does not deserve to do so, as the critiques of Hume’s argument on my website demonstrate. For these reasons, the quick and fun read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte is well worth a read. (As a side note, the spelling “Buonaparte” by the author, instead of Bonaparte, is deliberate–the British “used the foreign sounding ‘Buonaparte’ to undermine his legitimacy as a French ruler. … On St Helena, when the British refused to acknowledge the defeated Emperor’s imperial rights, they insisted everyone call him ‘General Buonaparte.'”
Contemporary Significance
Part of the contemporary significance of Richard Whately’s Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte relates to how we evaluate historical data. We should avoid both the undue skepticism of David Hume and also undue credulity. Whatever God revealed in His Word can, and must, be accepted without question. But outside of Scripture, when evaluating historical arguments, we should employ Biblical principles such as the following:
Have the best arguments both for and against the matter in question been carefully examined?
Is the argument logical?
Are there conflicts of interest in those promoting the argument?
Does the argument produce extraordinary evidence for its extraordinary claims?
Does the argument require me to think more highly of myself than I ought to think?
Is looking into the argument redeeming the time?
Are Biblical patterns of authority followed by those spreading the argument?
(principles are reproduced from my website here, and are also discussed here.)
A failure to properly employ consistent criteria to the evaluation of evidence undermines the case for Scripture. For example, Assyrian records provide as strong a confirmation as one could expect for Hezekiah’s miraculous deliverance from the hand of Assyria by Jehovah’s slaying 185,000 Assyrian soldiers (2 Kings 19). However, Assyrian annals are extremely biased ancient propaganda. Those today who claim that any source showing bias (say, against former President Trump, or against conservative Republicans–of which there are many) should be automatically rejected out of hand would have to deny, if they were consistent, that Assyrian records provide a glorious confirmation of the Biblical miracle. Likewise, Matthew records that the guards at Christ’s tomb claimed that the Lord’s body was stolen as they slept (Matthew 28). Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intends the reader to be able to see through this biased and false argument to recognize the fact that non-Christians were making it actually provides confirmation for the resurrection of Christ. (If you do not see how it confirms the resurrection, think about it for a while.)
Many claims made today, whether that the population of the USA would catastrophically decline as tens of millions would die from the COVID vaccine, that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams had her election win in Georgia stolen by Republicans, that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had his 2020 election win in Georgia stolen by Democrats, that 9/11 was perpetrated by US intelligence agencies, that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election, that the miracle cure for cancer has been discovered but is being suppressed by Big Pharma, and many other such claims are rarely advanced by those who follow the Biblical principles listed above for evaluating information. Furthermore, the (dubious) method of argumentation for such claims, if applied to the very strong archaeological evidence for the Bible, would very frequently undermine it, or, indeed, frequently undermine the possibility of any historical investigation at all and destroy the field of historical research.
In conclusion, I would encourage you to read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte, and, as you read it, think about what Scripture teaches about how one evaluates historical information.
–TDR
-The Amazon link above is an affiliate link. Please visit here to learn about how one can donate to charity at no additional cost when purchasing products at Amazon and here to learn how to save on Internet purchases in general.
The Buddha Did Not Exist, According to Buddhism
Did you know that, according to the teaching of Buddhism, the Buddha (“the Enlightened One”) did not and does not exist?
“According to Buddhism … the Buddha does not exist because … nothing exists.” (Donald S. Lopez, Jr.,From Stone to Flesh: A Short History of the Buddha [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013], 220).
Why do Buddhists teach that the Buddha did not exist? According to the Buddhist teaching of anatman, “not-Self … the soul or any form of self or personal identity is an illusion.” You are just a bunch of sense impressions made up of groupings called skandhas. So, according to Buddhism, you are not reading this right now, because you are not real. Your family is also not real. Even Siddhartha Gautama—the Buddha—did not exist, if Buddhism is true. He was just an illusion, like you.
Not all Buddhists ascribe Divine attributes to the Buddha, but many do. Those who do so are worshipping someone who, according to their own religion, does not exist. Christians agree with Buddhists on this point–the divine Buddha does not exist, but for Christians, that the Buddha does not exist seems like a very, very good reason not to ascribe worship to him. That Buddhist meditation is harmful, not helpful would also seem like a significant problem for Buddhism.
The affirmation above is not that information about the historical Buddha is very scarce and unreliable. That is also true. The affirmation above is that, if one grants, for the sake of argument, that Buddhism is true–which it is not–then the Buddha did not exist. Buddhists also do not exist.
To many readers of this blog, the idea that Buddhism teaches that the Buddha did not exist seems almost unbelievable. I wanted to confirm that this is accurate, so I spoke to a Buddhist scholar who teaches Buddhist studies at a prestigious institution (I sought such confirmation for most of the material in The Buddha and the Christ, in addition to seeking to cite sources properly and so on). This significant Buddhist scholar confirmed the accuracy of this information. The Buddha did not exist, according to Buddhism.
You can find out more in my study The Buddha and the Christ: Their Persons and Teachings Compared. (Note: I have updated this pamphlet relatively recently, so if you are using it for evangelism in your church, please make sure you are utilizing the latest version.)
However, just like (according to Buddhism) the Buddha does not exist, you do not exist, either, and you are not reading this right now. Neither does this blog post exist. I will therefore stop writing it right now, especially since I don’t exist, either, according to Buddhism.
–TDR
Eras of Miracles and Divine Interventionism
Where my wife and I are staying, we have waited at one spot four different times for someone to pick us up and every time there on the top of a short brick wall sat a tiny toy figure. Three different days and four rides the same toy person was there. I guessed it was a Star Wars figure. Looking more closely, it seemed a young woman in a Star Wars-like outfit. In what I know of the Star Wars story, it was probably a jedi and maybe the one the story calls “the last jedi.”
If you don’t know the Star Wars story, because you’ve seen none of it, good for you, but let me explain. In a fictional cosmos, the jedi are warriors with supernatural power, who fight for what is called the light side of the force as opposed to the dark side. This fiction hearkens to God on the light side and Satan on the dark side. According to the fiction, the force connotes to something like a pantheistic view of God in which he is not a person, but some kind of mystical power. The fiction speaks of an existence of God, albeit a false one. This supernaturalism is crucial to the explanation of everything that happens in Star Wars fiction.
In the Star Wars story, only a few characters possess supernatural power to use either for evil or for good. Those without that power find themselves often in need of the abilities or gifts of those special individuals. Over aeons of time, certain ones through the story uniquely, even more greatly tap into the light side or the dark side of this supernatural force. These individuals come along once in a very long time with very special significance and they are usually prophesied. The needy natural ones place their hope in the coming of those to deliver them.
Fictional prophet-like characters predict the coming of the few supernatural characters, very often just one, with very special power. These prophets receive revelations from the same supernatural power, which is apparently God, and they know what will happen in the future. The spread of these prophesies over a fictional cosmos results in its people looking for the coming of these superior, supernatural figures, which will change the course of history.
I write all this to say that in general people who know the Star Wars story accept eras of supernatural intervention in their fictional cosmos. It makes sense to them. They agree both with the existence of supernatural power that works through men and that once in a great while this same supernatural power raises up a prophesied person who can use the power. In other words, they accept eras of miracles. They recognize the continuity of a natural world accompanied by rare times, moments, periods, or ages of supernatural intervention.
In a fictional Star Wars world, the divine always works to maintain and sustain, but also intervenes in a unique way. An unprecedented person comes along, who is not normal. He is far from normal and no one has been seen like him in ages. The maintaining and sustaining are continuity. They are normative. The rare one, however, is not. This is discontinuity.
Scripture gives (see especially 2 Peter) as a major reason for apostasy, a departure from the faith and the truth, the scarcity of evidence of divine intervention. God gives every good thing. He always intervenes in a providential manner, His good graces seen everywhere and at all times. God also though intervenes at times in unique ways. Men say because of the sparsity of the latter, they can’t receive the Lord. He must show Himself more to their liking. I call these showings, crown performances. If God doesn’t bring them a crown performance, they have their excuse for not believing.
God has intervened in a special, unique, and miraculous way throughout history. However, this kind of dealing is far less frequent. The word “miracle” is most often the same Greek word translated “sign.” Something isn’t a sign if it is the same as anything else that occurs on an everyday basis.
Through scripture, you can see eras of miracles. They mark extraordinary times and people, and these occasions, which are very rare through history, make a unique point, one that stands out very much. Certain names are associated in the Bible with these eras, including Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, and the Apostles.
One figure stands out above all of those functioning with supernatural power in an era of miracles: the Lord Jesus Christ. If these operations were normal occurrences, they would not stand out, and neither would Jesus. Jesus must stand out and He does stand out. He will show Himself in even greater glory when He comes the second time and in fulfillment of further prophecy. He is the greatest figure in all of world history.
What Is Atheism?
According to the Bible, no one is an atheist. Proverbs 14:1 reports that a fool says in his heart that there is no God, but that doesn’t mean he believes it. Romans 1:18 says he knows God and suppresses that knowledge. So atheism is not someone believing there isn’t a God. Atheism is living like there isn’t a God. Many more people do that than the typical polls show. In other words, on the atheist front, we’re in worse shape than you think.
Someone just wrote about this at the Big Think, entitled, “Atheism is not as rare or as rational as you think.” Will Gervais in the article makes at least the point in my first paragraph here, and even more. The Bible says this, so it must be true, but I find it by experience.
As I write this on a Saturday after out evangelizing for a couple of hours, I talked to an “atheist” today, who graduated from Vanderbilt, and he is affiliated with Weber State here. He announced he was not interested, because he is an atheist. He also said he did not want to argue at his door, but he did talk awhile, which is very often the case with “atheists.”
I asked the “atheist” if he thought, all this around us came about by accident. I find no one wants to say, yes, to that, because they know it isn’t true, which means they aren’t atheists. Then he said with a bit of a smirk, that after the Big Bang happened, everything came out of that.
The Big Bang is apparently a throw-down, trumping all else. In fact, a Big Bang says there is a beginning. It doesn’t help an atheist to stay that way, if he believes in a beginning. Some kind of explosion though still will not explain the amazing complexity all around. I didn’t bring that up, because I assessed that it would end the conversation. I took the tack, as I often do, that air, plants growing, all these did not come by accident, but people take these, and as Romans 1:21 says, are unthankful. These are atheists. God exists. They’re just unthankful He does.
An atheist is someone who doesn’t want a God. He has one. He just denies it. An atheist tries to block God out in part by saying he’s an atheist. He knows he’s wrong.
Gervais portrays many atheists, and it’s true, as appraising themselves as intellectually gifted individuals. Their position is intellectually bankrupt. They reject the truth based on their own lust (2 Peter 2-3).
Many atheists will say that those who carefully weigh things do it with science, all natural criteria, which is very intellectual, really Ivy League. No. The world did not appear and has not been sustained by merely natural means.
In his piece, Gervais uses science to show how professing atheists are stupid. Stupid is another word for “fool,” which bring us back to Psalm 14:1 again. The fool says he’s an atheist. He’s not being smart.
Since every atheist just denies God against his own knowledge, who are the real atheists? They live like God doesn’t exist. I think we could go further than that. They form a god, which allows them to live like that want. Evangelicalism is full of atheism. They deny the true God because they don’t like His requirements or expectations, which are against how they want to live. They’re worshiping themselves as Romans 1:25 says, and yet they say they worship God or follow God’s ways.
If atheism is denying the one, true God, there are far, far more atheists than any of us can give a percentage.
Christianity: Pro-Racism, Pro-Slavery White Man’s Religion–Reject it for Atheism!
I have written a pamphlet dealing with attacks upon the Bible and Christianity from its (alleged) racism and (alleged) support of chattel slavery, compared with the (alleged) anti-racism and anti-slavery position of atheism. It deals with the objection that “Christianity is the racist white man’s religion” and, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation claims, “[W]hite supremacy [is] interwoven with Christianity … inextricably intertwined.” (Sources for all quotes are in the pamphlet.)
Click here to read the pamphlet Biblical Christianity vs. Atheism on Racism and Slavery
You may think that such claims are so ridiculous that they do not deserve a refutation. You are correct about them being ridiculous—and, as Bethel Baptist Church, where I serve the Lord, is not majority white now and has not been for a very long time, reflecting the ethnic diversity of the area, it is indeed a very foolish claim. However, sadly, in secular college campuses and in liberal media these egregious falsehoods are regularly propounded. Not that long ago a very angry black man at a place where I was passing out gospel literature said that all white Christians were supporters of white nationalism. (He also said, ironically, that they all denied it when he said that to them. Hmm… ). He said he had a degree in religious studies. (Perhaps they should give him his money back.) In any case, the attack on Christianity from its alleged racism and pro-slavery position is very much out there.
The pamphlet demonstrates that:
1.) The Bible rejects racism.
2.) Christian churches in Bible times rejected racism—for example, the church at Antioch had a leader in the category of “prophet and teacher” whose name was “Simon the Black” and another born in Africa, while the rest were all from Asia; an African whose family became close to the Apostle Paul helped Christ carry His cross; etc.
3.) Christian churches and the wider realm of Christendom were profoundly impacted by Africa. Did you ever think about the fact that possibly the two most influential people in the history of Western Christendom were from Africa—namely, Tertullian and Augustine? Furthermore, the ancient Anabaptist movements, the Novatians and Donatists, were both led by African Anabaptists. Did you know that the Baptists were the first group of churches in the American South to come out against slavery?
4.) Christianity very rapidly spread from Israel to Africa to China to India to Britain.
5.) Ancient paganism was pro-slavery while Christianity was pro-slave (since it taught that “All Lives Matter,” and therefore the lives of slaves, people of darker and lighter skin, etc. all matter), and Christian influence, unique among world religions, led to the abolition of slavery.
6.) Modern racism actually stems from the Enlightenment and its rejection of Biblical Christianity, combined with the anti-creation philosophy of biological evolution. (This fact should be taught in all public schools, and at the very least every student in Christian schools needs to know this. Did you know it?)
7.) Slavery exists today in atheist countries such as North Korea and China, in accordance with the racism of people like Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Hegel, and David Hume. Everyone should know that Darwin anticipated genocide by whites of “lower races”:
“The … Caucasian races have beaten … [others] in the struggle for existence. … [At] no very distant date … the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
Everyone should know Marx said:
“Let us … speak of the beautiful side … of the slavery of the blacks in the East, in Brazil, in the Southern States of North America. … [S]lavery is an economic category of the highest importance. Without slavery … you would have … the complete decadence of modern commerce and civilization. … [S]ave slavery … [c]onserve the good side of this economic category.”
8.) The pamphlet then explains how spiritual slavery is the worst problem people suffer today. It illustrates that the root causes of racism (pride) and slavery (covetousness) are sins that the reader has been guilty of, and how, through the ransom payment of Christ, they can become spiritually free from the control of the sins that lead to racism and slavery now and eternal hell fire in eternity.
I would suggest reading the pamphlet yourself, keeping the link or a few copies on hand for people who run into this objection when preaching the gospel. I would also suggest that Christian schools, in history class, when they teach the Enlightenment and the impact of evolution and its pre-and post-Darwinian influence in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, make sure students know that modern racism came from these movements. Missionaries in Africa, the Caribbean, and, frankly, on most of the globe should know these things and share them with those to whom they minister.
Cancel culture should cancel Darwin, cancel Marx, cancel Biblical skepticism, cancel evolution, cancel atheism, and cancel agnosticism.
Everyone should recognize Christianity is the best friend of those who are against racism and slavery.
Click here to read the pamphlet Biblical Christianity vs. Atheism on Racism and Slavery
–TDR
Charles Darwin on Design in Creation
The Bible teaches that all men know God’s nature and power from creation, but they suppress that knowledge, leaving them without excuse. “All men” includes Charles Darwin, the incredibly influential promoter of the theory of evolution.
Scripture says:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)
Is there evidence in Darwin’s life that his study of the creation pointed the evolutionist to the Creator? In a conversation between the Duke of Argyll and Charles Darwin, in the last year of Darwin’s life, the Duke recounted:
In the course of [our] conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the “Fertilization of Orchids,” and upon “The Earthworms,” and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin’s answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.” (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, ed. Francis Darwin, vol. 1, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881 (London: John Murray, 1887), 316.
In public schools, when they teach Darwinian evolution, they should tell impressionable young people that in Charles Darwin’s studies “often,” “with overwhelming force,” the reality that the intricate design of creation is “impossible” to explain except as “the effect and the expression of Mind” struck the author of The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection and The Descent of Man. This statement from Darwin should be pounded into them the way they pound atheism and socialism into them.
I’m not holding my breath.
You can share his sentiments, however, with those who believe that Darwinian evolution explains away the need for the Almighty Creator. They ought to know.
Learn more about God, science, and the Bible by clicking here.
–TDR
My Acceptance of Hell
Hell is a common atheist argument, usually made with disdain. It’s even got a name, “The Problem of Hell.” You’ve got to say it in mocking tones, because scorn is part of the argument. It can be done in one statement something like this: “You’ve got to love God or else He’ll torture you in Hell.” Or, “If God is so insecure, that He needs everyone to love Him, or He’ll send them to Hell, I wouldn’t believe in Him even if He did exist.”
The Hell argument against Theism sets the atheist up as morally superior to Bible believers and God Himself, justifying atheism. It could be a kind of dress rehearsal for an argument before God Himself at the final judgment. It could too serve as an emotional appeal to support a bankrupt position. Others will cheer this on.
Someone is judging in his judgment of Hell. What is this standard for judgment in a random world of matter and motion, atoms colliding with one another? How does someone put even two related thoughts together by a cosmic accident of naturalism? He doesn’t. How does naturalism cause the ability to provide a nuance of disdain? It doesn’t. The atheist mocking Hell borrows from theism by using words, which are abstract, nonmaterial ideas. He constructs a moral system to account for behavior that doesn’t exist in the arbitrary world of the naturalist.
Even so, Hell could at least feel difficult to defend in the world in which we live. The atheist frames it as though you enjoy the future pain and anguish. For that reason among others, people won’t talk about Hell. They call it perhaps eternal death or just eternal separation from God. Knowing how offensive it might sound, thinking it might just shut down a conversation, it’s given little mention, even though Jesus was the one who talked about it more than anyone. There is a Heaven. There is a Hell.
How some people have dealt with Hell is eliminating almost any opportunity for anyone to go there except for someone almost everyone thinks deserves it. Hitler comes to mind. A general audience might choose for a child molester or a serial killer. Almost everyone else goes to, you know, “a better place,” even if they don’t know what or where it is or why that person will go or should be going there. It’s not helpful to give someone false assurance related to Hell. Assigning someone to a better place, when he’s really on his way to Hell, hurts him in an eternal way.
I’ve titled this, my acceptance of Hell, because in a personal way, Hell is acceptable to me. There are general reasons for acceptability. The Bible teaches Hell. Jesus taught Hell. It is also taught in so many different ways. The opposition to Hell isn’t persuasive. It amounts to “I don’t want it” or “I don’t like it,” which is a version of rejection of justice for sin.
Here are my personal reasons for acceptance of Hell.
One, how bad we are.
People just don’t think they deserve Hell. This is very common. When I’m evangelizing, it’s the second greatest stumbling point. I ask, “Do you think you deserve Hell?” 90 plus percent answer, “No.” The idea here is the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. It’s way too severe, reflecting on the nature of God, His righteousness, and His justice. People do not think they’re bad enough to deserve Hell. That’s for very bad people, and few think they’re that bad.
I say I deserve Hell, and I accept that, because I do think I’m bad. How bad we are starts with the nature of God. The Bible compares us to God. I fall very far short of the glory of God. It’s not an accident. I also do the things offensive to God and then just don’t please God on a regular basis.
God created me for His purpose and not only do I not fulfill that, but I don’t want to do it. I want to serve myself. I can give many examples of this. Today at church, while someone was praying, I caught myself thinking about something else. I was thinking about something temporal and superficial and suddenly I awoke out of that trance, not even hearing what someone was praying. I’ve done that many times.
God’s judgment turns us over to our own lusts. Romans 1 uses the language of “gave them up” (vv. 24, 26, 28). God lets people have what they want. He lets them go. They’re getting what they want. They don’t want God. They don’t want what He wants. If you get that, it ends in Hell, because that path leads to where God isn’t. His love is absent from Hell. Where God isn’t, it’s a very terrible place. That’s how the Bible describes it. Hell is the final destination for those God gives up.
I think of this aspect too. In going my own way, I disobey, even ignore, the great command, to love Him with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength. God loves me. No one is better to me than Him. It’s not even close, but I live for myself.
Two, it’s a necessary motivation.
Sin ruined man. It ruins men. Men easily live for themselves. They move from one lust to the next. This is all so strong, that Hell is a necessary impetus to reject that.
I know there’s all the positive too: Heaven, God’s goodness, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and the truth of the Bible. That’s all important. I still see Hell as necessary motivation in spite of all those good things, on the negative side. The flesh is that strong. Human desire is that strong.
You could call all that the world offers, what Jesus calls, gaining the whole world. Even if man doesn’t gain the whole world, the whole world is still out there offering its invitation. The eternal loss of a soul counteracts the lie of the world. It’s a nagging reality. Even if someone wants to block it out, it disquiets and afflicts.
When Jesus told the story of the rich man in Hell, someone sees a man who did have everything in his short lifetime, who would gladly give it all up for even a drop of water, while he’s in Hell. If there’s one thing he wants to do, even when he can’t escape Hell, it’s to get a warning to his brothers. This is a warning to all the living.
Hell is not over the top. Even with it, people still choose to go there with the knowledge of its existence. As severe as it is, it’s still not enough for a vast majority of people. Many atheists would rather mock Hell and God than receive the Lord, despite the reality of Hell.
Hell makes total sense to me personally for these two reasons.
Is God Not Being Obvious Enough, Proof That There Is No God?
I’m not saying that God isn’t obvious, but that is a major reason in what I’ve read and heard of and for professing atheism and agnosticism. It’s also something I’ve thought about myself. God doesn’t go around announcing Himself in the ways people think He would if He existed. God doesn’t show Himself in a manner that people expect.
Outside of earth’s atmosphere, space does not befriend life. Space combats, resists, or repels life, everywhere but on planet earth. No proof exists of any life beyond what is on earth. Scientists have not found another planet that they know could support life, even if life could occur somewhere else.
No one knows the immensity of space. We can see that all of space is very big, and of course exponentially times larger than the square footage of earth. Incalculable numbers of very hot and large suns or stars are shining upon uninhabited planets. Numbers beyond our comprehension of astronomical objects fly on trajectories and in paths everywhere in space. That is a very, very large amount of space with nothing alive and apparently serving very little to no purpose. To many, they seem pointless and could not serve as depictions of God’s beauty and power and precision for such a tiny audience.
Another angle I hear relates to suffering. God doesn’t show up to alleviate suffering to the extent people expect from a loving God. Suffering comes in many different fashions, not just disease but also crime and war. The periods of clear direct intervention from God to stop suffering are few and far between and long ago. Essentially the Bible documents those events and circumstances, which are not normative for today.
According to scripture, God is a Spirit (John 4:24), which means you can’t see Him. John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12 say, “No man hath seen God at any time.” One reason God isn’t obvious is that no one can see Him. That does not mean He doesn’t reveal Himself, but it is not by appearing to us. In human flesh, Jesus revealed God to us (John 1:18). 1 Samuel 3:21 says, “the LORD revealed himself.” Romans 1:19 says, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.”
God reveals Himself now through providence in history, creation, conscience, and in scripture. Those are not obvious to most people. They want, what I like to call, the crown performance. The King or Queen sit and someone comes to entertain in their presence. People want more from God, but God doesn’t give that. God deserves the crown performance. He wears the crown. He doesn’t give the crown performances.
Seek God
I believe there are four main reasons God isn’t as obvious as people want Him to be. One, God wants to be sought after. I often say that God doesn’t want the acknowledgement of His existence like we would acknowledge the existence of our right foot. Five times scripture says, “Seek God,” twenty-seven times, “seek the Lord,” twice, “seek his face,” and thirteen times, “seek him,” speaking of God. A good example of God’s desire here is Deuteronomy 4:29:
But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
Believe God
Hebrews 11:1, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.Hebrews 11:7, By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.Hebrews 11:13, These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Men Rebel
God’s Glory
PATAS debate video updated and improved
The PATAS (Philippine ATheism, Agnosticism, and Secularism [Society]) debate video about which I wrote a post recently has been improved–the audio is now substantially better and some other improvements have been introduced. If some of the sound issues kept you from watching or sharing the debate before, perhaps you can do it now. Feel free also to “like” the video on YouTube, post a comment, and share it with others. I would be very happy if people in the Philippines, and elsewhere, find this debate if they are considering atheism or agnosticism.
Click here to watch the improved Ross-Maisonet debate, “Does History Validate the Accuracy of the New Testament Gospels?”
Also, the older and lower quality video has been taken down, so if you linked to or embedded the older version on social media, other websites, etc., please update your links to the newest version.
–TDR
Recent Comments